I have playtested the first life cleric, berserker barbarian, shadow monk, openhand monk, draconic sorcerer, dance bard, thief rogue 1st fighter, 2nd Avenger paladin and 2nd moon druid. fighter brawler.
You should put your reviews from those playtests over in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I will say, having played a monk in CRPGs (I've played both BG3 and Solasta -- Solasta is a significantly more accurate implementation of 5e) the big problem with monks in those games isn't that they aren't competitive with other melee characters, the problem is that playing a melee character sucks, and monks don't have good ranged options unless you play an elf (monk with longbow is totally viable in tier 1 and 2 and plays to a lot of the monk's strengths; it's ridiculously hard for melee enemies to close with you, and ranged enemies have to deal with deflect missiles and evasion).
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
And that's been my main problem with the OneD&D playtest Monk; it makes the most minor of improvements to features that were terrible but they still suck, meanwhile the best feature of the class has been majorly nerfed. While yes, it needed to be, we don't really get anything in return. The best feature of it is the quick short rest, but all that's really doing is highlighting a wider problem in the game so it's hard to count that in its favour. So overall the Monk has been turned from a class with problems, into a class with bigger, seemingly intentional problems. My most charitable assessment of the playtest Monk is that it it is an insultingly bad update; the more I've tried it, the more I hate it.
I have to agree. Back when 1DD was first announced it was exciting to put forth a bunch of ideas of what we would like changed and added to the monk. But seeing where WotC is heading with this update, asking for massive changes is completely out.
There is zero chance they will give monks a d10 hit die, or other similar changes.
The increase of MA die was a step in the right direction. Heightened Metabolism was a step in the right direction (although I think it should start at 2nd level giving only DP back and then at 7th the Short Rest benefits)
Asking for SotW to cost no DP to use Disengage or Dash and the 1 DP to do both is something they might go for. It still fits the backwards compatibility they want.
The first iteration of Rogue had minor tweaks but the revision had bigger improvements with Cunning Strikes. I hope the same for monk.
But the 1DD Open Hand monk was a slap in the face. Two of the three options of Open Hand Technique is covered by weapon masteries now, for free on any attack. Open Hand has to pay for it with DP and a Bonus Action (to use FoB). And Fleet Step completely conflicts with OHT because it requires SotW. The 11th level feature should build on OHT in some way and possibly include a boost damage (I believe clerics and Druids get a damage boost at 7th and Paladins do at 11th).
Elements monk was pretty good but the damage boost of Elemental Epitome is way too late.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
Ideally, "fun" and "effective" should overlap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
I agree it's not fun, but ... it's bad when the tactically sensible way of playing a game isn't fun. Also, there are lots of fights where even if you want to use melee, if you try, you're going to spend an inordinate amount of time running around trying to reach people instead of actually attacking. "I run forward and do nothing else with my turn" is just not something that should happen all that often, and on a melee character too often it is what happens.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
Ideally, "fun" and "effective" should overlap.
Based on these definitions they simply cannot. If fun == dramatic & exciting, then that kind of requires the characters to be in peril. Whereas if effective == defeating enemies with minimal risk that is in direct conflict with our definition of fun.
For those tables where fun/exciting doesn't need to be dramatic & perilous, the DM can simply reduce the difficulty of the encounters at which point arguing about mechanics doesn't really matter because your players can make super flavourful but ineffective characters to stomp some weak monsters with super dramatic descriptions of their actions and all kinds of Rule-of-Cool improvisation without any changes to the mechanics.
PS if you're routinely doing combats in giant open spaces, buy a horse! Mounts are great for getting melee characters into the fight quickly.
Based on these definitions they simply cannot. If fun == dramatic & exciting, then that kind of requires the characters to be in peril. Whereas if effecting == defeating enemies with minimal risk that is in direct conflict with our definition of fun.
I don't think that's necessarily true; for example, people probably wouldn't mind if Monk remained a bit fragile if it gained a bunch of new abilities that let it function as more of a glass cannon, either by dishing out damage (at risk to themselves) or having some solid control abilities (so your defence depends on enemies falling for these).
Either option, or some other mixture, could be both fun and effective; because the risk and excitement comes from being on that knife edge of things could go horribly wrong with a few bad rolls or a misjudged tactic, while the effectiveness comes from how well the class should do on average or in bursts.
Part of the reason that spellcasters are fun is because they can be very powerful, but they also have a lot of things that can go wrong; an enemy could shrug off a save-or-suck and waste your turn, or worse, counterspell it entirely so you never even had a chance of succeeding. While your average Wizard has a bunch of defensive tricks at their disposal, your average dragon can still mess you up pretty badly by just ripping you apart with teeth and claws, so there's a definite element of glass cannon to most spellcasters that helps to make them exciting, because there's a balancing act going on with the amount of defensive powers you can have to hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
I agree here, I don't really want great ranged from my melee classes, I want interesting close range play.
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
Ideally, "fun" and "effective" should overlap.
Based on these definitions they simply cannot. If fun == dramatic & exciting, then that kind of requires the characters to be in peril. Whereas if effective == defeating enemies with minimal risk that is in direct conflict with our definition of fun.
For those tables where fun/exciting doesn't need to be dramatic & perilous, the DM can simply reduce the difficulty of the encounters at which point arguing about mechanics doesn't really matter because your players can make super flavourful but ineffective characters to stomp some weak monsters with super dramatic descriptions of their actions and all kinds of Rule-of-Cool improvisation without any changes to the mechanics.
PS if you're routinely doing combats in giant open spaces, buy a horse! Mounts are great for getting melee characters into the fight quickly.
So for danger to be engaging, it needs to feel like you have tools or means to deal with it. Its more fun to have shield on dancer and feel like I'm actively denying attacks, rather than playing on monk, or another melee class just watching enemies roll to hit, although the risk of death is greater on the martials. Because I have no effect on that risk. Even if I choose to not use a reactiom to mitigate that attack, it becomes more interesting watching the same roll, because there was a choice.
