You probably know this and I'm sure i'm not the only one mad at this but... They can't just disrespect the monk by making it a subclass for the Bard and then fixing the things that are wrong with the Monk... I mean... WOW, the disrespect. A Bard has a better martial arts die and better reaction.
It's like they heard the community and then got lost. "Yeah will fix the monk... by making it a Bard subclass". They better up the Monk a little again. This ain't it.
early 16AC dance-naked bard seems cool, but they likely wouldn't want to spend time eating attacks on the front line any more than a monk might. but they'd have to be in melee range to use those three free unarmed attacks per short rest. but if they do then bards lack step of the wind to retreat to safety. even if they did, do they really want to run back and forth all battle? like some sort of monk??
if lack of spellcasting is what's "wrong with the Monk," then maybe that says more about spellcasting than monks.
When I first read the Dance bard I was a bit upset as well. But looking at it further, I'm not sure I would say they are better than a monk. At least as far as unarmed combat goes. Yes, their BI die scales up earlier than the monks unarmed strikes, but they don't get extra attack, they can only do the Agile Strike when they use their BI, not all the time like monks. Now they are a full caster, so they were already better than monks even without this subclass.
I actually think it might be a better subclass if they focused on weapon attacks instead of unarmed strikes. Agile Strikes being a weapon attack when they use a BI, etc... Let them keep their light armor on (armor and shields don't affect their other subclass abilities anyway, afaik)
Nothing encapsulates complaints about Monk like the idea that a Bard subclass with the exact unarmed/unarmoured mechanics and hit dice and more resource-limited options is somehow perfectly fine.
Yes it is a limited resource for Agile Strikes, but I think they can still do unarmed strikes like everyone else, but use their BI die for damage all the time. And it’s on top of a full caster class to boot.
I don’t think College of Dance makes a better monk. Maybe someone can explain how. Without throwing spells into the mix.
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
Anything in particular stood out to you? I'm not sure if they were too worried about extreme changes. I think it was probably more that they felt the baseline monk wasn't too bad to begin with, with the exception of 4 Elements. And it seems this UA in particular seems more concerned with backwards compatibility. Like they received a lot of responses in surveys about this issue. I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if they reverted Warlock to Short Rest pact slots for this reason.
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
Their restraint is killing me. They have a unique chance to fix the game's issues that's been a pain in the arse for years. And they're only half-using it.
When I first read the Dance bard I was a bit upset as well. But looking at it further, I'm not sure I would say they are better than a monk. At least as far as unarmed combat goes. Yes, their BI die scales up earlier than the monks unarmed strikes, but they don't get extra attack, they can only do the Agile Strike when they use their BI, not all the time like monks. Now they are a full caster, so they were already better than monks even without this subclass.
I actually think it might be a better subclass if they focused on weapon attacks instead of unarmed strikes. Agile Strikes being a weapon attack when they use a BI, etc... Let them keep their light armor on (armor and shields don't affect their other subclass abilities anyway, afaik)
It's not better than the monk at monk-ing, it's basically a far superior monk because its effects are just straight up buffs for party members, which were never part of the equation. (and we're not discussing the specific class defining benefits of magic and discipline points.)
It's a better swashbucker than the rogue because it gets an AC buff instead of initiative, which is far more useful, the same hit dice as the rogue with a rapier, and the buffs to party members is superior to panache.... which is similar. (again, not talking about the sneak attack points versus spell casting).
The ONLY things that are arguably better/worse are spells versus discipline or spells versus sneak attack, which shouldn't be a justification because then its either the class itself that's broken (one way or another) and not the subclass. I.E. if spells are better then college of lore is superior to any rogue or monk.
EDIT: "The ONLY things that are arguably better/worse are spells versus discipline or spells versus sneak attack, which shouldn't be a justification because then its either the class itself that's broken (one way or another) and not the subclass. I.E. if spells are better then college of lore is superior to any rogue or monk. "
What I mean is if you want to include the bard's spells in the equation, then the comparison to the other classes is a class to class comparison that shouldn't be dependent upon subclass, and if one class is better than the other, then that's a much greater balance issue than a single subclass being out of balance.
I don't think my 2am wording was really the best at expressing that.
Nothing encapsulates complaints about Monk like the idea that a Bard subclass with the exact unarmed/unarmoured mechanics and hit dice and more resource-limited options is somehow perfectly fine.
