I think it has been WotC's goal for quite a while, what they did with the monk is a clear nerfing for no reason.
But even if they eliminate it, they can't stop the release of homebrew.
They can't eliminate it without upsetting a lot of players though, and with the release of Baldur's Gate 3 it will only confuse people as to why that class is missing from actual D&D; the Monk in Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a first party class given similar attention to the others.
While on paper it looks very similar to Monk as printed, being able to use Bonus Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows regardless of which action you took makes a world of difference, and the game has traversal/positioning as a key mechanic throughout, meanwhile the sub-classes have major improvements WotC really need to integrate into OneD&D, and there is a pretty good range of Monk-specific gear available (armour and weapons usable by other martials is more common, but I've encountered a decent amount of gear for a Monk). All that, and the short rests are very quick, you're just limited to two per day (unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest for a third).
Wizards of the Coast need to just hire whoever implemented the Monk at Larian to do the Monk for OneD&D.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think it has been WotC's goal for quite a while, what they did with the monk is a clear nerfing for no reason.
But even if they eliminate it, they can't stop the release of homebrew.
They can't eliminate it without upsetting a lot of players though, and with the release of Baldur's Gate 3 it will only confuse people as to why that class is missing from actual D&D; the Monk in Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a first party class given similar attention to the others.
While on paper it looks very similar to Monk as printed, being able to use Bonus Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows regardless of which action you took makes a world of difference, and the game has traversal/positioning as a key mechanic throughout, meanwhile the sub-classes have major improvements WotC really need to integrate into OneD&D, and there is a pretty good range of Monk-specific gear available (armour and weapons usable by other martials is more common, but I've encountered a decent amount of gear for a Monk). All that, and the short rests are very quick, you're just limited to two per day (unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest for a third).
Wizards of the Coast need to just hire whoever implemented the Monk at Larian to do the Monk for OneD&D.
Should be noted that BG 3 doesn't go past level 10. So the issues the class has with scaling into t3 and 4 of play didn't need to be addressed by larian.
But there does seem to be problems with the classes design team, at least the one in charge of Monk and its subclasses. When you see Shadow and Elements, you can tell that the team implemented and readjusted the subclass' features to make them have more sinergy (in the case of Shadow), or gave it ACTUAL subclass features by combining its previous abilities with those of other subclasses that also needed rework, giving the subclass a more defining playstyle (in the case of Elements), and all of this without overimposing on the base class resources . But then you look at Hand and there's no trace of those decisions being thrown there, the feature the subclass is named after was mostly untouched (no extra options to mimic masteries, no longer duration, no further scaling beyond that of the base class) except for an out-of-place nerf (Addle's saving throw), two of the other features conflict with your main ability (all require your bonus action) and the last feature doesn't seem to have been written by someone with deep understanding of high level features, but rather by a tester who always makes sure to have creatures autofail any save. Adding weapon masteries to the monk while getting rid of monk weapons, also seem to show lack of direction from the design team (I doubt they actually had the malicious intent of making the class unappealing so that they can eliminate it).
What I mean to say is that there were decisions made with a clear direction in mind for 2 of the 3 subclasses, while Hand's design doesn't seem to have such a thing. I'm not saying that having different teams working on class design is necessarily a bad thing, but clearly there needs to be supervision to avoid such incongruent decisions being made (like allowing Twilight Cleric to be a thing)
Maybe having Larian's team might actually make the decisions they make a little more consistent.
I think it has been WotC's goal for quite a while, what they did with the monk is a clear nerfing for no reason.
But even if they eliminate it, they can't stop the release of homebrew.
They can't eliminate it without upsetting a lot of players though, and with the release of Baldur's Gate 3 it will only confuse people as to why that class is missing from actual D&D; the Monk in Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a first party class given similar attention to the others.
While on paper it looks very similar to Monk as printed, being able to use Bonus Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows regardless of which action you took makes a world of difference, and the game has traversal/positioning as a key mechanic throughout, meanwhile the sub-classes have major improvements WotC really need to integrate into OneD&D, and there is a pretty good range of Monk-specific gear available (armour and weapons usable by other martials is more common, but I've encountered a decent amount of gear for a Monk). All that, and the short rests are very quick, you're just limited to two per day (unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest for a third).
Wizards of the Coast need to just hire whoever implemented the Monk at Larian to do the Monk for OneD&D.
I think the gear in BG3 in general feels very rewarding. For monks in particular, its just really nice to see equipment that interacts with the monks playstyle.
Backwards compatibility will keep the monk in. They’ve changed a lot of the UA’s because of backwards compatibility so eliminating the monk, when they already said the PHB will have 12 classes with 4 subclasses each (48 total), would be too big a move. And I don’t think they would replace it with artificer.
It wouldn't be the first time they go back on their word with this playtest. Like with class groups, namely the Warriors group, the other groups have some sort of 'unique' feature that could be called the group's identity, but Warrior's did not (and that was because of the monk and the lack of direction for the main class), so they eliminated groups along with anything else that could be tied to them (like feats, epic boons, and hypothetical group-specific gear). They could very well say that they changed their minds and now OneDnD won't be backwards compatible anymore and kick the monk out just cause they feel like it.
