Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
That is fair, but lets say they remove stunning strike ki cost and it is just straight once per turn... is that really all that bad with a con save like that?
I LIKE and WANT choices in actions and bonus actions to be MEANINGFUL. I don't want bonus action expenditures to be mandatory to meet "bare minimum" and I don't want resource expenditure to allow a character to match what another is doing without a cost.
So here is the thing about people who complain about 5e and "meaningful choice". When presented with a class like the Monk, where they have multiple choices per turn, options as to how they spend their resources, such people either want:
a.) a specific choice that (in their minds at least) supersedes all other choices to the point that there are no other options worth using (see: people who think Stunning Strike is the only Monk feature worth using) b.) to be able to utilize multiple "choices" simultaneously, without cost or limitation (see: people who complain that the Monk can't make two bonus attacks and double their movement speed in the same turn)
When presented with actual meaningful choice and options that require weighing limited resources and the various opportunities at one's disposal in a given encounter...surprisingly, the most vocal crowd doesn't want to be forced to think too hard. They don't want to not always be doing "full" damage. They don't want using one option to take away from them using another option at the same time, even though literally every other class with options has to choose between said options.
Which again, is one of those "you can just play the Fighter" complaints that so many people complaining about Monk cannot grasp. You want a class that can be built for sheer and simple damage-per-round, that doesn't have any options other than "hit enemy" to choose from, that can facetank all the attacks in melee? Play a Fighter, instead of saying the Monk other people enjoy shouldn't exist because their focus on strategic use of their abilities doesn't interest you.
What people want is a class that makes sense. The best thing that WoTC did was the groups. Because it showed us what they though the Monk was supposed to be and how it didn’t fit it’s group at all. Their statement was if you had a party of four you could select one from each of these groups and have a pretty balanced party. Monk does not do what Fighter and Barbarian do at all. Monk is bad. It has been bad since I started playing in 3e. Caveat, I don’t know if 4e Monk was bad because I quit 4e sometime after PHB2. I was holding out for the monk, but lost interest in the game before PHB3 came out. Monk was too MAD in previous editions needing Str, Dex, and Wis. So 5e fixed them by making them only need Dex and Wis. The problem is if game is meant to be balanced then all classes need to effectively contribute something to the party. The monk has no niche, and doesn’t even cover the basic Warrior group niches. I don’t compare monks to all other classes, just to Fighter and Barbarian and the Monk comes up short. It does not have a good play style. You can’t be a frontliner. You can’t be a skirmisher for very long early game and being a skirmisher takes away from your damage output. You can’t be a backliner because all your features are tailored for melee. Monks are bad.
I hope no one expects Monks to get all the changes that have been presented on these forums. People are making suggestions to make the class playable for more. For some odd reason you like the monk as is, but many more don’t. Putting Damage output aside since that’s not a problem until 11th level and higher, monks have noticeable problems in combat and out of combat. In combat super movement doesn’t equate super mobility since they have to pay to disengage as a bonus action. The bigger problem is when they pay to disengage they also give up their free additional bonus action attack. This conversation just inspired me.
I LIKE and WANT choices in actions and bonus actions to be MEANINGFUL. I don't want bonus action expenditures to be mandatory to meet "bare minimum" and I don't want resource expenditure to allow a character to match what another is doing without a cost.
So here is the thing about people who complain about 5e and "meaningful choice". When presented with a class like the Monk, where they have multiple choices per turn, options as to how they spend their resources, such people either want:
a.) a specific choice that (in their minds at least) supersedes all other choices to the point that there are no other options worth using (see: people who think Stunning Strike is the only Monk feature worth using) b.) to be able to utilize multiple "choices" simultaneously, without cost or limitation (see: people who complain that the Monk can't make two bonus attacks and double their movement speed in the same turn)
When presented with actual meaningful choice and options that require weighing limited resources and the various opportunities at one's disposal in a given encounter...surprisingly, the most vocal crowd doesn't want to be forced to think too hard. They don't want to not always be doing "full" damage. They don't want using one option to take away from them using another option at the same time, even though literally every other class with options has to choose between said options.
Which again, is one of those "you can just play the Fighter" complaints that so many people complaining about Monk cannot grasp. You want a class that can be built for sheer and simple damage-per-round, that doesn't have any options other than "hit enemy" to choose from, that can facetank all the attacks in melee? Play a Fighter, instead of saying the Monk other people enjoy shouldn't exist because their focus on strategic use of their abilities doesn't interest you.
What people want is a class that makes sense. The best thing that WoTC did was the groups. Because it showed us what they though the Monk was supposed to be and how it didn’t fit it’s group at all. Their statement was if you had a party of four you could select one from each of these groups and have a pretty balanced party. Monk does not do what Fighter and Barbarian do at all. Monk is bad. It has been bad since I started playing in 3e. Caveat, I don’t know if 4e Monk was bad because I quit 4e sometime after PHB2. I was holding out for the monk, but lost interest in the game before PHB3 came out. Monk was too MAD in previous editions needing Str, Dex, and Wis. So 5e fixed them by making them only need Dex and Wis. The problem is if game is meant to be balanced then all classes need to effectively contribute something to the party. The monk has no niche, and doesn’t even cover the basic Warrior group niches. I don’t compare monks to all other classes, just to Fighter and Barbarian and the Monk comes up short. It does not have a good play style. You can’t be a frontliner. You can’t be a skirmisher for very long early game and being a skirmisher takes away from your damage output. You can’t be a backliner because all your features are tailored for melee. Monks are bad.
I hope no one expects Monks to get all the changes that have been presented on these forums. People are making suggestions to make the class playable for more. For some odd reason you like the monk as is, but many more don’t. Putting Damage output aside since that’s not a problem until 11th level and higher, monks have noticeable problems in combat and out of combat. In combat super movement doesn’t equate super mobility since they have to pay to disengage as a bonus action. The bigger problem is when they pay to disengage they also give up their free additional bonus action attack. This conversation just inspired me.
