4-elements Monk

[JellyPooga]

So I've recently started in a new game playing a Monk and have been considering, for largely RP reasons, of going for the Way of 4-Elements. The campaign is heavily influenced by irish/celtic mythology and my character is loosely based on the style of the hero Cuchulain, which Monk fits well, I think. Add to that a background where he was raised/trained by a Giant (of the mystical, demi-god type, rather than the "just a big dude" D&D type) and his wife; a mountain Fey/Goddess (who was subsequently eaten by said Giant/husband) and that's where this character is at; looking for revenge for the devouring of his foster mum/lover (yeah, we got some Oedipal overtones going on here too).

Anyways, I digress. The point being; this guy is heading for 4-Elements Monk for reasons, so I wanted to discuss/ask advice on some of the options available. So let's get to it;

3rd Level
- Fist of Unbroken Air vs. Water Whip. On the surface, these two abilities look very similar; 3d10 damage, +1d10/extra Ki point spent, push/pull, prone effect. Much of a muchness, right? Except Water Whip is a Bonus Action while Unbroken Air is an Action. That's something I've overlooked since, uh, forever; straight up never noticed it. That's a game-changer. I mean, ok, it's 2 Ki compared to 1 for a Flurry, but it's 3d10 (avg.16) damage and also yanks a foe up to 25ft closer to you or knocks them prone, ready to be ganked by your main weapon attack. Just looking at damage, this is directly comparable to the output of a (Tier 1/Tier 2) Flurry of Blows and gives you a similar additional "control" to that which Open Hand offers. Yes, using Water Whip forgoes the additional Stunning Strike opportunities, but you still also have that option if stuns are what you need/want. Water Whip is...actually a pretty solid ability compared to other 3rd lvl. Monk subclass features. Scratch all of that; just checked the Errata, which changed Water Whip to be an Action, which puts it straight back into the "that pretty much sucks" category, along with all the other direct damage spells/abilities 4E Monk has access to. I'd welcome any insights to the contrary.

- Shape the Flowing River. At first I overlooked this one because it seems to be predicated on having access to significant quantities of water to be any use at all. However...assuming you do have access to a decent body of water/ice, it's actually pretty damned good considering the level you have access to it. I think it's worth reiterating that this is a feature you can get at 3rd level. Functionally, albeit situationally, this is a Wall of Ice style ability that can also be used to bridge rivers, create pits or difficult terrain that also forces Dex saves vs. being knocked prone, or anything your imagination can conjure...you can't directly damage or trap a creature with it, but you can shape ice capable of damaging or trapping a creature. It's not limited by duration or concentration either; once you turn the water to ice, it's ice. At least until it melts. Ice can be scary lethal, especially when you get to shape it (and I quote) "in any manner you desire". As a result of this lack of
Don't forget the utility of this ability either; it doesn't create magical ice, limited by the strictures of a spell description, it turns water to ice (or vice versa) and that has all sorts of function that doesn't necessarily rely on having a massive quantity to hand. Break a lock, shatter stone, freeze a sword in its scabbard, to name just a few things. Note also that this ability is not limited by line of sight or weight or anything else; it's only limited by area and the physical properties of water. If you like Minor Illusion for its utility, a clever player should also see the incredible potential in this.

6th level
For no apparent reason, the options here are super limited; take a 3rd level one, one that does basically the same thing as Stunning Strike or a sucky direct damage one that isn't significantly better than the 3rd lvl options. Tough one. I may just take Water Whip here anyway and stick to a watery theme.

11th level
Let's face it. It's Fly. I like Gaseous Form a lot and I may still go for it for flavour reasons, but Fly is the strong choice here. Right?

17th level
As solely damage dealing spells, Cone of Cold and Wall of Fire just aren't cutting the cheese at this level. Stoneskin could be a decentish choice if it were effective against magical attacks, but it's not. So that leaves Wall of Stone. It's no Wall of Force or Forcecage, but it's still pretty solid (pun intended). I'd appreciate any tips on using it.

