Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
You call me out without offering anything in return? No, I'm not here to play silly games. I gave you as much as I'm willing to for free.
If you want access to my notes, it's $50 per session. How many hundreds are you willing to shell out? And that's if I get permission from my clients to share, because my contracts don't cover people on forums baselessly calling into question my character or expertise.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
You call me out without offering anything in return? No, I'm not here to play silly games. I gave you as much as I'm willing to for free.
If you want access to my notes, it's $50 per session. How many hundreds are you willing to shell out? And that's if I get permission from my clients to share, because my contracts don't cover people on forums baselessly calling into question my character or expertise.
And why would they? You are nobody to any of us.
I think you made a few good points here , however I think most people would say the subclasses do increase the monks dpr ,but not significantly above what is needed with how weak the base class is.
Look ,if they add enough power to the next ua for subclasses I’ll be happy .though I thinks it’s better to boost the base class more rather then subclasses
so people can have more variety and still be viable regardless of the subclass they want to play
Quote from Ain_Undos>>Gwar you are right that Monks lack survivability and that’s something both fighter and Barbarian have in spades as Warriors.
Sorry but Fighter isn't even close to Barbarian or Paladin in terms of survivability, Not. Even. Close.
What level are we talking about? Second Wind is amazing in low tiers. Also, don't forget those extra ASIs, which can certainly be spent on stuff like constitution, or resilient, or toughness.
I saw people declare that Action Surge was a superior damage boost to Flurry of Blows, so I did the simple math and found that was incorrect, due to FoB increasing in uses as the Monk levels versus Action Surge only scaling with Extra Attacks. The Monk Bad crowd insisted otherwise, despite not supporting their claim with their own math.
My understanding of the argument was that Action Surge is superior to Flurry of Blows at low levels. How well Flurry of Blows scales doesn't change how good it is when you get it.
I saw people say that Monk subclasses don't contribute to their DPR, so I went and listed every Monk subclass feature that increases their damage output. The Monk Bad crowd just insisted those features didn't count.
They didn't just insist that those features didn't count, they also gave reasoning. Y'know, the thing you're supposed to give in an argument. But I suppose logic is just another form of misinformation, huh?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
And it'd be one thing if it was just about "improving" the Monk, but a good chunk of the Monk Bad crowd expects the class to be overhauled to suit them alone. No small number of proposed changes blatantly weaken the base Monk or make the class more shallow (e.g. dropping Wisdom from the class's features) in favour of making their features more exploitable for multiclassing. Rather than playing a class they enjoy, much of the Monk Bad crowd wants a class many people play and enjoy to be changed to their preference.
I'm sympathetic to this argument as its what I and many others said and felt about the 1/2 caster+ warlock model feeling it destroyed the essence of the warlock class. Rather than playing a class they would enjoy they wanted to change the warlock into something it wasn't to suit themselves while taking away what many players enjoyed about playing the warlock. But I think a lot of the changes proposed seem to keep the essence of the monk by just offering some base line improvements. Sure dropping wisdom as a class feature feels a bit off brand. But changing their AC calculation to 13+wisdom modifier with some small scaling with monk level doesn't imo. Giving them the option of dex or wisdom for their strike to hit/damage calculation does not seem off brand. If they are still MAD giving them more ASIs so they can feel more free to take feats does not seem off brand. Adding some feats that would help unarmed fighting does not seem off brand. Having step of the wind not cost ki does not seem off brand. Having a wider range of ki uses with their strikes so stunning strike is not so central does not seem off brand. It is why 2014 warlock fans are not upset with the 7UA as it kept what was integral to the warlock but made improvements that seem on brand, still can use some tweaking but its a great start.
Quote from Ain_Undos>>Gwar you are right that Monks lack survivability and that’s something both fighter and Barbarian have in spades as Warriors.
Sorry but Fighter isn't even close to Barbarian or Paladin in terms of survivability, Not. Even. Close.
What level are we talking about? Second Wind is amazing in low tiers. Also, don't forget those extra ASIs, which can certainly be spent on stuff like constitution, or resilient, or toughness.