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but not by much if it has the defensive style, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
This is how I would fix the Monk. Well this is a toned down version of something I was working on. I removed most of it because it wasn’t changes WoTC would make and its pointless to just share my homebrew here. This is the type of changes I believe WotC is willing to make and they wouldn’t ruin your play style and attracted more players to the monk. I tried to highlight all my changes in blue. Also left off anything I didn’t change from UA6. Disciplined Striker I just made up to replace my homebrew 13th level feature so their was no math and no ply testing done for that 13th level feature. It passes my eye test, but could be too strong or too weak.
ARMORTRAINING
Light Armor, Medium Armor
1ST LEVEL: MARTIAL ARTS
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Simple Weapons.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmored or wielding only Simple Weapons and you aren’t wearing Heavy Armor or wielding a Shield:
Bonus Unarmed Strike. When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn.
Dexterous Attacks. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons, except those that have the Two- Handed property.
Martial Arts Die. You can roll a d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike. This die changes as you gain Monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
1ST LEVEL: UNARMORED DEFENSE
While you aren’t wearing any armor or wielding a Shield, your base Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity and Wisdom modifiers. Additionally while unarmored, as bonus action you can select one creature within 5ft of you to be unable to make Attacks of Opportunity against you until the end of your turn.
2ND LEVEL: MARTIAL DISCIPLINE
Flurry of Blows. Your unarmed strikes are incredibly swift.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to make two Unarmed Strikes as a Bonus Action.
While unarmored you can spend 1 Discipline Point as a Reaction to missing an Unarmed Strike made with your Bonus Action to immediately make another Unarmed Strike as part of that same Bonus Action.
Patient Defense. You focus on the best way to defend yourself.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action. If you are hit by an attack and take damage before the start of your next turn you regain 1 Discipline Point at the start of your next turn (only 1 no matter how many times you were hit and took damage)
While unarmored you can spend 1 Discipline point as a Reaction if you are hit by an attack that has disadvantage to gain resistance to all of that attack's damage.
Step of the Wind. Your movements are near imperceptibly fast.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to do 2 of the following as a Bonus action: use the Disengage action, use the Dash action and your jump distance is doubled for the turn, or make on Unarmed Strike.
While unarmored you can spend 1 Disciple Point as a Reaction to taking the Dash action to become Invisible until the end of this turn or until you make an attack, or force a creature to make a saving throw.
2ND LEVEL: UNARMORED MOVEMENT
Your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table. While wearing Light Armor and not wielding a Shield you still gain some of the benefits of this increased movement. Your speed increases by half the amount shown on the monk table rounded up to the nearest increment of 5 feet.
4TH LEVEL: ACROBATIC MOVEMENT
You can use your Reaction when you fall to reduce any damage you take from the fall by an amount equal to five times your Monk level. Additionally while you aren’t wearing Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, or wielding a Shield, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the movement.
9TH LEVEL: DEFLECT ENERGY
You can now use your Deflect Missiles feature against ranged attacks that deal any damage type, not just Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing
13TH LEVEL: DISCIPLINED STRIKER
You have mastered the use of combination attacks. After you hit a target on your turn with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike each following hit with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike to the same target gains additional damage. This additional damage is equal to 1d4 for each time you have already hit the target this turn up to 5d4. The additional damage is the same type as the attack.
20TH LEVEL: PERFECT SELF
You have honed your mind and body so that you suffer none of the frailty of old age, and you can’t be aged magically. You can still die of old age however. Additionally you may use the following abilities, once you use one of them you can’t use it again until you complete a short or long rest:
Defy Death. If you drop to 0 Hit Points, you can spend 4 Discipline Points, roll four Martial Arts dice, and add the dice together. Your number of Hit Points instead changes to the total rolled plus your two times your Wisdom modifier.
Empty Body. You can spend 8 ki points to cast the astral projection spell, without needing material components. When you do so, you can’t take any other creatures with you.
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
So if you focus a Fighter on raw damage it can do more damage? But still can't move further, have numerous support options, and other benefits that it gains innately from its class and subclass, on top of whatever feats you choose for the Monk? Because you know, Monks also get feats?
You literally have no argument but "Fighters do more damage". They better flipping well do more damage regularly, because that's their niche among the "warrior" group. Barbarians are tanky, Monks are agile and have support options, Fighters hit things the best.
(Incidentally, why is it always the Fighter that Monk Bad folks always compare to? Is it because they're well aware that Monk outperforms other martial-types in attack damage, save for specifically "the one martial that hits the most" and does none of the stuff Monk does other than "hitting stuff the most"?)
This ISNT focused on damage. This is focused on FLEXIBILITY. Damage when needed, Defense when needed and attacks from hard to reach distances and areas when needed. Your take isn't hot, its simply wrong.
Monks DONT do anything besides hit things in combat, the extra mobility is used to get in to hit in combat. Especially not compared to the fighter.
But hey lets do Paladin instead. (Barbarian is considered weak at level 11+ as well monk matching a bad class doesn't make monk a good class, it makes both bad classes bad).
So Paladin Polearm master + ASI. 19 AC with Defense fighting style (still flexible to change to one hander as well if it wants). 21-63 (no smite used, and no Mastery), With a one hander and shield for defense it is 14-42 (no Smite, no mastery). If you want to talk mobility, say hello to phantom steed. Flexibility, say hello to spells.
We use the fighter because we are trying to be fair and not comparing it to classes that have spells.
Also Monks DO NOT get feats. They use ASI to keep up with their Wisdom and Dex because they need both for AC and for their to hit and their DC for their only 1 possible thing they have. IN ADDITION, there are 0 feats that are good for monks in general.
