I like the folks who think people who actually point out subclass features that contradict their arguments are too stupid to go look up the subclasses when they proceed to lie about them.
And that's what your problem is at the end of the day. You cannot make a single argument for Monks being bad without lying, and in this case you want to lie directly to the people who made the game as if they are too stupid to know how the game they made works.
You are free to think what you want, but it does not seem appropriate to insult the opinions of others just because they think differently from you. I find that very childish and disgraceful. Please moderation and some maturity.
I like the folks who think people who actually point out subclass features that contradict their arguments are too stupid to go look up the subclasses when they proceed to lie about them.
And that's what your problem is at the end of the day. You cannot make a single argument for Monks being bad without lying, and in this case you want to lie directly to the people who made the game as if they are too stupid to know how the game they made works.
Level 11 monk subclasses in the majority do not provide DPR increases. The 4 that do provide nearly insignificant ones. You cannot compare two class’ DPR by using different resource expenditure and by fighter using sup-optimal weapons. Fighter has better DPR than monk.
The idea being that it's building on the higher damage die that 5e's FS:Unarmed had, which revised its explanation as "if you aren't wielding any other weapons or a shield". That basically works like the Versatile mechanic: Versatile weapons means you need to have both hands available for this weapon in order to get extra damage, and on average it's going to get you an extra point of damage.
And, by being a "Versatile" weapon, that means the unarmed strikes can utilize Topple and Push as secondary Masteries.
so then Nick isn't moving the bonus unarmed strike out of the bonus action, it's just adding a single point of damage (no dice, no dex/str mod added). then you still have your bonus action for an additional unarmed strike, FoB, etc. well, that hardly seems worth the extra rules... unless one decides to use that Nick strike as a shove (push or prone) instead of just 1hp of damage. ah, now it seems pretty sensible.
for a cherry on the top it could use a feature like a retreat-from or push-away as reaction to creatures that attempt to climb up from prone while within 5ft of the monk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
The idea being that it's building on the higher damage die that 5e's FS:Unarmed had, which revised its explanation as "if you aren't wielding any other weapons or a shield". That basically works like the Versatile mechanic: Versatile weapons means you need to have both hands available for this weapon in order to get extra damage, and on average it's going to get you an extra point of damage.
And, by being a "Versatile" weapon, that means the unarmed strikes can utilize Topple and Push as secondary Masteries.
so then Nick isn't moving the bonus unarmed strike out of the bonus action, it's just adding a single point of damage (no dice, no dex/str mod added).
If a Monk wanted to use Topple or Push instead of Nick, then, your extra attack with a Light Weapon would be your Martial Arts Die (because your Martial Arts Die replaces the damage inflicted by your Unarmed Strikes, replacing what is in the weapon-chart "Damage" column). So, at 3rd level:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1
That +1 may not seem very interesting ... but it's free. All you have to do is have both hands free. But it also there in relation to why you can pick up Push or Topple if you want, which was the ask.
AND ...if you use FoB (RAW or revised as just a single bonus action attack, unrelated to being a light weapon), that attack DOES get your Dex mod as a bonus to the damage roll.
If you don't find Topple or Push to be compelling enough to give up Nick ... then:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + Dex Mod
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
The idea being that it's building on the higher damage die that 5e's FS:Unarmed had, which revised its explanation as "if you aren't wielding any other weapons or a shield". That basically works like the Versatile mechanic: Versatile weapons means you need to have both hands available for this weapon in order to get extra damage, and on average it's going to get you an extra point of damage.
And, by being a "Versatile" weapon, that means the unarmed strikes can utilize Topple and Push as secondary Masteries.
so then Nick isn't moving the bonus unarmed strike out of the bonus action, it's just adding a single point of damage (no dice, no dex/str mod added).
If a Monk wanted to use Topple or Push instead of Nick, then, your extra attack with a Light Weapon would be your Martial Arts Die (because your Martial Arts Die replaces the damage inflicted by your Unarmed Strikes, replacing what is in the weapon-chart "Damage" column). So, at 3rd level:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1
That +1 may not seem very interesting ... but it's free. All you have to do is have both hands free. But it also there in relation to why you can pick up Push or Topple if you want, which was the ask.
AND ...if you use FoB (RAW or revised as just a single bonus action attack, unrelated to being a light weapon), that attack DOES get your Dex mod as a bonus to the damage roll.
If you don't find Topple or Push to be compelling enough to give up Nick ... then:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + Dex Mod
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
Now I am confused. Why the monk would not have the modifier in its secondary attacks? The basic monk can put the dex modifier to the damage of the secondary attack being an unarmed attack. Another strange thing is the fact that you add +1 to the damage when you first say that the damage is replaced by the monk's martial arts die. Oh maybe I misunderstood?
If Monk's Unarmed Strikes do get the Versatile property, how would that interact with the new draw/stow weapons rules? As a reminder, a character can draw or stow 1 weapon with each attack, which does not have to be the weapon used for the attack. So a Monk could draw a quarterstaff, attack with it, stow it before the Unarmed Strike, then make an Unarmed Strike with Versatile. When would a Monk ever attack with the smaller Versatile dice? When grappling is the only time I can think of.
The other issue with Versatile is: Which value is used for the Martial Arts dice?
Other than that, I agree with Unarmed Strikes getting the Versatile property to get access to the Topple/Push Masteries.
The idea being that it's building on the higher damage die that 5e's FS:Unarmed had, which revised its explanation as "if you aren't wielding any other weapons or a shield". That basically works like the Versatile mechanic: Versatile weapons means you need to have both hands available for this weapon in order to get extra damage, and on average it's going to get you an extra point of damage.
