Stay Classy, 5e!

[MrFahrenheit]

Just putting this out here in response to posts arguing over "suboptimal" subclasses:

A character's play style should always be determined by his or her overall class.

To prove this theory, I actually ran a one shot consisting of single classed 14th level characters to include a beast master ranger, trickery cleric, four elements monk, and a couple others who aren't as sub optimal in comparison to other class options (valor bard and frenzy barbarian), but certainly aren't often seen as the better option. To make things even more fun, NONE of the characters were of a race that give boosts to the class's primary stat, though secondary/tertiary boosts were allowed (dual wielding unarmored stout halfling frenzy barb for the win!). Also, ASIs only; no feats.

Anyhow, this experience proved my theory. Granted, it's anecdotal, but here were my takeaways:

1. A four elements monk isn't meant to be a blaster. He's just a monk who's potentially way better at AoE and/or controlling than his fellows. Fly is a helluva spell for a monk to spend ki points on. And it balances out with a regular caster, IMO. Round 1: both use action to cast fly. Round 2: caster blasts; monk strikes. The ki point usage between the monk subclasses is kinda irrelevant IMO, as it all can reset on a short rest.

2. A beast master ranger isn't meant to be a conjurer. The companion uses up the character's bonus action at the very least, or part of an attack at most. Just by providing help to the barbarian, Wolfy earned his dues. And also wasn't a target for the bad guys either (do I hit the annoying furry thing, or that raging two foot tall axe machine who just sliced my Achilles?). If you want a companion who can do more, and on its own action, cast a summon spell. The beast master may be an off-controller, but at the end of the day is still a ranger.

3. Trickery clerics make piss poor rogues. Because they're not rogues. They're still there primarily as a support member. They work wonderfully in concert with stealth oriented characters, but don't need to be one themselves. They're a sneak's "coach." But they're not a sneak. People disparage it because other domains can mix it up more in melee (and be a tank's aid), or have a defined role in the rear of the party (and be a caster and/or ranged attacker's aid). The focus on stealth here is therefore pretty different, but potentially more versatile as it can adapt to however the sneaks want to mix it up. And can aid others as necessary.

4. A valor bard isn't meant to take over tanking duties for the party, or become the primary archer. While especially true early on, even at higher levels when you're casting and slashing (or firing an arrow), the emphasis is on your spells. Sure you could be an off tank, but you shouldn't be THE tank. Valor bards trade skill with lore bards for being better in combat...but is still a bard. Of course, bonus action: cast lightning arrow, action: cast hold person, follow up action: unleash lightning arrow is awesome.

5. Frenzy barbs are fun. But they're probably more heavily dependent on the rest of the party playing well together, as they're almost completely offensive in orientation, than any other class/subclass. Not saying it's bad, or even suboptimal, but just a know your party note.

At the end of the day, your class is your entree, and your subclass its seasoning. To go back to my trickery cleric example from earlier: pretend the cleric is a steak, and the rogue is a bowl of soup. You wouldn't get very far trying to eat that steak with just a spoon, even if both dishes used similar spices.

Always refer back to the class's core chassis when determining how to play.

[Axorfett12]

This. I cannot emphasize the truth of this more. 5e is designed so that any character can be viable, regardless of optimization or comparable power. A Rock Gnome Bard is a perfectly valid option. As is a Hill Dwarf Monk. While some classes may be "suboptimal", optimization is not the goal of D&D. The goal of D&D is to have fun. In my opinion, 5e really nailed it on that aspect. A player can make any character they want, even an Aasimar barbarian, and still be effective while having fun.

[Naanomi]

I agree mostly, but struggle with ranger on this. A subclasess ranger is set to do... Some skill work in the right setting, be a marginal melee or ranged combatant... Use some mostly utility magic?

Most of a ranger's combat ability comes from subclass compared to other classes

[Stan]

A Rock Gnome Bard is a perfectly valid option. As is a Hill Dwarf Monk.

One of the small bits I like about 5e is the lack of ability score penalties. Any race can be any class and be ok, just 1 point on rolls behind a race optimized for the class. And that 1 pt disappears once the ability hits 20.

[MrFahrenheit]

One of the small bits I like about 5e is the lack of ability score penalties. Any race can be any class and be ok, just 1 point on rolls behind a race optimized for the class. And that 1 pt disappears once the ability hits 20.

This is why I dread halfling divination wizards who take the lucky feat :D

[DanyBallon]

I agree mostly, but struggle with ranger on this. A subclasess ranger is set to do... Some skill work in the right setting, be a marginal melee or ranged combatant... Use some mostly utility magic?

Most of a ranger's combat ability comes from subclass compared to other classes

Rangers kinda fall between 2 chairs, they are both wilderness combatant as they are nature skill monkey. They are one of the classes focus the more on the exploration pillar of the game. The base class gives both a few combat abilities and skills for exploration, while one subclasse is a better combatant (hunter) and the other is more versatile (a companion is a great ally when doing exploration).

[Giant2005]

I wouldn't consider Trickery to be sub-optimal. Its spell list is better than most and its channel divinity is amazing.
I'd say that either Life or War are the least optimal of the Clerics. War because its niche is better filled by Death and Tempest Clerics, and Life because it is inferior to a Bard or Paladin with a Life Cleric dip.

[MrFahrenheit]

I agree mostly, but struggle with ranger on this. A subclasess ranger is set to do... Some skill work in the right setting, be a marginal melee or ranged combatant... Use some mostly utility magic?

Most of a ranger's combat ability comes from subclass compared to other classes

I don't want this to detour into another beastmaster thread (especially because there's an ongoing one at this time anyhow), but I will say that some spices on your steak are more pronounced than others. Nonetheless, you're still eating a steak.

Wait...clerics are steak. Ok make rangers hot dogs. Same point.

[JumboWheat01]

Wait...clerics are steak. Ok make rangers hot dogs. Same point.

Rangers are clearly jerky. And Barbarians are the whole bloody cow.

[Naanomi]

Jerky is the same no matter what you put with it...

The analogy is more that a wizard is pizza (lots of choices, all make a different meal, hard to screw up, still pizza in the end); barbarian is steak (seasonings can really change things around and maybe make too spicy for some people's taste), and a ranger is a good soup stock (a great start but needs something to become a meal, and that something can end up making two totally different meals depending on what it is)

I'm not arguing ranger (or any of its variations) are weak, just they rely more on subclass to define their role than say... Rogue or druid

[JumboWheat01]

I dunno... I'd argue that an Arcane Trickster is quite different from an Assassin, both in their mechanics and the mentality one takes when playing them. Still interesting points.

Almost want to here what you'd food you'd call the rest of the classes.

[Tanarii]

I agree. People focus on sub-classes too much and disparage certain ones too much based on false assumptions.

That said, the 4-elemonk does have a slight problem in that the entirety of it's sub-class features depend on spending Ki. In other words, using any of your sub-class benefits detracts from the main class.

And the Frenzy Barb is a weak sub-class if Feats are introduced into the game, because PAM basically replaces your major sub-class feature, and is superior to it. It's okay if you're playing single-class no feats though.

However, there's nothing wrong with the Beastmaster Ranger except playstyle preferences. In general, it seems to be tailored for a S&B/Rapier ranger with either Defense Fighting Style. And to be played in an area control / defensive style. You can also make them work Dueling fighting Style, or even 2H weapon with Defense FS and Sentinel.

Trickery Clerics, again it's a play-style thing. Their class features focus on defensive misdirection, and support. Not melee, or spellcasting. Basically the same as a Beastmaster ranger, they focus on a play-style that isn't popular. People usually try to shoehorn it into an offensive role (melee, spellcasting, or offensive stealth), then declare it weak or lacking.

And there's nothing wrong with a Valor Bard at all. I'm surprised anyone would consider it a weak sub-class.

[Stan]

Clerics are salad. You know they're good for you but not everyone enjoys them.

[gfishfunk]

Clerics are salad. You know they're good for you but not everyone enjoys them.

And the more you have to have them, the less you enjoy them....and look fondly at what everyone else around the table has in front of them.

---

Is it odd that every one of these sub-optimal subclasses are characters that I would definitely consider playing?

[Tanarii]

I agree mostly, but struggle with ranger on this. A subclasess ranger is set to do... Some skill work in the right setting, be a marginal melee or ranged combatant... Use some mostly utility magic?

Most of a ranger's combat ability comes from subclass compared to other classesThe Ranger gets baseline combat features (Medium Armor & Shields, all Weapons, d10 HD, FS, access to Hunter's Mark and other combat-related spells) embedded in the base class.

But I agree. The base class ranger is a rugged survivalist focused on the Exploration pillar of the game. He gets baseline combat capabilities, and heavy focus on features & spells related to Exploration. The combat specialization comes from the sub-classes.

So if all you care about is combat, or your game emphasizes the combat pillar and de-emphasizes the exploration pillar, then focusing on the sub-classes is unsurprising.

[MrFahrenheit]

Arcane trickster is different in that it's a subclass dealing more with quantitative limitations (spell slots) than the situational ones faced by the assassin or thief.

I think rogue is really the best example of this, as both the assassin and thief quickly revert back to vanilla rogue in the event of their situational features not activating (no surprise round for the assassin? No useful items for the thief and a monster without equipment to steal?). Meanwhile, the arcane trickster is limited by number of spell slots, and while mage hand legerdemain is nice, it's not "ZOMFGINSTACRITSURPRISEROUNDLOL!" powerful. However, its upside is that it finds constant use no matter the situation, especially as you level up. Regardless, no one thinks the AT should take over the illusionist wizard's role. He's still a rogue at the end of the day.

On a side note, does anyone else kinda imagine mage hand looking like the white-gloved hand you use to select a target in the FF series?

[DanyBallon]

And the Frenzy Barb is a weak sub-class if Feats are introduced into the game, because PAM basically replaces your major sub-class feature, and is superior to it. It's okay if you're playing single-class no feats though.


I can't believe how often something is suboptimal because PAM exist. The problem is not everything else, it's PAM, removed that feat, or tone it down and you just solve many problems people have with 5e :smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

The issue with the BM and elemental monk arguments above is that, unless you were determined to play them for flavor, you wouldn't give up the other archetypes to take these features.

The elemental monk has to spend an extra ki point per spell level on every spell ability he has compared with a shadow monk. Unlike the other archetypes, the elemental monk gains few abilities which can be used without spending most of his ki. People who complain about the archetype, in general, weren't expecting a blaster. But we were expecting balance.

The BM is a similar story. Every other type of added creature, from familiars to mounts to summoned creatures, acts without requiring the player's actions. The BM mechanics don't fit with the rest of 5e. And they aren't super-powerful mechanics, either. The BM can bonus action help others...whoopee.

[Tanarii]

I can't believe how often something is suboptimal because PAM exist. The problem is not everything else, it's PAM, removed that feat, or tone it down and you just solve many problems people have with 5e :smallbiggrin:
hahaha I intentionally left out that rant from my post, but I was thinking it. :smallwink:

[hymer]

A character's play style should always be determined by his or her overall class.

Well, always is such a big word. Consider druids at level 2-4. A land druid is a fairly versatile spellcaster, with a little martial capacity. They should generally be played behind the frontlines. The moon druid at those levels should generally be fighting in wild shape, and is among the most powerful offensive characters as well as the most resilient at those levels.
Levels 2-4 may be extreme, but shades at least of this remain throughout 5-20.

Something along those lines could be said for wizards (e.g. Bladesingers that can step into melee if there's a need, while most wizards avoid it as best they can) or clerics (clerics of War with heavy armour and martial weapons are likely to be effective melee combatants if they so choose, while a cleric of Light is going to feel much more like a blasting caster in battle).

It may be that you can't tank very well with a Valor bard (I'm not sure veryone will agree, but...) and so the tank need not be worried about getting their role usurped. But Lore and Valor bards play (and especially feel) quite differently. The play style is not determined solely by class. Beyond subclass, there's spell selection, feat selection and ability scores.

[MrFahrenheit]

I agree. People focus on sub-classes too much and disparage certain ones too much based on false assumptions.

That said, the 4-elemonk does have a slight problem in that the entirety of it's sub-class features depend on spending Ki. In other words, using any of your sub-class benefits detracts from the main class.

And the Frenzy Barb is a weak sub-class if Feats are introduced into the game, because PAM basically replaces your major sub-class feature, and is superior to it. It's okay if you're playing single-class no feats though.

However, there's nothing wrong with the Beastmaster Ranger except playstyle preferences. In general, it seems to be tailored for a S&B/Rapier ranger with either Defense Fighting Style. And to be played in an area control / defensive style. You can also make them work Dueling fighting Style, or even 2H weapon with Defense FS and Sentinel.

Trickery Clerics, again it's a play-style thing. Their class features focus on defensive misdirection, and support. Not melee, or spellcasting. Basically the same as a Beastmaster ranger, they focus on a play-style that isn't popular. People usually try to shoehorn it into an offensive role (melee, spellcasting, or offensive stealth), then declare it weak or lacking.

And there's nothing wrong with a Valor Bard at all. I'm surprised anyone would consider it a weak sub-class.

I agree with you on most of your points here; it really is a play-style thing by and large. Regarding beast masters, the point of view I think we share can be summed up as: "will the hunter always be using his bonus action? No. So the argument that the former is suboptimal because it needs to do so is irrelevant IMO - the hunter isn't using it at all."

