Houserules to help Ranger and Monk balance

[kellyda4]

Hey everyone,

Now run and been a part of a few different adventure groups over the last year and am about to start a new group where two people are looking to run as a ranger and monk respectively. From recent play up until level 14, our group has found both these classes lack significantly behind other classes in terms of combat viability to the point where it has taken away from the fun a little for people playing them I've been told. To address that, I've been thinking of some slight verifications that help give these classes a little more omph in combat situations (not that combat is everything of course as the ranger is certainly good out of combat, at times). Here's the ideas I've been throwing around below for each class, let me know what you think. Also, have you experienced this issue in play groups with rangers and monks. Just to give a little background, I'm talking about experience from 4 different groups I ran (two I was a player, two GM); in one group it was all new players and myself as the GM and in the j other groups everyone had experience with pathfinder and a few people going back to 2e. No one was really an "optimizer" either, they did read up on their options throughly but I would say all people attempt to maintain some balance with the exception of the one summoner we had in a pathfinder group I GMed; in that group I had to wind up making him change his synethesist character because he was powergaming so hard other players wouldn't even get a turn in combat and in non combat related scenarios all his stats were maxed (from sharing physical stats with eidolon) that eventually he was the only person playing half the time (We later banned that archetype from groups because it got ridiculous).

Without further ado here are the slight modifications, my goal is to increase some combat viability of these classes without making things more complicated (i.e. trying to just modify already existing abilities rather than create new ones):

Ranger:
- Modify favored enemy to give a slight damage bonus (half of proficiency bonus so +1, +2, +3 over time) or give a crit on 19-20. The flavor of this is that the player knows the weaknesses of her favored enemies.
- Modify favored terrain to be relevant in combat in some way: +1 to hit while in your terrain (feels somewhat over powered), enemies take a -1 to hit on their attacks (hard to keep track of), give bonus speed (+10 or could scale), allow you to impose disadvantage on a few attacks a day in terrain (additional thing to keep track of though)
- Add the "switch hitter" class feature at level 9 (a blank level right now): this gives the ranger the ability to choose an additional fighting style. The ranger in our group recommended this as they see the ranger as a classic shot the bow, drop it and pull out their swords kind of gal.

Not sure if I would add one, two, or all three of these abilities. Of course, for the favored enemy and terrain we'd only add one of those features and probably not give it immediately

Monk:
- Allowing their unarmed strike damage to scale to D12 rather than D10
- adding the ability to make a reaction attack when using their evasion skill (if possible)
- Modifying purity of body in some way to add more resistances or immunities (any thoughts on what those could be?)
- stillness of mind: adding some kind of resistance to charm or effects of the mind (any help on further fleshing this out would be awesome!)
-Adding some additional omph to the archetypes, thoughts include: giving people access to more elemental disciplines and making the spells as part of them take less ki points (cutting in half or reducing them by one; the cost seems very high), for shadow giving ability to create more illusions (any help on this one would be awesome), open hand giving a third attack at 11 (seems to overpowered) or giving flurry of blows more abilities; maybe just giving it one more attack ?

Thanks for any help!

[Talyn]

Monks are already pretty powerful. I'd be careful about buffing them too much, your fighters and barbarians will start to feel a little cheated.

Ranger:
- half proficiency damage bonus on favored enemy isn't too bad, but it doesn't address the big problem with favored enemy. That is, that unless you guessed the DM's campaign plans in advance, it's more often than not useless, because you don't encounter your favored enemy often enough.
- likewise favored terrain, though the terrains are broad enough that it at least comes up more often. A flat +1 to AC would be easier to track than imposing -1 to all enemy attacks, for whatever that's worth.
- a second fighting style to Ranger at level 9 is a good idea, I think I will suggest that for my current gaming group (where the Ranger is feeling underpowered)

[Foxhound438]

yeah, monk's aren't really weak... you've probably not been optimizing them well if you think they're that bad. if you want to increase their damage output, consider recommending one of the following:

1 level of war cleric to get divine favor

2 levels of ranger for hunter's mark and dueling fs

take magic initiate for hex at level 4 or 8

any of those work reeeealy well with the monk's 4 attacks (still 3 when ki runs dry), as they each add a die to every attack. Granted the last 2 require that you focus a single target to get much from them but it's still good. note also that stunning blow is broken as anything in this edition when you aren't using on fatties with +11ish to the saves.

for the ranger, you get archery style and can get sharpshooter, and crossbow master is a thing, so your damage is far from lackluster. hoardebreaker gives 3-4 attacks (sometimes), later on (late late) you can grab swift quiver to go up to 4-6 attacks per round, build dependant, so sharpshooter can potentially do a ton of work. Granted, you end up with a lot of "ribbon" abilities, but you can certainly keep up in the right circumstance.

[as an aside i'd like to show off one of my many dumb jank ideas: the cleave ranger:

anything with + str

stats: 16/13/(above 11)/x/13/x

have gsword+medium armor, take 1-2 fighter levels at some point for gwfs

hoarde break with greatsword, later whirlwind, have GWM eventually for bonus action attack and +10 dmg to alrady skinny foes

laugh at mobs]

edit: in case your monk wants to be aang: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view

[Giant2005]

I agree with pretty much everything Talyn said.
Monks are already awesome, so I'm not going to comment on any balancing regarding them as I think it is far from necessary.
I think your ideas with the Ranger are pretty terrible though - it is impossible to die combat abilities to favored terrain and enemy without it all turning to crap. By tying it to options which may or may not apply in any given situation, you must either choose between having the Ranger suck when those abilities aren't in play, or having the Ranger be too powerful when they are in play. There is no middle ground and both options are equally terrible.

Take a look at the Ranger homebrew in my signature (the hunter subclass in particular), I think you will like it. It brings the Ranger up to the level of everyone else without tying their abilities to crappy mechanics.

[kellyda4]

Thanks Giant for sharing your ranger. Looks interesting although I'm not sure our group is interesting in changing the class that much, as I mentioned, we're hoping to make some quick tweaks rather than a full overhaul. The spellless ranger option is very cool though and I'll keep that in mind if anyone is interested.

Adding damage to favored enemies or a to hit was a part of the ranger class for all of Pathfinder and it seemed to work fine in my group; yeah it doesn't always come up and yes the class should be able to prop itself up on it's own, but it was a nice added bonus that scaled with class level.

Anyone else have any other comments or other feedback?

[Giant2005]

Anyone else have any other comments or other feedback?