Even high tiers I'm not sure I agree with them on barbarian, paladin sure they are very tough. But fighters will have a slightly better AC than barbarians, and they wont be recklessly attacking. 1/2 damage does make a barbarian super tough, but they get hit a crap ton more often than the fighter. Certain fights the Ac does not matter the monster is hitting both of you with both attacks, but I don't think that is the norm across a adventuring day.
People demonstrate a lot of things, Lilith. [REDACTED] the existence of aliens, the effectiveness of the Monk, the ineffectiveness of the Monk, and the list goes on. I'm not cartoonishly stupid for using my discretion to determine which demonstrations I buy into.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
You call me out without offering anything in return? No, I'm not here to play silly games. I gave you as much as I'm willing to for free.
If you want access to my notes, it's $50 per session. How many hundreds are you willing to shell out? And that's if I get permission from my clients to share, because my contracts don't cover people on forums baselessly calling into question my character or expertise.
And why would they? You are nobody to any of us.
At this point I was trying to salvage meaningful discussion.
There is no character or expertise called into question. I don't really care about anyones expertise, Its a playtest, Everyone has an opinion. Charachter? I don't know you and never claimed to. And contracts? What?
In a forum about the Unearthed Arcana, in a thread about the Monk, you are not willing discuss any real information about the UA or the UA monk.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
So, I'm going to be frank here.
I saw people insisting that two-weapon fighting surpassed the Monk's damage output. I did the simple math in-thread and found this was not the case. The Monk Bad crowd continued to insist otherwise.
I saw people declare that Action Surge was a superior damage boost to Flurry of Blows, so I did the simple math and found that was incorrect, due to FoB increasing in uses as the Monk levels versus Action Surge only scaling with Extra Attacks. The Monk Bad crowd insisted otherwise, despite not supporting their claim with their own math.
I saw people say that Monk subclasses don't contribute to their DPR, so I went and listed every Monk subclass feature that increases their damage output. The Monk Bad crowd just insisted those features didn't count.
So you talk about "misunformation and bad takes", but every time Monk players offer their own experiences and substantiated arguments, the Monk Bad crowd declares such to be less valid than featureless-void "theorycrafting" and hypotheticals.
And it'd be one thing if it was just about "improving" the Monk, but a good chunk of the Monk Bad crowd expects the class to be overhauled to suit them alone. No small number of proposed changes blatantly weaken the base Monk or make the class more shallow (e.g. dropping Wisdom from the class's features) in favour of making their features more exploitable for multiclassing. Rather than playing a class they enjoy, much of the Monk Bad crowd wants a class many people play and enjoy to be changed to their preference.
There is no crowd. Each person is their own person only speaking for their selves. And yes most people speaking for themselves have an opinion. This is a playtest where they asked for feedback on the monk. They are getting feedback on the monk.
I don't know what you are referring to as far as math proved, or what people were claiming. From what I have seen of your math you often miss important factors, like features, feats, accuracy, etc. And in arguments you often miss context. For example I saw someone say monk's subclasses don't contribute much to dps in general, and usually not enough to make up for their lack of total dps relative to other classes. but you took that as they make zero contribution. I saw people say monk's 3 attacks do less damage most other martial classes 3 attacks in t2. And I saw people say monks overall damage per round is the lowest in the game.
But thats pointless, the math exists or it doesnt. I don't think its fruitful debating it anymore. I don't think presenting math will move this discussion forward.
Lets talk about the actual topic
Did you playtest UA6 monk? Did you play 2014 monk? Did you playtest other UA6 classes. If so how did they compare?
Quote from Ain_Undos>>Gwar you are right that Monks lack survivability and that’s something both fighter and Barbarian have in spades as Warriors.
Sorry but Fighter isn't even close to Barbarian or Paladin in terms of survivability, Not. Even. Close.
What level are we talking about? Second Wind is amazing in low tiers. Also, don't forget those extra ASIs, which can certainly be spent on stuff like constitution, or resilient, or toughness.
Even high tiers I'm not sure I agree with them on barbarian, paladin sure they are very tough. But fighters will have a slightly better AC than barbarians, and they wont be recklessly attacking. 1/2 damage does make a barbarian super tough, but they get hit a crap ton more often than the fighter. Certain fights the Ac does not matter the monster is hitting both of you with both attacks, but I don't think that is the norm across a adventuring day.