Regarding four elements monks, a similar situation applies. Anecdote: I'm currently DMing a game with an assassin 3/shadow monk 10. He rarely uses any ki points, and still makes the most of his turns in combat. Haven't experienced open hand, but it looks like it may use ki more than shadow, yet still way less than four elements. But the point is I find it weak to complain about the subclass for having to use ki if you're hardly using it anyhow.

Monks are smoothies, btw.

[jas61292]

I can't believe how often something is suboptimal because PAM exist. The problem is not everything else, it's PAM, removed that feat, or tone it down and you just solve many problems people have with 5e :smallbiggrin:

So true. So, so, so true. I'm currently playing a berserker, and while my group allows most feats, we do not allow a few, including PAM. And, with my maul (and my +1 trident from a random treasure roll which has been far more useful than I expected) and frenzy, I have never felt underpowered.

[MrFahrenheit]

The issue with the BM and elemental monk arguments above is that, unless you were determined to play them for flavor, you wouldn't give up the other archetypes to take these features.

The elemental monk has to spend an extra ki point per spell level on every spell ability he has compared with a shadow monk. Unlike the other archetypes, the elemental monk gains few abilities which can be used without spending most of his ki. People who complain about the archetype, in general, weren't expecting a blaster. But we were expecting balance.

The BM is a similar story. Every other type of added creature, from familiars to mounts to summoned creatures, acts without requiring the player's actions. The BM mechanics don't fit with the rest of 5e. And they aren't super-powerful mechanics, either. The BM can bonus action help others...whoopee.

Would you mind elaborating on both the four elements and beastmaster points you made? Seems like your experience is wildly different from mine.

[DanyBallon]

Would you mind elaborating on both the four elements and beastmaster points you made? Seems like your experience is wildly different from mine.

Please, can this be done through private messaging? There's still an ongoing BM thread :smallwink:

[Democratus]

If everyone plays a sub-optimal character then things should be fine.

Problems can arise if one player plays sub-optimal (Beast Master, Valor Bard, etc.) and other players bring the heat (Assassin, Diviner, War Cleric). Then the "classy" player can feel like a sidekick.

Know your players and know what is important to them. If they would feel bad for being significantly less powerful than their friends - some sub-classes may not be for them.

[Tanarii]

But the point is I find it weak to complain about the subclass for having to use ki if you're hardly using it anyhow.I've never heard of a monk "hardly using" Ki before.

[MrFahrenheit]

Please, can this be done through private messaging? There's still an ongoing BM thread :smallwink:

Ok let's leave the BM out of it.

[MrFahrenheit]

If everyone plays a sub-optimal character then things should be fine.

Problems can arise if one player plays sub-optimal (Beast Master, Valor Bard, etc.) and other players bring the heat (Assassin, Diviner, War Cleric). Then the "classy" player can feel like a sidekick.

Know your players and know what is important to them. If they would feel bad for being significantly less powerful than their friends - some sub-classes may not be for them.

I feel this is only true if you're playing in a hack-n-slash campaign where everyone is competing for most damage, and players don't think outside the box. In which case, why even bother with support classes at all?

You need a combination otherwise. Take a look at the Banishment spell. Man can this neuter encounters! Going up against the BBEG and his minions in an epic boss battle and thanks to bounded accuracy, you're worried about the latter's capabilities? Banish the big guy and sweep away the little guys! Then (assuming BBEG is from your plane) when the boss comes back, it's all vs one, which typically = slaughterfest in 5e.

I am inclined to think no one would do that in the hack n slash example above, since it doesn't directly contribute to killing bad guys.

Also, for the monk point a few posts up, I guess I should rephrase: the shadow monk I see in action hardly used it, and is still fine. In light of that, I am of the opinion that the 4 ki points it takes to cast fly or fireball is worth the cost of 2 shadow monk techniques costing 2 ki points each.

[Easy_Lee]

To elaborate on my elements monk point above:

The shadow monk gains three 2nd level spells, which it can cast for 2 ki points each. Thus, these spells cost SL ki points.
Elements monk spells cost SL+1 ki points to cast.

This is inconsistent. Spells should either cost SL, or SL+1. The shadow monk casts spells more efficiently than the elements monk. You could point out that the elements monk gets more spells, but my reply is that the shadow monk gets other features, such as a bonus action teleport with no ki cost.

[DireSickFish]

I feel this is only true if you're playing in a hack-n-slash campaign where everyone is competing for most damage, and players don't think outside the box. In which case, why even bother with support classes at all?

You need a combination otherwise. Take a look at the Banishment spell. Man can this neuter encounters! Going up against the BBEG and his minions in an epic boss battle and thanks to bounded accuracy, you're worried about the latter's capabilities? Banish the big guy and sweep away the little guys! Then (assuming BBEG is from your plane) when the boss comes back, it's all vs one, which typically = slaughterfest in 5e.

I am inclined to think no one would do that in the hack n slash example above, since it doesn't directly contribute to killing bad guys.


In your example an optimizing group would indeed use Banish to handle an encounter. Control is a huge part of having a good optimized party. His point is not about how much damage you deal, but that you're comparing what people think is an unoptimized subclass against other unoptimized subclasses.

Using a Variant Human Sentinel Polearm Master Bear Totem Barbarian alongside a Berserker Barbarian the discrepancy is going to stand out more. It would stand out even if the class was changed to Fighter and you were still using Polearm Master to not double up classes.

I like your premise that most classes (Barring that which must not be named) rely mostly on there base class for power so having a subclass that isn't as optimum is fine. You are ignoring the very valid point however that in your game you did not compare "optimized" vs "unoptimized" builds.

[MrFahrenheit]

To elaborate on my elements monk point above:

The shadow monk gains three 2nd level spells, which it can cast for 2 ki points each. Thus, these spells cost SL ki points.
Elements monk spells cost SL+1 ki points to cast.

This is inconsistent. Spells should either cost SL, or SL+1. The shadow monk casts spells more efficiently than the elements monk. You could point out that the elements monk gets more spells, but my reply is that the shadow monk gets other features, such as a bonus action teleport with no ki cost.

Good point. However, consider this:

-By using the bonus action teleport, the shadow monk has given up on flurry of blows, or other bonus actions which monks can spend ki on. This is more a play style thing though.

-More importantly, the elements monk can effectively cast spells at higher slots, and can cast their basic spells (read: at original slot level) more often than their full caster counterpart, even if it's SL+1. As it stands, a level 20 elements monk could cast the basic fireball spell five times; a level 20 caster only has three slots at level three. So it balances both within and outside the class.

I'm not arguing that elements>shadow, or vice versa. My point is that they're equal.

[Easy_Lee]

Good point. However, consider this:

-By using the bonus action teleport, the shadow monk has given up on flurry of blows, or other bonus actions which monks can spend ki on. This is more a play style thing though.

-More importantly, the elements monk can effectively cast spells at higher slots, and can cast their basic spells (read: at original slot level) more often than their full caster counterpart, even if it's SL+1. As it stands, a level 20 elements monk could cast the basic fireball spell five times; a level 20 caster only has three slots at level three. So it balances both within and outside the class.

I'm not arguing that elements>shadow, or vice versa. My point is that they're equal.

Warlocks, a full casting class, can cast four level 5 spells from a larger list per short rest at a much earlier level than an elements monk can cast four specific level 4 spells.

Elements monks have to give up an action and SL+1 ki to cast a spell. Shadow monks spend an action and SL ki to cast. Shadow monks can go on to bonus action teleport the same round, possibly into the darkness they just crested.

No matter how you look at it, elements monks don't stack up. They spend more resources per spell level. Assuming wotc did their job, and all spells of a given level are equally useful, this doesn't make sense.

Elements monks can be "fixed" by making their spells cost SL ki. Elements monks can be improved by making their features work better with their existing monk abilities, more like the other archetypes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

the shadow monk I see in action hardly used it, and is still fine. In light of that, I am of the opinion that the 4 ki points it takes to cast fly or fireball is worth the cost of 2 shadow monk techniques costing 2 ki points each.
I'm playing a shadow monk right now and I've used the spells pretty frequently. Pass Without Trace is straight-up nuts, I try to cast Darkvision whenever I have spare ki going into a rest, and Minor Illusion never gets old.

[Hrugner]

On a side note, does anyone else kinda imagine mage hand looking like the white-gloved hand you use to select a target in the FF series?

Well I didn't till a few seconds ago.

[SharkForce]

I can't believe how often something is suboptimal because PAM exist. The problem is not everything else, it's PAM, removed that feat, or tone it down and you just solve many problems people have with 5e :smallbiggrin:

hmmm... i'll allow that PAM shouldn't have been a feat (that is, the combat power it provides should have been baked-in to the classes that are supposed to have the combat power rather than a supposedly optional feat), but the problem is that if you ban it then the classes that have nearly all their eggs in the combat basket have a lot fewer eggs.

[MrFahrenheit]

Warlocks, a full casting class, can cast four level 5 spells from a larger list per short rest at a much earlier level than an elements monk can cast four specific level 4 spells.

Elements monks have to give up an action and SL+1 ki to cast a spell. Shadow monks spend an action and SL ki to cast. Shadow monks can go on to bonus action teleport the same round, possibly into the darkness they just crested.

No matter how you look at it, elements monks don't stack up. They spend more resources per spell level. Assuming wotc did their job, and all spells of a given level are equally useful, this doesn't make sense.

Elements monks can be "fixed" by making their spells cost SL ki. Elements monks can be improved by making their features work better with their existing monk abilities, more like the other archetypes.

Ah I did leave off warlocks, though they're limited by fewer spell slots as a whole than other full casters, who are in turn limited by long rest resets to achieve the balance. In any event, I still don't see elements as worse. (FWIW, the elements monk in the one shot I mentioned was a half Orc who optimized str. Grapple, fly, let go, on to the next enemy!)

[Easy_Lee]

Ah I did leave off warlocks, though they're limited by fewer spell slots as a whole than other full casters, who are in turn limited by long rest resets to achieve the balance. In any event, I still don't see elements as worse. (FWIW, the elements monk in the one shot I mentioned was a half Orc who optimized str. Grapple, fly, let go, on to the next enemy!)

Consider that a bard can use expertise to make that trick work better, and can also cast fly from lower levels (and more times, since you can totally cast lower level spells out of higher level slots).

[MrFahrenheit]

Consider that a bard can use expertise to make that trick work better, and can also cast fly from lower levels (and more times, since you can totally cast lower level spells out of higher level slots).

A bard would be giving up on other spells requiring concentration to do so. Not necessarily a bad thing; just another balance consideration. Now fiends aren't being banished, persons aren't being held, etc. Bard is still a support role at the end of the day, while the monk is a striking one.

[Easy_Lee]

A bard would be giving up on other spells requiring concentration to do so. Not necessarily a bad thing; just another balance consideration. Now fiends aren't being banished, persons aren't being held, etc. Bard is still a support role at the end of the day, while the monk is a striking one.

Roles like "support" and "striker" are no longer relevant in 5e. And the elemental monk, rather than just having to take the spell as one of his many spells known, has to pick up an archetype feature and spend ki just to cast a spell less efficiently and at a later level than anyone else.

But most importantly, the relative cost is higher for elemental monk spells than shadow monk spells. If you want to compare apples to apples, there you go. That's unacceptable.

[JAL_1138]

Wait, Valor Bards are suboptimal?

Explain how getting Expertise in four skills, jack-of-all-trades half proficiency boost to all untrained skill checks including initiative, 9th-level casting, a great spell list, the ability to steal a few spells off any other class' lists, Medium armor, martial weapons, the ability to make weapon attacks after casting 1-action spells, ritual casting, and (with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter) some of the highest ranged DPR in the game, is suboptimal? VBs are one of the most versatile classes in the game.

VBs can absolutely become primary archers after 10th level with the right build. Steal Swift Quiver and Conjure Volley or Elemental Weapon, take Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Use a Heavy Crossbow with Swift Quiver for d10+mod+10 x4 /round until you're out of slots for it. If using Elemental Weapon, bump that to d10+mod+10+(1d4 to 3d4 depending on slot) x4, since Swift Quiver isn't concentration and can combo with Elemental Weapon. You get this trick at 10th level; Rangers get it at 17 and can only do it a few times a day at 20th. Granted, they get other damage boosts from things like Colossus Slayer or Volley, and an accuracy boost from Fighting Style (though the bard can get +1 to +3 depending on slot from Elemental Weapon, but it costs a 3rd+ spell slot to use and a Magical Secret to get), but the VB's additional spell slots mean they can keep up quite well.

When not Swift Quivering, use Elemental Weapon if you took it and a Hand Crossbow for d6+mod+10+(1d4 to 3d4 depending on slot) x3 per round (assuming you hit of course; actual DPR varies depending on target AC) for an hour.

EDIT: Also, Hold Monster + Heavy Xbow & Sharpshooter at advantage for an automatic crit on a hit is nice. 2d10+mod+10 isn't shabby for being done in the same round as a spell.

[Socratov]

Wait, Valor Bards are suboptimal?

Explain how getting Expertise in four skills, jack-of-all-trades half proficiency boost to all untrained skill checks including initiative, 9th-level casting, a great spell list, the ability to steal a few spells off any other class' lists, Medium armor, martial weapons, the ability to make weapon attacks after casting 1-action spells, ritual casting, and (with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter) some of the highest ranged DPR in the game, is suboptimal? VBs are one of the most versatile classes in the game.