I do.
If you are planning on balancing the ranger around their favored enemy/terrain abilities, then I think the only way you could successfully pull that off is by giving the ranger some kind of ability to change their favored terrains/enemies on the fly.
Either give them the ability to pick and choose every time they take a short or long rest (depending on which you feel is more balanced), or give them a spell that they can cast which temporarily simulates having an enemy of choice being favored for the duration.

[Tanarii]

What builds were they both thinking?

Ranger doesn't really need a combat buff if they're a Hunter, especially a Sharpshooter Hunter.

Beast Master is plenty powerful if you play to its strength ... effectively being in two places at once, and rotating in and out of the front line. IMO it lends itself well to making a Str melee Ranger, 2H Sentinel or S&B Shield Master. But off the top of my head, if you want to make it better the quickest fix is to allow Hunter's Mark to work with the Companion's attacks too. Or allow the Ranger to make bonus off-hand attack with the special Companion/ranger attack abilities, if a TWF build. Less effective HM and TWF are the two biggest pains that come with the Beast Master path.

The best thing with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer is to work with the player to figure out what the most common enemies and terrains will be. They're far more than ribbon abilities in the right type of game. The ranger as a whole lends itself to scouting out in advance and planning before encounters, and those class features make a huge difference. I consider a Ranger to be one of the most important characters in a Combat-as-War game because of them. They get plenty of other features and spells that work to that strength along the way.

[djreynolds]

These guys are not your main line tankers. Not their role. They use archery and speed to force the enemy to close ranks. Bottle them up and pick off others akin to them and try to get to casters with bow or speed. Arrows can cover big distances and the monks and rangers can move with great speed. A rogue can do this, but he finishing off people.

Force the enemy to close ranks and flank them. Bring them to the tanks and set up the casters for AoE spells. Tank when needed but don't get stuck there. Think skirmisher.

[Theodoxus]

I do.
If you are planning on balancing the ranger around their favored enemy/terrain abilities, then I think the only way you could successfully pull that off is by giving the ranger some kind of ability to change their favored terrains/enemies on the fly.
Either give them the ability to pick and choose every time they take a short or long rest (depending on which you feel is more balanced), or give them a spell that they can cast which temporarily simulates having an enemy of choice being favored for the duration.

Since Kellyda4 is coming from a PF mindset, there was a ranger archetype (Guide) that swapped out the standard favored enemy for a single target bonus (+2 Hit/dam) until reduced to zero. I don't know how you'd feel about it, the damage is fine - the to hit is basically Expertise in hitting... If you're ok with the ranger practically never missing (especially if tacking on the Archery or Close Quarters FS) - this might be a decent option. Here's the Guide for reference: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/guide

[djreynolds]

Since Kellyda4 is coming from a PF mindset, there was a ranger archetype (Guide) that swapped out the standard favored enemy for a single target bonus (+2 Hit/dam) until reduced to zero. I don't know how you'd feel about it, the damage is fine - the to hit is basically Expertise in hitting... If you're ok with the ranger practically never missing (especially if tacking on the Archery or Close Quarters FS) - this might be a decent option. Here's the Guide for reference: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/guide

That could be huge, I like it.

I don't know if all DMs would go for it.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

My preferred Ranger fix is to simply give them Combat Superiority like a spell-less Ranger while making their spellcasting prepared like a Paladin. (Seriously, half the list is utility, and Rangers are supposed to be adaptable, I have no idea why they use spells known.)

[djreynolds]

My preferred Ranger fix is to simply give them Combat Superiority like a spell-less Ranger while making their spellcasting prepared like a Paladin. (Seriously, half the list is utility, and Rangers are supposed to be adaptable, I have no idea why they use spells known.)

In regards to spells, I did this. I allow the ranger to pick a terrain like land or woodland and give him spells we both think are associated with it as free prepared spells, in addition to his known spells. Even spells like create food and water. Makes him feel like the master of that terrain, and you have 4 1st levels spells to cast and so on, so I've seen no crazy abuse.

So when he's in the woods he get these free prepared spells, and when leaves he loses them.

[rlc]

Champion fighter gets a second fighting style at level 10. Giving that to rangers (especially all of them) at 9 sounds pretty bad. I'd do something else.

[Talamare]

Hunter Ranger and Most Monks are Fine, even pretty strong

Only Beastmaster Ranger and Avatar Monk are underpowered

For Avatar Monk, I would give them additional Ki equal to their Wis mod
& Allow them to use Flurry after using a Ki-Spell

For Beastmaster Ranger... Damn they need a lot...
For starters, I would change the HP scaling on the Beasts to be 3+Con modifier per level. Potentially doubling the max HP of current Beasts

[MrStabby]

Hunter Ranger and Most Monks are Fine, even pretty strong

Only Beastmaster Ranger and Avatar Monk are underpowered

For Avatar Monk, I would give them additional Ki equal to their Wis mod
& Allow them to use Flurry after using a Ki-Spell

For Beastmaster Ranger... Damn they need a lot...
For starters, I would change the HP scaling on the Beasts to be 3+Con modifier per level. Potentially doubling the max HP of current Beasts

Is avatar monk one of the ones in the expansions? I cannot comment on those as we just use the base classes + occasional homebrew.

From the base set I have found the four elements monk a little underwhelming but the other two are very strong. The mobility to pick targets, the ability to stun those that are vulnerable and the endurance to survive a round or two whilst they are doing their thing makes monks very powerful in the group I DM.

Without multiclassing their damage output may fall off somewhat but monks are not about raw damage, it is about being able to turn the tide of an encounter by taking crucial enemies out of the fight - between stunning and silence enemy casters can have a really tough time fighting these guys. More importantly they are popular to play as they are fun.

Rangers on the other hand could maybe support a little love, not because they are underpowered, but just because they can be a little frustrating to play sometimes and without too much variety.

[Talyn]

"Avatar monk" is referring to the Path of the Elements. Some people see that path as being based on the Avatar: the Last Airbender TV show (though, in truth, it simply relies on the same archtypes and mythological bases that the TV show also drew from).

[Petrocorus]

I haven't actually see Monks in play, but i never read here or anywhere else that they were underpowered.



Ranger:
- half proficiency damage bonus on favored enemy isn't too bad, but it doesn't address the big problem with favored enemy. That is, that unless you guessed the DM's campaign plans in advance, it's more often than not useless, because you don't encounter your favored enemy often enough.