Also, I'm not sure peril/failure is 100% required for fun/drama. With the barbarian, with its new skill use. It was fun to rage, then go stealth and hunt enemies, getting the drop on them. That was reducing my risk, but increasing my fun, because it felt thematic, and cool to use my skills to set up an advantage. In another instance I climbed up a wall and jumped on A Roc. The fact that the maneuver was unlikely to fail, is why I attempted it. if it was the standard 60% chance to jump on Roc, 40% chance to fall prone and waste your turn. That turned the fight to a on the back air flight, where I toppled the bird and we both took falling damage. (but I was resistant due to rage)
Just to say, the fact that my barbarian was more durable, and less likely to fail these skill checks (aka less peril) Are part of the reason I was able to come up with a more fun solution to the problem, instead of just throwing javelins or knives.
That said, I admit, my actions were not safe, I'm not against peril, I'm just not sure that its the most important factor in fun gameplay design.
Failure is not synonymous with peril - and adventurer could walk away from a quest and fail that quest but not be in any peril. Peril is the chance of your character getting hurt or killed, it is the ability of enemies to do bad stuff to your character.
Stuff that reduces peril: - incapacitating the enemies : e.g. Hypnotic Pattern succeeding on all the enemies of a combat and then you pick them off one-by-one with held actions. - keeping beyond the attack range of the enemies : e.g. having a whole party of ranged characters and picking off enemies before they can reach you. - having bounded-accuracy breaking AC : e.g. you have effective AC 29 and the highest attack mod of the enemies is +8, so nothing can hit you except for a critical hit. - simply avoiding combat scenarios all together : e.g. Flying / Teleporting past an encounter. - getting surprise rounds - having extremely potent saving throws : e.g. Magic Resistance racial feature + Aura of Protection.
Stuff that increases peril: - fighting in melee - causing a flying creature to crash land while you are grappled to it. - charging into combat rather than avoiding it. - using skill checks you aren't super good at to do something. - grappling or using other abilities that encourage enemies to attack you. - separating from the party - having a weak Wis, Dex or Con save.
Failure is not synonymous with peril - and adventurer could walk away from a quest and fail that quest but not be in any peril. Peril is the chance of your character getting hurt or killed, it is the ability of enemies to do bad stuff to your character.
Stuff that reduces peril: - incapacitating the enemies : e.g. Hypnotic Pattern succeeding on all the enemies of a combat and then you pick them off one-by-one with held actions. - keeping beyond the attack range of the enemies : e.g. having a whole party of ranged characters and picking off enemies before they can reach you. - having bounded-accuracy breaking AC : e.g. you have effective AC 29 and the highest attack mod of the enemies is +8, so nothing can hit you except for a critical hit. - simply avoiding combat scenarios all together : e.g. Flying / Teleporting past an encounter. - getting surprise rounds - having extremely potent saving throws : e.g. Magic Resistance racial feature + Aura of Protection.
Stuff that increases peril: - fighting in melee - causing a flying creature to crash land while you are grappled to it. - charging into combat rather than avoiding it. - using skill checks you aren't super good at to do something. - grappling or using other abilities that encourage enemies to attack you. - separating from the party - having a weak Wis, Dex or Con save.
where would you put using perception and stealth to see enemies ahead of time to sneak up on them? I guess thats surprise rounds?
I see your point, but I think a lot of people find using skills they are strong at, or creating tactical advantages by thinking ahead fun. Like the assassin subclass is/was completely designed around setting up a strong first hit scenario. Is the class antifun? I think it depends on the person. Was it more fun in metal gear solid to never be seen or to go Guns blazing? I think both designs were fun gameplay for different people, or even the same person in different moods.
Using skills you are bad at is good example of peril being unfun for me. There is no depth, or choice, its just a bad roll. I know some people enjoy risk for risk sake, but I don't think of that type of design increasing fun.
Risking danger but using your skills or abilities or new solutions to overcome the danger is fun though, imo. But I'm not even sure my perspective on that is universal.
The majority of Monk features don't consume Discipline Points, so that's an obvious "you think we're all idiots" complaints. Especially in your framing of a spellcaster getting 89 "points" of features when Monk have nothing that costs 9 points of anything.
[REDACTED]
Because while it is (and I was very clear about this in my post) a simplistic comparison, it's still a useful one; as the Monk is starting out with fewer effective features and fewer effective resources even assuming a guaranteed minimum of two short rests (which is far from guaranteed), so in reality they have 20-60 Ki, in many groups erring towards the minimum, vs. 89 slot levels. And that's before you dig into just how many of the Monk's features, especially the higher level ones, are simply not good, and do not aid with its progression. These are features that give it more clutter, but don't make Monks meaningfully stronger or more capable into tiers 3 and 4. Hell, one entire feature is "you don't age or need to eat or drink" which is a feature so incredibly situational as to be basically non-existent in most campaigns; it's a feature your DM could simply grant for narrative flavour, it's not a good feature, and certainly not good enough to be the only feature for an entire level of the class.
It also doesn't matter that Monks don't have anything that costs 9 Ki, because that just means they have fewer powerful options. If you go by minimal resources (no short rests) then casters have the advantage on spell slots vs. Ki points, but even if you assume one or two short rests, the casters are typically getting more value out of each spell slot they spend with either powerful effects, or longer durations (or both). So if your goal is to only further highlight how much better spellcasting is compared to Ki points then bravo, welcome to the "Monk is bad" crowd. 😝
[REDACTED] It's great that you think Monk is a perfect class that requires no changes, but that has not been the experience of other Monk players; plenty of people can have fun playing the Monk, sure, I've done that plenty of times myself, I love my Monk characters. But that's true of even the most sub-optimal builds, and that's not at issue. The Monk has objective mechanical flaws in tier 1 and 2 (namely choices that aren't really choices) and struggles in tier 3 and 4 thanks to a lack of meaningful progression as anything other than a Stunning Strike spammer (an ability you can't even rely upon). If you never play to that level, fine, but those of us who do, or would like to, would like all classes to be able to compete into those tiers, and for martials in general to compete better with spellcasters at all levels so that choice of class isn't a powergaming move, we can just play what we want without wishing it were better or needing some help from the DM.
