I'm saying that because of the play style of many tables (limited fighting per day) by mid game casters have so many slots that they can burn a first or second level slot on shield or something else reactionary each time it would be applicable. By level 10 a full casters has 15 slots to spend (or more with arcane recovery etc). Most fights last 3-4 rounds, if you're at a table that's only using 1-3 fights per day then you're able to use those reaction spells at every opportunity and not worry about running out of slots.
And that's without tying them to any kind of free uses; since casters only really have one critical ability score they can pretty easily pick up something like Magic Initiate for an extra free casting of shield each day, which can be better than boosting DEX by 1 (which only matters if enemies have a tendency to barely hit you). There's also the staff of defense which is good for 1 free casting of mage armor followed by 3-4 of shield without risking its destruction (only 7-9 charges out of 10 and it regains 7 or 8 per day on average), and it's only a rare item so aimed roughly around tier 2 in typical games.
Even if your campaign uses random loot, there are few truly bad items for a caster, and anything that lets you cast using charges only further boosts an already large reserve of power. And it's not just full casters; while half casters have upper limits on slot level, the lower level slots are the ones you gain fastest, so at 10th-level a half caster still has 9 slots to a full-caster's 15, so they actually gain slots at faster than half the rate. It only takes a three level dip into a full casting class to gain six spell slots (four of 1st-, and two of 2nd-level).
By comparison the Monk is stuck at 1 Discipline point per level from 2nd-level, and while they refresh on short rests a lot of groups don't run with the recommended number of short rests so those points per level may be all you will get in an adventuring day, and you're spending them on weaker effects.
An "infinite" reaction that isn't actually infinite is hardly unbalanced; pure martials are competing with Spellcasting, which is multiple levels of the best and most flexible class features in the game. And martials getting things that aren't resource bound is perfectly fine; they're not supposed to be the most resource bound classes, casters are.
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 still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
Ideally yes, they would be because each would have a defined weakness that they needed the other to handle for them. That's not the way the game is balanced at the moment. Casters have no weaknesses so you can easily play in a group with 100% full casters and cover every scenario whereas a group that had zero casters would have a very hard time of it. That's the core of the martial/caster divide and balance problem at the moment. How do we solve that? Either by cutting the resources or survivability of casters way back, or by adding in big powerful features to martials. In the case of the monk, those features could lean into use of ki to do spell like things.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
Competition is probably not the best word, but they do need to be balanced against one another, otherwise as you get into higher tiers of play there's the risk of martial characters starting to feel redundant when casters have answers to pretty much anything they might face (except an antimagic field or similar). Currently if a caster is threatened in close quarters they can just teleport away, turn invisible, or summon something to fight for them; having a martial ally handy can feel mechanically like it's just a resource saving, but if you just replaced them with yet another caster that wouldn't be a problem.
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.
Don’t know how plays in other tables are, but in mine spell slots are anything than an almost unlimited resource, that seems is the main argue for those against casters.
You talk like something mechanic, while it really is something indeterminate. How many slots do you have to use? No one knows. If you play “in the city”, well you can use them then rest at the Inn. If you are in a dungeon, don’t expect you can rest. You go back and out from it and look for a place to rest, well, depending the situation could get so many different scenarios. Usually have to complete in a single run, I only remember one time the group went back and rested, casually they only killed “monsters” not associated with the enemy (cave beast and etc.), so the enemy didn’t noticed. If some kill are enemy units, they would notice and start to search players and reinforce the defenses, so that is up to the players if they want to go back or continue.
Sometimes looks like some tables plays the game like a MMO, with creatures at fixes places and they don’t move from there, only waiting for players to appear and fight. So when you “clean an area”, you can rest with no worry, like if the creatures “in the map” didn’t move or anything. This is, encounter rolls, I make them hourly, so for an 8 hours rest, are 8 rolls, most probably an encounter with any patrolling creature, and then check if players (creature stealth vs guard perception) are surprised. A surprise attack depending the creatures could be fatal for them.
Then don’t confuse tables with rules. Acting with some logic spells slots are not that super resource for everything, but a limited resource. Using them for spamming shield could be considered a total waste, damn then better make an armored character.
So your table sticks to the game the way it was meant to be played (no easy rests, long grueling strings of encounters) but that's not the style of the majority anymore and WotC seems to be recognizing that in some aspects of their design (moving away from short rests) but not others.
