Mordenkainen githzerai underwelming?

[qube]

So ... I was really looking forward to playing Githzerai monk, but looking at their stats, they seem ... underwealming?

good wis boost, but no dex boost. OK, I can live with that, but still, a +2 on the secondairy stat seems like a very bear minimum. (I gauge dex to be more important then wis, as it also affects attack & damage. your stunning fists DC is irrelevant if you don't hit)
bonus against charm & frighten ... something monks already can get rid off. (& heck, githzerai don't even get the elfen immune to sleep)
cantrip & shield ... can just as easily be grabbed by a variant human
detect thoughts ... kind of meh. I mean, I can see the potential in the spell, but I've never been "wow! detect thoughts!? gotta have this !!"
I expected them to be THE monk race. But instead ... ya know ... I don't even know if I would put them in the top 5.

Agree? Disagree? Feel I missed something?

[dejarnjc]

Yeah they're pretty underwhelming, not having the +1 DEX sucks. If ever DM a githzerai player, I'd probably allow +1 INT, +1 WIS, +1 DEX. Or maybe just give the option for either +1 INT OR +1 DEX.


That being said, if Mystics are ever released then they'll be fantastic Mystics. When I think of a Githzerai, I think of them as more Mystical type monks (Mystic) than ninja type Monks (DnD monks) anyway.

[SirGraystone]

So they made the githzerai a balanced race instead of an OP one?

[darknite]

Not all Githzerai are monks and not all monks need to have their race optimized to be one.

[qube]

So they made the githzerai a balanced race instead of an OP one?you're gravely missing the point. I'm talking about githzerai and how they synergize with monks -- which is not the same thing as game balance.

Change their stat boosts to +6 on intelligence / +6 charisma, and they still would have the same problems - despite them being OP.


Not all Githzerai are monks and not all monks need to have their race optimized to be one.True, but likewise, not all Half orcs are barbarians and not all barbarians need to have their race optimized to be one.

However, unlike the Githzerai, the half-orc synergizes quite well with barbarians. both primairy & secondairy stat boost, better survivability (boon for any frontliner), bonus on crit (synergizes quite well with the higher crit chance for reckless attack)

There's a difference between something that needs to be, and something that geared toward a certain class/race. The race that one would expect to be barbarian, works well with barbarian.

The race that one would expect to be monk, unless I'm missing something, is not.

[M Placeholder]

That being said, if Mystics are ever released then they'll be fantastic Mystics. When I think of a Githzerai, I think of them as more Mystical type monks (Mystic) than ninja type Monks (DnD monks) anyway.

In the 3.5 Psionics Handbook, Githzerai was one of the playable races in that, and when I think of races with psionic power in D&D, the 'zerai are right alongside the races from Dark Sun as the quintessential users of Psionics.

It also links into their Outer Planar home being a place of the mind and of belief, and the Githerzerai imposing their will to mold potions of the plane.

[mephnick]

They're quite a strong race. Maybe fairly average for monks, but not within the realm of "underwhelming". They're one of two races in the entire system to get +2 WIS.

You should maybe change the title and add "for monks."

[qube]

They're one of two races in the entire system to get +2 WIS.true - they possibly could make good druids & clerics ... which is quite ironic, as their concept fits neither
druid seems quite odd choice for a chaos-plane being, which lives by bringing law into chaos
clerics seems even more out of character. while acknowledging the existance of more powerful beings, a life in servitude of one ... is not something one would associate with the free-fought ex-slave race. They are usually seen as one of the most agnostic races in Faerun

[darknite]

Again, racial features do not need to encapsulate 'iconic' roles. They get a great Wis boost, which is excellent for a Monk. All gith get the bonus to int, probably because of their psionic capability. Other abilities are really nice, too, even if you don't play a monk.

[mephnick]

And with point buy you're still at 16 DEX, 14 CON and 18 WIS at level 4 with an +1/+1 ASI. That's pretty decent for what the game assumes, unless you're used to OP rolling tables where you can start with 20's.

[youtellatale]

Frankly it looks like the race functions just fine but it isn't what you wanted it to be. I wouldn't call that underwhelming at all, this race makes great druids & clerics. Maybe they aren't the best monks for optimization but really to me that's just a cool opportunity for backstory and bio. Certainly no sense complaining that a new race did not turn out exactly how you wanted it for a specific character build idea you had.

[qube]

Other abilities are really nice, too, even if you don't play a monk.It's great that a race can be used for other classes - but should it not have good synergy with it's iconic class?


And with point buy you're still at 16 DEX, 14 CON and 18 WIS at level 4 with an +1/+1 ASI. That's pretty decent for what the game assumes, unless you're used to OP rolling tables where you can start with 20's. usually? standard array. So ... 15 DEX, 13 CON, 16 WIS. As I said,
"good wis boost, but no dex boost. OK, I can live with that, but still, a +2 on the secondairy stat seems like a very bear minimum.
"

(and sure, you can say that with your first ASI you can raise that. ... but that's kind of a meager argument as the elf archer on the other side of the table takes sharp shooter...)


this race makes great druids & clerics

Certainly no sense complaining that a new race did not turn out exactly how you wanted it for a specific character build idea you had.You might have missed that monks are the iconic class for the Githzerai (and that's it's quite atypical for this race to be druid or cleric). To dismis the monk that as "a specific character build idea you had" Is not really intelectually honest - It's not like I'm complaining about the synergy between half orc & wizard.

[darknite]

It's great that a race can be used for other classes - but should it not have good synergy with it's iconic class?

It does. +2 Wisdom.

You could say the same thing about elves. Why do they get training in long sword but no Strength boost?! Oh, the huge manatee! :smallwink:

This is how Wizards decided to work the class. They polled and tested and here it is, warts and all.

[youtellatale]

It's great that a race can be used for other classes - but should it not have good synergy with it's iconic class?

usually? standard array. So ... 15 DEX, 13 CON, 16 WIS. As I said,
"good wis boost, but no dex boost. OK, I can live with that, but still, a +2 on the secondairy stat seems like a very bear minimum.
"

(and sure, you can say that with your first ASI you can raise that. ... but that's kind of a meager argument as the elf archer on the other side of the table takes sharp shooter...)

You might have missed that monks are the iconic class for the Githzerai (and that's it's quite atypical for this race to be druid or cleric). To dismis the monk that as "a specific character build idea you had" Is not really intelectually honest - It's not like I'm complaining about the synergy between half orc & wizard.

In MToF monasteries are noted twice in the Githzerai description. There is far more information hinting toward psionics & arcane practitioners rather than monks in the text for this edition of the Githzerai. I get that in past editions things were one way but this edition sits on its own. Druids used to have pets in other editions, but that doesn't mean I have to have one and any druid without a pet is a lesser version. It just means that things change. Cleric seems to fit somewhat here, especially the arcane domain. The idea you have about iconic race-class matchup doesn't exist in this edition as you had it imagined.

[dejarnjc]

Random question but when did Githzerai stop using weapons? My earliest encounter with Githzerai was as a young kid in the Planescape Torment game and Dak'kon and he famously used a "karach" blade. Was that just a Planescape Torment thing? Or was it also in AD&D? Doesn't seem like it was in 4e either. I did word searches on the Monster Manual and MTOF and didn't find it so presumably it's not a 5e thing either. Always liked the concept though.

[Dyndrilliac]

I was really upset that they chose to remove the one feature that made the UA Githzerai unique - the +1 to AC - for a ****ty ability that combines two racial traits from Halfling/Elf (advantage vs saves against fear and charm) despite that ability being made almost completely obsolete by the 7th level Monk ability Stillness of Mind, which is the primary class for which Githzerai are supposedly suited. I was strongly considering playing a Githzerai Kensei. I won't be doing that now as a direct result of WotC making the Githzerai an indistinct also-ran. I'm pretty salty about the lack of variety for racial traits in general in D&D 5, and this isn't an improvement as far as I'm concerned.

IMHO, every race needs a class for which it is optimal. If race X can never be the best at ANYTHING, it's a poorly designed race. Likewise, if a race can be the best at EVERYTHING (looking at you, Variant Human and Half-Elf!), it's a poorly designed race. Sure, people can play a race or class "off-type." You can do that. But by not providing an actual incentive to do that, by only providing mechanical incentives to play "on-type," then that hurts character diversity. Humans are natural optimizers. We are all Pavlov's dog. Positive reinforcement all but guarantees that the vast majority of participants in some arbitrary activity will do a given behavior. That's just human nature. Pretending that isn't true just seems stupid to me.