It wouldn't be the first time they go back on their word with this playtest. Like with class groups, namely the Warriors group, the other groups have some sort of 'unique' feature that could be called the group's identity, but Warrior's did not (and that was because of the monk and the lack of direction for the main class), so they eliminated groups along with anything else that could be tied to them (like feats, epic boons, and hypothetical group-specific gear). They could very well say that they changed their minds and now OneDnD won't be backwards compatible anymore and kick the monk out just cause they feel like it.
They also got rid of that “common feature” when they revised Druid and got rid of Channel Nature. But class “groups” wasn’t really much of a thing outside of organization and restrictions on feats etc. getting rid of groups is a tiny move. Removing an entire class that’s been around since 5E launched would be huge (mis)step
In late 1e and in 2e (at least initially) they moved the Monk out of the core rules and into specific settings. I was actually a little surprised when they brought it back into the core rules for 3e (probably because they made Greyhawk the default setting for 3e, and the Scarlet Brotherhood's role there).
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the Monk moved to the same later-release as the Artificer, or something like that. I like having the class around, and enjoy playing it, but it doesn't need to be one of the PHB classes, IMO.
Oh no I would not be surprised if they got rid of it andthe next time we saw it it was a fighter subclass.
nah, barbarian subclass. finally, an excuse to re-enfranchise the silent majority dex-build barb secret poll voter constituent with a new Long Open Shadow Elemental Mercy of Ascendant Astral Kensei Master barbarian who "rages" with an extreme focus. extreme! finally all those monk bonus actions will drop their ki costs. that's gotta be worth some fraction of approval.
also, improved grappling/throwing rules but only for the new druid sorcerer subclass that lets you turn into a cinematic, wrastlin' owlbear.
... because obviously there's nothing more important than poll numbers.
Should be noted that BG 3 doesn't go past level 10. So the issues the class has with scaling into t3 and 4 of play didn't need to be addressed by larian.
Actually the level cap is 12, but it's not as though Monks don't have any problems prior to tier 3, especially in a campaign that's as generous with magic items as Baldur's Gate 3 is, which is why the gear variety matters so much.
But even across "only" those 12 levels there are multiple improvements, some more subtle than others; for example, Stillness of Mind is automatic (if you start a turn charmed or frightened you use your action to end it before anything else happens), and since you can use your bonus action however you like this means you can still do stuff on that turn.
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.
Should be noted that BG 3 doesn't go past level 10. So the issues the class has with scaling into t3 and 4 of play didn't need to be addressed by larian.
Actually the level cap is 12, but it's not as though Monks don't have any problems prior to tier 3, especially in a campaign that's as generous with magic items as Baldur's Gate 3 is, which is why the gear variety matters so much.
But even across "only" those 12 levels there are multiple improvements, some more subtle than others; for example, Stillness of Mind is automatic (if you start a turn charmed or frightened you use your action to end it before anything else happens), and since you can use your bonus action however you like this means you can still do stuff on that turn.
Fair enough, but still will say that there are less problems for monk in T1 and T2 than at the higher levels because of how they scale(or more how they fail to scale). Still many things were changed in BG 3 that make improvements. Favored enemy and natural explorer on ranger is another great example.
I just hope they properly bring the monk up before release . larian did a better job in bg3 with tavern brawler along with open hands extra damage you can actually do a reasonable amount, more then 5e monk can anyway . monk is still bad out of combat but
in bg3 they made it less so, by allowing monk options in the dialogue. knowing that you are M.A.D and would fail most rolls.
It wouldn't be the first time they go back on their word with this playtest. Like with class groups, namely the Warriors group, the other groups have some sort of 'unique' feature that could be called the group's identity, but Warrior's did not (and that was because of the monk and the lack of direction for the main class), so they eliminated groups along with anything else that could be tied to them (like feats, epic boons, and hypothetical group-specific gear). They could very well say that they changed their minds and now OneDnD won't be backwards compatible anymore and kick the monk out just cause they feel like it.
They also got rid of that “common feature” when they revised Druid and got rid of Channel Nature. But class “groups” wasn’t really much of a thing outside of organization and restrictions on feats etc. getting rid of groups is a tiny move. Removing an entire class that’s been around since 5E launched would be huge (mis)step
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a bad idea, I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if they end up removing the class or doing some other unreasonable changes (maybe removing the MA die because it's too much damage for free and completely overshadows spells).
My hopes when they get the results from this UA6 they realize a few things.
Weapon masteries don’t fix any Monk problems they complicate things more.
Flurry of Blows shouldn’t require attack action before.
Monks need an Defense boost, an ability to actually be a skirmisher, or a DPR boost. Probably two of the three.
Monk weapons need to return even if it doesn’t use MA die for damage. The language is needed for Kensei and other features.
Hand needs help. While the nerf to its capstone was necessary it was a nerf so other features should be improved to ease the pain.
Shadow adds zero to late game dpr. Also pass without a trace should return.
Considering that WotC is really pushing forward Unarmed Strikes as the monk's main focus, weapon masteries are really out of place, especially since they removed monk weapons. It's like they really don't want monks to have damage and "control" at the same time (and the other effects of unarmed strikes don't help because they are based off Strength).
I agree it shouldn't require the Attack action to be done before, but it should still restrict you to only attacking that turn (like they did with the Fighter's Action Surge) or only monk abilities, otherwise it would cause problems with multiclassing. Others suggested using a DP to add 2 unarmed strikes to your attacks for the Attack action, that could work (as a free action seems too much, maybe as a bonus action it could be better).