VBs can absolutely become primary archers after 10th level with the right build. Steal Swift Quiver and Conjure Volley or Elemental Weapon, take Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Use a Heavy Crossbow with Swift Quiver for d10+mod+10 x4 /round until you're out of slots for it. If using Elemental Weapon, bump that to d10+mod+10+(1d4 to 3d4 depending on slot) x4, since Swift Quiver isn't concentration and can combo with Elemental Weapon. You get this trick at 10th level; Rangers get it at 17 and can only do it a few times a day at 20th. Granted, they get other damage boosts from things like Colossus Slayer or Volley, and an accuracy boost from Fighting Style (though the bard can get +1 to +3 depending on slot from Elemental Weapon, but it costs a 3rd+ spell slot to use and a Magical Secret to get), but the VB's additional spell slots mean they can keep up quite well.

When not Swift Quivering, use Elemental Weapon if you took it and a Hand Crossbow for d6+mod+10+(1d4 to 3d4 depending on slot) x3 per round (assuming you hit of course; actual DPR varies depending on target AC) for an hour.

EDIT: Also, Hold Monster + Heavy Xbow & Sharpshooter at advantage for an automatic crit on a hit is nice. 2d10+mod+10 isn't shabby for being done in the same round as a spell.

In terms of damage, yes. In terms of overall power, no. Lore bards get more spells known, can make sure to completely decimate the enemy though cutting words to make him utterly useless. Valor bards are better in pure combat and using weapons, however, it will be the lore bard that will make sure the party is in tip top shape and has an easy time wiping the encounter. All the while the Valor bard is saving up his stuff to cast a spell, attack once as a bonus action, plus elemental weapon and swift quiver are both concentration.

So while the trick might seem neat, you attack 4 times, try to powerattack (i.e. -5/+10) and hope that you have the support of a lore bard to boost your attack roll, and a sorcerer to twin hold person.

And in the meantime a fighter can attack 4 times with a greatsword, for the power attack, surge for another 4 attacks (twice or thrice), and cleave (on crit or kill) for yet another bonus attack, has a fighting style to reroll 1's and crits on lower numbers. And that's for just the champion, then there is the battlemaster with the plus d12's to whatever it wants.

Long story short: damage is not a concern in 5e. If you are a lore bard, and are strapped for damage, get some damaging spells and go to town.

[BrianDavion]

hoenstly hearing the focus on optimization on these boards is kind of disturbing, D&D 5th edition is a RPG.... a WAAC (win at all costs) mentality really isn't conductive to it.

[MrStabby]

So I find this quite interesting. I shouldn't be surprised that sub-classes are similar, but running through how they play, I am a bit surprised at how similar.

Warlock may be different, but that is more about pact than patron choice. Even the invocation choice seems more important than patron.

Clerics, especially at low levels, are varied in playstyle but that is as much to do with presence or absence of heavy armour proficiency as spells or other class features. At higher levels they seem to converge a bit more.

Bards have been covered already.

The biggest differences are still within classes based on equipment and feats - long range vs close up.

[Tanarii]

hoenstly hearing the focus on optimization on these boards is kind of disturbing, D&D 5th edition is a RPG.... a WAAC (win at all costs) mentality really isn't conductive to it.Heavy optimization has been a large part of the focus for many D&D forums since the internet came about (ie approx 3e). About the only place you don't find it is grognard forums like dragonsfoot.

You learn to take the assumption of optimization (along with other assumptions about which classes and combinations are 'bad') with a grain of salt.

[Hrugner]

hoenstly hearing the focus on optimization on these boards is kind of disturbing, D&D 5th edition is a RPG.... a WAAC (win at all costs) mentality really isn't conductive to it.

Well, there's several ways to mechanically support most character concepts. If there is mechanical support for your character that is better in some way, then it's worth knowing; particularly if you have a party of people relying on you to pull your weight. Most of us, I think, don't run off and use optimized builds so much as they use those optimized builds as checks to make sure they aren't missing something their character should have available to them.

Then there's the issue of hidden flaws and traps in some character options that can also look good at first blush, but should be avoided unless you want your DM to do more homebrewing just to keep the game moving. This thread seems more focused on those sorts of problems. Someone testing the flawed options while being the DM sort of wrecks the test.

[JAL_1138]

In terms of damage, yes. In terms of overall power, no. Lore bards get more spells known, can make sure to completely decimate the enemy though cutting words to make him utterly useless. Valor bards are better in pure combat and using weapons, however, it will be the lore bard that will make sure the party is in tip top shape and has an easy time wiping the encounter. All the while the Valor bard is saving up his stuff to cast a spell, attack once as a bonus action, plus elemental weapon and swift quiver are both concentration.

So while the trick might seem neat, you attack 4 times, try to powerattack (i.e. -5/+10) and hope that you have the support of a lore bard to boost your attack roll, and a sorcerer to twin hold person.

And in the meantime a fighter can attack 4 times with a greatsword, for the power attack, surge for another 4 attacks (twice or thrice), and cleave (on crit or kill) for yet another bonus attack, has a fighting style to reroll 1's and crits on lower numbers. And that's for just the champion, then there is the battlemaster with the plus d12's to whatever it wants.

Long story short: damage is not a concern in 5e. If you are a lore bard, and are strapped for damage, get some damaging spells and go to town.

Huh, you're right, they're both concentration. That's what I get for posting when AFB. Dunno where I got that in my head. *DERP* Thanks for the correction.
Ah well, you can still pull off the EW trick with the hand Xbow when not SQing.

Anyway, yes, the Lore is a (slightly) better caster and (definitely) better support class for getting two extra spells known, and for Cutting Words, which is good to keep attacks from landing or making absolutely sure allies' grapples connect and enemy grapples don't (although it doesn't affect saves). Since they're not burning slots on damage as fast as the VB, they can use them for other incredibly-useful stuff. This is undisputed.

My point about the VB still (somewhat) stands in that they're a great ranged-damage class (I never claimed they could outdamage a Fighter in melee, and the VB still comes in second or third in ranged damage, behind Fighter and either neck-and-neck or slightly behind Ranger depending on Ranger build and which chart you look at) while also being 9th-level casters. They don't support quite as well as the Lore, and don't shoot quite as well as a fully-optimized Ranger with the right build, but they can do almost as well at either. When a 9th-level caster can also be your primary ranged-weapon damage dealer, that's pretty good. I think they're rather underrated.

[gfishfunk]

Well, there's several ways to mechanically support most character concepts. If there is mechanical support for your character that is better in some way, then it's worth knowing; particularly if you have a party of people relying on you to pull your weight. Most of us, I think, don't run off and use optimized builds so much as they use those optimized builds as checks to make sure they aren't missing something their character should have available to them.

Truth! I mostly play RP-based characters, but I play with people that are very much efficiency/damage oriented. I can do my weird little builds created around a character concept, but I take care to make sure they work well. I don't want to stomp on someone else's fun by not doing anything worthwhile.

[Socratov]

hoenstly hearing the focus on optimization on these boards is kind of disturbing, D&D 5th edition is a RPG.... a WAAC (win at all costs) mentality really isn't conductive to it.

Well, considering that adventuring is an extremely high risk, very high reward style of occupation, and that in character you are definitely putting your life on the line, then win at all costs is very much an important point of roleplaying. Optimising (effectively min-maxing: or the art of raising effectiveness in one area of expertise, while lowering expertise in another) is a way to make sure your character is competent enough to 1) stay alive, 2) stay alive, still, 3) contribute to the result of the party in a fair and somewhat equal manner, 4) get rich (or fulfill that goal your character is trying to achieve).

If you are rich, you hire a party, not join them. if you are weak, you get rich (and see previous point) or manipulate the party into your bidding. If you are someone important, you are not going to put your life at stake as your life is, indeed, more valuable then some vagabonds.

Those not unlike weed tough as nails, getting out alive of everything and willing to win at all costs to get the job done (and get paid). They are the adventurers.

Staying alive gets easier the better you can use your favourite tactic, for which optimisation is almost paramount to get it working.

For example: if you want burn everything, you will take draconic sorcerer (fire) with elemental affinity (or whatever the feat is called) to make sure fire always works.

If you want to manipulate people, damn right that you want to go lore bard (for the skills) or enchanter wizard.

And so on, and so forth.

Optimisation is something inherent into the system, and roleplaying in general.

Besides, remember the Stormwind Fallacy (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.nl/2011/12/stormwind-fallacy.html)? Optimisation is not only done for metrics, but for story or RP concept as well. if you are selecting some options over other because of reasons, you are optimising to some degree.

[JAL_1138]

Also, the thing about 5e is that optimization squeezes a small bit of extra power out of a character, barring outright exploits like Wish+Simulacrum, a bucketload of summoned pixies (has that one been errata'd?), or a boatload of skeletons. The OP's point, I think, is that even the less-powerful classes and builds all fundamentally work well enough, which as far as I can tell is true.

You can set out to build a terrible character and succeed, but you have to kinda try.

Exploits aside, you can build a character that's more powerful than another. But not by a truly ludicrous degree to where you should never take another build or any such thing within the same class.

The worst Fighter build (using standard array with the stats in sensible places) still does decent damage. The worst wizard build (same caveats) still is a great spellcaster. The worst Monk is still an anti-caster control/striker. The worst rogue still stabs people in the back just fine.

[JumboWheat01]

a bucketload of summoned pixies (has that one been errata'd?)

As far as I know, it's just been stated that the DM has control of what a character conjures when they use a spell of that type or another, not the player. And if your DM is a jerk and follows this rule, you'll never get any "useful" summon.

I like the way my DM does it, you roll on a table he's drawn up to see what you can summon, re-rolling anything that's outside of your spells range at the moment.

[Giant2005]

Elements monks can be "fixed" by making their spells cost SL ki. Elements monks can be improved by making their features work better with their existing monk abilities, more like the other archetypes.

It has been done before, and just that 1 point shift is enough to move them to the opposite (and equally wrong) end of the spectrum - the Elements Monk then ends up with more spellcasting power than a Warlock. As a casting subclass to a non-caster, it is supposed to have casting power equivalent to a 1/3 caster and the Elements Monk already surpasses that.
Shadow Monks do get their spells too cheap, but that is the compensation for being more focused.

[Easy_Lee]

It has been done before, and just that 1 point shift is enough to move them to the opposite (and equally wrong) end of the spectrum - the Elements Monk then ends up with more spellcasting power than a Warlock. As a casting subclass to a non-caster, it is supposed to have casting power equivalent to a 1/3 caster and the Elements Monk already surpasses that.
Shadow Monks do get their spells too cheap, but that is the compensation for being more focused.

How do you figure? I haven't seen stories on this, but if you're talking about spells per short rest, a shadow monk can already cast more. If you're talking about level four spells per short rest, then by the time the elements monk is casting an equal number (after the adjustment) at 16, the warlock has been casting level 5 spells for quiet a while, and has arcanums and many invocations. Plus a far larger spell selection.

So I don't see where you're coming from. I can only assume your arguments come from an assumption that WoTC knows what they're doing.

[Giant2005]

How do you figure? I haven't seen stories on this, but if you're talking about spells per short rest, a shadow monk can already cast more. If you're talking about level four spells per short rest, then by the time the elements monk is casting an equal number (after the adjustment) at 16, the warlock has been casting level 5 spells for quiet a while, and has arcanums and many invocations. Plus a far larger spell selection.

So I don't see where you're coming from. I can only assume your arguments come from an assumption that WoTC knows what they're doing.

No, I don't assume much of anything. The actual spellcasting power with spell-level as Ki is basically the same between the Monk and the Warlock, the difference is that the Monk has greater flexibility on how he spends his points. For example, at level 20 they can both cast 20 levels worth of spells on a short rest. The Warlock has to do it with 5 level 4 spell slots, essentially wasting spellcasting resources whenever he wants to cast something like Darkness. The Warlock can cast a level 2 spell 4 times per short rest, whereas the Monk has the option of casting 10 level 2 spells per short rest if he wanted to.
The raw amount of power is the same, but the increased flexibility means that the Monk gets more out of his power. Rather than wasting 25% of his resources on a level 2 spell, he uses only the proportional 10%.

Even if you disagree on that basis, the relative spellcasting power between them is obviously much too close considering one is supposedly a full caster, while the other is supposedly a 1/3 caster.

[Easy_Lee]

No, I don't assume much of anything. The actual spellcasting power with spell-level as Ki is basically the same between the Monk and the Warlock, the difference is that the Monk has greater flexibility on how he spends his points. For example, at level 20 they can both cast 20 levels worth of spells on a short rest. The Warlock has to do it with 5 level 4 spell slots, essentially wasting spellcasting resources whenever he wants to cast something like Darkness. The Warlock can cast a level 2 spell 4 times per short rest, whereas the Monk has the option of casting 10 level 2 spells per short rest if he wanted to.
The raw amount of power is the same, but the increased flexibility means that the Monk gets more out of his power. Rather than wasting 25% of his resources on a level 2 spell, he uses only the proportional 10%.

Even if you disagree on that basis, the relative spellcasting power between them is obviously much too close considering one is supposedly a full caster, while the other is supposedly a 1/3 caster.

By your response, it sounds like you disagree with the idea of Monks casting spells from ki at all. Or in the very least, that you don't think they ought to be able to cast over a certain spell level. Or perhaps you just think warlock casting is too weak.

Regardless, I'm going at this with the assumption that the shadow monk's casting is balanced.

[Giant2005]

By your response, it sounds like you disagree with the idea of Monks casting spells from ki at all. Or in the very least, that you don't think they ought to be able to cast over a certain spell level. Or perhaps you just think warlock casting is too weak.

Regardless, I'm going at this with the assumption that the shadow monk's casting is balanced.

