In my games, Monks in the UA, RAW, would rate pretty high. Higher than a Druid, higher than a Ranger, way higher than a Rogue.
Wizards are tough to call, because it depends on the spell choices, but by and large, they have the second highest in my games, followed immediately by fighters. Monk would be top seven for sure.
Highest survivability in my games is always on the folks who can all on the Gods, though. Not sure why -- my gods are generally uncaring manifestations of concepts, not people-like beings. New setting will change all of that calculus, butmy last few, yeah -- for survivability, that is.
Combat power, role playing flexibility, and other aspects also factor in, though, to looking at a class as a whole. No single thing is more important.
monk is not mechanically stronger then a druid or a ranger because of spells. unless someone who doesn't know how to use their spells is playing one.
they are easily more powerful in combat and also in utility.
rogue dpr wise are closer to the monk but have much better utility and the new cunning strike puts them over the top.
The query was about survivability, though, not mechanically stronger. Different measures.
Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength.
Everyone here is using different metrics to determine ideals -- and they weigh those metrics differently. I don't find DPR to be at all useful as a measure of value, for example. If it was, then Wizards would only count if they had a very specific spell selection -- and that, in turn, would cripple them in other areas. ANd if they don't have that spell selection, the they aren't in the running.
in order to determine such comparative thing, you need objective measures (metrics) that are agreed upon -- and none such exist here. Nor does any single metric provide any real insight into the particular capability in relation to other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
19.24+2.82+4.2 =26.28 ignoring crits for the fighter.
and fighter doesnt even have extra attack yet. And it won't run out of power after 5 flurry of blows, AND I didnt even count action surge, which at level 5 they can do for every 5 monk FOB
for even more math, that means (2d6(+1.3)+4)*2*.65+.35*4 or 17.35 more damage per SR, divided by the monk no Ki time if five rounds, that means+3.478 per round
so the monk is really 22.1 maximum damage resource use versus fighters 29.75 ignoring crits. (which benefit the fighter with higher dice)
and this is monks best comparison point, it only gets worse.
this is not unique to fighter. They lose to the rest
Lemme guess. The response is going to be something along the lines of "using feats, the non-optional and core part of the game, is irredeemable min-maxing and is actively eroding the quality of the game for everybody."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
In my games, Monks in the UA, RAW, would rate pretty high. Higher than a Druid, higher than a Ranger, way higher than a Rogue.
Wizards are tough to call, because it depends on the spell choices, but by and large, they have the second highest in my games, followed immediately by fighters. Monk would be top seven for sure.
Highest survivability in my games is always on the folks who can all on the Gods, though. Not sure why -- my gods are generally uncaring manifestations of concepts, not people-like beings. New setting will change all of that calculus, butmy last few, yeah -- for survivability, that is.
Combat power, role playing flexibility, and other aspects also factor in, though, to looking at a class as a whole. No single thing is more important.
different players have different playstyles and play goals, and build choices, however, the moon druid is pretty potent till their beast form acc falks off, and rogue needs to make good use of off turn sneak attacks to keep damage up (which maybe needs a better baseline) Ranger can also do more, but its not usually the players focus.
because monk can barely use features, and doesnt have a lot realistic choices that can be bad, there very little range on the monks performance based on build.
Lemme guess. The response is going to be something along the lines of "using feats, the non-optional and core part of the game, is irredeemable min-maxing and is actively eroding the quality of the game for everybody."
good lord, I hope not!
I just set them up as the core mechanism for building seriously custom characters around a base of different distinct classes that have oon-duplicatable abilities. basically, I made them *more* important, lol.
Because if nothing else, Feats are the secret sauce of 5e, and WotC hasn't even really scratched the surface of them as a mechanic yet since they are so stuck on subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Astral Self: +1 martial arts die damage/turn (1d10 at 11th level) when using Body of the Astral Self
Ascendant Dragon: Exchange one attack per turn for AoE 3xMA die damage, up to PB times (and 2 DP per use afterwards)
Drunken Master: 1 DP as a reaction to make an attack that misses you auto-hit an adjacent creature
Elements (UA): 15-feet reach and 2 DP to deal 3xMA die damage in a 20-foot sphere
Kensei: Sharpen the Blade to augment a weapon up to +3, One with the Blade to deal 1 MA die/turn for 1 DP, Kensei's Shot for ranged attacks
Mercy: Free Hands of Harm (1 MA die damage) when using Flurry of Blows
So yes, many of the Monk subclasses give meaningful damage boosts, and the ones that don't often have control-related abilities instead.
These are not meaningful damage boosts because nearly all of them replace one damage dealing option with another and the replacement in general is weaker that what it is replacing.
Astral Self/Kensei - This is a damage boost but it is only ~6 dpr, which is bottom of the barrel compared to other classes.
Dragon - Swapping 1d10+5 for 3d10, that is costing you a lot of DP if you use it every turn, and only increases your damage by ~5 points on a single target
Element - swap 4 attacks that are 1d10+5 for a 20 ft sphere of 3d10, this has to hit 3 enemies to match your DPR from using unarmed strikes.
Drunken - this is a great feature if you are surrounded, which as a monk you don't want to be. Thus in practice triggers far less often than it look on paper.
Mercy - this doesn't increase your DPR as you can still only use it 1/turn but it does reduce your ki costs so you can maintain the high DPR for longer.
In comparison:
Fighter is getting a whole additional attack = +8 DPR if they are just using a mundane weapon which is pretty unlikely
Paladin is getting +1d8 on every attack = +6-9 DPR depending on build
Rogue has accumulated 3d6 sneak attack damage since 5th level = 10.5 DPR
Ranger gets a variety of DPR increasing subclass features.
This is my latest iteration of Monk through level 10. Anything mentioned for levels 11-20 are just to indicate Tier 3 or Tier 4. I'm following the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method with minor changes I hope are more palatable to implement. I believe this resolves the issues with survivability, high level damage, and weapons vs unarmed.