I believe that damage bonus would be nice. But indeed this is not the main problem of favoured enemy. This feature dates back from the 1st Ed, but at the time, the Ranger didn't had to chose his enemy, he had a whole list of enemies including most of the common mobs (bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls) . Maybe allowing more enemies, or a way to swap the favoured enemy would do the trick.

You could also import the Arcane Hunter ACF from 3.5 and allow the anger to chose all arcane magic users to be his favoured enemy.

The Hunter is pretty fine as a subclass but the Beastmaster has certainly a problem of action economy. Maybe allowing him to give order to his beast as a bonus action could help it.

[rlc]

I'm playing a monk in a play by post on here and it's pretty strong. Flurry gets some good use.

[Giant2005]

the Beastmaster has certainly a problem of action economy. Maybe allowing him to give order to his beast as a bonus action could help it.

The Beastmaster's action economy is perfectly fine - it has been balanced around the other classes and tends to be a little higher on the DPR charts than most. The problem isn't exactly the action economy, the complaints are related to how WotC went about ensuring the BM maintained a balanced action economy.
Giving orders as a bonus action would actually break the action economy.

[PeteNutButter]

I really like the idea of shifting more focus to favored enemy and terrain. It can be flawed like if the DM has a campaign that is all in one terrain or one type of enemy. But as long as it switches regularly it is a nice niche that no other class has.

Give +1 AC and 5/10ft movement on favored terrain.

Give the "expertise" to damage against favored enemies. Let Rangers change their favored enemy(ies) any time they take a long rest to any enemy that they encountered the previous day. That keeps it in flavor of the character, but just enough restrictions to keep it fun.

Hunting a dragon, best find one or the ranger will really want to go talk to him the day prior. Slaughtering goblins every day, they are now his favored enemy.

Flavor plus rewarding preparation plus interesting RP elements. The ranger wants to go talk to the dragon first so he can study his weaknesses etc.

[SharkForce]

i would keep the changes very minimal. monks are pretty much fine as-is... the only change i would make is to allow them to flurry and make martial arts attacks with monk weapons (but use the monk martial arts damage die), because i consider it perfectly reasonable to have a monk focused on using a spear or quarterstaff or swords or even throwing darts (or shuriken reflavoured as darts). you do have to remember that being a monk is not about dealing the most damage, any more than a wizard. monks are about mobility, and controlling what would typically be an enemy's "back line"... monks are great at getting past the front line and dealing with archers, spellcasters, and other ranged attackers, and then getting back out.

rangers... well, they're not really as bad as they're perceived to be. making favoured enemy a bigger part of their abilities feels like the wrong way to go. i do think you could make an effective ranger that makes extensive use of terrain, but you'd probably have to redesign the class from the ground up. the main change i'd make to rangers is to give them prepared spells, as was suggested elsewhere, with maybe a few pre-selected spells always prepared (maybe give them land druid circle spells or something like that)

i would say the biggest "problem" with rangers is that they don't *feel* effective, rather than an overall lack of actual effectiveness, at least in the levels where most people play them. if you're playing at level 15, well, rangers could probably use a bit of help there to keep up with primary spellcasters getting to their more powerful spells... but then, that's true for every class that isn't a primary spellcaster imo, so if you find that fighters are competitive with wizards, druids, clerics, bards, and sorcerers at level 15, rangers should be more or less fine as well. but if you're not playing at those levels, it's probably a problem that they don't feel very... i dunno... flashy? they don't have something like action surge or brutal critical to provide a "stand-out" moment where you can definitely say that you just carried everyone, unless the adventure revolves around wandering through their favoured terrain a lot for some reason. even then, it likely doesn't feel as impressive as a 50 damage critical or getting 7 attacks all boosted by maneuvers in the first round of combat to make the later rounds a bunch easier.

[Petrocorus]

The Beastmaster's action economy is perfectly fine - it has been balanced around the other classes and tends to be a little higher on the DPR charts than most. The problem isn't exactly the action economy, the complaints are related to how WotC went about ensuring the BM maintained a balanced action economy.
Giving orders as a bonus action would actually break the action economy.

Well, i may have misread them, or not playtested them well enough. I'll try to read your ranger fix to enlighten me.

As a matter of fact, does anyone has made a list of the Ranger's issues? Including the potential issues of the subclasses?

[Giant2005]

As a matter of fact, does anyone has made a list of the Ranger's issues? Including the potential issues of the subclasses?

The intro to my ranger homebrew goes over all of the issues that I have heard, so it could act as a list if you ignore all of my commentary after each point. I wouldn't pretend it is all-encompassing though. I am sure that people have probably made plenty of complaints that aren't as well known as the issues I dealt with.

[Xalyz]

What about instead of giving them more dpr we add more utility? Perhaps for the monk spend one Ki take a ten in one skill your proficient in?

[Giant2005]

What about instead of giving them more dpr we add more utility? Perhaps for the monk spend one Ki take a ten in one skill your proficient in?

Both classes are already packed with more utility than most. Adding more would obviously be a boon, but not a necessary one.

[Petrocorus]

I think that giving them a couple of Expertise, out of a limited number of skills (Athletics, Stealth, Perception, Survival, Nature, Animal Handling) would not be irrational nor overpowered.


Do we know what was the intention of the designers when they limited the number of spells known of the Ranger. Because in 5E, being a "spontaneous" caster with a limited number of spell known is nothing but a drawback compared to "prepared" casters, unless it is compensated by another feature like Font of Magic.

[Giant2005]

Do we know what was the intention of the designers when they limited the number of spells known of the Ranger. Because in 5E, being a "spontaneous" caster with a limited number of spell known is nothing but a drawback compared to "prepared" casters, unless it is compensated by another feature like Font of Magic.

Honestly, I think they just didn't give it any thought at all.
The intention should have been that "known" casters would have more spells known than a "prepared" caster could prepare at any given level, they just didn't actually do that.

[BladeWing81]

The spells created for the class are really cool but the Ki economy of the Avatar monk is really bad, lowering the ki cost is a must and also upgrade their ki ability to get extra ki with the wisdom modifier. for example: their best spell is fangs of the fire snake but to be able to use it with flurry of blows and hit the extra damage you need 6 Ki points one for the spell, one for flurry and one for each hit to add the 1d10 to it, why not simply make the spell cost 2 ki points but no extra ki per hit? that way the cost can be 3 ki points casting the spell and the flurry of blows and you could even make the spell scalable to cost extra ki to add damage to it per extra ki spent.