Actually yeah, I do think that the Warlock's casting is too weak. In order for it to stay competitive on a daily basis, it requires an absurd short rest:long rest ratio.
I don't mind Monks casting from Ki as long as they are limited enough to not be comparable to full casters.
Making a casting Monk subclass comparable to a full spellcasting class is akin to me making a Barbarian subclass that has full spellcasting progression but 1 less spell slot of each level 1-4. It would be derided and deservedly so, although it is in the same situation as the proposed Elements Monk fix - it is dangerously close to being a full caster regardless of the fact that the mechanic is mutually exclusive with the main feature of the base class (Rage vs Ki).

[MrStabby]

For example, at level 20 they can both cast 20 levels worth of spells on a short rest. The Warlock has to do it with 5 level 4 spell slots, essentially wasting spellcasting resources whenever he wants to cast something like Darkness. The Warlock can cast a level 2 spell 4 times per short rest, whereas the Monk has the option of casting 10 level 2 spells per short rest if he wanted to.

Mystic arcana?

[SharkForce]

elemental monks could cast as much as (or more than) warlocks without breaking things, because warlocks have a much better baseline outside of those spell slots.

an elemental monk with no ki can't cast spells, and gets 3 unimpressive melee attacks per round. no stunning, no turning invisible/intangible, no dashing/dodging/disengaging as a free action, etc.

a warlock with no spells still has full eldritch blast (which is most likely superior damage and range than the monk deals) and several additional invocations to give extra options, likely including a few at-will spell options.

also, quite frankly, a warlock's spells are likely far more powerful than an elemental monk's spells... the elemental monk has far more limited options, and frequently those options aren't nearly as interesting. I don't really care if the elemental monk can cast more fireballs at level 20 than a wizard. even one fireball per short rest is most likely more than is worth casting by the time the monk is level 20, and in all probability the 4 ki spent on a fireball would have been better spent on becoming invisible and resistant to all non-force damage instead (and if a fireball would have resolved an encounter extremely easily, it probably wasn't worth the ki for either the fireball *or* the invisibility/damage resistance combo; those kinds of fights are what "at-will" abilities are for).

[Vogonjeltz]

That said, the 4-elemonk does have a slight problem in that the entirety of it's sub-class features depend on spending Ki. In other words, using any of your sub-class benefits detracts from the main class.

Well, they do have Elemental Attunement, so that can be used without expending ki, but the real purpose of the four elements is to append AoE ability onto the Monk and that every damaging ability is a more efficient use of ki than the basic alternatives.

i.e. damage per ki is higher with the four elements. It's a larger ki expenditure, but it does more damage per ki.


I can't believe how often something is suboptimal because PAM exist.

PAM requires the character to use an inferior weapon (d10 vs d12), and the bonus action is only a d4. It also costs the Barbarian an ASI.

d4 from a Barbarian is ...2.5 + str mod damage.

How much damage do we think Savage Attack might be worth to a Barbarian? Well, using a Greataxe is already netting the Barbarian +1 damage per attack, which is +2 damage so it's .5 + str mod damage behind.

Except, every crit is adding 1-5 additional damage dice (depending on half-orc and levels in Barb) because the d12 has a better die roll, an average of 20 additional damage if the crit happens on the d4 instead of the d10.

Savage Attacker nets an average of between +1 and +6 damage for a roll between 6 and 1 respectively (all of which are under the average).

TLDR, Savage Attacker or Great Weapon Mastery are better for a Barbarian's damage dealing than Polearm Mastery.


The elemental monk has to spend an extra ki point per spell level on every spell ability he has compared with a shadow monk. Unlike the other archetypes, the elemental monk gains few abilities which can be used without spending most of his ki. People who complain about the archetype, in general, weren't expecting a blaster. But we were expecting balance.

Shadow monk ki abilities are non-damaging, that they cost marginally less ki for their spell level is irrelevant to considerations of what the sub-classes bring to the table. Shadow doesn't bring aoe damage or control effects, it brings stealth.

Normal monk ki abilities that are damage dealing are less ki efficient and non-aoe (Four Elements abilities are largely AoE).

Compare Stunning Strike (single target, requires a hit to activate and con save, lasts 1 turn max) and Clench of the North Wind (single or multi-target, wis save, lasts up to 10 rounds).

CotNW is vastly superior to Stunning Strike in terms of efficiency.

Higher initial cost on the abilities? Yes, but far greater potential.


As it stands, a level 20 elements monk could cast the basic fireball spell five times; a level 20 caster only has three slots at level three. So it balances both within and outside the class.

I'm not arguing that elements>shadow, or vice versa. My point is that they're equal.

That's 5 times per short rest; 15 times if there are the normal minimum of two, far more than that if the party chooses to rest more often.

I agree that they do entirely different things, so it's not a competition (Shadow can't do aoe, Elements isn't a stealthy teleporter).

The increased ki cost is acceptable because the effects are otherwise totally inaccessible to a pure monk.

[Axorfett12]

A level 20 monk has 20 ki points per short rest. Each spell costs level + 1 ki points. Level 2 spell = 3 ki points. The monk can cast 6 level 2 spells per rest, with 2 points left over. If the proposed fix of spells costing ki points equal to the spell level was inplemented, then the monk could cast 10 2nd level spells per rest. Assuming that they didn't spend ki on any of the multitudinous options the base class provides for spending it, they could cast 4 5th level spells, the same as a warlock of the same level, except the warlock gets Arcanum, invocations, and far more spell options.

[mgshamster]

A level 20 monk has 20 ki points per short rest. Each spell costs level + 1 ki points. Level 2 spell = 3 ki points. The monk can cast 6 level 2 spells per rest, with 2 points left over. If the proposed fix of spells costing ki points equal to the spell level was inplemented, then the monk could cast 10 2nd level spells per rest. Assuming that they didn't spend ki on any of the multitudinous options the base class provides for spending it, they could cast 4 5th level spells, the same as a warlock of the same level, except the warlock gets Arcanum, invocations, and far more spell options.

Remember that the monk is supposed to be a 1/3 caster. Should the monk have that kind of casting capability as a 1/3 caster? We're talking 30+ second level spells per day, given two short rests (remember, if he's at zero ki, he regains 4 ki points at the start of initiative). Compare that to the EK or the AT, who both get 11 spells per long rest.

Since the other two 1/3 casters get four 1st, three 2nd and 3rd, and one 4th, how does it compare to the monk?

5 ki for one 4th
12 ki for three 3rd
9 ki for three 2nd
8 ki for four 1st

Total = 34 ki. So long as the monk gets one short rest, it's on par with the EK and AT (don't forget, those other classes also get cantrips, where the monk does not).

What about a 1/2 caster? The paladin/ranger gets up to 5th level spells. If we make that equivalent to ki points, it would cost 56 ki points. Or right around 2 short rests.

Effectively, the four elements monk is balanced around a 1/3 to 1/2 caster (AT/EK to paladin/ranger), depending on how many short rests it gets. And as you say, it doesn't have much outside of its ki points, so I think it's ok to be a little better than the 1/3 casters.

If it's already balanced around that point, why try to "fix" it to make it comparable to a full caster like a warlock?

[Tanarii]

Well, they do have Elemental Attunement, so that can be used without expending ki, but the real purpose of the four elements is to append AoE ability onto the Monk and that every damaging ability is a more efficient use of ki than the basic alternatives.

i.e. damage per ki is higher with the four elements. It's a larger ki expenditure, but it does more damage per ki.Yes I agree. And I've run through the math before, and they come up as approximately equivalent as a short rest 1/3 caster, assuming 2 short rests per day. Just as a warlock is approximately a full caster with 2 short rests per day.

The problem is other 1/3 casters (EK & AT) get at-will Cantrips and some other features on top of their casting. And they don't have to sacrifice their main class abilities to get spells. Although they can run into action economy choices using a spell instead of attacking, like the Ele-Monk does, obviously.

Also the other Monk sub-classes get significant non-Ki abilities, although as you say their Ki abilities are generally weaker.

I'm a fan of the ele-Monk, and I think the Ki costs are properly balanced. I argued in defense of that extensively in another thread. But one thing I cam around on was other posters points that they were lacking in non-Ki abilities, given they are spending resources from the base class just to use their sub-class abiltiies. IMO if you're going to house-rule them, that's the way to do it. Not adjust Ki costs.

[Easy_Lee]

I do find it strange that other archetypes which grant casting grant up to 3rd level spells, but the elemental monk goes up to 5th level. I'm unsure if the limited selection makes it more balanced, but I would have stuck to 3rd level and ki cost = SL, personally.

[Waffle_Iron]

.
I'm a fan of the ele-Monk, and I think the Ki costs are properly balanced. I argued in defense of that extensively in another thread. But one thing I cam around on was other posters points that they were lacking in non-Ki abilities, given they are spending resources from the base class just to use their sub-class abiltiies. IMO if you're going to house-rule them, that's the way to do it. Not adjust Ki costs.

How about offering the four elemental themed cantrips from EE? Mold earth, shape water, etc.

Which levels would you offer them, and would the monk get access to all four?

[Axorfett12]

I wasn't arguing that the 4 elements monk is broken, or that it needs to be fixed. I was simply stating that the math was incorrect. The nit picky part of me I suppose. I believe that the 4 elements monk appeals to the same sort of people who play warlocks. If you are ok with having more limited resources, then go for it. If you aren't, then maybe it isn't for you. The Open Hand gives improved control. The Shadow gives improved stealth. The Elements fills the niche those two don't: Improved damage. Like every other subclass in the game, it isn't for everyone. Some people want to embrace the darkness. Other people just want to watch the world burn.

[Naanomi]

My struggle with Elemental Monk is thematic... There aren't enough spells of each element to make a 'one element monk' which is where my flavor radar wants to take it.

A tiny adjustment in spells available so that each element has a self contained list (that isn't mandatory to take of course) would make me feel better about any minor mechanical challenges

[Zalabim]

Counting Elemental Attunement, I think there's 17 disciplines. There should be 4 of each thematic element, but I haven't really gone down and checked. The fact that there's only two "level 6 required" disciplines undoubtedly complicates things.


Elements monks can be "fixed" by making their spells cost SL ki. Elements monks can be improved by making their features work better with their existing monk abilities, more like the other archetypes.

Reverse that and you can remove the quotes. They can be flatly improved by making their spells cheaper. They can be fixed by improving their subclass features. They get 4 spells and a cantrip. No other casting subclass learns so few spells and no other monk subclass has such narrow features. Their spell ki cost to effect ratio would be ok if they had reasonable other features.


Roles like "support" and "striker" are no longer relevant in 5e. And the elemental monk, rather than just having to take the spell as one of his many spells known, has to pick up an archetype feature and spend ki just to cast a spell less efficiently and at a later level than anyone else.

But most importantly, the relative cost is higher for elemental monk spells than shadow monk spells. If you want to compare apples to apples, there you go. That's unacceptable.

Gust of Wind costs 2 Ki. That blows a hole in your argument. On top of that, there's no 1st level spell that does 3d10 damage of a great damage type along with an extra effect on a failed save. Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip would not be 1st level spells. The Ki cost for monks casting spells is moderated based on something other than, or in addition to, the level of the spell.

[Democratus]

The warlock isn't a full caster. It's an archer (via Eldritch Blast) that has some utility spellcasting ability that recharges on a short rest.

[Tanarii]

The warlock isn't a full caster. It's an archer (via Eldritch Blast) that has some utility spellcasting ability that recharges on a short rest.It's a full caster. It casts (approximately) the same number of spells per day as a full caster, assuming the standard 2 short / adventuring day. It gets (approximately) the same number of spells known for level 1-5, with locked in 1/level for 6-9. The warlock is a short-rest based full caster.

[Tanarii]

How about offering the four elemental themed cantrips from EE? Mold earth, shape water, etc.

Which levels would you offer them, and would the monk get access to all four?
I'd have to sit down and compare them to Elemental Attunement. I can't really see it hurting to offer them two of those cantrips, with a third at level 10. (I believe that's the EK progression.)

Another question is, would offering an at-will ranged attack "cantrip" break the Ele-Monk?

[Axorfett12]

Another question is, would offering an at-will ranged attack "cantrip" break the Ele-Monk?

Considering the Sun Soul monk gets exactly that, and can flurry with it, I am gonna say no. I wouldn't offer much else though. What cantrip did you have in mind?

[Democratus]

It's a full caster. It casts (approximately) the same number of spells per day as a full caster, assuming the standard 2 short / adventuring day. It gets (approximately) the same number of spells known for level 1-5, with locked in 1/level for 6-9. The warlock is a short-rest based full caster.

At 9th level, my Wizard can cast 14 spells in a day (plus 4 more spell levels with arcane recovery!). The Warlock can cast 6 spells a day with a normal 2 short rests (8 with 3 short rests). That's not "approximately the same number". It also has less choice in casting level for its spells as they must all be cast at 5th level. In fact, they can never cast one of their normal spells at any level higher than 5th (unlike the Wizard who can revel in a level 8 Blight or level 6 Fireball)..

The warlock certainly isn't as bad as a 1/3 caster. It's more like a 2/3 caster. It makes up for its lack of spell slots and flexibility with excellent secondary abilities, incantations, and a great cantrip.

[Millstone85]

The warlock certainly isn't as bad as a 1/3 caster. It's more like a 2/3 caster. It makes up for its lack of spell slots and flexibility with excellent secondary abilities, incantations, and a great cantrip.Since we are on the topic of subclasses, would you say that one of the patrons or pacts makes the warlock more of a caster?