Monk Feats are ASI at level 4 to take Dex to 18, ASI at level 8 to take Dex to 20, ASI at level 12 to take Wis to 18, ASI at level 16 to take wis to 20 and ASI at level 19 to take Dex to 22. they have 0 room For feats and the only combat feat they even qualify for is grappler the rest require proficiencies that the monk lacks
Edit: If you add in subclasses with fighter, because you seem to assume that the subclass does nothing, you have battle master that adds battle manuevers, eldritch knight that adds spell casting, you have psionics that allow double movement speed flying and moving objects with their mind. If we want to talk BASE Fighter NO subclass we still add all the new stuff with tactical mind... AND MOST IMPORTANTLY Tactical Shift You get health back AND get to disengage at half speed, so you can use your bonus action to move 15 feet no Opportunity attack and then move 30 more feet. So the idea that "fighter has no mobility" is just wrong.
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
So if you focus a Fighter on raw damage it can do more damage? But still can't move further, have numerous support options, has less effective saving throws, and other benefits that it gains innately from its class and subclass, on top of whatever feats you choose for the Monk? Because you know, Monks also get feats?
You literally have no argument but "Fighters do more damage". They better flipping well do more damage regularly, because that's their niche among the "warrior" group. Barbarians are tanky, Monks are agile and have support options, Fighters hit things the best.
(Incidentally, why is it always the Fighter that Monk Bad folks always compare to? Is it because they're well aware that Monk outperforms other martial-types in attack damage, save for specifically "the one martial that hits the most" and does none of the stuff Monk does other than "hitting stuff the most"?)
In 90% or more of combats Monks movement doesn’t help. Their Saving throws doesn’t come online until 14th level. Monks get maybe 1 feat but they do need to focus on getting their dex and Wis up so they can actually use their class and subclass features effectively. Im pretty sure their example showed that fighters have better defense as well. Monks don’t have support options. They have a support option in the main class, but if you don’t get your wisdom up it probably won’t stun anything. Shadow had good support with silence and Pass Without Trace, but that’s gone moving forward. JC said UA6 Shadow was good enough and won’t see playtest again. I guess Mercy is a support Monk.
The reason it’s Fighter that Monk gets compared to is that WotC had them in the same group. You definitely don’t want Monk compared to other classes it will be left in the dust. Especially if you are comparing it to these UA versions. Monk is bad. What I find funny is this repeatedly talk about YouTubers. I honestly don’t know what or who you are talking about. I say Monk is bad from my own experience. Monk has been bad since before YouTube was a thing.
Wholly unnecessary with Unarmoured Defense, but is used just as an excuse for...
1ST LEVEL: MARTIAL ARTS
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Simple Weapons.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmored or wielding only Simple Weapons and you aren’t wearing Heavy Armor or wielding a Shield:
...making Monk features more exploitable for non-Monks.
1ST LEVEL: UNARMORED DEFENSE
While you aren’t wearing any armor or wielding a Shield, your base Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity and Wisdom modifiers. Additionally while unarmored, as bonus action you can select one creature within 5ft of you to be unable to make Attacks of Opportunity against you until the end of your turn.
"The Monk has too many options, so let's give them a Disengage that works on only one enemy"?
Flurry of Blows. Your unarmed strikes are incredibly swift.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to make two Unarmed Strikes as a Bonus Action.
While unarmored you can spend 1 Discipline Point as a Reaction to missing an Unarmed Strike made with your Bonus Action to immediately make another Unarmed Strike as part of that same Bonus Action.
Why do you need an attack reroll option? To burn through Discipline Points faster, a la "used all my points for Stunning Strike, why Monk have no points"?
Patient Defense. You focus on the best way to defend yourself.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action. If you are hit by an attack and take damage before the start of your next turn you regain 1 Discipline Point at the start of your next turn (only 1 no matter how many times you were hit and took damage)
While unarmored you can spend 1 Discipline point as a Reaction if you are hit by an attack that has disadvantage to gain resistance to all of that attack's damage.
If only all abilities just flat-out refunded the resource cost, or the spell slot, or your turn, if they failed to do anything.
Also, Monks already have several means to reduce damage, they don't need "half-damage because I feel like it". (Which would also tie into the "purposefully burning through Discipline Points too fast" problem if not for the refund mechanic.)
Step of the Wind. Your movements are near imperceptibly fast.
You can spend 1 Discipline Point to do 2 of the following as a Bonus action: use the Disengage action, use the Dash action and your jump distance is doubled for the turn, or make on Unarmed Strike.
While unarmored you can spend 1 Disciple Point as a Reaction to taking the Dash action to become Invisible until the end of this turn or until you make an attack, or force a creature to make a saving throw.
Again: An unnecessary "burn points faster" mechanic. Becoming invisible only for your turn has very little utility. (For Monks; a Rogue would love that option.)
(These also have the problem of consuming your reaction and thus further limiting your responses to danger and damage.)
2ND LEVEL: UNARMORED MOVEMENT
Your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table. While wearing Light Armor and not wielding a Shield you still gain some of the benefits of this increased movement. Your speed increases by half the amount shown on the monk table rounded up to the nearest increment of 5 feet.
Making Monk features more exploitable for multiclassers.
4TH LEVEL: ACROBATIC MOVEMENT
You can use your Reaction when you fall to reduce any damage you take from the fall by an amount equal to five times your Monk level. Additionally while you aren’t wearing Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, or wielding a Shield, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the movement.
Unlimited water-walking and vertical movement, before Water Walking and Fly are even accessible on a limited basis to casters.
13TH LEVEL: DISCIPLINED STRIKER
You have mastered the use of combination attacks. After you hit a target on your turn with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike each following hit with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike to the same target gains additional damage. This additional damage is equal to 1d4 for each time you have already hit the target this turn up to 5d4. The additional damage is the same type as the attack.
Let's do the math here.
Three attacks per turn, at 1d10+5. That's 18-45, 24-60 if you Flurry.
So each of those hit bonuses turns that into 21-57 on regular attack turns, 30-84 on Flurries. If you hit every attack. So it's wildly swingy depending on whether you land all of the hits or only a few.
These changes alter little about the class, except to burn through Discipline points faster and make its features more exploitable for multiclassing. Which is the result with the vast majority of Monk Bad revisions, as if the aim is to change the Monk for people who don't want to play the Monk.
