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.
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).
This is exactly why monk needs to be stronger . its very easy to be out shone. parity of warriors should be worked towards.
I'm going to posit that part of some folks' perception that Monks are weak and too limited in points stems entirely from their perception that Stunning Strike is the only thing worth using for a Monk. As such, those folks are likely inclined to blow points to try to stun enemies, even if the odds are against them, rather than taking advantage of other Monk features. Then when they've exhausted their options, they then blame the class itself for their poor play of it.
While I like what the Playtest has done so far, I'm expecting the next UA to add some bells and whistles to the class, just as they've added on to other classes with later UAs, particularly skill-based options. Fighters getting Tactical Mind and Studied Attack, Blade Warlocks getting a third attack, Wizards having an area of Expertise and schools getting free spells.
ya burning all your ki on ss is bad and a waste of ki . I personally rarely use the feature, control can be done in multiple ways some of which don't burn your only resource. just know im fighting for you guys to have a good monk as well .
though I think its hilarious that you think its ok for warlock to get an extra attack but monks are not allowed dpr increases in your mind lol .
I have to give you that one it was good one, cracked a rib on that one. you and Jonouchi just seem to think monk has to be weak becuase it fits your view of what the class has to be . Jonouchi had it right in that pathfinder did the monk way better and if the monk is still terrible when the new phb releases you guys will get your wish and ill quit lol. I like 3.5 monk and the current more ss oriented monk has taken over some peoples mindscape . there is nothing wrong with a monk wanting to have parity in dpr especially at the cost of a resource you guys are tripping lol.
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.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
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.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
I'm gonna just take that comment as an e hug, back at ya bro. any way so parity ,well for one I would like monks to have access to first level warrior feats like barb and fighter.
they currently cannot cause they all require mastery of a martial weapons which has been removed from monks.
2 either an increase in hit die or something like half proficiency gained into base ac .
3 add ma die back to weapons .
4 allow for use of weapon mastery just like fighter but only on the unarmed strikes.
5.stretch goal would be one more attack at level eleven, but I could live with it if they did the most of the rest .
though I think its hilarious that you think its ok for warlock to get an extra attack but monks are not allowed dpr increases in your mind lol .
I have to give you that one it was good one, cracked a rib on that one. you and Jonouchi just seem to think monk has to be weak becuase it fits your view of what the class has to be . Jonouchi had it right in that pathfinder did the monk way better and if the monk is still terrible when the new phb releases you guys will get your wish and ill quit lol. I like 3.5 monk and the current more ss oriented monk has taken over some peoples mindscape . there is nothing wrong with a monk wanting to have parity in dpr especially at the cost of a resource you guys are tripping lol.
I think it's hilarious that you think I'm saying that when what I clearly said was "if they're giving Bladelocks a third attack and Fighters this and that they're probably going to give Monks new stuff too". There's a world of difference between "Monks of UA6 are balanced alongside Fighters of UA5" and "Monks of UA6 are balanced alongside Fighters who can +d10 on ability checks and get advantage whenever they miss".
Of course that all depends on whether such features get approval...
Im sorry Lilith. I misunderstood your intent there .
I am very happy to hear you are not against some monk improvements.
Warlock needs to have that 3rd attack taken away from them, it is crazy powerful when they can add 1d6 from Lifedrinker and 2d8 from Spirit Shroud to each of those attacks and can add another attack with a feat. It's totally insane,... meanwhile Monk gets nerfs...
Warlock needs to have that 3rd attack taken away from them, it is crazy powerful when they can add 1d6 from Lifedrinker and 2d8 from Spirit Shroud to each of those attacks and can add another attack with a feat. It's totally insane,... meanwhile Monk gets nerfs...
What are you talking about? If you take away the Warlock's 3rd weapon attack than there's literally no reason to use PoB after 11th level. Eldritch Blast out-damages it while also being ranged. Eldritch Blast can also still benefits from Spirit Shroud mind you.
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.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
I'm gonna just take that comment as an e hug, back at ya bro. any way so parity ,well for one I would like monks to have access to first level warrior feats like barb and fighter.
they currently cannot cause they all require mastery of a martial weapons which has been removed from monks.