[Pex]

I was really upset that they chose to remove the one feature that made the UA Githzerai unique - the +1 to AC - for a ****ty ability that combines two racial traits from Halfling/Elf (advantage vs saves against fear and charm) despite that ability being made almost completely obsolete by the 7th level Monk ability Stillness of Mind, which is the primary class for which Githzerai are supposedly suited. I was strongly considering playing a Githzerai Kensei. I won't be doing that now as a direct result of WotC making the Githzerai an indistinct also-ran. I'm pretty salty about the lack of variety for racial traits in general in D&D 5, and this isn't an improvement as far as I'm concerned.

IMHO, every race needs a class for which it is optimal. If race X can never be the best at ANYTHING, it's a poorly designed race. Likewise, if a race can be the best at EVERYTHING (looking at you, Variant Human and Half-Elf!), it's a poorly designed race. Sure, people can play a race or class "off-type." You can do that. But by not providing an actual incentive to do that, by only providing mechanical incentives to play "on-type," then that hurts character diversity. Humans are natural optimizers. We are all Pavlov's dog. Positive reinforcement all but guarantees that the vast majority of participants in some arbitrary activity will do a given behavior. That's just human nature. Pretending that isn't true just seems stupid to me.

Not a new argument but that doesn't make it any less worthy. I put the fault on Point Buy than the race and more so of 5E's implementation of it. If you roll for scores and are lucky enough to get a 16+ you can put that in Dex and let the +2 Wis compensate a lower roll if you value Dex more for a monk. Ideally you'd want to be lucky to roll at minimum 16, 14, 14 for 16 DX 14 CO 16 WI, if you believe in the Adventurer's Tax of 14 CO. Dice rolling has its own issues, so it's not an easy fix either, but it can make non-stereotypical race/class combos work mathematically.

[Dyndrilliac]

Not a new argument but that doesn't make it any less worthy. I put the fault on Point Buy than the race and more so of 5E's implementation of it. If you roll for scores and are lucky enough to get a 16+ you can put that in Dex and let the +2 Wis compensate a lower roll if you value Dex more for a monk. Ideally you'd want to be lucky to roll at minimum 16, 14, 14 for 16 DX 14 CO 16 WI, if you believe in the Adventurer's Tax of 14 CO. Dice rolling has its own issues, so it's not an easy fix either, but it can make non-stereotypical race/class combos work mathematically.

A race (and this really extends to all player options) should be useful for something at every table. Not necessarily the same thing at every table, but if there is even a single table for which a given race is totally 100% useless, then the designers have failed. The game should be playable for every race at every table regardless of statgen. If you have to do some dance where you manufacture some arbitrary unlikely event in order to justify the design of a player option, you've objectively failed at the design of that player option.

[Smitty Wesson]

Random question but when did Githzerai stop using weapons? My earliest encounter with Githzerai was as a young kid in the Planescape Torment game and Dak'kon and he famously used a "karach" blade. Was that just a Planescape Torment thing? Or was it also in AD&D? Doesn't seem like it was in 4e either. I did word searches on the Monster Manual and MTOF and didn't find it so presumably it's not a 5e thing either. Always liked the concept though.

My understanding is that Dak'kon was written to be an unusual Githzerai, but since he was the only named Githzerai that anyone remembered, the race was re-written to resemble him. That re-writing included associating the race with monks, and since this was post 3e that meant making the race mostly unarmed (presumably since the monk part took primacy over the sword).

[Pex]

A race (and this really extends to all player options) should be useful for something at every table. Not necessarily the same thing at every table, but if there is even a single table for which a given race is totally 100% useless, then the designers have failed. The game should be playable for every race at every table regardless of statgen. If you have to do some dance where you manufacture some arbitrary unlikely event in order to justify the design of a player option, you've objectively failed at the design of that player option.

Then the githzerai don't fail the test. The +2 WI alone is helpful to make clerics and druids. It's also a help for monk, you just can't get double 16s in DEX and WIS at 1st level with Point Buy. It catches up at 4th level which doesn't take a long time, not counting for real world time waiting for the next game session. A 1st level githzerai monk wielding a quarterstaff is doing 1d8 + 2 + 1d4 + 2 damage potential per round. That's not The Suck just because the human monk is 1d8 + 3 + 1d4 + 3. It could be aesthetically displeasing to see +2 instead of +3 on the character sheet, but it's not take your ball and go home.

[Tanarii]

My understanding is that Dak'kon was written to be an unusual Githzerai, but since he was the only named Githzerai that anyone remembered, the race was re-written to resemble him. That re-writing included associating the race with monks, and since this was post 3e that meant making the race mostly unarmed (presumably since the monk part took primacy over the sword).

Githzerai have had Monks among them since 1e Fiend Folio, where they first appeared.
The same class limitations apply t o githzerai as apply t o githyanki, though some githzerai have been known to specialise as monks and the githzerai have no counterpart to the githyanki anti-paladin class
&
(Lair) The chance of a character with monkish abilities is only 5%, but if one is encountered it will be of 6th-8th experience level since the monks' main training takes place in the githzerai fortresses.
&
(Outside Lair) If a monk is present (10% chance) it will replace one of the lower-level githzerai and will be of the 6th-8th experience level.

"The same class limitations" meant Fighters, Magic Users, or Fighter/Magic Users. They were also all powerful in psionics.

2e, which Planescape & Torment were a part of, switched that to Thieves instead of Monks. From what I can find, Dak'kon was a Zerth, a Fighter/Mage, not a Monk.

[qube]

In MToF monasteries are noted twice in the Githzerai description.
...
The idea you have about iconic race-class matchup doesn't exist in this edition as you had it imagined.You aren't too familiar with Githzerai, are you?
Firstly, one of the "two" mentions, is that the fortresses they live in in the astral plane, are monestairies.

Secondly, you do realize that Zerth is not short for Githzerai, but is what a githzerai monk who follows the teachings of Zerthimon (more information on that in the D&D 5e MM).

You are litterly trying to arguing Zerths aren't a thing in 5e.


Random question but when did Githzerai stop using weapons?
...
Always liked the concept though.Dunno. I can suggest the Kensai subsclass for monks - as they gain proficiency in a weapon which they subsequensially can use as monk weapon.

As Dyndrilliac noted, I too was looking into a Githzerai Kensai - one who uses a Githyanki Silver Sword (which, yes, obviously means he'll get hunted by them)

[Unoriginal]

If not having +1 to a kind of dice rolls is enough to turn you off a character concept, you were never interested in the character concept, only in the +1.

And it's ok, love what you love. But don't pretend you were interested by what you're not interested.

[Dyndrilliac]

If not having +1 to a kind of dice rolls is enough to turn you off a character concept, you were never interested in the character concept, only in the +1.

And it's ok, love what you love. But don't pretend you were interested by what you're not interested.

That depends on what you consider to be the concept. To me, the concept was "capitalize on the racial AC bonus in combination with Agile Parry" - which means that the unique racial trait they previously possessed but no longer do was crucial to the concept.

[Unoriginal]

That depends on what you consider to be the concept. To me, the concept was "capitalize on the racial AC bonus in combination with Agile Parry" - which means that the unique racial trait they previously possessed but no longer do was crucial to the concept.

That's not a character concept. It's a mechanical build concept.

[qube]

If not having +1 to a kind of dice rolls is enough to turn you off a character concept, you were never interested in the character concept, only in the +1.

And it's ok, love what you love. But don't pretend you were interested by what you're not interested.That can also be turned around: Considering the propositions of druid & cleric - despite it directly clashing with the race's flavor - are only here because of it's +2 WIS ... which amounts also to the +1.


In the end, you can't deny that that having a race that you'd expect, but doens't, synergize mechanically can be a turn off to play a certain character. Idealy, it shouldn't, but human psychology is far from ideal.

[Unoriginal]

That can also be turned around: Considering the propositions of druid & cleric - despite it directly clashing with the race's flavor - are only here because of it's +2 WIS ... which amounts also to the +1.

I'm not saying that people who say "well bonus in WIS so go for WIS caster" are any more interested in the character concept than those who say "no bonus in DEX so shouldn't go for Monk".