It looks like Tome is meant to do that, while Blade makes you more martial and Chain gives you a pet rogue. But does it work?

[Tanarii]

At 9th level, my Wizard can cast 14 spells in a day (plus 4 more spell levels with arcane recovery!). The Warlock can cast 6 spells a day with a normal 2 short rests (8 with 3 short rests). That's not "approximately the same number".The Warlock can cast 6 level 5 spells per day. The Wizard can cast 1 level 5, 3 level 4, and 3 level 3. After that they're using bottom line spells. Not only that, you picked the exact level where it comes out worst for the comparison of spells per day between Warlock and Wizard. Try again at levels 5 and 11.

Spells per day are approximately the same number.


It also has less choice in casting level for its spells as they must all be cast at 5th level.You're touting one of their biggest strengths.


In fact, they can never cast one of their normal spells at any level higher than 5th (unlike the Wizard who can revel in a level 8 Blight or level 6 Fireball).Yep. It's a minor limitation on Mystic Arcana, to prevent them from becoming overpowered.


The warlock certainly isn't as bad as a 1/3 caster. It's more like a 2/3 caster.Nope. They're full casters. This has been shown time and time again, not just by me.

[mgshamster]

How about offering the four elemental themed cantrips from EE? Mold earth, shape water, etc.

Which levels would you offer them, and would the monk get access to all four?

Isn't that what elemental attunement already does?

It's effectively prestidigitation/druidcraft/Thaumaturgy, but for elements. You can even shape earth, water, etc with it.

[LordFluffy]

I think something that people overlook, especiall when they're crunching numbers and doing cost/benefit analysis, is that D&D 5E is more cinematic than crunchy. 3.5 is super crunchy; you can spend a week building a character, complete with a projected career path. 5E is for just sitting down, coming up with a concept, sitting down for twenty minutes to stat it, and then playing. A lot is left up to the GM. Advantage and Inspiration are handed out for good ideas, good rp.

No, not everything is super realistic. No, not everything is balanced out to the third decimal place. But that's okay. Just play.

[Xetheral]

It's a full caster. It casts (approximately) the same number of spells per day as a full caster, assuming the standard 2 short / adventuring day. It gets (approximately) the same number of spells known for level 1-5, with locked in 1/level for 6-9. The warlock is a short-rest based full caster.

I disagree. With their short-rest dependence and massive inflexibility regarding how to apportion their magical power, I'm hard-pressed to see Warlocks as full casters. Sure, under certain (big) assumptions regarding rests they may be equivalent on a spellpoint basis, but they play so radically differently that I'm hard pressed to put them in the same category as any of the other full casters. I reserve that label for classes that contribute a their full level to multiclass spells-per-day.

By the same token, I don't consider them a partial spellcaster either... they're just in a strange category of their own.

[Tanarii]

Sure, under certain (big) assumptions regarding rests they may be equivalent on a spellpoint basis,They are full casters under the assumption of two short rests per day, per the DMG guidelines.


but they play so radically differently that I'm hard pressed to put them in the same category as any of the other full casters.Of course they play radically different. They are short rest full casters. They can't go nova. They regain full class functionality (edit: of level 5 slots and less) in an hour, instead of eight, but their full functionality is less because it recharges more often. But across the course of a standard adventuring day, they are approximately on par with other full casters in terms of spell slots.


I reserve that label for classes that contribute a their full level to multiclass spells-per-day.So basically, you're saying that your prerequisite for full caster is "they recharge on a long rest".

[mgshamster]

Warlocks are full casters because they get 9th level spells. That's the definition of a full caster.

1/3 casters get 4th level spells.
1/2 casters get 5th (or 6th for previous editions) level spells.
Full casters get 9th level spells.

It's that simple.

[MrFahrenheit]

Regarding roles posted earlier: of course "official" roles like striker and controller aren't part of the game anymore, but to get the best of your class, there are still recommended play styles. I used the terms as a frame of reference.

And I don't think valor bards are suboptimal - but in my experience looking at discussions on the bard class, lore keeps coming out on top. That's why I threw a valor bard into my one shot.

Basically, the point I'm making here is, regardless of ranged or melee, stealth or casting, there are no objectively suboptimal subclasses, just suboptimal play styles.

And I mean this at the strategic level: A wizard or sorcerer may focus on blasting or control, but they're still gonna be primary casters. A fighter may be an archer or in melee, but is still a tank. A warlock may be EB or blade based, but is still a caster. You wouldn't play the sorcerer as a rogue because he has a bunch of charm spells, or the warlock as a tank because of extra attack + cha mod to damage.

Your subclass may determine your secondary (or "off") role, but you should still play the character based off the main class. Example: there is a hill dwarf moon circle Druid in my party who optimized con...on a 27 point buy creation, had the stat at 17 starting the game. He took toughness at level 4, con resilience at level 8, and bumped it up to 20 at 12. He'll pop off a conjuration spell at beginning of combat, wild shape into whatever makes sense, then charge team bad guy. I thought for a while he was primarily a tank...

...then one session, enemies ended up targeting him more than the true tanks (barb and paladin). And I learned that even with his volumes of HP (besides the con stats and feats, he also had some of the consistently luckiest rolls each level up I've ever witnessed...he's a level behind the hill dwarf paladin and has WAY more hp), and what could be considered bonus hp from wild shape, it didn't take much to begin bringing him down. Crap AC will do that to you.

But it wasn't JUST crap AC. When his summons were killed off and he was knocked out of wild shape, he got right back into it next round after casting a concentration buff spell on himself. He was quickly true-form KO'ed (paladin saved him ultimately). His build is quite optimal given his usual spells prepared (even with a 16 wis at level 13, since it's primarily walls and summons he likes to fire off); his play style was not. Moon Druids are casters who are off-tanks, but if you try to be a tank/off-caster (like a ranger or EK), you're gonna have a bad time.

[MrFahrenheit]

I will say this though: when you multiclass (and especially when you do so between two classes that are radically different - i.e., warlock/fighter, cleric/paladin, etc.), even one or two levels "dipped" at times can suddenly change your optimal play style.

[Osrogue]

Roles like "support" and "striker" are no longer relevant in 5e. And the elemental monk, rather than just having to take the spell as one of his many spells known, has to pick up an archetype feature and spend ki just to cast a spell less efficiently and at a later level than anyone else.

But most importantly, the relative cost is higher for elemental monk spells than shadow monk spells. If you want to compare apples to apples, there you go. That's unacceptable.

Eldritck knight spells per day: 11

One 4: (5 points)
Three 3: (4 points)
Three 2: (3 points)
Four 1: (2 points)

They get 34 ki points worth of spells per day at level 20. Monks, potentially have 40-60 points to cast spells depending on short rests, and +4 per combat. Or 20-30+2(combat) per day if they want to split their ki down the middle for martial arts and stunning strikes and whatnot. They're spells-per day is about on par with a 1/3rd caster' which makes some sense considering that they are a subclass magic option. However, they trade knowing half-caster level spells (1 spell level), for a far more limited spell list (17 including cantrips vs about 30 not including cantrips or bonus spells) and far less spells known (4 vs 13), which is a terrible trade. They would probably be fine with a larger spell list, and more spells known.

[mgshamster]

However, they trade knowing half-caster level spells (1 spell level), for a far more limited spell list (17 including cantrips vs about 30 not including cantrips or bonus spells) and far less spells known (4 vs 13), which is a terrible trade. They would probably be fine with a larger spell list, and more spells known.

Can you elaborate on this? I just can't quite get what you're trying to say.

[Tanarii]

Can you elaborate on this? I just can't quite get what you're trying to say.

He means ele-Monks have 17 "spells" to choose amongst across all their levels, and only get 4 total picks from among those options. Excluding Elemental Affinity.

An EK gets 13 spells known from a much larger list across all spell levels. He's saying 30, no idea if that's right. But regardless, it has to be a larger list than ele-Monks pick from.

[mgshamster]

He means ele-Monks have 17 "spells" to choose amongst across all their levels, and only get 4 total picks from among those options. Excluding Elemental Affinity.

An EK gets 13 spells known from a much larger list across all spell levels. He's saying 30, no idea if that's right. But regardless, it has to be a larger list than ele-Monks pick from.

Ah. Ok. Thanks.

It would be nice if they could have some variety - like two different spells at 1, 6, 11, and 17. Gives them a bit of versatility while still allowing for different EMs to actually be different.

[Xetheral]

They are full casters under the assumption of two short rests per day, per the DMG guidelines.

Not all tables follow that guideline, and even at those that do, I am under the impression that 2 short rests is an average, rather than something consistently followed every day. I'm hard-pressed to call Warlocks full casters if, on some days in many campaigns, they'll be stuck with only 2 spells that day, even if, on other days with more than 2 short rests, they can cast far more spells than the other full casters. (Of course, since they won't necessarily know which days those are ahead of time, they won't know it's safe to cast both spells. Cautious warlocks may frequently enter a short rest with an unexpended "emergency" spell slot, which prior to level 10 represents half of their slots, vastly degrading their spellcasting potential for that day below the theoretical maximum.)


Of course they play radically different. They are short rest full casters. They can't go nova. They regain full class functionality (edit: of level 5 slots and less) in an hour, instead of eight, but their full functionality is less because it recharges more often.

If they play radically differently, what is the point of classifying them together? In other words, what purpose does the category "full caster" serve if not to differentiate playstyles or mechanical functionality?


So basically, you're saying that your prerequisite for full caster is "they recharge on a long rest".

While I wouldn't necessarily include that as an explicit prerequisite, but that certainly holds true (under my definition) for all of the existing classes.


Warlocks are full casters because they get 9th level spells. That's the definition of a full caster.

It's fine if you want to define the term that way, I just don't see any utility in that definition. I find the differences between warlocks and the other full casters to be more salient than their similarities, and thus don't see any need to classify them together.

[mgshamster]

It's fine if you want to define the term that way, I just don't see any utility in that definition. I find the differences between warlocks and the other full casters to be more salient than their similarities, and thus don't see any need to classify them together.

That's how it's been defined throughout the entire history of D&D. 9th level casters have always been called full casters.

It's not me wanting to define them that way, that's just how they're defined. If you want to change the definition, that's fine, but you have to be upfront about it to avoid confusion.

You can't just claim they're not full casters using a different definition than the one that's been used for over 40 years and is still being used today.

[Democratus]

That's how it's been defined throughout the entire history of D&D. 9th level casters have always been called full casters.

It's not me wanting to define them that way, that's just how they're defined. If you want to change the definition, that's fine, but you have to be upfront about it to avoid confusion.

You can't just claim they're not full casters using a different definition than the one that's been used for over 40 years and is still being used today.

There wasn't an original definition of "full caster" back in the 70s. So nothing has "always" been called a full caster.

9th level spells is insufficient for a definition. Djin can cast Wish but this doesn't make them full casters.

Warlocks are fundamentally different from full-casters (Bards, Clerics, Druids, Socrcerers, Wizards) and so it is reasonable to use the label "full caster" to note the distinction.

[Xetheral]

That's how it's been defined throughout the entire history of D&D. 9th level casters have always been called full casters.

It's not me wanting to define them that way, that's just how they're defined. If you want to change the definition, that's fine, but you have to be upfront about it to avoid confusion.

You can't just claim they're not full casters using a different definition than the one that's been used for over 40 years and is still being used today.

I disagree that that has always been the definition--or more precisely, I believe that that is the usual definition, but that there have historically been exceptions. For example, Divine Crusaders in 3.5 cast 9th level spells, but were not considered full casters. Sublime Chords casts 9th level spells, and were only kinda/sorta full casters (in some ways they were better than full casters, but they lacked 1st through 3rd level slots.)

[gfishfunk]

A quick an easy definition for 5e (whether needed or not) is whether the class confers a 'caster level' for the purposes of multiclassing and determining access to spell slots. Warlock does not confer a cast level.

[MrStabby]

A quick an easy definition for 5e (whether needed or not) is whether the class confers a 'caster level' for the purposes of multiclassing and determining access to spell slots. Warlock does not confer a cast level.

Somewhat awkward as it sometimes does. A fighter 3 warlock 3 that gains 2 levels of warlock gains the ability to cast spells one level higher as any other "full caster" would.

I am not saying full caster is appropriate description for a warlock. I have played one a few times and it really isn't like a bard, cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer.

So I am not so deep in history as others here, but was there ever a "full caster" (say by the definition of getting 9th level spells) that didnt have spell progression in the same sense as other "full casters". If not, then what others used as a definition in previous editions may not actually be in any way useful for 5th.

[mgshamster]

There wasn't an original definition of "full caster" back in the 70s. So nothing has "always" been called a full caster.

There isn't even an official definition for a full caster in this edition. It's just what fans have used the entire time. Heck, I was using those definitions back in the 90s, and the people I played (and still play) with who played back in the 70s did too.


9th level spells is insufficient for a definition. Djin can cast Wish but this doesn't make them full casters.

This is marvelously pedantic. Are you just trying to prove me wrong on some minor point just to say "gotchya!"? Or did you think this was an actual intellectual addition to the conversation?


I disagree that that has always been the definition--or more precisely, I believe that that is the usual definition, but that there have historically been exceptions. For example, Divine Crusaders in 3.5 cast 9th level spells, but were not considered full casters. Sublime Chords casts 9th level spells, and were only kinda/sorta full casters (in some ways they were better than full casters, but they lacked 1st through 3rd level slots.)

That's a fair point. Perhaps we can say it's a full caster (because it does get 1-9th level spells), but it's also different because it's a short rest mechanic. Like other short rest mechanic classes, they tend to go against the grain of traditional abilities. Sort of a Venn Diagram where it partially overlaps with full casters.