I know it's not considered the best Monk subclass, but this will be my first Monk and would appreciate any advice. Cheers.

[Misterwhisper]

Advice on playing a monk:

1. 4 elements sucks, no way around that, it just sucks.

2. Drunken Master is great, reskin as needed if you don't want to play that style.

3. Open hand is good. The sanctuary ability is pretty pointless at the level you get it but the rest is good.

4. Kensei sucks almost as badly as 4 elements, UNLESS your DM will let you take unarmed strikes (or some type of unarmed weapon like knucks or something) as a kensei weapon.

5. Long death is ok, it has good sustainability but be careful with its level 6 fear ability, it targets all creatures not just enemies.

6. Sun soul is just a weak DBZ ripoff. Also it is odd that it can use its radiant ranged attack as normal attacks, and as flurry, but not as the normal martial arts bonus attack, so you can use it 1, 2, or 4 times in a round but not 3 times after level 5.

7. If you can use UA, the JOJO ripoff subclass of Astral Self is just outright broken as hell if you like that kind of thing.

8. Way of Mercy is good on paper but makes no sense in play, it is called way of mercy but half its abilities poison people.

9. If you want a feat for some reason, play a human, because all your ASI will probably be taken with stats.

10. Ki is a resource that comes back on a short rest, and you are a d8 class with mediocre AC, do not forget about patient defense.

11. After level 5 get use to the sentence: "Why didn't you just stunning strike him" because it is so much better than every other use of ki you have to justify not using it.

[Amechra]

Arguably, your Monk movement boost should apply to Gaseous Form. And, funnily enough, it does not stop you from using Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip, since they don't involve an attack roll and they aren't spells.

I'd also say that Gaseous Form is better on the versatility front - by the time you get it, you're looking at a 30ft fly speed instead of an 80ft fly speed, but you're also able to go anywhere that isn't full-on airtight. If you really want Fly, remember that you can trade out earlier elemental disciplines (including Elemental Attunement), so you can potentially grab both.

As for the 6th level feature... I would take another look at Hold Person. Sure, it fills a similar role to Stunning Strike, but it's a lot stronger if you're going to be facing a lot of humanoids.

[Zalabim]

So the first thing I'd say about the 4 elements disciplines is that they are all kinda niche in purpose, but they do have a purpose. You get to select a handful of things other monks cannot do at all and do them sometimes. If your DM is willing, I'd ask if there's a way you can learn more disciplines during the game. It's not a powerful addition. It just means you'll be more likely to have an ability for a wierd situation if it comes up. If you can get the ki-fueled strike from the alternate class features UA, that's mostly for 4 elements too.

The first thing you have to do is pick your discipline(s). That depends a whole lot on the campaign and your party. Some considerations are how often you get short rests and how well you can handle groups of enemies. Thunderwave still kills goblins and kobolds, Shatter can be used instead of inserting yourself into an enemy beatdown, and fireball never goes out of style. Aoes are for when you have 4+ enemies in the area. Pretty rare for burning hands, but pretty common with fireball. Still only use them when that can lead to finishing off enemies faster or keeping you out of danger.

If you're resting with Ki left over, Fangs of the Fire Snake can burn extra ki for some more DPR, and might find some use early for giving you extra reach and non-physical damage before level 6.

Other than that you're looking at utility picks. Shape the Flowing River looks fun. It's a solid choice, that flows into and meshes with wall of stone later for reshaping the environment. Don't discount Gust of Wind either. It counters vapors, snuffs lights, creates a sort of difficult terrain for slowing or funneling enemies, and even helps against prismatic wall.

I like the idea of snuffing campfires, without a word, up to 30' away, but you can replace Elemental Attunement later. You can know up to five disciplines eventually.

Fist of Unbroken Air can't be recommended as a ranged attack, but it works well against fliers, even as a reaction attack. Ready until they dive within range, then the blast can send them back up, and knock them prone, so they fall and take extra damage. This depends on your ranged weapons and your party, but is a fun one-off at low levels.