[REDACTED]
Once again, nobody here is proposing that Monk damage should be increased to 10d10 per hit with 18 attacks per round or anything else clearly broken; most people are either discussing relatively small changes, or more radical changes that still have the ultimate aim of being balanced against other classes, or are just raising what the problems are from their point of view. Some suggestions will be stronger than others, but the appropriate response to that is "that might be a bit much" or "could work if you balanced it with Y", rather than the personal attacks and torrents of abuse you seem so fond of. If constructive discussion about improving the class is not for you, then neither is this thread, or this sub-forum for that matter.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Failure is not synonymous with peril - and adventurer could walk away from a quest and fail that quest but not be in any peril. Peril is the chance of your character getting hurt or killed, it is the ability of enemies to do bad stuff to your character.
Stuff that reduces peril: - incapacitating the enemies : e.g. Hypnotic Pattern succeeding on all the enemies of a combat and then you pick them off one-by-one with held actions. - keeping beyond the attack range of the enemies : e.g. having a whole party of ranged characters and picking off enemies before they can reach you. - having bounded-accuracy breaking AC : e.g. you have effective AC 29 and the highest attack mod of the enemies is +8, so nothing can hit you except for a critical hit. - simply avoiding combat scenarios all together : e.g. Flying / Teleporting past an encounter. - getting surprise rounds - having extremely potent saving throws : e.g. Magic Resistance racial feature + Aura of Protection.
Stuff that increases peril: - fighting in melee - causing a flying creature to crash land while you are grappled to it. - charging into combat rather than avoiding it. - using skill checks you aren't super good at to do something. - grappling or using other abilities that encourage enemies to attack you. - separating from the party - having a weak Wis, Dex or Con save.
where would you put using perception and stealth to see enemies ahead of time to sneak up on them? I guess thats surprise rounds?
I see your point, but I think a lot of people find using skills they are strong at, or creating tactical advantages by thinking ahead fun. Like the assassin subclass is/was completely designed around setting up a strong first hit scenario. Is the class antifun? I think it depends on the person. Was it more fun in metal gear solid to never be seen or to go Guns blazing? I think both designs were fun gameplay for different people, or even the same person in different moods.
Using skills you are bad at is good example of peril being unfun for me. There is no depth, or choice, its just a bad roll. I know some people enjoy risk for risk sake, but I don't think of that type of design increasing fun.
Risking danger but using your skills or abilities or new solutions to overcome the danger is fun though, imo. But I'm not even sure my perspective on that is universal.
Notice I said "super good at" by which I mean skills where there is almost no chance of failure. If in Metal Gear Solid you had Reliable Talent, Expertise in Stealth and had cast Invisibility on yourself, so you could stand right in front of one of the enemies and they would not notice you. Would it have been fun? If you could teleport into & out of precisely where you needed to go in the base using Dimension Door without needing to sneak nor fight at all, would it have been fun?
If the Assassin leaves the rest of the party behind so they can sneak through the fortress and Assassinate all the guards by getting surprise & autocrits, is that fun?
I do want more damage but I think it should be doing slightly more then a fighter when expending ki each round and a little less when you run out of ki. that would keep the fighters the endurance champions and would allow monk slightly more nova but not as much nova as a paladin and they could be in the middle between consistent damage and nova.
the Monk is starting out with fewer effective features and fewer effective resources even assuming a guaranteed minimum of two short rests (which is far from guaranteed)
To add on to this, a level 20 Monk has between 20-60 Ki Points per adventuring day (assuming 0-2 short rests per day). By comparison, a level 20 full caster (Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Bard) has 22 spell slots. 9 of those slots are at 5th level or higher. This means that in an adventuring day with 2 short rests, spellcasters can often horde their highest level spells for the final stretch of the day before a long rest and rely on lower level options until then. And then perform more high-level spells than the Monk can using all of its Ki/Discipline points, PLUS 12 more impactful leveled spells.
What features does Monk have that either are or are equivalent to 5th level spells and higher?
Astral Projection (all Monks, PHB): This is the only 9th level spell effect that is available to Monks, and it is part of the core class so it is available to all of them. UA6 indicates it may be getting removed, but assuming it stays that is 8 Ki to cast a 9th level spell with no combat application. That said, if you nee a 9th level spell to cross dimensions at level 18 you can now do it twice per short rest. Or your party spellcaster can just cast the 7th level Plane Shift and just go there without all of the caveats of Astral Projection. Alternatively, you can also cast Dream of the Blue Veil for at 7th level a similar effect on the Material Plane.
Stunning Strike (all Monks, PHB and UA6): Admittedly this one is pretty solid. In UA6 you can now use Stunning Strike as part of the attack action once per turn for only 1 Discipline point. including with Ranged attacks This is approximately equivalent to a 5th level spell. However, spellcasters get the benefit of doing additional damage and targeting different saves with their core spellcasting ability while Monks must use their Wisdom modifier to set the DC even when attacking with Dexterity or Strength. Functionally, Monks need to make a skill check DC (attack roll) and then hope the target fails a save with a potentially lower save DC than the Monk's own check. As a result, Stunning Strike is notoriously unreliable.
Cloak of Shadows (17th level Way of Shadow, UA6): This feature is a combination of a few 3rd level spell effects, I'll rank it as a 5th level spell for combining them into a single package. This is fairly good and combines effects from spells like Shadow of Moil, Greater Invisibility, and some reaction abilities from classes like the Fiend Warlock.