In the end, you can't deny that that having a race that you'd expect, but doens't, synergize mechanically can be a turn off to play a certain character. Idealy, it shouldn't, but human psychology is far from ideal.

I can't deny that something not meeting one's expectation is a bummer, but I can say that if it's enough of a bummer to make you drop the concept, you weren't really interested in the concept, only in the expected power.

Same way that if someone claims they want to play an Elf Barbarian but drop it for Half-Orc Barbarian the moment they see the Elf has not the best synergy with the class, contrarily to what they were expecting, they were not really interested in playing an Elf Barbarian.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In the end, you can't deny that that having a race that you'd expect, but doens't, synergize mechanically can be a turn off to play a certain character. Idealy, it shouldn't, but human psychology is far from ideal.
Honestly, this sort of thing is why I advocate de-coupling ability scores from races-- give everyone +1/+1 or something to the stats of their choice (or remove Abilities altogether (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills&p=21301902)). That puts the focus back on flavor and special abilities, where it belongs.

(Although that doesn't entirely fix this particular quibble; Githzerai special features are also generally lacking compared to their 'yanki cousins, much less other races.)

[qube]

I can't deny that something not meeting one's expectation is a bummer, but I can say that if it's enough of a bummer to make you drop the concept, you weren't really interested in the conceptWhy is that? I can be (and in fact, usually am) really interested in multiple character concepts. And when aspects of one of those characters ends up a disappointment, I drop it in favor for another character that doens't have that problem.

I was really looking forward to playing a Zerth. I had a background ready, searched what the teachings of Zerthimon were, even designed a temple (heavily influenced by the Protos from Starcraft), etc... before the book came out - so you can't claim I was in it just for the mechanics, or that I wasn't "really interested".

But with the disappointment they present - I'm probbably gonna make a shadar-kai memory hunter, or lizard folk wanderer. Now, perhaps your brain works differently then mine - and that's OK; but please don't start judging other people because they show different behaviors then you.

[dejarnjc]

I was really looking forward to playing a Zerth. I had a background ready, searched what the teachings of Zerthimon were, even designed a temple (heavily influenced by the Protos from Starcraft), etc... before the book came out - so you can't claim I was in it just for the mechanics, or that I wasn't "really interested".

On the plus side, Zerth are basically described as being priests so playing a Cleric would fit thematically. I think a knowledge cleric has some pretty good psionicish spells as well.

[qube]

Grod_The_Giant solid point. I've seen systems (I think pathfinder did this, but never played it, so I'm not sure), where your racial abilities could depend on the class you took.


On the plus side, Zerth are basically described as being priests so playing a Cleric would fit thematically. I think a knowledge cleric has some pretty good psionicish spells as well.Zerth are verbatum described are skilled monks dedicated to the teachings of Zerthimon. Hence the name Zerth

They only "fit" cleric as both cleric & monk veer toward the Acolyte (or even Cloistered Scholar) background ... but both ability & flavor wise, Zerth ain't clerics.

Zerthimon does not grant spells, Zerths aren't favored by some god, Zerths are far from full spellcasters (they have some innate psionics, but Gish (githyanki multiclass fighter/mages (prob. eldrich knights in 5E) ) are bigger spellcasters then Zerths are), they aren't the guys with armor and shield on the battlefield, etc ...

.

Don't get me wrong - I get the solution. If monks don't work, take something else.
But if that's the case, it would be far easier to multiclass a level of monk (or 3 for kensai), and then to straight into a martial class.
It just feels ... Char Op-y to do so.

[Unoriginal]

Qube, pure Monk Githzerai are more than fine.

If you have a problem with them not being a DEX race, then it's already an optimizer problem. Why would something that feels "Char Op-y" be an issue to you when the reason one would do that is because the Githzerai pure Monk doesn't feel optimized enough?

Or is the problem that you don't like when you're reminded you're doing optimization?

You can't disregard an option as being underwhelming due to optimizer's concerns and then reject the option that answer the optimizer's concerns because it's the option an optimizer would take.

[Waazraath]

I expected them to be THE monk race. But instead ... ya know ... I don't even know if I would put them in the top 5.

Agree? Disagree? Feel I missed something?

I think you're correct. It's weird and bad for the versimilitude when the fluff doesn't match the crunch. A race that has a history with monk as the most common class, mostly living in actual monestaries (in limbo), itn't very well suited to be a monk. And no, an increase in only one of the two needed stats and hardly other relevant abilites isn't 'well suited'. It's not the first time 5e has this problem, see for example the Hobgoblin witch are an excellent wizard race, for a race having mostly warrior types. It's simply inconsistent. As for the Githzerai, it also quite a bad translation from earlier editions. Over all, I'm really happy how 5e does that, but if I look at a gitzerai from an earlier edition, 5e's take is (also in that respect) a dissapointment.

[qube]

Qube, pure Monk Githzerai are more than fine.

If you have a problem with them not being a DEX raceI have no clue why you think that's the case, as I never claimed that. In fact, I specifcally noted that, while better stats exist, "I can live with that"

The problem is there's not much of a "wow" factor & in fact the reverse is true, with abilities that get overwritten by taking the monk class
bonus against charm & fear? if there's one class who doesn't fear those, it's the monks (high wis & proficient in wis saves, and even an ability that removes those)
You're the guy who can effortlessly, crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon style, get anywere?
Lets just give you mage hand to grab those items in hard to reach places.
...
If it wasn't for the flavor - I'm not sure I'd even consider Githzerai for a monk. And that's quite sad.


Or is the problem that you don't like when you're reminded you're doing optimization?No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features.

Are you trying to claim "fun and interesting" is the same thing as "optimized"? I mean, you're free to have that opinion, but it sure as heck isn't mine.

[Unoriginal]

I have no clue why you think that's the case, as I never claimed that. In fact, I specifcally noted that, while better stats exist, "I can live with that"

The problem is there's not much of a "wow" factor & in fact the reverse is true, with abilities that get overwritten by taking the monk class
bonus against charm & fear? if there's one class who doesn't fear those, it's the monks (high wis & proficient in wis saves, and even an ability that removes those)
You're the guy who can effortlessly, crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon style, get anywere?
Lets just give you mage hand to grab those items in hard to reach places.
...
If it wasn't for the flavor - I'm not sure I'd even consider Githzerai for a monk. And that's quite sad.

No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features.

Are you trying to claim "fun and interesting" is the same thing as "optimized"? I mean, you're free to have that opinion, but it sure as heck isn't mine.

No, "fun and interesting" has nothing to do with "optimized".

What I struggle to understand is what about the Githzerai Monk isn't fun or interesting to you. They're not any less fun or interesting to me that a Dragonborn, Half-Orc, Kobold, Wood Elf, Hill Dwarf, or whatever other race Monk.

Given that the only reason people have given to not find then fun or interesting is their (lack of) mechanical benefits, I don't see how it's not a "class not optimized" kind of """"issue"""".


Sorry if I'm dense, but perhaps you can try to explain?

[qube]

[quote]Given that the only reason people have given to not find then fun or interesting is their (lack of) mechanical benefits, I don't see how it's not a "class not optimized" kind of """"issue"""".because there's a difference between mechanics and optimized.
The later is a use of the former to improve or maximize power.

Take the rock gnome. I *LOVE* tricket - even though I have never ever used it in combat. My gnome has has one of those 80's zippos to light his sigarets, and has a metalic cat he keeps on petting like a bond villan. (which in facts makes him weaker, as aside from carrying capacity, he never starts combat with his weapons drawn)

Oppositely - you seem to be "OMG! you want a racial feature ! that's opimisation !!!!!"

No. Of the two of us, you're the one obsessed with power of the feature.
You're the one stuck in "You want extra mechancis --> you want more power --> you're optimising"

I want interesting & fun mechanics, even if they don't improve its power.

I want to be incentivised to play Zerth, because I also get incentivised to play other races/classes. That incentive doesn't need to be power - but it needs to be there.

[Unoriginal]

Then, let me ask you, what kind of feature would you want?

Personally, I find the image of two Githzerai Monks sparring, with one of them blocking a mighty punch to the face that would have hit with nothing but the power of their mind, to be very fun and interesting.

But what do I know, I might just be an easily impressed idiot.