Hold Person is worth having if you're up against humanoids. Paralyze is harsher, the save type is different, and it can have range and multiple targets later.

The most important advice when playing is remember you are a monk first. Don't use a discipline where your core class abilities are fine. You can use a ranged weapon instead of Reaching with Fangs of the fire snake. Look at your team's initiative order before you use Hold Person. Don't use up ki on an enemy that can't fight back.

[MaxWilson]

I know it's not considered the best Monk subclass, but this will be my first Monk and would appreciate any advice. Cheers.

Here's some high-level advice: elemental monks have some decent AoE options for anti-mob play, but they cost ki. Stunning Strike is also good against single targets, but it also costs ki. Therefore, you need something fun and effective to do without spending ki, so you'll have it available when it's time to spend it. Martial Arts is fine, but kind of boring if the only thing you ever do is attack-attack-attack. Try to take advantage of DMG options like Disarm where possible, and alternative equipment such as the Net. Additionally, I had a lot of fun at one point with a vhuman [Prodigy (Athletics)] monk, boosting Dex at 4th level and aiming for Defensive Duelist at 8th level (never got there). Instead of your standard skimishy monk, he was more of a grab-you-by-the-throat-slam-you-prone-and-beat-your-brains-out monk, which was fun and different and quite ki-efficient. Unlike a normal grappler, monks don't lose out on shield AC or offensive output when one hand is busy with a grapple.

So anyway, my high-level advice is to plan what your ki-free action is going to be.

[Asisreo1]

Advice on playing a monk:

1. 4 elements sucks, no way around that, it just sucks.

2. Drunken Master is great, reskin as needed if you don't want to play that style.

3. Open hand is good. The sanctuary ability is pretty pointless at the level you get it but the rest is good.

4. Kensei sucks almost as badly as 4 elements, UNLESS your DM will let you take unarmed strikes (or some type of unarmed weapon like knucks or something) as a kensei weapon.

5. Long death is ok, it has good sustainability but be careful with its level 6 fear ability, it targets all creatures not just enemies.

6. Sun soul is just a weak DBZ ripoff. Also it is odd that it can use its radiant ranged attack as normal attacks, and as flurry, but not as the normal martial arts bonus attack, so you can use it 1, 2, or 4 times in a round but not 3 times after level 5.

7. If you can use UA, the JOJO ripoff subclass of Astral Self is just outright broken as hell if you like that kind of thing.

8. Way of Mercy is good on paper but makes no sense in play, it is called way of mercy but half its abilities poison people.

9. If you want a feat for some reason, play a human, because all your ASI will probably be taken with stats.

10. Ki is a resource that comes back on a short rest, and you are a d8 class with mediocre AC, do not forget about patient defense.

11. After level 5 get use to the sentence: "Why didn't you just stunning strike him" because it is so much better than every other use of ki you have to justify not using it.
Is stunning strike really all that good? Like, honestly? Most BBEG's are going to have some combination of Con save proficiency, Stun immunity, and Legendary Resistance to back them up. And you probably don't want to use your Stunning Strike on the mook. Stunning Strike falls off heavy later levels, too. Almost all creatures begin to get magical resistance and the aforementioned buffs.

[Asisreo1]

Here's some high-level advice: elemental monks have some decent AoE options for anti-mob play, but they cost ki. Stunning Strike is also good against single targets, but it also costs ki. Therefore, you need something fun and effective to do without spending ki, so you'll have it available when it's time to spend it. Martial Arts is fine, but kind of boring if the only thing you ever do is attack-attack-attack. Try to take advantage of DMG options like Disarm where possible, and alternative equipment such as the Net. Additionally, I had a lot of fun at one point with a vhuman [Prodigy (Athletics)] monk, boosting Dex at 4th level and aiming for Defensive Duelist at 8th level (never got there). Instead of your standard skimishy monk, he was more of a grab-you-by-the-throat-slam-you-prone-and-beat-your-brains-out monk, which was fun and different and quite ki-efficient. Unlike a normal grappler, monks don't lose out on shield AC or offensive output when one hand is busy with a grapple.