Hand problem, both Shadow and Elements have ways to go in and out of melee or attack from range, while also not needing such high AC. The only thing left would be a DPR boost, which doesn't really seem so crucial, if anything, they could increase the amount of dice for the MA damage instead of the size (either with d4s or d6s), this would also better differentiate Martial Arts from the Unarmed Fighting Style.
That's a minor problem, but a problem nonetheless. When (or rather IF) Kensei is released, it will probably have monk weapons.
As is, Hand needs a complete rewrite, the same kind Elements got. Also, why was Quivering Palm's nerf necessary? Targetting a Con save and needing at least 2 turns made it balanced. If every DM saw the feature as "use an action to kill a creature", then sure, but it does require set-up and resources, if that's not enough, then just limiting the amount of attempts per rest should suffice, but outright removing that (low probability) potential instakill without a good replacement is hilarious.
Wait, I thought that increasing the chance to hit had an effect on the overall DPR, and Shadow has 3 reliable ways of generating advantage on its own (1 of which is guaranteed advantage), and has unlimited access to FoB (instead of Hand for some reason...). Sure, Elements is better than Shadow when it comes to increasing damage directly, I agree; but Hand is not really in a confortable place when it comes to late game damage (Quivering Palm is not reliable). As for Pass without Trace, I can't say for sure, but maybe WotC wanted Shadow to be focused on the new Darkness? It may also be related to the DP cost, having access to 3 really useful spells (Darkness, Pass without Trace and Silence) from level 3 for only 1 DP might be too good, so cutting the list to just 1 and improving its effects seems like a win (to me at least). If it is really needed, then it could be added in later levels.
It wouldn't be the first time they go back on their word with this playtest. Like with class groups, namely the Warriors group, the other groups have some sort of 'unique' feature that could be called the group's identity, but Warrior's did not (and that was because of the monk and the lack of direction for the main class), so they eliminated groups along with anything else that could be tied to them (like feats, epic boons, and hypothetical group-specific gear). They could very well say that they changed their minds and now OneDnD won't be backwards compatible anymore and kick the monk out just cause they feel like it.
They also got rid of that “common feature” when they revised Druid and got rid of Channel Nature. But class “groups” wasn’t really much of a thing outside of organization and restrictions on feats etc. getting rid of groups is a tiny move. Removing an entire class that’s been around since 5E launched would be huge (mis)step
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a bad idea, I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if they end up removing the class or doing some other unreasonable changes (maybe removing the MA die because it's too much damage for free and completely overshadows spells).
My hopes when they get the results from this UA6 they realize a few things.
Weapon masteries don’t fix any Monk problems they complicate things more.
Flurry of Blows shouldn’t require attack action before.
Monks need an Defense boost, an ability to actually be a skirmisher, or a DPR boost. Probably two of the three.
Monk weapons need to return even if it doesn’t use MA die for damage. The language is needed for Kensei and other features.
Hand needs help. While the nerf to its capstone was necessary it was a nerf so other features should be improved to ease the pain.
Shadow adds zero to late game dpr. Also pass without a trace should return.
Considering that WotC is really pushing forward Unarmed Strikes as the monk's main focus, weapon masteries are really out of place, especially since they removed monk weapons. It's like they really don't want monks to have damage and "control" at the same time (and the other effects of unarmed strikes don't help because they are based off Strength).
I agree it shouldn't require the Attack action to be done before, but it should still restrict you to only attacking that turn (like they did with the Fighter's Action Surge) or only monk abilities, otherwise it would cause problems with multiclassing. Others suggested using a DP to add 2 unarmed strikes to your attacks for the Attack action, that could work (as a free action seems too much, maybe as a bonus action it could be better).
Hand problem, both Shadow and Elements have ways to go in and out of melee or attack from range, while also not needing such high AC. The only thing left would be a DPR boost, which doesn't really seem so crucial, if anything, they could increase the amount of dice for the MA damage instead of the size (either with d4s or d6s), this would also better differentiate Martial Arts from the Unarmed Fighting Style.
That's a minor problem, but a problem nonetheless. When (or rather IF) Kensei is released, it will probably have monk weapons.
As is, Hand needs a complete rewrite, the same kind Elements got. Also, why was Quivering Palm's nerf necessary? Targetting a Con save and needing at least 2 turns made it balanced. If every DM saw the feature as "use an action to kill a creature", then sure, but it does require set-up and resources, if that's not enough, then just limiting the amount of attempts per rest should suffice, but outright removing that (low probability) potential instakill without a good replacement is hilarious.
Wait, I thought that increasing the chance to hit had an effect on the overall DPR, and Shadow has 3 reliable ways of generating advantage on its own (1 of which is guaranteed advantage), and has unlimited access to FoB (instead of Hand for some reason...). Sure, Elements is better than Shadow when it comes to increasing damage directly, I agree; but Hand is not really in a confortable place when it comes to late game damage (Quivering Palm is not reliable). As for Pass without Trace, I can't say for sure, but maybe WotC wanted Shadow to be focused on the new Darkness? It may also be related to the DP cost, having access to 3 really useful spells (Darkness, Pass without Trace and Silence) from level 3 for only 1 DP might be too good, so cutting the list to just 1 and improving its effects seems like a win (to me at least). If it is really needed, then it could be added in later levels.
