Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

Quote from DaBeef2112 >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 You can safely ignore the comments of anyone who thinks the 2014 monk was better than the 2024 updated version... Monk is hands down the most improved class in the new PHB. 

 You aren't kidding there; the monk has a huge swing in overall quality when comparing the 2024 to the 2014.

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

Quote from Riotak >>

How is this an improvement?

 It's an improvement because a player can choose to use Step of the Wind or Patient Defense without expending a resource on it. This opens up a lot more versatility when in a fight.

Quote from DaBeef2112 >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 You can safely ignore the comments of anyone who thinks the 2014 monk was better than the 2024 updated version... Monk is hands down the most improved class in the new PHB. 

 O you think so. Then here allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

Mostly never means it can happen. Also the fact that I stated it is written "can do this" implying they are admitting that there are time the Monk would not want to activate it.

This is my point exactly. The Monk helped with crowd control. Where they amazing at no, but did they have there usefulness yes. Especially if they could use their turn to take away multiple  Legendary Resistances from a creature. The job was try and set up the rest of the party and now they cannot even do that.

Okay let me point out some things. One most party members other than monks get weapons or tools that can actually make them more valuable to the team as a whole then then the Monk as a whole. On top of that, most spellcasters have area of effect attacks that affect multiple targets that make them saving throws. But let's limit the monk to just one. On top of that, the advantage attack means nothing when the next attack is done by the monk itself. And as for the movement speed reduction, what's the point of reducing a creature's movement speed when you're 5 ft away from the creature itself already?

Actually it doesn't cuz what's the point of using stuff with the wind or patient defense either one when the primary use of a monk which was stunning, strike is limited to once per turn. So you're basically turning a monk into a road because you're going to jump in attack and then jump out. Yay! A big whoop I get to move around like a rogue now. On top of that, to actually get the benefits of step with the Wind or patient defense, the big one you still have to use a focus point/ki point Which means it's still a resource waste use thing. Oh also to use it is a bonus action which means you don't get to use your extra unarmed strike

Why is everyone happy about? Oh, you still put a status effect on them. You're 5 ft away from the creature. They're not using movement speed to attack you. And the advantage on the next attack. Big whoopty deal I get to hit it. Yay! Every other class has things that can attack multiple targets, but does the monk get that? Nope, it gets nerfed because it's stunning strike even if they pass that does literally nothing. Because the creature is not going to use movement speed to freaking attack you.

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 As for I didn't touch the on this and I'm sorry. The monks primary purpose was crowd control and to try and set up the rest of the party for big attacks. That's the point of stunning strike and that's the point of stunning striking multiples. It also helped deal with legendary Resistances. This is also allowing the rest of the party to deal big attacks instead of forcing spellcasters to waste spell slots or forcing other people to the waste things. The monk would waste their  points because they can get it back after a short rest. The monks whole thing was to set up the rest of the party for things. You literally took that away from them.

I could go through all of this and explain how you're wrong because no, there's only 12 monsters in only 6 of them have true immunity. The fact they actually made it force damage And they added that a "can do this" meaning the player does have to decide to activate it or deactivate. It means they know for a fact going forward. There are very true times when the monk is not going to want to use Force damage. Which tells me as a player. Probably more creatures are going to have Force damage resistances.

Let's delve into the recent changes to the Monk class and explore how these alterations have diminished the value of Monks within a D&D party moving forward.

The adjustment to Empowered Strike, while providing Monks with the ability at an earlier level, inadvertently weakens their overall combat effectiveness. By assigning a specific magical attack type to Monk attacks, the once versatile Empowered Strike now falls short against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Monks enjoyed the benefit of attacks that were universally considered magical, allowing them to bypass such defenses effortlessly. This change restricts their combat versatility, limits their impact in combat situations, and makes them less valuable assets to the party.

Similarly, the changes to Patient Defense and Step of the Wind have altered the dynamics for Monks in combat. Patient Defense now offers the option to take the Disengage action as a Bonus Action without expending any Focus Points. However, by spending a Focus Point, Monks can both Disengage and Dodge in a single Bonus Action. Likewise, Step of the Wind allows Monks to Dash as a Bonus Action without requiring a Focus Point, but spending one enables them to Disengage and Dash in the same Bonus Action. Although these changes enhance mobility and defensive capabilities, Monks are now faced with the dilemma of sacrificing offensive prowess by forgoing the use of Flurry of Blows or their Unarmed Strike, which require a Bonus Action.