So anyway, my high-level advice is to plan what your ki-free action is going to be.
I'm going to flip the script and say: Do use your Ki.

Of course, you don't want to blow it all at once but anytime you rest with Ki points leftover, you're resting with wasted Ki points that could've gone into a burning hands or flurry of blows. The excess just goes away and unlike spellcasters, there isn't much of anything that can carry over past a short rest that Ki points are useful for.

In fact, 4-elements should be stronger in practice than most other monk archetypes. If there's only 1-3 combats a day in the majority of games, why is it suddenly bad to have 3-5 ki points spent? You can probably squeeze a short rest between the 1-3 encounters, too.

If it's a full adventuring day, shouldn't the Ki points be effectively tripled, since you're assumed to take two short rests?

Has anyone even used 4-elements or did they just make the character and didn't like how they thought they'd play instead of actually playing one?

I mean, guys, elemental attunement isn't even that niche. Earth, Fire, Water, and air is literally everywhere. In a political campaign or a dungeon, there's going to be earth (the ground, duh, perfect for making crude weapons like clubs or quarterstaves for free), fire (light, your own torches or the lights in the surroundings), water (someone's gotta drink, including you and the beasts you're fighting), and mist (guys, there's mist everywhere.)

[Kane0]

Is your DM open to ‘brew? Theres quite a few that make 4E monks a lot more fun, even really simple changes like elemental cantrips and some extra ki just for your elemental disciplines.

Or just fail to inform the DM of the errata to Water Whip :P

[Contrast]

Is stunning strike really all that good? Like, honestly? Most BBEG's are going to have some combination of Con save proficiency, Stun immunity, and Legendary Resistance to back them up. And you probably don't want to use your Stunning Strike on the mook. Stunning Strike falls off heavy later levels, too. Almost all creatures begin to get magical resistance and the aforementioned buffs.

Of all the creatures ever printed in any official book, 40 have stun immunity. Of those, 14 are swarms. There is, for example, no dragon (well...Tiamat) who has stun immunity in its printed stat block.

I would say Stunning Strike is also one of the most efficient ways to burn Legendary Resistances as no boss character can afford to spend a turn stunned and you can be dishing out out so many saves that they will be failing them.

I do not believe Stunning Strike would interact with Magic Resistance - it isn't described as magical in the text unless I've missed something?

[Garfunion]

I’m not sure if this is helpful, I’ve always had an idea about convincing my DM to allow me to use a whip as a monk weapon. Combine that with the spell sniper feat, pick up booming blade cantrip and elemental(air) disciplines Telling everyone I’m a monk of the silent whip technique.

Just an idea.

[MaxWilson]

Is stunning strike really all that good? Like, honestly? Most BBEG's are going to have some combination of Con save proficiency, Stun immunity, and Legendary Resistance to back them up. And you probably don't want to use your Stunning Strike on the mook. Stunning Strike falls off heavy later levels, too. Almost all creatures begin to get magical resistance and the aforementioned buffs.

It depends, e.g. on whether or not your party has a Sharpshooter or a bunch of conjured minions who can exploit that stun immunity for massive damage, and on whether the bad guy has a good Con save. Vampires and Beholders, for example, have "only" +4 to Con saves, so Stunning Strike works well on them (though of course you have to burn through a Vampire's Legendary Resists too).

Stunning Strike on an opportunity attack is also pretty decent movement-control, though not as good as Sentinel of course.

Overall I'd say Stunning Strike is good when the PCs outnumber the bad guys, and AoEs are good when the bad guys greatly outnumber the PCs.

[Asisreo1]

Of all the creatures ever printed in any official book, 40 have stun immunity. Of those, 14 are swarms. There is, for example, no dragon (well...Tiamat) who has stun immunity in its printed stat block.

I would say Stunning Strike is also one of the most efficient ways to burn Legendary Resistances as no boss character can afford to spend a turn stunned and you can be dishing out out so many saves that they will be failing them.