3. Shadow can’t move out if they moved in with shadow step. I guess if you don’t mind screwing over every player who can’t see in magical darkness you could have that up and teleport in attack and risk an AoO at disadvantage as you leave the threatened area.
4. It’s a big problem for “backwards compatibility” since you’re supposed to use the newest version of things. Using the newest version of Martial Arts makes the Kensei unplayable.
5. Why do people say QP takes two turns? The first turn you are attacking like you normally would. It just takes an action to activate QP. You only give up one turn of attacking and with both the 5e version and the 5eR version you deal more damage activating it than you normally would just attacking. Also the 5e version is broken. It’s cool, but broken. The replacement is fine. The only thing I might add to the replacement is that each hour the damage increases by 1d12, so you could kill a guy 3 days later. Maybe make it so a remove curse cast at 9th level removes it, so there is a way to balance it. But I hit you and next turn you fail one save and die right now is bad design. Cool but bad.
6. Advantage on one attack, or advantage because of darkness won’t add to the dpr in a meaningful manner unless you are calculating that PCs miss more often than actually they do. Also this is being compared to DPR boost such as 5eR QP. Do you think advantage on hits is going to catch them up to even the new QP. As for the new spells the only improvement to darkness is the ability to see in it. You could always move it if you cast it on an object. Stealth was a big part of the class for me and pass without a trace is the best boost to stealth in the game. It’s better than invisibility when it actually comes to the rolls.
3. Shadow can’t move out if they moved in with shadow step. I guess if you don’t mind screwing over every player who can’t see in magical darkness you could have that up and teleport in attack and risk an AoO at disadvantage as you leave the threatened area.
4. It’s a big problem for “backwards compatibility” since you’re supposed to use the newest version of things. Using the newest version of Martial Arts makes the Kensei unplayable.
5. Why do people say QP takes two turns? The first turn you are attacking like you normally would. It just takes an action to activate QP. You only give up one turn of attacking and with both the 5e version and the 5eR version you deal more damage activating it than you normally would just attacking. Also the 5e version is broken. It’s cool, but broken. The replacement is fine. The only thing I might add to the replacement is that each hour the damage increases by 1d12, so you could kill a guy 3 days later. Maybe make it so a remove curse cast at 9th level removes it, so there is a way to balance it. But I hit you and next turn you fail one save and die right now is bad design. Cool but bad.
6. Advantage on one attack, or advantage because of darkness won’t add to the dpr in a meaningful manner unless you are calculating that PCs miss more often than actually they do. Also this is being compared to DPR boost such as 5eR QP. Do you think advantage on hits is going to catch them up to even the new QP. As for the new spells the only improvement to darkness is the ability to see in it. You could always move it if you cast it on an object. Stealth was a big part of the class for me and pass without a trace is the best boost to stealth in the game. It’s better than invisibility when it actually comes to the rolls.
3. Shadow Step does not have to be used exclusively in an aggresive manner, sure, it has more benefit when you move in to attack because it grants advantage on the first attack, but it can also be used to disengage without actually needing to move. Or, once you reach level 11, you can Step in and strike with advantage in the same bonus action and then you can pick to keep attacking, disengage or dodge with your main action (Funny enough, this is the one thing many players asked the monk to be able to do from level 2 once you get your ki/DP features, except Shadow reverse the action/bonus action order and doesn't need a ki/DP to do it). Also the whole 'Darkness screwing over the party' thing, if the DM is making the enemies stay in that Darkness so that the rest of the party can't atack them, then they are just sitting ducks, they still have to find the monk if they want to attack (possibly trigerring AoO themselves), that's a perception check they need to make (that uses an action BTW), and even if they do succeed, the attack they make is still at disadvantage cause the monk can see them while they can't, or they could leave the Dark area to be at the party's mercy.
4. Oh, yeah, I thought you meant an overall problem for the class gamestyle, but if we are speaking about the class design with backwards compatibility in mind, then, yes, it does need to be adressed, the current version makes Kensei unusable outside a HB fix (which is something the DM shouldn't be burdened with), and it prevents Dedicated Weapon being added as well as making Ki-Fueled Strikes work only with Unarmed Strikes.
5. Because QP requires at least 2 turns to have any effect at all. The feature itself says that the vibration are harmless until you use an action to force the save. During the turn you set those vibrations, they have no effect other than reducing your Ki/DP by 3, the targetted creature won't suffer any additional effects or consequences for that turn coming from QP, if FoB didn't require a previous Attack action, then yes, it would only take 1 turn, but it's written in a way that it will always take at least 2 turns to show any result. Your suggestion might be even more "broken" than the original, you can have those imperceptible (how will the creature even know they have a curse that requires a level 9 spell slot to remove?) vibrations for 17-20 days on a creature, on day 2 they already have 34d12 (24 from the first day and 10 from the base damage)+monk level in damage waiting to fall on them, by day 3 they have 58d12, by day 17 they have 418d12+monk level on their body ready to erupt; even getting all 1s and with a successful save, they'd end up taking 217 damage. That has an incredibly higher chance of instantly killing the target than the original version. The balance from the original came from the fact that it targets CON, arguably the save enemies have the highest success rate along with STR, and you also have to go through any Legendary Resistance the target had.