Yes it is a limited resource for Agile Strikes, but I think they can still do unarmed strikes like everyone else, but use their BI die for damage all the time. And it’s on top of a full caster class to boot.
I don’t think College of Dance makes a better monk. Maybe someone can explain how. Without throwing spells into the mix.
That is an unfair comparison and you know it. Bard is a full spellcaster spells are a crucial part of their kit. Consider: a Dance Bard gets more spellslots than a monk get's disciple points. So if you are going to ban spells from dance bard you should also be banning disciple points from monk in terms of the comparison.
If we consider a straight comparison including both classes limited use resources - BI + Spells for Bard, DP for Monk then:
Dance Bard gets better defenses - d8 hit die, choice of armour or unarmoured defense = equivalent to Monk, But Bard gets access to Shield vs Monk's access to Patient Defense. Since Shield is a reaction to getting hit it is more resource efficient than PD and it is more action economy efficient than PD for approximately equal defense. Bard also gets access to Blur which is a persistent version of PD that has higher up front cost but lasts for the entire combat. Bards may get access to Absorb Elements (unclear if this will be in One D&D or not) which provides lesser protection than Evasion but is effective against a much larger range of effects.
Dance Bard gets better battlefield control - Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Hideous Laughter, Banishment, Wall of Force etc... are all once-per-turn battlefield control effects similar to Stunning Strike but have saves that are more likely to be failed by enemies, last a longer time than stun, and many can affect multiple enemies in a single turn.
Dance Bard gets better Offense - Scorching Ray + Agile Strikes gives then 2x 4 attacks per turn at level 3, one Fireball does equivalent damage to a single target as Flurry of Blows and it can hit multiple targets easily, Haste gives Dance Bard 3 unarmed attacks per turn plus more movement and more AC than the monk, ...
I almost wonder if making a Monk-flavoured subclass for the Bard was a deliberate trap to highlight that these features and attributes that are supposedly so bad on the Monk are lauded if another class possesses them, even when they are far more limited in their ability to make use of these features than the Monk themselves. No Extra Attack, Bonus Unarmed Strike only on expending Bardic Inspiration uses and no option for a second bonus strike, no innate mobility or Discipline abilities to further boost that mobility. The already-existing Valor Bard is a far better melee combatant than the Dance Bard and its features synergize better with the Bard's skillset, not to mention that its 14th-level feature isn't just giving them a spell they could learn three levels prior.
Perhaps. but I also feel they gave other things than just the basic core monk abilities. BI vs DP, and just different effects from the buffs.
Unfortunately, I think rather than a bard or a monk, you get a multiclass bard/monk with no downsides of multiclassing.
I almost wonder if making a Monk-flavoured subclass for the Bard was a deliberate trap to highlight that these features and attributes that are supposedly so bad on the Monk are lauded if another class possesses them, even when they are far more limited in their ability to make use of these features than the Monk themselves. No Extra Attack, Bonus Unarmed Strike only on expending Bardic Inspiration uses and no option for a second bonus strike, no innate mobility or Discipline abilities to further boost that mobility. The already-existing Valor Bard is a far better melee combatant than the Dance Bard and its features synergize better with the Bard's skillset, not to mention that its 14th-level feature isn't just giving them a spell they could learn three levels prior.
But they aren't lauded? The only thing I've seen people saying is particularly powerful on the Dance Bard is the AoE evasion (which is broken AF), most people I've seen are saying that Monk is so terrible that even a Bard with only a handful of monk features can be played as a monk and be better at it than the actual monk (and I agree Valor bard is a better martial bard than Dance Bard but what does that say about Monk? If a second-rate martial bard is better than it is).
Nothing encapsulates complaints about Monk like the idea that a Bard subclass with the exact unarmed/unarmoured mechanics and hit dice and more resource-limited options is somehow perfectly fine.
Yes it is a limited resource for Agile Strikes, but I think they can still do unarmed strikes like everyone else, but use their BI die for damage all the time. And it’s on top of a full caster class to boot.
I don’t think College of Dance makes a better monk. Maybe someone can explain how. Without throwing spells into the mix.
That is an unfair comparison and you know it. Bard is a full spellcaster spells are a crucial part of their kit. Consider: a Dance Bard gets more spellslots than a monk get's disciple points. So if you are going to ban spells from dance bard you should also be banning disciple points from monk in terms of the comparison.