I do not believe Stunning Strike would interact with Magic Resistance - it isn't described as magical in the text unless I've missed something?

All dragons are proficient in Constitution saving throws, which makes them unlikely to fail, and they have legendary resistance, which covers them if they do. But it's unlikely they'll fail before you just run out of Ki or something.

For instance, at lvl 20, your save DC is 19 but an ancient Blue Dragon has a bonus of 15, meaning he has to roll 4 or less. And you get a maximum of 20 chances to do that, assuming no resources spent beforehand. Even then, it's far more likely that they'll not be in melee with a monk anyways.

Actually, now that I look at it, 4-Element monks are the only monk archetype that can work against flying enemies. They can use burning hands if something lingers above them, they can use water whip (even ready it) to knock a flying creature prone, they can use unbroken air to the same effect, they can cast fly to just be up there with the enemy.

Other monks really suffer against a hit-and-run style flight enemy, which is basically all of them because why land when they can't reach from up high.

Also, the book calls Ki "magical" in the blurb next to the monk's table titled: The Magic of Ki. So I'd assume Ki stuff is magical. I guess it can be up to interpretation, though.

[ImproperJustice]

Currently playing a level 12, 4e Monk.

It’s not great, but not unplayable by a long shot.

Course, it helps if you get into a Warlock mindset and stop stressing about saving your Ki all the time.

A well placed Fireball will outperform 4 stunning strike attempts, there I said it.

Fly makes you unhittable in some conflicts. Get yourself a bow, it’s ok.

I am fortunate that my GM kept water whip as a bonus action so you can do wall run or flyby grab shenanigans, hit a guy a few times and let them drop.
Bonus points if there are pits or nasty AOE effects around.

And you can still run around and do boring regular monk stuff when you want to.

Ki comes back on a short rest which isn’t that hard to come by.

And Elemental Attunement is as fun and broken as you are allowed to be with it.
I like setting fires from visual range myself, or heating rocks star trek style, or mini mold earthing / water shaping.

I have had fun with the class.

[Contrast]

All dragons are proficient in Constitution saving throws, which makes them unlikely to fail, and they have legendary resistance, which covers them if they do. But it's unlikely they'll fail before you just run out of Ki or something.

Some (incredibly rough) math on my part suggests you'll probably run out of Ki just as you exhaust their legendary resistances. The hope of course is that other people in the party will also be trying to inflict save effects - if they're not (and not bohering with save effects is a reasonable response to legendary resistances in fairness) then yes, not a great target. My point remains - if you're trying to beat through legendary resistances, no-one else can force three saves in a turn and particularly ones that the creature will always consider a must pass.


Actually, now that I look at it, 4-Element monks are the only monk archetype that can work against flying enemies. They can use burning hands if something lingers above them, they can use water whip (even ready it) to knock a flying creature prone, they can use unbroken air to the same effect, they can cast fly to just be up there with the enemy.

I mean if the dragon is flying there's no need for it to be within 15 or 30ft of you really. Its probably just circling around 100s of ft in the air waiting for its breath weapon to recharge. This is more a weakness of the class - I'd suggest Kensai is the solution if flying enemies are a personal bugbear but *shrugs* Self casting fly is a nice ability but a risky tactic given concentration issues.


Also, the book calls Ki "magical" in the blurb next to the monk's table titled: The Magic of Ki. So I'd assume Ki stuff is magical. I guess it can be up to interpretation, though.

If Crawfords opinion means anything to you they were not intended to be magic (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/702205711011328000?lang=en).

[JellyPooga]

Arguably, your Monk movement boost should apply to Gaseous Form. And, funnily enough, it does not stop you from using Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip, since they don't involve an attack roll and they aren't spells.

Hmm, I hadn't considered the possibility of the movement boost; personally I don't read it that way, but I'll ask my GM. It's a bit of tricksy legalese to allow Unbroken Air/Water Whip while in Gaseous Form, so I probably won't take advantage of it, but it's a valid point RAW.