2 either an increase in hit die or something like half proficiency gained into base ac .
3 add ma die back to weapons .
4 allow for use of weapon mastery just like fighter but only on the unarmed strikes.
5.stretch goal would be one more attack at level eleven, but I could live with it if they did the most of the rest .
I hate to break it to you, but you'll live with whatever they give you. Nobody is ending their existence over the next Player's Handbook.
Hell, you admit to liking the 3.5 monk. The 2014 monk is leagues better, for its system, and the most recent playtest is more than two months old. Feedback closed more than a month ago, and we'll get another one in about two months. At this point, the continued gnashing of teeth over this may as well be self-flagellation. But to address your points...
The several class groups no longer exists, and the Fighting Style feats as last written have the Fighting Style class feature as a prerequisite; it's only a Fighter thing at 1st-level.
Monks, IIRC, began as an offshoot of Cleric, so the Hit Die is fine, and this edition eschews stacking incremental bonuses.
If they do add it back in, lack of martial weapons wouldn't matter because the only options they can't use (Cleave, Graze, and Push) are gated behind heavy weapons.
No, this is silly, because they can already deal Force Damage.
I've stated publicly, several times, I would not be opposed to Flurry of Blows gaining an additional attack at 11th-level.
Personally, there's been enough outrage over the monk's AC that I have half a mind to opt for a Strength focus with Wisdom as the secondary statistic; just to see how it actually measures up. Stacking it is a sucker's bet at high levels anyway.
The Warlock power creep is wild, because the problem is that it’s not power creep until you look at it from multiple angles. Thirsting Blade getting a 3 attack seems balanced since EB has 3 attacks at 11th, but Warlocks are also getting a 6th level spell at 11th. Even if they want to focus on melee weapon attacks Warlocks are casters. They shouldn’t be getting 3 weapon attacks. With Fighters and Barbarians gaining extra mobility hopefully in the next UA8 monks gain the mobility to actually be skirmishers without taking the mobile feat.
A flaw I’m noticing with Monk and Ranger is that at 11th they gain a subclass feature at a time when base classes are offering improvements to what the base class does. Fighter have another weapon Attack, Barbarian don’t die while Raging stay in the fight, Paladin every hit is a smite, Rogue you are the expert of experts. Poor Ranger and Monk have to hope their Subclass feature gives them a great thing that keeps them in line with the other classes natural growth. I’ll also point out that Barbarians is weak since who wants to get dropped to 0, and it comes up far less than fighters, paladins, and rogues base class improvements.
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.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
I'm gonna just take that comment as an e hug, back at ya bro. any way so parity ,well for one I would like monks to have access to first level warrior feats like barb and fighter.
they currently cannot cause they all require mastery of a martial weapons which has been removed from monks.
2 either an increase in hit die or something like half proficiency gained into base ac .
3 add ma die back to weapons .
4 allow for use of weapon mastery just like fighter but only on the unarmed strikes.
5.stretch goal would be one more attack at level eleven, but I could live with it if they did the most of the rest .
I hate to break it to you, but you'll live with whatever they give you. Nobody is ending their existence over the next Player's Handbook.
Hell, you admit to liking the 3.5 monk. The 2014 monk is leagues better, for its system, and the most recent playtest is more than two months old. Feedback closed more than a month ago, and we'll get another one in about two months. At this point, the continued gnashing of teeth over this may as well be self-flagellation. But to address your points...
The several class groups no longer exists, and the Fighting Style feats as last written have the Fighting Style class feature as a prerequisite; it's only a Fighter thing at 1st-level.
Monks, IIRC, began as an offshoot of Cleric, so the Hit Die is fine, and this edition eschews stacking incremental bonuses.
If they do add it back in, lack of martial weapons wouldn't matter because the only options they can't use (Cleave, Graze, and Push) are gated behind heavy weapons.
No, this is silly, because they can already deal Force Damage.
I've stated publicly, several times, I would not be opposed to Flurry of Blows gaining an additional attack at 11th-level.