In fact, I might just post my own version, because it really wouldn't be hard to alter the Monk to be in-line with OneD&D's further enhancements to classes without being all about multiclassing and raw damage.
Nobody wants monks Unarmed Strikes anymore. There is a fighting style for that. Some people just know Monks unarmored defense isn’t good. It’s trash for a melee focused class with limited mobility. The disengage that works on one enemy is to help unarmored defense not be trash and give monks an option that doesn’t cost from their shared resource pool. Also who said the monk has too many options. Surely not me considering I want them to have a lot more options. Attack reroll is just an option, aren’t you the one arguing that people don’t have to spend there resources every turn. There are actually a few things that refund you a resource if they don’t work, but you play this game and already know that. Again the half damage is an option you don’t have to use it, but it’s nice to have options that help you survive in combat with low AC. Again it’s an option to turn invisible. Using your reaction is up to you. You play a monk right? You do realize they can only walk across the surface while moving. If they stop they sink or fall. So it’s not unlimited. It’s brought down to a level were it matters. You could move it to 5th or sixth, but there is no room for it design wise. Disciplined striker was made up on the fly to replace the system I would use which was a bunch of condition strikes given throughout the career of the monk, so it wasn’t just stunning strike, but that is something I didn’t see WoTC changing so I moved some stuff around to make it work. Also this is a dice rolling game, swingy can be fun.
Wait, you claimed that everyone just wants more damage than the fighter. I don’t. You also claimed that everyone wants to be able to do everything for free all at once. I don’t. I present changes that I believe improve the class and your only thought is that people want exploit something from Monk. I will say it again. Monk is bad. People were asking to do more with their reactions, so I designed something for people to do with their reactions. People want a monk with better AC, so I gave them an option to avoid unarmored defense and wear armor. But if you notice in my build wearing armor still cuts you off from some of the monk options and I improved unarmored defense and gave a free disengage against one creature for players who use the skirmisher play style. You technically should have been happy with these changes since they wouldn’t affect your play style. I can’t wait to read how you would fix the monk which you claim is fine. Hmmm, how do you fix that which isn’t broken?
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
The problem isn't the lack of Stunning Strike spam, it's the lack of anything to replace it with. Stunning Strike is the main way that the 5e Monk continues to scale up into tiers 3 and 4, but it's inflexible and unreliable. While Stunning Strike landing at a crucial moment can turn certain defeat into an unexpected victory, and that can feel great, most of the time it's either triggering too much and making fights trivial, or it won't trigger at all and becomes a way to just run out of Ki real fast and feel useless.
Nerfing Stunning Strike is long overdue, but it needs a replacement so that Monks can continue to scale properly; and we've wanted more options for a long time because Stunning Strike is only reliable against some enemies some of the time, and most monks still don't have much they can do the rest of the time except Flurry of Blows (which is boring).
Part of the problem is also that they've boxed themselves into the stunned condition; I expect most people would be just as happy with a lesser condition that can be applied more reliably, e.g- disadvantage to attack anyone but me, or disadvantage on next attack etc. (maybe stackable in the latter case, so I could maybe put disadvantage on multiple attacks with a good turn), or different conditions that target different saving throws (like literally every caster can). Stunned should be higher level and maybe something you can setup somehow, so it's more of a third round finisher than (potentially) ending a fight on the first try.
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.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
TBH I hope it's everything. Disciple Points are wholely unnecessary for the 5eR Monk since absolutely everything it can do is limited by the action economy and even if they do use everything they have every turn they just barely keep up with other martials. So DP are just making Monks SR depending and making them track stuff for no good reason.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
Yes but also No. If you burn all your ki to do Stunning Strike on every single attack then it has roughly the same chance at sticking as a Sorcerer using Heightened Spell because each attempt at Stunning on your turn requires a successful attack roll and a failure against your DC and these use different ability scores, so if you increase on the other lags behind, so you can have a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance for the enemy to fail the save (= 0.25% to stun per attack), or you can have a 65% chance to hit and as 40% chance for the enemy to fail the save (=26% chance to stun per attack). If you are targeting the biggest threat on the battlefield then they will either have higher than average AC or higher than average CON save so add a 10% penalty to at least one of those numbers.
That said, Stunning Strike is bad for the class in general, it is so much better than absolutely everything else the monk can do that it takes away from everything else - the rest of the class might as well not exist because the only thing worth doing is stunning strike.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
I agree the change to stunning strike was needed. At one point I had considered maybe it could be Stun on failed save, Dazed on success because that idea was introduced in the first Paladin UA (Abjure Foes, I believe). But that was probably too much. And I had also thought that maybe Stun should be replaced by Dazed at level 5 and maybe upgrading to Stun at a later level.
I don’t think they will go back to no limit on Stunning Strike. I could see them getting rid of the DP cost and making it an “X times per Long Rest” (still once per turn).
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
they aren't talking about stunning strike, they were basically referencing wholeness of body. He elaborated to describe it as per day type features.
and most people talking about the flaws of UA6 monk aren't demanding stunning strikes return. Their beef is monk was already bad, and almost nothing they did in UA improved monk base class. Experienced monk players already rarely spammed stunning strike, Its actually extremely overated as an option. If you spend 4 ki to stop one turn of one enemy, you gave up 4 attacks worth of damage, and other options. There are situations where its worth it, but those are few, because the zero Ki monk is a waste of space.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
the feedback results are rarely going to give a class design, usually because they haven't commited to a design. You are thinking of the playtest release discussions. And he couldn't just talk about every thing because the monk has a bunch of issues, and frankly he didn't seem to be very interested in talking about the monk or its problems. Compared with druid where he talked about the juxtoposition and design intent, he spent like 2-3 minutes on monk and was intentionally vague.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
That is fair, but lets say they remove stunning strike ki cost and it is just straight once per turn... is that really all that bad with a con save like that?
its not bad from a ki standpoint, but its not my preferred solution, because it (probably)makes all monks a stun bot, with limits on what else it does with that basis. Ideally stun should be an option, not the baseline.