[Tanarii]

but the Ki economy of the Avatar monk is really badNo it isn't. The Ki for a Elemental Monk is balanced as a 1/3-caster, if you assume they will spend 1/2 of their Ki on non-Elemental Monk abilities. That's not bad at all, it's *good*. Because you have the option to spend all your Ki on Elemental only, and be better than 1/2 caster if you want. Or you can be spend only 1/2 your available Ki on Elemental abilities, and be a 1/3-caster.

Where they are lacking is in non-Ki class features compared to other Monk sub-classes, and even the EK/AT get some on top of spells and cantrips. And in variety of spells known compared to other 1/3-casters. AT/EK get 13 total spells known at max level (plus 3-4 cantrips), compared to an EleMonks 4 "spells" known + 1 "cantrip".

[mephnick]

I just told my ranger player that he should probably pick forests, tundra and that the game would be heavily focused on fey and undead. So he's chosen those and he's extremely useful.

The only thing I changed was Primeval Awareness. I made it like divine sense (# of times a day of Wis modifier, limited a few things it could detect). The RAW ability is really not worth a valuable spell slot.

[eastmabl]

If you are planning on balancing the ranger around their favored enemy/terrain abilities, then I think the only way you could successfully pull that off is by giving the ranger some kind of ability to change their favored terrains/enemies on the fly.
Either give them the ability to pick and choose every time they take a short or long rest (depending on which you feel is more balanced), or give them a spell that they can cast which temporarily simulates having an enemy of choice being favored for the duration.

Somewhere that I can't find, I did a similar thing with flexible Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy. I recall that you could change on a long rest at first level, and by 9th level, you could change on a short rest. I put a requirement that the ranger needed to become familiar with the terrain/target that's sufficiently vague so rangers aren't just "I've seen one dragon - I can track them all!"

But rangers aren't as bad as their reputation.

[Talamare]

No it isn't. The Ki for a Elemental Monk is balanced as a 1/3-caster, if you assume they will spend 1/2 of their Ki on non-Elemental Monk abilities. That's not bad at all, it's *good*. Because you have the option to spend all your Ki on Elemental only, and be better than 1/2 caster if you want. Or you can be spend only 1/2 your available Ki on Elemental abilities, and be a 1/3-caster.

Where they are lacking is in non-Ki class features compared to other Monk sub-classes, and even the EK/AT get some on top of spells and cantrips. And in variety of spells known compared to other 1/3-casters. AT/EK get 13 total spells known at max level (plus 3-4 cantrips), compared to an EleMonks 4 "spells" known + 1 "cantrip".

I disagree slightly
I do feel their Ki Economy is SLIGHTLY too low
It shouldn't be balanced to be equal to a 1/3 caster, but slightly above it
Because they need Ki for a lot of other things as well.
Which is why I personally recommend they gaining additional Ki equal to their Wis
Another 5 Ki, won't break the bank but give Avatars a nice bump. This would feel thematic as well as a 'casting stat improving my casting'

[Giant2005]

I disagree slightly
I do feel their Ki Economy is SLIGHTLY too low
It shouldn't be balanced to be equal to a 1/3 caster, but slightly above it
Because they need Ki for a lot of other things as well.
Which is why I personally recommend they gaining additional Ki equal to their Wis
Another 5 Ki, won't break the bank but give Avatars a nice bump. This would feel thematic as well as a 'casting stat improving my casting'

That's actually pretty good! Someone on Reddit made a homebrew for the Elemental Monk that cut the costs of all of the Ki abilities and resulted in far too much casting power. It could cast a lot more spells per short rest than a Warlock for example.
You solution is a much more solid middle ground.

[Tanarii]

I disagree slightly
I do feel their Ki Economy is SLIGHTLY too low
It shouldn't be balanced to be equal to a 1/3 caster, but slightly above it
Because they need Ki for a lot of other things as well.
Which is why I personally recommend they gaining additional Ki equal to their Wis
Another 5 Ki, won't break the bank but give Avatars a nice bump. This would feel thematic as well as a 'casting stat improving my casting'
It's balanced as a 1/3-caster, assuming you spend 1/2 your available Ki on other things. They have twice as much Ki as is necessary to be the equivalent of a 1/3 caster.

That's based on taking AT/EK spells/day, converting them into Ki using the formula 1+spell level, then dividing by 3 (for 1 LR + 2 SR per adventuring day). The result is approximately 1/2 character level. So EleMonks can use 1/2 their Ki for "spells", the other 1/2 their Ki for non-spell stuff, and still be on par with a 1/3-caster.

Boosting their Ki, or cutting the cost of the Ki, overpowers EleMonks relative to 1/3-casters. They already get twice as many "spells"/day that a 1/3 caster does if they don't use Ki for anything except "spells". They don't need more.

[Talamare]

It's balanced as a 1/3-caster, assuming you spend 1/2 your available Ki on other things. They have twice as much Ki as is necessary to be the equivalent of a 1/3 caster.

That's based on taking AT/EK spells/day, converting them into Ki using the formula 1+spell level, then dividing by 3 (for 1 LR + 2 SR per adventuring day). The result is approximately 1/2 character level. So EleMonks can use 1/2 their Ki for "spells", the other 1/2 their Ki for non-spell stuff, and still be on par with a 1/3-caster.

Boosting their Ki, or cutting the cost of the Ki, overpowers EleMonks relative to 1/3-casters. They already get twice as many "spells"/day that a 1/3 caster does if they don't use Ki for anything except "spells". They don't need more.

The difference is that 1/3 casters are meant to be spamming Cantrips, and use their higher level spells for rare events
Avatar Monks are meant to be spamming their spells, and have no real cantrips

[Tanarii]

The difference is that 1/3 casters are meant to be spamming Cantrips, and use their higher level spells for rare events
Avatar Monks are meant to be spamming their spells, and have no real cantripsATs and EKs don't usually spam cantrips, at least not combat cantrips. The exception could be an EK using attack cantrips as his primary ranged attack until he gets in range to unleash a melee whooping.

And EleMonks are not "supposed" to be spamming spells. If they were, they wouldn't be 1/3 casters. They'd be 1/2 or full casters. That's what it *means*, by definition, to be a 1/3, 1/2 or full caster. How many spells of 1+ level (or equivilent) you get to cast per SR/LR.