[Democratus]

There isn't even an official definition for a full caster in this edition. It's just what fans have used the entire time. Heck, I was using those definitions back in the 90s, and the people I played (and still play) with who played back in the 70s did too.

"what fans have used" is different everywhere. It's certainly not universal or even widespread. I worked for TSR in the 90s and this term certainly wasn't used with that meaning by my cohorts. Nor while running games at GenCon (93-96).

We're talking about an unofficial term that is viewed differently by different players. "I heard some fans say it" isn't a solid basis for nomenclature.


This is marvelously pedantic. Are you just trying to prove me wrong on some minor point just to say "gotchya!"? Or did you think this was an actual intellectual addition to the conversation?

What I posted was a disproof of the assertion that casting a 9th level spell made a full caster. That's just logic.

We're having a debate about what constitutes a full-caster in a tabletop RPG. We are both far into pedantry. :smallcool:

[mgshamster]

"what fans have used" is different everywhere. It's certainly not universal or even widespread. I worked for TSR in the 90s and this term certainly wasn't used with that meaning by my cohorts. Nor while running games at GenCon (93-96).

We're talking about an unofficial term that is viewed differently by different players. "I heard some fans say it" isn't a solid basis for nomenclature.

What I posted was a disproof of the assertion that casting a 9th level spell made a full caster. That's just logic.

We're having a debate about what constitutes a full-caster in a tabletop RPG. We are both far into pedantry. :smallcool:

I'm fairly certain that everyone else reading this knew that I meant they can cast 1-9, not just 9th.

You can tell because I said 1/3 casters cast 4th and 1/2 cast 5/6th. But we all know it's not just that single spell level or even just a single spell, it's the range from 1st to the level mentioned.

That fact that you have to be pedantic about it just to "logically" prove me wrong is absolutely amazing.

So yes. You're right. It isn't just that single spell level.

I hope you feel better now that you've pedantically proven someone wrong on something entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Now, shall we continue with the actual topic?

[Osrogue]

He means ele-Monks have 17 "spells" to choose amongst across all their levels, and only get 4 total picks from among those options. Excluding Elemental Affinity.

An EK gets 13 spells known from a much larger list across all spell levels. He's saying 30, no idea if that's right. But regardless, it has to be a larger list than ele-Monks pick from.

Just looked at the wizard spell list that was abjuration and evocation. At least 30 is more accurate. I think it might have been 34? It doesn't even include the 4 spells an Eldritch knight can take that can come from any school of wizard class, though.

[MrStabby]

Well on a practical basis any but the most crude classification shouldn't put warlock in the same category as a wizard, at least not before level 11 anyway. Now pedantically you can make up a definition of a category that will fit both and then say they are the same, but it isn't very meaningful.

[Tanarii]

Well on a practical basis any but the most crude classification shouldn't put warlock in the same category as a wizard, at least not before level 11 anyway. Now pedantically you can make up a definition of a category that will fit both and then say they are the same, but it isn't very meaningful.
No they shouldn't be put in precisely the same category. They do gain the next higher level spells every other level up to 9th level spells, which meets the commonly used definition for full caster since internet's time immemorial (ie mid-3e). But they have a short-rest regen of slots, giving them approximately the same number of slots over the period of an adventuring day, assuming the guidelines for short rests are followed.

Hence: short-rest full casters.

Its not the exact same as a Wizard or Bard or Cleric. It's similar, and different, both at the same time. They're full casters, on a short-rest regen mechanic.

(Are we having fun arguing semantics yet? :smallbiggrin: )


Not all tables follow that guideline
That sounds like a personal problem. :smallyuk::smallamused:

Seriously though, if the Short Rests are going to vary significantly or regularly from the guideline at a table, IMO the players need to know that during character creation. Because it affects a lot of classes. Warlocks and Monks probably the most. And it seriously affects the need (or lack thereof) for magical healing vs HD healing.

[mgshamster]

No they shouldn't be put in precisely the same category. They do gain the next higher level spells every other level up to 9th level spells, which meets the commonly used definition for full caster since internet's time immemorial (ie mid-3e). But they have a short-rest regen of slots, giving them approximately the same number of slots over the period of an adventuring day, assuming the guidelines for short rests are followed.

Hence: short-rest full casters.

Its not the exact same as a Wizard or Bard or Cleric. It's similar, and different, both at the same time. They're full casters, on a short-rest regen mechanic.

(Are we having fun arguing semantics yet? :smallbiggrin: )

Based on the short rest full caster category, that means we can put the elemental monk as a short rest 1/3 caster. So perhaps a new class WotC may publish will be a short rest 1/2 caster. I think that might fit well, as an arcane half caster is missing from the game. Maybe a type of magus (from PF).

[Tanarii]

Based on the short rest full caster category, that means we can put the elemental monk as a short rest 1/3 caster. So perhaps a new class WotC may publish will be a short rest 1/2 caster. I think that might fit well, as an arcane half caster is missing from the game. Maybe a type of magus (from PF).If you convert Ki to spell slots (using the Monk costs), assuming 2 Short Rests between a long rest, they also get approximately as many "spell slots" as EKs/ATs do, assuming they spend approximately 1/2 their Ki on "spells".

If they spend 100% of their Ki on "spells", they actually get twice as many "spell slots" as an EK/AT.

(Going from memory of my previous calculations here. But I'm fairly certain that's correct.)

[mgshamster]

If you convert Ki to spell slots (using the Monk costs), assuming 2 Short Rests between a long rest, they also get approximately as many "spell slots" as EKs/ATs do, assuming they spend approximately 1/2 their Ki on "spells".

If they spend 100% of their Ki on "spells", they actually get twice as many "spell slots" as an EK/AT.

(Going from memory of my previous calculations here. But I'm fairly certain that's correct.)

It's accurate. I got the same result from my own analysis (posted earlier in this thread).

I figure that the elemental monk is effectively somewhere between a 1/3 and 1/2 caster, depending on the number of short rests and how much they use their other abilities.

[Xetheral]

That sounds like a personal problem. :smallyuk::smallamused:

Seriously though, if the Short Rests are going to vary significantly or regularly from the guideline at a table, IMO the players need to know that during character creation. Because it affects a lot of classes. Warlocks and Monks probably the most. And it seriously affects the need (or lack thereof) for magical healing vs HD healing.

Enworld polls aren't exactly reliable information, but with 126 voters (114 quantifiable) at least the sample size on this one (http://www.enworld.org/forum/poll.php?pollid=6978&do=showresults) isn't terrible. Note that the distribution is very flat... so while the mean of about 1.3 short rests isn't TOO far off of the guideline, only a modest percentage of tables adhere to that mean.

But even this is a poll asking each table what their average is. At each table, I would expect there to be considerable variation even at those that do average 2 short rests per day. So some days, at some tables, the Warlock may cast as many spells as a full caster (although, given that their spells are more concentrated, it's more accurate to say that the spellpoint equivalent will match that of a full caster on some days, at some tables). On other days, they may cast more, but on many days they will cast less. With such a wide variation in the Warlock's spellcasting ability, I can't agree that a warlock's spell slots are numerically equivalent to that of a full caster. (Mathematically, it's the same reason that the mean of a distribution isn't equivalent to (or even a fair description of) the distribution itself.)

[mgshamster]

One thing to consider with short rests and how often people use them are class compositions of the group.

I'm in three games right now. In the Out of the Abyss game I'm running, I don't have any short rest mechanic characters. Likewise in the Curse of Strahd game I'm in. For both of those, we're heavy on healing classes. We rarely take short rests.

In another homebrew game I'm in, we have a warlock, and we take 1-3 short rests per day, depending on how everyone else is doing for spells and HD.

It's possible that people don't use short rests very often if they don't have classes reliant on the short rest mechanic. If everyone played monks and warlocks, you'd probably see a lot more short rests than average in a game.

[Tanarii]

But even this is a poll asking each table what their average is. At each table, I would expect there to be considerable variation even at those that do average 2 short rests per day.
Why would you expect that? Because you're used to the players choosing when short rests happen, as opposed to the DM or Adventure?

If you're treating them like a simulationist concept, and unde player control, I can see variation being high. If they're under DM/adventure then they can easily be standardized. And if they're treated as a gamist concept you can just standardize them as "2 per adventuring day" and be done with it.

I generally assume DM / adventure control, so that biases my view.

[Xetheral]

Why would you expect that? Because you're used to the players choosing when short rests happen, as opposed to the DM or Adventure?

If you're treating them like a simulationist concept, and unde player control, I can see variation being high. If they're under DM/adventure then they can easily be standardized. And if they're treated as a gamist concept you can just standardize them as "2 per adventuring day" and be done with it.

I generally assume DM / adventure control, so that biases my view.

Some of these overlap with each other, but, off the top of my head:

Because having every day be the same schedule seems monotonous. Because adventure concepts that are amenable to permitting exactly two short rests per day are a rather small subset of the world of possible adventures, and not all DMs, even those that want to average 2 short rests per day, are going to want to limit themselves to that subset. Because at some tables the players get a short rest whenever they choose to take an hour to rest. Because the guideline in the DMG (Page 84) states that "over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need two short rests", not that all full adventuring days should have two short rests. Because not all adventuring days will be "full" adventuring days. Because sometimes it's fun to include encounters hard enough (e.g. boss battles) that it should be the only encounter of the day if you want to avoid a TPK. Because challenge-through-attrition is only one way to challenge the party. Because even among those that advocate sticking to 6-8 encounters per day on average, many advocate a wider distribution about that point, not rigid adherence. Because, looking at the survey data, if you assume everyone's answers are rigid (rather than averages of their own table's natural variation), then the total number of two-short-rest-days actually goes down, because you lose the "coincidental" two-short-rest-days of the 88% of respondents that didn't answer "two short rests".

[Belac93]

As someone who has played 5 warlock characters since 5e came out, of every different type, and is currently playing 2 online, I can say that they are full casters. They may not play exactly like it, but they can cast spells from levels 1-9, plus other spells with invocations.

If you asked someone in-universe 'is this warlock a better spellcaster, or this wizard?' They would probably run away before saying. However, assuming they were immune to fear, they would probably say the warlock. Sure, they have less diverse spells, but they are insanely magical. A level 11 wizard can, with 2 short rests, cast 17-21 spells a day (with arcane recovery), and they have about 26 spells to choose from their known ones.

A warlock, with 2 short rests at the same level, can cast 9 spells a day (all 5th level slots), a 6th level spell, and, if they took the right invocations, speak with dead things, levitate, see magic, turn invisible at will, and speak through their pet demon that they summoned (although they would have probably taken agonizing blast). They have about 11 spells to choose from.

A wizard can't cast any infinite spells a day until level 18, a warlock can do it by level 2, and can get higher level spells. Maybe not quite as much variety, but in sheer amount of good spellcasting they can do, they are very magic.

Warlocks are full casters, they just play a little differently. Just like a moon druid is a full caster, 'even though it is a melee tank.'

[Giant2005]

Of course Warlocks are full casters. As long as they can cast spells of the same level as an equal-leveled Wizard, or 1/2 or 1/3 casters start casting spells of the same level as an equal-leveled Wizard; that will continue to be undeniable truth.

[Xetheral]

Of course Warlocks are full casters. As long as they can cast spells of the same level as an equal-leveled Wizard, or 1/2 or 1/3 casters start casting spells of the same level as an equal-leveled Wizard; that will continue to be undeniable truth.

That's yet another suggested definition of what "full caster" means. Note that your definition excludes 3.5 sorcerers as full casters--since 3.5 sorcerers were considered full casters (in every context I've ever encountered), I think you're overstating things when you claim your definition is an "undeniable truth".

Definitions suggested so far:

Can start casting spells of each level at the same level as a Wizard Can eventually cast 9th level spells. Contributes its full class level to determining multiclass spells per day (5e specific)
Did I miss any? Does anyone have any arguments for why any of these definitions is more useful and/or more widely held than any other?

I'm thinking that maybe the term simply isn't well-defined enough to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not the Warlock qualifies.

[Giant2005]

That's yet another suggested definition of what "full caster" means. Note that your definition excludes 3.5 sorcerers as full casters--since 3.5 sorcerers were considered full casters (in every context I've ever encountered), I think you're overstating things when you claim your definition is an "undeniable truth".

I never played 3.5, was the Sorcerer's spell progression actually slower than a Wizard's? If so, what mitigating factors were taken into account by those that actually considered them full spellcasters?

[Naanomi]

I never played 3.5, was the Sorcerer's spell progression actually slower than a Wizard's? If so, what mitigating factors were taken into account by those that actually considered them full spellcasters?
3.x sorcerers could cast more spells/day than a wizard but learned new spell levels slower (without extreme optimization schenanegans anyways). They were full casters because they had CL = level and 9th level spells

[MrFahrenheit]

That's yet another suggested definition of what "full caster" means. Note that your definition excludes 3.5 sorcerers as full casters--since 3.5 sorcerers were considered full casters (in every context I've ever encountered), I think you're overstating things when you claim your definition is an "undeniable truth".

Definitions suggested so far:

Can start casting spells of each level at the same level as a Wizard Can eventually cast 9th level spells. Contributes its full class level to determining multiclass spells per day (5e specific)
Did I miss any? Does anyone have any arguments for why any of these definitions is more useful and/or more widely held than any other?

I'm thinking that maybe the term simply isn't well-defined enough to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not the Warlock qualifies.