Which levels are we talking about specifically? In tier 4, AC is irrelevant the difference between 18, 20, or 20 and 22 is like a 5% decrease in expected damage taken. The Paladin's Aura of Protection does more to reduce damage than +3 or +4 AC bonus, and damage resistances are king.
Reckless is a choice, IME a Barbarian doesn't need to use it most of the time as it's pretty easy to get advantage from: someone knocking the enemy prone, a dozen different spells that either cause restrained or have some other effect that grants advantage, or flanking, plus there is bless, emboldening bond, bardic inspiration, and a huge number of magic weapon that increase your chance to hit as well. In 5eR a there are two different weapon properties that generate advantage so Reckless won't be necessary most of the time. Though Reckless only generates ~24% increase in damage taken in tier 2, so even while reckless the Barbarian is taking less damage than the Fighter just from basic attacks when accounting for Resistance, plus they have a larger hit die, plus they also get Advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
You call me out without offering anything in return? No, I'm not here to play silly games. I gave you as much as I'm willing to for free.
If you want access to my notes, it's $50 per session. How many hundreds are you willing to shell out? And that's if I get permission from my clients to share, because my contracts don't cover people on forums baselessly calling into question my character or expertise.
And why would they? You are nobody to any of us.
Sorry totally off-topic, but you have an NDA for DMing a D&D campaign???
To try to get this thread somewhat on track, I saw a comment earlier complaining about people wanting Monks to have ever more features, don't recall who but I thought it was worth digging into. Because one of the big problems with 5e is that martials are competing with spellcasting, which is equivalent to a whole bunch of different features.
For example, let's take a look at the Sorcerer; in total they get 15 spells known (which is set to increase) so that's basically 15 class features since it provides powerful options. While these use a shared resource (like Ki powers) casters do have a fair amount of resources; by 20th-level they have 22 spell slots, with a combined slot level of 89. In addition to their bare spellcasting, sorcerers then have 15 features (including ability score increases), but sub-classes usually have at least one extra so call that 16. So it's like 31 features with 89 "points" worth of core resources plus another 20 for Metamagic since that's another core resource.
Compare that to the 5e Monk, which has 27 features, and a resource of 20 per short rest, so assuming two short rests, that's 60 "points" of resource for an adventuring day, which seems fair enough when multiple can be spent for a spell or equivalent effect.
Obviously this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, as not every feature is comparable. Spells and spell slots as features in particular are generally quite powerful, as they're entirely new options that unlock entire new options for the caster.
I generally like to think of one selling point of the monk being versatility, but their feature set doesn't even come close to competing overall as even with sub-classes like Open Hand you're not gaining all that many new options. A lot of tier 3 and tier 4 features are simply… not good. The OneD&D update has improved some of them, but they're still extremely weak features.
And that's been my main problem with the OneD&D playtest Monk; it makes the most minor of improvements to features that were terrible but they still suck, meanwhile the best feature of the class has been majorly nerfed. While yes, it needed to be, we don't really get anything in return. The best feature of it is the quick short rest, but all that's really doing is highlighting a wider problem in the game so it's hard to count that in its favour. So overall the Monk has been turned from a class with problems, into a class with bigger, seemingly intentional problems. My most charitable assessment of the playtest Monk is that it it is an insultingly bad update; the more I've tried it, the more I hate it.
Shadow remains a good sub-class, Open Hand has been made worse for no reason, I like what they're trying to do with Four Elements but it needs a lot more work done to it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I will say, having played a monk in CRPGs (I've played both BG3 and Solasta -- Solasta is a significantly more accurate implementation of 5e) the big problem with monks in those games isn't that they aren't competitive with other melee characters, the problem is that playing a melee character sucks, and monks don't have good ranged options unless you play an elf (monk with longbow is totally viable in tier 1 and 2 and plays to a lot of the monk's strengths; it's ridiculously hard for melee enemies to close with you, and ranged enemies have to deal with deflect missiles and evasion).
I have playtested the first life cleric, berserker barbarian, shadow monk, openhand monk, draconic sorcerer, dance bard, thief rogue 1st fighter, 2nd Avenger paladin and 2nd moon druid. fighter brawler.