EleMonks are 1/3 caster Monk builds. They actually have the capability to be double that frequency if they want to 'spam' spells instead of using their Ki for other non-spell-like Monk abilities. They are properly balanced in terms of Ki for "spells".

[Talamare]

ATs and EKs don't usually spam cantrips, at least not combat cantrips. The exception could be an EK using attack cantrips as his primary ranged attack until he gets in range to unleash a melee whooping.

And EleMonks are not "supposed" to be spamming spells. If they were, they wouldn't be 1/3 casters. They'd be 1/2 or full casters. That's what it *means*, by definition, to be a 1/3, 1/2 or full caster. How many spells of 1+ level (or equivilent) you get to cast per SR/LR.

EleMonks are 1/3 caster Monk builds. They actually have the capability to be double that frequency if they want to 'spam' spells instead of using their Ki for other non-spell-like Monk abilities. They are properly balanced in terms of Ki for "spells".

EKs have definitely been spamming more cantrips with SCAG
ATs don't but they don't really ever use spells for damage, but it's not like Avatars get that option anyways

Also, Avatar's are higher than 1/3 casters
They get higher level spells much sooner than 1/3 casters do, but not as soon as 1/2 casters
They are like 2/5th casters, or 1/2 warlock in a way

[Giant2005]

Also, Avatar's are higher than 1/3 casters
They get higher level spells much sooner than 1/3 casters do, but not as soon as 1/2 casters
They are like 2/5th casters, or 1/2 warlock in a way

They aren't really casters at all - they are far more unique than that, and that is why their spell levels are all messed up.
If they were casters then they would be 1/3 casters as that is the best you can hope for when gaining casting through a subclass.

[Tanarii]

EKs have definitely been spamming more cantrips with SCAGSCAG is an optional expansion that introduced two overpowered melee cantrips. That's not relevant to PHB balance.


Also, Avatar's are higher than 1/3 castersYes, in that they can optionally sacrafice Ki from main-class abilities to channel into "spells" if they choose.


They get higher level spells much sooner than 1/3 casters do, but not as soon as 1/2 castersThat's a fair enough point, they're somewhere in between in terms of higher level spell access.


They are like 2/5th casters, or 1/2 warlock in a way2/5 is about right. They're 1/3 casters, who can voluntarily choose to get up to *double* a 1/3-caster spells/day. So again, they are plenty balanced in terms of Ki.

(BTW a 1/2 Warlock is a 1/2 caster. Warlocks are full casters, just on a SR basis instead of a LR basis.)

[SharkForce]

the problem with treating a 4 elements monk as if it was a 1/3 casting class is that the 1/3 caster classes aren't having resources taken from their base class to fuel their casting; an arcane trickster that uses a spell does not lose sneak attack dice, nor do they lose expertise. an eldritch knight does not have to give up the ability to action surge or use second wind.

they get their base class abilities and then *add* spell resources on top of that.

so why should we expect the 4 elements monk to have to give up a significant portion of their base class resources to be a 1/3 caster (or thereabouts) but with a super tiny spell list?

[BladeWing81]

It's balanced as a 1/3-caster, assuming you spend 1/2 your available Ki on other things. They have twice as much Ki as is necessary to be the equivalent of a 1/3 caster.

That's based on taking AT/EK spells/day, converting them into Ki using the formula 1+spell level, then dividing by 3 (for 1 LR + 2 SR per adventuring day). The result is approximately 1/2 character level. So EleMonks can use 1/2 their Ki for "spells", the other 1/2 their Ki for non-spell stuff, and still be on par with a 1/3-caster.

Boosting their Ki, or cutting the cost of the Ki, overpowers EleMonks relative to 1/3-casters. They already get twice as many "spells"/day that a 1/3 caster does if they don't use Ki for anything except "spells". They don't need more.

Sorry but I completely disagree, to cast ONE spell you need to spend resources that are needed for other abilities. the elemental monk right now in the mid levels can do 2 maybe 3 spells and be useless the rest of the game because he spent all of his resources; or not do a single spell and be just a monk that looks like didn't get a subclass at all.
Every other 1/3 or 1/2 caster class adds "AND" options to the existing class because those options don't impede the others to function in other words, you can do the abilities you already have AND do a couple of spells. for the elemental monk that's not the case at all, the elemental monk gives you "OR" options, you can do the abilities you already have OR do a couple of spells.

[Tanarii]

the problem with treating a 4 elements monk as if it was a 1/3 casting class is that the 1/3 caster classes aren't having resources taken from their base class to fuel their casting; an arcane trickster that uses a spell does not lose sneak attack dice, nor do they lose expertise. an eldritch knight does not have to give up the ability to action surge or use second wind.

they get their base class abilities and then *add* spell resources on top of that.

so why should we expect the 4 elements monk to have to give up a significant portion of their base class resources to be a 1/3 caster (or thereabouts) but with a super tiny spell list?


Sorry but I completely disagree, to cast ONE spell you need to spend resources that are needed for other abilities. the elemental monk right now in the mid levels can do 2 maybe 3 spells and be useless the rest of the game because he spent all of his resources; or not do a single spell and be just a monk that looks like didn't get a subclass at all.
Every other 1/3 or 1/2 caster class adds "AND" options to the existing class because those options don't impede the others to function in other words, you can do the abilities you already have AND do a couple of spells. for the elemental monk that's not the case at all, the elemental monk gives you "OR" options, you can do the abilities you already have OR do a couple of spells.

What parts of balanced as a 1/3-caster AFTER spending half your Ki on non-elemental Monk abilities is so hard to understand?

Maybe an example will help make this clear: A 10th level Monk has 10 Ki per short rest. They can spend 5 Ki on non-elemental class abilities every short rest, and are STILL BALANCED as a 1/3-caster using the remaining 5 Ki for Elemental "spells" per short rest.

Elemental Monks get to use Ki for class abilities AND for Elemental "spells" and are balanced as a 1/3-caster in terms of "spells" per SR (and day). If they choose to use more than half their available Ki for "spells", they actually get MORE equivalent "spell slots" than a 1/3-caster, at the option of other class abilities. That's an option they have, just as a sorcerer has an option to get more spell slots from their spell points instead of using them for Metamagic. They aren't required to do so, it's their added flexibility.

Edit: Maybe the problem is that folks aren't understanding ALL sub-class monks are expected to spend a portion of the Ki on their subclass abilities, and a portion on their non-subclass abilities? The elemental monk is no different, and their numbers work out as a 1/3-caster if you spend half your Ki on non-subclass abilities and half on subclass abilities ... but they have the flexibility to spend more or less. Just as the other sub-classes have flexibility to spend all, some, or none of their Ki points on their sub-class abilities.