[strangebloke]

So I looked it up...

Are they better than a wood elf for being a monk? No. But they aren't far behind, either. They catch up in AC by level 4, which is by far the most important thing. Shield is a great spell for a monk, and mage hand and detect thoughts are both thematic and provide a lot of utility.

Are they better than a half elf or v human or hill dwarf as a monk? I'd say they're about even after level four. The spell casting is as good as the half elf's proficiencies and is roughly comparable to one of the better vuman feats you could get: magic initiate. Hill dwarves are strange monks but over all I wouldn't consider them to be stronger than the githzerai.

Half elves do have dark vision, which is brutally unfair.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then, let me ask you, what kind of feature would you want?.
One that works more than once a day?

A race's flavor is important, but the mechanics are what sells it. With a well-designed race, the two reinforce each other. Half-orcs are tough and savage, and so they have Relentless Endurance and Brutal Critical. Yuan-Ti are evil snake people, so they can talk to snakes and use poison and hypnotic magic.

'Zerzi...don't. Invisible Mage Hand is neat, but it's not really defining, and the other spells aren't usable often enough to feel important--and other that that, they don't get much. No ability to fight without weapons or armor. No kung-fu leaps or balancing.

[Unoriginal]

One that works more than once a day?

A race's flavor is important, but the mechanics are what sells it. With a well-designed race, the two reinforce each other. Half-orcs are tough and savage, and so they have Relentless Endurance and Brutal Critical. Yuan-Ti are evil snake people, so they can talk to snakes and use poison and hypnotic magic.

'Zerzi...don't. Invisible Mage Hand is neat, but it's not really defining, and the other spells aren't usable often enough to feel important--and other that that, they don't get much. No ability to fight without weapons or armor. No kung-fu leaps or balancing.

Both the Half-Orc's Restless Endurance and the Yuan-Ti's hypnotic magic only work once a day.

So I take it you'd have wanted the Githzerai to have an at-will power other than being resistant to some effects and moving things with the power of their mind? And that you'd rather have a different power than Detect Thought?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Both the Half-Orc's Restless Endurance and the Yuan-Ti's hypnotic magic only work once a day.

So I take it you'd have wanted the Githzerai to have an at-will power other than being resistant to some effects and moving things with the power of their mind? And that you'd rather have a different power than Detect Thought?
I don't know their lore too well, but if the idea is to have a monk-esq psychic race, I'd say.... Hmm. The invisible Mage Hand is good, but I'd probably also throw in a "when you Dash, you may jump up to half the distance without a check" and a weakened unarmed combat shtick (say, unarmed strikes are Wis-based and deal d4 damage, and you can set your AC to 12+Dex when unarmored). Maybe also proficiency in Acrobatics, or Advantage on checks made to balance. That gets you a fun kung-fu monk feel that doesn't become totally redundant when you take Monk levels.

I dunno. Some of the Volo's races were on the strong side, but most of the Mordukain's ones look kind of weak. Too many 1/rest abilities and not enough ongoing stuff.

[youtellatale]

Post edited after MM reference noted. Changed my thoughts here.



Zerth are verbatum described are skilled monks dedicated to the teachings of Zerthimon. Hence the name Zerth

They only "fit" cleric as both cleric & monk veer toward the Acolyte (or even Cloistered Scholar) background ... but both ability & flavor wise, Zerth ain't clerics.

Zerthimon does not grant spells, Zerths aren't favored by some god, Zerths are far from full spellcasters (they have some innate psionics, but Gish (githyanki multiclass fighter/mages (prob. eldrich knights in 5E) ) are bigger spellcasters then Zerths are), they aren't the guys with armor and shield on the battlefield, etc ...


Well now this is a bit of a poo-fest because the descriptions from one book to another do not line up. In that way you are definitely right. Zerths in MToF:
"Zerths are similar to what other races would call priests, although githzerai don't have a religion as such, beyond their admiration for Zerthimon and Menyar-Ag" page 93 MToF
Zerths in MM:
"Skilled githzerai monks that best exemplify the teachings and principles of Zerthimon are called zerths." page 159 MM

I see an issue here in that the two areas do not line up, which is disappointing. Perhaps some more forethought would have helped the designers here. In saying that, monsters tend to function differently than PCs (though the racial description in the MM seems to talk about the race not just as enemies). Gotta say I think you have a bit of a quandary in that they are described as monks IF you are defining your character as a Zerth.

All that said - you can still play a very good monk with the Githzerai as they are in MToF. Not getting any bonus to DEX is an optimization issue, nothing more.

[dejarnjc]

So now here's the part where I'm curious about where you are getting your information. In the book I own Zerths are described as such:
"Zerths are similar to what other races would call priests, although githzerai don't have a religion as such, beyond their admiration for Zerthimon and Menyar-Ag" page 93 MToF

I am not sure what you are talking about that they are described "verbatim" as skilled monks. Even in the Githzerai Groups section on page 98 monks and zerths are specifically called out as separate rolls. Zerths seem much more like clerics than monks based on the book's description. If you are going off of past editions and the materials therein then I think we have found the root of your problem.


To be fair the MM does say "Skilled githzerai monks that best exemplify the teachings and principles of Zerthimon are called zerths.".

The Stat block does semi-resemble a PC monk in the sense that they get psychic defense (same as unarmored defense) and powerful unarmed strikes BUT it does differ by having three 1st level spells per day and one 7th level spell.

Personally, I think the PC Monk does a poor representation of a Githzerai Zerth flavor-wise but mechanically is probably closest. If they ever do a pisonic sub-class for Monks then they would be a perfect fit.

A knowledge cleric makes good flavor for a Githzerai Anarch (in training) but is poor at matching mechanically.

[youtellatale]

snip

Good catch - edited my post to reflect.

[Unoriginal]

The thing about Githzerai Monks is that their lore -in this edition at least- is not "they're the best Monks ever", it's "they are Monks with some impressive mental powers, capable to stabilize the Limbo and make Archmages flee if concentrated enough."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not all monks (contemplation-oriented dwellers in monasteries) are Monks (game class). Just like not all clergy (servants of a god) are Clerics (game class).

[Dyndrilliac]

All this bickering over optimization and what is "fun and interesting" really misses the point: There was nothing at all wrong with the UA Githzerai. They still made objectively weaker (mechanically) Monks than say, for example, Wood Elves or Ghostwise Halflings. The outrage is not that the Githzerai in MToF doesn't make the optimal Monk (although, IMHO, they should). The outrage is that they make an objectively worse Monk than the UA version, which already at-best made sub-par Monks.

[qube]

Personally, I find the image of two Githzerai Monks sparring, with one of them blocking a mighty punch to the face that would have hit with nothing but the power of their mind, to be very fun and interesting.

But what do I know, I might just be an easily impressed idiot.No, but you're not being honest with yourself: Why do you find two dragonborn monks sparring not fun/interesting? You'll probbably claim you didn't say that. Yet that's the point you seem to completely ignore: to requote myself:

"No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features."

When one race has them and the other does not - the latter is missing something.


Then, let me ask you, what kind of feature would you want?something that makes Zerth fun to play. And if you're afraid that even a small power boost is a powerboost, you can kick out the advantage vs charm & firghten (which is also a small power boost, as monks never are really immune)


Well now this is a bit of a poo-fest because the descriptions from one book to another do not line up. In that way you are definitely right. Zerths in MToF:
"Zerths are similar to what other races would call priests, although githzerai don't have a religion as such, beyond their admiration for Zerthimon and Menyar-Ag" page 93 MToF
Zerths in MM:
"Skilled githzerai monks that best exemplify the teachings and principles of Zerthimon are called zerths." page 159 MM

I see an issue here in that the two areas do not line up, which is disappointing.the thing is, they do line up. D&D makes a distinction between priest & cleric. (ref Divine Agents under Cleric int he PHB). Priest is an in-game job, Cleric or monk is a game mechanical class.


The thing about Githzerai Monks is that their lore -in this edition at least- is not "they're the best Monks ever", it's "they are Monks with some impressive mental powers, capable to stabilize the Limbo and make Archmages flee if concentrated enough."Who here is arguing that they should be "the best" monks "ever"?

Half orcs in their lore are not the best barbarians ever either. Half orcs make very good barbarians non the less.
Zerths have always been iconic for the Githzerai. Trying to downplay that is silly.