The fact that all this is still argued over, nearly two years after 5e hit our tables, is more proof of the balance inherent in it! As long as you're PLAYING the wizard or warlock as a primary caster, it doesn't really matter whether the latter is a "full caster" by one definition or another.

[Blue Lantern]

That's yet another suggested definition of what "full caster" means. Note that your definition excludes 3.5 sorcerers as full casters--since 3.5 sorcerers were considered full casters (in every context I've ever encountered), I think you're overstating things when you claim your definition is an "undeniable truth".

Definitions suggested so far:

Can start casting spells of each level at the same level as a Wizard Can eventually cast 9th level spells. Contributes its full class level to determining multiclass spells per day (5e specific)
Did I miss any? Does anyone have any arguments for why any of these definitions is more useful and/or more widely held than any other?

I'm thinking that maybe the term simply isn't well-defined enough to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not the Warlock qualifies.

I don't think is fair to use the 3.5 example in a discussion regarding 5e. 3.5 had a different method to determine this using caster levels associated to a class.

In 5e I say the first two element of your list are for all intense and purpose enough to determine if a class is at least equivalent to a full caster.

[Xetheral]

I don't think is fair to use the 3.5 example in a discussion regarding 5e. 3.5 had a different method to determine this using caster levels associated to a class.

In 5e I say the first two element of your list are for all intense and purpose enough to determine if a class is at least equivalent to a full caster.

I'm fine with using a 5e-specific definition, but at least a couple posters have been arguing either that the definition is fixed across all editions, or that the definition is fundamental. If they're going to make an argument based on history (or non-edition specific criteria) it seems reasonable to point out where their claims conflict with historical practice.

And I disagree that any class that meets the first two definitions is "equivalent" to a full caster. A hypothetical class that knows only a single spell from each level from 1 to 9 (each at wizard-appropriate levels) would be far short of a full caster, yet would meet both of first two definitions. (As a historical example, merely for context in this case, the Divine Crusader PRC in 3.5 wasn't considered a full caster, yet knew exactly one spell per level from 1-9 and could cast the higher-level ones a level sooner than a wizard. Note the overlap between the Divine Crusader and the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum.)

[Easy_Lee]

Here's something to think about specifically as it applies to classes with short rest resources, like Monks. Casting a level 2 spell for 2 ki is, evidentally, fine. A level 3 spell for, 3 ki? I think that's fine, though flight costs 4 ki IIRC. Level 1 for 1 ki? Definitely. But casting a level 9 spell for 9 ki would be all kinds of broken. According to the Warlock features, spells over 5th level should not be cast with short rest resources.

We do have to draw the line somewhere. I'm just not sure how the exact math on that breaks down.

[Tanarii]

That's yet another suggested definition of what "full caster" means. Note that your definition excludes 3.5 sorcerers as full casters--since 3.5 sorcerers were considered full casters (in every context I've ever encountered), I think you're overstating things when you claim your definition is an "undeniable truth".


I never played 3.5, was the Sorcerer's spell progression actually slower than a Wizard's? If so, what mitigating factors were taken into account by those that actually considered them full spellcasters?
No they weren't slower than a wizard. They got a new spell level every other level up to 9th level spells at level 17, just like now. They were full casters then, using that same definition. And so are Warlocks now, using that same definition.

[JumboWheat01]

I never played 3.5, was the Sorcerer's spell progression actually slower than a Wizard's? If so, what mitigating factors were taken into account by those that actually considered them full spellcasters?


No they weren't slower than a wizard. They got a new spell level every other level up to 9th level spells at level 17, just like now. They were full casters then, using that same definition. And so are Warlocks now, using that same definition.

Actually, they were, they got their new spell levels on even levels, starting at level 4, while Wizards got their new spell levels on odd levels, starting at level 3. So a Wizard could cast the legendary Fireball at level 5, but a Sorcerer would have to wait to level 6, and use one of their limited spell known slots on it.

But yeah, in exchange, you could cast spells a LOT more often.


Here's something to think about specifically as it applies to classes with short rest resources, like Monks. Casting a level 2 spell for 2 ki is, evidentally, fine. A level 3 spell for, 3 ki? I think that's fine, though flight costs 4 ki IIRC. Level 1 for 1 ki? Definitely. But casting a level 9 spell for 9 ki would be all kinds of broken. According to the Warlock features, spells over 5th level should not be cast with short rest resources.

We do have to draw the line somewhere. I'm just not sure how the exact math on that breaks down.

A Four Elements Monk couldn't cast a 9th level spell though, the highest ki points they can spend right now is 6 on a spell, which means a 5th level spell.

And I imagine if you make their ki-spells cost ki equal to level, you'd decrease the 6 on a spell to 5, to fit with it.

[Easy_Lee]

A Four Elements Monk couldn't cast a 9th level spell though, the highest ki points they can spend right now is 6 on a spell, which means a 5th level spell.

And I imagine if you make their ki-spells cost ki equal to level, you'd decrease the 6 on a spell to 5, to fit with it.

I would, I was just making a general point about spells and short rest mechanics.

I do find it weird, though, that elements monks can get fifth level spells at all from their archetype. I can only assume it's because they get them as limited, pre-chosen abilities, rather than as slots, which is suppose is a good enough distinction.

It would be nice to see some reasoning on their "spell" costs. That said, I think the thread Person_man started a year or so ago on revising the elements monk had some much better ideas for the archetype.

[Tanarii]

Actually, they were, they got their new spell levels on even levels, starting at level 4, while Wizards got their new spell levels on odd levels, starting at level 3.I double-checked two different charts before I posted, so there's some really bad info out there if I was wrong.

Regardless, claiming a 1 level delay "breaks the definition" is nitpicking to an extreme degree.

[JumboWheat01]

I double-checked two different charts before I posted, so there's some really bad info out there if I was wrong.

Regardless, claiming a 1 level delay "breaks the definition" is nitpicking to an extreme degree.

Meh, mistakes happen, I just went with the PHB for 3.5, since that's the official version of the class, and their table shows that the class gets new spell levels on even levels.

Still, yes, they were totally full casters in 3.5. Their caster level was equal to their class level, and they hit Ninth Level Spells, so I'd say that made them a full caster.

[Xetheral]

I double-checked two different charts before I posted, so there's some really bad info out there if I was wrong.

Regardless, claiming a 1 level delay "breaks the definition" is nitpicking to an extreme degree.

If there are any charts out there that show 3.5 sorcerers getting 2nd level spells at 3rd level, and 9th level spells at 17th level, they are pure homebrew. Sorcerers were a full spell level behind wizards for half of the game (every other level). They were, nonetheless, full casters. Divine Crusaders, who could get ninth level spells a level earlier than Wizards (but spell levels below 8th later) were not full casters, and I would argue this was because they only knew one spell of each level (although, unlike the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum, they could cast their lower level spells in higher level slots, AND got multiple slots per day for every slot below 9th). So if we want to use a historical definition, I would argue that Warlocks--significantly worse at casting high level (6+) spells than Divine Crusaders, can't meet the criteria. But again, that doesn't mean Warlocks shouldn't be considered full casters in 5e, because nothing says we need to use the same definition in this edition.

So to take a step back for a moment, what purpose does the "full caster" category serve? What trait do we want the term to highlight? Because if we're not going to use a historical definition (by which 3.5 Divine Crusaders and 5e Warlocks are either both full casters, or neither are) then I'd argue we should pick a functional definition that serves a purpose rather than being just a subjective label of "worth".

[mgshamster]

I would, I was just making a general point about spells and short rest mechanics.

I do find it weird, though, that elements monks can get fifth level spells at all from their archetype. I can only assume it's because they get them as limited, pre-chosen abilities, rather than as slots, which is suppose is a good enough distinction.

It would be nice to see some reasoning on their "spell" costs. That said, I think the thread Person_man started a year or so ago on revising the elements monk had some much better ideas for the archetype.

What did you think of this one?

Way of the Four Elements: Remastered (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view)

[Easy_Lee]

What did you think of this one?

Way of the Four Elements: Remastered (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view)

That it's awesome, but possibly a bit too strong and varied for an archetype. This is the sort of thing I would be hesitant to hand a novice or suspect munchkin, but would use with experienced players, especially for a custom campaign. For example, I have an idea for a four-player campaign where everyone plays an elements monk. The campaign would revolve around traveling to four mystic locations to "heal the elements," basically by helping ancient earth, wind, fire, and water primordials.

[Formless Entity]

Just putting this out here in response to posts arguing over "suboptimal" subclasses:

A character's play style should always be determined by his or her overall class.

To prove this theory, I actually ran a one shot consisting of single classed 14th level characters to include a beast master ranger, trickery cleric, four elements monk, and a couple others who aren't as sub optimal in comparison to other class options (valor bard and frenzy barbarian), but certainly aren't often seen as the better option. To make things even more fun, NONE of the characters were of a race that give boosts to the class's primary stat, though secondary/tertiary boosts were allowed (dual wielding unarmored stout halfling frenzy barb for the win!). Also, ASIs only; no feats.

Anyhow, this experience proved my theory. Granted, it's anecdotal, but here were my takeaways:

1. A four elements monk isn't meant to be a blaster. He's just a monk who's potentially way better at AoE and/or controlling than his fellows. Fly is a helluva spell for a monk to spend ki points on. And it balances out with a regular caster, IMO. Round 1: both use action to cast fly. Round 2: caster blasts; monk strikes. The ki point usage between the monk subclasses is kinda irrelevant IMO, as it all can reset on a short rest.

2. A beast master ranger isn't meant to be a conjurer. The companion uses up the character's bonus action at the very least, or part of an attack at most. Just by providing help to the barbarian, Wolfy earned his dues. And also wasn't a target for the bad guys either (do I hit the annoying furry thing, or that raging two foot tall axe machine who just sliced my Achilles?). If you want a companion who can do more, and on its own action, cast a summon spell. The beast master may be an off-controller, but at the end of the day is still a ranger.

3. Trickery clerics make piss poor rogues. Because they're not rogues. They're still there primarily as a support member. They work wonderfully in concert with stealth oriented characters, but don't need to be one themselves. They're a sneak's "coach." But they're not a sneak. People disparage it because other domains can mix it up more in melee (and be a tank's aid), or have a defined role in the rear of the party (and be a caster and/or ranged attacker's aid). The focus on stealth here is therefore pretty different, but potentially more versatile as it can adapt to however the sneaks want to mix it up. And can aid others as necessary.

4. A valor bard isn't meant to take over tanking duties for the party, or become the primary archer. While especially true early on, even at higher levels when you're casting and slashing (or firing an arrow), the emphasis is on your spells. Sure you could be an off tank, but you shouldn't be THE tank. Valor bards trade skill with lore bards for being better in combat...but is still a bard. Of course, bonus action: cast lightning arrow, action: cast hold person, follow up action: unleash lightning arrow is awesome.

5. Frenzy barbs are fun. But they're probably more heavily dependent on the rest of the party playing well together, as they're almost completely offensive in orientation, than any other class/subclass. Not saying it's bad, or even suboptimal, but just a know your party note.

At the end of the day, your class is your entree, and your subclass its seasoning. To go back to my trickery cleric example from earlier: pretend the cleric is a steak, and the rogue is a bowl of soup. You wouldn't get very far trying to eat that steak with just a spoon, even if both dishes used similar spices.

Always refer back to the class's core chassis when determining how to play.

Even if your unscientific "experiment" was done correctly. You would not be proving a theory. You would be testing a hypothesis.

Also this is anecdotal as you yourself pointed out so it proves nothing.

You entered it with a pre-conceived notion and was trying to work backwards from your conclusion and as such your entire "experiment" was based on a logical fallacy.

[MrFahrenheit]

Even if your unscientific "experiment" was done correctly. You would not be proving a theory. You would be testing a hypothesis.

Also this is anecdotal as you yourself pointed out so it proves nothing.

You entered it with a pre-conceived notion and was trying to work backwards from your conclusion and as such your entire "experiment" was based on a logical fallacy.

Ah. You're right. Everyone disregard this thread since no one who's posting here - to include myself or anyone in the pages since - has any experience or idea what they're talking about. We don't have a large enough sample size or cited scientific references on this tabletop fantasy rpg. While we mind our silence, please share your multiple tested and proven theories on this same matter; you're clearly more knowledgable about it than I or anyone else.

Obvious troll is obvious...

[Formless Entity]

Ah. You're right. Everyone disregard this thread since no one who's posting here - to include myself or anyone in the pages since - has any experience or idea what they're talking about. We don't have a large enough sample size or cited scientific references on this tabletop fantasy rpg. While we mind our silence, please share your multiple tested and proven theories on this same matter; you're clearly more knowledgable about it than I or anyone else.

Obvious troll is obvious...

Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well logical fallacies are obvious.

Also more importantly the Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy.

You are saying that because I do not know whether that is the case that I cannot point out that you do not either.

I am saying that neither of us have proven anything about how effective not using your idea of class roles is with these kind of hybrid archetypes in classes. Despite us both trying several small scale idea with other players.

The difference is that I do not claim to have proven anything.

When you make a positive claim you need evidence to back it up, I was simply pointing out that you have not.

Now if you would like to have a nice conversation like rational human beings we can do that, if you decide you no longer want to hear a voice of dissonance then ask me to leave and I will go, but if you are going to attempt more obvious Ad Hominems then I will stay and report you this time.

[Easy_Lee]

Getting back on topic...

I believe the original comment was, in brief, that classes should provide the bulk of a player's play style, with archetypes adding some features on top of that. This is as opposed to an archetype which completely changes the role of a player, such as turning a rogue into a fighter or a wizard into a barbarian.