6. The PC's chance to hit is something a monk does need to keep in mind. We still need to see the full list of magic loot and we don't have any guarantee that items that boost unarmed strikes attack and damage rolls will appear or if there may be more changes added to unarmed strikes. The thing with Darkness is that previously you couldn't see the object you casted it on after the casting, unless you had Blindsight or Devil's Sight (which required feats or multiclassing), also now you don't need extra checks to move it somewhere you couldn't reach, if you casted it on a coin and you wanted to throw the coin to teleport at some unreachable place (within 60 feet) you had to use actions for the corresponding checks, now it can be done for free and with no extra steps (it can even be used to teleport mid-air). Pass without Trace is a good spell, probably better than the original Darkness, if it were included (along with Silence, let's not forget it) it would need to have improvements as well, making it even more abusable than before.
Weapon masteries don’t fix any Monk problems they complicate things more.
Flurry of Blows shouldn’t require attack action before.
Monks need an Defense boost, an ability to actually be a skirmisher, or a DPR boost. Probably two of the three.
Monk weapons need to return even if it doesn’t use MA die for damage. The language is needed for Kensei and other features.
Hand needs help. While the nerf to its capstone was necessary it was a nerf so other features should be improved to ease the pain.
Shadow adds zero to late game dpr. Also pass without a trace should return.
1. Weapon masteries grant ~ 15% increase in DPR. Without them, monk now deals less damage than fighters, barbarians or paladins from level 1-20.
2. The Tasha's optional feature Ki-Fueled attacks should return and apply to both FoB and MA. This is required to prevent FoB being a dippable feature for other classes.
Ki-Fueled Attack
3rd-level monk feature If you spend 1 ki point or more as part of your action on your turn, you can make one attack with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon or use your Flurry of Blows as a bonus action before the end of the turn.
3. Agreed, they need higher DPR to keep up with other martials, giving them Weapon Masteries is one way to help with this, but they also need access to all the combat-oriented feats (e.g. Sentinel, Charger, GWM). They also need their skirmisher ability improved, Hand had one with its removing enemy reactions but that got obliterated in the UA by adding a save, Elements sort of has one with the increase in reach from Elementalist but lots of enemies have reach too so it isn't reliable enough, and Shadow has it via Darkness now but that has issues for your party.
4. The community is too obsessed with language, monk weapons mechanically need to return so that Monk players can better justify using magical weapons, since magical weapons massively impact martial DPR in Tier 3&4 in most games. 5eR is not backwards compatible with player options from 5e and shouldn't be as that puts massive constraints on the new design meaning there will be little reason to buy the updated books.
5. Hand should be removed and replaced with Kensei in the UA. There is no way to save Hand since their 3rd level feature is obsolete because of weapon masteries (every other martial is better at this than open hand monk), their 6th and 11th level features have always sucked, and QP has been nerfed into the ground such that in most situations it is better to Attack and using FoB + Stunning Strike than it is to us QP: If the target fails the Con save then it would have been better to Stunning Strike them because stunning them is usually going to be better than the extra damage from QP (the only time this isn't the case is if the difference in damage for save vs fail kills the target), if the target succeeds the Con save then your attacks often will do more damage than QP. (This is ignoring the not insignificant chance the enemy dies before you can activate QP). Hand requires an entire rewrite now similar to 4 Elements to be anything other than a trap class.
6. Advantage on attacks does significantly increase DPR because the baseline chance to hit is 65% which increases to 88% with advantage (= 23% increase in DPR). That said, Shadow Monk's Shadow Step doesn't increase DPR since you sacrifice a bonus action which could have been used for 1-2 attacks in order to use it. This means in 5e Shadow Monk has the lowest DPR of any monk if you regularly use Shadow Step. 5eR Shadow Monk allows them to use Shadow Step routinely with only a small sacrifice in terms of damage vs using FoB. However, Darkness you can see through gives Shadow Monk a significant boost in DPR as long as their enemies can't see through it, however since Weapon Masteries give all martials many new easy ways to get advantage on their attacks this boost mainly just keeps them on par with other martials.
Also the whole 'Darkness screwing over the party' thing, if the DM is making the enemies stay in that Darkness so that the rest of the party can't atack them, then they are just sitting ducks, they still have to find the monk if they want to attack (possibly trigerring AoO themselves), that's a perception check they need to make (that uses an action BTW), and even if they do succeed, the attack they make is still at disadvantage cause the monk can see them while they can't, or they could leave the Dark area to be at the party's mercy.
That is not how it works RAW. RAW you must take the Hide action for other characters to not know where you are, which would take the Monk's Action to use, and if any enemy can see/find you because of : Devil's Sight, Blindsight, Tremorsense, or Truesight, or by using a Perception check, then they can tell all the enemies where you are without using any actions. Without the Hide action the enemy knows where you are and can attack with disadvantage. OR since in 5eR shoving is based on a save, they could use one attack to Shove you prone without any penalty and then attack you with straight attack rolls.
Secondly, you are assuming the initiative order is as such: Monk Enemy Rest of the party
If that is not the case then if the monk ends their turn with the enemy in the darkness then that darkness will hinder the attacks / actions of all your allies who have a turn prior to the enemy's turn which on average is 1/2 of the party, regardless of what the enemy chooses to do.