Monk was fairly disappointing, almost all the other classes seemed pretty good at what they were doing and had interesting play options when you pushed it. They were surprisingly capable, and I was usually able to excel in harder encounters. Mastery was a big part of this for some martials, adding new viable choices, or set ups, or tactics. Monk in the context of this UA can't compete. Its missing the big masteries, and using the masteries they have with weaker die weapons feels bad in comparison. Your unarmed strikes by level 5 usually have better damage, and make the use of mastery not feel that worthwhile. Your monk strikes, even with a higher die step feel like a compromise. The monk's survivability is extremely low compared to others tested, and its damage/combat utility(past 4) isn't high enough to make that weakness worthwhile. The monk was the most likely class of all of them to be downed and need saving.
Shadow was a solid sub for monk, but the base class couldn't really support it. Its dps started falling off around 5. The interesting part of the gameplay was trying to find how to best place the shadow to gain benefit without screwing the group, or come up with ways to help them, or influence monsters. Two issues, this wasn't really unique gameplay to monk, its a version of warlocks devil sight combo. The monk interaction/flavor wasn't the strong point of the experience, it wasn't enhancing it. Second, the sub has a hard counter, Blindsight and true sight made the sub have to fall back almost completely on base monk, which struggles. In those fights, the monk ended up running and using ranged attacks to do half damage. Which the thief was just way better at. And blindsight and truesight are more common in iconic monsters and later fights. Dragon wyrmling for example negated their existence. I think it was actually a pretty good sub design even with its counter, but the monk part wasn't carrying its weight.
Open hand monk, was a waste of space, its signature features are common now, and for the most part, the mastery version is better, being on every hit. The heal is weak, and uses two resources. The base monk being poor doesnt help here either.
Contrast this with other classes I tested which either exceeded expectations, or were surprisingly fun. For some classes it was actually a bit annoying how effective they could be outside their normal use case. I played the draconic sorcerer as a melee ninja themed build in constant melee. Not its main design, and it was very effective(compared to monk). Crit focused, Booming blade, green flame, haste, blink, shield. Deadly, survivable elusive, thematic. There were rough edges with weak weapons and feats they can access as pure sorc, but those would just have been icing. And could be removed through MC. And this was against type. The moon druid doing 4 attacks at level 3, damaging while providing heals, durable, and zipping around rarely leaving beast form (actually flavored as a spirit beast)
Now, I would say I'm one of the people the monk was designed to reach. I have played it more than other classes, and would generally rather play a subpar monk than an OP other class due to flavor and fantasy. But its not cutting it here, there is no reason monk should be less entertaining than other classes, and certainly not mathematically sub par (as that just amounts to number tweaking). And numbers aside (though they do effect feel) it was just lackluster, with few real combat options. Few great moments of, this is cool. Every class has moments of monotony, but the monk had more. Just roll attacks, same on every turn. ASI levels were cool on other classes. picking up new abilities, or synergies for your build, monk has few actually useful ones (locked out of martial feats). Barbarian/fighter choosing mastery combos, pushes, topples, grapples, gathering enemies for cleaves. Sorcerer selecting spells, setting up metamagic bursts, dancer manipulating the field mid combat, massive options from spells, whipping out barbs, negating attacks. The monk was lacking in comparison, noticeably.
To try to get this thread somewhat on track, I saw a comment earlier complaining about people wanting Monks to have ever more features, don't recall who but I thought it was worth digging into. Because one of the big problems with 5e is that martials are competing with spellcasting, which is equivalent to a whole bunch of different features.
For example, let's take a look at the Sorcerer; in total they get 15 spells known (which is set to increase) so that's basically 15 class features since it provides powerful options. While these use a shared resource (like Ki powers) casters do have a fair amount of resources; by 20th-level they have 22 spell slots, with a combined slot level of 89. In addition to their bare spellcasting, sorcerers then have 15 features (including ability score increases), but sub-classes usually have at least one extra so call that 16. So it's like 31 features with 89 "points" worth of core resources plus another 20 for Metamagic since that's another core resource.