So your table sticks to the game the way it was meant to be played (no easy rests, long grueling strings of encounters) but that's not the style of the majority anymore and WotC seems to be recognizing that in some aspects of their design (moving away from short rests) but not others.
IMHO heading the game in the direction of a Wargame or videogame style instead a RPG would be something terrible.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
Ideally yes, they would be because each would have a defined weakness that they needed the other to handle for them. That's not the way the game is balanced at the moment. Casters have no weaknesses so you can easily play in a group with 100% full casters and cover every scenario whereas a group that had zero casters would have a very hard time of it. That's the core of the martial/caster divide and balance problem at the moment. How do we solve that? Either by cutting the resources or survivability of casters way back, or by adding in big powerful features to martials. In the case of the monk, those features could lean into use of ki to do spell like things.
They why not just get rid of martial entirely? If a party of 100% full casters is just fine, then play as a party of 100% full casters. If you like the flavour of martials then just reflavour your spells as martial abilities. A firebolt could be a flaming arrow shot from a bow, Spirit Guardians could be you swinging your sword around in a huge arc, Fireball could be a bomb. Giving martials spell-like abilities solves absolutely nothing, because actual spells will always be better than spell-like abilities because martial also get to use weapons, whereas spellcasters do not, thus the non-weapon related stuff must be weaker than the fullcaster's non-weapon related stuff.
I'm not so concerned about the martial/caster divide. I do think martials should be top tier damage dealers, especially single target weapon damage. While spellcasters should be better AOE damage, control, buff/debuff, etc.
Not saying martials should not have some of these options, weapon masteries helps with this along with current class features.
Spellcasters will always have more versatility and I don't think anything will change that.
I'm not so concerned about the martial/caster divide. I do think martials should be top tier damage dealers, especially single target weapon damage. While spellcasters should be better AOE damage, control, buff/debuff, etc.
Not saying martials should not have some of these options, weapon masteries helps with this along with current class features.
Spellcasters will always have more versatility and I don't think anything will change that.
Martials already are the top tier single target damage dealers. The problem has always been that the niche they're good at is too narrow, and the scope of spells is too broad.
I don't actually think the problem with casters is spell slots. I think it's spells known. Limit all casters to their choice of 3 schools of magic or something and they're no longer "solve all problems".
A: Monks are supposed to be distancing themselves from Asian martial arts stereotypes, but the inspirations are specific Asian mystic sterotypes because the majority of those inspirations are from media mimicking Asian martial arts films.
B: Monks are supposed to be using hit-and-run and battlefield control features, but many of those featues aren't available to the Monk (Topple), require a massive sacrifice of DPR (simple weapons instead of Unarmed Strike, bonus action attack instead of Dodge or Step of the Wind) or conflict with other Monk abilities (Step of the Wind, Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strike, Deflect Missiles all consuming the same limited pool of Discipline Points).
C: Monks are supposed to be representative of peak physical and mental discipline, but have to dump multiple physical and mental stats to get maximum AC and saves. They will need to take ASIs for nearly all of their improvements just to maximize their AC and combat output. Without Martial Weapons, their average DPR is much lower than most other classes especially if they don't use Flurry of Blows.
D: The Monk is suppoed to be self-sufficient, but they need to interrupt the party constantly to take Short Rests which have limited utility to most of the other party members. They need Short Rests because without their unique class resource, they cannot accomplish most of their unique class features. Further, by 10th level nearly every other class gets at least one class or subclass feature they can perform once per day without expending the class resource typically necessarily to use it. Monks never get a free Discipline Point action or bonus action with the single exception of Shadow Warrior's 17th Level subclass feature.
E: Monk core class features are dependent on melee combat, however their stat distribution and health bonuses are closer to that of a ranged spellcaster. A Monk that is not in melee combat loses access to significant portions of their 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 17th level features both for the core Monk class AND the 2024 subclasses presented in UA6 - because they all either involve melee combat, Unarmed Strikes, or give a bonus to Flurry of Blows.