We've had years of Warlocks being able to combo Devil's Sight + Darkness and it is only moderately popular among ranged warlocks and hardly used at all by hexblades for exactly the reason of "it messes up your allies actions".
they can tell all the enemies where you are without using any actions. Without the Hide action the enemy knows where you are and can attack with disadvantage.
I would dispute this part; how are they communicating a location in enough detail to be clear with only the six seconds available? You might be able to communicate to one ally "they're to your left" but if you've got a group you've got to address them each unambiguously, and give unambiguous unique directions that they need to then understand. I'd argue some more checks are needed either to communicate clearly, or to understand the instructions.
Even so, it only gives them the general location (the square) they'd still have disadvantage, and that's only countered if the target is also blinded. Actual visibility issues matter so rarely in D&D thanks to everyone and their mum have darkvision or light, so it should matter on the rare occasion it does happen.
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.
they can tell all the enemies where you are without using any actions. Without the Hide action the enemy knows where you are and can attack with disadvantage.
I would dispute this part; how are they communicating a location in enough detail to be clear with only the six seconds available? You might be able to communicate to one ally "they're to your left" but if you've got a group you've got to address them each unambiguously, and give unambiguous unique directions that they need to then understand. I'd argue some more checks are needed either to communicate clearly, or to understand the instructions.
I mean they could just point and shout "They are right there!". Even a dog has no trouble following a pointed finger or even just the direction someone is looking in.
Can put the darkness at the “frontier” with enemy, covering you but not the enemy. The opportunity attack requires to see you, that is not the case if you are in darkness. Also as it cannot see you, you attack with advantage.
You must be able to see the creature to make an opportunity attack.
They can't eliminate it without upsetting a lot of players though, and with the release of Baldur's Gate 3 it will only confuse people as to why that class is missing from actual D&D; the Monk in Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a first party class given similar attention to the others.
While on paper it looks very similar to Monk as printed, being able to use Bonus Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows regardless of which action you took makes a world of difference, and the game has traversal/positioning as a key mechanic throughout, meanwhile the sub-classes have major improvements WotC really need to integrate into OneD&D, and there is a pretty good range of Monk-specific gear available (armour and weapons usable by other martials is more common, but I've encountered a decent amount of gear for a Monk). All that, and the short rests are very quick, you're just limited to two per day (unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest for a third).
Wizards of the Coast need to just hire whoever implemented the Monk at Larian to do the Monk for OneD&D.
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.
Should be noted that BG 3 doesn't go past level 10. So the issues the class has with scaling into t3 and 4 of play didn't need to be addressed by larian.
But there does seem to be problems with the classes design team, at least the one in charge of Monk and its subclasses. When you see Shadow and Elements, you can tell that the team implemented and readjusted the subclass' features to make them have more sinergy (in the case of Shadow), or gave it ACTUAL subclass features by combining its previous abilities with those of other subclasses that also needed rework, giving the subclass a more defining playstyle (in the case of Elements), and all of this without overimposing on the base class resources . But then you look at Hand and there's no trace of those decisions being thrown there, the feature the subclass is named after was mostly untouched (no extra options to mimic masteries, no longer duration, no further scaling beyond that of the base class) except for an out-of-place nerf (Addle's saving throw), two of the other features conflict with your main ability (all require your bonus action) and the last feature doesn't seem to have been written by someone with deep understanding of high level features, but rather by a tester who always makes sure to have creatures autofail any save. Adding weapon masteries to the monk while getting rid of monk weapons, also seem to show lack of direction from the design team (I doubt they actually had the malicious intent of making the class unappealing so that they can eliminate it).
What I mean to say is that there were decisions made with a clear direction in mind for 2 of the 3 subclasses, while Hand's design doesn't seem to have such a thing. I'm not saying that having different teams working on class design is necessarily a bad thing, but clearly there needs to be supervision to avoid such incongruent decisions being made (like allowing Twilight Cleric to be a thing)
Maybe having Larian's team might actually make the decisions they make a little more consistent.
I think the gear in BG3 in general feels very rewarding. For monks in particular, its just really nice to see equipment that interacts with the monks playstyle.
Backwards compatibility will keep the monk in. They’ve changed a lot of the UA’s because of backwards compatibility so eliminating the monk, when they already said the PHB will have 12 classes with 4 subclasses each (48 total), would be too big a move. And I don’t think they would replace it with artificer.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It wouldn't be the first time they go back on their word with this playtest. Like with class groups, namely the Warriors group, the other groups have some sort of 'unique' feature that could be called the group's identity, but Warrior's did not (and that was because of the monk and the lack of direction for the main class), so they eliminated groups along with anything else that could be tied to them (like feats, epic boons, and hypothetical group-specific gear). They could very well say that they changed their minds and now OneDnD won't be backwards compatible anymore and kick the monk out just cause they feel like it.
They also got rid of that “common feature” when they revised Druid and got rid of Channel Nature. But class “groups” wasn’t really much of a thing outside of organization and restrictions on feats etc. getting rid of groups is a tiny move. Removing an entire class that’s been around since 5E launched would be huge (mis)step
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
nah, barbarian subclass. finally, an excuse to re-enfranchise the silent majority dex-build barb secret poll voter constituent with a new Long Open Shadow Elemental Mercy of Ascendant Astral Kensei Master barbarian who "rages" with an extreme focus. extreme! finally all those monk bonus actions will drop their ki costs. that's gotta be worth some fraction of approval.
also, improved grappling/throwing rules but only for the new
druidsorcerer subclass that lets you turn into a cinematic, wrastlin' owlbear.... because obviously there's nothing more important than poll numbers.