Compare that to the 5e Monk, which has 27 features, and a resource of 20 per short rest, so assuming two short rests, that's 60 "points" of resource for an adventuring day, which seems fair enough when multiple can be spent for a spell or equivalent effect.
Obviously this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, as not every feature is comparable. Spells and spell slots as features in particular are generally quite powerful, as they're entirely new options that unlock entire new options for the caster.
I generally like to think of one selling point of the monk being versatility, but their feature set doesn't even come close to competing overall as even with sub-classes like Open Hand you're not gaining all that many new options. A lot of tier 3 and tier 4 features are simply… not good. The OneD&D update has improved some of them, but they're still extremely weak features.
And that's been my main problem with the OneD&D playtest Monk; it makes the most minor of improvements to features that were terrible but they still suck, meanwhile the best feature of the class has been majorly nerfed. While yes, it needed to be, we don't really get anything in return. The best feature of it is the quick short rest, but all that's really doing is highlighting a wider problem in the game so it's hard to count that in its favour. So overall the Monk has been turned from a class with problems, into a class with bigger, seemingly intentional problems. My most charitable assessment of the playtest Monk is that it it is an insultingly bad update; the more I've tried it, the more I hate it.
Also, the spell slot system creates sub buckets of resources, so they aren't all competing. The value of higher buckets increases as well. Gaining one t4 slot is generally equivalent to gaining 3-4 t1 slots. They also start off giving more spell slots earlier, and slow down later.
And yes, monks look versatile on paper, but in play you quickly realize some of these are just a bad trade, compared to other classes, like dodge and Step, You can use it when you really have no choice, but thats not really a choice. They generally represent bad choices. Like openhand 11 feature makes step not cost Ki, but the fact that its a BA is the real problem by level 11. The 1ki isnt what is preventing you from using it. So its like, I guess it saves me Ki when I was going to use it anyway, but thats not really going to impact gameplay at all. Dodges is a gamble, give up half your low damage for better defense, but the enemy may not even attempt to hit you, its a bad gamble unless you are close to death, or surrounded.
stunning strike isn't really an option, its a why wouldn't you if you have Ki.
then there is the other nerfs, MA dice on simple weapons, lockout from fighting styles, martial feats, As you say, these might be understandable if they were improving the monk in other ways. Making them a more flavorful, versatile, or useful, class. But they aren't, they are making them more limited, less versatile, less relative flavor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The monk is serviceable. I have some changes I'd like to see, and they aren't as drastic as some others want. This is because I take a different approach and focus on more than just the size of it's hit die or it's damage output. I promise you, the sky isn't falling if you play a monk.
Heck, you called monks crap at social situations and...if you're only looking at Charisma skill, then sure. But Insight also counts, which they can excell at. Intuiting the intentions of others is perfectly good interaction with the social pillar of the game. Never mind subclasses, like Way of the Astral Self, which have additional social utility.
That's the thing about class design. Some, like ranger and rogue, have a strong chassis that lets them do a lot with just a little customization. Others, like fighter and monk, get their utility primarily through their subclasses. And that distinction is worth noticing. You have to understand what you're critiquing.
As to your bolded question(?), any class I haven't personally put through a playtest I served as DM for in multiple games and took rigorous notes. That's one of the advantages of being a Concierge DM on retainer with a FLGS. There are always people willing to play a one-shot throughout the week.
Over the last...9 years, wow...I've played four different subclasses of monk: Way of the Four Elements, Way of Shadow, Way of the Drunken Master, and Way of Mercy. I've also been DM for two Way of the Four Elements, two Way of the Sun Soul, a Way of the Kensai, a Way of the Astral Self, and a Way of Mercy. My players will tell you I don't fudge my dice or otherwise hold back, and every single one has kicked ass. Even a minotaur that put Strength over Dexterity.
Did you playtest or run a playtest based on this unearthed arcana, one dnd 5er, whatever you want to call it? Not sure if you mean in general here.
And if you have feedback from players on the UA monk, what was it. What was the feedback on other classes like (with respect to the UA or onednd.
Sorry but Fighter isn't even close to Barbarian or Paladin in terms of survivability, Not. Even. Close.