It is my personal opinion that if WOTC doesn't address contradictions A-E, then the Monk is not a class that can effectively contribute to the party as well as another class.in the same role. And the Monk should be able to find a niche where it does something that the other classes cannot do. The Monk as-is cannot be a successful frontline combatant after tier 1 because it doesn't have enough DPR or health or AC to survive. It can't skirmish as well as a Rogue, Ranger or Paladin because it doesn't have the mobility options unless it sacrifices DPR that those other classes don't have to. It can't crowd control lik a Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard or Warlock because all of its damage needs to be in single attacks instead of AOEs. It can't reliably stunlock a dangerous target like a Fighter or Barbarian because it can no longer bypass Legendary Resistances with multiple save tests, whie the other Martial classes can use Topple and Daze weapon masteries every time they hit. And it can't contribute outside of combat because all of the Monks core features use the same single resource that it absolutely must have on hand to reach near-parity to other party members in combat while spellcasters can use individual spell slots and Experts get massive bonuses and party aid features that activate for free.
From B to E, I agree that those are all problems for HAND monk. I will repeat this across threads as many times as necessary, the most playstyle-defining feature for a monk is the subclass (it should be for all classes, but I won't go into that here). We can't look at the monk features across levels and tiers of play without keeping in mind what subclass we pick at level 3, because both Shadow and Elements have ways to deal with the problems you listed. Why mention mention this?, because people seem to talk about the monk class as if everyone is supposed to play Hand (especially youtubers that love to hate monks).
The reason Hand sticks out so much (and drags the base class with it) is because it was the most basic monk subclass (and usually the first choice for monk beginners) and the changes to its signature features (Open Hand Technique and Quivering Palm) were only for the worse for no good reason, the rest of the features are arguably as basic as before (or even worse, in my opinion).
Now, if we are talking about level 1 and 2, then sure, we don't have any solution for those problems, which is why many people ask for a change in the AC calculation for the monk (it will still be around 14-16 even with light armor, so not really any change), to apply weapon masteries to your unarmed strikes (I was expecting this to be a Hand-exclusive thing, but WotC-balance, I guess?) or to use the updated properties of unarmed strikes with Dex instead of Str (I believe THIS is the most important aspect that needs to be adressed).
The reason I'm not mentioning subclasses is because while there are 3 new subclasses, the remainder are all based around the 2014 PHB and have not been updated to account for the new features and changed wording of UA6. Kensei Monk for example actually doesn't work because "Monk Weapons" no longer exist and Martial Arts only works with Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons which lack the two-handed property. So taking a Kensei Weapon actually means you must be a Strength-based Monk unless you choose a Rapier or other Finesse weapon.
So the only subclass which might address the weapon proficiency problems with the monk LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK WITH THE NEW MONK DESIGN.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
This is absolutely laughable. Spellcasters have hundreds of class features for dealing damage, preventing and healing damage, solving puzzles, controlling the batlefield, and increasing the reliability of other class features. We call those features "spells" and a half-caster class can perform them over a dozen times per day at tier 4, while a full caster can perform them a dozen times per day by level 8 in tier 2.
Martials are having to compete with casters because every class and subclass feature of the fighter in the PHB adds up to 6 printed pages. But when we account for spells, every class and subclass feature of the Wizard adds up to THIRTY SIX PAGES of potential class features to choose from. Which means that by level 20, a spellcaster will have gotten to experiment with dozens of highly customizeable class features while the pure martial classes like Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk only got the ones listed explicitly in the class and subclass options.
The reason I'm not mentioning subclasses is because while there are 3 new subclasses, the remainder are all based around the 2014 PHB and have not been updated to account for the new features and changed wording of UA6. Kensei Monk for example actually doesn't work because "Monk Weapons" no longer exist and Martial Arts only works with Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons which lack the two-handed property. So taking a Kensei Weapon actually means you must be a Strength-based Monk unless you choose a Rapier or other Finesse weapon.
So the only subclass which might address the weapon proficiency problems with the monk LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK WITH THE NEW MONK DESIGN.
Just homebrew it until they inevitably reprint it.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
This is absolutely laughable. Spellcasters have hundreds of class features for dealing damage, preventing and healing damage, solving puzzles, controlling the batlefield, and increasing the reliability of other class features. We call those features "spells" and a half-caster class can perform them over a dozen times per day at tier 4, while a full caster can perform them a dozen times per day by level 8 in tier 2.