Personally, there's been enough outrage over the monk's AC that I have half a mind to opt for a Strength focus with Wisdom as the secondary statistic; just to see how it actually measures up. Stacking it is a sucker's bet at high levels anyway.
of course I will live. 3.5 fighter got to transfer more of their power to 5e then 3.5 monk.
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.
I've never once argued that the monk should be weak or even that it is fine how it is. I have many post and multiple threads where I've put forth improvements I would like to see for the monk (like this thread). It's my favorite class, much like Colby in the videos you linked, since I played them in AD&D in the early to mid 80's. I do think monks need improvements from both the 2014 version and especially the UA version. My hope is it will get similar treatment that the Rogue got. The first version of Rogue got little changes, mostly negative. Then the revision had some negative changes reversed and Cunning Strikes added.
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.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
I'm gonna just take that comment as an e hug, back at ya bro. any way so parity ,well for one I would like monks to have access to first level warrior feats like barb and fighter.
they currently cannot cause they all require mastery of a martial weapons which has been removed from monks.
2 either an increase in hit die or something like half proficiency gained into base ac .
3 add ma die back to weapons .
4 allow for use of weapon mastery just like fighter but only on the unarmed strikes.
5.stretch goal would be one more attack at level eleven, but I could live with it if they did the most of the rest .
I hate to break it to you, but you'll live with whatever they give you. Nobody is ending their existence over the next Player's Handbook.
Hell, you admit to liking the 3.5 monk. The 2014 monk is leagues better, for its system, and the most recent playtest is more than two months old. Feedback closed more than a month ago, and we'll get another one in about two months. At this point, the continued gnashing of teeth over this may as well be self-flagellation. But to address your points...
The several class groups no longer exists, and the Fighting Style feats as last written have the Fighting Style class feature as a prerequisite; it's only a Fighter thing at 1st-level.
Monks, IIRC, began as an offshoot of Cleric, so the Hit Die is fine, and this edition eschews stacking incremental bonuses.
If they do add it back in, lack of martial weapons wouldn't matter because the only options they can't use (Cleave, Graze, and Push) are gated behind heavy weapons.
No, this is silly, because they can already deal Force Damage.
I've stated publicly, several times, I would not be opposed to Flurry of Blows gaining an additional attack at 11th-level.
Personally, there's been enough outrage over the monk's AC that I have half a mind to opt for a Strength focus with Wisdom as the secondary statistic; just to see how it actually measures up. Stacking it is a sucker's bet at high levels anyway.
As far as I know, Monk was it's own class in 1E AD&D, I don't think it was in anything earlier. I still have my PHB to prove it, lol. They started at first level with 2d4 hit points (d4 hit die like magic-users) and 1d4 every level after that, ending with a whopping 18d4 at 17th level, it's level cap (45hp average before con bonus, which caps at +2 for an 18 con). At 17th level, they got 4 attacks at 8d4 each.
One other thing i heard crawford say in the UA 7 video was that perhaps some of the tashas optional features might come over to the phb monk. My guess is dedicated weapon and possibly ki fueled attack. I say dedicated weapon because in UA 6 stunning strike is restricted to simple weapons and unarmed strikes. Meaning if you have proficiency in a longsword through multiclassing you cant even attempt a stunning strike with it. That seemed like a very unnecessary restriction.
If dedicated weapon does make it through, that could also mean a return to monk weapons. 🤞
Pure conjecture at this point so take it for what its worth.
Warlock needs to have that 3rd attack taken away from them, it is crazy powerful when they can add 1d6 from Lifedrinker and 2d8 from Spirit Shroud to each of those attacks and can add another attack with a feat. It's totally insane,... meanwhile Monk gets nerfs...
What are you talking about? If you take away the Warlock's 3rd weapon attack than there's literally no reason to use PoB after 11th level. Eldritch Blast out-damages it while also being ranged. Eldritch Blast can also still benefits from Spirit Shroud mind you.
You can only combine Spirit Shroud with EB on the first round of combat, b/c after that you'll be stuck in melee and have DA on all your EB attacks, so no you can't really use Spirit Shroud with EB.
PoB doesn't need the 3rd attack at 11th level, because you can combine PoB with weapon-based feats for more damage, which you can't do with EB,. Combining PoB with Spirit Shroud out damages EB + Hex at 11th level even with only 2 attacks per round from your Action, because with PAM that is 3 attacks per round..