Hit Points & dice: Unchanged Proficiencies: unchanged Weapon proficiency: Simple Weapons + 1 Dedicated Martial Weapon (same restrictions as Tasha's Dedicated Weapon, can be swapped at the end of a Long Rest) Monk Weapons are your Unarmed Strikes, Simple Weapons, and your dedicated weapon.
Starting Equipment: Unchanged
Martial Arts Dice: Same as UA6.
Martial Arts Your unarmed strikes have the Light Weapon property. (Relocated Bonus Action Unarmed Strike) Your Unarmed Strikes have the Nick Weapon Mastery. Your Monk Weapons have the Finesse property. (Includes Great club) You may use your Martial Arts dice instead of the Monk Weapon's dice for damage rolls. (same as 5E) You may use WIS instead of STR for your grapple escape DC. (For the simplicity of a single save DC. One could argue for DEX too.)
Weapon Mastery In addition to your Unarmed Strikes having the Nick Mastery, you may choose 1 weapon mastery. You may change these masteries at the end of a long rest. You gain an additional mastery at 6th level that may be applied to your Unarmed Strikes as long as the Mastery meets Prerequisites. (Open Hand will get to ignore prerequisites.) Only 1 Mastery can be used on each attack.
Unarmoured Defense: Unchanged (Most of the defense will be provided by Deflect Attack/Patient Defense. Diamond Soul at levels 7 and 9 clearly makes Monk the best class for Saves.)
Deflect Attack While you are Unarmored and have a hand free, you may use your Reaction to Deflect Attacks. When a creature hits you with an attack roll, you may use your reaction to redirect damage back to the attacker equal to a roll of your martial arts dice plus your Monk level. The attacker may make a DEX save to take half damage NO damage. Design Note: This damage redirection occurs before any other damage reduction or resistance is applied. So it does not synergize with Barbarian Rage. The redirected damage does not trigger Rogue Sneak Attack. I imagine Way of Mercy would be able to Deflect Attack for allies within 5 ft.
Level 2
Unarmored Movement: Unchanged column in the Monk Table.
Max Discipline Points = 2*(Monk levels) are recovered at the end of a Long Rest. After a Short Rest, you regain (Monk levels)/2 Points, rounded down. Design note: I am unsure of the rounding. These numbers provide the same number of Points during a 5E "Standard" Adventuring day, so they can be balanced in the same way. For tables with 1 or 2 fights a day, the starting Points are front loaded. Long dungeon crawls have a recovery mechanism while still involving resource management.
Flurry of Blows: You can spend 1 Point to make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. At Level 11? you may spend 2 Points to make 2 Unarmed Strikes as a Bonus Action. At Level 17? you may spend 3 Points to make 3 Unarmed Strikes as a Bonus Action. Note: Decoupled from the Attack Action. The additional strikes mostly resolves the missing Tier 3 and 4 damage. The level can be adjusted.
Step of the Wind: You may spend 1 Ki to be able to dash and disengage as a Bonus Action. You can move along vertical walls and across liquids this turn. Note: The wall/water running replaces the jump improvement. Wall/water running provides Monks with unique utility and identity in and out of combat. There is room in Tier 3 to make wall/water running free.
Patient Defense: You may spend 1 Point and your Bonus Action to gain a special Reaction that can only be used for Deflect Attack. Deflect Attack can only be used once for each attack roll. At Level 11? you may spend 2 Points to gain 2 of these Reactions. At Level 17? you may spend 3 Points to gain 3 of these Reactions. At the start of your turn, you get refunded 1 Point for each of these special Reactions you did not use. (So it is not a waste if you are not targeted/hit.) Design note: A hit & run style would prefer Flurry of Blows, then risking an Opportunity Attack mitigated by a single Deflect Attack. A front line Monk expecting to get hit would prefer Patient Defense. In emergency situations, a Monk could Dodge + Patient Defense sacrificing offense. Dodge + Flurry of Blows is another option for a slightly different offense/defense mix. If the monster moves away from the Monk, the Monk gets an Opportunity Attack.
Level 3 Subclass Ability
Level 4 Feat Slow Fall: unchanged
Level 5: Extra Attack Stunning Strike: Unchanged from UA6 for now, I wanted to focus on other aspects. Stunning Strike is an area where complexity (such as Cunning Strikes) would be welcome.
Level 6 Subclass Ability
You gain an additional weapon mastery. You may be apply this mastery to your Unarmed Strikes as long as Prerequisites are met. You may also switch your Unarmed Strike Nick mastery to another mastery for your Unarmed Strikes (again with prerequisite limits). Open Hand will get to ignore prerequisites. Only 1 Mastery can be used on each attack.
Empowered Strikes: Whenever you deal damage with your Unarmed Strikes, it can deal your choice of Force damage or its normal damage type. Your Unarmed Strikes get a +1 bonus to hit and damage. (on top of martial arts dice increase) The bonus to hit and damage increases to +2 at lvl11 and +3 at lvl17. Design note: This keeps Unarmed Strikes roughly balanced with weapons. The level can be tweaked.
Level 7 Evasion: Unchanged
Diamond Soul (1 of 3) When you make a WIS, INT, or CHA save, add a roll of your Martial Arts dice. Design note: This is slightly better than proficiency by about +1. It also stacks with proficiency (same as Paladin aura). But it scales with Monk Levels, so it is less effective for multiclass. If you think it is too strong, just compare it to the Paladin's aura which affects nearby allies.
Level 8 Feat
Level 9 Diamond Soul (2 of 3) When you make a STR, DEX, or CON save, add a roll of your Martial Arts dice. Design note: Diamond Soul (3 of 3) is the saving throw reroll and would be somewhere in Tier 3.
Level 10 Feat Design note: This is the simplest way to alleviate MAD and make feats more feasible.
I dropped Self-Restoration/Stillness of Mind/Purity of Body. It is better to make the save via Diamond Soul instead of having a clunky way to end conditions.