And, by being a "Versatile" weapon, that means the unarmed strikes can utilize Topple and Push as secondary Masteries.
so then Nick isn't moving the bonus unarmed strike out of the bonus action, it's just adding a single point of damage (no dice, no dex/str mod added).
If a Monk wanted to use Topple or Push instead of Nick, then, your extra attack with a Light Weapon would be your Martial Arts Die (because your Martial Arts Die replaces the damage inflicted by your Unarmed Strikes, replacing what is in the weapon-chart "Damage" column). So, at 3rd level:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1
That +1 may not seem very interesting ... but it's free. All you have to do is have both hands free. But it also there in relation to why you can pick up Push or Topple if you want, which was the ask.
AND ...if you use FoB (RAW or revised as just a single bonus action attack, unrelated to being a light weapon), that attack DOES get your Dex mod as a bonus to the damage roll.
If you don't find Topple or Push to be compelling enough to give up Nick ... then:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + Dex Mod
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1 Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
Now I am confused. Why the monk would not have the modifier in its secondary attacks? The basic monk can put the dex modifier to the damage of the secondary attack being an unarmed attack.
Because in this case, we're talking about the "Light Weapon" or "Nick" attack, and the LW/Nick attack explicitly says you don't add your Dex modifier to it. If you're doing a different BA attack (or extra Attack action attack) that is _NOT_ the LW/Nick attack, yeah, you'd get that. But the example specifically says it's explaining how it interacts with the attack you get via Light Weapon and Nick.
Another strange thing is the fact that you add +1 to the damage when you first say that the damage is replaced by the monk's martial arts die. Oh maybe I misunderstood?
The +1 from Versatile isn't in the "Damage" column, it's in the Properties column.
Normally, Versatile increases your die size to the next higher die. That doesn't exactly make sense when the base damage die is "1" and not an actual die. But increasing your damage die from d6 to d8, or d8 to d10, or d10 to d12 happens to (as an average) increase the damage by one. So, it's not exactly a +1, but it's, on average, a +1. So that's what I made the Versatile damage be: not a die size increase, but a +1.
If Monk's Unarmed Strikes do get the Versatile property, how would that interact with the new draw/stow weapons rules? As a reminder, a character can draw or stow 1 weapon with each attack, which does not have to be the weapon used for the attack. So a Monk could draw a quarterstaff, attack with it, stow it before the Unarmed Strike, then make an Unarmed Strike with Versatile. When would a Monk ever attack with the smaller Versatile dice? When grappling is the only time I can think of.
That's a good question. I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to noodle on it. Maybe just say that your hands have to be empty for the entirety of your turn in order to get the Versatile benefit.
The other issue with Versatile is: Which value is used for the Martial Arts dice?
Non-Versatile: (Martial Arts Die) + Dex Mod Versatile: (Martial Arts Die) + 1 (for Versatile) + Dex Mod
Other than that, I agree with Unarmed Strikes getting the Versatile property to get access to the Topple/Push Masteries.
But as for ... Yes it has been nerfed, but also with reason. It was too OP, now at least the cost in discipline points and the result (maybe) match and are more balanced. Although the ranged death threat theme no longer works. 10d12 + monk level ( ~65+17=~82) at 17th level is not enough to threaten a barbarian or fighter, maybe a wizard or sorcerer. But definitely not a Balor. So yes a reasonable technique for 3 discipline points, but no longer has the enchantment of before. If you think the saving throw on Constitution is unlikely to work this makes it even more mediocre bringing it down to a (~82/2=~41) damage. Now I don't have in mind how much damage a Berserker can do, but I agree that the design and its use are not as viable as before.
What do you mean "too OP"? It's level 17 FFS! And, it takes at least 2 turns to pull it off, we must take that into account, not just the ki/DP cost. By that point, the players are not expecting a down-to-earth ability, they want world-changing powers, a cataclism-preventing barrier, a demi-god status, a one-hit kill, a reason to stay in the class for so long and to ever pick this subclass.
In 5e, what Open Hand offered at level 3 was simply an extension of your FoB (should have been all unarmed strikes), it was telling the player to keep attacking as much as possible trying to knock a target prone, push it away or seal its reaction (this last one made Mobile not necessary for Open Hand monks). Lvl 6 was somewhat acceptable, and level 11 was really forgettable. Level 17 was a meaningful way of ending things, you either kill your target or it takes moderate damage, granted you could have dealt more damage by just attacking, but the potential for an instakill was really tempting. Players surely didn't pick the subclass for lvls 6 and 11, it was mostly due to lvl 3 and 17, but in this UA, those levels are a complete letdown.
Let's just look at the damage Quivering Palm can deal at level 20 as it was in 5e and as it is in OneDnd(and I never use average, it's always min and max with me):
5e version
On a fail: Target goes to 0 HP, there's no damage involved.
On a success: min: 10 damage MAX: 100 damage
OneDnd version
On a fail: min: 32 damage MAX: 140 damage
On a success: min: 16 damage MAX: 70 damage
Are you telling me that those 40 extra points of damage Quivering Palm can potentially deal now are enough to compensate losing the potential to instakill a target when it's still a CON save? Then, what about the new Power Word Kill? That one doesn't have a save, doesn't need 2 turns to use, and seems appropriate for that level, and there's people that still don't pick it because there are even more powerful spells. How come you considered Quivering Palm OP just because it "only" cost 3 ki points? That's just the most lame excuse WotC could come up with.
Open Hand Technique already needs an immediate rewrite by the mere existence of Weapon Masteries, because it's abilities are not at all special anymore as every martial-weapon user can do the same thing equally well or better than them. Honestly, I would not be sad at all if they just merged Open Hand into the baseline monk and included Kensei in the PHB instead of Open Hand.