If we consider a straight comparison including both classes limited use resources - BI + Spells for Bard, DP for Monk then:
Dance Bard gets better defenses - d8 hit die, choice of armour or unarmoured defense = equivalent to Monk, But Bard gets access to Shield vs Monk's access to Patient Defense. Since Shield is a reaction to getting hit it is more resource efficient than PD and it is more action economy efficient than PD for approximately equal defense. Bard also gets access to Blur which is a persistent version of PD that has higher up front cost but lasts for the entire combat. Bards may get access to Absorb Elements (unclear if this will be in One D&D or not) which provides lesser protection than Evasion but is effective against a much larger range of effects.
Dance Bard gets better battlefield control - Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Hideous Laughter, Banishment, Wall of Force etc... are all once-per-turn battlefield control effects similar to Stunning Strike but have saves that are more likely to be failed by enemies, last a longer time than stun, and many can affect multiple enemies in a single turn.
Dance Bard gets better Offense - Scorching Ray + Agile Strikes gives then 2x 4 attacks per turn at level 3, one Fireball does equivalent damage to a single target as Flurry of Blows and it can hit multiple targets easily, Haste gives Dance Bard 3 unarmed attacks per turn plus more movement and more AC than the monk, ...
Unfair comparison. Yes I know comparing bard to monk is an unfair comparison and I wasn’t trying to do that. Unless I am misunderstanding your comments. Just a bard with no subclass is more powerful than a monk (and some other martials) because they are full casters. And I was trying to say, if you ignore spellcasting part of the bard and and look at the base class and Dance subclass they are worse than a monk when it comes to unarmed combat. Even burning spell slots for BI to fuel Agile strikes I don’t think in unarmed combat they are better than monks. But when you look at the class as a whole, spells and all, there is no comparison. To monks or pretty much any martial class due to being full casters.
I just don’t see how, from an unarmed combat perspective Dance bard is better than monks.
The focus of the monk is unarmed melee combat in this UA. The focus of the bard is spellcasting. The subclasses just add flavor and some thematic abilities.
We're comparing a subclass to a class here. We should be comparing the dance bard to monks including subclasses.
The choice of amor vs unarmored AC doesn't mean much because ASI's allow either dance bards or monks at +5 and a +6 bonus (19th level ASI) for 21 AC. Light armor taking 22 DEX would cost the bard with spell DC and still need +3 armor to reach the same AC. That's a non-argument. At 3rd level when bards add the ability the armor would be 15 AC vs 16 AC from DEX + CHA bonus while monks have already had that ability from 1st level. WIS is also a more prominent ability score than CHA.
The shield spell is a better bonus than patient defense, but discipline points recover on a short rest while spell slots recover on a long rest so the actual cost is lower for the monk. This isn't an argument for bards being better monks than monks. It's a spell caster vs melee argument. The more important point, however, is that's getting into a shrodinger's bard argument because spell list and spell selection within that list are 2 meaningful points of opportunity cost before shield is even selected. Not all bards are going to have access to the shield spell.
The strike damage for the dance bard is nothing compared to the monk because of the bonus unarmed strike, flurry of blows (no cost for high level shadow monks within the shadow cloak), deflect missiles, extra attack, empowered strikes against DR opponents. A dance bard isn't remotely close.
Monks move faster than bards by a lot. The dance bard movement benefits cost BI dice. Slow fall, acrobatic movement, and the speed bonus are free while the benefits of step of the wind only cost 1 discipline point (which again is short rest recovery vs long rest).
Leading evasion isn't better on an individual basis but it is better on a team basis. Otto's is just another spell on a spell caster.
On a shadow monk: darkvision is free vs a spell cost; darkness is 1 point vs a 2nd level spell,; shadow step cost is free and adds advantage; shadow step later improves for 1 point to ignore the shadow req and add a bonus attack; cloak of shadows lasts a minute for 3 points effectively granting improved invisibility (no concentration) and adding that no cost flurry.
Dance bards do not out monk monks, and the spell casting resource vs combat abilities and ki only matters for ppl who play 5MWD.
I hope this is not a plot from WotC so they can say:
Come the survey when everything about the class is not liked they drop it from the next book showing everything from main class was hated so we dropped it.