Interesting. Much stronger defense in melee which is what the monk needs.
Just a few things to consider
-is there no disadvantage on attack rolls for patient defense anymore? I was not sure.
Patient Defense would no longer be Dodge. So no Disadvantage on Attack rolls and no advantage on Dex saves. But Dodge + Flurry of Blows is an option.
-you have FOB as only one bonus attack but open hand and mercy monk depend on FOB being two attacks. I would maybe do FOB combined with the nick unarmed strike to make two attacks on the attack action so its cohesive with sub classes. Otherwise those subclases are waiting untill level 11 to get there two FOB attacks.
With my Flurry of Blows rewrite, I expect Open Hand and Mercy to get rewritten to not be dependent on Flurry of Blows. Both are expected in the next PHB, which gives room for a Flurry of Blows rewrite.
-i like the idea of unarmed strikes having the light and nick property but so far all weapons have only one weapon mastery property available to be used at any one time. Fighters can't add two weapon mastery properties to one weapon until 13th level. Maybe the bonus action unarmed strike should just be an "extra attack" provided the monk is not weilding two weapons so it does not stack with nick. Its still the same effect but just worded differently.
Good point about how Fighters can't have two Masteries on the same weapon until level 13. But they can drop/draw multiple Weapons in an Attack Action, giving them effectively multiple Masteries a turn. This sounds like an area where the balance can be fine tuned. I think initially in Tier 1 Monk's extra Unarmed Strike as Light+Nick has simpler rules and less risk of loopholes compared to UA6 Bonus Action Unarmed Strike.
If i read this right the monk would get at the highest level:
a) three attacks with the attack action - 1d12+ dex, 1d12, 1d12 + dex. Without two weapon fighting style the nick attack does not get any dex bonus.
b) up to three attacks with FOB bonus action - 1d12+ dex, 1d12+ dex, 1d12 + dex
c) up to three reactions to deflect attack - 1d12+20, 1d12+20, 1d12+20 with each of those having a potential save for half
d) where applicable add +3 to damage for empowered strikes
Is that correct? It would expensive to do but 9 attacks in a round might be a bit much. Maybe consider scaling that back a bit and axe the bonuses to empowered strikes since magic items can be homebrewed. If you really like doing the three reactions then i would keep them to damage reduction only since you would still get 6 attacks on your turn and that would be plenty.
(a) is correct, 3 attacks with the Attack Action from level 5 onwards. (b) and (c) are mutually exclusive, you decide which to do for your Bonus Action. Also for (c) the Monk has their regular Reaction that can be used for Deflect Attack bringing the total to up to 4 Deflect Attack. Attack+Flurry of Blows results in 6 total attacks a round at high levels, which is less than Fighter's 8 or 9 possible attacks with Action Surge. The Monk can do this for more rounds, but the Fighter can Nova better. The Fighter can also get weapon bonus damage (such as a Flametongue).
In hindsight, a successful save to Deflect Attack should prevent ALL damage, not just half. That brings Deflect Attack's damage to closer to an Unarmed Strike at most levels. The Deflect Attack is conditional on being attacked and hit, which makes it slightly less reliable than an Unarmed Strike as part of Flurry of Blows.
In my games, Monks in the UA, RAW, would rate pretty high. Higher than a Druid, higher than a Ranger, way higher than a Rogue.
Wizards are tough to call, because it depends on the spell choices, but by and large, they have the second highest in my games, followed immediately by fighters. Monk would be top seven for sure.
Highest survivability in my games is always on the folks who can all on the Gods, though. Not sure why -- my gods are generally uncaring manifestations of concepts, not people-like beings. New setting will change all of that calculus, butmy last few, yeah -- for survivability, that is.
Combat power, role playing flexibility, and other aspects also factor in, though, to looking at a class as a whole. No single thing is more important.
monk is not mechanically stronger then a druid or a ranger because of spells. unless someone who doesn't know how to use their spells is playing one.
they are easily more powerful in combat and also in utility.
rogue dpr wise are closer to the monk but have much better utility and the new cunning strike puts them over the top.
The query was about survivability, though, not mechanically stronger. Different measures.
Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength.
Everyone here is using different metrics to determine ideals -- and they weigh those metrics differently. I don't find DPR to be at all useful as a measure of value, for example. If it was, then Wizards would only count if they had a very specific spell selection -- and that, in turn, would cripple them in other areas. ANd if they don't have that spell selection, the they aren't in the running.
in order to determine such comparative thing, you need objective measures (metrics) that are agreed upon -- and none such exist here. Nor does any single metric provide any real insight into the particular capability in relation to other classes.
Im sorry but again your ignoring spells .
not to mention at higher level wild shape will grant you even more mobility .
for example you can burrow and avoid a ton of damage. as for ranger they get heavy armor from the start and hunter gets defensive maneuvers .
also both rangers and druids can be primally ranged damage dealers. now if in your games your handing out bracers of defense and they can roll their stats then well ya the monk would be a little better at being tanks. Id like to see actual facts for your argument.
but you can also optimize both ranger and druid to have god tier survival if that is your goal . your not putting anything forth to prove your point outside of anecdotes .
"Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength." you are literally wrong on all of this minus roleplay flexibility.
Dpr means you can kill more enemies quicker which reduces your damage taken by said monsters.
spellcasting grants things such as entangle were you can literally control a dozen enemies who cant damage you if they cant reach you .
In my games, Monks in the UA, RAW, would rate pretty high. Higher than a Druid, higher than a Ranger, way higher than a Rogue.
Wizards are tough to call, because it depends on the spell choices, but by and large, they have the second highest in my games, followed immediately by fighters. Monk would be top seven for sure.
Highest survivability in my games is always on the folks who can all on the Gods, though. Not sure why -- my gods are generally uncaring manifestations of concepts, not people-like beings. New setting will change all of that calculus, butmy last few, yeah -- for survivability, that is.
