I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
incorrect. Not everything is opinion.
however, you can disregard anything I say for any reason, even simply because I am annoying or you dislike what say.
neither point changes the previous statement that everyone’s opinions about the monk class are equally valid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak . I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious. and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
This would be true if this game didn’t have metrics, but it does. The mechanical goal of this game is to succeed against DCs, have others fail against your DCs, and defeat opponents. There are classes that are objectively better at that. SAD classes are objectively better at making others fail their DCs. That doesnt mean all SAD classes are objectively better than all MAD classes but good MAD classes are designed to rely less on their DC and focus more on beating others DCs.
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
Against class fantasy as in being weaker then barb or fighter in combat they fight in different flavors but should be closer to each other. and if monks need resource to keep doing damage then they should do more damage then classes when they have to actually expend a resource .
. Stunning strike is a gamble and shouldn’t be the noose that people justify to keep monks weak , they are already nerfing it which I’m fine with . But now the argument has gotten weak.
and yes I will argue that people who don’t want monk to be stronger are against balance . Or are simply ignorant of the capabilities of other classes.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak . I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious. and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak . I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious. and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
Stunning strike was quite imbalanced and I am guessing that was a big portion of how the monks design was balanced out from the designers perspective. Why would you need extra damage, hp or AC when you could Stun stun lock a guy and run away without any opportunity attacks? That makes sense to me.
But, now with stunning strike being once a turn only there is a big power vacuum left over that was clearly not filled with anything in the last UA. The new stunning strike becomes far less powerful as levels increase. Since there are no other conditions or battlefield control options basic monk can do they pretty much have to make the difference with extra damage, better AC or hit points.
I might be wrong here but I do believe treantmonk does his calculations based on 8 combats and only one long rest. In that scenario monks would struggle terribly.
Every table is different and i dont put much stock in white room calculations because there are too many scenarios that come up in which calculations are not applicable. But I can say in any game I have played the monk has always been the class that struggled the most and those struggles only got worse as levels increased. Even when played correctly.
Having fun is the most important aspect of the game but when poor design makes your character feel fairly useless compared to what others are doing it quickly demolishes the fun factor.
Also if balance is an illusion and doesn’t matter why are so hellbent on keeping monks weak? I know there have to be some trade offs that’s why I’m fine with the ss nerfs as long as the promise of the warrior lives up to its name.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak . I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious. and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
I'm not mad, and I don't know you well enough to be disappointed in you.
This would be true if this game didn’t have metrics, but it does. The mechanical goal of this game is to succeed against DCs, have others fail against your DCs, and defeat opponents. There are classes that are objectively better at that. SAD classes are objectively better at making others fail their DCs. That doesnt mean all SAD classes are objectively better than all MAD classes but good MAD classes are designed to rely less on their DC and focus more on beating others DCs.
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
That doesn’t mean people who enjoy battle are less valid , that sounds judgemental
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
Excellent point sir
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
incorrect. Not everything is opinion.
however, you can disregard anything I say for any reason, even simply because I am annoying or you dislike what say.
neither point changes the previous statement that everyone’s opinions about the monk class are equally valid.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak .
I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious.
and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
Also if you don’t like dnd and combat and like rrp more ,
I can also recommend far better systems.
However I think that’s rude and shortsighted so instead I’ll say there should be room for you to play more rp friendly settings ,
and for proper combat and balance to be allowed for those of us who enjoy tactics and battle
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Against class fantasy as in being weaker then barb or fighter in combat they fight in different flavors but should be closer to each other.
and if monks need resource to keep doing damage then they should do more damage then classes when they have to actually expend a resource .
. Stunning strike is a gamble and shouldn’t be the noose that people justify to keep monks weak , they are already nerfing it which I’m fine with . But now the argument has gotten weak.
and yes I will argue that people who don’t want monk to be stronger are against balance . Or are simply ignorant of the capabilities of other classes.
Here watch these kreen
https://youtu.be/OEEXc9CofuM?si=y0v8-GzBCmk0BmeG
and
https://youtu.be/6sZCooZrz5I?si=GOXyQ5xSYObkLwAX
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
Stunning strike was quite imbalanced and I am guessing that was a big portion of how the monks design was balanced out from the designers perspective. Why would you need extra damage, hp or AC when you could Stun stun lock a guy and run away without any opportunity attacks? That makes sense to me.
But, now with stunning strike being once a turn only there is a big power vacuum left over that was clearly not filled with anything in the last UA. The new stunning strike becomes far less powerful as levels increase. Since there are no other conditions or battlefield control options basic monk can do they pretty much have to make the difference with extra damage, better AC or hit points.
I might be wrong here but I do believe treantmonk does his calculations based on 8 combats and only one long rest. In that scenario monks would struggle terribly.
Every table is different and i dont put much stock in white room calculations because there are too many scenarios that come up in which calculations are not applicable. But I can say in any game I have played the monk has always been the class that struggled the most and those struggles only got worse as levels increased. Even when played correctly.
Having fun is the most important aspect of the game but when poor design makes your character feel fairly useless compared to what others are doing it quickly demolishes the fun factor.
Monks need help.
Also if balance is an illusion and doesn’t matter why are so hellbent on keeping monks weak? I know there have to be some trade offs that’s why I’m fine with the ss nerfs as long as the promise of the warrior lives up to its name.
I'm not mad, and I don't know you well enough to be disappointed in you.
You're just flat wrong on all counts.
@masterofki yes thank you this is what I’m saying .
though I personally think ss is not as strong as some
I have never said it wasn’t good just that I don’t like it dominating the monks budget. And I personally never use it excessively.
That doesn’t mean people who enjoy battle are less valid , that sounds judgemental
I also never said their fun was wrong you were saying people who want a balanced game that has good battle are wrong . So you are wrong on that
dnd did start from a war game another name for battle simulation or your just choosing to warp meaning for your own sake. . So wrong again
I can keep going if you want.
Excellent point sir