Disciple of the Elements (17th level Four Elements from PHB): You can cast the 5th level spells Wall of Stone and Cone of Cold for 6 Ki points each.
Aside from the low cost of Stunning Strike, all of the other higher spell-like features are expensive and/or don't become available until at least 17th level after normal spellcasters have already acquired them. Even half-casters at level 6 have more spell slots than the Monk has Ki points. And those spell slots universally either do more damage, have a greater non-combat impact, or have longer lasting consequences than the Monk's Ki points - and many of them combine 2 or more of these attributes. So those classes can cast one spell and do the equivalent of several actions worth of Ki points and those spells come online long before the Monk has anything even remotely equivalent.
I keep seeing the arguemnt here that the Monk needs to be a mystical, magical warrior. The problem that everyone is trying to point out is that D&D already has several classes and subclasses which fit that archetype and several Unearthed Arcana classes as well, and almost all of them mechanically do the job significantly better than the Monk. The new Monk needs to be able to at least compete with those clases at similar levels and ideally should do something they cannot do. Right now, the Monk has a lot of deficiencies that become clear when looking at their stats and features:
1: The Monk has lower average damage than most other martial classes, as has been repeatedly proven by D&D community members. Monks often need to optimize what other classes can get with either standard ASI progression or a single feat
2: The Monk has lower health and AC due to an inability to wear armor and a lower health die than most Martial classes. Almost all of its defensive features require the use of Ki/Discipline points or a full action.
3: The Monk's focus on physical mobility does not exceed the mobility features of most other classes when accounting for mounts, spells, and class features unless carefully min-maxed. The singular exception to this is the Shadow Monk and that's situational.
4: Though a "mystic" warrior, the Monk's ability to use spells and spell-like effects is dwarfed by most spellcasting classes including half-casters, Hexblade Warlocks, and subclass casters like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Rogue. As we can see, with the exception of Astral Projection nearly all Monk spell-like effects cap at 5th level equivalents and do so as though the players were half-casters. However, Monks don't get any of the benefits of half-casters such as being able to expend spell slots instead of their core class resource on those magical effects.
I show you my monk variant based on 1DND test6. Many changes, at dpr level we are very close to fighter. Integration of a variant of Weapon Mastery + Fighting Style. Folcal points of the class are KI/DP features (FoB, PD, SotW) or in this case Inner Force. Although this monk is very focused on unarmed combat, in its own way, taking advantage of its speed and ability to move through the air makes it possible for it to reach even more distant enemies. Much lower demand for resources and also alternative solution for not having to use them. I think there are some good solutions, the criticisms I have received are quite positive.
My self-criticisms are: 1. There is not really a link between the monk and the feature weapon mastery (this class being mainly unarmed). 2. At 11th level the dpr is slightly above what I wanted according to my calculations. 3. Maybe it still lacks some flavor elements
I am also thinking of doing an alternative variant, which is more related to the UNARMED STRIKE and Weapon Mastery feature:
UNARMED STRIKE that allows the monk to do damage plus one of the following choices: PUSH, PRONE, or GRAPPLE (DEX). Following the style of Weapon Mastery. Give the monk back the Martial Art die on Simple Weapons. But the rest could be similar to the class I designed, see PDF.
This would bring the monk class back to being a hybrid of weapon and unarmed.
the Monk is starting out with fewer effective features and fewer effective resources even assuming a guaranteed minimum of two short rests (which is far from guaranteed)
To add on to this, a level 20 Monk has between 20-60 Ki Points per adventuring day (assuming 0-2 short rests per day). By comparison, a level 20 full caster (Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Bard) has 22 spell slots. 9 of those slots are at 5th level or higher. This means that in an adventuring day with 2 short rests, spellcasters can often horde their highest level spells for the final stretch of the day before a long rest and rely on lower level options until then. And then perform more high-level spells than the Monk can using all of its Ki/Discipline points, PLUS 12 more impactful leveled spells.
What features does Monk have that either are or are equivalent to 5th level spells and higher?
Astral Projection (all Monks, PHB): This is the only 9th level spell effect that is available to Monks, and it is part of the core class so it is available to all of them. UA6 indicates it may be getting removed, but assuming it stays that is 8 Ki to cast a 9th level spell with no combat application. That said, if you nee a 9th level spell to cross dimensions at level 18 you can now do it twice per short rest. Or your party spellcaster can just cast the 7th level Plane Shift and just go there without all of the caveats of Astral Projection. Alternatively, you can also cast Dream of the Blue Veil for at 7th level a similar effect on the Material Plane.
Stunning Strike (all Monks, PHB and UA6): Admittedly this one is pretty solid. In UA6 you can now use Stunning Strike as part of the attack action once per turn for only 1 Discipline point. including with Ranged attacks This is approximately equivalent to a 5th level spell. However, spellcasters get the benefit of doing additional damage and targeting different saves with their core spellcasting ability while Monks must use their Wisdom modifier to set the DC even when attacking with Dexterity or Strength. Functionally, Monks need to make a skill check DC (attack roll) and then hope the target fails a save with a potentially lower save DC than the Monk's own check. As a result, Stunning Strike is notoriously unreliable.
Cloak of Shadows (17th level Way of Shadow, UA6): This feature is a combination of a few 3rd level spell effects, I'll rank it as a 5th level spell for combining them into a single package. This is fairly good and combines effects from spells like Shadow of Moil, Greater Invisibility, and some reaction abilities from classes like the Fiend Warlock.
Disciple of the Elements (17th level Four Elements from PHB): You can cast the 5th level spells Wall of Stone and Cone of Cold for 6 Ki points each.
Aside from the low cost of Stunning Strike, all of the other higher spell-like features are expensive and/or don't become available until at least 17th level after normal spellcasters have already acquired them. Even half-casters at level 6 have more spell slots than the Monk has Ki points. And those spell slots universally either do more damage, have a greater non-combat impact, or have longer lasting consequences than the Monk's Ki points - and many of them combine 2 or more of these attributes. So those classes can cast one spell and do the equivalent of several actions worth of Ki points and those spells come online long before the Monk has anything even remotely equivalent.