Combat power, role playing flexibility, and other aspects also factor in, though, to looking at a class as a whole. No single thing is more important.
monk is not mechanically stronger then a druid or a ranger because of spells. unless someone who doesn't know how to use their spells is playing one.
they are easily more powerful in combat and also in utility.
rogue dpr wise are closer to the monk but have much better utility and the new cunning strike puts them over the top.
The query was about survivability, though, not mechanically stronger. Different measures.
Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength.
Everyone here is using different metrics to determine ideals -- and they weigh those metrics differently. I don't find DPR to be at all useful as a measure of value, for example. If it was, then Wizards would only count if they had a very specific spell selection -- and that, in turn, would cripple them in other areas. ANd if they don't have that spell selection, the they aren't in the running.
in order to determine such comparative thing, you need objective measures (metrics) that are agreed upon -- and none such exist here. Nor does any single metric provide any real insight into the particular capability in relation to other classes.
Im sorry but again your ignoring spells .
not to mention at higher level wild shape will grant you even more mobility .
for example you can burrow and avoid a ton of damage. as for ranger they get heavy armor from the start and hunter gets defensive maneuvers .
also both rangers and druids can be primally ranged damage dealers. now if in your games your handing out bracers of defense and they can roll their stats then well ya the monk would be a little better at being tanks. Id like to see actual facts for your argument.
but you can also optimize both ranger and druid to have god tier survival if that is your goal . your not putting anything forth to prove your point outside of anecdotes .
um, did you read my response?
My pint was that all of those particular measures are meaningless unless everyone agrees on how to calculate them, what hey mean, and how important they are -- which no one has.
ALL of it, including your thoughts, is anecdotal, but more importantly, all of it is merely opinion -- opinion informed by a narrow range of experience and knowledge.
THe initial question was about survivability. Sorry, but I rate survivability by "how long can they survive in my game", and I am the kind of DM who takes every minmaxing thing someone can do and specifically creates opposition for it. Then they encounter that normally during the game (because I am not just throwing it at them for no reason).
And, as a result, the folks who survive the longest in my games are inevitably Clerics, Wizards, and Fighters. And my players have minmaxing down to a rare art-- but it is always subverted for the role playing piece.
I am not ignoring anything -- I am saying that the standards and rules in use tomake the assertion that "as a whole across the game" that Class X is better in all these ways than any other class and can survive in any game.
saying that in a game where there are (counting homebrew) about 200 classes and countless subclasses (oh, but wait, we are limiting it to just the ones in the book, in which case NONE of my classes can be compared because we don't use any of the classes in the book, including clerics, Wizards, and Fighters and by and large would be considered weak at first by most, but then they would realize that subclass abilities are basically a pick and choose thing so that you can have basically a blood hunter Paladin without multiclassing, as was played last night, lol) is silly because first we have to have a common way to measure all of the classes indepent capabilities.
ANd survivability is only one of at bare minimum a dozen different metrics that would need to be included.
Magic, Feats, weapon types, and more -- and it would have to be determined *without* doing any kind of maximizing or perfecting because that is how you get a baseline, minimum standard.
Are Monks Better than, Equal to, or Worse than other classes?
My answer is it that until we have a baseline for all the classes and a common set of adventures and DMs with the same rules and the same challenges and the same way of handling things we can never answer that question because we don't have a way to effectively and properly measure any of it.
So all of it is someone's anecdotal opinion, and is neither more true nor less true than anyone else's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
In my games, Monks in the UA, RAW, would rate pretty high. Higher than a Druid, higher than a Ranger, way higher than a Rogue.
Wizards are tough to call, because it depends on the spell choices, but by and large, they have the second highest in my games, followed immediately by fighters. Monk would be top seven for sure.
Highest survivability in my games is always on the folks who can all on the Gods, though. Not sure why -- my gods are generally uncaring manifestations of concepts, not people-like beings. New setting will change all of that calculus, butmy last few, yeah -- for survivability, that is.
Combat power, role playing flexibility, and other aspects also factor in, though, to looking at a class as a whole. No single thing is more important.
monk is not mechanically stronger then a druid or a ranger because of spells. unless someone who doesn't know how to use their spells is playing one.
they are easily more powerful in combat and also in utility.
rogue dpr wise are closer to the monk but have much better utility and the new cunning strike puts them over the top.
The query was about survivability, though, not mechanically stronger. Different measures.
Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength.
Everyone here is using different metrics to determine ideals -- and they weigh those metrics differently. I don't find DPR to be at all useful as a measure of value, for example. If it was, then Wizards would only count if they had a very specific spell selection -- and that, in turn, would cripple them in other areas. ANd if they don't have that spell selection, the they aren't in the running.
in order to determine such comparative thing, you need objective measures (metrics) that are agreed upon -- and none such exist here. Nor does any single metric provide any real insight into the particular capability in relation to other classes.
oh, in terms of survivability you can figure it out, and monk has the worst potential survivability.
I say potential because you can compare minimums, people could be naked with bad tactics, and a bad build
survivability boils down to mitigation , maximum hp, hp recovery, and risk required to be effective.
monks mitigation is just AC,
max hp is d8, but its AC and Con are are in opposition due to needing dex+wis to get AC
and its baseline recovery is zero.
its risk is high because it requires you get in melee range of 5ft to use unarmed strikes, which is where its damage and utility come from.
so compared to druid
both have medium armor progression, but druid can use shields from lvl 1 druid wins
max hp, druid only needs wis, they can have con as secondary stat. druid wins
recovery, druid has various heals, and temporary hp boosts, druid wins
risk druid can attack from 0-60ft, its risk is low.