If however, it just becomes an on hit effect with no power budget alloted for it, thats ok, but I doubt they would do that.
Also, I think there is zero probability they will remove all Ki from actions or vice versa. What they might do, if they really want to change action/ki overlap, is have a baseline use, and a ki version use. So for stunning strike, for example, that might be stunning strike, once per turn you can attempt daze(or other stun like effect, free), or you can spend Ki to attempt to stun. That would strictly speaking, not have the ki being the usage/action limit. The ki would just upgrade the feature.
who knows, but I don't really like stun bot as monks only real value or gameplay option
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
So if you focus a Fighter on raw damage it can do more damage? But still can't move further, have numerous support options, has less effective saving throws, and other benefits that it gains innately from its class and subclass, on top of whatever feats you choose for the Monk? Because you know, Monks also get feats?
You literally have no argument but "Fighters do more damage". They better flipping well do more damage regularly, because that's their niche among the "warrior" group. Barbarians are tanky, Monks are agile and have support options, Fighters hit things the best.
(Incidentally, why is it always the Fighter that Monk Bad folks always compare to? Is it because they're well aware that Monk outperforms other martial-types in attack damage, save for specifically "the one martial that hits the most" and does none of the stuff Monk does other than "hitting stuff the most"?)
fighter has strong ranged options, second wind, indomitable for saving throws, tactical mind for skills, tactical shift for movement, superior weapon mastery for versatility.
What exactly are these support options you are claiming monk has?
they aren't talking about stunning strike, they were basically referencing wholeness of body. He elaborated to describe it as per day type features.
and most people talking about the flaws of UA6 monk aren't demanding stunning strikes return. Their beef is monk was already bad, and almost nothing they did in UA improved monk base class. Experienced monk players already rarely spammed stunning strike, Its actually extremely overated as an option. If you spend 4 ki to stop one turn of one enemy, you gave up 4 attacks worth of damage, and other options. There are situations where its worth it, but those are few, because the zero Ki monk is a waste of space.
Stun doesn't just stop the enemy, it gives everyone in your party advantage on attacks against them. 4 ki to pull off 1 stun is better than 4 ki for 4 attacks in almost every case:
5e Monk: You DPR: advantage increases your chance to hit on your next turn by 0.23, which you can combine with FoB for 0.23*(4/3) = 31% increase in your DPR, plus 23% increase in DPR for everyone that uses attacks in your party, which works out to 2 whole attacks worth of damage (assuming at 1 other attack-based character in the party). Plus you reduce damage done by that enemy by 100%.
Essentially, monks can usually spend ~1 ki per round, if 1 extra attack is likely to kill your target you should use it for FoB otherwise you should use it for Stunning Strike.
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
So if you focus a Fighter on raw damage it can do more damage? But still can't move further, have numerous support options, and other benefits that it gains innately from its class and subclass, on top of whatever feats you choose for the Monk? Because you know, Monks also get feats?
You literally have no argument but "Fighters do more damage". They better flipping well do more damage regularly, because that's their niche among the "warrior" group. Barbarians are tanky, Monks are agile and have support options, Fighters hit things the best.
(Incidentally, why is it always the Fighter that Monk Bad folks always compare to? Is it because they're well aware that Monk outperforms other martial-types in attack damage, save for specifically "the one martial that hits the most" and does none of the stuff Monk does other than "hitting stuff the most"?)
We use the fighter because we are trying to be fair and not comparing it to classes that have spells.
Also Monks DO NOT get feats. They use ASI to keep up with their Wisdom and Dex because they need both for AC and for their to hit and their DC for their only 1 possible thing they have. IN ADDITION, there are 0 feats that are good for monks in general.
Monk Feats are ASI at level 4 to take Dex to 18, ASI at level 8 to take Dex to 20, ASI at level 12 to take Wis to 18, ASI at level 16 to take wis to 20 and ASI at level 19 to take Dex to 22. they have 0 room For feats and the only combat feat they even qualify for is grappler the rest require proficiencies that the monk lacks
Edit: If you add in subclasses with fighter, because you seem to assume that the subclass does nothing, you have battle master that adds battle manuevers, eldritch knight that adds spell casting, you have psionics that allow double movement speed flying and moving objects with their mind. If we want to talk BASE Fighter NO subclass we still add all the new stuff with tactical mind... AND MOST IMPORTANTLY Tactical Shift You get health back AND get to disengage at half speed, so you can use your bonus action to move 15 feet no Opportunity attack and then move 30 more feet. So the idea that "fighter has no mobility" is just wrong.
Yup. Agree with most of Aquilontune's post. Only big difference is that I do think Mobile is a great feat for Monks in general. Maybe it should be baked into the base class at level 5?
And to mention that Psi Fighter is basically the devs giving up on making a better Monk base class, so put Monk features onto a Fighter subclass instead. Unsurprisingly, they prioritize the enjoyment of Fighter fanbase before the fun of Monk fanbase. And now with their rollout of OneDnD, they are about to repeat the pattern by giving even more flexibility to the Fighter while wringing their hands about "backward compatability" with the Monk base class so they're afraid of making any big changes to what is quantitatively the weaker class (outside of a few niche situations). What a joke.
Making Stunning Strike both cost Ki and be limited in usage was the single best change the class made—I am sure it was unpopular, but that is a perfect example of where D&D should not listen to the masses.
Stunning Strike is very good—stun is one of the most powerful conditions, and stunning the biggest threat for even a turn has a massive impact on the battle. Getting multiple attempts to stun per turn drastically increases the chances of one hitting, giving a Monk a high chance of taking an enemy out of circulation for a whole turn or of burning through legendary resistances as stun is a “must save” condition.
All of that is why people like it; all of that is why Wizards should not allow it.
I had the Monk in my party change over to the 5.5 rules since we both wanted to playtest the content. They complained about the lack of Stunning Strike spam for months—even beyond the survey window.