Martials are having to compete with casters because every class and subclass feature of the fighter in the PHB adds up to 6 printed pages. But when we account for spells, every class and subclass feature of the Wizard adds up to THIRTY SIX PAGES of potential class features to choose from. Which means that by level 20, a spellcaster will have gotten to experiment with dozens of highly customizeable class features while the pure martial classes like Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk only got the ones listed explicitly in the class and subclass options.
I kind of think this a little ridiculous. I get what you are saying but Kensei always had an exception when it came to their weapons. The 2014 monk had an exception to what they could use Dex on, “monk weapons”, and Kensei expanded on that into martial weapons. I don’t see why you wouldn’t treat them the same with the new UA rules. Monks have the same exceptions to what they can use Dex on, simple weapons, and Kensei will expand on that into martial weapons.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
This is absolutely laughable. Spellcasters have hundreds of class features for dealing damage, preventing and healing damage, solving puzzles, controlling the batlefield, and increasing the reliability of other class features. We call those features "spells" and a half-caster class can perform them over a dozen times per day at tier 4, while a full caster can perform them a dozen times per day by level 8 in tier 2.
Martials are having to compete with casters because every class and subclass feature of the fighter in the PHB adds up to 6 printed pages. But when we account for spells, every class and subclass feature of the Wizard adds up to THIRTY SIX PAGES of potential class features to choose from. Which means that by level 20, a spellcaster will have gotten to experiment with dozens of highly customizeable class features while the pure martial classes like Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk only got the ones listed explicitly in the class and subclass options.
I kind of think this a little ridiculous. I get what you are saying but Kensei always had an exception when it came to their weapons. The 2014 monk had an exception to what they could use Dex on, “monk weapons”, and Kensei expanded on that into martial weapons. I don’t see why you wouldn’t treat them the same with the new UA rules. Monks have the same exceptions to what they can use Dex on, simple weapons, and Kensei will expand on that into martial weapons.
Because it's not just adding new weapons. the whole point with Martial Arts is that it lets you add your Dexterity score to the attack and damage rolls of "Monk Weapons." but the new Martial Arts feature no longer cares if it's a "Monk Weapon" - the restriction is Simple Weaopns without the 2-Handed feature. This is a huge rewrite of the core class ability, because multiple abilities in the old subclasses trigger off of Monk Weapon attacks AND you could use anything that became a Monk Weapon via a subclass ability from any future expansion or homebrew or anything else. The new Monk as a byproduct has shot Kensei Monk in the foot.
This is UA material for a new edition of the PHB. There is absolutely no excuse why a DM should have to homebrew this workaround when the whole point of restoring 2014 class progression was so the DM doesn't have to homebrew old subclasses to be compatible.
The reason I'm not mentioning subclasses is because while there are 3 new subclasses, the remainder are all based around the 2014 PHB and have not been updated to account for the new features and changed wording of UA6. Kensei Monk for example actually doesn't work because "Monk Weapons" no longer exist and Martial Arts only works with Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons which lack the two-handed property. So taking a Kensei Weapon actually means you must be a Strength-based Monk unless you choose a Rapier or other Finesse weapon.
So the only subclass which might address the weapon proficiency problems with the monk LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK WITH THE NEW MONK DESIGN.
Just homebrew it until they inevitably reprint it.
Like monk weapon = weapon which you have proficiency. Sounds more natural to me than the imposed “simple weapons”.
And I’d grant at least 1 martial weapon to the class at level 1 so the monk could get all those combat feats with the current requirements, while they “reprint it” ;)
In any case is not good to have to homebrew so much, we will wait until the final rules, but currently have no few flaws.
I still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
This is absolutely laughable. Spellcasters have hundreds of class features for dealing damage, preventing and healing damage, solving puzzles, controlling the batlefield, and increasing the reliability of other class features. We call those features "spells" and a half-caster class can perform them over a dozen times per day at tier 4, while a full caster can perform them a dozen times per day by level 8 in tier 2.
Martials are having to compete with casters because every class and subclass feature of the fighter in the PHB adds up to 6 printed pages. But when we account for spells, every class and subclass feature of the Wizard adds up to THIRTY SIX PAGES of potential class features to choose from. Which means that by level 20, a spellcaster will have gotten to experiment with dozens of highly customizeable class features while the pure martial classes like Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk only got the ones listed explicitly in the class and subclass options.