Ranger,
medium armor progression, can take a lvl zero feat for shield, but I'll just say its the same
max hp, d10. to be effective, they don't really need wis, but let's say you want wis, they still lose due to baseline d10 hit die
recovery ranger has access to various recovery spells, temp hp, etc
risk, Ranger can be effective from zero to 120 feet, its risk is low.
rogue
mitigation, is actually heavy AC progression, due to full dex investment (studded (can be bought lvl zero)+dex), can add shields 1/2 damage first hit per round.
max hp, d8, but needs nothing but dex, can go secondary con, rogue wins
recovery, none to speak of.
risk, super low, can be effective from 120+ feet, and can hide or dash or disengage without lowering effectiveness.
I'm simplifying, but you can put numbers to these things. figure out effective hp by looking at Total hp (including max and heals) /mitigation, then consider risk. (which is less quantifiable)
but we are talking about the future of one dnd monk specifically
So let me get clarification from you:
HOw do you determine, as a baseline (that is, the zero point from which things are either better (above) or worse (below) for all of the following things, and how is each defined?
Survivability (Campaign)
DPR
Mechanical Strength
Combat Power (as a whole)
Role Playing Flexibility
Spell Casting Strength
Spell Casting Impact/Power
Feat Impact
Species Impact
ASI Impact
Spell Selection
Survivability (Encounter)
Survivability (Adventure)
Defensive Capability
Area of Effect
Adaptation
Earlier you said I was wrong about those things -- except Role Playing Flexibility. One of the nice things about a good baseline metric and how it is measured is that when you have that it no longer matters if the Element (Class, in this case) is homebrew or official, because you have the same measures across the board and can fairly measure across all such tings the comparative value of each class according to set and established criteria.
Meaning, it shouldn't matter if I use homebrew or not, and meaning that now we would have a way to compare One D&D Monk to 1e , 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e Monk -- as well as to variants created by other folks and we would be able to look at all the assorted subclasses as well. HEll, we can throw in the OA MOnk as well, since that Monk was different from 1e and 2e Monk.
The reason I chose these particular metrics is that they are all sound metrics that have import to players and overall game balance. Feel free to add in additional standards.
Note, again, this is builds without minmaxing. Minmaxing is making either a minimum build (less than baseline) or maximum build (more than baseline). And you need to know that in order to determine if the particular class is of comparative value to others before and after minmaxing, as well as highlighting the minmaxing aspects (and I know all of this because after 45 freaking years of playing with the same people, they have all of this in their own personal charts and stuff, lol).
Once you have a baseline you can start talking because a minmax build is always a variant from the mean -- and there are too many potential variables.
So, help a gal out -- what are your measures for all of the above so that I can understand how you are coming to your decisions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Ok well first off ill at least give ya some respect for the effort you put in to your reply.
"Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength."
this part of what you said , was what I was talking about specifically.
I personally do value dpr especially as a warrior class that is the job of a monk to deal damage and take blows . I like the tactical side of the game and I like being able to find ways to do damage . however the changes in one dnd monk cut monk off from alot of possibilities. (I personally think the fighter is busted and the main reason they wont help monk is to protect fighters feelings of being the best without effort.)
I do not want to go over everything as that would drag out for a long time however if you watch treantmonks video "monks suck"
along with him and Colby's videos on playtest 6 they basically cover everything and im at about 93 percent agreement with what they are saying .
also let me answer this for ya" Are Monks Better than, Equal to, or Worse than other classes? " yes they are worse.
What level, what classes, and what aspects are we talking about? Just saying "Monk bad" isn't a productive argument.
you can watch the same videos. I don't want to have to do your homework for you . also come on agile, I actually like some of your posts sometimes lol. dont be @ me too Lilith already hate me enough for 3 people.
also let me answer this for ya" Are Monks Better than, Equal to, or Worse than other classes? " yes they are worse.
What level, what classes, and what aspects are we talking about? Just saying "Monk bad" isn't a productive argument.
monk is bad at survivability from lvl 1 onwards compared to 12 classes, as of now in UA. Perhaps this may change.
bad damage from level 5+ but maybe 7+ for pure mages and to be sure
bad at social/skill use. most mages can do social and skill related things as spells, experts have bonuses, and barbarian just got a nice buff to a bunch of skills as well as str based dominance. Fighter would be tied for worst, but theoretically they got two extra ASIs they could use on skills that others don't
Ok well first off ill at least give ya some respect for the effort you put in to your reply.
"Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength."
this part of what you said , was what I was talking about specifically.
I personally do value dpr especially as a warrior class that is the job of a monk to deal damage and take blows . I like the tactical side of the game and I like being able to find ways to do damage . however the changes in one dnd monk cut monk off from alot of possibilities. (I personally think the fighter is busted and the main reason they wont help monk is to protect fighters feelings of being the best without effort.)
I do not want to go over everything as that would drag out for a long time however if you watch treantmonks video "monks suck"
along with him and Colby's videos on playtest 6 they basically cover everything and im at about 93 percent agreement with what they are saying .
Quite cool, except that, again, without knowing what their baselines are for their claims, I can't see any of it as more than opinion.
DPR is important -- but it is not the only important measure, even for just your interest area. Damage can be more than merely hit points, for example, and tactically speaking disruptiveness in combat is a huge thing when you have wizards and other spell casters -- very hard to hold onto concentration when the floor hits your face.
To use just DPR, in other worse, is a disservice because focusing on it removes potential other avenues and capabilities.
That said, for what it is worth, Monks have never been firmly attached to D&D -- that is, there isn't a lot of in-world basis for them, so they seem sorta tacked on mechanically, and that's a major flaw in the whole. The monks I designed use d6 for damage plus mods, and proved to be able to hold their own, especially in a system where they are treated with eh same level of consideration as fighters and have a strong basis within the setting that makes them a key element of the whole.
I do agree -- determining a baseline for each of those elements (and others) is something that will and does take time (having been the one that does it often in real life, I am very grateful for engineers who take my thoughts and then do all the hard work, lol) -- but without htat baseline bit of information, without knowing that point, everything that anyone says is factually no more than opinion, conjecture, and guesswork based on anecdotal information that cannot be quantified and so is ultimately just going to boil down to a bunch of folks say Yeah it is and no it isn't until everyone is angry and blue.