(Lots of repetition in this post saying the same thing multiple times, but so far 3 people have 'disagreed' with me on the basis of not understanding the concept.)

Edit2: Rereading this, I think I needed less coffee this morning. :smalleek:

[SharkForce]

What parts of balanced as a 1/3-caster AFTER spending half your Ki on non-elemental Monk abilities is so hard to understand?

Maybe an example will help make this clear: A 10th level Monk has 10 Ki per short rest. They can spend 5 Ki on non-elemental class abilities every short rest, and are STILL BALANCED as a 1/3-caster using the remaining 5 Ki for Elemental "spells" per short rest.

Elemental Monks get to use Ki for class abilities AND for Elemental "spells" and are balanced as a 1/3-caster in terms of "spells" per SR (and day). If they choose to use more than half their available Ki for "spells", they actually get MORE equivalent "spell slots" than a 1/3-caster, at the option of other class abilities. That's an option they have, just as a sorcerer has an option to get more spell slots from their spell points instead of using them for Metamagic. They aren't required to do so, it's their added flexibility.

Edit: Maybe the problem is that folks aren't understanding ALL sub-class monks are expected to spend a portion of the Ki on their subclass abilities, and a portion on their non-subclass abilities? The elemental monk is no different, and their numbers work out as a 1/3-caster if you spend half your Ki on non-subclass abilities and half on subclass abilities ... but they have the flexibility to spend more or less. Just as the other sub-classes have flexibility to spend all, some, or none of their Ki points on their sub-class abilities.

(Lots of repetition in this post saying the same thing multiple times, but so far 3 people have 'disagreed' with me on the basis of not understanding the concept.)

ok.

so how do you explain that open hand monks have only one ability that costs ki, and only at 18th level, and shadow monks have only one ability that uses ki (it grants 4 spells, but only 1 ability) which you'll expect to use rarely at best and tend to be fairly long-duration spells, while a 4 elements monk has only abilities that use ki, and should expect to want to use them over and over again.

i mean, this is simply not remotely equivalent. there is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that all monk subclasses are expected to be spending the same amount of ki on subclass abilities. the open hand monk can't even do that if they wanted to until level 18, and the shadow monk will only occasionally have need for darkness or silence, and darkvision (if it's even needed at all) and pass without trace both have very long durations. also, all of their spells cost less than similar elemental monk "spells".

i mean, i could easily see either an open hand monk never spending a single ki point on their subclass abilities, and a shadow monk i could easily see using only a single spell in an adventuring day (pass without trace, once, to do some scouting and maybe lay an ambush somewhere once).

i don't own SCAG, but i seem to recall that in the discussion of the subclasses there, ki was, again, not necessary for basic function of their subclass abilities for the most part.

if monk subclasses are expected to spend half of their ki just to get anything at all, then what exactly happened with every monk subclass that *isn't* 4 elements, because they don't seem to be designed that way at all.

[BladeWing81]

Elemental Monks get to use Ki for class abilities AND for Elemental "spells" and are balanced as a 1/3-caster in terms of "spells" per SR (and day).

we do understand the subclass but the part that you don't understand is that the elemental Monk doesn't have AND spells they're OR spells. "OR" is the keyword that makes it a completely underwhelming as a Monk subclass. other spellcaster subclasses use main abilities AND spells. this subclass uses it's abilities OR it's spells. it's not flexible, it's limiting.

here's my example:
+Sun soul Monk (SSM) Radiant sun bolt vs 4 elemental Monk fangs of the fire snake(4EM):
-Both do basically the same thing except fangs can hit extra damage with extra ki but it costs basically every last point you have to do it so it's one maybe 2 times this spell and even IF you choose no extra damage it still costs ki.
-Radiant sun bolt has no cost and count as radiant spell attacks so you can do this AND your monk abilities with no limits at all.

+(SSM) Searing Arc strike vs (4EM) sweeping cinder strike:
-Same spell
-Same Cost
-4EM version takes your action the other can be done with the bonus action after the attack action. in fact you can do up to 2 radiant sun bolts or 2 weapon attacks AND the searing arc strike, 3 spells in one turn for only 2 ki points at the lowest.

+(SSM) Searing sun burst vs (4EM) flames of the phoenix:
why do I bother? one can be done for free each turn the other needs one more ki than the other one at its maximum power to basically do the same thing, do damage.

see the difference between AND and OR?
you can argue that 4EM has more spells to choose from but so what? it still imposes limitations that make it not worth choosing this subclass at all.

Lets make it easy the eldritch knight gets cantrips and spell slots, you will never run out of cantrip spells, you can use up all of your spell slots and your other fighter abilities wont suffer one iota from it because it can use spells AND abilities.

[Tanarii]

we do understand the subclass but the part that you don't understand is that the elemental Monk doesn't have AND spells they're OR spells. "OR" is the keyword that makes it a completely underwhelming as a Monk subclass. other spellcaster subclasses use main abilities AND spells. this subclass uses it's abilities OR it's spells. it's not flexible, it's limiting.


so how do you explain that open hand monks have only one ability that costs ki, and only at 18th level, and shadow monks have only one ability that uses ki (it grants 4 spells, but only 1 ability) which you'll expect to use rarely at best and tend to be fairly long-duration spells, while a 4 elements monk has only abilities that use ki, and should expect to want to use them over and over again.Because ... uh, reasons?

Damn it. I still maintain that Elemental Monks are balanced spending 1/2 Ki. Because stubborn. ;)

(I knew I had too much coffee this morning. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.)

[Zalabim]

First off, 4Elements has issues. I just want to be sure people know the right issues. Of course, I put those at the bottom, so you can scroll down there if you want to skip to the important part.


the problem with treating a 4 elements monk as if it was a 1/3 casting class is that the 1/3 caster classes aren't having resources taken from their base class to fuel their casting; an arcane trickster that uses a spell does not lose sneak attack dice, nor do they lose expertise. an eldritch knight does not have to give up the ability to action surge or use second wind.

they get their base class abilities and then *add* spell resources on top of that.

so why should we expect the 4 elements monk to have to give up a significant portion of their base class resources to be a 1/3 caster (or thereabouts) but with a super tiny spell list?