While I agree that archetypes should be less impactful than class selection, I believe play style comes from the specific choices made. A conjuration wizard plays very differently from an illusionist not just because of the archetype chosen, but also because his spell choice is completely different. Similarly, a halfling beast master riding a panther and firing a bow is miles away from a water genasi beast master with a toad, even though they're the same archetype.

In balancing class features, my method is to look at existing archetype features and ensure that nothing is too powerful. For example, since expertise is a rogue feature, we wouldn't want to create a feature which is expertise but better. Similarly, since open hand monks can move creatures who fail a save, it doesn't make sense for repelling blast (the warlock invocation) to not have a save.

[Specter]

I'm new to this discussion, but Trickery Cleric's main deal is its spell selection: it gets more out-of-class spells than any other domain. Blessing of the Trickster is far from good, let alone the domain's main feature. What really bugs me is the lack of extra proficiencies; at least shortswords and rapiers, for Loki's sake.

[Giant2005]

I'm new to this discussion, but Trickery Cleric's main deal is its spell selection: it gets more out-of-class spells than any other domain. Blessing of the Trickster is far from good, let alone the domain's main feature. What really bugs me is the lack of extra proficiencies; at least shortswords and rapiers, for Loki's sake.

The proficiencies aren't really a big deal mechanically (although using a dagger could have undesirable roleplaying connotations). A Shortsword would bring less than 1 DPR to the table for a Cleric over the Dagger, and a Rapier would bring less than 2 above the Dagger. Those differences will very rarely make a difference - in the average game, it is unlikely that you will ever witness an occasion where that sub 1 or sub 2 DPR would have helped.

[Formless Entity]

The proficiencies aren't really a big deal mechanically (although using a dagger could have undesirable roleplaying connotations). A Shortsword would bring less than 1 DPR to the table for a Cleric over the Dagger, and a Rapier would bring less than 2 above the Dagger. Those differences will very rarely make a difference - in the average game, it is unlikely that you will ever witness an occasion where that sub 1 or sub 2 DPR would have helped.

I think they where referring to wanting it from a role-playing perspective. Not a stats perspective.

[Giant2005]

I think they where referring to wanting it from a role-playing perspective. Not a stats perspective.

That I can certainly understand - none of my characters would be caught dead using a dagger; that is a woman's weapon :smallwink:.
Still, a subterfuge-based priest doesn't strike me as someone that would be carrying around a larger weapon anyway and if I were playing a more martially-inclined, subterfuge-based priest, I'd probably dip a martial class to represent the martial aspects and that class would give me the proficiencies anyway.

[Formless Entity]

That I can certainly understand - none of my characters would be caught dead using a dagger; that is a woman's weapon :smallwink:.
Still, a subterfuge-based priest doesn't strike me as someone that would be carrying around a larger weapon anyway and if I were playing a more martially-inclined, subterfuge-based priest, I'd probably dip a martial class to represent the martial aspects and that class would give me the proficiencies anyway.

I would disagree on your idea of what type of gender should carry a dagger.

However I would also like to point out that the rapier was a dueling tool made for formal duels. I still am mixed on whether a rouge should have proficiency with them.

[SharkForce]

The proficiencies aren't really a big deal mechanically (although using a dagger could have undesirable roleplaying connotations). A Shortsword would bring less than 1 DPR to the table for a Cleric over the Dagger, and a Rapier would bring less than 2 above the Dagger. Those differences will very rarely make a difference - in the average game, it is unlikely that you will ever witness an occasion where that sub 1 or sub 2 DPR would have helped.

if it isn't a big deal, why can't they have proficiency in them? that blade cuts both ways.

[Tanarii]

What really bugs me is the lack of extra proficiencies; at least shortswords and rapiers, for Loki's sake.they already have Mace and Hand Axe. Shortsword doesn't give them much. But Rapier would be minorly better than Spear or Q-staff, since it could be used with a shield and still get the d8.


The proficiencies aren't really a big deal mechanically (although using a dagger could have undesirable roleplaying connotations).
Why would a cleric use a dagger instead of a Hand Axe? Same range, d6 instead of d4.

[mgshamster]

That I can certainly understand - none of my characters would be caught dead using a dagger; that is a woman's weapon :smallwink:.

One of my players dropped his rapier for a +1 dagger just for the descriptive text alone. :)

Side note: I think of it every time someone mentions how good a rapier is and how no one would ever pick a weaker finesse weapon over a rapier.

[Formless Entity]

they already have Mace and Hand Axe. Shortsword doesn't give them much. But Rapier would be minorly better than Spear or Q-staff, since it could be used with a shield and still get the d8.


Why would a cleric use a dagger instead of a Hand Axe? Same range, d6 instead of d4.

Some people prefer a role-play aspect over simple number crunching.

[Tanarii]

Some people prefer a role-play aspect over simple number crunching.

And the Roleplaying brough up was that the dagger wouldn't be used for that reason, implication being it would be anyway for mechanical reasons.

[SharkForce]

hand axe and mace are not finesse weapons, are they? 0.o

i mean, we're talking about a trickery cleric here... dexterity should be more important to them than strength...

[Tanarii]

hand axe and mace are not finesse weapons, are they? 0.o

i mean, we're talking about a trickery cleric here... dexterity should be more important to them than strength...
:smalleek:

Really? It's never occurred to me to make a Dex-based Trickery Cleric. Although I can see people who think of them as Rogue-clerics, as opposed to clerics with strong deceptive-based defenses, trying to build them that way. Hell, even my Half-Orc Cleric/Rogue was Str-based.

Of course, that could just be something wrong with me. :smallwink:

[mgshamster]

Of course, that could just be something wrong with me. :smallwink:

That's been true for some time.

[Giant2005]

if it isn't a big deal, why can't they have proficiency in them? that blade cuts both ways.

You could give them proficiency - as I said, it is of so little consequence that it really wouldn't matter.


:smalleek:

Really? It's never occurred to me to make a Dex-based Trickery Cleric. Although I can see people who think of them as Rogue-clerics, as opposed to clerics with strong deceptive-based defenses, trying to build them that way. Hell, even my Half-Orc Cleric/Rogue was Str-based.

Of course, that could just be something wrong with me. :smallwink:

I'm not so sure there is anything weird about a Str-based Half-Orc.
Anyway, the main reason I'd go Dex-based with a Trickery Cleric is because of their Channel Divinity. Hiding in the shadows while your immortal doppleganger lays destruction like an even less altruistic Wizard of Oz is a lot more effective when people can't actually find you hiding in those shadows.
That Channel Divinity combined with Pass Without Trace, a high Dex, and Proficiency in Stealth (expertise if you are multiclassing) is one of the true joys of the game. It is the one instance where the people have genuine reason to believe that you are more than mortal.

[Zalabim]

I would, I was just making a general point about spells and short rest mechanics.

I do find it weird, though, that elements monks can get fifth level spells at all from their archetype. I can only assume it's because they get them as limited, pre-chosen abilities, rather than as slots, which is suppose is a good enough distinction.

I think it's because they tap into an existing resource to cast their spells. Fighters and Rogues gain new resources when they gain 1/3 casting.

[MrFahrenheit]

You could give them proficiency - as I said, it is of so little consequence that it really wouldn't matter.



I'm not so sure there is anything weird about a Str-based Half-Orc.
Anyway, the main reason I'd go Dex-based with a Trickery Cleric is because of their Channel Divinity. Hiding in the shadows while your immortal doppleganger lays destruction like an even less altruistic Wizard of Oz is a lot more effective when people can't actually find you hiding in those shadows.
That Channel Divinity combined with Pass Without Trace, a high Dex, and Proficiency in Stealth (expertise if you are multiclassing) is one of the true joys of the game. It is the one instance where the people have genuine reason to believe that you are more than mortal.

Dex based trickery cleric makes sense to me if only because of its lack of heavy armor...but I think the main reason its bonuses seem so odd is to remind the player that cleric is still a support class, no matter how you slice it. Trickery could arguably be considered more an outright support subclass than life, depending on what's being supported.

Question for people who regularly play clerics of the divine strike-enabled domains: how often do you find yourselves using the feature vs casting a spell as your action?

[Giant2005]

Question for people who regularly play clerics of the divine strike-enabled domains: how often do you find yourselves using the feature vs casting a spell as your action?

I always use it! Although it would be more accurate to say that I do both.
I had never played a Cleric in a pre-SCAG world and the SCAG gave the Cleric quite a bit more damage potential (by casting a spell as well as gaining divine-strike bonuses).

[MrFahrenheit]

I would, I was just making a general point about spells and short rest mechanics.

I do find it weird, though, that elements monks can get fifth level spells at all from their archetype. I can only assume it's because they get them as limited, pre-chosen abilities, rather than as slots, which is suppose is a good enough distinction.

It would be nice to see some reasoning on their "spell" costs. That said, I think the thread Person_man started a year or so ago on revising the elements monk had some much better ideas for the archetype.

I don't think we will ever get the reasoning for spell costs, but I do think that part of the reason it's so heavy for ele-monks is to remind the player that they're still playing a monk and not a primary caster.

It's in many ways similar to an EK, but while the EK most likely won't be maxing int, because attacks are still where they get the bulk of their damage from, an ele-monk gets confused due to "casting" off wis and also wanting to max it anyway.

[MrFahrenheit]

I always use it! Although it would be more accurate to say that I do both.
I had never played a Cleric in a pre-SCAG world and the SCAG gave the Cleric quite a bit more damage potential (by casting a spell as well as gaining divine-strike bonuses).

I'm either unfamiliar with this, or am misreading your post, but the SCAG lets you cast AND attack with divine strike each round?

[Giant2005]

I'm either unfamiliar with this, or am misreading your post, but the SCAG lets you cast AND attack with divine strike each round?

The SCAG has two cantrips (Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade) that each have a weapon attack included as part of the spell. They are Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock exclusive though, which means a Cleric needs to be an Elf, Half Elf, Arcana Cleric, multiclass, or use a feat to get them though. Still, the price is well worth it.

[MrFahrenheit]

Hm...Arcana cleric wouldn't work (no divine strike). That being said, ifa player feels the feat is wisely spent, then it's a very powerful tool.

[Tanarii]

Dex based trickery cleric makes sense to me if only because of its lack of heavy armor...Medium armor is exactly why I've never really considered a Dex-attack Trickery (or any other domain) Cleric. Except as dips. Your Dex will be going above 14 if it's your primary or off attack stat.

Same for any other Medium armor build. About the only exception to that is Ranger, and I still commonly make Str builds (in Medium armor) for them anyway.


but I think the main reason its bonuses seem so odd is to remind the player that cleric is still a support class, no matter how you slice it. Trickery could arguably be considered more an outright support subclass than life, depending on what's being supported.Absolutely. It's abilities are enhanced support, but more importantly enhanced defenses.

Invoke Duplicity and Cloak of Shadows are awesome defensive abilities. And spells, they get charm person, disguise self, mirror image, blink, dispel magic, dimension door, polymorph, dominate person, which are all great defensive (through duplicity, control or movement) spells. In addition to many of them being effective out of combat trickster type spells.


Question for people who regularly play clerics of the divine strike-enabled domains: how often do you find yourselves using the feature vs casting a spell as your action?Depends on how good I think their Dex is to svs Sacred Flame instead. :smallwink:

[SharkForce]

with medium armour, you need 14 dex and 8 strength to use it effectively. yes, you'll want your dex to go higher if it's your attack attribute, but it needs to be 14 either way, and you can pretty safely dump strength (i mean, it'll cause you problems if you ever need to make a strength save or check, but you're gonna have to dump *something* if you want both strength and dex high as well as wisdom, so whatever that something is it will cause you problems either way).

just because the AC bonus for dex in medium armour stops at +2 doesn't mean you can't increase it more.

[Easy_Lee]

with medium armour, you need 14 dex and 8 strength to use it effectively. yes, you'll want your dex to go higher if it's your attack attribute, but it needs to be 14 either way, and you can pretty safely dump strength (i mean, it'll cause you problems if you ever need to make a strength save or check, but you're gonna have to dump *something* if you want both strength and dex high as well as wisdom, so whatever that something is it will cause you problems either way).

just because the AC bonus for dex in medium armour stops at +2 doesn't mean you can't increase it more.

Medium armor mastery is an underrated feat, IMO. It's quite nice for Dex fighters, especially with rogue dips. +1 AC and stealth doesn't seem like much until you consider that it opens up a wide variety of armors to the player.

[MrFahrenheit]

I've waffled back and forth on MAM. Seems like something which could be incredibly useful at lower levels, but not as much later on. I'd never be inclined to take it as a dex fighter or fighter/rogue pre-fighter level 8, or as a single classed rogue at all...

[Rysto]

The problem with MAM is that if your Dex is maxed at 20 then MAM is only worth +1 AC (compared to just using light armour). That's not worth a feat. MAM might be worth it if you were a caster with 16 Dex already or if you got some magical medium armour I guess.

[MrFahrenheit]

The problem with MAM is that if your Dex is maxed at 20 then MAM is only worth +1 AC (compared to just using light armour). That's not worth a feat. MAM might be worth it if you were a caster with 16 Dex already or if you got some magical medium armour I guess.

Agreed. It does seem more useful for casters with medium armor access.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hm...Arcana cleric wouldn't work (no divine strike). That being said, ifa player feels the feat is wisely spent, then it's a very powerful tool.
You do get Wisdom to damage, though, which comes out pretty similar.