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.
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
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 .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
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 .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
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 .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
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 .
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
Against class fantasy as in being weaker then barb or fighter in combat they fight in different flavors but should be closer to each other. and if monks need resource to keep doing damage then they should do more damage then classes when they have to actually expend a resource .
. Stunning strike is a gamble and shouldn’t be the noose that people justify to keep monks weak , they are already nerfing it which I’m fine with . But now the argument has gotten weak.
and yes I will argue that people who don’t want monk to be stronger are against balance . Or are simply ignorant of the capabilities of other classes.
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 ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
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 ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
Stunning strike was quite imbalanced and I am guessing that was a big portion of how the monks design was balanced out from the designers perspective. Why would you need extra damage, hp or AC when you could Stun stun lock a guy and run away without any opportunity attacks? That makes sense to me.
But, now with stunning strike being once a turn only there is a big power vacuum left over that was clearly not filled with anything in the last UA. The new stunning strike becomes far less powerful as levels increase. Since there are no other conditions or battlefield control options basic monk can do they pretty much have to make the difference with extra damage, better AC or hit points.
I might be wrong here but I do believe treantmonk does his calculations based on 8 combats and only one long rest. In that scenario monks would struggle terribly.
Every table is different and i dont put much stock in white room calculations because there are too many scenarios that come up in which calculations are not applicable. But I can say in any game I have played the monk has always been the class that struggled the most and those struggles only got worse as levels increased. Even when played correctly.
Having fun is the most important aspect of the game but when poor design makes your character feel fairly useless compared to what others are doing it quickly demolishes the fun factor.
Also if balance is an illusion and doesn’t matter why are so hellbent on keeping monks weak? I know there have to be some trade offs that’s why I’m fine with the ss nerfs as long as the promise of the warrior lives up to its name.
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 ?
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
I'm not mad, and I don't know you well enough to be disappointed in you.
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.
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
That doesn’t mean people who enjoy battle are less valid , that sounds judgemental
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
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 thing about "optimization" that so many "theorycrafters" and YouTubers ignore is that it's all about how one plays the character and all of the strengths they have, not merely raw personal DPR, HP, AC.
"Optimization" doesn't take into account the Monk getting to strike enemies a turn before the rest of the party, or the extra damage a Monk sets up with their Stunning Strike. It doesn't take into account their greater survivability against attacks like dragons' breath, or a Mercy Monk's ability to easily impose disadvantage on many foes.
In a way, it highlights the selfish playstyle such people have, in that a class's utility lies primarily in personally being powerful and dominating, not in what they contribute to the party.
Ah Lilith how I have missed you. But for real there are so many ways to gain movement. And I don’t think it’s selfish to want to be equal .I have never said monk should be way above any class I just want them on par and they are not. Also you’re making a lot of assumptions I actually sacrifice a lot of chances at damage to help save my party and try to help distract so the squishy can get away . Or climb up places to tie rope so my party can climb.
I also never said their fun was wrong you were saying people who want a balanced game that has good battle are wrong . So you are wrong on that
dnd did start from a war game another name for battle simulation or your just choosing to warp meaning for your own sake. . So wrong again
I can keep going if you want.
If you want a balanced game, go play Fourth Edition. Spellcasters were neutered, everyone had "powers", monks were psionic, and everyone had to have specific magic item bonuses or the math would literally break down. Or you can play Pathfinder 2nd edition, which is more like D&D 4.5 than most are willing to admit. Paizo poached some of the 4E design team to make it.
Balance with the current rules isn't bloody well possible; nor is it the point. If it were, the design team wouldn't be grading features on player satisfaction. What you want is directly at odds with the guiding design principles of the people making the game. Class identity and "feel" matters just as much, if not more, than the number totals. And as has already been pointed out, damage literally isn't everything. Every class has different defenses, movement modes, and utility that also need consideration. You claim to want balance, but you only talk about one variable in the equation.
It's asinine.
Shoot your monks. They have Deflect Missiles and Evasion, so give them a chance to use these features. Yes, they might want a Ki Point to throw whatever they catch back. That's something both the DM and player need to be cognizant of. Monks shouldn't be using Flurry of Blows every round. Why should they? They can make up to three attacks, including two with a versatile weapon, without a feat or fighting style, all while adding their Ability modifier to every damage roll. That's nothing to sneeze at. All things equal, a 5th-level fighter need Polearm Master and a glaive or halberd to outpace that by 1. Meanwhile, the monk gets to invest in something else. Its power isn't married to raw damage, and that's a big part of the class' appeal.
You desperately want to be right, but you aren't even having the same conversation as the rest of us.
I also never said their fun was wrong you were saying people who want a balanced game that has good battle are wrong . So you are wrong on that
dnd did start from a war game another name for battle simulation or your just choosing to warp meaning for your own sake. . So wrong again
I can keep going if you want.
If you want a balanced game, go play Fourth Edition. Spellcasters were neutered, everyone had "powers", monks were psionic, and everyone had to have specific magic item bonuses or the math would literally break down. Or you can play Pathfinder 2nd edition, which is more like D&D 4.5 than most are willing to admit. Paizo poached some of the 4E design team to make it.