Yep. And monk is behind fighter on survivability.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
You call me out without offering anything in return? No, I'm not here to play silly games. I gave you as much as I'm willing to for free.
If you want access to my notes, it's $50 per session. How many hundreds are you willing to shell out? And that's if I get permission from my clients to share, because my contracts don't cover people on forums baselessly calling into question my character or expertise.
And why would they? You are nobody to any of us.
I think you made a few good points here , however I think most people would say the subclasses do increase the monks dpr ,but not significantly above what is needed with how weak the base class is.
Look ,if they add enough power to the next ua for subclasses I’ll be happy .though I thinks it’s better to boost the base class more rather then subclasses
so people can have more variety and still be viable regardless of the subclass they want to play
What level are we talking about? Second Wind is amazing in low tiers. Also, don't forget those extra ASIs, which can certainly be spent on stuff like constitution, or resilient, or toughness.
Hi, frank.
My understanding of the argument was that Action Surge is superior to Flurry of Blows at low levels. How well Flurry of Blows scales doesn't change how good it is when you get it.
They didn't just insist that those features didn't count, they also gave reasoning. Y'know, the thing you're supposed to give in an argument. But I suppose logic is just another form of misinformation, huh?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm sympathetic to this argument as its what I and many others said and felt about the 1/2 caster+ warlock model feeling it destroyed the essence of the warlock class. Rather than playing a class they would enjoy they wanted to change the warlock into something it wasn't to suit themselves while taking away what many players enjoyed about playing the warlock. But I think a lot of the changes proposed seem to keep the essence of the monk by just offering some base line improvements. Sure dropping wisdom as a class feature feels a bit off brand. But changing their AC calculation to 13+wisdom modifier with some small scaling with monk level doesn't imo. Giving them the option of dex or wisdom for their strike to hit/damage calculation does not seem off brand. If they are still MAD giving them more ASIs so they can feel more free to take feats does not seem off brand. Adding some feats that would help unarmed fighting does not seem off brand. Having step of the wind not cost ki does not seem off brand. Having a wider range of ki uses with their strikes so stunning strike is not so central does not seem off brand. It is why 2014 warlock fans are not upset with the 7UA as it kept what was integral to the warlock but made improvements that seem on brand, still can use some tweaking but its a great start.
Even high tiers I'm not sure I agree with them on barbarian, paladin sure they are very tough. But fighters will have a slightly better AC than barbarians, and they wont be recklessly attacking. 1/2 damage does make a barbarian super tough, but they get hit a crap ton more often than the fighter. Certain fights the Ac does not matter the monster is hitting both of you with both attacks, but I don't think that is the norm across a adventuring day.
People demonstrate a lot of things, Lilith. [REDACTED] the existence of aliens, the effectiveness of the Monk, the ineffectiveness of the Monk, and the list goes on. I'm not cartoonishly stupid for using my discretion to determine which demonstrations I buy into.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Anyway… So what now with the monk?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
At this point I was trying to salvage meaningful discussion.
There is no character or expertise called into question. I don't really care about anyones expertise, Its a playtest, Everyone has an opinion. Charachter? I don't know you and never claimed to. And contracts? What?
In a forum about the Unearthed Arcana, in a thread about the Monk, you are not willing discuss any real information about the UA or the UA monk.
Ok, bad faith argument, Good day
There is no crowd. Each person is their own person only speaking for their selves. And yes most people speaking for themselves have an opinion. This is a playtest where they asked for feedback on the monk. They are getting feedback on the monk.
I don't know what you are referring to as far as math proved, or what people were claiming. From what I have seen of your math you often miss important factors, like features, feats, accuracy, etc. And in arguments you often miss context. For example I saw someone say monk's subclasses don't contribute much to dps in general, and usually not enough to make up for their lack of total dps relative to other classes. but you took that as they make zero contribution. I saw people say monk's 3 attacks do less damage most other martial classes 3 attacks in t2. And I saw people say monks overall damage per round is the lowest in the game.
But thats pointless, the math exists or it doesnt. I don't think its fruitful debating it anymore. I don't think presenting math will move this discussion forward.
Lets talk about the actual topic
Did you playtest UA6 monk? Did you play 2014 monk? Did you playtest other UA6 classes. If so how did they compare?