I keep seeing the arguemnt here that the Monk needs to be a mystical, magical warrior. The problem that everyone is trying to point out is that D&D already has several classes and subclasses which fit that archetype and several Unearthed Arcana classes as well, and almost all of them mechanically do the job significantly better than the Monk. The new Monk needs to be able to at least compete with those clases at similar levels and ideally should do something they cannot do. Right now, the Monk has a lot of deficiencies that become clear when looking at their stats and features:
1: The Monk has lower average damage than most other martial classes, as has been repeatedly proven by D&D community members. Monks often need to optimize what other classes can get with either standard ASI progression or a single feat
2: The Monk has lower health and AC due to an inability to wear armor and a lower health die than most Martial classes. Almost all of its defensive features require the use of Ki/Discipline points or a full action.
3: The Monk's focus on physical mobility does not exceed the mobility features of most other classes when accounting for mounts, spells, and class features unless carefully min-maxed. The singular exception to this is the Shadow Monk and that's situational.
4: Though a "mystic" warrior, the Monk's ability to use spells and spell-like effects is dwarfed by most spellcasting classes including half-casters, Hexblade Warlocks, and subclass casters like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Rogue. As we can see, with the exception of Astral Projection nearly all Monk spell-like effects cap at 5th level equivalents and do so as though the players were half-casters. However, Monks don't get any of the benefits of half-casters such as being able to expend spell slots instead of their core class resource on those magical effects.
I am convinced that the true essence of the monk is movement and the ability to reach places that other classes would be complicated or cost due to the use of spells. Although limited by the fact that it has a melee/skirmish combat style, it still has the ability to reach flying enemies by running through the air or up walls. The monk should be SPEED AND unconventional MOVEMENT. This is my point of view, at least I think this would make it different from other classes.
As for resources and its use, having decreased its use in SS is already an improvement, but I think it can be done better. But the biggest problem is the freedom of movement and attack that allows him to be a true melee/skirmish warrior. These are the points I tried to fix in my PDF.
I am convinced that the true essence of the monk is movement and the ability to reach places that other classes would be complicated or cost due to the use of spells. Although limited by the fact that it has a melee/skirmish combat style, it still has the ability to reach flying enemies by running through the air or up walls. The monk should be SPEED AND unconventional MOVEMENT. This is my point of view, at least I think this would make it different from other classes.
As for resources and its use, having decreased its use in SS is already an improvement, but I think it can be done better. But the biggest problem is the freedom of movement and attack that allows him to be a true melee/skirmish warrior. These are the points I tried to fix in my PDF.
Politely, I'm going to focus on the PHB/1D&D Monk for criticism so I won't be commenting on your variant.
The problem I have with this idea of "Monks get SPEEEED!" is that without damage output to capitalize on when they arrive, it doesn't really mean anything.
I hear people refer to Monks as "skirmishers." But the problem is that traditional skirmishing units were incredibly dangerous if the defending force didn't react to them. A loose formation ranging unit couldn't take on a wall of massed infantry but an ambush against unprepared back line units would be devastating and could knock entire regiments out of the fight.
You've probably heard of the Charge of the Light Brigade, the famous event when British Light Cavalry charged at full speed into the teeth of a heavily fortified defensive position, assaulted a battery of artillery, and fled back after losing their entire command strucure and almost 400 soldiers of a 600 man force.
The reason that poem is so famous isn't just because of the bravery and determination of the soldiers despite horrific casualties and command incompetance. It's because after all of that death and destruction and decapitation of the leading officers on the charge in, they reached the artillery line and shattered it. The Russians in the assaulted positions were forced to retreat and only the hesitance of the heavier British cavalry brigade that should have followed them was the line not taken and the enemy routed entirely from the position.
Right now, Monks have a hard time getting through to those vulnerable backline units because they have to choose EITHER dashing or disengaging if they still want to make attacks and if they don't disengage, they don't have the AC and HP to tank hits along the way. When they do get to make attacks, even Opportunity Attacks, they don't do enough damage to knock out the targets.
This leaves the only real skirmishers for this sort of work as the Rogue and the Ranger, who have features that let them hide in terrain, bypass or avoid enemies without sacrificing damage, and do big burst damage once they contact their targets. So if the skirmishing position is being performed better by other classes....
What now with the Monk?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You should put your reviews from those playtests over in this thread.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
BG3 monk, and most melee I played were viable. Solasta, i didnt really notice much problems with melee, but then again I'm used to playing monk, so I'm used to playing the least survivable . The issue I'd say for most in terms of ranged versus melee, is its a lot more likely you can make a tactically sound attack in ranged than melee in 3d maps. Melee has to get there, over varied land, and has less choice if the enemy has a strong position.
That said, I'm not sure solasta penalized ranged as much as vanilla 5e.
The point about 'making a tactically sound attack' is key. Yes, if you just bull your way in melee is often fine, but if you want to fight efficiently, it's just way better to force your enemies to engage with you while you pepper them with arrows; a melee fight is a lot easier if half the enemies are dead before they reach you.
I have to agree. Back when 1DD was first announced it was exciting to put forth a bunch of ideas of what we would like changed and added to the monk. But seeing where WotC is heading with this update, asking for massive changes is completely out.
There is zero chance they will give monks a d10 hit die, or other similar changes.
The increase of MA die was a step in the right direction. Heightened Metabolism was a step in the right direction (although I think it should start at 2nd level giving only DP back and then at 7th the Short Rest benefits)
Asking for SotW to cost no DP to use Disengage or Dash and the 1 DP to do both is something they might go for. It still fits the backwards compatibility they want.
The first iteration of Rogue had minor tweaks but the revision had bigger improvements with Cunning Strikes. I hope the same for monk.