The other day, they admitted they were wrong. They realised that, before the single use, they had been hoarding all their Ki for stunning strike, making them very conservative on other possible uses. By limiting Stunning Strike and making it still cost Ki, they have been enjoying their class more—they are more willing to use Ki for other things, since they’re not burning through it with a Stun attempt on each hit.
There are lots of other places to improve in the Monk class. But Crawford’s indication they might go back to “spam stunning strike, the class” would be a terrible, terrible mistake—even if it would appease the folks who complained about that change.
It wasn't limited use though, just limited per turn. Stunning strike didnt go "It costs 1 ki and you can do so a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you can only do so once per turn"
While true, the language in Crawford’s video was ambiguous as to how it applies to Stunning Strike - he noted players did not like both usage limitations and ki costs, without specifying which types of usage limitations were complained about. Limiting usage to once per turn is, in fact, a type usage limitation and could very well fit within Crawford’s “we don’t want to double up on limits” language.
This is part of the problem of him tacking on his analysis of the survey to another, relatively short video, rather than do his traditional long video breakdown going through each ability individually.
That is fair, but lets say they remove stunning strike ki cost and it is just straight once per turn... is that really all that bad with a con save like that?
What people want is a class that makes sense. The best thing that WoTC did was the groups. Because it showed us what they though the Monk was supposed to be and how it didn’t fit it’s group at all. Their statement was if you had a party of four you could select one from each of these groups and have a pretty balanced party. Monk does not do what Fighter and Barbarian do at all. Monk is bad. It has been bad since I started playing in 3e. Caveat, I don’t know if 4e Monk was bad because I quit 4e sometime after PHB2. I was holding out for the monk, but lost interest in the game before PHB3 came out. Monk was too MAD in previous editions needing Str, Dex, and Wis. So 5e fixed them by making them only need Dex and Wis. The problem is if game is meant to be balanced then all classes need to effectively contribute something to the party. The monk has no niche, and doesn’t even cover the basic Warrior group niches. I don’t compare monks to all other classes, just to Fighter and Barbarian and the Monk comes up short. It does not have a good play style. You can’t be a frontliner. You can’t be a skirmisher for very long early game and being a skirmisher takes away from your damage output. You can’t be a backliner because all your features are tailored for melee. Monks are bad.
I hope no one expects Monks to get all the changes that have been presented on these forums. People are making suggestions to make the class playable for more. For some odd reason you like the monk as is, but many more don’t. Putting Damage output aside since that’s not a problem until 11th level and higher, monks have noticeable problems in combat and out of combat. In combat super movement doesn’t equate super mobility since they have to pay to disengage as a bonus action. The bigger problem is when they pay to disengage they also give up their free additional bonus action attack. This conversation just inspired me.
I will say if I am comparing a Monk DIRECTLY to a fighter I want to compare it to THIS fighter.
This fighter starts with 17 strength, 16 Dex, and 14 Constitution. THIS fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and dueling fighting styles (the second style from first level feat). By level 11 it has polearm master, bumping strength to 18, GWM bumping strength to 19 and shield master bumping strength to 20. Giving it a +5 to attack in melee +5 to attack at range, capable of going 2 handed with pole arm and polearm master and capable of going full defense or ranged if needed.
I do this because flexibility is a type of power as well being able to flex from round to round is important. This fighter is able to do 29-59 per round (without counting mastery from the particular polearm). When focusing on Defense the fighter would have 20 AC + shield master effects. Damage average would be 21-45 (again not including mastery, if you take defense fighting style instead damage drops to 18-39 with an AC of 21). Finally, if they cant get into melee because of distance this fighter still has a +5 to attack and can do 12-33 (again no mastery).
Compared to the current monk. If it is focusing FULL on attack using ki 24-60 (no mastery from melee attacks AC same as when the fighter isn't using a shield and polearm). So less than the fighter, and that is without the fighter using its resource. Compare both going on the defensive, The monk uses patient defense and does 12-30 points of damage, just outright worse, defense wise AC is 18, but the opponent has disadvantage so slightly harder to hit than the fighter, but not by much if it has the defensive style, but MUCH less damage in this route. Finally, the monk needs to use dash to get in and out of range again 12-30, just worse than the fighter using a bow to make up for the lack of mobility.
This is kind of the issue. This fighter has just as much flexibility as the monk + can be equal or better the monk in all situations WITHOUT using resources while still having resources to spend. Flexibility is a type of power, but so is raw specialized power. Imagine this fighter starts adding MORE feats later to bump that dex with sentinel and athletics at level 12 and 14, at 16 bump dex to 20 and then 19 bump strength to 22.
This is how I would fix the Monk. Well this is a toned down version of something I was working on. I removed most of it because it wasn’t changes WoTC would make and its pointless to just share my homebrew here. This is the type of changes I believe WotC is willing to make and they wouldn’t ruin your play style and attracted more players to the monk. I tried to highlight all my changes in blue. Also left off anything I didn’t change from UA6. Disciplined Striker I just made up to replace my homebrew 13th level feature so their was no math and no ply testing done for that 13th level feature. It passes my eye test, but could be too strong or too weak.
ARMOR TRAINING
Light Armor, Medium Armor
1ST LEVEL: MARTIAL ARTS
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Simple Weapons.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmored or wielding only Simple Weapons and you aren’t wearing Heavy Armor or wielding a Shield:
Bonus Unarmed Strike. When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn.
Dexterous Attacks. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons, except those that have the Two- Handed property.
Martial Arts Die. You can roll a d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike. This die changes as you gain Monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
1ST LEVEL: UNARMORED DEFENSE
While you aren’t wearing any armor or wielding a Shield, your base Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity and Wisdom modifiers. Additionally while unarmored, as bonus action you can select one creature within 5ft of you to be unable to make Attacks of Opportunity against you until the end of your turn.
2ND LEVEL: MARTIAL DISCIPLINE
Flurry of Blows. Your unarmed strikes are incredibly swift.
Patient Defense. You focus on the best way to defend yourself.
Step of the Wind. Your movements are near imperceptibly fast.