The Warlock power creep is wild, because the problem is that it’s not power creep until you look at it from multiple angles. Thirsting Blade getting a 3 attack seems balanced since EB has 3 attacks at 11th, but Warlocks are also getting a 6th level spell at 11th. Even if they want to focus on melee weapon attacks Warlocks are casters. They shouldn’t be getting 3 weapon attacks. With Fighters and Barbarians gaining extra mobility hopefully in the next UA8 monks gain the mobility to actually be skirmishers without taking the mobile feat.
A flaw I’m noticing with Monk and Ranger is that at 11th they gain a subclass feature at a time when base classes are offering improvements to what the base class does. Fighter have another weapon Attack, Barbarian don’t die while Raging stay in the fight, Paladin every hit is a smite, Rogue you are the expert of experts. Poor Ranger and Monk have to hope their Subclass feature gives them a great thing that keeps them in line with the other classes natural growth. I’ll also point out that Barbarians is weak since who wants to get dropped to 0, and it comes up far less than fighters, paladins, and rogues base class improvements.
Especially with pacts now being weapons I think pact of the blade should really just be Eldritch blast in melee. Let the player form the eldritch melee blasts into whatever forms fit their character.
The playtest Spell Sniper eliminates disadvantage within 5 feet for ranged attacks, including spells. One feat allows you to machine gun your enemies in combat as well at range.
So yes, you can combine Spirit Shroud with Eldritch Blast within SS's 10 foot range, although Hex tends to be less resource efficient (due to duration) and has a longer effective range.
PAM as of the Expert UA requires proficiency with martial weapons, which the Warlock doesn't possess. The PotB is proficient with their Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for choosing feats.
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.
This is exactly why monk needs to be stronger . its very easy to be out shone. parity of warriors should be worked towards.
ya burning all your ki on ss is bad and a waste of ki . I personally rarely use the feature, control can be done in multiple ways some of which don't burn your only resource. just know im fighting for you guys to have a good monk as well .
though I think its hilarious that you think its ok for warlock to get an extra attack but monks are not allowed dpr increases in your mind lol .
I have to give you that one it was good one, cracked a rib on that one. you and Jonouchi just seem to think monk has to be weak becuase it fits your view of what the class has to be . Jonouchi had it right in that pathfinder did the monk way better and if the monk is still terrible when the new phb releases you guys will get your wish and ill quit lol. I like 3.5 monk and the current more ss oriented monk has taken over some peoples mindscape . there is nothing wrong with a monk wanting to have parity in dpr especially at the cost of a resource you guys are tripping lol.
"Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood." -William Howard Taft
Don't accuse someone else of misreading your intent. It's your job to effectively communicate your point. If someone else doesn't get it, it's because you screwed up your messaging.
That said, what does parity even look like to you?
I'm gonna just take that comment as an e hug, back at ya bro. any way so parity ,well for one I would like monks to have access to first level warrior feats like barb and fighter.
they currently cannot cause they all require mastery of a martial weapons which has been removed from monks.
2 either an increase in hit die or something like half proficiency gained into base ac .
3 add ma die back to weapons .
4 allow for use of weapon mastery just like fighter but only on the unarmed strikes.
5.stretch goal would be one more attack at level eleven, but I could live with it if they did the most of the rest .
Im sorry Lilith. I misunderstood your intent there .
I am very happy to hear you are not against some monk improvements.
Warlock needs to have that 3rd attack taken away from them, it is crazy powerful when they can add 1d6 from Lifedrinker and 2d8 from Spirit Shroud to each of those attacks and can add another attack with a feat. It's totally insane,... meanwhile Monk gets nerfs...
What are you talking about? If you take away the Warlock's 3rd weapon attack than there's literally no reason to use PoB after 11th level. Eldritch Blast out-damages it while also being ranged. Eldritch Blast can also still benefits from Spirit Shroud mind you.
I hate to break it to you, but you'll live with whatever they give you. Nobody is ending their existence over the next Player's Handbook.