Now, yes, I do homebrew to a degree 90% (guesstimate, lol) of folks will never come near, and yeah, I have a lot of years many people don't playing this darn game. When I created the set of classes for this next campaign, I took a long time to consider the monk, but when I finally got around to just doing a straight monk I needed a way to keep them on par with the others.
Much of this is initially guesswork that plays out or fails out in playtesting, but by and large I achieved the goal because I used a new way of looking at Feats and expanded that around the whole. My baselines are well established and at any level all of them can hold their own against any of the others (even wizards against fighters). I did that because of threads like this one, lol.
Now, the monks I created mostly don't hold a candle to all the different stuff that a "baseline" monk with a subclass in straight 5e has -- because their base special abilities are difficult to do comparatives with. But the moment a Monk begins to collect their Feats (and those are a much more involved process than 5e) they shift the balance, because they are adding onto the baseline -- and that always goes to the player's goals.
But the abilities that the monks do have, no one else has. Nor can they -- those are only for Monks, which is a bit of difference as often we see special abilities from one class turned into special abilities for a subclass of a different class. That doesn't happen in my set up -- which still draws from 5e and is likely to use much of One D&D as well.
All of which really brings it back to the point of "does that make them better or worse or equal" and the only answer I can provide to that is hellifiknow. Because there are no baselines that work outside of that.
And, honestly, 5e is sorta built to defy baselines. Except ability Scores. Which is really the best representation of what we are seeking how does this version of the monk or that version of the monk score on different areas.
Damage wise, the one D&D Monk cannot compete with mine. I could hand wave it and say "well, I mean, mine do have to fight literal nightmares in a combat to the death once every seven years in order to stop the end of the world" but that's just throwing lore at the problem, lol. And yes, that is honestly the baseline and yes, one of those nightmares is a four limbed fighter with a two syllable, four letter name, lol. How could I say no to the face the kid gave me?
But that also means that my monks get really wicked at higher levels. Because you can't have MK without gruesome stuff -- and now my question turns back to "what does FR have that gives Monks lore they can use when developing the class to make it better, to strengthen it, without making it too specific so that it won't fly in non-FR campaigns?
If you don't have a strong vision of the class, when you start creating it, you won't give it what it needs.
And WotC does not have a strong vision. Up to us to show them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The query was about survivability, though, not mechanically stronger. Different measures.
Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength.
Everyone here is using different metrics to determine ideals -- and they weigh those metrics differently. I don't find DPR to be at all useful as a measure of value, for example. If it was, then Wizards would only count if they had a very specific spell selection -- and that, in turn, would cripple them in other areas. ANd if they don't have that spell selection, the they aren't in the running.
in order to determine such comparative thing, you need objective measures (metrics) that are agreed upon -- and none such exist here. Nor does any single metric provide any real insight into the particular capability in relation to other classes.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Lemme guess. The response is going to be something along the lines of "using feats, the non-optional and core part of the game, is irredeemable min-maxing and is actively eroding the quality of the game for everybody."
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
different players have different playstyles and play goals, and build choices, however, the moon druid is pretty potent till their beast form acc falks off, and rogue needs to make good use of off turn sneak attacks to keep damage up (which maybe needs a better baseline) Ranger can also do more, but its not usually the players focus.
because monk can barely use features, and doesnt have a lot realistic choices that can be bad, there very little range on the monks performance based on build.
good lord, I hope not!
I just set them up as the core mechanism for building seriously custom characters around a base of different distinct classes that have oon-duplicatable abilities. basically, I made them *more* important, lol.
Because if nothing else, Feats are the secret sauce of 5e, and WotC hasn't even really scratched the surface of them as a mechanic yet since they are so stuck on subclasses.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
These are not meaningful damage boosts because nearly all of them replace one damage dealing option with another and the replacement in general is weaker that what it is replacing.
Astral Self/Kensei - This is a damage boost but it is only ~6 dpr, which is bottom of the barrel compared to other classes.
Dragon - Swapping 1d10+5 for 3d10, that is costing you a lot of DP if you use it every turn, and only increases your damage by ~5 points on a single target
Element - swap 4 attacks that are 1d10+5 for a 20 ft sphere of 3d10, this has to hit 3 enemies to match your DPR from using unarmed strikes.
Drunken - this is a great feature if you are surrounded, which as a monk you don't want to be. Thus in practice triggers far less often than it look on paper.
Mercy - this doesn't increase your DPR as you can still only use it 1/turn but it does reduce your ki costs so you can maintain the high DPR for longer.
In comparison:
Fighter is getting a whole additional attack = +8 DPR if they are just using a mundane weapon which is pretty unlikely
Paladin is getting +1d8 on every attack = +6-9 DPR depending on build
Rogue has accumulated 3d6 sneak attack damage since 5th level = 10.5 DPR
Ranger gets a variety of DPR increasing subclass features.
Patient Defense would no longer be Dodge. So no Disadvantage on Attack rolls and no advantage on Dex saves. But Dodge + Flurry of Blows is an option.
With my Flurry of Blows rewrite, I expect Open Hand and Mercy to get rewritten to not be dependent on Flurry of Blows. Both are expected in the next PHB, which gives room for a Flurry of Blows rewrite.
Good point about how Fighters can't have two Masteries on the same weapon until level 13. But they can drop/draw multiple Weapons in an Attack Action, giving them effectively multiple Masteries a turn. This sounds like an area where the balance can be fine tuned. I think initially in Tier 1 Monk's extra Unarmed Strike as Light+Nick has simpler rules and less risk of loopholes compared to UA6 Bonus Action Unarmed Strike.