I kind of think this a little ridiculous. I get what you are saying but Kensei always had an exception when it came to their weapons. The 2014 monk had an exception to what they could use Dex on, “monk weapons”, and Kensei expanded on that into martial weapons. I don’t see why you wouldn’t treat them the same with the new UA rules. Monks have the same exceptions to what they can use Dex on, simple weapons, and Kensei will expand on that into martial weapons.
Because it's not just adding new weapons. the whole point with Martial Arts is that it lets you add your Dexterity score to the attack and damage rolls of "Monk Weapons." but the new Martial Arts feature no longer cares if it's a "Monk Weapon" - the restriction is Simple Weaopns without the 2-Handed feature. This is a huge rewrite of the core class ability, because multiple abilities in the old subclasses trigger off of Monk Weapon attacks AND you could use anything that became a Monk Weapon via a subclass ability from any future expansion or homebrew or anything else. The new Monk as a byproduct has shot Kensei Monk in the foot.
This is UA material for a new edition of the PHB. There is absolutely no excuse why a DM should have to homebrew this workaround when the whole point of restoring 2014 class progression was so the DM doesn't have to homebrew old subclasses to be compatible.
I don’t see it as a “huge rewrite”. Kensei get to pick two weapons at 3rd level, one a melee weapon. They can still do that and the weapon they pick, as long as it isn’t heavy or special, can use Dexterous Attack’s DEX mod for to-hit/damage just like they do now. It’s kind of a specific beats general thing. A simple wording change will fix it. Same would go for any subclass ability that says “monk weapon”. And they did say there would be some clarification notes for older subclasses that will not be in the initial release, iirc.
I don’t think DMs and Players will need to spend more that 2 seconds on this to get it right for subclasses not in the 2024 PHB.
Edit: maybe I am missing something, but point out any subclass feature affected by this change that can’t be quickly resolved, in your opinion. Monks have a general rule (well it’s specific compared to regular rules on what stat governs what weapon) on what weapons they can use DEX for and Kensei has a specific rule that overrides that as part of their 3rd level feature.
Edit 2: I also put in my survey they should remove the two handed restriction since it only applies to Greatclub and the simple weapon restriction fixes any multiclassing issues, which Kensei can override like they do now.
And that's without tying them to any kind of free uses; since casters only really have one critical ability score they can pretty easily pick up something like Magic Initiate for an extra free casting of shield each day, which can be better than boosting DEX by 1 (which only matters if enemies have a tendency to barely hit you). There's also the staff of defense which is good for 1 free casting of mage armor followed by 3-4 of shield without risking its destruction (only 7-9 charges out of 10 and it regains 7 or 8 per day on average), and it's only a rare item so aimed roughly around tier 2 in typical games.
Even if your campaign uses random loot, there are few truly bad items for a caster, and anything that lets you cast using charges only further boosts an already large reserve of power. And it's not just full casters; while half casters have upper limits on slot level, the lower level slots are the ones you gain fastest, so at 10th-level a half caster still has 9 slots to a full-caster's 15, so they actually gain slots at faster than half the rate. It only takes a three level dip into a full casting class to gain six spell slots (four of 1st-, and two of 2nd-level).
By comparison the Monk is stuck at 1 Discipline point per level from 2nd-level, and while they refresh on short rests a lot of groups don't run with the recommended number of short rests so those points per level may be all you will get in an adventuring day, and you're spending them on weaker effects.
An "infinite" reaction that isn't actually infinite is hardly unbalanced; pure martials are competing with Spellcasting, which is multiple levels of the best and most flexible class features in the game. And martials getting things that aren't resource bound is perfectly fine; they're not supposed to be the most resource bound classes, casters are.
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 still loathe the idea that martial classes are somehow "competing" with spellcasters.
They're not in competition with each other; be it direct or indirect. They're complimentary.
Ideally yes, they would be because each would have a defined weakness that they needed the other to handle for them. That's not the way the game is balanced at the moment. Casters have no weaknesses so you can easily play in a group with 100% full casters and cover every scenario whereas a group that had zero casters would have a very hard time of it. That's the core of the martial/caster divide and balance problem at the moment. How do we solve that? Either by cutting the resources or survivability of casters way back, or by adding in big powerful features to martials. In the case of the monk, those features could lean into use of ki to do spell like things.