As nice as having Open Hand as part of the main class as it would be, I think there's really no chance of that happening, Battlemaster's Maneuvers been requested to be added to the fighter base class (and even all martial classes) several times, just cause of its flexibility. I understand that, but we'll be heading into a loop of subclasses being thrown into the main class, main class not being specialized in any single aspect, creating new subclasses to add specialization, asking those subclasses into the main class, repeat... Also Open Hand was the most basic of all monk subclasses, it didn't change what the player's intuition told was the class strategy, attack and FoB, Open Hand Technique was exactly that (wrongly limited to FoB only instead of all unarmed strikes, but what can we do?); the fact that Wholeness of Body and Tranquility felt as bland as they were reinforced the idea of it being THE basic subclass.
I read a suggestion (in this thread or another, I don't remember) of giving the monk the same thing cleric's got in the UA and warlocks with their Pact Boons, a base class specialization (a secondary subclass, basically), it would be interesting to do such a thing in order to reincorporate monk weapons, something like this:
Monk Weapons: all Simple weapons you are proficient with can use your Martial Arts die for the damage rolls instead of their normal damage. In addition, you can use your Dexterity instead of Strength for the DC of any mastery in your monk weapons.
Tactical Strikes: if you use your Unarmed Strikes to Grapple or Shove a creature, you can use your Dexterity instead of Strength for the DC.
Evasive Build: your unarmored defense is now calculated like this: 10 + Dex/Wis mod (your choice) + half your monk level (rounded up)
Although some people may want all of these present at the same time, making it more like a class customization may fit better.
First part is literally what I would have replied. They greatest damage to open hand technique is the save on addle. Push isn’t really that great for all martials, but is really good on a monk because low AC and mid HP regulates it to a skirmisher. Which I don’t believe they were designed to be. It just is what happened. For most martials push is very situational. Topple is great once they have extra attack, but before extra attack topple is dependent on the rest of the party. If you have ranged attackers and you only have one strike topple is bad. Easy fix for monks is to allow FoB to be a bonus action thing that doesn’t require an attack action first. What I found funny is that is something BG 3 did to make the monk more video game friendly. I think it would help the monk in TTRPG as well. Especially the Hand monk.
The monk weapons thing is too strong because of Nick. Nick breaks monk action economy. They can’t have all those attacks at d6 and d8 in t1. By T2 and T3 it’s probably the Dpr boost the monk actually needs but then it’s a forced option. Taking anything else is vastly nerfing yourself.
Nick with the MA die for the weapon is: 2.2 extra damage at level 1, 3 extra damage at level 5, 3.5 extra damage at level 11, and 4.2 extra damage at level 17. In comparison for a Fighter, Cleave is : 1 extra damage at level 1, 2.8 extra damage at level 5, 5.25 extra damage at level 11, and 7 extra damage at level 20.
Why is Nick OP for Monk, but Cleave is fine for Fighter?
Since FoB is not an ordinary attack, but independent of the attack action, this allows the monk to use NICK by moving the Unarmed Strike Bonus into the action and still use FoB, thus having 4 attacks at 2nd level and 5 attacks at 5th level. Too many for such a low level.
That is why I think FoB should be modified.
NICK doesn't allow you to add your dex modifier to the damage of the extra attack, unless you have the Two-weapon fighting style which Monk does not have access to. It doesn't matter at all how many attacks you're rolling, it matters how much damage they are doing. As I pointed out above Nick + MA weapon die is only better than Cleave in tier 1. At 5th level a Fighter making 2 attacks with Cleave is dealing more damage than a monk is dealing with 5 with Nick. So why isn't Fighter + Cleave OP?
Because cleave require 2 opponents to be useful. Nick is useful in every combat.
But as for ... Yes it has been nerfed, but also with reason. It was too OP, now at least the cost in discipline points and the result (maybe) match and are more balanced. Although the ranged death threat theme no longer works. 10d12 + monk level ( ~65+17=~82) at 17th level is not enough to threaten a barbarian or fighter, maybe a wizard or sorcerer. But definitely not a Balor. So yes a reasonable technique for 3 discipline points, but no longer has the enchantment of before. If you think the saving throw on Constitution is unlikely to work this makes it even more mediocre bringing it down to a (~82/2=~41) damage. Now I don't have in mind how much damage a Berserker can do, but I agree that the design and its use are not as viable as before.
What do you mean "too OP"? It's level 17 FFS! And, it takes at least 2 turns to pull it off, we must take that into account, not just the ki/DP cost. By that point, the players are not expecting a down-to-earth ability, they want world-changing powers, a cataclism-preventing barrier, a demi-god status, a one-hit kill, a reason to stay in the class for so long and to ever pick this subclass.
In 5e, what Open Hand offered at level 3 was simply an extension of your FoB (should have been all unarmed strikes), it was telling the player to keep attacking as much as possible trying to knock a target prone, push it away or seal its reaction (this last one made Mobile not necessary for Open Hand monks). Lvl 6 was somewhat acceptable, and level 11 was really forgettable. Level 17 was a meaningful way of ending things, you either kill your target or it takes moderate damage, granted you could have dealt more damage by just attacking, but the potential for an instakill was really tempting. Players surely didn't pick the subclass for lvls 6 and 11, it was mostly due to lvl 3 and 17, but in this UA, those levels are a complete letdown.
Let's just look at the damage Quivering Palm can deal at level 20 as it was in 5e and as it is in OneDnd(and I never use average, it's always min and max with me):
5e version
On a fail: Target goes to 0 HP, there's no damage involved.