Regarding Stunning Strike, the limitation of using it only once per turn significantly hampers the Monk's crowd control capabilities and strategic utility. Previously, Monks could attempt to stun multiple foes or assist the party in overcoming formidable foes with Legendary Resistances. With this restriction in place, Monks find themselves unable to fulfill their potential in disrupting enemy formations and providing crucial support to their allies.

Furthermore, the effects of Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, often prove ineffective or redundant in practical combat scenarios. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, these effects may not align with their combat style or benefit the party in a meaningful way. Additionally, the short duration of the Stunning effect, ending at the start of the Monk's next turn rather than the end, deprives Monks of the opportunity to fully capitalize on incapacitating a target.

In conclusion, the recent changes to the Monk class have inadvertently diminished their value within a D&D party by restricting their combat versatility, hampering their crowd control capabilities, and limiting their strategic impact in combat situations. Players controlling Monks will need to carefully weigh their decisions in combat to determine the most effective use of their abilities based on the specific demands of the situation.

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

 The party was over reliant on it is like saying the Monk were over reliant on Flurry of Blows. Maybe the reason is because the are Built around those 2 primary abilities. Like how Rogues were primarily built around Sneak Attack. 

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

 The party was over reliant on it is like saying the Monk were over reliant on Flurry of Blows. Maybe the reason is because the are Built around those 2 primary abilities. Like how Rogues were primarily built around Sneak Attack. 

Right.  And as happens in game design, it's a rebalancing.  Everyone who's a fan of a particular feature screams "Nerfed!" when they see a feature weakened, but sometimes it's for the better of the game as a whole.  In this case the Monk got side-graded.  The old Stunning Strike was a great feature, but it had its issues, and MAD and resource depletion are both pretty serious issues for Monk players.  They're also an issue for the DM because encounter design is heavily affected by a character that can burn through all of its Legendary Resistances in a single round and/or relies on stunlocking; DMs always have the task and challenge of designing interesting encounters but the old Stunning Strike basically inserts the "save or suck/die" into encounter design.  A good DM can roll with the punches and improvise descriptions and narratives to suit the random factors that good and bad rolls put in the game, but DMs already have a lot of work as it is.   

The 2014 Stunning Strike is good.  Great, even.  It's incredibly powerful.  It's game-altering.  And it (and as you point out, Flurry of Blows, although frankly it wasn't that great a feature compared to the Fighter's Extra Attack) it defined the class.  But it was also very restricting.  With other classes, subclass choice often had a really significant influence on how you played the class.  With monks, subclasses had far less influence; almost no matter what monk subclass you played, you were still aiming for stunlocks and chewing through your Ki points at breakneck speed, and if you weren't doing that, you weren't playing the monk right.  

We get that you like the 2014 Monk better, and it's all because of its Stunning Strike.  If mass stunlock is the only way you like playing Monks, admittedly that's going away.  Maybe it didn't have to, but the designers seem to have proceeded with the idea that the Monk needed improvements in a lot of places and couldn't or wouldn't do it without smoothing out that one spike in its makeup.

Even after all the changes, there are still things I'm not 100% satisfied with the monk.  I like the general direction, but frankly I'd have gone further in some areas which the designers toyed with but ultimately didn't adopt.  One example was one of the things they looked into with the Warlock; they toyed for a moment with allowing Warlocks a choice of primary attributes; I think it was Wisdom or Charisma.  They backed out of that and kept warlocks on Charisma.  It could have made for some really interesting choices and mechanics but it would also certainly have flipped up the min-maxer's multiclassing game.  I'd have loved to experiment with a martial artist class that had a choice of primary abilities, and my picks would have been Constitution and Wisdom, which I think would have opened up the class to a bunch of different character archetypes and allowed a lot of storytelling and mechanics that play into the experiences that I think a lot of martial artists could relate to in their own training, which include health and conditioning, physiological expertise, equilibrium, and combat psychology.  