Balance with the current rules isn't bloody well possible; nor is it the point. If it were, the design team wouldn't be grading features on player satisfaction. What you want is directly at odds with the guiding design principles of the people making the game. Class identity and "feel" matters just as much, if not more, than the number totals. And as has already been pointed out, damage literally isn't everything. Every class has different defenses, movement modes, and utility that also need consideration. You claim to want balance, but you only talk about one variable in the equation.
It's asinine.
Shoot your monks. They have Deflect Missiles and Evasion, so give them a chance to use these features. Yes, they might want a Ki Point to throw whatever they catch back. That's something both the DM and player need to be cognizant of. Monks shouldn't be using Flurry of Blows every round. Why should they? They can make up to three attacks, including two with a versatile weapon, without a feat or fighting style, all while adding their Ability modifier to every damage roll. That's nothing to sneeze at. All things equal, a 5th-level fighter need Polearm Master and a glaive or halberd to outpace that by 1. Meanwhile, the monk gets to invest in something else. Its power isn't married to raw damage, and that's a big part of the class' appeal.
You desperately want to be right, but you aren't even having the same conversation as the rest of us.
Ok I think your misreading intent why don't we start over . why do you not want monk to be on par with other martials is it because of ss or some other reason?
does the fact that they nerfed ss have no effect on you ? or thematically do you just want them to be weak? just trying to understand your logic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also if you don’t like dnd and combat and like rrp more ,
I can also recommend far better systems.
However I think that’s rude and shortsighted so instead I’ll say there should be room for you to play more rp friendly settings ,
and for proper combat and balance to be allowed for those of us who enjoy tactics and battle
How nearsighted. The goal of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun, mechanically the goal is to progress the narrative. Sometimes this means making a choice you are likely to fail at because that is what your character would do in that situation, sometimes this means not fighting / defeating an opponent but rather running past them to interfere with their evil ritual to save the world instead. You remind me of watching Pack Tactics "D&D Optimizers play BG3", where they made an encounter unnecessarily difficult because they chose to simply fight rather than talking to their opponents (or about how he keeps whining he's a lower level b/c the game rewards roleplay with XP and he doesn't roleplay). D&D may have started as a wargame but it isn't a war game, and has become less and less of a wargame with each iteration.
It’s been a while since I watched Treantmonk’s monks suck videos (I think there were two?) but I’m pretty sure he did say if you are not playing at an optimized table they are probably fine.
Not everyone optimizes and those who do can do it to varying degrees.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
True kreen but I think it’s a design flaw to have them weak and against class fantasy. Saying they can work is one thing to say they are in balance with other classes would be a lie however. They need proper damage ,better ac or better health dice , less ki dependence or proper power exchanged for the ki and full access to warrior feats . They could use some asis as well . Crazy that rogue gets more and is less mad
Even if not everyone builds and plays optimally, I think you need to use both optimal and typical conditions for your balancing to ensure you don't end up with scenarios where some players' play experiences can be severely impacted by the build/class combos someone who else takes rendering them nearly irrelevant (we all see the current horror stories of DMs struggling to build encounters that will challenge player A while not wiping out players B-D).
I’m not sure what you mean by “against class fantasy” but I would like to see comparisons now that GWM no longer does -5/+10 while monks martial arts die increased.
I do think Stunning Strike was part of the reason monks damage output is lower. Stunned is a powerful condition. Put on top of that fall damage mitigation, extra movement (plus on vertical and liquid surfaces), proficiency in all saving throws (and we both know how Treantmonk likes saving throw bonuses) etc and these types of features cut into the monk’s “power budget” that isn’t taken into account while comparing it to the damage baseline he uses.
Treantmonk put out videos comparing races/species where he assigned point values to traits. Some races he thought would be high on the list ended up near the bottom. So much for how he thought “optimized” racial traits were compared to the actual numbers when he drilled down. Wonder how monk would compare if he did similar analysis of all class features via a similar point system?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Against class fantasy as in being weaker then barb or fighter in combat they fight in different flavors but should be closer to each other.
and if monks need resource to keep doing damage then they should do more damage then classes when they have to actually expend a resource .
. Stunning strike is a gamble and shouldn’t be the noose that people justify to keep monks weak , they are already nerfing it which I’m fine with . But now the argument has gotten weak.
and yes I will argue that people who don’t want monk to be stronger are against balance . Or are simply ignorant of the capabilities of other classes.
Here watch these kreen
https://youtu.be/OEEXc9CofuM?si=y0v8-GzBCmk0BmeG
and
https://youtu.be/6sZCooZrz5I?si=GOXyQ5xSYObkLwAX
The monks damage starts off high and mostly keeps up if you aren't relying on "must have" feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. That's not a failure of the class. It's an intentional decision, and the monk does other things better than everyone else.
Because the game is a collaborative experience. If you only look at a class in a vacuum, you aren't actually looking at how the game is meant to be played. Don't come to me with your talk of system mastery. I'm an ardent defender of the PH ranger because I see it for what it can do.