Competition is probably not the best word, but they do need to be balanced against one another, otherwise as you get into higher tiers of play there's the risk of martial characters starting to feel redundant when casters have answers to pretty much anything they might face (except an antimagic field or similar). Currently if a caster is threatened in close quarters they can just teleport away, turn invisible, or summon something to fight for them; having a martial ally handy can feel mechanically like it's just a resource saving, but if you just replaced them with yet another caster that wouldn't be a problem.
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.
Don’t know how plays in other tables are, but in mine spell slots are anything than an almost unlimited resource, that seems is the main argue for those against casters.
You talk like something mechanic, while it really is something indeterminate. How many slots do you have to use? No one knows. If you play “in the city”, well you can use them then rest at the Inn. If you are in a dungeon, don’t expect you can rest. You go back and out from it and look for a place to rest, well, depending the situation could get so many different scenarios. Usually have to complete in a single run, I only remember one time the group went back and rested, casually they only killed “monsters” not associated with the enemy (cave beast and etc.), so the enemy didn’t noticed. If some kill are enemy units, they would notice and start to search players and reinforce the defenses, so that is up to the players if they want to go back or continue.
Sometimes looks like some tables plays the game like a MMO, with creatures at fixes places and they don’t move from there, only waiting for players to appear and fight. So when you “clean an area”, you can rest with no worry, like if the creatures “in the map” didn’t move or anything. This is, encounter rolls, I make them hourly, so for an 8 hours rest, are 8 rolls, most probably an encounter with any patrolling creature, and then check if players (creature stealth vs guard perception) are surprised. A surprise attack depending the creatures could be fatal for them.
Then don’t confuse tables with rules. Acting with some logic spells slots are not that super resource for everything, but a limited resource. Using them for spamming shield could be considered a total waste, damn then better make an armored character.
So your table sticks to the game the way it was meant to be played (no easy rests, long grueling strings of encounters) but that's not the style of the majority anymore and WotC seems to be recognizing that in some aspects of their design (moving away from short rests) but not others.
IMHO heading the game in the direction of a Wargame or videogame style instead a RPG would be something terrible.
Submitted my feedback for the monk. Hopefully enough people do the same so that WotC does a bit more to make it better.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
They why not just get rid of martial entirely? If a party of 100% full casters is just fine, then play as a party of 100% full casters. If you like the flavour of martials then just reflavour your spells as martial abilities. A firebolt could be a flaming arrow shot from a bow, Spirit Guardians could be you swinging your sword around in a huge arc, Fireball could be a bomb. Giving martials spell-like abilities solves absolutely nothing, because actual spells will always be better than spell-like abilities because martial also get to use weapons, whereas spellcasters do not, thus the non-weapon related stuff must be weaker than the fullcaster's non-weapon related stuff.
I'm not so concerned about the martial/caster divide. I do think martials should be top tier damage dealers, especially single target weapon damage. While spellcasters should be better AOE damage, control, buff/debuff, etc.
Not saying martials should not have some of these options, weapon masteries helps with this along with current class features.
Spellcasters will always have more versatility and I don't think anything will change that.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Martials already are the top tier single target damage dealers. The problem has always been that the niche they're good at is too narrow, and the scope of spells is too broad.
I don't actually think the problem with casters is spell slots. I think it's spells known. Limit all casters to their choice of 3 schools of magic or something and they're no longer "solve all problems".
From B to E, I agree that those are all problems for HAND monk. I will repeat this across threads as many times as necessary, the most playstyle-defining feature for a monk is the subclass (it should be for all classes, but I won't go into that here). We can't look at the monk features across levels and tiers of play without keeping in mind what subclass we pick at level 3, because both Shadow and Elements have ways to deal with the problems you listed. Why mention mention this?, because people seem to talk about the monk class as if everyone is supposed to play Hand (especially youtubers that love to hate monks).
The reason Hand sticks out so much (and drags the base class with it) is because it was the most basic monk subclass (and usually the first choice for monk beginners) and the changes to its signature features (Open Hand Technique and Quivering Palm) were only for the worse for no good reason, the rest of the features are arguably as basic as before (or even worse, in my opinion).
Now, if we are talking about level 1 and 2, then sure, we don't have any solution for those problems, which is why many people ask for a change in the AC calculation for the monk (it will still be around 14-16 even with light armor, so not really any change), to apply weapon masteries to your unarmed strikes (I was expecting this to be a Hand-exclusive thing, but WotC-balance, I guess?) or to use the updated properties of unarmed strikes with Dex instead of Str (I believe THIS is the most important aspect that needs to be adressed).