The monk got a sidegrade and it's in a direction you don't like.  I'm sure they knew someone wasn't going to like it and that's part of the burden of game design - any nerf is going to upset someone.  I happen to like the changes to the class overall, even though there is definitely a giant nerf to Stunning Strike and I don't have any problem admitting that.  You clearly don't like it, and you've made your own perspective clear.   We clearly want different things out of the class and neither of us got exactly what we wanted.  You wanted to be able to keep playing the monk the way it used to be played.  I wanted to be able to play the monk in new and different ways.  I got a little of what I wanted, though.  I guess you didn't.  So be it. 

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

 The party was over reliant on it is like saying the Monk were over reliant on Flurry of Blows. Maybe the reason is because the are Built around those 2 primary abilities. Like how Rogues were primarily built around Sneak Attack. 

 

Right.  And as happens in game design, it's a rebalancing.  Everyone who's a fan of a particular feature screams "Nerfed!" when they see a feature weakened, but sometimes it's for the better of the game as a whole.  In this case the Monk got side-graded.  The old Stunning Strike was a great feature, but it had its issues, and MAD and resource depletion are both pretty serious issues for Monk players.  They're also an issue for the DM because encounter design is heavily affected by a character that can burn through all of its Legendary Resistances in a single round and/or relies on stunlocking; DMs always have the task and challenge of designing interesting encounters but the old Stunning Strike basically inserts the "save or suck/die" into encounter design.  A good DM can roll with the punches and improvise descriptions and narratives to suit the random factors that good and bad rolls put in the game, but DMs already have a lot of work as it is.   

The 2014 Stunning Strike is good.  Great, even.  It's incredibly powerful.  It's game-altering.  And it (and as you point out, Flurry of Blows, although frankly it wasn't that great a feature compared to the Fighter's Extra Attack) it defined the class.  But it was also very restricting.  With other classes, subclass choice often had a really significant influence on how you played the class.  With monks, subclasses had far less influence; almost no matter what monk subclass you played, you were still aiming for stunlocks and chewing through your Ki points at breakneck speed, and if you weren't doing that, you weren't playing the monk right.  

We get that you like the 2014 Monk better, and it's all because of its Stunning Strike.  If mass stunlock is the only way you like playing Monks, admittedly that's going away.  Maybe it didn't have to, but the designers seem to have proceeded with the idea that the Monk needed improvements in a lot of places and couldn't or wouldn't do it without smoothing out that one spike in its makeup.

Even after all the changes, there are still things I'm not 100% satisfied with the monk.  I like the general direction, but frankly I'd have gone further in some areas which the designers toyed with but ultimately didn't adopt.  One example was one of the things they looked into with the Warlock; they toyed for a moment with allowing Warlocks a choice of primary attributes; I think it was Wisdom or Charisma.  They backed out of that and kept warlocks on Charisma.  It could have made for some really interesting choices and mechanics but it would also certainly have flipped up the min-maxer's multiclassing game.  I'd have loved to experiment with a martial artist class that had a choice of primary abilities, and my picks would have been Constitution and Wisdom, which I think would have opened up the class to a bunch of different character archetypes and allowed a lot of storytelling and mechanics that play into the experiences that I think a lot of martial artists could relate to in their own training, which include health and conditioning, physiological expertise, equilibrium, and combat psychology.  

The monk got a sidegrade and it's in a direction you don't like.  I'm sure they knew someone wasn't going to like it and that's part of the burden of game design - any nerf is going to upset someone.  I happen to like the changes to the class overall, even though there is definitely a giant nerf to Stunning Strike and I don't have any problem admitting that.  You clearly don't like it, and you've made your own perspective clear.   We clearly want different things out of the class and neither of us got exactly what we wanted.  You wanted to be able to keep playing the monk the way it used to be played.  I wanted to be able to play the monk in new and different ways.  I got a little of what I wanted, though.  I guess you didn't.  So be it. 