And don't make the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying Treantmonk is a DM. I'm a DM. A lot of us are. He isn't better or more knowledgeable than the rest of us. He has a YouTube channel. That's it, and that's nothing special.
And calling D&D a "battle simulator" is so disingenuous that I scarcely know where to begin. It spun out of the European wargaming tradition by (a) using a fantasy supplement and (b) shifting the focus down from armies to individual units. Never mind that a huge element of the game was survival horror, or than depending on what you were trying to do you were using one of six different rules sets.
Balance is a illusion at best and a red herring at worst. You're not swinging your sword in a way that keeps up with reality-altering magic. What matters is the fantasy experience each class brings to the table, and the shared experience the players have.
It's a game. If you're telling people they're fun is wrong because the shiny math rocks and numbers scribbled on paper don't make high enough numbers, you're wrong for doing so.
I know you’re mad , but you know I’m right. You just sound like you don’t want others to enjoy the game in ways you don’t play . I don’t share that I think it’s fine if you like to play in a different way. .But think a system should be robust and allow variation. I’m sorry you can’t gate keep dnd . People are allowed to enjoy different aspects.
Stunning strike was quite imbalanced and I am guessing that was a big portion of how the monks design was balanced out from the designers perspective. Why would you need extra damage, hp or AC when you could Stun stun lock a guy and run away without any opportunity attacks? That makes sense to me.
But, now with stunning strike being once a turn only there is a big power vacuum left over that was clearly not filled with anything in the last UA. The new stunning strike becomes far less powerful as levels increase. Since there are no other conditions or battlefield control options basic monk can do they pretty much have to make the difference with extra damage, better AC or hit points.
I might be wrong here but I do believe treantmonk does his calculations based on 8 combats and only one long rest. In that scenario monks would struggle terribly.
Every table is different and i dont put much stock in white room calculations because there are too many scenarios that come up in which calculations are not applicable. But I can say in any game I have played the monk has always been the class that struggled the most and those struggles only got worse as levels increased. Even when played correctly.
Having fun is the most important aspect of the game but when poor design makes your character feel fairly useless compared to what others are doing it quickly demolishes the fun factor.
Monks need help.
Also if balance is an illusion and doesn’t matter why are so hellbent on keeping monks weak? I know there have to be some trade offs that’s why I’m fine with the ss nerfs as long as the promise of the warrior lives up to its name.
I'm not mad, and I don't know you well enough to be disappointed in you.
You're just flat wrong on all counts.
@masterofki yes thank you this is what I’m saying .
though I personally think ss is not as strong as some
I have never said it wasn’t good just that I don’t like it dominating the monks budget. And I personally never use it excessively.
That doesn’t mean people who enjoy battle are less valid , that sounds judgemental
I also never said their fun was wrong you were saying people who want a balanced game that has good battle are wrong . So you are wrong on that
dnd did start from a war game another name for battle simulation or your just choosing to warp meaning for your own sake. . So wrong again
I can keep going if you want.
Excellent point sir
Ah Lilith how I have missed you. But for real there are so many ways to gain movement. And I don’t think it’s selfish to want to be equal .I have never said monk should be way above any class I just want them on par and they are not. Also you’re making a lot of assumptions I actually sacrifice a lot of chances at damage to help save my party and try to help distract so the squishy can get away . Or climb up places to tie rope so my party can climb.
If you want a balanced game, go play Fourth Edition. Spellcasters were neutered, everyone had "powers", monks were psionic, and everyone had to have specific magic item bonuses or the math would literally break down. Or you can play Pathfinder 2nd edition, which is more like D&D 4.5 than most are willing to admit. Paizo poached some of the 4E design team to make it.
Balance with the current rules isn't bloody well possible; nor is it the point. If it were, the design team wouldn't be grading features on player satisfaction. What you want is directly at odds with the guiding design principles of the people making the game. Class identity and "feel" matters just as much, if not more, than the number totals. And as has already been pointed out, damage literally isn't everything. Every class has different defenses, movement modes, and utility that also need consideration. You claim to want balance, but you only talk about one variable in the equation.
It's asinine.
Shoot your monks. They have Deflect Missiles and Evasion, so give them a chance to use these features. Yes, they might want a Ki Point to throw whatever they catch back. That's something both the DM and player need to be cognizant of. Monks shouldn't be using Flurry of Blows every round. Why should they? They can make up to three attacks, including two with a versatile weapon, without a feat or fighting style, all while adding their Ability modifier to every damage roll. That's nothing to sneeze at. All things equal, a 5th-level fighter need Polearm Master and a glaive or halberd to outpace that by 1. Meanwhile, the monk gets to invest in something else. Its power isn't married to raw damage, and that's a big part of the class' appeal.
You desperately want to be right, but you aren't even having the same conversation as the rest of us.
Ok I think your misreading intent why don't we start over . why do you not want monk to be on par with other martials is it because of ss or some other reason?
does the fact that they nerfed ss have no effect on you ? or thematically do you just want them to be weak? just trying to understand your logic.