[Unoriginal]

No, but you're not being honest with yourself: Why do you find two dragonborn monks sparring not fun/interesting? You'll probbably claim you didn't say that. Yet that's the point you seem to completely ignore: to requote myself:

"No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features."

When one race has them and the other does not - the latter is missing something.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Two Dragonborn monks sparring would be awesome. Scaly martial artist dude who can shout elemental power at their enemy? Hell, sign me up.

[Unoriginal]

He never said that or even got close to implying it.

You tend to do that a lot, I've noticed. Read things in to what others say that just isn't there.

You should stop doing that, it undermines the times you do make good points.

I mean I literally said the contrary:



What I struggle to understand is what about the Githzerai Monk isn't fun or interesting to you. They're not any less fun or interesting to me that a Dragonborn, Half-Orc, Kobold, Wood Elf, Hill Dwarf, or whatever other race Monk.



Personally, I find the image of two Githzerai Monks sparring, with one of them blocking a mighty punch to the face that would have hit with nothing but the power of their mind, to be very fun and interesting.

[qube]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Two Dragonborn monks sparring would be awesome. Scaly martial artist dude who can shout elemental power at their enemy? Hell, sign me up.That's exaclty my point - which I why I immediately follow tht up with " You'll probbably claim you didn't say that". I was making a point, in the rest of the post.


"Yet that's the point you seem to completely ignore: to requote myself:

"No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features."

When one race has them and the other does not - the latter is missing something."

The part you, perhaps ironically, ignored. You compare characters in a void


Race has fluff
--> Race is fun & intersting to play.

I don't. Every character has fluff. So from a comparive point of view, that's not an argument


X has fluff but poor mechanics
Y has fluff & fun & interesting mechanics
--> X is more fun & interesting to play the Y

It's not rocket sience.

[Unoriginal]

That's exaclty my point - which I why I immediately follow tht up with " You'll probbably claim you didn't say that". I was making a point, in the rest of the post.


"Yet that's the point you seem to completely ignore: to requote myself:

"No, the problem is that I would rather play a character with fun and interesting features."

When one race has them and the other does not - the latter is missing something."

You compare characters in a void


Race has fluff
--> Race is fun & intersting to play.

I don't. Every character has fluff. So from a comparive point of view, that's not an argument


X has fluff but poor mechanics
Y has fluff & fun & interesting mechanics
--> X is more fun & interesting to play the Y

It's not rocket sience.

I don't see how Dragonborn Monks have poor mechanics, or not fun/interesting ones.

[qube]

I don't see how Dragonborn Monks have poor mechanics, or not fun/interesting ones.... because it's not? the dragonborn would be the positive example. It's Zerths that are the problem

[Unoriginal]

... because it's not? the dragonborn would be the positive example. It's Zerths that are the problem

Then let me reiterate: I don't see how the Githzerai Monks are any less mechanically interesting or fun than the Dragonborn Monks.

[qube]

Then let me reiterate: I don't see how the Githzerai Monks are any less mechanically interesting or fun than the Dragonborn Monks.If you're unable to see how getting an extra resistance against something that already isn't a problem, is mechanically less fun or interestring, then getting a breathweapon attack, then I'm sorry, but there's not much I can do for you.

[Unoriginal]

If you're unable to see how getting an extra resistance against something that already isn't a problem, is mechanically less fun or interestring, then getting a breathweapon attack, then I'm sorry, but there's not much I can do for you.

So, having a breath attack and an elemental damage resistance is fun and interesting, but having advantage on saves against effects that eat up your action to dissipate (meaning that the Githzerai Monk will have more actions when confronted by those effects than Monks of most of other species) and the capacity to move things with your mind, the capacity to protect yourself from attacks with your psionic might and the capacity to read people's thoughts is not.


Ok.

[Tanarii]

Is not really intelectually honest


No, but you're not being honest with yourself:
You do know that claiming dishonesty is a time-honored dishonest debate tactic, right? The modern version seems to be "intellectual dishonesty".

[qube]

So, having a breath attack and an elemental damage resistance is fun and interesting, but having advantage on saves against effects that eat up your action to dissipate You forgot to mention that it's also usually wisdom saves, which will be high for a monk (secondairy stat) - if not even higher for a Zerth (as it's a +2 WIS race) - and have proficiency in.

Looking at the whole picture? Compared to lighting your enemies on fire?

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y


You do know that claiming dishonesty is a time-honored dishonest debate tactic, right? The modern version seems to be "intellectual dishonesty".Do you disagree that refering to the iconic class for a race, "a specific character build idea you had", is underplaying the situation?

[Unoriginal]

You forgot to mention that it's also usually wisdom saves, which will be high for a monk (secondairy stat) - if not even higher for a Zerth (as it's a +2 WIS race) - and have proficiency in.

So you're saying that it's a bad thing the Githyanki Monk is even better at one of the thing the Monk is good at?




Looking at the whole picture? Compared to lighting your enemies on fire?

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y

Alright. Fire breath is great, psionic powers are doubleplusnogood. Qube has decreeted it.

Nevermind that others find it fun or whatever. Qube shall not abide by it, and if you disagree qube cannot do much for you.

Guess I learned a valuable lesson, though: when someone ask for your opinion on this forum, just state yours then leave. I admit it was not smart of me to continue this discussion.

[qube]

So you're saying that it's a bad thing the Githyanki Monk is even better at one of the thing the Monk is good at?AGAIN - as though I'm talking to a wall - that's NOT a *BAD* thing - but there are a lot of things that are *MORE* fun & interesting then, then making something that is already not a real problem, really not a real problem.



Nevermind that others find it fun or whatever. Qube shall not abide by it, and if you disagree qube cannot do much for you.I dunno ... Should I now be sorry that I don't force my defintion of fun on you? or that I don't let you walk all over me and let you force your definition of fun onto me? Mate, you are the one who said


What I struggle to understand is what about the Githzerai Monk isn't fun or interesting to you.
...
Given that the only reason people have given to not find then fun or interesting is their (lack of) mechanical benefits

That is what I'm doing is explaining it to you - Not trying to convince you that what I see as fun and interesting is The One Right Way Anyone Should Reason.

But at some point, an unwillingness or incapability to understand on your part has to be met with "sorry, but I can't explain it any better"

[Unoriginal]

I dunno ... Should I now be sorry that I don't force my defintion of fun on you? or that I don't let you walk all over me and let you force your definition of fun onto me? Mate, you are the one who said


What I struggle to understand is what about the Githzerai Monk isn't fun or interesting to you.
...
Given that the only reason people have given to not find then fun or interesting is their (lack of) mechanical benefits

That is what I'm doing is explaining it to you - Not trying to convince you that what I see as fun and interesting is The One Right Way Anyone Should Reason.

But at some point, an unwillingness or incapability to understand on your part has to be met with "sorry, but I can't explain it any better"

Fair enough. "It's subjective and I can't explain why I like X better than Y aside than personal tastes" is a legit answer.

Much better than saying that I'm the one obsessed with power, or that I'm not being honest with myself for finding the Githyanki interesting, that I only find the Githyanki interesting because of fluff divorced from mechanics, or that "there's not much [you] can do for [me]" if I don't see how a fire breath is better than psychic powers.

When one make statement about things like "fun" or "interesting", it can very easily start sounding as if they're declaring objectivity on those topics.

In any case, I want to apologize. Regardless of our positions or of what we consider fun or not, I shouldn't have kept egging you on when you clearly didn't enjoy the discussion, and doing so was not a correct conduct. So, sincerely, I apologize.

[Tanarii]

Do you disagree that refering to the iconic class for a race, "a specific character build idea you had", is underplaying the situation?
Not related to my point that the term "intellectual dishonesty" is a debate tactic. It's a rhetorical trick of attacking the other party in the debate under the guise of attacking the argument, without actually doing so. Not only that, the person doing it often incorrectly thinks they are actually attacking the argument. Which is the reason I'm pointing it out. I figured you might not even realize it. (ie I'm not trying to attack you.)

[Sception]

As Monks? Yeah, they're a bit underwhelming, compared to their reputation. Similar to how Shadar-Kai are a bit underwhelming as Raven Queen (UA) Warlocks. Not 'unplayable' in either case, but far from the exemplars of those respective classes one might have otherwise expected. Awkward and kind of annoying that the crunch and fluff aren't lining up perfectly in these particular cases, but sometimes that happens.