 It has nothing to do with playing the monk the way they used to be played. It has everything to do that. They made the Monk basically useless in the party. Let me explain why spellcasters has an AOE effect that targets multiple creatures to force them all to make saving throws if they all fail It's great crowd control. If they all pass, it's kind of a wasted spell, but it's the point of crowd control. It's the point of the role. Monks are no longer a crowd control support class. They are now just a Frontline fighter that can maybe stun they can no longer affect the entire battlefield. They can no longer do what they are designed to do so there's no point to play them because if you want to actually be a Frontline fighter you might as well go Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin for better AC and Better health. Nothing that the Stunning Strike really does now benefits the monk at all And then everything else that you can do as a monk now is dependent on bonus actions which the monks bonus action was their extra unarmed strike. So since you can only do one bonus action per turn, it's either run away or attack. That is your only options as a monk now. They have made the monk the most useless of all the classes. Well, people are arguing that they were barely more useful than Rangers in the first place. They are actually worse than a ranger fully now.

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

 The party was over reliant on it is like saying the Monk were over reliant on Flurry of Blows. Maybe the reason is because the are Built around those 2 primary abilities. Like how Rogues were primarily built around Sneak Attack. 

 

Right.  And as happens in game design, it's a rebalancing.  Everyone who's a fan of a particular feature screams "Nerfed!" when they see a feature weakened, but sometimes it's for the better of the game as a whole.  In this case the Monk got side-graded.  The old Stunning Strike was a great feature, but it had its issues, and MAD and resource depletion are both pretty serious issues for Monk players.  They're also an issue for the DM because encounter design is heavily affected by a character that can burn through all of its Legendary Resistances in a single round and/or relies on stunlocking; DMs always have the task and challenge of designing interesting encounters but the old Stunning Strike basically inserts the "save or suck/die" into encounter design.  A good DM can roll with the punches and improvise descriptions and narratives to suit the random factors that good and bad rolls put in the game, but DMs already have a lot of work as it is.   

The 2014 Stunning Strike is good.  Great, even.  It's incredibly powerful.  It's game-altering.  And it (and as you point out, Flurry of Blows, although frankly it wasn't that great a feature compared to the Fighter's Extra Attack) it defined the class.  But it was also very restricting.  With other classes, subclass choice often had a really significant influence on how you played the class.  With monks, subclasses had far less influence; almost no matter what monk subclass you played, you were still aiming for stunlocks and chewing through your Ki points at breakneck speed, and if you weren't doing that, you weren't playing the monk right.  

We get that you like the 2014 Monk better, and it's all because of its Stunning Strike.  If mass stunlock is the only way you like playing Monks, admittedly that's going away.  Maybe it didn't have to, but the designers seem to have proceeded with the idea that the Monk needed improvements in a lot of places and couldn't or wouldn't do it without smoothing out that one spike in its makeup.

Even after all the changes, there are still things I'm not 100% satisfied with the monk.  I like the general direction, but frankly I'd have gone further in some areas which the designers toyed with but ultimately didn't adopt.  One example was one of the things they looked into with the Warlock; they toyed for a moment with allowing Warlocks a choice of primary attributes; I think it was Wisdom or Charisma.  They backed out of that and kept warlocks on Charisma.  It could have made for some really interesting choices and mechanics but it would also certainly have flipped up the min-maxer's multiclassing game.  I'd have loved to experiment with a martial artist class that had a choice of primary abilities, and my picks would have been Constitution and Wisdom, which I think would have opened up the class to a bunch of different character archetypes and allowed a lot of storytelling and mechanics that play into the experiences that I think a lot of martial artists could relate to in their own training, which include health and conditioning, physiological expertise, equilibrium, and combat psychology.  

The monk got a sidegrade and it's in a direction you don't like.  I'm sure they knew someone wasn't going to like it and that's part of the burden of game design - any nerf is going to upset someone.  I happen to like the changes to the class overall, even though there is definitely a giant nerf to Stunning Strike and I don't have any problem admitting that.  You clearly don't like it, and you've made your own perspective clear.   We clearly want different things out of the class and neither of us got exactly what we wanted.  You wanted to be able to keep playing the monk the way it used to be played.  I wanted to be able to play the monk in new and different ways.  I got a little of what I wanted, though.  I guess you didn't.  So be it. 