(a) is correct, 3 attacks with the Attack Action from level 5 onwards. (b) and (c) are mutually exclusive, you decide which to do for your Bonus Action. Also for (c) the Monk has their regular Reaction that can be used for Deflect Attack bringing the total to up to 4 Deflect Attack. Attack+Flurry of Blows results in 6 total attacks a round at high levels, which is less than Fighter's 8 or 9 possible attacks with Action Surge. The Monk can do this for more rounds, but the Fighter can Nova better. The Fighter can also get weapon bonus damage (such as a Flametongue).
In hindsight, a successful save to Deflect Attack should prevent ALL damage, not just half. That brings Deflect Attack's damage to closer to an Unarmed Strike at most levels. The Deflect Attack is conditional on being attacked and hit, which makes it slightly less reliable than an Unarmed Strike as part of Flurry of Blows.
Im sorry but again your ignoring spells .
not to mention at higher level wild shape will grant you even more mobility .
for example you can burrow and avoid a ton of damage. as for ranger they get heavy armor from the start and hunter gets defensive maneuvers .
also both rangers and druids can be primally ranged damage dealers. now if in your games your handing out bracers of defense and they can roll their stats then well ya the monk would be a little better at being tanks. Id like to see actual facts for your argument.
but you can also optimize both ranger and druid to have god tier survival if that is your goal . your not putting anything forth to prove your point outside of anecdotes .
"Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength." you are literally wrong on all of this minus roleplay flexibility.
Dpr means you can kill more enemies quicker which reduces your damage taken by said monsters.
spellcasting grants things such as entangle were you can literally control a dozen enemies who cant damage you if they cant reach you .
Bold of you to speak for the creators.
um, did you read my response?
My pint was that all of those particular measures are meaningless unless everyone agrees on how to calculate them, what hey mean, and how important they are -- which no one has.
ALL of it, including your thoughts, is anecdotal, but more importantly, all of it is merely opinion -- opinion informed by a narrow range of experience and knowledge.
THe initial question was about survivability. Sorry, but I rate survivability by "how long can they survive in my game", and I am the kind of DM who takes every minmaxing thing someone can do and specifically creates opposition for it. Then they encounter that normally during the game (because I am not just throwing it at them for no reason).
And, as a result, the folks who survive the longest in my games are inevitably Clerics, Wizards, and Fighters. And my players have minmaxing down to a rare art-- but it is always subverted for the role playing piece.
I am not ignoring anything -- I am saying that the standards and rules in use tomake the assertion that "as a whole across the game" that Class X is better in all these ways than any other class and can survive in any game.
saying that in a game where there are (counting homebrew) about 200 classes and countless subclasses (oh, but wait, we are limiting it to just the ones in the book, in which case NONE of my classes can be compared because we don't use any of the classes in the book, including clerics, Wizards, and Fighters and by and large would be considered weak at first by most, but then they would realize that subclass abilities are basically a pick and choose thing so that you can have basically a blood hunter Paladin without multiclassing, as was played last night, lol) is silly because first we have to have a common way to measure all of the classes indepent capabilities.
ANd survivability is only one of at bare minimum a dozen different metrics that would need to be included.
Magic, Feats, weapon types, and more -- and it would have to be determined *without* doing any kind of maximizing or perfecting because that is how you get a baseline, minimum standard.
Are Monks Better than, Equal to, or Worse than other classes?
My answer is it that until we have a baseline for all the classes and a common set of adventures and DMs with the same rules and the same challenges and the same way of handling things we can never answer that question because we don't have a way to effectively and properly measure any of it.
So all of it is someone's anecdotal opinion, and is neither more true nor less true than anyone else's.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
ok it makes sense now, you use homebrew .
which is fine if that's your thing,
but we are talking about the future of one dnd monk specifically
also let me answer this for ya" Are Monks Better than, Equal to, or Worse than other classes? " yes they are worse.
oh, in terms of survivability you can figure it out, and monk has the worst potential survivability.
I say potential because you can compare minimums, people could be naked with bad tactics, and a bad build
survivability boils down to mitigation , maximum hp, hp recovery, and risk required to be effective.
monks mitigation is just AC,
max hp is d8, but its AC and Con are are in opposition due to needing dex+wis to get AC
and its baseline recovery is zero.
its risk is high because it requires you get in melee range of 5ft to use unarmed strikes, which is where its damage and utility come from.
so compared to druid
both have medium armor progression, but druid can use shields from lvl 1 druid wins
max hp, druid only needs wis, they can have con as secondary stat. druid wins
recovery, druid has various heals, and temporary hp boosts, druid wins
risk druid can attack from 0-60ft, its risk is low.
Ranger,
medium armor progression, can take a lvl zero feat for shield, but I'll just say its the same
max hp, d10. to be effective, they don't really need wis, but let's say you want wis, they still lose due to baseline d10 hit die
recovery ranger has access to various recovery spells, temp hp, etc
risk, Ranger can be effective from zero to 120 feet, its risk is low.
rogue
mitigation, is actually heavy AC progression, due to full dex investment (studded (can be bought lvl zero)+dex), can add shields 1/2 damage first hit per round.
max hp, d8, but needs nothing but dex, can go secondary con, rogue wins
recovery, none to speak of.
risk, super low, can be effective from 120+ feet, and can hide or dash or disengage without lowering effectiveness.
I'm simplifying, but you can put numbers to these things. figure out effective hp by looking at Total hp (including max and heals) /mitigation, then consider risk. (which is less quantifiable)
So let me get clarification from you:
HOw do you determine, as a baseline (that is, the zero point from which things are either better (above) or worse (below) for all of the following things, and how is each defined?
Earlier you said I was wrong about those things -- except Role Playing Flexibility. One of the nice things about a good baseline metric and how it is measured is that when you have that it no longer matters if the Element (Class, in this case) is homebrew or official, because you have the same measures across the board and can fairly measure across all such tings the comparative value of each class according to set and established criteria.
Meaning, it shouldn't matter if I use homebrew or not, and meaning that now we would have a way to compare One D&D Monk to 1e , 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e Monk -- as well as to variants created by other folks and we would be able to look at all the assorted subclasses as well. HEll, we can throw in the OA MOnk as well, since that Monk was different from 1e and 2e Monk.