I hope this is not a plot from WotC so they can say:
Come the survey when everything about the class is not liked they drop it from the next book showing everything from main class was hated so we dropped it.
I doubt that. Backwards compatibility and all that. They are already changing stuff for this reason. And my hope is, like the Rogue, which had minimal changes for the worse but was then pretty damn good in the revision, that monks will be the same.
It is funny, not haha funny, but hearing some who think our concerns are unwarranted makes me really realize how different some people play. For example, YouTuber XP to level 3 did a stream where he went through the UA and absolutely thought the monk changes were great and a good thing. And when viewers responded with dismay, he was like “what game are you playing?” Since he saw this UA as a vast improvement for the Monk.
To each their own I guess. We will have to see what the survey shows. But I don’t think they have any intention of removing the class.
Am I missing something here or are people talking up College of Dance's unarmed attacks as a far bigger deal then they actually are?
First off college of the dance's unarmed strikes are WEAK, they can replace strength with dexterity... great. Ok Monk does the same thing, only Monk can actually focus Dexterity, Bard needs to focus Charisma since they have significantly stronger features reliant on CHA while Monk has some saving throw DCs and a few other things on WIS, they obviously get far more from DEX.
Second off, when college of dance makes an unarmed attack, they can add their bardic inspiration die to the damage. This is pretty weak tho, since at most they can only make 2 attacks a round, 1 as main action and 1 from expanding bardic inspiration on bonus action. At level 5, Monk can do 4 unarmed attacks in a turn, 2 from attack and 2 from bonus action (by using discipline points).
Not sure how anybody thinks 2*(1d8+DEX) beats 4*(1d8 + DEX), honestly. If both have the same DEX mod at +4, Bard is doing 17damage vs. Monk at 34 damage... or 11.5 vs 23 if we are basing this off of a 65% chance to hit with 5% chance to critical. Worse yet, Monk can switch the damage type to force which means targets resistant or immune to Bludgeoning can be bypassed by switching to force instead.
Vicious Mockery at level 5 does ~4.2 damage (at 60% chance), vs. the 5.75 damage of that unarmed attack (at 65% chance). At level 11 Vicious Mockery does ~6.3 damage vs the 6.45 damage of that unarmed attack. So for a main action, the unarmed attack is really not adding much, you have to go into melee range to do a melee attack instead of hanging back and doing slightly less damage, you only go in for the melee attack when you're already planning to use bardic inspiration and want to get that second attack, else wise you're better off hanging back out of attack range.
In terms of damage, you'd do more damage using searing smite from choosing divine than using bardic inspiration in this way, and college of valor with its extra attack is FAR FAR better at this. 3rd level searing smite for a minimum of 6d6 fire damage is huge, can easily scale up more if the creature keeps failing it's saving throw.
Am I missing something here or are people talking up College of Dance's unarmed attacks as a far bigger deal then they actually are?
First off college of the dance's unarmed strikes are WEAK, they can replace strength with dexterity... great. Ok Monk does the same thing, only Monk can actually focus Dexterity, Bard needs to focus Charisma since they have significantly stronger features reliant on CHA while Monk has some saving throw DCs and a few other things on WIS, they obviously get far more from DEX.
Second off, when college of dance makes an unarmed attack, they can add their bardic inspiration die to the damage. This is pretty weak tho, since at most they can only make 2 attacks a round, 1 as main action and 1 from expanding bardic inspiration on bonus action. At level 5, Monk can do 4 unarmed attacks in a turn, 2 from attack and 2 from bonus action (by using discipline points).
Not sure how anybody thinks 2*(1d8+DEX) beats 4*(1d8 + DEX), honestly. If both have the same DEX mod at +4, Bard is doing 17damage vs. Monk at 34 damage... or 11.5 vs 23 if we are basing this off of a 65% chance to hit with 5% chance to critical. Worse yet, Monk can switch the damage type to force which means targets resistant or immune to Bludgeoning can be bypassed by switching to force instead.
Vicious Mockery at level 5 does ~4.2 damage (at 60% chance), vs. the 5.75 damage of that unarmed attack (at 65% chance). At level 11 Vicious Mockery does ~6.3 damage vs the 6.45 damage of that unarmed attack. So for a main action, the unarmed attack is really not adding much, you have to go into melee range to do a melee attack instead of hanging back and doing slightly less damage, you only go in for the melee attack when you're already planning to use bardic inspiration and want to get that second attack, else wise you're better off hanging back out of attack range.