 It has nothing to do with playing the monk the way they used to be played. It has everything to do that. They made the Monk basically useless in the party. Let me explain why spellcasters has an AOE effect that targets multiple creatures to force them all to make saving throws if they all fail It's great crowd control. If they all pass, it's kind of a wasted spell, but it's the point of crowd control. It's the point of the role. Monks are no longer a crowd control support class. They are now just a Frontline fighter that can maybe stun they can no longer affect the entire battlefield. They can no longer do what they are designed to do so there's no point to play them because if you want to actually be a Frontline fighter you might as well go Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin for better AC and Better health. Nothing that the Stunning Strike really does now benefits the monk at all And then everything else that you can do as a monk now is dependent on bonus actions which the monks bonus action was their extra unarmed strike. So since you can only do one bonus action per turn, it's either run away or attack. That is your only options as a monk now. They have made the monk the most useless of all the classes. Well, people are arguing that they were barely more useful than Rangers in the first place. They are actually worse than a ranger fully now.

 
Alright, have fun!  Or don't.  That's up to you.

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Citizen_Toast >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Riotak >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Since you aren’t quoting anyone in your spammy comments, it is hard to tell which question is meant for me. I will respond broadly then because, contextually, you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding why anyone sees these changes positively. 

How am I excited with these rules: because.

 

Allow me to discuss the positive aspects and concerns regarding the recent rule changes for the Monk class, particularly focusing on the abilities Empowered Strike and Stunning Strike.

One notable benefit of the rule change is that Monks now gain access to Empowered Strike at an earlier level, enhancing their combat capabilities. However, a significant issue arises from the fact that Monk attacks are now designated with a specific magical attack type, potentially rendering them ineffective against creatures with resistances or immunities. Previously, Empowered Strike was universally considered magical, allowing Monks to bypass such defenses.

Turning to the ability Stunning Strike, a key advantage is that even if a creature successfully resists the effect, it still experiences some form of consequence. Nevertheless, a drawback emerges as Monks are now limited to attempting Stunning Strike once per turn. This limitation hampers their ability to incapacitate multiple foes or aid the party in overcoming Legendary Resistances.

Furthermore, the effects applied by Stunning Strike, such as movement speed reduction and advantage on the next attack, may not always prove beneficial to the Monk or their allies. Given the Monk's frontline combat role, the movement impediment may be inconsequential, and the attack advantage might go unused since the Monk typically capitalizes on it immediately. Additionally, the fact that the Stunning effect expires at the start of the Monk's next turn, rather than the end, means that Monks seldom derive the full benefits of attacking a Stunned target.

•  Unless there are dramatic differences in the monster stat blocks, this concern is completely unwarranted. There are currently only 12 monsters in the entire game, when using literally every official book on this site, that has resistance to Force damage. Less if you remove the Legacy options. Only 6 monsters are immune. There should be the occasional exception, just like every other class has to sometimes deal with.
• Limited to only attempting Stunning Strike once a turn and still gaining a benefit, irrespective of the actual outcome of the save. The inability to stun virtually every monster on the map in a single turn is intentional and a good idea.
• Legendary Resistance still suffer the effect for monsters who succeed on the save. Again, they are impacted no matter what.
• When is having advantage on an attack not beneficial? So it seems that you don't like the changes because a Monk might have to sometimes plan attacks and make someone else in the party look awesome once in a while. Sorry, but this is a collaborative game with decision points literally every turn. Less beneficial does not mean not beneficial at all.
• Don't use Stunning Strike on your last strike if you can't stomach sharing the glory with others.

 

Agreed.  2014 Stunning Strike was better in a lot of ways, but it was expensive and the class was over-reliant on it.  The 2024 version's "consolation prize" is pretty well designed, and well worth accepting in exchange for some of the newer features. 

Deflect Attacks at 3rd level is a big deal; while monks are still saddled with a terrible d8 Hit Die, its applicability to melee attacks is a major asset for a melee focused class.  By comparison, taking taking the Tough feat at 4th level would only give you 8 hp.  Nice to have, but not much compared to being able to void about 10 points of physical damage potentially every round on an average roll 1 level earlier on a non-optimized build without burning a limited resource.  It's great, it's available even earlier than Stunning Strike, you don't have to build into it, and it doesn't funnel every player into the same playstyle.  

 The party was over reliant on it is like saying the Monk were over reliant on Flurry of Blows. Maybe the reason is because the are Built around those 2 primary abilities. Like how Rogues were primarily built around Sneak Attack. 