But the 1DD Open Hand monk was a slap in the face. Two of the three options of Open Hand Technique is covered by weapon masteries now, for free on any attack. Open Hand has to pay for it with DP and a Bonus Action (to use FoB). And Fleet Step completely conflicts with OHT because it requires SotW. The 11th level feature should build on OHT in some way and possibly include a boost damage (I believe clerics and Druids get a damage boost at 7th and Paladins do at 11th).
Elements monk was pretty good but the damage boost of Elemental Epitome is way too late.
Shadow I really liked.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
These sorts of arguments remind me of a review of Elden Ring, you could absolutely play that game using summons to distract enemies in melee and safely kill them using ranged attacks. But doing so made reviewer bored out of their mind despite how undeniably effective it was. So sure, strategically, hiding around the corner and peppering enemies with ranged attacks until they die without taking a single attack from them is absolutely the optimal strategy if your only goal is to kill the enemies while taking the least damage possible. But if you actually want to have fun, exciting drama rich combats where you're on the edge of your seat hoping the members of your party aren't going to get killed, well then melee is where you want to be.
Ideally, "fun" and "effective" should overlap.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I agree it's not fun, but ... it's bad when the tactically sensible way of playing a game isn't fun. Also, there are lots of fights where even if you want to use melee, if you try, you're going to spend an inordinate amount of time running around trying to reach people instead of actually attacking. "I run forward and do nothing else with my turn" is just not something that should happen all that often, and on a melee character too often it is what happens.
Based on these definitions they simply cannot. If fun == dramatic & exciting, then that kind of requires the characters to be in peril. Whereas if effective == defeating enemies with minimal risk that is in direct conflict with our definition of fun.
For those tables where fun/exciting doesn't need to be dramatic & perilous, the DM can simply reduce the difficulty of the encounters at which point arguing about mechanics doesn't really matter because your players can make super flavourful but ineffective characters to stomp some weak monsters with super dramatic descriptions of their actions and all kinds of Rule-of-Cool improvisation without any changes to the mechanics.
PS if you're routinely doing combats in giant open spaces, buy a horse! Mounts are great for getting melee characters into the fight quickly.
I don't think that's necessarily true; for example, people probably wouldn't mind if Monk remained a bit fragile if it gained a bunch of new abilities that let it function as more of a glass cannon, either by dishing out damage (at risk to themselves) or having some solid control abilities (so your defence depends on enemies falling for these).
Either option, or some other mixture, could be both fun and effective; because the risk and excitement comes from being on that knife edge of things could go horribly wrong with a few bad rolls or a misjudged tactic, while the effectiveness comes from how well the class should do on average or in bursts.
Part of the reason that spellcasters are fun is because they can be very powerful, but they also have a lot of things that can go wrong; an enemy could shrug off a save-or-suck and waste your turn, or worse, counterspell it entirely so you never even had a chance of succeeding. While your average Wizard has a bunch of defensive tricks at their disposal, your average dragon can still mess you up pretty badly by just ripping you apart with teeth and claws, so there's a definite element of glass cannon to most spellcasters that helps to make them exciting, because there's a balancing act going on with the amount of defensive powers you can have to hand.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree here, I don't really want great ranged from my melee classes, I want interesting close range play.
So for danger to be engaging, it needs to feel like you have tools or means to deal with it. Its more fun to have shield on dancer and feel like I'm actively denying attacks, rather than playing on monk, or another melee class just watching enemies roll to hit, although the risk of death is greater on the martials. Because I have no effect on that risk. Even if I choose to not use a reactiom to mitigate that attack, it becomes more interesting watching the same roll, because there was a choice.
Also, I'm not sure peril/failure is 100% required for fun/drama. With the barbarian, with its new skill use. It was fun to rage, then go stealth and hunt enemies, getting the drop on them. That was reducing my risk, but increasing my fun, because it felt thematic, and cool to use my skills to set up an advantage. In another instance I climbed up a wall and jumped on A Roc. The fact that the maneuver was unlikely to fail, is why I attempted it. if it was the standard 60% chance to jump on Roc, 40% chance to fall prone and waste your turn. That turned the fight to a on the back air flight, where I toppled the bird and we both took falling damage. (but I was resistant due to rage)
Just to say, the fact that my barbarian was more durable, and less likely to fail these skill checks (aka less peril) Are part of the reason I was able to come up with a more fun solution to the problem, instead of just throwing javelins or knives.
That said, I admit, my actions were not safe, I'm not against peril, I'm just not sure that its the most important factor in fun gameplay design.
Failure is not synonymous with peril - and adventurer could walk away from a quest and fail that quest but not be in any peril. Peril is the chance of your character getting hurt or killed, it is the ability of enemies to do bad stuff to your character.
Stuff that reduces peril:
- incapacitating the enemies : e.g. Hypnotic Pattern succeeding on all the enemies of a combat and then you pick them off one-by-one with held actions.
- keeping beyond the attack range of the enemies : e.g. having a whole party of ranged characters and picking off enemies before they can reach you.
- having bounded-accuracy breaking AC : e.g. you have effective AC 29 and the highest attack mod of the enemies is +8, so nothing can hit you except for a critical hit.
- simply avoiding combat scenarios all together : e.g. Flying / Teleporting past an encounter.
- getting surprise rounds
- having extremely potent saving throws : e.g. Magic Resistance racial feature + Aura of Protection.
Stuff that increases peril:
- fighting in melee
- causing a flying creature to crash land while you are grappled to it.
- charging into combat rather than avoiding it.
- using skill checks you aren't super good at to do something.
- grappling or using other abilities that encourage enemies to attack you.
- separating from the party
- having a weak Wis, Dex or Con save.
where would you put using perception and stealth to see enemies ahead of time to sneak up on them? I guess thats surprise rounds?