Which levels are we talking about specifically? In tier 4, AC is irrelevant the difference between 18, 20, or 20 and 22 is like a 5% decrease in expected damage taken. The Paladin's Aura of Protection does more to reduce damage than +3 or +4 AC bonus, and damage resistances are king.
Reckless is a choice, IME a Barbarian doesn't need to use it most of the time as it's pretty easy to get advantage from: someone knocking the enemy prone, a dozen different spells that either cause restrained or have some other effect that grants advantage, or flanking, plus there is bless, emboldening bond, bardic inspiration, and a huge number of magic weapon that increase your chance to hit as well. In 5eR a there are two different weapon properties that generate advantage so Reckless won't be necessary most of the time. Though Reckless only generates ~24% increase in damage taken in tier 2, so even while reckless the Barbarian is taking less damage than the Fighter just from basic attacks when accounting for Resistance, plus they have a larger hit die, plus they also get Advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Sorry totally off-topic, but you have an NDA for DMing a D&D campaign???
To try to get this thread somewhat on track, I saw a comment earlier complaining about people wanting Monks to have ever more features, don't recall who but I thought it was worth digging into. Because one of the big problems with 5e is that martials are competing with spellcasting, which is equivalent to a whole bunch of different features.
For example, let's take a look at the Sorcerer; in total they get 15 spells known (which is set to increase) so that's basically 15 class features since it provides powerful options. While these use a shared resource (like Ki powers) casters do have a fair amount of resources; by 20th-level they have 22 spell slots, with a combined slot level of 89. In addition to their bare spellcasting, sorcerers then have 15 features (including ability score increases), but sub-classes usually have at least one extra so call that 16. So it's like 31 features with 89 "points" worth of core resources plus another 20 for Metamagic since that's another core resource.
Compare that to the 5e Monk, which has 27 features, and a resource of 20 per short rest, so assuming two short rests, that's 60 "points" of resource for an adventuring day, which seems fair enough when multiple can be spent for a spell or equivalent effect.
Obviously this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, as not every feature is comparable. Spells and spell slots as features in particular are generally quite powerful, as they're entirely new options that unlock entire new options for the caster.
I generally like to think of one selling point of the monk being versatility, but their feature set doesn't even come close to competing overall as even with sub-classes like Open Hand you're not gaining all that many new options. A lot of tier 3 and tier 4 features are simply… not good. The OneD&D update has improved some of them, but they're still extremely weak features.
And that's been my main problem with the OneD&D playtest Monk; it makes the most minor of improvements to features that were terrible but they still suck, meanwhile the best feature of the class has been majorly nerfed. While yes, it needed to be, we don't really get anything in return. The best feature of it is the quick short rest, but all that's really doing is highlighting a wider problem in the game so it's hard to count that in its favour. So overall the Monk has been turned from a class with problems, into a class with bigger, seemingly intentional problems. My most charitable assessment of the playtest Monk is that it it is an insultingly bad update; the more I've tried it, the more I hate it.
Shadow remains a good sub-class, Open Hand has been made worse for no reason, I like what they're trying to do with Four Elements but it needs a lot more work done to it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I will say, having played a monk in CRPGs (I've played both BG3 and Solasta -- Solasta is a significantly more accurate implementation of 5e) the big problem with monks in those games isn't that they aren't competitive with other melee characters, the problem is that playing a melee character sucks, and monks don't have good ranged options unless you play an elf (monk with longbow is totally viable in tier 1 and 2 and plays to a lot of the monk's strengths; it's ridiculously hard for melee enemies to close with you, and ranged enemies have to deal with deflect missiles and evasion).
Heres my UA6 experience. relative to monk
I have playtested the first life cleric, berserker barbarian, shadow monk, openhand monk, draconic sorcerer, dance bard, thief rogue 1st fighter, 2nd Avenger paladin and 2nd moon druid. fighter brawler.