In terms of damage, you'd do more damage using searing smite from choosing divine than using bardic inspiration in this way, and college of valor with its extra attack is FAR FAR better at this. 3rd level searing smite for a minimum of 6d6 fire damage is huge, can easily scale up more if the creature keeps failing it's saving throw.
EDIT: misread some stuff, fixed now
You are correct. I first had the negative response, like others, when first reading Dance bard because their BI die scales faster than monks MA die. Add to that the Monk UA was pretty bad so frustration was already there. But like you pointed out they only get one attack, two if they are able to expend a BI as a BA or reaction.
But they are on a full caster chassis so by default will be more powerful than a monk, and many others, anyway. But just looking at the subclass they are not better than a monk when it comes to unarmed combat.
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
Their restraint is killing me. They have a unique chance to fix the game's issues that's been a pain in the arse for years. And they're only half-using it.
Yes. Basically 1D&D started with a hiss and a roar, and is fading out with a whimper.
At this point it's basically 5e errata, and not very good errata either.
The custom backgrounds/level 1 feats are okay, but throwing a +1 on every feat above first level obliviates the reason "half-feats" existed in the first place. Some feats just aren't particularly strong, so you add a +1 stat so it becomes more attractive. You certainly don't do that with a very good feat like War Caster. There has to be some downside to picking a feat over an ASI.
The idea of unified spell lists sounds good, and works for the most part for Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, Paladins and Clerics, and Druids and Rangers, but then you get the Bard, which in 2014 basically had a hodgepodge of Wizard, Cleric, and Druid spells, mostly support and control, with a handful of damage spells. Making it exclusively one list feels flavorless because it becomes either a better, or worse, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid, until it gets access to all lists, at which point your campaign is probably winding down.
It would be fine to switch to a common level growth chart, as long as it felt like you're gaining something cool by staying in that class. For the most part the only class I feel like they've achieved that with is Rogue. In some ways Arcane Trickster is a better Warlock, because it might only be a one-third caster, but it's a one-third caster attached to a competent chassis, whereas Warlock feels like a spellcaster that they somehow felt moved to cut the spellcasting out of. Eldritch Knight would be fairly similar, except for the schools it's locked into (which would probably be removed), and the fact its spellcasting stat is probably the third statistic the player is concerned with. Battlemaster works because its effect stat is also its primary combat stat, so you're improving both as you collect ASIs.
The question of "backwards compatibility" can create a chain that prevents actual innovation in the game. If it's not a "fairly new" take on the game, then why bother? Just release some recommended errata and continue as normal. Certainly nothing in the UA has convinced me that a DM should spend hundreds of dollars replacing the books they've already spent hundreds of dollars on. This isn't Warhammer 40k, where if you want to play in sanctioned events you need the correct models and rules. This is a game created and recreated around gaming tables around the world by people who might have been playing in the same groups for decades. Who, let's face it, may still be playing AD&D if that's their jam.
The biggest competitor to 1D&D is not Pathfinder or Call of Cthulu. It's 5e. A game system that most players are happy enough with, and have probably already house ruled anything they weren't happy with. In that respect WotC are victims of their own success.
You probably know this and I'm sure i'm not the only one mad at this but... They can't just disrespect the monk by making it a subclass for the Bard and then fixing the things that are wrong with the Monk... I mean... WOW, the disrespect. A Bard has a better martial arts die and better reaction.
It's like they heard the community and then got lost. "Yeah will fix the monk... by making it a Bard subclass". They better up the Monk a little again. This ain't it.
early 16AC dance-naked bard seems cool, but they likely wouldn't want to spend time eating attacks on the front line any more than a monk might. but they'd have to be in melee range to use those three free unarmed attacks per short rest. but if they do then bards lack step of the wind to retreat to safety. even if they did, do they really want to run back and forth all battle? like some sort of monk??
if lack of spellcasting is what's "wrong with the Monk," then maybe that says more about spellcasting than monks.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
When I first read the Dance bard I was a bit upset as well. But looking at it further, I'm not sure I would say they are better than a monk. At least as far as unarmed combat goes. Yes, their BI die scales up earlier than the monks unarmed strikes, but they don't get extra attack, they can only do the Agile Strike when they use their BI, not all the time like monks. Now they are a full caster, so they were already better than monks even without this subclass.