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!
My hopes when they get the results from this UA6 they realize a few things.
Actually the level cap is 12, but it's not as though Monks don't have any problems prior to tier 3, especially in a campaign that's as generous with magic items as Baldur's Gate 3 is, which is why the gear variety matters so much.
But even across "only" those 12 levels there are multiple improvements, some more subtle than others; for example, Stillness of Mind is automatic (if you start a turn charmed or frightened you use your action to end it before anything else happens), and since you can use your bonus action however you like this means you can still do stuff on that turn.
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.
Fair enough, but still will say that there are less problems for monk in T1 and T2 than at the higher levels because of how they scale(or more how they fail to scale). Still many things were changed in BG 3 that make improvements. Favored enemy and natural explorer on ranger is another great example.
I just hope they properly bring the monk up before release . larian did a better job in bg3 with tavern brawler along with open hands extra damage you can actually do a reasonable amount, more then 5e monk can anyway . monk is still bad out of combat but
in bg3 they made it less so, by allowing monk options in the dialogue. knowing that you are M.A.D and would fail most rolls.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a bad idea, I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if they end up removing the class or doing some other unreasonable changes (maybe removing the MA die because it's too much damage for free and completely overshadows spells).
3. Shadow can’t move out if they moved in with shadow step. I guess if you don’t mind screwing over every player who can’t see in magical darkness you could have that up and teleport in attack and risk an AoO at disadvantage as you leave the threatened area.
4. It’s a big problem for “backwards compatibility” since you’re supposed to use the newest version of things. Using the newest version of Martial Arts makes the Kensei unplayable.
5. Why do people say QP takes two turns? The first turn you are attacking like you normally would. It just takes an action to activate QP. You only give up one turn of attacking and with both the 5e version and the 5eR version you deal more damage activating it than you normally would just attacking. Also the 5e version is broken. It’s cool, but broken. The replacement is fine. The only thing I might add to the replacement is that each hour the damage increases by 1d12, so you could kill a guy 3 days later. Maybe make it so a remove curse cast at 9th level removes it, so there is a way to balance it. But I hit you and next turn you fail one save and die right now is bad design. Cool but bad.
6. Advantage on one attack, or advantage because of darkness won’t add to the dpr in a meaningful manner unless you are calculating that PCs miss more often than actually they do. Also this is being compared to DPR boost such as 5eR QP. Do you think advantage on hits is going to catch them up to even the new QP. As for the new spells the only improvement to darkness is the ability to see in it. You could always move it if you cast it on an object. Stealth was a big part of the class for me and pass without a trace is the best boost to stealth in the game. It’s better than invisibility when it actually comes to the rolls.
3. Shadow Step does not have to be used exclusively in an aggresive manner, sure, it has more benefit when you move in to attack because it grants advantage on the first attack, but it can also be used to disengage without actually needing to move. Or, once you reach level 11, you can Step in and strike with advantage in the same bonus action and then you can pick to keep attacking, disengage or dodge with your main action (Funny enough, this is the one thing many players asked the monk to be able to do from level 2 once you get your ki/DP features, except Shadow reverse the action/bonus action order and doesn't need a ki/DP to do it). Also the whole 'Darkness screwing over the party' thing, if the DM is making the enemies stay in that Darkness so that the rest of the party can't atack them, then they are just sitting ducks, they still have to find the monk if they want to attack (possibly trigerring AoO themselves), that's a perception check they need to make (that uses an action BTW), and even if they do succeed, the attack they make is still at disadvantage cause the monk can see them while they can't, or they could leave the Dark area to be at the party's mercy.
4. Oh, yeah, I thought you meant an overall problem for the class gamestyle, but if we are speaking about the class design with backwards compatibility in mind, then, yes, it does need to be adressed, the current version makes Kensei unusable outside a HB fix (which is something the DM shouldn't be burdened with), and it prevents Dedicated Weapon being added as well as making Ki-Fueled Strikes work only with Unarmed Strikes.
5. Because QP requires at least 2 turns to have any effect at all. The feature itself says that the vibration are harmless until you use an action to force the save. During the turn you set those vibrations, they have no effect other than reducing your Ki/DP by 3, the targetted creature won't suffer any additional effects or consequences for that turn coming from QP, if FoB didn't require a previous Attack action, then yes, it would only take 1 turn, but it's written in a way that it will always take at least 2 turns to show any result. Your suggestion might be even more "broken" than the original, you can have those imperceptible (how will the creature even know they have a curse that requires a level 9 spell slot to remove?) vibrations for 17-20 days on a creature, on day 2 they already have 34d12 (24 from the first day and 10 from the base damage)+monk level in damage waiting to fall on them, by day 3 they have 58d12, by day 17 they have 418d12+monk level on their body ready to erupt; even getting all 1s and with a successful save, they'd end up taking 217 damage. That has an incredibly higher chance of instantly killing the target than the original version. The balance from the original came from the fact that it targets CON, arguably the save enemies have the highest success rate along with STR, and you also have to go through any Legendary Resistance the target had.