Monk was fairly disappointing, almost all the other classes seemed pretty good at what they were doing and had interesting play options when you pushed it. They were surprisingly capable, and I was usually able to excel in harder encounters. Mastery was a big part of this for some martials, adding new viable choices, or set ups, or tactics. Monk in the context of this UA can't compete. Its missing the big masteries, and using the masteries they have with weaker die weapons feels bad in comparison. Your unarmed strikes by level 5 usually have better damage, and make the use of mastery not feel that worthwhile. Your monk strikes, even with a higher die step feel like a compromise. The monk's survivability is extremely low compared to others tested, and its damage/combat utility(past 4) isn't high enough to make that weakness worthwhile. The monk was the most likely class of all of them to be downed and need saving.
Shadow was a solid sub for monk, but the base class couldn't really support it. Its dps started falling off around 5. The interesting part of the gameplay was trying to find how to best place the shadow to gain benefit without screwing the group, or come up with ways to help them, or influence monsters. Two issues, this wasn't really unique gameplay to monk, its a version of warlocks devil sight combo. The monk interaction/flavor wasn't the strong point of the experience, it wasn't enhancing it. Second, the sub has a hard counter, Blindsight and true sight made the sub have to fall back almost completely on base monk, which struggles. In those fights, the monk ended up running and using ranged attacks to do half damage. Which the thief was just way better at. And blindsight and truesight are more common in iconic monsters and later fights. Dragon wyrmling for example negated their existence. I think it was actually a pretty good sub design even with its counter, but the monk part wasn't carrying its weight.
Open hand monk, was a waste of space, its signature features are common now, and for the most part, the mastery version is better, being on every hit. The heal is weak, and uses two resources. The base monk being poor doesnt help here either.
Contrast this with other classes I tested which either exceeded expectations, or were surprisingly fun. For some classes it was actually a bit annoying how effective they could be outside their normal use case. I played the draconic sorcerer as a melee ninja themed build in constant melee. Not its main design, and it was very effective(compared to monk). Crit focused, Booming blade, green flame, haste, blink, shield. Deadly, survivable elusive, thematic. There were rough edges with weak weapons and feats they can access as pure sorc, but those would just have been icing. And could be removed through MC. And this was against type. The moon druid doing 4 attacks at level 3, damaging while providing heals, durable, and zipping around rarely leaving beast form (actually flavored as a spirit beast)
Now, I would say I'm one of the people the monk was designed to reach. I have played it more than other classes, and would generally rather play a subpar monk than an OP other class due to flavor and fantasy. But its not cutting it here, there is no reason monk should be less entertaining than other classes, and certainly not mathematically sub par (as that just amounts to number tweaking). And numbers aside (though they do effect feel) it was just lackluster, with few real combat options. Few great moments of, this is cool. Every class has moments of monotony, but the monk had more. Just roll attacks, same on every turn. ASI levels were cool on other classes. picking up new abilities, or synergies for your build, monk has few actually useful ones (locked out of martial feats). Barbarian/fighter choosing mastery combos, pushes, topples, grapples, gathering enemies for cleaves. Sorcerer selecting spells, setting up metamagic bursts, dancer manipulating the field mid combat, massive options from spells, whipping out barbs, negating attacks. The monk was lacking in comparison, noticeably.
Also, the spell slot system creates sub buckets of resources, so they aren't all competing. The value of higher buckets increases as well. Gaining one t4 slot is generally equivalent to gaining 3-4 t1 slots. They also start off giving more spell slots earlier, and slow down later.
And yes, monks look versatile on paper, but in play you quickly realize some of these are just a bad trade, compared to other classes, like dodge and Step, You can use it when you really have no choice, but thats not really a choice. They generally represent bad choices. Like openhand 11 feature makes step not cost Ki, but the fact that its a BA is the real problem by level 11. The 1ki isnt what is preventing you from using it. So its like, I guess it saves me Ki when I was going to use it anyway, but thats not really going to impact gameplay at all. Dodges is a gamble, give up half your low damage for better defense, but the enemy may not even attempt to hit you, its a bad gamble unless you are close to death, or surrounded.
stunning strike isn't really an option, its a why wouldn't you if you have Ki.
then there is the other nerfs, MA dice on simple weapons, lockout from fighting styles, martial feats, As you say, these might be understandable if they were improving the monk in other ways. Making them a more flavorful, versatile, or useful, class. But they aren't, they are making them more limited, less versatile, less relative flavor.