On a success: min: 10 damage MAX: 100 damage
OneDnd version
On a fail: min: 32 damage MAX: 140 damage
On a success: min: 16 damage MAX: 70 damage
Are you telling me that those 40 extra points of damage Quivering Palm can potentially deal now are enough to compensate losing the potential to instakill a target when it's still a CON save? Then, what about the new Power Word Kill? That one doesn't have a save, doesn't need 2 turns to use, and seems appropriate for that level, and there's people that still don't pick it because there are even more powerful spells. How come you considered Quivering Palm OP just because it "only" cost 3 ki points? That's just the most lame excuse WotC could come up with.
Ei, calm your spirit. I understand your reasoning, indeed I did not remember that 2 turns should be wasted to perform the technique. And as I explained, they turned the technique into something that can no longer be used to persuade the enemy to surrender. (level 17= 27-137 / level 20 = 30-140) Honestly I would have preferred that they changed the number of times it can be used more than limiting its power. But remember that there is also an advantage to the change made. It is now Force damage and not necrotic, so its use is wider.
But by the standards of the other subclasses it is definitely strong and that is also by the standards of the game. Even the Power Word Kill spell has its limitations to work.
Then I don't think you can compare a 9th level spell with a recharge of a long rest with 3 ki points that can be easily recharged with a short rest.
But I understand that it was the only 17th level monk technique to be called the pinnacle of martial arts.It is the only subclass with such a powerful technique.
Power Word Kill - 9 enchantment
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Target: One creature you can see within range
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly. If the creature you choose has 100 hit points or fewer, it dies. Otherwise, the spell has no effect.
ONE DND: QUIVERING PALM You gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone’s body. When you hit a creature with an Unarmed Strike, you can spend 3 Discipline Points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your Monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the target must make a Constitution saving throw, taking 10d12 + your Monk level of Force damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
DND 5E: QUIVERING PALM At 17th level, you gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone's body. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 3 ki points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, it is reduced to 0 hit points. If it succeeds, it takes 10d10 necrotic damage. You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can choose to end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
From what I understand, you don't waste 2 turns to use this technique, but a normal unarmed attack that does its normal damage transmits the vibration (no time to calculate), and the next turn up to a maximum of days equal to the monk's level, you can use one action to activate the technique (in which you can still use the bonus action (FoB) or take a vacation, 17-20 days is not a few). So the execution time is one action.
I would prefer the unarmed mastery to be something like topple but that's just me.
In fact that can be done simply modifying the Unarmed Strike, sole or how it combines with Martial Arts feature. But I think the topple WM needs to be revised (created a post about it).
Have though a while and with weapon masters some options open: think about Dagger, Club (Tonfa for MA is want something thematic), Javelin and Dart. Then can create any combination of single or dual weapon, as the MA attack includes the use of a "monk" weapon (let's use this name awaiting the revision and Kensei).
Let's assume when multi-attack is in game: Slow reduces 10' the movement, prone gets half, so a prone and slow have only 10' to move. Then you can try to land all your attacks and shove while only get the foe opportunity attack with disadvantage. When you have enough movement, you can even ignore the shove but on closed spaces where you don't have 25' to get distanced. If you fail both Attack Action attack, seems a good moment to use FoB to have another 2 chances to slow and/or shove instead only 1. If the foe decided to maintain distance, you have the advantage of Deflect Missile, while can throw your already in hand javelin (WM Slow), a 2nd one javelin/dart (with Attack Action can draw one weapon), and maybe throw your off-hand dagger if want, then depending the situation the next round will draw your shortbow, javelin, off-hand dagger, or tonfa (club). With enough movement using dual tonfa seems a good option, so you have all your attacks (including the Bonus Action one/s) to try to deal Slow condition. For this to work, probably the shove option should use the Dex/Acrobatics of the monk, directly or maybe requiring a free hand.
At low level with single attack the options are different, usually looking for Sap against single attack foes, or Nick against multi-attack ones to get that 1d4 extra per turn, your weakness at low level.
This is how the monk usually fights while preserving "ki", adding some other possible features that varies. Probably some people could be disappointed because want to be the unarmed guy for the monk, so these options should be added to MA instead using WM. Well the idea does not differ is something about what it applies.
We have a problem when fighting against multiple foes specially at small places. For this subclass features should work (the Open Hand needs a deep revision), in addition to mobility specially at higher levels when you can reach high or distant places and use ranged attacks from there.
But as for ... Yes it has been nerfed, but also with reason. It was too OP, now at least the cost in discipline points and the result (maybe) match and are more balanced. Although the ranged death threat theme no longer works. 10d12 + monk level ( ~65+17=~82) at 17th level is not enough to threaten a barbarian or fighter, maybe a wizard or sorcerer. But definitely not a Balor. So yes a reasonable technique for 3 discipline points, but no longer has the enchantment of before. If you think the saving throw on Constitution is unlikely to work this makes it even more mediocre bringing it down to a (~82/2=~41) damage. Now I don't have in mind how much damage a Berserker can do, but I agree that the design and its use are not as viable as before.
ONE DND: QUIVERING PALM You gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone’s body. When you hit a creature with an Unarmed Strike, you can spend 3 Discipline Points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your Monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the target must make a Constitution saving throw, taking 10d12 + your Monk level of Force damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
DND 5E: QUIVERING PALM At 17th level, you gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone's body. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 3 ki points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, it is reduced to 0 hit points. If it succeeds, it takes 10d10 necrotic damage. You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can choose to end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
From what I understand, you don't waste 2 turns to use this technique, but a normal unarmed attack that does its normal damage transmits the vibration (no time to calculate), and the next turn up to a maximum of days equal to the monk's level, you can use one action to activate the technique (in which you can still use the bonus action (FoB) or take a vacation, 17-20 days is not a few). So the execution time is one action.