Hell, you admit to liking the 3.5 monk. The 2014 monk is leagues better, for its system, and the most recent playtest is more than two months old. Feedback closed more than a month ago, and we'll get another one in about two months. At this point, the continued gnashing of teeth over this may as well be self-flagellation. But to address your points...
Personally, there's been enough outrage over the monk's AC that I have half a mind to opt for a Strength focus with Wisdom as the secondary statistic; just to see how it actually measures up. Stacking it is a sucker's bet at high levels anyway.
The Warlock power creep is wild, because the problem is that it’s not power creep until you look at it from multiple angles. Thirsting Blade getting a 3 attack seems balanced since EB has 3 attacks at 11th, but Warlocks are also getting a 6th level spell at 11th. Even if they want to focus on melee weapon attacks Warlocks are casters. They shouldn’t be getting 3 weapon attacks.
With Fighters and Barbarians gaining extra mobility hopefully in the next UA8 monks gain the mobility to actually be skirmishers without taking the mobile feat.
A flaw I’m noticing with Monk and Ranger is that at 11th they gain a subclass feature at a time when base classes are offering improvements to what the base class does. Fighter have another weapon Attack, Barbarian don’t die while Raging stay in the fight, Paladin every hit is a smite, Rogue you are the expert of experts. Poor Ranger and Monk have to hope their Subclass feature gives them a great thing that keeps them in line with the other classes natural growth. I’ll also point out that Barbarians is weak since who wants to get dropped to 0, and it comes up far less than fighters, paladins, and rogues base class improvements.
of course I will live. 3.5 fighter got to transfer more of their power to 5e then 3.5 monk.
Im glad you are ok with some tweaks at least .
I've never once argued that the monk should be weak or even that it is fine how it is. I have many post and multiple threads where I've put forth improvements I would like to see for the monk (like this thread). It's my favorite class, much like Colby in the videos you linked, since I played them in AD&D in the early to mid 80's. I do think monks need improvements from both the 2014 version and especially the UA version. My hope is it will get similar treatment that the Rogue got. The first version of Rogue got little changes, mostly negative. Then the revision had some negative changes reversed and Cunning Strikes added.
I've seen them. Thanks.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As far as I know, Monk was it's own class in 1E AD&D, I don't think it was in anything earlier. I still have my PHB to prove it, lol. They started at first level with 2d4 hit points (d4 hit die like magic-users) and 1d4 every level after that, ending with a whopping 18d4 at 17th level, it's level cap (45hp average before con bonus, which caps at +2 for an 18 con). At 17th level, they got 4 attacks at 8d4 each.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
One other thing i heard crawford say in the UA 7 video was that perhaps some of the tashas optional features might come over to the phb monk. My guess is dedicated weapon and possibly ki fueled attack. I say dedicated weapon because in UA 6 stunning strike is restricted to simple weapons and unarmed strikes. Meaning if you have proficiency in a longsword through multiclassing you cant even attempt a stunning strike with it. That seemed like a very unnecessary restriction.
If dedicated weapon does make it through, that could also mean a return to monk weapons. 🤞
Pure conjecture at this point so take it for what its worth.
You can only combine Spirit Shroud with EB on the first round of combat, b/c after that you'll be stuck in melee and have DA on all your EB attacks, so no you can't really use Spirit Shroud with EB.
PoB doesn't need the 3rd attack at 11th level, because you can combine PoB with weapon-based feats for more damage, which you can't do with EB,. Combining PoB with Spirit Shroud out damages EB + Hex at 11th level even with only 2 attacks per round from your Action, because with PAM that is 3 attacks per round..
Especially with pacts now being weapons I think pact of the blade should really just be Eldritch blast in melee. Let the player form the eldritch melee blasts into whatever forms fit their character.
The playtest Spell Sniper eliminates disadvantage within 5 feet for ranged attacks, including spells. One feat allows you to machine gun your enemies in combat as well at range.
So yes, you can combine Spirit Shroud with Eldritch Blast within SS's 10 foot range, although Hex tends to be less resource efficient (due to duration) and has a longer effective range.
PAM as of the Expert UA requires proficiency with martial weapons, which the Warlock doesn't possess. The PotB is proficient with their Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for choosing feats.