The reason I chose these particular metrics is that they are all sound metrics that have import to players and overall game balance. Feel free to add in additional standards.
Note, again, this is builds without minmaxing. Minmaxing is making either a minimum build (less than baseline) or maximum build (more than baseline). And you need to know that in order to determine if the particular class is of comparative value to others before and after minmaxing, as well as highlighting the minmaxing aspects (and I know all of this because after 45 freaking years of playing with the same people, they have all of this in their own personal charts and stuff, lol).
Once you have a baseline you can start talking because a minmax build is always a variant from the mean -- and there are too many potential variables.
So, help a gal out -- what are your measures for all of the above so that I can understand how you are coming to your decisions.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What level, what classes, and what aspects are we talking about? Just saying "Monk bad" isn't a productive argument.
Ok well first off ill at least give ya some respect for the effort you put in to your reply.
"Survivability is not DPR, is not Mechanical Strength, is not Combat Power, is not Role playing flexibility, is not Spell casting strength."
this part of what you said , was what I was talking about specifically.
I personally do value dpr especially as a warrior class that is the job of a monk to deal damage and take blows . I like the tactical side of the game and I like being able to find ways to do damage . however the changes in one dnd monk cut monk off from alot of possibilities. (I personally think the fighter is busted and the main reason they wont help monk is to protect fighters feelings of being the best without effort.)
I do not want to go over everything as that would drag out for a long time however if you watch treantmonks video "monks suck"
along with him and Colby's videos on playtest 6 they basically cover everything and im at about 93 percent agreement with what they are saying .
you can watch the same videos. I don't want to have to do your homework for you . also come on agile, I actually like some of your posts sometimes lol. dont be @ me too Lilith already hate me enough for 3 people.
monk is bad at survivability from lvl 1 onwards compared to 12 classes, as of now in UA. Perhaps this may change.
bad damage from level 5+ but maybe 7+ for pure mages and to be sure
bad at social/skill use. most mages can do social and skill related things as spells, experts have bonuses, and barbarian just got a nice buff to a bunch of skills as well as str based dominance. Fighter would be tied for worst, but theoretically they got two extra ASIs they could use on skills that others don't
monk is good at, resourceless movement.
Thank you gwar. you can be the monk union rep.
Quite cool, except that, again, without knowing what their baselines are for their claims, I can't see any of it as more than opinion.
DPR is important -- but it is not the only important measure, even for just your interest area. Damage can be more than merely hit points, for example, and tactically speaking disruptiveness in combat is a huge thing when you have wizards and other spell casters -- very hard to hold onto concentration when the floor hits your face.
To use just DPR, in other worse, is a disservice because focusing on it removes potential other avenues and capabilities.
That said, for what it is worth, Monks have never been firmly attached to D&D -- that is, there isn't a lot of in-world basis for them, so they seem sorta tacked on mechanically, and that's a major flaw in the whole. The monks I designed use d6 for damage plus mods, and proved to be able to hold their own, especially in a system where they are treated with eh same level of consideration as fighters and have a strong basis within the setting that makes them a key element of the whole.
I do agree -- determining a baseline for each of those elements (and others) is something that will and does take time (having been the one that does it often in real life, I am very grateful for engineers who take my thoughts and then do all the hard work, lol) -- but without htat baseline bit of information, without knowing that point, everything that anyone says is factually no more than opinion, conjecture, and guesswork based on anecdotal information that cannot be quantified and so is ultimately just going to boil down to a bunch of folks say Yeah it is and no it isn't until everyone is angry and blue.
Now, yes, I do homebrew to a degree 90% (guesstimate, lol) of folks will never come near, and yeah, I have a lot of years many people don't playing this darn game. When I created the set of classes for this next campaign, I took a long time to consider the monk, but when I finally got around to just doing a straight monk I needed a way to keep them on par with the others.
Much of this is initially guesswork that plays out or fails out in playtesting, but by and large I achieved the goal because I used a new way of looking at Feats and expanded that around the whole. My baselines are well established and at any level all of them can hold their own against any of the others (even wizards against fighters). I did that because of threads like this one, lol.
Now, the monks I created mostly don't hold a candle to all the different stuff that a "baseline" monk with a subclass in straight 5e has -- because their base special abilities are difficult to do comparatives with. But the moment a Monk begins to collect their Feats (and those are a much more involved process than 5e) they shift the balance, because they are adding onto the baseline -- and that always goes to the player's goals.
But the abilities that the monks do have, no one else has. Nor can they -- those are only for Monks, which is a bit of difference as often we see special abilities from one class turned into special abilities for a subclass of a different class. That doesn't happen in my set up -- which still draws from 5e and is likely to use much of One D&D as well.
All of which really brings it back to the point of "does that make them better or worse or equal" and the only answer I can provide to that is hellifiknow. Because there are no baselines that work outside of that.
And, honestly, 5e is sorta built to defy baselines. Except ability Scores. Which is really the best representation of what we are seeking how does this version of the monk or that version of the monk score on different areas.
Damage wise, the one D&D Monk cannot compete with mine. I could hand wave it and say "well, I mean, mine do have to fight literal nightmares in a combat to the death once every seven years in order to stop the end of the world" but that's just throwing lore at the problem, lol. And yes, that is honestly the baseline and yes, one of those nightmares is a four limbed fighter with a two syllable, four letter name, lol. How could I say no to the face the kid gave me?
But that also means that my monks get really wicked at higher levels. Because you can't have MK without gruesome stuff -- and now my question turns back to "what does FR have that gives Monks lore they can use when developing the class to make it better, to strengthen it, without making it too specific so that it won't fly in non-FR campaigns?
If you don't have a strong vision of the class, when you start creating it, you won't give it what it needs.
And WotC does not have a strong vision. Up to us to show them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds