Based on what crawford said in the UA 7 video it sounds like perfect discipline (When you roll Initiative, you regain 4 expended Discipline Points if you have none remaining) is going to be moved to a much lower level. It wont initially restore as many ki points but it will scale.
This use to be the monk capstone, now going down to likely a 5th level or lower feature.
If so, it seems that they do not want to solve class problems and simply give more resources. If they just do something like that I would be deeply disappointed. Let's hope this is not ail the case.
Based on what crawford said in the UA 7 video it sounds like perfect discipline (When you roll Initiative, you regain 4 expended Discipline Points if you have none remaining) is going to be moved to a much lower level. It wont initially restore as many ki points but it will scale.
This use to be the monk capstone, now going down to likely a 5th level or lower feature.
If so, it seems that they do not want to solve class problems and simply give more resources. If they just do something like that I would be deeply disappointed. Let's hope this is not ail the case.
There's a tacit acknowledgement that (a) not everyone enjoys resource management and (b) resource management should be interesting without being painful.
Based on what crawford said in the UA 7 video it sounds like perfect discipline (When you roll Initiative, you regain 4 expended Discipline Points if you have none remaining) is going to be moved to a much lower level. It wont initially restore as many ki points but it will scale.
This use to be the monk capstone, now going down to likely a 5th level or lower feature.
If so, it seems that they do not want to solve class problems and simply give more resources. If they just do something like that I would be deeply disappointed. Let's hope this is not ail the case.
There's a tacit acknowledgement that (a) not everyone enjoys resource management and (b) resource management should be interesting without being painful.
Yes, you are right. But I hope it doesn't become an excuse for not solving the monk's problems of choosing between offense, defense and movement, because those are a pain to handle.
"Rogue" is just a theme plus mechanics. From a mechanical standpoint, what do Rogues do? Well, they clearly benefit from having DEX-based skills. Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics. What else is included in the Rogue kit? Cunning Action to get a free Disengage, Hide, or Dash with a B.Action. Plus Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack, Evasion, (skill) Expertise. These are all things that ninjas do. There is no reason you can't make the current Shadow Monk into a Shadow Rogue with pretty much the same abilities.
The main benefit of splitting current Monks into Fighter and Rogue subclasses is that players get to benefit from more HP and Action Surge (for the harder hitting builds) or from no-cost Dash, Disengage, Hide + Sneak Attack for subterfuge builds. So the people who want the current Monk to do more damage consistently are happier since they benefit from Fighter features while the people who want Monks to be more about sneaking around and learning secrets/stealing stuff (and care less about being tanking or attacking 3+ times per round) would be happier getting rid of the Ki cost built into the current Monk just to do Step of the Wind.
The current Monk has an identity crisis in large part b/c the devs wanted to split the difference by making the Monk a bit like a Rogue and a bit like a Fighter, tacking on this resource management thing called Ki, that NO other primary class uses. It's the MADness and Ki pool that makes Monks harder (not impossible, tho) to multi-class effectively. The people who want a tanky, direct-confrontation Monk would be happier with a more maneuverable Fighter, someone who can wear some armor and relies less on being MAD. The people who like playing assassin peek-a-boo with the Monk will also be happier since they can retain more Ki for Patient Defense and use ranged builds that don't care about a high WIS or a very high CON. If Fighters and Rogues also use Ki (or whatever they want to rename it to), then multiclassing becomes less of a lost opporunity in terms of Ki progression.
the flaw is you have less monk variation, and that the monk char concept doesnt lend itself well to these other classes. I actually play a monk class, like 7% of the dnd population and thats not what I am looking for.
Subclasses are exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features. That would be an inferior product for me. I don't want a fighter with 3 features out of monk.
there is nothing inherent to monks, or even the 5e monk playstyle that is broken. Its totally in the execution and its totally fixable in various ways, less drastic than destroying a class and its subclasses
You don't need to have less subclass variation as long as devs build more subclasses of Monkish Fighter and the Monkish Rogue. Right now you have several subclasses of Monk that are completely half-baked anyway b/c the devs don't understand that their own cultural upbringing prevents them from seeing that "Monk" is really just a variation of Fighter or a variation of Rogue. If we start from the standpoint that some Fighter subclasses will wear less armor, have more mobility, and build their Ki instead of weapon skills, you can easily get something like the 5e Monk, but with more hit points while also being less MAD. If we start from the view that some Rogue subclasses will have access to specific magic abilities inherently and sometimes hit more than once a round, you also get something like the 5e Monk, but with better skill progression and less reliance on being in melee range where that d8 hit dice leads to quick trip to unconsciousness/death. And being less reliant on melee attacks will make building a Rogue Monk easier b/c also less MAD.
classes are not designed based on similar mechanics, classes are created based on what type of fantasy they represent.
this is evidenced by wizard and sorcerer being different classes, paladin being neither cleric, nor fighter subclasses, ranger being neither fighter nor druid subclasses. Bard being neither cleric nor wizard subclasses.
Classes are identity/fantasy/concept first, and they create and use whatever mechanics they build to represent that identifty/fantasy/concept.
subclasses are sub identities, and concepts.
Monk represents a different subset of fantasy than the fighter does, or the rogue.
A fighter is a Master of all weapons. They can use any type weapon or armor, as well as anybody else. Their defining feature is combatant
Monk is a master of their own body/mind/spirit their self improvement/understanding gives them seemingly superhuman abilities. Their defining feature pursuing human self perfection,
of course, the game is fairly combat driven, so every class is a combatant, and they have a progression system, so every class wants to improve, but the how and why are big part of what makes classes different things.
"Rogue" is just a theme plus mechanics. From a mechanical standpoint, what do Rogues do? Well, they clearly benefit from having DEX-based skills. Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics. What else is included in the Rogue kit? Cunning Action to get a free Disengage, Hide, or Dash with a B.Action. Plus Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack, Evasion, (skill) Expertise. These are all things that ninjas do. There is no reason you can't make the current Shadow Monk into a Shadow Rogue with pretty much the same abilities.
The main benefit of splitting current Monks into Fighter and Rogue subclasses is that players get to benefit from more HP and Action Surge (for the harder hitting builds) or from no-cost Dash, Disengage, Hide + Sneak Attack for subterfuge builds. So the people who want the current Monk to do more damage consistently are happier since they benefit from Fighter features while the people who want Monks to be more about sneaking around and learning secrets/stealing stuff (and care less about being tanking or attacking 3+ times per round) would be happier getting rid of the Ki cost built into the current Monk just to do Step of the Wind.
The current Monk has an identity crisis in large part b/c the devs wanted to split the difference by making the Monk a bit like a Rogue and a bit like a Fighter, tacking on this resource management thing called Ki, that NO other primary class uses. It's the MADness and Ki pool that makes Monks harder (not impossible, tho) to multi-class effectively. The people who want a tanky, direct-confrontation Monk would be happier with a more maneuverable Fighter, someone who can wear some armor and relies less on being MAD. The people who like playing assassin peek-a-boo with the Monk will also be happier since they can retain more Ki for Patient Defense and use ranged builds that don't care about a high WIS or a very high CON. If Fighters and Rogues also use Ki (or whatever they want to rename it to), then multiclassing becomes less of a lost opporunity in terms of Ki progression.
the flaw is you have less monk variation, and that the monk char concept doesnt lend itself well to these other classes. I actually play a monk class, like 7% of the dnd population and thats not what I am looking for.
Subclasses are exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features. That would be an inferior product for me. I don't want a fighter with 3 features out of monk.
there is nothing inherent to monks, or even the 5e monk playstyle that is broken. Its totally in the execution and its totally fixable in various ways, less drastic than destroying a class and its subclasses
You don't need to have less subclass variation as long as devs build more subclasses of Monkish Fighter and the Monkish Rogue. Right now you have several subclasses of Monk that are completely half-baked anyway b/c the devs don't understand that their own cultural upbringing prevents them from seeing that "Monk" is really just a variation of Fighter or a variation of Rogue. If we start from the standpoint that some Fighter subclasses will wear less armor, have more mobility, and build their Ki instead of weapon skills, you can easily get something like the 5e Monk, but with more hit points while also being less MAD. If we start from the view that some Rogue subclasses will have access to specific magic abilities inherently and sometimes hit more than once a round, you also get something like the 5e Monk, but with better skill progression and less reliance on being in melee range where that d8 hit dice leads to quick trip to unconsciousness/death. And being less reliant on melee attacks will make building a Rogue Monk easier b/c also less MAD.
classes are not designed based on similar mechanics, classes are created based on what type of fantasy they represent.
this is evidenced by wizard and sorcerer being different classes, paladin being neither cleric, nor fighter subclasses, ranger being neither fighter nor druid subclasses. Bard being neither cleric nor wizard subclasses.
Classes are identity/fantasy/concept first, and they create and use whatever mechanics they build to represent that identifty/fantasy/concept.
subclasses are sub identities, and concepts.
Monk represents a different subset of fantasy than the fighter does, or the rogue.
A fighter is a Master of all weapons. They can use any type weapon or armor, as well as anybody else. Their defining feature is combatant
Monk is a master of their own body/mind/spirit their self improvement/understanding gives them seemingly superhuman abilities. Their defining feature pursuing human self perfection,
of course, the game is fairly combat driven, so every class is a combatant, and they have a progression system, so every class wants to improve, but the how and why are big part of what makes classes different things.
the monk should have more ways to power up their physical self mentally and physically maybe stances . something that sets them apart other then movement. I predict ss getting nerfed more which I'm fine with i really don't like that having to be the only identity of the monk .
the monk should have more ways to power up their physical self mentally and physically maybe stances . something that sets them apart other then movement. I predict ss getting nerfed more which I'm fine with i really don't like that having to be the only identity of the monk .
the monk should have more ways to power up their physical self mentally and physically maybe stances . something that sets them apart other then movement. I predict ss getting nerfed more which I'm fine with i really don't like that having to be the only identity of the monk .
the monk should have more ways to power up their physical self mentally and physically maybe stances . something that sets them apart other then movement. I predict ss getting nerfed more which I'm fine with i really don't like that having to be the only identity of the monk .
If only subclasses existed~!
they do though ? Im not sure you understand.
FYI That was sarcasm.
It’s best not to reply with the same energy. Anyway back to topic.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
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
Some people play at tables where they can rely on support from their party.
I tend to favor "one man army" builds because my first experiences in D&D was an Adventurer's League Descent into Avernus, where my Hexblade 1/Swords Bard ended up being the primary tank, primary DPS, party face, and primary healer. The idea of building a character that depends on the rest of the party is foreign to me.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
Some people play at tables where they can rely on support from their party.
I tend to favor "one man army" builds because my first experiences in D&D was an Adventurer's League Descent into Avernus, where my Hexblade 1/Swords Bard ended up being the primary tank, primary DPS, party face, and primary healer. The idea of building a character that depends on the rest of the party is foreign to me.
Ya I think there should be support for this .it’s like a puzzle to be solved and you can have alot of fun crafting builds as long as options are good .
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
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
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
This would be true if this game didn’t have metrics, but it does. The mechanical goal of this game is to succeed against DCs, have others fail against your DCs, and defeat opponents. There are classes that are objectively better at that. SAD classes are objectively better at making others fail their DCs. That doesnt mean all SAD classes are objectively better than all MAD classes but good MAD classes are designed to rely less on their DC and focus more on beating others DCs.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
incorrect. Not everything is opinion.
however, you can disregard anything I say for any reason, even simply because I am annoying or you dislike what say.
neither point changes the previous statement that everyone’s opinions about the monk class are equally valid.
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
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak . I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious. and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?
If so, it seems that they do not want to solve class problems and simply give more resources. If they just do something like that I would be deeply disappointed. Let's hope this is not ail the case.
There's a tacit acknowledgement that (a) not everyone enjoys resource management and (b) resource management should be interesting without being painful.
Yes, you are right. But I hope it doesn't become an excuse for not solving the monk's problems of choosing between offense, defense and movement, because those are a pain to handle.
classes are not designed based on similar mechanics, classes are created based on what type of fantasy they represent.
this is evidenced by wizard and sorcerer being different classes, paladin being neither cleric, nor fighter subclasses, ranger being neither fighter nor druid subclasses. Bard being neither cleric nor wizard subclasses.
Classes are identity/fantasy/concept first, and they create and use whatever mechanics they build to represent that identifty/fantasy/concept.
subclasses are sub identities, and concepts.
Monk represents a different subset of fantasy than the fighter does, or the rogue.
A fighter is a Master of all weapons. They can use any type weapon or armor, as well as anybody else. Their defining feature is combatant
Monk is a master of their own body/mind/spirit their self improvement/understanding gives them seemingly superhuman abilities. Their defining feature pursuing human self perfection,
of course, the game is fairly combat driven, so every class is a combatant, and they have a progression system, so every class wants to improve, but the how and why are big part of what makes classes different things.
the monk should have more ways to power up their physical self mentally and physically maybe stances . something that sets them apart other then movement. I predict ss getting nerfed more which I'm fine with i really don't like that having to be the only identity of the monk .
they do though ? Im not sure you understand.
(4) Monks are BROKEN in Baldur's gate 3 - YouTube watch this it might help ya .
FYI That was sarcasm.
It’s best not to reply with the same energy. Anyway back to topic.
I think outbeat, treant monk and pack tactics under stand the strength and weakness of the class .a lot of the people saying monk is fine don’t seem to understand the rules or how to build characters optimally
if you don’t optimize .your arguments for how a strong class can be .sound like someone who likes martial arts but never actually practiced .
Not everyone seeks an optimal character, and without a common set of established, reliable baselines, the assertion of optimal is never more than opinion since there is no common standard base by which to determine “optimal” values.
so, ultimately, the validity of any argument making claims about strength, weakness, need to change, or that it is fine all have equal merit and validity.
Repeat: all have equal validity because all are personal opinion without common metrics to support assertions across the full range and scope of a class for all player purposes.
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
Some people play at tables where they can rely on support from their party.
I tend to favor "one man army" builds because my first experiences in D&D was an Adventurer's League Descent into Avernus, where my Hexblade 1/Swords Bard ended up being the primary tank, primary DPS, party face, and primary healer. The idea of building a character that depends on the rest of the party is foreign to me.
I’ve told you where to look .
the baseline is established .
you haven’t had any good arguments against what has been stated.
also if you believe what you are saying then monk should have better mechanical support so you can play in more varied ways.
Ya I think there should be support for this .it’s like a puzzle to be solved and you can have alot of fun crafting builds as long as options are good .
and as I pointed out, those aren’t metrics, they are opinions. Pointing me to opinions on a narrow band of possibilities is not giving me anything I haven’t already acknowledged, and doesn’t change the validity of any of the statements thus far, including mine.
I don’t “have good arguments” for something that proves my point.
while I believe what I am saying, I will note that nothing in the quoted bit has a damn thing to do with a subjective concept of mechanical support for something I don’t do (I am a DM
, not a player).
better, best, good, bad, worse, worst are all subjective descriptions. One person saying X is bad is equally as valid as another saying X is good until a broad range of factors encompassing multiple play styles that can be reliably and repetitively measured is established.
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
This would be true if this game didn’t have metrics, but it does. The mechanical goal of this game is to succeed against DCs, have others fail against your DCs, and defeat opponents. There are classes that are objectively better at that. SAD classes are objectively better at making others fail their DCs. That doesnt mean all SAD classes are objectively better than all MAD classes but good MAD classes are designed to rely less on their DC and focus more on beating others DCs.
Ok in your mind everything is opinion .
so I can easily disregard anything you say ,under your own logic.
incorrect. Not everything is opinion.
however, you can disregard anything I say for any reason, even simply because I am annoying or you dislike what say.
neither point changes the previous statement that everyone’s opinions about the monk class are equally valid.
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
Optimization can mean multiple things; depending on who you're talking to. If your only concern is raw damage, then you've established your baseline. Damage, however, is not the only baseline. Some people focus on skills. What matters is picking your desired niche.
The current edition of the game doesn't care about optimizing damage. The encounter math breaks down if you do. Their (Treantmonk and Pack Tactics) path is a surefire way to break the game at your table, and then everything becomes rocket tag. And I've made zero bones about how Treantmonk's "optimancy" is an outmoded thought process on multiple occasions. Speaking from my own experienced, I've been DM for several (Four Elements, Kensei, and Sun Soul) monks. I don't pull my punches, and they all kicked ass even before Tasha's came out. I'm comfortable saying it's not a bad class by any margin.
And if you're intent on playing rocket tag, I can recommend far better systems.
The only thing isn’t damage of course .but it’s where the monk is weak .
I also enjoy Druid and ranger but they don’t have a damage problem if you know how to play.
That allows you to focus on other areas you want to improve.
Also treant is a dm and he doesn’t allow anything broken he knows how to use his knowledge of the game to keep things from getting out hand.
The game won’t break down if you know what you’re doing.
Dnd started as a battle simulator so I find your disregard of people who like combat and want balance hilarious.
and currently it isn’t balanced every class is stronger then monk and many without the need for resource. How is it balanced to have a monk spending more resources and not being rewarded ?