The change to force damage is good, but the damage is just too low, because it's incredibly hard to get this to stick (enemies fail the save). This is 17th level, absolutely every boss you face is going to have Legendary Resistances, and is likely to have +10 or higher constitution save bonus. So it is very likely that an enemy that survives for 2 rounds, is going to save which brings your expected DPR for this technique to 40-43. In comparison, a round of unarmed strikes costing only 1 DP for FoB is dealing 30 DPR even with no magical bonuses at all, If you have Advantage on your attack rolls (e.g. from flanking) then using unarmed strikes and 1 DP for FoB has expected DPR of 40.5....
In other words if you can get Adv on your attacks you are much better off using 2 DP to FoB and Stunning Strike than using Quivering Palm. However, I guess since DP are in abundance at level 17, you might as well use FoB + Stunning Strike + Quivering Palm all at the same time, so if next round you can't get into a situation where you can hit with you unarmed strikes you can use your QP to maintain steady DPR.
Even if we assume that the enemy doesn't have Legendary Resistances, and they have a low-ish Con save so they have an ordinary chance to fail (50% fail probability), then the new Quivering Palm has expected DPR of 62-64, while the average DPR of a Beserker Barbarian using a Halberd with no magical bonuses with PAM + GWM is 64-66.
ETA: Quivering Palm could be fixed relatively easily though, simply by getting rid of the saving throw (come on WotC why does everything a monk do give enemies a save?) and instead make it guaranteed 10d12+17 damage, maybe also throw in a "this damage cannot be reduced in any way" clause as well just to make it stay decent when WotC inevitably adds monsters that are resistant / immune to force damage.
The change to force damage is good, but the damage is just too low, because it's incredibly hard to get this to stick (enemies fail the save). This is 17th level, absolutely every boss you face is going to have Legendary Resistances, and is likely to have +10 or higher constitution save bonus. So it is very likely that an enemy that survives for 2 rounds, is going to save which brings your expected DPR for this technique to 40-43. In comparison, a round of unarmed strikes costing only 1 DP for FoB is dealing 30 DPR even with no magical bonuses at all, If you have Advantage on your attack rolls (e.g. from flanking) then using unarmed strikes and 1 DP for FoB has expected DPR of 40.5....
While I'm not opposed to it being made a bit stronger, what I will say is that comparing it to just dealing damage doesn't really do it justice.
The biggest benefit of Quivering Palm is that it has effectively unlimited range, and other than the 3 Ki costs nothing else to set up (it's in addition to your normal attacks, not instead of, only triggering it costs the action). This makes it a very good thing to put on an enemy you think might be a (perhaps literal) flight risk, as you can simply burst its heart before it can get far. You can also potentially use it to take someone out without anyone realising how, e.g- bump into them in passing, then a few days later they simply die. You can also use it as a threat, i.e- "You don't realise it yet, but I've already killed you. Now here's what you're going to do if you want to live…" (or maybe have the Bard do it since Monks don't usually have great Charisma).
In terms of balance what you really need to be comparing it to is Stunning Strike, but that's extremely tricky; when it lands, an enemy being stunned can be a huge boost in damage because it's not just you, it's every ally that can take advantage. It can easily eclipse even the maximum damage of Quivering Palm, and in the example of a fleeing enemy… well, you can't flee if you can't move. On the other hand, it's less predictable; sure, you could spend one Ki and stun on the first try, or you could pour five Ki into it (Flurry of Blows + four attempts) and get nothing. Quivering Palm is at least guaranteed to work unless the target is immune to the damage.
Personally my preferred fixes, given that it's a 17th-level feature, might be something like:
No damage type, it should simply remove hit-points, otherwise you're just begging for it to be wasted if a target is resistance/immune to a specific damage type and the player doesn't know that, which sucks.
It should inflict stunned on a failed save, or slowed on a successful one, in addition to the damage. This way it's more worth sacrificing your entire turn for during combat.
It should grant advantage on Intimidation; any DM worthy of the title should be granting that anyway, just make it explicit for that one guy who won't let you do it.
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.
On one turn you deal regular damage with your attacks and spend 3DP to activate QP on one of your hits. On a subsequent turn you use you action to deliver 10d12+ 17~20 force damage to the target. I don’t understand why people keep saying you waste a turn. You don’t. There is no waste to the action economy except that you can’t also do FoB on the turn you activate QP, but your average damage for QP is far higher than your Average damage for just attacking and FoB. There is no wasted turn.
On one turn you deal regular damage with your attacks and spend 3DP to activate QP on one of your hits. On a subsequent turn you use you action to deliver 10d12+ 17~20 force damage to the target. I don’t understand why people keep saying you waste a turn. You don’t. There is no waste to the action economy except that you can’t also do FoB on the turn you activate QP, but your average damage for QP is far higher than your Average damage for just attacking and FoB. There is no wasted turn.
Sorry, the term waste was not meant in that sense. My English not my native language. Wasted time is the time used to activate the QP technique...but I think that was clear!
On one turn you deal regular damage with your attacks and spend 3DP to activate QP on one of your hits. On a subsequent turn you use you action to deliver 10d12+ 17~20 force damage to the target. I don’t understand why people keep saying you waste a turn. You don’t. There is no waste to the action economy except that you can’t also do FoB on the turn you activate QP, but your average damage for QP is far higher than your Average damage for just attacking and FoB. There is no wasted turn.
If QP reliably did damage higher than just attacking this would be true, but it doesn't. If you have advantage on your attacks (pretty easy to achieve) and the enemy has Legendary Resistance or Magic Resistance (very likely in tier 4 play) then you'd be better off just attacking and FoB since you'd get equal damage to QP and you can attempt to stunning strike - which is still the most powerful thing a monk can do [not including the likely case that you have magic items that boost your unarmed strike damage]. If they simply made QP damage irresistible - no immunity, no resistance, no saving throw - then QP would be a fine feature. 3 DP and a full action for unlimited range and 50% increase in damage over attacking and FoB, and it would give it back the RP utility of "you don't know it but you're already dead" since there would be far less variability is its damage output. Whereas right now, you can say "you don't know it but you're already dead" then the target pulls out a potion of Force Resistance and spits in your face "I'd like to see you try.", makes their save and takes only 20 damage...
On one turn you deal regular damage with your attacks and spend 3DP to activate QP on one of your hits. On a subsequent turn you use you action to deliver 10d12+ 17~20 force damage to the target. I don’t understand why people keep saying you waste a turn. You don’t. There is no waste to the action economy except that you can’t also do FoB on the turn you activate QP, but your average damage for QP is far higher than your Average damage for just attacking and FoB. There is no wasted turn.
If QP reliably did damage higher than just attacking this would be true, but it doesn't. If you have advantage on your attacks (pretty easy to achieve) and the enemy has Legendary Resistance or Magic Resistance (very likely in tier 4 play) then you'd be better off just attacking and FoB since you'd get equal damage to QP and you can attempt to stunning strike - which is still the most powerful thing a monk can do [not including the likely case that you have magic items that boost your unarmed strike damage]. If they simply made QP damage irresistible - no immunity, no resistance, no saving throw - then QP would be a fine feature. 3 DP and a full action for unlimited range and 50% increase in damage over attacking and FoB, and it would give it back the RP utility of "you don't know it but you're already dead" since there would be far less variability is its damage output. Whereas right now, you can say "you don't know it but you're already dead" then the target pulls out a potion of Force Resistance and spits in your face "I'd like to see you try.", makes their save and takes only 20 damage...
As already explained, this feature is a way to force the enemy to surrender and not to be Kenshiro and say that famous phrase "You are already dead!" The Open Hand style monk "should" (then it is the player's choice), but at least it is designed with the goal of not wanting to kill unless absolutely necessary.
But since 80 % of the people like to slaughter and explode enemies the author's design is a bit wasted.
These are details that can help in the character's RPG and give hints of the character's psychological behavior (not very important, but we still respect the author's idea).
Making the high tier monsters to use one of their legendary resistances is a good thing by itself. Once used, they are target for more QP, spells, and other things.
if it were me, I would make the creature waste its legendary resistances with stunning strikes and when it has no more legendary resistances I would go with QP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are free to think what you want, but it does not seem appropriate to insult the opinions of others just because they think differently from you. I find that very childish and disgraceful. Please moderation and some maturity.
Level 11 monk subclasses in the majority do not provide DPR increases. The 4 that do provide nearly insignificant ones. You cannot compare two class’ DPR by using different resource expenditure and by fighter using sup-optimal weapons. Fighter has better DPR than monk.
Where’s the lie?
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
so then Nick isn't moving the bonus unarmed strike out of the bonus action, it's just adding a single point of damage (no dice, no dex/str mod added). then you still have your bonus action for an additional unarmed strike, FoB, etc. well, that hardly seems worth the extra rules... unless one decides to use that Nick strike as a shove (push or prone) instead of just 1hp of damage. ah, now it seems pretty sensible.
for a cherry on the top it could use a feature like a retreat-from or push-away as reaction to creatures that attempt to climb up from prone while within 5ft of the monk.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
If a Monk wanted to use Topple or Push instead of Nick, then, your extra attack with a Light Weapon would be your Martial Arts Die (because your Martial Arts Die replaces the damage inflicted by your Unarmed Strikes, replacing what is in the weapon-chart "Damage" column). So, at 3rd level:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod
bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
bonus action attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1
That +1 may not seem very interesting ... but it's free. All you have to do is have both hands free. But it also there in relation to why you can pick up Push or Topple if you want, which was the ask.
AND ...if you use FoB (RAW or revised as just a single bonus action attack, unrelated to being a light weapon), that attack DOES get your Dex mod as a bonus to the damage roll.
If you don't find Topple or Push to be compelling enough to give up Nick ... then:
main attack, with something in your other hand: 1d6 + Dex Mod
Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6
Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + Dex Mod
main attack, nothing held in any of your hands: 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
Nick attack, via Unarmed Strikes being a Light Weapon: 1d6 + 1
Possible Bonus Action Attack (or each FoB, etc.): 1d6 + 1 + Dex Mod
Now I am confused. Why the monk would not have the modifier in its secondary attacks? The basic monk can put the dex modifier to the damage of the secondary attack being an unarmed attack. Another strange thing is the fact that you add +1 to the damage when you first say that the damage is replaced by the monk's martial arts die. Oh maybe I misunderstood?
If Monk's Unarmed Strikes do get the Versatile property, how would that interact with the new draw/stow weapons rules? As a reminder, a character can draw or stow 1 weapon with each attack, which does not have to be the weapon used for the attack. So a Monk could draw a quarterstaff, attack with it, stow it before the Unarmed Strike, then make an Unarmed Strike with Versatile. When would a Monk ever attack with the smaller Versatile dice? When grappling is the only time I can think of.
The other issue with Versatile is: Which value is used for the Martial Arts dice?
Other than that, I agree with Unarmed Strikes getting the Versatile property to get access to the Topple/Push Masteries.
Because in this case, we're talking about the "Light Weapon" or "Nick" attack, and the LW/Nick attack explicitly says you don't add your Dex modifier to it. If you're doing a different BA attack (or extra Attack action attack) that is _NOT_ the LW/Nick attack, yeah, you'd get that. But the example specifically says it's explaining how it interacts with the attack you get via Light Weapon and Nick.
The +1 from Versatile isn't in the "Damage" column, it's in the Properties column.
Normally, Versatile increases your die size to the next higher die. That doesn't exactly make sense when the base damage die is "1" and not an actual die. But increasing your damage die from d6 to d8, or d8 to d10, or d10 to d12 happens to (as an average) increase the damage by one. So, it's not exactly a +1, but it's, on average, a +1. So that's what I made the Versatile damage be: not a die size increase, but a +1.
That's a good question. I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to noodle on it. Maybe just say that your hands have to be empty for the entirety of your turn in order to get the Versatile benefit.
Non-Versatile: (Martial Arts Die) + Dex Mod
Versatile: (Martial Arts Die) + 1 (for Versatile) + Dex Mod
What do you mean "too OP"? It's level 17 FFS! And, it takes at least 2 turns to pull it off, we must take that into account, not just the ki/DP cost. By that point, the players are not expecting a down-to-earth ability, they want world-changing powers, a cataclism-preventing barrier, a demi-god status, a one-hit kill, a reason to stay in the class for so long and to ever pick this subclass.
In 5e, what Open Hand offered at level 3 was simply an extension of your FoB (should have been all unarmed strikes), it was telling the player to keep attacking as much as possible trying to knock a target prone, push it away or seal its reaction (this last one made Mobile not necessary for Open Hand monks). Lvl 6 was somewhat acceptable, and level 11 was really forgettable. Level 17 was a meaningful way of ending things, you either kill your target or it takes moderate damage, granted you could have dealt more damage by just attacking, but the potential for an instakill was really tempting. Players surely didn't pick the subclass for lvls 6 and 11, it was mostly due to lvl 3 and 17, but in this UA, those levels are a complete letdown.
Let's just look at the damage Quivering Palm can deal at level 20 as it was in 5e and as it is in OneDnd(and I never use average, it's always min and max with me):
Are you telling me that those 40 extra points of damage Quivering Palm can potentially deal now are enough to compensate losing the potential to instakill a target when it's still a CON save? Then, what about the new Power Word Kill? That one doesn't have a save, doesn't need 2 turns to use, and seems appropriate for that level, and there's people that still don't pick it because there are even more powerful spells. How come you considered Quivering Palm OP just because it "only" cost 3 ki points? That's just the most lame excuse WotC could come up with.
Because cleave require 2 opponents to be useful. Nick is useful in every combat.
Ei, calm your spirit.
I understand your reasoning, indeed I did not remember that 2 turns should be wasted to perform the technique. And as I explained, they turned the technique into something that can no longer be used to persuade the enemy to surrender. (level 17= 27-137 / level 20 = 30-140) Honestly I would have preferred that they changed the number of times it can be used more than limiting its power. But remember that there is also an advantage to the change made. It is now Force damage and not necrotic, so its use is wider.But by the standards of the other subclasses it is definitely strong and that is also by the standards of the game. Even the Power Word Kill spell has its limitations to work.
Then I don't think you can compare a 9th level spell with a recharge of a long rest with 3 ki points that can be easily recharged with a short rest.
But I understand that it was the only 17th level monk technique to be called the pinnacle of martial arts.It is the only subclass with such a powerful technique.
Power Word Kill - 9 enchantment
You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly. If the creature you choose has 100 hit points or fewer, it dies. Otherwise, the spell has no effect.
ONE DND: QUIVERING PALM You gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone’s body. When you hit a creature with an Unarmed Strike, you can spend 3 Discipline Points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your Monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the target must make a Constitution saving throw, taking 10d12 + your Monk level of Force damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
DND 5E: QUIVERING PALM At 17th level, you gain the ability to set up lethal vibrations in someone's body. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 3 ki points to start these imperceptible vibrations, which last for a number of days equal to your monk level. The vibrations are harmless unless you use your action to end them. To do so, you and the target must be on the same plane of existence. When you use this action, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, it is reduced to 0 hit points. If it succeeds, it takes 10d10 necrotic damage.
You can have only one creature under the effect of this feature at a time. You can choose to end the vibrations harmlessly without using an action.
From what I understand, you don't waste 2 turns to use this technique, but a normal unarmed attack that does its normal damage transmits the vibration (no time to calculate), and the next turn up to a maximum of days equal to the monk's level, you can use one action to activate the technique (in which you can still use the bonus action (FoB) or take a vacation, 17-20 days is not a few). So the execution time is one action.
In fact that can be done simply modifying the Unarmed Strike, sole or how it combines with Martial Arts feature. But I think the topple WM needs to be revised (created a post about it).
Have though a while and with weapon masters some options open: think about Dagger, Club (Tonfa for MA is want something thematic), Javelin and Dart. Then can create any combination of single or dual weapon, as the MA attack includes the use of a "monk" weapon (let's use this name awaiting the revision and Kensei).
Let's assume when multi-attack is in game: Slow reduces 10' the movement, prone gets half, so a prone and slow have only 10' to move. Then you can try to land all your attacks and shove while only get the foe opportunity attack with disadvantage. When you have enough movement, you can even ignore the shove but on closed spaces where you don't have 25' to get distanced. If you fail both Attack Action attack, seems a good moment to use FoB to have another 2 chances to slow and/or shove instead only 1. If the foe decided to maintain distance, you have the advantage of Deflect Missile, while can throw your already in hand javelin (WM Slow), a 2nd one javelin/dart (with Attack Action can draw one weapon), and maybe throw your off-hand dagger if want, then depending the situation the next round will draw your shortbow, javelin, off-hand dagger, or tonfa (club). With enough movement using dual tonfa seems a good option, so you have all your attacks (including the Bonus Action one/s) to try to deal Slow condition. For this to work, probably the shove option should use the Dex/Acrobatics of the monk, directly or maybe requiring a free hand.