6. The PC's chance to hit is something a monk does need to keep in mind. We still need to see the full list of magic loot and we don't have any guarantee that items that boost unarmed strikes attack and damage rolls will appear or if there may be more changes added to unarmed strikes. The thing with Darkness is that previously you couldn't see the object you casted it on after the casting, unless you had Blindsight or Devil's Sight (which required feats or multiclassing), also now you don't need extra checks to move it somewhere you couldn't reach, if you casted it on a coin and you wanted to throw the coin to teleport at some unreachable place (within 60 feet) you had to use actions for the corresponding checks, now it can be done for free and with no extra steps (it can even be used to teleport mid-air). Pass without Trace is a good spell, probably better than the original Darkness, if it were included (along with Silence, let's not forget it) it would need to have improvements as well, making it even more abusable than before.
1. Weapon masteries grant ~ 15% increase in DPR. Without them, monk now deals less damage than fighters, barbarians or paladins from level 1-20.
2. The Tasha's optional feature Ki-Fueled attacks should return and apply to both FoB and MA. This is required to prevent FoB being a dippable feature for other classes.
Ki-Fueled Attack
3rd-level monk feature
If you spend 1 ki point or more as part of your action on your turn, you can make one attack with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon or use your Flurry of Blows as a bonus action before the end of the turn.
3. Agreed, they need higher DPR to keep up with other martials, giving them Weapon Masteries is one way to help with this, but they also need access to all the combat-oriented feats (e.g. Sentinel, Charger, GWM). They also need their skirmisher ability improved, Hand had one with its removing enemy reactions but that got obliterated in the UA by adding a save, Elements sort of has one with the increase in reach from Elementalist but lots of enemies have reach too so it isn't reliable enough, and Shadow has it via Darkness now but that has issues for your party.
4. The community is too obsessed with language, monk weapons mechanically need to return so that Monk players can better justify using magical weapons, since magical weapons massively impact martial DPR in Tier 3&4 in most games. 5eR is not backwards compatible with player options from 5e and shouldn't be as that puts massive constraints on the new design meaning there will be little reason to buy the updated books.
5. Hand should be removed and replaced with Kensei in the UA. There is no way to save Hand since their 3rd level feature is obsolete because of weapon masteries (every other martial is better at this than open hand monk), their 6th and 11th level features have always sucked, and QP has been nerfed into the ground such that in most situations it is better to Attack and using FoB + Stunning Strike than it is to us QP: If the target fails the Con save then it would have been better to Stunning Strike them because stunning them is usually going to be better than the extra damage from QP (the only time this isn't the case is if the difference in damage for save vs fail kills the target), if the target succeeds the Con save then your attacks often will do more damage than QP. (This is ignoring the not insignificant chance the enemy dies before you can activate QP). Hand requires an entire rewrite now similar to 4 Elements to be anything other than a trap class.
6. Advantage on attacks does significantly increase DPR because the baseline chance to hit is 65% which increases to 88% with advantage (= 23% increase in DPR). That said, Shadow Monk's Shadow Step doesn't increase DPR since you sacrifice a bonus action which could have been used for 1-2 attacks in order to use it. This means in 5e Shadow Monk has the lowest DPR of any monk if you regularly use Shadow Step. 5eR Shadow Monk allows them to use Shadow Step routinely with only a small sacrifice in terms of damage vs using FoB. However, Darkness you can see through gives Shadow Monk a significant boost in DPR as long as their enemies can't see through it, however since Weapon Masteries give all martials many new easy ways to get advantage on their attacks this boost mainly just keeps them on par with other martials.
That is not how it works RAW. RAW you must take the Hide action for other characters to not know where you are, which would take the Monk's Action to use, and if any enemy can see/find you because of : Devil's Sight, Blindsight, Tremorsense, or Truesight, or by using a Perception check, then they can tell all the enemies where you are without using any actions. Without the Hide action the enemy knows where you are and can attack with disadvantage. OR since in 5eR shoving is based on a save, they could use one attack to Shove you prone without any penalty and then attack you with straight attack rolls.
Secondly, you are assuming the initiative order is as such:
Monk
Enemy
Rest of the party
If that is not the case then if the monk ends their turn with the enemy in the darkness then that darkness will hinder the attacks / actions of all your allies who have a turn prior to the enemy's turn which on average is 1/2 of the party, regardless of what the enemy chooses to do.
We've had years of Warlocks being able to combo Devil's Sight + Darkness and it is only moderately popular among ranged warlocks and hardly used at all by hexblades for exactly the reason of "it messes up your allies actions".
I would dispute this part; how are they communicating a location in enough detail to be clear with only the six seconds available? You might be able to communicate to one ally "they're to your left" but if you've got a group you've got to address them each unambiguously, and give unambiguous unique directions that they need to then understand. I'd argue some more checks are needed either to communicate clearly, or to understand the instructions.
Even so, it only gives them the general location (the square) they'd still have disadvantage, and that's only countered if the target is also blinded. Actual visibility issues matter so rarely in D&D thanks to everyone and their mum have darkvision or light, so it should matter on the rare occasion it does happen.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean they could just point and shout "They are right there!". Even a dog has no trouble following a pointed finger or even just the direction someone is looking in.
Can put the darkness at the “frontier” with enemy, covering you but not the enemy. The opportunity attack requires to see you, that is not the case if you are in darkness. Also as it cannot see you, you attack with advantage.