2ND LEVEL: UNARMORED MOVEMENT
Your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table. While wearing Light Armor and not wielding a Shield you still gain some of the benefits of this increased movement. Your speed increases by half the amount shown on the monk table rounded up to the nearest increment of 5 feet.
4TH LEVEL: ACROBATIC MOVEMENT
You can use your Reaction when you fall to reduce any damage you take from the fall by an amount equal to five times your Monk level. Additionally while you aren’t wearing Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, or wielding a Shield, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the movement.
9TH LEVEL: DEFLECT ENERGY
You can now use your Deflect Missiles feature against ranged attacks that deal any damage type, not just Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing
13TH LEVEL: DISCIPLINED STRIKER
You have mastered the use of combination attacks. After you hit a target on your turn with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike each following hit with a Simple Weapon or Unarmed Strike to the same target gains additional damage. This additional damage is equal to 1d4 for each time you have already hit the target this turn up to 5d4. The additional damage is the same type as the attack.
20TH LEVEL: PERFECT SELF
You have honed your mind and body so that you suffer none of the frailty of old age, and you can’t be aged magically. You can still die of old age however. Additionally you may use the following abilities, once you use one of them you can’t use it again until you complete a short or long rest:
This ISNT focused on damage. This is focused on FLEXIBILITY. Damage when needed, Defense when needed and attacks from hard to reach distances and areas when needed. Your take isn't hot, its simply wrong.
Monks DONT do anything besides hit things in combat, the extra mobility is used to get in to hit in combat. Especially not compared to the fighter.
But hey lets do Paladin instead. (Barbarian is considered weak at level 11+ as well monk matching a bad class doesn't make monk a good class, it makes both bad classes bad).
So Paladin Polearm master + ASI. 19 AC with Defense fighting style (still flexible to change to one hander as well if it wants). 21-63 (no smite used, and no Mastery), With a one hander and shield for defense it is 14-42 (no Smite, no mastery). If you want to talk mobility, say hello to phantom steed. Flexibility, say hello to spells.
We use the fighter because we are trying to be fair and not comparing it to classes that have spells.
Also Monks DO NOT get feats. They use ASI to keep up with their Wisdom and Dex because they need both for AC and for their to hit and their DC for their only 1 possible thing they have. IN ADDITION, there are 0 feats that are good for monks in general.
Monk Feats are ASI at level 4 to take Dex to 18, ASI at level 8 to take Dex to 20, ASI at level 12 to take Wis to 18, ASI at level 16 to take wis to 20 and ASI at level 19 to take Dex to 22. they have 0 room For feats and the only combat feat they even qualify for is grappler the rest require proficiencies that the monk lacks
Edit: If you add in subclasses with fighter, because you seem to assume that the subclass does nothing, you have battle master that adds battle manuevers, eldritch knight that adds spell casting, you have psionics that allow double movement speed flying and moving objects with their mind. If we want to talk BASE Fighter NO subclass we still add all the new stuff with tactical mind... AND MOST IMPORTANTLY Tactical Shift You get health back AND get to disengage at half speed, so you can use your bonus action to move 15 feet no Opportunity attack and then move 30 more feet. So the idea that "fighter has no mobility" is just wrong.
In 90% or more of combats Monks movement doesn’t help. Their Saving throws doesn’t come online until 14th level. Monks get maybe 1 feat but they do need to focus on getting their dex and Wis up so they can actually use their class and subclass features effectively.
Im pretty sure their example showed that fighters have better defense as well.
Monks don’t have support options. They have a support option in the main class, but if you don’t get your wisdom up it probably won’t stun anything. Shadow had good support with silence and Pass Without Trace, but that’s gone moving forward. JC said UA6 Shadow was good enough and won’t see playtest again. I guess Mercy is a support Monk.
The reason it’s Fighter that Monk gets compared to is that WotC had them in the same group. You definitely don’t want Monk compared to other classes it will be left in the dust. Especially if you are comparing it to these UA versions. Monk is bad. What I find funny is this repeatedly talk about YouTubers. I honestly don’t know what or who you are talking about. I say Monk is bad from my own experience. Monk has been bad since before YouTube was a thing.
Nobody wants monks Unarmed Strikes anymore. There is a fighting style for that. Some people just know Monks unarmored defense isn’t good. It’s trash for a melee focused class with limited mobility.
The disengage that works on one enemy is to help unarmored defense not be trash and give monks an option that doesn’t cost from their shared resource pool. Also who said the monk has too many options. Surely not me considering I want them to have a lot more options.
Attack reroll is just an option, aren’t you the one arguing that people don’t have to spend there resources every turn.
There are actually a few things that refund you a resource if they don’t work, but you play this game and already know that.
Again the half damage is an option you don’t have to use it, but it’s nice to have options that help you survive in combat with low AC.
Again it’s an option to turn invisible. Using your reaction is up to you.
You play a monk right? You do realize they can only walk across the surface while moving. If they stop they sink or fall. So it’s not unlimited. It’s brought down to a level were it matters. You could move it to 5th or sixth, but there is no room for it design wise.
Disciplined striker was made up on the fly to replace the system I would use which was a bunch of condition strikes given throughout the career of the monk, so it wasn’t just stunning strike, but that is something I didn’t see WoTC changing so I moved some stuff around to make it work. Also this is a dice rolling game, swingy can be fun.
Wait, you claimed that everyone just wants more damage than the fighter. I don’t. You also claimed that everyone wants to be able to do everything for free all at once. I don’t. I present changes that I believe improve the class and your only thought is that people want exploit something from Monk. I will say it again. Monk is bad.
People were asking to do more with their reactions, so I designed something for people to do with their reactions. People want a monk with better AC, so I gave them an option to avoid unarmored defense and wear armor. But if you notice in my build wearing armor still cuts you off from some of the monk options and I improved unarmored defense and gave a free disengage against one creature for players who use the skirmisher play style. You technically should have been happy with these changes since they wouldn’t affect your play style. I can’t wait to read how you would fix the monk which you claim is fine. Hmmm, how do you fix that which isn’t broken?