[qube]

Fair enough. "It's subjective and I can't explain why I like X better than Y aside than personal tastes" is a legit answer.well ... make that "I already presumed you comprehended fun & interesting are subjective, but after trying to explain my view half a dozen times, it's clear that it's futile"

[Rowan Wolf]

Do you have similar issues/feelings about drow not being mechanically suited for cleric when those that is kind of a big deal for the race in the realms?

[Sception]

Do you have similar issues/feelings about drow not being mechanically suited for cleric when those that is kind of a big deal for the race in the realms?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do. I little bit, anyway. That's softened a bit by drow clerics generally being npcs, while pc drow are generally exiles from their theocratic society, fleeing from their own gods but still shunned by most others.

Honestly, the issue is less races than classes. Many physical, weapon using classes can inherently be built for either strength or dexterity (barbarian and rogue not withstanding), but all the magic classes are locked into a single stat, even if more than one might have equally made sense. Warlocks bargain for their power, so sure, charisma spellcasting makes sense, but that power comes in the form of secret forbidden knowledge, so int could have worked also. Letting players pick their spellcasting stat, or having it determined by their patron based on how that patron is contacted or what it values in a bonded warlock could have worked just as well, and made warlock a more natural fit for more races. Likewise, while int based wizards is the obvious best fit, I could also see wisdom based wizards working for some more esoteric traditions. And while wisdom clerics work just fine (wisdom is the listening stat, and they listen to their gods' direction), charisma based clerics also could have worked (charisma is the speaking stat, and a cleric's power is their god speaking through them). Again, you could just let players pick, or you could have made different domains come with different casting stats. Like knowledge clerics using int, trickery clerics using cha, etc.

I'm not sure what variant you could come up with for monks that would have made the current githzerai work better for them, so this is less of a fix for them than for drow clerics, but still.


And the problem can work in the other way, with racial features & stat mods making a race good at things that don't especially make sense for them. Sparks less complaint, since the mechanics allowing something players don't use because the didn't want to do it anyway causes less friction than mechanics that feel like they're sort of getting in the way of what the narrative has players wanting to do in the first place. It's that friction that leads to grumbling complaints.

[M Placeholder]

Do you have similar issues/feelings about drow not being mechanically suited for cleric when those that is kind of a big deal for the race in the realms?

Myself, I don't, considering that the use of Arcane Magic is also a big deal in Drow society, and how infused with magical energy (faerzress) parts of the Underdark are, it fits they make pretty decent sorcerers mechanically.

And considering that having a knife plunged between the shoulderblades counts as a natural death in their society, they also make for good theives and assassins. So with that in mind, I'm fine with the Drow not being mechanically suited to be clerics.

[Dyndrilliac]

Then let me reiterate: I don't see how the Githzerai Monks are any less mechanically interesting or fun than the Dragonborn Monks.

Okay, let me see if I can assist by reframing the problem: Every racial trait that the Githzerai gets is a rip-off from another race. I'll go trait by trait so I don't lose you along the way.


Ability score improvements. Githzerai aren't even the only race to get +2 WIS; so do Firbolg, and their +1 is to STR which a Monk can actually make use of for grappling.
Mental discipline. This is a blatant rip-off of the traits that Elves and Halflings get (minus the protection from magical sleep) crammed together.
Githzerai psionics. This is the exact same innate casting that many other races (Drow, Yuan-ti, Tieflings, etc) get that provides a cantrip, a 1st-level spell once per day, and 2nd-level spell once per day. They changed the name, but it's mechanically identical.


That's it. Three mechanical benefits, all rip-offs of benefits that other races get. Nothing unique. Nothing to set them apart. You could rename them to "HalflingElves" and not a single living soul on the planet would notice the difference. That's the problem. That's why they are less interesting and less fun.

[qube]

Do you have similar issues/feelings about drow not being mechanically suited for cleric when those that is kind of a big deal for the race in the realms?while I'm not really a drow player - a bit. Though this isn't actually a drow. They stayed true on what they are (DnD 4e: +2dex+2cha; dnd 3.5 +2dex-2con+2int+2cha). The "problem" arises from the cleric no longer being dependant on charisma.


heck, it's kind of coïncidedental you mention drow ...

That's it. Three mechanical benefits, all rip-offs of benefits that other races get. Nothing unique. Nothing to set them apart. You could rename them to "HalflingElves" and not a single living soul on the planet would notice the difference
-- Dyndrilliac

... or you could name them "variant drow" :)

[Lombra]

They make for great monks, they just don't make for the perfect monks. That's hardly underwhelming.

Why are expectations so high? A psionic creature is generally int-based, it's no surprise that it gets an int boost in stats, and innate spellcasting.

[qube]

They make for great monks, they just don't make for the perfect monks. That's hardly underwhelming.OK - but can you explain how they make great monks? Because great is a relative term. Taking into account the poor synergy of their abilities, their only redeaming factors seem to be +2 wisdom and 1/day shield.

Considering there are a huge amount of races that reach that bar (either +2 dex races, or even races with +1 in dex or wis but that have abilities that synergize well with monk) - I'm not seeing it.

Even he recently updated 5e monk guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559306-Be-Like-Water-The-5e-Monk-Guide-(Updated-for-MToF)) only identifies them as mediocre. With 13 races better, 18 races worse, and in a bracket of 14 races itself.

That doesn't sound " 'great', just not 'perfect' " to me


Why are expectations so high? A psionic creature is generally int-because Githzerai monks are so iconic & known, they have their own name - Zerths - that the MtoF didn't even bother to reitterate they are monks. Nobody's complaining they get an int-bonus, but that their synnergy with monk is ... only mediocre. Sure not perfect, but not even - to use the monks guide wording - a solid choice.

[Unoriginal]

OK - but can you explain how they make great monks? Because great is a relative term. Taking into account the poor synergy of their abilities, their only redeaming factors seem to be +2 wisdom and 1/day shield.

Considering there are a huge amount of races that reach that bar (either +2 dex races, or even races with +1 in dex or wis but that have abilities that synergize well with monk) - I'm not seeing it.

Even he recently updated 5e monk guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559306-Be-Like-Water-The-5e-Monk-Guide-(Updated-for-MToF)) only identifies them as mediocre. With 13 races better, 18 races worse, and in a bracket of 14 races itself.

That doesn't sound " 'great', just not 'perfect' " to me

because Githzerai monks are so iconic & known, they have their own name - Zerths - that the MtoF didn't even bother to reitterate they are monks. Nobody's complaining they get an int-bonus, but that their synnergy with monk is ... only mediocre. Sure not perfect, but not even - to use the monks guide wording - a solid choice.

This is an optimization guide.

It considers Strength, Intelligence and Charisma to be in the "a bad option, best avoided" category for Monks, and no optimization guide is going to rate a race that can't have 16 in its primary stat(s) as above mediocre unless it has ridiculous other advantages (the Yuan-Ti got a "mediocre" rating only thanks to their other advantages).

According this optimization guide, a Monk should avoid, among other things, proficiency in pretty much all skills except the WIS- or DEX-based ones.

Because optimization guides are about taking what the class is great at and focusing on it to make it amazing, at the exclusion of all the rest. An optimized Monk is not going to be better than a non-optimized one overall, but they'll be better at a few specific things, and those things will be what the Monk is supposed to be "good at".

Doesn't matter that if you follow this guide you Monk will be a socially inept ignoramus who would have troubles climbing a wall to save their life if in a hurry, and doesn't matter than a DEX 15 scholar of a Monk would still be a great Monk.

You accuse me to be obsessed with that, but you're the one who uses it as an argument as to why the Githzerai is lacking.

Meanwhile the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes never says "the Githzerai are the best Monks", but it does say "the Githzerai have great psionic powers and wizards, and they have a monastic tradition."

EDIT:


To make my point clearer, here's what this guide says about Dragonborn Monks:


Dragonborn: Hot garbage. If you must play a dragonborn monk, at least grab poison or fire resistance.

While you told us you considered Dragonborn Monks to be mechanically fun and interesting, and a positive example compared to the Githzerai Monk (which the guide rates higher).