At low level with single attack the options are different, usually looking for Sap against single attack foes, or Nick against multi-attack ones to get that 1d4 extra per turn, your weakness at low level.
This is how the monk usually fights while preserving "ki", adding some other possible features that varies. Probably some people could be disappointed because want to be the unarmed guy for the monk, so these options should be added to MA instead using WM. Well the idea does not differ is something about what it applies.
We have a problem when fighting against multiple foes specially at small places. For this subclass features should work (the Open Hand needs a deep revision), in addition to mobility specially at higher levels when you can reach high or distant places and use ranged attacks from there.
The change to force damage is good, but the damage is just too low, because it's incredibly hard to get this to stick (enemies fail the save). This is 17th level, absolutely every boss you face is going to have Legendary Resistances, and is likely to have +10 or higher constitution save bonus. So it is very likely that an enemy that survives for 2 rounds, is going to save which brings your expected DPR for this technique to 40-43. In comparison, a round of unarmed strikes costing only 1 DP for FoB is dealing 30 DPR even with no magical bonuses at all, If you have Advantage on your attack rolls (e.g. from flanking) then using unarmed strikes and 1 DP for FoB has expected DPR of 40.5....
In other words if you can get Adv on your attacks you are much better off using 2 DP to FoB and Stunning Strike than using Quivering Palm. However, I guess since DP are in abundance at level 17, you might as well use FoB + Stunning Strike + Quivering Palm all at the same time, so if next round you can't get into a situation where you can hit with you unarmed strikes you can use your QP to maintain steady DPR.
Even if we assume that the enemy doesn't have Legendary Resistances, and they have a low-ish Con save so they have an ordinary chance to fail (50% fail probability), then the new Quivering Palm has expected DPR of 62-64, while the average DPR of a Beserker Barbarian using a Halberd with no magical bonuses with PAM + GWM is 64-66.
ETA: Quivering Palm could be fixed relatively easily though, simply by getting rid of the saving throw (come on WotC why does everything a monk do give enemies a save?) and instead make it guaranteed 10d12+17 damage, maybe also throw in a "this damage cannot be reduced in any way" clause as well just to make it stay decent when WotC inevitably adds monsters that are resistant / immune to force damage.
While I'm not opposed to it being made a bit stronger, what I will say is that comparing it to just dealing damage doesn't really do it justice.
The biggest benefit of Quivering Palm is that it has effectively unlimited range, and other than the 3 Ki costs nothing else to set up (it's in addition to your normal attacks, not instead of, only triggering it costs the action). This makes it a very good thing to put on an enemy you think might be a (perhaps literal) flight risk, as you can simply burst its heart before it can get far. You can also potentially use it to take someone out without anyone realising how, e.g- bump into them in passing, then a few days later they simply die. You can also use it as a threat, i.e- "You don't realise it yet, but I've already killed you. Now here's what you're going to do if you want to live…" (or maybe have the Bard do it since Monks don't usually have great Charisma).
In terms of balance what you really need to be comparing it to is Stunning Strike, but that's extremely tricky; when it lands, an enemy being stunned can be a huge boost in damage because it's not just you, it's every ally that can take advantage. It can easily eclipse even the maximum damage of Quivering Palm, and in the example of a fleeing enemy… well, you can't flee if you can't move. On the other hand, it's less predictable; sure, you could spend one Ki and stun on the first try, or you could pour five Ki into it (Flurry of Blows + four attempts) and get nothing. Quivering Palm is at least guaranteed to work unless the target is immune to the damage.
Personally my preferred fixes, given that it's a 17th-level feature, might be something like:
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.
On one turn you deal regular damage with your attacks and spend 3DP to activate QP on one of your hits. On a subsequent turn you use you action to deliver 10d12+ 17~20 force damage to the target. I don’t understand why people keep saying you waste a turn. You don’t. There is no waste to the action economy except that you can’t also do FoB on the turn you activate QP, but your average damage for QP is far higher than your Average damage for just attacking and FoB. There is no wasted turn.
Sorry, the term waste was not meant in that sense. My English not my native language. Wasted time is the time used to activate the QP technique...but I think that was clear!
If QP reliably did damage higher than just attacking this would be true, but it doesn't. If you have advantage on your attacks (pretty easy to achieve) and the enemy has Legendary Resistance or Magic Resistance (very likely in tier 4 play) then you'd be better off just attacking and FoB since you'd get equal damage to QP and you can attempt to stunning strike - which is still the most powerful thing a monk can do [not including the likely case that you have magic items that boost your unarmed strike damage]. If they simply made QP damage irresistible - no immunity, no resistance, no saving throw - then QP would be a fine feature. 3 DP and a full action for unlimited range and 50% increase in damage over attacking and FoB, and it would give it back the RP utility of "you don't know it but you're already dead" since there would be far less variability is its damage output. Whereas right now, you can say "you don't know it but you're already dead" then the target pulls out a potion of Force Resistance and spits in your face "I'd like to see you try.", makes their save and takes only 20 damage...
As already explained, this feature is a way to force the enemy to surrender and not to be Kenshiro and say that famous phrase "You are already dead!" The Open Hand style monk "should" (then it is the player's choice), but at least it is designed with the goal of not wanting to kill unless absolutely necessary.
But since 80 % of the people like to slaughter and explode enemies the author's design is a bit wasted.
These are details that can help in the character's RPG and give hints of the character's psychological behavior (not very important, but we still respect the author's idea).
Making the high tier monsters to use one of their legendary resistances is a good thing by itself. Once used, they are target for more QP, spells, and other things.
if it were me, I would make the creature waste its legendary resistances with stunning strikes and when it has no more legendary resistances I would go with QP.