 

Right.  And as happens in game design, it's a rebalancing.  Everyone who's a fan of a particular feature screams "Nerfed!" when they see a feature weakened, but sometimes it's for the better of the game as a whole.  In this case the Monk got side-graded.  The old Stunning Strike was a great feature, but it had its issues, and MAD and resource depletion are both pretty serious issues for Monk players.  They're also an issue for the DM because encounter design is heavily affected by a character that can burn through all of its Legendary Resistances in a single round and/or relies on stunlocking; DMs always have the task and challenge of designing interesting encounters but the old Stunning Strike basically inserts the "save or suck/die" into encounter design.  A good DM can roll with the punches and improvise descriptions and narratives to suit the random factors that good and bad rolls put in the game, but DMs already have a lot of work as it is.   

The 2014 Stunning Strike is good.  Great, even.  It's incredibly powerful.  It's game-altering.  And it (and as you point out, Flurry of Blows, although frankly it wasn't that great a feature compared to the Fighter's Extra Attack) it defined the class.  But it was also very restricting.  With other classes, subclass choice often had a really significant influence on how you played the class.  With monks, subclasses had far less influence; almost no matter what monk subclass you played, you were still aiming for stunlocks and chewing through your Ki points at breakneck speed, and if you weren't doing that, you weren't playing the monk right.  

We get that you like the 2014 Monk better, and it's all because of its Stunning Strike.  If mass stunlock is the only way you like playing Monks, admittedly that's going away.  Maybe it didn't have to, but the designers seem to have proceeded with the idea that the Monk needed improvements in a lot of places and couldn't or wouldn't do it without smoothing out that one spike in its makeup.

Even after all the changes, there are still things I'm not 100% satisfied with the monk.  I like the general direction, but frankly I'd have gone further in some areas which the designers toyed with but ultimately didn't adopt.  One example was one of the things they looked into with the Warlock; they toyed for a moment with allowing Warlocks a choice of primary attributes; I think it was Wisdom or Charisma.  They backed out of that and kept warlocks on Charisma.  It could have made for some really interesting choices and mechanics but it would also certainly have flipped up the min-maxer's multiclassing game.  I'd have loved to experiment with a martial artist class that had a choice of primary abilities, and my picks would have been Constitution and Wisdom, which I think would have opened up the class to a bunch of different character archetypes and allowed a lot of storytelling and mechanics that play into the experiences that I think a lot of martial artists could relate to in their own training, which include health and conditioning, physiological expertise, equilibrium, and combat psychology.  

The monk got a sidegrade and it's in a direction you don't like.  I'm sure they knew someone wasn't going to like it and that's part of the burden of game design - any nerf is going to upset someone.  I happen to like the changes to the class overall, even though there is definitely a giant nerf to Stunning Strike and I don't have any problem admitting that.  You clearly don't like it, and you've made your own perspective clear.   We clearly want different things out of the class and neither of us got exactly what we wanted.  You wanted to be able to keep playing the monk the way it used to be played.  I wanted to be able to play the monk in new and different ways.  I got a little of what I wanted, though.  I guess you didn't.  So be it. 

 It has nothing to do with playing the monk the way they used to be played. It has everything to do that. They made the Monk basically useless in the party. Let me explain why spellcasters has an AOE effect that targets multiple creatures to force them all to make saving throws if they all fail It's great crowd control. If they all pass, it's kind of a wasted spell, but it's the point of crowd control. It's the point of the role. Monks are no longer a crowd control support class. They are now just a Frontline fighter that can maybe stun they can no longer affect the entire battlefield. They can no longer do what they are designed to do so there's no point to play them because if you want to actually be a Frontline fighter you might as well go Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin for better AC and Better health. Nothing that the Stunning Strike really does now benefits the monk at all And then everything else that you can do as a monk now is dependent on bonus actions which the monks bonus action was their extra unarmed strike. So since you can only do one bonus action per turn, it's either run away or attack. That is your only options as a monk now. They have made the monk the most useless of all the classes. Well, people are arguing that they were barely more useful than Rangers in the first place. They are actually worse than a ranger fully now.

 
Alright, have fun!  Or don't.  That's up to you.

 What is fun about the Monk now? 

Quote from Riotak >>

 What is fun about the Monk now? 

 Who knows?  For you, maybe nothing.  I'll give it a try, though.