[Vorpalchicken]

I am happy with this change. If kept in its UA form, Githzerai monks would overshadow other monk options, players would dump their INT and there would be a flood of those goofy bastards.
This is a nice "mind over matter" version and as many others have pointed out they work out fine after the level 4 ASI

[qube]

You accuse me to be obsessed with that, but you're the one who uses it as an argument as to why the Githzerai is lacking.Question: do you agee it can be very fun/interesting to play an incompetent character? Because I'm reponding to the claim that Githzerai make great monks - not that they make fun/interesting ones.

Don't presume that those are the same thing.

[dreast]

What the OP is missing is that githzerai are perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo, where regular Int checks are necessary to stabilize the terrain. A Variant Human monk wouldn’t have the high Intelligence necessary to complete this crucial task, which really requires a 14 Int or so to get any kind of reasonable consistency. I fail to see the problem with that crucial Int boost. I’d certainly want it in my Limbo campaigns!

Wait... your campaign has nothing to do with Limbo? You’re adventuring in the sterile echo chamber of your head, where you have to justify every design choice for your character against the empty shell of an environment dominated by published stats, instead of the rich tapestry only a good DM can weave? Well, then, never mind!

[Unoriginal]

What the OP is missing is that githzerai are perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo, where regular Int checks are necessary to stabilize the terrain. A Variant Human monk wouldn’t have the high Intelligence necessary to complete this crucial task, which really requires a 14 Int or so to get any kind of reasonable consistency. I fail to see the problem with that crucial Int boost. I’d certainly want it in my Limbo campaigns!



As an action, a creature on Limbo can make an Intelligence check to mentally move an object on the plane that it can see within 30 feet of it. The DC depends on the object's size: DC 5 for Tiny, DC 10 for Small, DC 15 for Medium, DC 20 for Large, and DC 25 for Huge or larger. On a successful check, the creature moves the object 5 feet plus 1 foot for every point by which it beat the DC. A creature can also use an action to make an Intelligence check to alter a non magical object that isn't being worn or carried. The same rules for distance apply, and the DC is based on the object's size: DC 10 for Tiny, DC 15 for Small, DC 20 for Medium, and DC 25 for Large or larger. On a success, the creature changes the object into another nonliving form of the same size, such as turning a boulder into a ball of fire.

Finally, a creature can use an action to make an Intelligence check to stabilize a spherical area centered on the creature. The DC depends on the radius of the sphere. The base DC is 5 for a 10-foot-radius sphere; each additional 10 feet added to the radius increases the DC by 5. On a successful check, the creature prevents the area from being altered by the plane for 24 hours, or until the creature uses this ability again.

Well spotted, dreast, well spotted.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Nothing to set them apart.

Githzerai are one of two races with a +2 wisdom. They're literally in a class of two. If you want +2 wisdom, you have two choices.

I do not see the link between mechanically underpowered (which they probably are) and uninteresting and less fun. Those two things check for different conditions. I don't find yuan-ti more fun or interesting to play than tieflings or drow, but they're undeniably mechanically stronger.

[Dyndrilliac]

They make for great monks, they just don't make for the perfect monks. That's hardly underwhelming.

Why are expectations so high? A psionic creature is generally int-based, it's no surprise that it gets an int boost in stats, and innate spellcasting.

No, sir. They don't make for great Monks. At best they are mediocre: Wood Elf, Ghostwise Halfling, Kenku, Aarakocra, Variant Human, and Firbolg are all objectively better options. Githzerai doesn't even crack the top five AL-legal race options for Monks. That's a demonstrable thematic problem, regardless of whether or not you're willing to see it.


If kept in its UA form, Githzerai monks would overshadow other monk options, players would dump their INT and there would be a flood of those goofy bastards.

Objectively false. Again, Githzerai doesn't even crack the top five AL-legal race options for Monks. Also, Monks already dump INT. There was nothing about the UA Githzerai that made them obviously better than Wood Elf, Ghostwise Halfling, Kenku, or Aarakocra in every conceivable way. The only races to which they were by definition superior were Variant Human and Firbolg.


Githzerai are one of two races with a +2 wisdom. They're literally in a class of two. If you want +2 wisdom, you have two choices.

Yes, and of the two, the Firbolg are now a much better choice in 99% of cases because at least a Monk can make use of STR for grappling and the innate casting on its own isn't enough to save the Githzerai because the Firbolg ALSO get innate casting: Detect Magic and Disguise Self, both of which are short-rest recharge instead of long-rest recharge.

Not many campaigns take place in Limbo, but I concede that is the one instance in which their +1 to INT would be useful. My problem with them, however, isn't the +1 INT - they had that in the UA version - my problem is the replacement of the +1 to AC bonus when not wearing armor or using a shield (which was a flavorful and unique - but not overpowering - feature which no other race provided and was actually useful) for a crappy rip-off ability that gets made obsolete by a Tier 2 Monk ability. Both less unique and less useful. The +1 to AC still would not have made them the best possible Monk option, but it would have put them in the top five. WotC screwed up on the Githzerai, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Pex]

What the OP is missing is that githzerai are perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo, where regular Int checks are necessary to stabilize the terrain. A Variant Human monk wouldn’t have the high Intelligence necessary to complete this crucial task, which really requires a 14 Int or so to get any kind of reasonable consistency. I fail to see the problem with that crucial Int boost. I’d certainly want it in my Limbo campaigns!

Wait... your campaign has nothing to do with Limbo? You’re adventuring in the sterile echo chamber of your head, where you have to justify every design choice for your character against the empty shell of an environment dominated by published stats, instead of the rich tapestry only a good DM can weave? Well, then, never mind!

Nice reply ruined by uncalled for mockery.

[Lombra]

No, sir. They don't make for great Monks. At best they are mediocre: Wood Elf, Ghostwise Halfling, Kenku, Aarakocra, Variant Human, and Firbolg are all objectively better options. Githzerai doesn't even crack the top five AL-legal race options for Monks. That's a demonstrable thematic problem, regardless of whether or not you're willing to see it.

As I said, they don't make for the best, which is what you listed, they are very good at being a monk anyways.

Just because a race has a typical class associated with it it doesn't mean that they should be the best at it, they're very well designed and are translated well from the monser's statblock.

I don't understand where are the expectations coming from.

[dreast]

Nice reply ruined by uncalled for mockery.

There was no mockery anywhere in that post. There was a little satire, but I never belittled the OP; I employed that satire in part to show that the original complaint was necessarily biased by strict numerical prejudice against thematic or storytelling concerns. Since saying that the way I just said it is boring enough that I fell asleep writing it, I stand by my original post.

[dejarnjc]

So in the effort of making this boring back and forth more interesting, what would be some proposed methods on"fixing" Githzerai?

My proposed solution would be to allow a +2 WIS or a +1 WIS / +1 DEX. I would also allow Detect Thoughts to be once per short rest and would consider doing the same thing for Shield.

[Vorpalchicken]

my problem is the replacement of the +1 to AC bonus when not wearing armor or using a shield (which was a flavorful and unique - but not overpowering - feature which no other race provided and was actually useful)

How can you not see how that ability would make Githzerai a dominant choice for monk characters?

I admit that I mis-remembered the UA Githzerai as having a Dex bonus, but it has been shown that a +1/+1 Dex/Wis ASI at level 4 abates this drawback.

Its current form is working perfectly to allow players to have a flavourful option rather than a must-take option.

[Dankus Memakus]

Everyone here is so focused on numbers or arguing about optimization. Guys just chill and roll dice and laugh with friends. Who cares if something doesn't meet expectations. If you wanna have fun playing a zerth then do it! It's not about numbers but with the people you enjoy the game with.

[qube]

What the OP is missing is that githzerai are perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo, where regular Int checks are necessary to stabilize the terrain. A Variant Human monk wouldn’t have the high Intelligence necessary to complete this crucial task, which really requires a 14 Int or so to get any kind of reasonable consistency. I fail to see the problem with that crucial Int boost. I’d certainly want it in my Limbo campaigns!Firstly, as OP, I would like to note... AGAIN ... I don't problems with their stats. +2 on their secondairy stat, isn't "perfect" - but still acceptable.