I actually think it might be a better subclass if they focused on weapon attacks instead of unarmed strikes. Agile Strikes being a weapon attack when they use a BI, etc... Let them keep their light armor on (armor and shields don't affect their other subclass abilities anyway, afaik)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Because some children are beloved and some might as well be adopted.
Monk has always been a C-tier class, B-tier at best, and WotC stays faithful to this "design", because the books still sell.
Yes it is a limited resource for Agile Strikes, but I think they can still do unarmed strikes like everyone else, but use their BI die for damage all the time. And it’s on top of a full caster class to boot.
I don’t think College of Dance makes a better monk. Maybe someone can explain how. Without throwing spells into the mix.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
Anything in particular stood out to you? I'm not sure if they were too worried about extreme changes. I think it was probably more that they felt the baseline monk wasn't too bad to begin with, with the exception of 4 Elements. And it seems this UA in particular seems more concerned with backwards compatibility. Like they received a lot of responses in surveys about this issue. I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if they reverted Warlock to Short Rest pact slots for this reason.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Their restraint is killing me. They have a unique chance to fix the game's issues that's been a pain in the arse for years. And they're only half-using it.
It's not better than the monk at monk-ing, it's basically a far superior monk because its effects are just straight up buffs for party members, which were never part of the equation. (and we're not discussing the specific class defining benefits of magic and discipline points.)
It's a better swashbucker than the rogue because it gets an AC buff instead of initiative, which is far more useful, the same hit dice as the rogue with a rapier, and the buffs to party members is superior to panache.... which is similar. (again, not talking about the sneak attack points versus spell casting).
The ONLY things that are arguably better/worse are spells versus discipline or spells versus sneak attack, which shouldn't be a justification because then its either the class itself that's broken (one way or another) and not the subclass. I.E. if spells are better then college of lore is superior to any rogue or monk.
EDIT: "The ONLY things that are arguably better/worse are spells versus discipline or spells versus sneak attack, which shouldn't be a justification because then its either the class itself that's broken (one way or another) and not the subclass. I.E. if spells are better then college of lore is superior to any rogue or monk. "
What I mean is if you want to include the bard's spells in the equation, then the comparison to the other classes is a class to class comparison that shouldn't be dependent upon subclass, and if one class is better than the other, then that's a much greater balance issue than a single subclass being out of balance.
I don't think my 2am wording was really the best at expressing that.
That is an unfair comparison and you know it. Bard is a full spellcaster spells are a crucial part of their kit. Consider: a Dance Bard gets more spellslots than a monk get's disciple points. So if you are going to ban spells from dance bard you should also be banning disciple points from monk in terms of the comparison.
If we consider a straight comparison including both classes limited use resources - BI + Spells for Bard, DP for Monk then:
Dance Bard gets better defenses - d8 hit die, choice of armour or unarmoured defense = equivalent to Monk, But Bard gets access to Shield vs Monk's access to Patient Defense. Since Shield is a reaction to getting hit it is more resource efficient than PD and it is more action economy efficient than PD for approximately equal defense. Bard also gets access to Blur which is a persistent version of PD that has higher up front cost but lasts for the entire combat. Bards may get access to Absorb Elements (unclear if this will be in One D&D or not) which provides lesser protection than Evasion but is effective against a much larger range of effects.
Dance Bard gets better battlefield control - Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Hideous Laughter, Banishment, Wall of Force etc... are all once-per-turn battlefield control effects similar to Stunning Strike but have saves that are more likely to be failed by enemies, last a longer time than stun, and many can affect multiple enemies in a single turn.
Dance Bard gets better Offense - Scorching Ray + Agile Strikes gives then 2x 4 attacks per turn at level 3, one Fireball does equivalent damage to a single target as Flurry of Blows and it can hit multiple targets easily, Haste gives Dance Bard 3 unarmed attacks per turn plus more movement and more AC than the monk, ...
Perhaps. but I also feel they gave other things than just the basic core monk abilities.
BI vs DP, and just different effects from the buffs.
Unfortunately, I think rather than a bard or a monk, you get a multiclass bard/monk with no downsides of multiclassing.