I see your point, but I think a lot of people find using skills they are strong at, or creating tactical advantages by thinking ahead fun. Like the assassin subclass is/was completely designed around setting up a strong first hit scenario. Is the class antifun? I think it depends on the person. Was it more fun in metal gear solid to never be seen or to go Guns blazing? I think both designs were fun gameplay for different people, or even the same person in different moods.
Using skills you are bad at is good example of peril being unfun for me. There is no depth, or choice, its just a bad roll. I know some people enjoy risk for risk sake, but I don't think of that type of design increasing fun.
Risking danger but using your skills or abilities or new solutions to overcome the danger is fun though, imo. But I'm not even sure my perspective on that is universal.
[REDACTED]
Because while it is (and I was very clear about this in my post) a simplistic comparison, it's still a useful one; as the Monk is starting out with fewer effective features and fewer effective resources even assuming a guaranteed minimum of two short rests (which is far from guaranteed), so in reality they have 20-60 Ki, in many groups erring towards the minimum, vs. 89 slot levels. And that's before you dig into just how many of the Monk's features, especially the higher level ones, are simply not good, and do not aid with its progression. These are features that give it more clutter, but don't make Monks meaningfully stronger or more capable into tiers 3 and 4. Hell, one entire feature is "you don't age or need to eat or drink" which is a feature so incredibly situational as to be basically non-existent in most campaigns; it's a feature your DM could simply grant for narrative flavour, it's not a good feature, and certainly not good enough to be the only feature for an entire level of the class.
It also doesn't matter that Monks don't have anything that costs 9 Ki, because that just means they have fewer powerful options. If you go by minimal resources (no short rests) then casters have the advantage on spell slots vs. Ki points, but even if you assume one or two short rests, the casters are typically getting more value out of each spell slot they spend with either powerful effects, or longer durations (or both). So if your goal is to only further highlight how much better spellcasting is compared to Ki points then bravo, welcome to the "Monk is bad" crowd. 😝
[REDACTED] It's great that you think Monk is a perfect class that requires no changes, but that has not been the experience of other Monk players; plenty of people can have fun playing the Monk, sure, I've done that plenty of times myself, I love my Monk characters. But that's true of even the most sub-optimal builds, and that's not at issue. The Monk has objective mechanical flaws in tier 1 and 2 (namely choices that aren't really choices) and struggles in tier 3 and 4 thanks to a lack of meaningful progression as anything other than a Stunning Strike spammer (an ability you can't even rely upon). If you never play to that level, fine, but those of us who do, or would like to, would like all classes to be able to compete into those tiers, and for martials in general to compete better with spellcasters at all levels so that choice of class isn't a powergaming move, we can just play what we want without wishing it were better or needing some help from the DM.
[REDACTED]
Once again, nobody here is proposing that Monk damage should be increased to 10d10 per hit with 18 attacks per round or anything else clearly broken; most people are either discussing relatively small changes, or more radical changes that still have the ultimate aim of being balanced against other classes, or are just raising what the problems are from their point of view. Some suggestions will be stronger than others, but the appropriate response to that is "that might be a bit much" or "could work if you balanced it with Y", rather than the personal attacks and torrents of abuse you seem so fond of. If constructive discussion about improving the class is not for you, then neither is this thread, or this sub-forum for that matter.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Notice I said "super good at" by which I mean skills where there is almost no chance of failure. If in Metal Gear Solid you had Reliable Talent, Expertise in Stealth and had cast Invisibility on yourself, so you could stand right in front of one of the enemies and they would not notice you. Would it have been fun? If you could teleport into & out of precisely where you needed to go in the base using Dimension Door without needing to sneak nor fight at all, would it have been fun?
If the Assassin leaves the rest of the party behind so they can sneak through the fortress and Assassinate all the guards by getting surprise & autocrits, is that fun?
Hmmm 10d10 that could be a start, lol Jk.
I do want more damage but I think it should be doing slightly more then a fighter when expending ki each round and a little less when you run out of ki. that would keep the fighters the endurance champions and would allow monk slightly more nova but not as much nova as a paladin and they could be in the middle between consistent damage and nova.
To add on to this, a level 20 Monk has between 20-60 Ki Points per adventuring day (assuming 0-2 short rests per day). By comparison, a level 20 full caster (Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Bard) has 22 spell slots. 9 of those slots are at 5th level or higher. This means that in an adventuring day with 2 short rests, spellcasters can often horde their highest level spells for the final stretch of the day before a long rest and rely on lower level options until then. And then perform more high-level spells than the Monk can using all of its Ki/Discipline points, PLUS 12 more impactful leveled spells.
What features does Monk have that either are or are equivalent to 5th level spells and higher?
Astral Projection (all Monks, PHB): This is the only 9th level spell effect that is available to Monks, and it is part of the core class so it is available to all of them. UA6 indicates it may be getting removed, but assuming it stays that is 8 Ki to cast a 9th level spell with no combat application. That said, if you nee a 9th level spell to cross dimensions at level 18 you can now do it twice per short rest. Or your party spellcaster can just cast the 7th level Plane Shift and just go there without all of the caveats of Astral Projection. Alternatively, you can also cast Dream of the Blue Veil for at 7th level a similar effect on the Material Plane.
Stunning Strike (all Monks, PHB and UA6): Admittedly this one is pretty solid. In UA6 you can now use Stunning Strike as part of the attack action once per turn for only 1 Discipline point. including with Ranged attacks This is approximately equivalent to a 5th level spell. However, spellcasters get the benefit of doing additional damage and targeting different saves with their core spellcasting ability while Monks must use their Wisdom modifier to set the DC even when attacking with Dexterity or Strength. Functionally, Monks need to make a skill check DC (attack roll) and then hope the target fails a save with a potentially lower save DC than the Monk's own check. As a result, Stunning Strike is notoriously unreliable.
Cloak of Shadows (17th level Way of Shadow, UA6): This feature is a combination of a few 3rd level spell effects, I'll rank it as a 5th level spell for combining them into a single package. This is fairly good and combines effects from spells like Shadow of Moil, Greater Invisibility, and some reaction abilities from classes like the Fiend Warlock.