The reason I'm not mentioning subclasses is because while there are 3 new subclasses, the remainder are all based around the 2014 PHB and have not been updated to account for the new features and changed wording of UA6. Kensei Monk for example actually doesn't work because "Monk Weapons" no longer exist and Martial Arts only works with Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons which lack the two-handed property. So taking a Kensei Weapon actually means you must be a Strength-based Monk unless you choose a Rapier or other Finesse weapon.
So the only subclass which might address the weapon proficiency problems with the monk LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK WITH THE NEW MONK DESIGN.
This is absolutely laughable. Spellcasters have hundreds of class features for dealing damage, preventing and healing damage, solving puzzles, controlling the batlefield, and increasing the reliability of other class features. We call those features "spells" and a half-caster class can perform them over a dozen times per day at tier 4, while a full caster can perform them a dozen times per day by level 8 in tier 2.
Martials are having to compete with casters because every class and subclass feature of the fighter in the PHB adds up to 6 printed pages. But when we account for spells, every class and subclass feature of the Wizard adds up to THIRTY SIX PAGES of potential class features to choose from. Which means that by level 20, a spellcaster will have gotten to experiment with dozens of highly customizeable class features while the pure martial classes like Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk only got the ones listed explicitly in the class and subclass options.
Just homebrew it until they inevitably reprint it.
I kind of think this a little ridiculous. I get what you are saying but Kensei always had an exception when it came to their weapons. The 2014 monk had an exception to what they could use Dex on, “monk weapons”, and Kensei expanded on that into martial weapons. I don’t see why you wouldn’t treat them the same with the new UA rules. Monks have the same exceptions to what they can use Dex on, simple weapons, and Kensei will expand on that into martial weapons.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Because it's not just adding new weapons. the whole point with Martial Arts is that it lets you add your Dexterity score to the attack and damage rolls of "Monk Weapons." but the new Martial Arts feature no longer cares if it's a "Monk Weapon" - the restriction is Simple Weaopns without the 2-Handed feature. This is a huge rewrite of the core class ability, because multiple abilities in the old subclasses trigger off of Monk Weapon attacks AND you could use anything that became a Monk Weapon via a subclass ability from any future expansion or homebrew or anything else. The new Monk as a byproduct has shot Kensei Monk in the foot.
This is UA material for a new edition of the PHB. There is absolutely no excuse why a DM should have to homebrew this workaround when the whole point of restoring 2014 class progression was so the DM doesn't have to homebrew old subclasses to be compatible.
Like monk weapon = weapon which you have proficiency. Sounds more natural to me than the imposed “simple weapons”.
And I’d grant at least 1 martial weapon to the class at level 1 so the monk could get all those combat feats with the current requirements, while they “reprint it” ;)
In any case is not good to have to homebrew so much, we will wait until the final rules, but currently have no few flaws.
I've always thought that, to compare martials and casters, it is more accurate to
1.) start with a fresh character following a long rest
2.) write each item separately (instead of writing "20 arrows" or whatever)
3.) set e = some percentage
4.) go down the list of expendable items and roll a percentile die. If you roll over e, that line item is counted as expended.
5.) show what remains on each character sheet and write the value of e
I don’t see it as a “huge rewrite”. Kensei get to pick two weapons at 3rd level, one a melee weapon. They can still do that and the weapon they pick, as long as it isn’t heavy or special, can use Dexterous Attack’s DEX mod for to-hit/damage just like they do now. It’s kind of a specific beats general thing. A simple wording change will fix it. Same would go for any subclass ability that says “monk weapon”. And they did say there would be some clarification notes for older subclasses that will not be in the initial release, iirc.
I don’t think DMs and Players will need to spend more that 2 seconds on this to get it right for subclasses not in the 2024 PHB.
Edit: maybe I am missing something, but point out any subclass feature affected by this change that can’t be quickly resolved, in your opinion. Monks have a general rule (well it’s specific compared to regular rules on what stat governs what weapon) on what weapons they can use DEX for and Kensei has a specific rule that overrides that as part of their 3rd level feature.
Edit 2: I also put in my survey they should remove the two handed restriction since it only applies to Greatclub and the simple weapon restriction fixes any multiclassing issues, which Kensei can override like they do now.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?