An AT gets spell slots on top of their sneak attacks, but will rarely use sneak attack on a turn where they've spent a spell slot on an illusion or enchantment spell. The rogue's primary resource is actions. An EK does give up base class features to use spells: Extra Attacks. They have also taken spells as an option instead of the BM superiority dice, or the Champion's constant benefits. Monk paths generally have less impact.

These subpaths are useful to highlight that the 4Elements monk lacks class features, lacks spells known, and can't decide what level of casting it has, but the resource cost for most spell outputs is fine. Their low level damage spells look a bit weak. Not cut-costs-in-half weak, but they might need some adjustments to better account for opportunity costs. According to their maximum Ki spent progression, they're a 1/2 caster. Where they actually learn spells though, they get strong 1st and weak 2nd level effects at most at level 3, the rest of the 2nd level effects at 6 (1 behind 1/2), 3rd level spells at 11th (2 behind 1/2), and 4th and 5th level spells at 17th (4 behind on 4th, equal on 5th, with 1/2 casters). They hover around half-warlock level of casting, if they use all their Ki. It's an awkward comparison since warlocks have such a radically different primary combat style (EB and Hex being mostly free vs Martial Arts/Flurry and Stunning having a constant consumption).

Arranging powers into bundles, like the Mystic's disciplines, could be a way to unlock appropriate disciplines at the right levels, know a useful amount of spells, and include 4elements class features that don't cost Ki. It would put more information into each elemental discipline, but wouldn't require changing the number of elemental disciplines offered. It would still be necessary to evaluate each individual spell and decide on an appropriate cost in Ki and actions. As an example of these considerations, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, or Shatter need to hit 4+ targets to be worthwhile when you get them, and are smaller areas than Fireball which only needs to hit 3+. That doesn't make them a complete waste, but they are extremely niche, which is a consistent problem in all the elemental disciplines.


we do understand the subclass but the part that you don't understand is that the elemental Monk doesn't have AND spells they're OR spells. "OR" is the keyword that makes it a completely underwhelming as a Monk subclass. other spellcaster subclasses use main abilities AND spells. this subclass uses it's abilities OR it's spells. it's not flexible, it's limiting.

Paladin is pretty much the only class that gets to use AND spells. Everyone else either spends actions on spells or spends actions on notSpells. Well, Paladins and Monks, as Stunning Strikes and OHT work in a similar way to Divine Smite. OHT really comes across as a low-level stunning strike. It doesn't usually make Flurry better than Stunning, if you have to make a choice, and is redundant with the stunned condition if you use both, but its flavorful, fun, cheap, and occasionally useful.


here's my example:
+Sun soul Monk (SSM) Radiant sun bolt vs 4 elemental Monk fangs of the fire snake(4EM):
-Both do basically the same thing except fangs can hit extra damage with extra ki but it costs basically every last point you have to do it so it's one maybe 2 times this spell and even IF you choose no extra damage it still costs ki.
-Radiant sun bolt has no cost and count as radiant spell attacks so you can do this AND your monk abilities with no limits at all.

Technically, you can't use sun bolts and any of your other monk abilities for the most part. They're not monk weapons, so you have to spend Ki to get bonus action attacks with them, and they're ranged spell attacks so you can't use Stunning Strike with them. Both abilities use only your unarmed damage, which is an extra cost over using a versatile monk weapon for a long time. Both abilities increase your attack range, but only Fangs can actually increase your damage.

I do think the extra range would be well-enough balanced by the limitation of using unarmed strikes and the fire damage type, leaving the cost solely for bonus damage.


+(SSM) Searing Arc strike vs (4EM) sweeping cinder strike:
-Same spell
-Same Cost
-4EM version takes your action the other can be done with the bonus action after the attack action. in fact you can do up to 2 radiant sun bolts or 2 weapon attacks AND the searing arc strike, 3 spells in one turn for only 2 ki points at the lowest.

Completely true. The 6th level SSM ability completely outclasses this 3rd level 4EM ability. (/deadpan)

Any of the weak 4EM damage abilities could be slightly improved by allowing them to be used as a bonus action instead. An action is worth 1 or 2 monk weapon attacks, while a bonus action is worth 1 unarmed strike. Each point of Ki cost is also "worth" 1 unarmed strike. Stunning is better than an unarmed strike, but an enemy can't get more stunned while you can always punch them more.


+(SSM) Searing sun burst vs (4EM) flames of the phoenix:
why do I bother? one can be done for free each turn the other needs one more ki than the other one at its maximum power to basically do the same thing, do damage.

Sun Burst isn't truly free, they both cost an action. If you don't spend Ki, it does 7 average damage, if it hits. Fireball gains a lot of average damage from being save for half instead of save negates. Sun Burst gains a lot of value for being adjustable, and using one of the best damage types in the game. Searing Sun Burst is more useful, but Flames of the Phoenix will generally deal more damage where it isn't negated by immunity or resistance.

The powers at this level are about equal. The same can't be said for the SSM's awful 17th level power.


see the difference between AND and OR?
you can argue that 4EM has more spells to choose from but so what? it still imposes limitations that make it not worth choosing this subclass at all.

Lets make it easy the eldritch knight gets cantrips and spell slots, you will never run out of cantrip spells, you can use up all of your spell slots and your other fighter abilities wont suffer one iota from it because it can use spells AND abilities.

OHT is the only monk subpath feature that's ever useful in combat without replacing an existing monk feature by costing actions and/or Ki. Essentially all of a monk subpath's features are OR features unless they have out of combat use.

The better monk subpaths get a variety of abilities that may cost actions, Ki, or have more or less combat application. The 4Elements path gets abilities that can burn Ki in a nova that other monks can't even consider, or may be useful out of combat, but nothing useful that doesn't cost Ki and many options that are rarely ever useful. It's a small balance consideration or design flaw that should be treated delicately, not with a hacksaw.

[BladeWing81]

First off, 4Elements has issues. I just want to be sure people know the right issues. Of course, I put those at the bottom, so you can scroll down there if you want to skip to the important part.



An AT gets spell slots on top of their sneak attacks, but will rarely use sneak attack on a turn where they've spent a spell slot on an illusion or enchantment spell. The rogue's primary resource is actions. An EK does give up base class features to use spells: Extra Attacks. They have also taken spells as an option instead of the BM superiority dice, or the Champion's constant benefits. Monk paths generally have less impact.