But they aren't lauded? The only thing I've seen people saying is particularly powerful on the Dance Bard is the AoE evasion (which is broken AF), most people I've seen are saying that Monk is so terrible that even a Bard with only a handful of monk features can be played as a monk and be better at it than the actual monk (and I agree Valor bard is a better martial bard than Dance Bard but what does that say about Monk? If a second-rate martial bard is better than it is).
Unfair comparison. Yes I know comparing bard to monk is an unfair comparison and I wasn’t trying to do that. Unless I am misunderstanding your comments. Just a bard with no subclass is more powerful than a monk (and some other martials) because they are full casters. And I was trying to say, if you ignore spellcasting part of the bard and and look at the base class and Dance subclass they are worse than a monk when it comes to unarmed combat. Even burning spell slots for BI to fuel Agile strikes I don’t think in unarmed combat they are better than monks. But when you look at the class as a whole, spells and all, there is no comparison. To monks or pretty much any martial class due to being full casters.
I just don’t see how, from an unarmed combat perspective Dance bard is better than monks.
The focus of the monk is unarmed melee combat in this UA. The focus of the bard is spellcasting. The subclasses just add flavor and some thematic abilities.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
We're comparing a subclass to a class here. We should be comparing the dance bard to monks including subclasses.
The choice of amor vs unarmored AC doesn't mean much because ASI's allow either dance bards or monks at +5 and a +6 bonus (19th level ASI) for 21 AC. Light armor taking 22 DEX would cost the bard with spell DC and still need +3 armor to reach the same AC. That's a non-argument. At 3rd level when bards add the ability the armor would be 15 AC vs 16 AC from DEX + CHA bonus while monks have already had that ability from 1st level. WIS is also a more prominent ability score than CHA.
The shield spell is a better bonus than patient defense, but discipline points recover on a short rest while spell slots recover on a long rest so the actual cost is lower for the monk. This isn't an argument for bards being better monks than monks. It's a spell caster vs melee argument. The more important point, however, is that's getting into a shrodinger's bard argument because spell list and spell selection within that list are 2 meaningful points of opportunity cost before shield is even selected. Not all bards are going to have access to the shield spell.
The strike damage for the dance bard is nothing compared to the monk because of the bonus unarmed strike, flurry of blows (no cost for high level shadow monks within the shadow cloak), deflect missiles, extra attack, empowered strikes against DR opponents. A dance bard isn't remotely close.
Monks move faster than bards by a lot. The dance bard movement benefits cost BI dice. Slow fall, acrobatic movement, and the speed bonus are free while the benefits of step of the wind only cost 1 discipline point (which again is short rest recovery vs long rest).
Leading evasion isn't better on an individual basis but it is better on a team basis. Otto's is just another spell on a spell caster.
On a shadow monk: darkvision is free vs a spell cost; darkness is 1 point vs a 2nd level spell,; shadow step cost is free and adds advantage; shadow step later improves for 1 point to ignore the shadow req and add a bonus attack; cloak of shadows lasts a minute for 3 points effectively granting improved invisibility (no concentration) and adding that no cost flurry.
Dance bards do not out monk monks, and the spell casting resource vs combat abilities and ki only matters for ppl who play 5MWD.
I hope this is not a plot from WotC so they can say:
Come the survey when everything about the class is not liked they drop it from the next book showing everything from main class was hated so we dropped it.
I doubt that. Backwards compatibility and all that. They are already changing stuff for this reason. And my hope is, like the Rogue, which had minimal changes for the worse but was then pretty damn good in the revision, that monks will be the same.
It is funny, not haha funny, but hearing some who think our concerns are unwarranted makes me really realize how different some people play. For example, YouTuber XP to level 3 did a stream where he went through the UA and absolutely thought the monk changes were great and a good thing. And when viewers responded with dismay, he was like “what game are you playing?” Since he saw this UA as a vast improvement for the Monk.
To each their own I guess. We will have to see what the survey shows. But I don’t think they have any intention of removing the class.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Am I missing something here or are people talking up College of Dance's unarmed attacks as a far bigger deal then they actually are?
First off college of the dance's unarmed strikes are WEAK, they can replace strength with dexterity... great. Ok Monk does the same thing, only Monk can actually focus Dexterity, Bard needs to focus Charisma since they have significantly stronger features reliant on CHA while Monk has some saving throw DCs and a few other things on WIS, they obviously get far more from DEX.