Disciple of the Elements (17th level Four Elements from PHB): You can cast the 5th level spells Wall of Stone and Cone of Cold for 6 Ki points each.
Aside from the low cost of Stunning Strike, all of the other higher spell-like features are expensive and/or don't become available until at least 17th level after normal spellcasters have already acquired them. Even half-casters at level 6 have more spell slots than the Monk has Ki points. And those spell slots universally either do more damage, have a greater non-combat impact, or have longer lasting consequences than the Monk's Ki points - and many of them combine 2 or more of these attributes. So those classes can cast one spell and do the equivalent of several actions worth of Ki points and those spells come online long before the Monk has anything even remotely equivalent.
I keep seeing the arguemnt here that the Monk needs to be a mystical, magical warrior. The problem that everyone is trying to point out is that D&D already has several classes and subclasses which fit that archetype and several Unearthed Arcana classes as well, and almost all of them mechanically do the job significantly better than the Monk. The new Monk needs to be able to at least compete with those clases at similar levels and ideally should do something they cannot do. Right now, the Monk has a lot of deficiencies that become clear when looking at their stats and features:
1: The Monk has lower average damage than most other martial classes, as has been repeatedly proven by D&D community members. Monks often need to optimize what other classes can get with either standard ASI progression or a single feat
2: The Monk has lower health and AC due to an inability to wear armor and a lower health die than most Martial classes. Almost all of its defensive features require the use of Ki/Discipline points or a full action.
3: The Monk's focus on physical mobility does not exceed the mobility features of most other classes when accounting for mounts, spells, and class features unless carefully min-maxed. The singular exception to this is the Shadow Monk and that's situational.
4: Though a "mystic" warrior, the Monk's ability to use spells and spell-like effects is dwarfed by most spellcasting classes including half-casters, Hexblade Warlocks, and subclass casters like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Rogue. As we can see, with the exception of Astral Projection nearly all Monk spell-like effects cap at 5th level equivalents and do so as though the players were half-casters. However, Monks don't get any of the benefits of half-casters such as being able to expend spell slots instead of their core class resource on those magical effects.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16etiVZC-gUar20yrmGaW76rlQWlPTdsV/view?usp=sharing
I show you my monk variant based on 1DND test6. Many changes, at dpr level we are very close to fighter. Integration of a variant of Weapon Mastery + Fighting Style. Folcal points of the class are KI/DP features (FoB, PD, SotW) or in this case Inner Force. Although this monk is very focused on unarmed combat, in its own way, taking advantage of its speed and ability to move through the air makes it possible for it to reach even more distant enemies. Much lower demand for resources and also alternative solution for not having to use them. I think there are some good solutions, the criticisms I have received are quite positive.
My self-criticisms are:
1. There is not really a link between the monk and the feature weapon mastery (this class being mainly unarmed).
2. At 11th level the dpr is slightly above what I wanted according to my calculations.
3. Maybe it still lacks some flavor elements
DPR: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QIyeg2uTPMIpoGJdFlHXiwTkOjBC3aZx/view?usp=sharing
I am also thinking of doing an alternative variant, which is more related to the UNARMED STRIKE and Weapon Mastery feature:
UNARMED STRIKE that allows the monk to do damage plus one of the following choices: PUSH, PRONE, or GRAPPLE (DEX). Following the style of Weapon Mastery. Give the monk back the Martial Art die on Simple Weapons. But the rest could be similar to the class I designed, see PDF.
This would bring the monk class back to being a hybrid of weapon and unarmed.
I am convinced that the true essence of the monk is movement and the ability to reach places that other classes would be complicated or cost due to the use of spells. Although limited by the fact that it has a melee/skirmish combat style, it still has the ability to reach flying enemies by running through the air or up walls. The monk should be SPEED AND unconventional MOVEMENT. This is my point of view, at least I think this would make it different from other classes.
As for resources and its use, having decreased its use in SS is already an improvement, but I think it can be done better. But the biggest problem is the freedom of movement and attack that allows him to be a true melee/skirmish warrior. These are the points I tried to fix in my PDF.
Politely, I'm going to focus on the PHB/1D&D Monk for criticism so I won't be commenting on your variant.
The problem I have with this idea of "Monks get SPEEEED!" is that without damage output to capitalize on when they arrive, it doesn't really mean anything.
I hear people refer to Monks as "skirmishers." But the problem is that traditional skirmishing units were incredibly dangerous if the defending force didn't react to them. A loose formation ranging unit couldn't take on a wall of massed infantry but an ambush against unprepared back line units would be devastating and could knock entire regiments out of the fight.
You've probably heard of the Charge of the Light Brigade, the famous event when British Light Cavalry charged at full speed into the teeth of a heavily fortified defensive position, assaulted a battery of artillery, and fled back after losing their entire command strucure and almost 400 soldiers of a 600 man force.
The reason that poem is so famous isn't just because of the bravery and determination of the soldiers despite horrific casualties and command incompetance. It's because after all of that death and destruction and decapitation of the leading officers on the charge in, they reached the artillery line and shattered it. The Russians in the assaulted positions were forced to retreat and only the hesitance of the heavier British cavalry brigade that should have followed them was the line not taken and the enemy routed entirely from the position.
Right now, Monks have a hard time getting through to those vulnerable backline units because they have to choose EITHER dashing or disengaging if they still want to make attacks and if they don't disengage, they don't have the AC and HP to tank hits along the way. When they do get to make attacks, even Opportunity Attacks, they don't do enough damage to knock out the targets.
This leaves the only real skirmishers for this sort of work as the Rogue and the Ranger, who have features that let them hide in terrain, bypass or avoid enemies without sacrificing damage, and do big burst damage once they contact their targets. So if the skirmishing position is being performed better by other classes....
What now with the Monk?