These subpaths are useful to highlight that the 4Elements monk lacks class features, lacks spells known, and can't decide what level of casting it has, but the resource cost for most spell outputs is fine. Their low level damage spells look a bit weak. Not cut-costs-in-half weak, but they might need some adjustments to better account for opportunity costs. According to their maximum Ki spent progression, they're a 1/2 caster. Where they actually learn spells though, they get strong 1st and weak 2nd level effects at most at level 3, the rest of the 2nd level effects at 6 (1 behind 1/2), 3rd level spells at 11th (2 behind 1/2), and 4th and 5th level spells at 17th (4 behind on 4th, equal on 5th, with 1/2 casters). They hover around half-warlock level of casting, if they use all their Ki. It's an awkward comparison since warlocks have such a radically different primary combat style (EB and Hex being mostly free vs Martial Arts/Flurry and Stunning having a constant consumption).

Arranging powers into bundles, like the Mystic's disciplines, could be a way to unlock appropriate disciplines at the right levels, know a useful amount of spells, and include 4elements class features that don't cost Ki. It would put more information into each elemental discipline, but wouldn't require changing the number of elemental disciplines offered. It would still be necessary to evaluate each individual spell and decide on an appropriate cost in Ki and actions. As an example of these considerations, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, or Shatter need to hit 4+ targets to be worthwhile when you get them, and are smaller areas than Fireball which only needs to hit 3+. That doesn't make them a complete waste, but they are extremely niche, which is a consistent problem in all the elemental disciplines.



Paladin is pretty much the only class that gets to use AND spells. Everyone else either spends actions on spells or spends actions on notSpells. Well, Paladins and Monks, as Stunning Strikes and OHT work in a similar way to Divine Smite. OHT really comes across as a low-level stunning strike. It doesn't usually make Flurry better than Stunning, if you have to make a choice, and is redundant with the stunned condition if you use both, but its flavorful, fun, cheap, and occasionally useful.



Technically, you can't use sun bolts and any of your other monk abilities for the most part. They're not monk weapons, so you have to spend Ki to get bonus action attacks with them, and they're ranged spell attacks so you can't use Stunning Strike with them. Both abilities use only your unarmed damage, which is an extra cost over using a versatile monk weapon for a long time. Both abilities increase your attack range, but only Fangs can actually increase your damage.

I do think the extra range would be well-enough balanced by the limitation of using unarmed strikes and the fire damage type, leaving the cost solely for bonus damage.



Completely true. The 6th level SSM ability completely outclasses this 3rd level 4EM ability. (/deadpan)

Any of the weak 4EM damage abilities could be slightly improved by allowing them to be used as a bonus action instead. An action is worth 1 or 2 monk weapon attacks, while a bonus action is worth 1 unarmed strike. Each point of Ki cost is also "worth" 1 unarmed strike. Stunning is better than an unarmed strike, but an enemy can't get more stunned while you can always punch them more.



Sun Burst isn't truly free, they both cost an action. If you don't spend Ki, it does 7 average damage, if it hits. Fireball gains a lot of average damage from being save for half instead of save negates. Sun Burst gains a lot of value for being adjustable, and using one of the best damage types in the game. Searing Sun Burst is more useful, but Flames of the Phoenix will generally deal more damage where it isn't negated by immunity or resistance.

The powers at this level are about equal. The same can't be said for the SSM's awful 17th level power.



OHT is the only monk subpath feature that's ever useful in combat without replacing an existing monk feature by costing actions and/or Ki. Essentially all of a monk subpath's features are OR features unless they have out of combat use.

The better monk subpaths get a variety of abilities that may cost actions, Ki, or have more or less combat application. The 4Elements path gets abilities that can burn Ki in a nova that other monks can't even consider, or may be useful out of combat, but nothing useful that doesn't cost Ki and many options that are rarely ever useful. It's a small balance consideration or design flaw that should be treated delicately, not with a hacksaw.

AND and OR abilities to me means that if one stops you from being able to use other abilities, yes SSM spells cost ki so at some point the spells come at the cost of using flurry of blows or stunning strikes but since they are significantly lower and in some cases require no ki at all for basically the same effect than 4EM spells and therefor SSM can use spells AND monk abilities.

I don't really count the action or the bonus action as a resource, it does look like it when I compare the two burning hand spells but what I'm really comparing is the amount of spells or attacks that can be done with the same amount of ki in a single turn. That's why I also say sun bolts are better than fire fangs, one cost 1 ki to make 4 spell attacks (spend 1 ki for 4 bolts spells) and the other cost 2 for the same deal (1 to activate Fangs and 1 to do flurry of blows and get 4 fire spells).

[SharkForce]

an arcane trickster using a spell most likely isn't in a position where they're replacing an attack. unless they're using one of the melee weapon attack spells from SCAG, in which case they're replacing an attack with an attack *and* something else. likewise to a large extent with an eldritch knight. certainly, it isn't something that never happens, but nothing about the arcane trickster's spell list remotely implies that they're expected to use their spells to replace attacking in any given round, and even with eldritch knights, most of the guides i've seen focus on buffing spells rather than attack. sure, you *could* use a magic missile instead of attacking, but why would you? it certainly isn't a major focus of the class. if you even cast any spells that require an action during a fight at all, it is likely to be only a single time. the rest of the time, you're probably using bonus action or reaction spells, if you use them in a fight at all. much like a shadow monk's spells, yes they have them, but no you aren't *usually* expecting to use them to replace your actions in a fight (though in the rare case that you do, at least they aren't *also* costing you the resources you would spend to perform your core class actions).

and while an eldritch knight is giving up being a battlemaster, well, being a battlemaster is not part of the core fighter class. an eldritch knight still has full access to all fighter features. if you want to add opportunity cost of not choosing a specific subclass to fighter, we *have* to do the same when comparing to monk; a four elements monk is not a shadow monk or open hand monk or sun soul monk or long death monk. it is not a fair comparison to act as if the four elements monk is somehow does not suffer that same drawback of not being able to choose other subclasses with desirable features.

[tieren]

My hunter ranger is an archer, and really good at it. Went Vhuman and took sharpshooter at 1. Took Colossus Slayer and at low levels its virtually like critting every shot (an extra 1d8 from my longbow).

the downside is, especially in longer duration fights, it didn't feel like I was doing anything interesting like the other characters. I would reposition if necessary, use my BA to move Hunters Mark if necessary, and say "I shoot it with my bow".

I was really good at shooting things with my bow, felt powerful and useful, but generally bored.