Second off, when college of dance makes an unarmed attack, they can add their bardic inspiration die to the damage. This is pretty weak tho, since at most they can only make 2 attacks a round, 1 as main action and 1 from expanding bardic inspiration on bonus action. At level 5, Monk can do 4 unarmed attacks in a turn, 2 from attack and 2 from bonus action (by using discipline points).
Not sure how anybody thinks 2*(1d8+DEX) beats 4*(1d8 + DEX), honestly. If both have the same DEX mod at +4, Bard is doing 17damage vs. Monk at 34 damage... or 11.5 vs 23 if we are basing this off of a 65% chance to hit with 5% chance to critical. Worse yet, Monk can switch the damage type to force which means targets resistant or immune to Bludgeoning can be bypassed by switching to force instead.
Vicious Mockery at level 5 does ~4.2 damage (at 60% chance), vs. the 5.75 damage of that unarmed attack (at 65% chance). At level 11 Vicious Mockery does ~6.3 damage vs the 6.45 damage of that unarmed attack. So for a main action, the unarmed attack is really not adding much, you have to go into melee range to do a melee attack instead of hanging back and doing slightly less damage, you only go in for the melee attack when you're already planning to use bardic inspiration and want to get that second attack, else wise you're better off hanging back out of attack range.
In terms of damage, you'd do more damage using searing smite from choosing divine than using bardic inspiration in this way, and college of valor with its extra attack is FAR FAR better at this. 3rd level searing smite for a minimum of 6d6 fire damage is huge, can easily scale up more if the creature keeps failing it's saving throw.
EDIT: misread some stuff, fixed now
You are correct. I first had the negative response, like others, when first reading Dance bard because their BI die scales faster than monks MA die. Add to that the Monk UA was pretty bad so frustration was already there. But like you pointed out they only get one attack, two if they are able to expend a BI as a BA or reaction.
But they are on a full caster chassis so by default will be more powerful than a monk, and many others, anyway. But just looking at the subclass they are not better than a monk when it comes to unarmed combat.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yes. Basically 1D&D started with a hiss and a roar, and is fading out with a whimper.
At this point it's basically 5e errata, and not very good errata either.
The custom backgrounds/level 1 feats are okay, but throwing a +1 on every feat above first level obliviates the reason "half-feats" existed in the first place. Some feats just aren't particularly strong, so you add a +1 stat so it becomes more attractive. You certainly don't do that with a very good feat like War Caster. There has to be some downside to picking a feat over an ASI.
The idea of unified spell lists sounds good, and works for the most part for Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, Paladins and Clerics, and Druids and Rangers, but then you get the Bard, which in 2014 basically had a hodgepodge of Wizard, Cleric, and Druid spells, mostly support and control, with a handful of damage spells. Making it exclusively one list feels flavorless because it becomes either a better, or worse, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid, until it gets access to all lists, at which point your campaign is probably winding down.
It would be fine to switch to a common level growth chart, as long as it felt like you're gaining something cool by staying in that class. For the most part the only class I feel like they've achieved that with is Rogue. In some ways Arcane Trickster is a better Warlock, because it might only be a one-third caster, but it's a one-third caster attached to a competent chassis, whereas Warlock feels like a spellcaster that they somehow felt moved to cut the spellcasting out of. Eldritch Knight would be fairly similar, except for the schools it's locked into (which would probably be removed), and the fact its spellcasting stat is probably the third statistic the player is concerned with. Battlemaster works because its effect stat is also its primary combat stat, so you're improving both as you collect ASIs.
The question of "backwards compatibility" can create a chain that prevents actual innovation in the game. If it's not a "fairly new" take on the game, then why bother? Just release some recommended errata and continue as normal. Certainly nothing in the UA has convinced me that a DM should spend hundreds of dollars replacing the books they've already spent hundreds of dollars on. This isn't Warhammer 40k, where if you want to play in sanctioned events you need the correct models and rules. This is a game created and recreated around gaming tables around the world by people who might have been playing in the same groups for decades. Who, let's face it, may still be playing AD&D if that's their jam.
The biggest competitor to 1D&D is not Pathfinder or Call of Cthulu. It's 5e. A game system that most players are happy enough with, and have probably already house ruled anything they weren't happy with. In that respect WotC are victims of their own success.
Bard has always been better. :)
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