Secondly ... could you elaborate on your point? I mean, I might be missing something ... but a githzerai only has +1 int, right? - half a modifier point. is, that your bar to be "perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo" ?
Seems like a VERY low bar, doesn't it? If it's optimizing for limbo ... something like advantage, adding your proficiency modifier (or wisdom modifier) to those checks, or using wisdom instead of int would seem much perfecter*. Escpecially since we're talking about "perfectly optimized for being Monks on Limbo", lets not turn a blind eye to the fact int is at best the 4th important stat of monks (after dexterity, wisdom and consititution).

*yes, I know perfecter isn't a word, but "more perfect" is an equally impossible - by definition of perfect.

[MaxWilson]

One that works more than once a day?

A race's flavor is important, but the mechanics are what sells it. With a well-designed race, the two reinforce each other. Half-orcs are tough and savage, and so they have Relentless Endurance and Brutal Critical. Yuan-Ti are evil snake people, so they can talk to snakes and use poison and hypnotic magic.

'Zerzi...don't. Invisible Mage Hand is neat, but it's not really defining, and the other spells aren't usable often enough to feel important--and other that that, they don't get much. No ability to fight without weapons or armor. No kung-fu leaps or balancing.

A reasonable fix would be: starting at 3rd level, Githzerai can cast Shield 3/day instead of 1/day. This brings them more in line with MM standards while also giving them a niche as monks. It's not an exceptionally powerful ability (easy to replicate through other means) but it is respectable, perhaps roughly comparable to a variant human with Defensive Duelist. (Larger bonus, blocks missile attacks and multiattacks, but fewer uses per day, and requires Warcaster support or a free hand, which pushes them a little towards monks instead of fighters.)

You can attribute the MM psychic damage and other spells to some kind of custom character class similar to but different from a standard monk.

[Waazraath]

I think you're correct. It's weird and bad for the versimilitude when the fluff doesn't match the crunch. A race that has a history with monk as the most common class, mostly living in actual monestaries (in limbo), itn't very well suited to be a monk. And no, an increase in only one of the two needed stats and hardly other relevant abilites isn't 'well suited'. It's not the first time 5e has this problem, see for example the Hobgoblin witch are an excellent wizard race, for a race having mostly warrior types. It's simply inconsistent. As for the Githzerai, it also quite a bad translation from earlier editions. Over all, I'm really happy how 5e does that, but if I look at a gitzerai from an earlier edition, 5e's take is (also in that respect) a dissapointment.

Wut? Nobody replied to my post yet?! Hah! I won't be detered, brothers and sisters! I'll post it again! Wut? I'll even eleborate!

0) Of course it's pefectly fine to play a class with a race that doesn't really fit. Optimization isn't everything. Fun is. Duh. And 5e is balanced very nicely, so that also suboptimal combinations can work just fine. Having said that:

1) Githzerai are the quintessential monk race. All of them living in monestaries, and all that. Given that, the crunch should fit the fluff.

2) And I think that a Githzerai monk really lags behind. This has mainly to do with the stats, I think it really is important, cause monks really need dex and wis, for ac, attack/damage, and save dc. They are an onfortunate bit, cause compared with for example a battlemaster fighter, that one has maxed out the stat that deceides all of those abilities by level 6. A monk needs to wait for level 16. And without starting with a 16 or 17 in both dex and wis, the monk lags further behind on the way to 16.

Example: compare with a variant human (with 16 dex and wis), a gith monk (with 15 dex / 17 wis) has a lower 'to hit', a lower damage, a lower AC, and misses out on a feat. Of course it has other features, but I'd dare say that in a party with one of each, the gith monk won't feal like playing the quintessential monk race.

3) It doesn't fit the canon (partly). I skipped 4e, but at least in in 3.0 and 3.5, githyanki got huge bonusses that fitted a monk. Among others: +6 dex, +2 wis, -2 to int, some spells and a permanent +4 to armor when fighting without armor. Of course, these numbers mean different things in 5e than they did in 3.x, so you can't really compare, but stil: instead of super dexterious and a bit dull, they have an average dex and are smart?

Then again: in the Advanced plancesape, githyanki had an intelligence of 15-18 (exceptional to genius), so the canon wasn't that much set in stone. And it's arguable how much the editions need to be alike. Then again: it is the same game (D&D), and some campaigns cross the boundries of editions, so some consistency in fluff would be nice.


Summary: I don't really see 5e gith as a "super" "great" or even "good" monk class. It's ok, but specificly the monk (together only with the paladin) really needs 2 good stats, and a decent con. Abilities like shield could have compensated, but 1/day is really too little.

[Dyndrilliac]

How can you not see how that ability would make Githzerai a dominant choice for monk characters?

*sigh* +1 to AC is equivalent in cost to an ASI/feat (two feats provide AC bonuses, one directly - Dual Wielder - and one indirectly - Medium Armor Master) and you can also get the same effect by taking a +2 to WIS or DEX. So, in total, the UA Githzerai got:


A useful +2 and a useless +1 ability score improvement.
A +1 bonus to AC (which again is equivalent to an ASI or feat). Also keep in mind that the bonus only applies when the Monk's Unarmored Defense feature would apply (no armor or shield), making it useless for the vast majority of characters that aren't rolling Monk or Barbarian.
Innate casting which is slightly better than the Magic Initiate feat.


Aside from the stat boosts (which again, aren't great) they get two features that are roughly worth a feat. Now let's compare that to the Wood Elf:


Both the ability score improvements for the Wood Elf are helpful: DEX/WIS.
Darkvision. There are four ways to get this if you don't get it from your race: dip Shadow Sorcerer, dip Warlock, keep the Darkvision spell up 24/7, or Goggles of Night. That's a massive cost for a feature most parties assume everyone has. Only the Shadow Monk can mitigate this risk on their own (by casting Darkvision with ki); every other Monk has to gamble.
Perception proficiency. Perception isn't on a Monk's skill list, which means without this you have to either pick a background that has it (only one of which has both Perception and Thieves' Tools, the two main things a Monk wants from their background), dip into Bard/Rogue, blow a feat, or waste downtime days.
Fey ancestry is basically a better version of the Githzerai's Mental Discipline trait: advantage on saves vs fear is swapped out for immunity to magically induced sleep. Again, advantage on a save against one condition is traded for IMMUNITY to another.
Trance. Not game changing, but helpful in the early game when you can't just pop an LTH every time the party needs to stop and camp.
Bonus weapon proficiencies. Again, not game changing, but at this point Wood Elves are just running up the scoreboard.
Base movement speed increase. That's one whole extra square of movement, which means when a Monk spend a ki point to Dash as a bonus action, they get an extra 2 squares of movement above and beyond base movement speed and the Monk's built-in speed increase. Considering the Monk depends on kiting at high level play, that's huge.
Mask of the wild. In case you're not keeping track, this is the 8th item on this list. Wood Elves get 8 useful traits. Eight!


Wood Elf STILL trounces the UA Githzerai from an optimization standpoint. Not only are the bonuses better, but they get another four additional traits that are EASILY worth feats/ASIs by themselves compared to the two that the Githzerai get. And that's not even counting the bonus proficiencies! Just because you like a game doesn't mean the devs don't make mistakes. WotC is not infallible, and on this one they screwed up. Won't diminish my enjoyment of the game overall, but it will definitely diminish my enjoyment of the Githzerai (a race I was excited about until MToF landed), because they will be trash in AL games. Might play one in a home game where the UA version can be used instead. You can keep arguing if you want, I'm done with this thread. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If my previous posts haven't convinced you the MToF Githzerai are a problem, then there is nothing I can do for you.

[Tanarii]

Everyone here is so focused on numbers or arguing about optimization. Guys just chill and roll dice and laugh with friends. Who cares if something doesn't meet expectations. If you wanna have fun playing a zerth then do it! It's not about numbers but with the people you enjoy the game with.
Welcome to the Forums, where someone can make a post complaining about how a race is poor for optimization while simultaneously claiming their complaint isn't about optimization. :smallyuk:

[redwizard007]

Just for giggles, how does everyone feel about the Githyanki?

[Sception]

Probably better to start a new thread for them.

[Scarytincan]

So ... I was really looking forward to playing Githzerai monk, but looking at their stats, they seem ... underwealming?

Agree? Disagree? Feel I missed something?

Stopped reading after the first page cuz holy condescension batman towards you for having an opinion... But ya I totally agree with you. Was pretty psyched when I heard they were out, then totally bummed when I finally got to read them...

Edit: aaaand just realized this is a necro'd thread...