The problem isn't the lack of Stunning Strike spam, it's the lack of anything to replace it with. Stunning Strike is the main way that the 5e Monk continues to scale up into tiers 3 and 4, but it's inflexible and unreliable. While Stunning Strike landing at a crucial moment can turn certain defeat into an unexpected victory, and that can feel great, most of the time it's either triggering too much and making fights trivial, or it won't trigger at all and becomes a way to just run out of Ki real fast and feel useless.
Nerfing Stunning Strike is long overdue, but it needs a replacement so that Monks can continue to scale properly; and we've wanted more options for a long time because Stunning Strike is only reliable against some enemies some of the time, and most monks still don't have much they can do the rest of the time except Flurry of Blows (which is boring).
Part of the problem is also that they've boxed themselves into the stunned condition; I expect most people would be just as happy with a lesser condition that can be applied more reliably, e.g- disadvantage to attack anyone but me, or disadvantage on next attack etc. (maybe stackable in the latter case, so I could maybe put disadvantage on multiple attacks with a good turn), or different conditions that target different saving throws (like literally every caster can). Stunned should be higher level and maybe something you can setup somehow, so it's more of a third round finisher than (potentially) ending a fight on the first try.
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.
TBH I hope it's everything. Disciple Points are wholely unnecessary for the 5eR Monk since absolutely everything it can do is limited by the action economy and even if they do use everything they have every turn they just barely keep up with other martials. So DP are just making Monks SR depending and making them track stuff for no good reason.
Yes but also No. If you burn all your ki to do Stunning Strike on every single attack then it has roughly the same chance at sticking as a Sorcerer using Heightened Spell because each attempt at Stunning on your turn requires a successful attack roll and a failure against your DC and these use different ability scores, so if you increase on the other lags behind, so you can have a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance for the enemy to fail the save (= 0.25% to stun per attack), or you can have a 65% chance to hit and as 40% chance for the enemy to fail the save (=26% chance to stun per attack). If you are targeting the biggest threat on the battlefield then they will either have higher than average AC or higher than average CON save so add a 10% penalty to at least one of those numbers.
That said, Stunning Strike is bad for the class in general, it is so much better than absolutely everything else the monk can do that it takes away from everything else - the rest of the class might as well not exist because the only thing worth doing is stunning strike.
I agree the change to stunning strike was needed. At one point I had considered maybe it could be Stun on failed save, Dazed on success because that idea was introduced in the first Paladin UA (Abjure Foes, I believe). But that was probably too much. And I had also thought that maybe Stun should be replaced by Dazed at level 5 and maybe upgrading to Stun at a later level.
I don’t think they will go back to no limit on Stunning Strike. I could see them getting rid of the DP cost and making it an “X times per Long Rest” (still once per turn).
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
they aren't talking about stunning strike, they were basically referencing wholeness of body. He elaborated to describe it as per day type features.
and most people talking about the flaws of UA6 monk aren't demanding stunning strikes return. Their beef is monk was already bad, and almost nothing they did in UA improved monk base class. Experienced monk players already rarely spammed stunning strike, Its actually extremely overated as an option. If you spend 4 ki to stop one turn of one enemy, you gave up 4 attacks worth of damage, and other options. There are situations where its worth it, but those are few, because the zero Ki monk is a waste of space.
the feedback results are rarely going to give a class design, usually because they haven't commited to a design. You are thinking of the playtest release discussions. And he couldn't just talk about every thing because the monk has a bunch of issues, and frankly he didn't seem to be very interested in talking about the monk or its problems. Compared with druid where he talked about the juxtoposition and design intent, he spent like 2-3 minutes on monk and was intentionally vague.
its not bad from a ki standpoint, but its not my preferred solution, because it (probably)makes all monks a stun bot, with limits on what else it does with that basis. Ideally stun should be an option, not the baseline.
If however, it just becomes an on hit effect with no power budget alloted for it, thats ok, but I doubt they would do that.
Also, I think there is zero probability they will remove all Ki from actions or vice versa. What they might do, if they really want to change action/ki overlap, is have a baseline use, and a ki version use. So for stunning strike, for example, that might be stunning strike, once per turn you can attempt daze(or other stun like effect, free), or you can spend Ki to attempt to stun. That would strictly speaking, not have the ki being the usage/action limit. The ki would just upgrade the feature.
who knows, but I don't really like stun bot as monks only real value or gameplay option
fighter has strong ranged options, second wind, indomitable for saving throws, tactical mind for skills, tactical shift for movement, superior weapon mastery for versatility.
What exactly are these support options you are claiming monk has?
Stun doesn't just stop the enemy, it gives everyone in your party advantage on attacks against them. 4 ki to pull off 1 stun is better than 4 ki for 4 attacks in almost every case:
5e Monk:
You DPR: advantage increases your chance to hit on your next turn by 0.23, which you can combine with FoB for 0.23*(4/3) = 31% increase in your DPR, plus 23% increase in DPR for everyone that uses attacks in your party, which works out to 2 whole attacks worth of damage (assuming at 1 other attack-based character in the party). Plus you reduce damage done by that enemy by 100%.
Essentially, monks can usually spend ~1 ki per round, if 1 extra attack is likely to kill your target you should use it for FoB otherwise you should use it for Stunning Strike.
Yup. Agree with most of Aquilontune's post. Only big difference is that I do think Mobile is a great feat for Monks in general. Maybe it should be baked into the base class at level 5?
And to mention that Psi Fighter is basically the devs giving up on making a better Monk base class, so put Monk features onto a Fighter subclass instead. Unsurprisingly, they prioritize the enjoyment of Fighter fanbase before the fun of Monk fanbase. And now with their rollout of OneDnD, they are about to repeat the pattern by giving even more flexibility to the Fighter while wringing their hands about "backward compatability" with the Monk base class so they're afraid of making any big changes to what is quantitatively the weaker class (outside of a few niche situations). What a joke.