I'd also say that Gaseous Form is better on the versatility front - by the time you get it, you're looking at a 30ft fly speed instead of an 80ft fly speed, but you're also able to go anywhere that isn't full-on airtight. If you really want Fly, remember that you can trade out earlier elemental disciplines (including Elemental Attunement), so you can potentially grab both.

I'm a big fan of Gaseous Form, especially when you're able to use it frequently (as would be the case here); it's a great infiltration and scouting spell that also renders doors and locks irrelevant to you. I suppose the other big consideration is that the party as a whole should probably have access to Fly anyway, whether from magic items or full-casters being able to cast it. This makes the utility aspect of Gaseous Form a little more relevant.


As for the 6th level feature... I would take another look at Hold Person. Sure, it fills a similar role to Stunning Strike, but it's a lot stronger if you're going to be facing a lot of humanoids.

My main worry about Hold Person is that the campaign is likely to be very focused on fighting against Fey, Giants and Animals. Sure, we might see a few combats with Humanoids, but I'm honestly not expecting it. Perhaps if the campaign develops in a different direction, I'll consider it. The other concern I have is...what the deuce has an Enchantment spell that befuddles the minds of your enemies have to do with manipulating the "four elements"? I could understand it if it was a reflavoured "ice" version or "earthen grasp" or something, or even if the subclass was "Way of Five Elements" (which would be way more appropriate, given the usual themes of Monks, but I digress), but as it is? It feels totally out of place.


So the first thing I'd say about the 4 elements disciplines is that they are all kinda niche in purpose, but they do have a purpose.
[snip]
The most important advice when playing is remember you are a monk first. Don't use a discipline where your core class abilities are fine. You can use a ranged weapon instead of Reaching with Fangs of the fire snake. Look at your team's initiative order before you use Hold Person. Don't use up ki on an enemy that can't fight back.

I think this is solid advice. The subclass does not define the Class, only adds to it. I shall bear it in mind.


Fist of Unbroken Air can't be recommended as a ranged attack, but it works well against fliers, even as a reaction attack. Ready until they dive within range, then the blast can send them back up, and knock them prone, so they fall and take extra damage. This depends on your ranged weapons and your party, but is a fun one-off at low levels.

Hadn't considered that use of FoUA; an extra 2d6 damage, plus the original fall damage is not to be overlooked! Thanks for pointing it out.

[Asisreo1]

I mean if the dragon is flying there's no need for it to be within 15 or 30ft of you really. Its probably just circling around 100s of ft in the air waiting for its breath weapon to recharge. This is more a weakness of the class - I'd suggest Kensai is the solution if flying enemies are a personal bugbear but *shrugs* Self casting fly is a nice ability but a risky tactic given concentration issues.

Even an ancient dragon would get within 20ft. It's breath weapon is, by far, the greatest attack it has but it's a recharge skill. While it's up there, a warlock might be shooting EB's and the fighter might be landing their +3 bow attacks 4 times.

The dragon can't just wait, it needs to attack as much as possible. They'd want as many people dead as soon as possible so they'd swoop down and take out the spellcasters and ranged combatants. But if they swoop for you, or if you stay close to the spellcaster, you can intercept and knock it prone. The barbarian can try grappling and next turn you can go for the stunning strikes.

Other monks can't really do this. Even a Kensei monk only really gets to hit the dragon, they can't knock it prone as much. It's impressive enough they can cast and upcast fireball too. You get AoE from far away. 4-Element monks seem underwhelming on paper but nobody really takes the full scope of an adventure in those calculations. You can't really beat a trap with damage and your high AC isn't going to steer the boat. Likewise, a full adventure is going to have places where you can't solve everything with ranged attacks and high damage.

[HiveStriker]

Advice on playing a monk:

1. 4 elements sucks, no way around that, it just sucks.

{Scrubbed}




So I've recently started in a new game playing a Monk and have been considering, for largely RP reasons, of going for the Way of 4-Elements. The campaign is heavily influenced by irish/celtic mythology and my character is loosely based on the style of the hero Cuchulain, which Monk fits well, I think. Add to that a background where he was raised/trained by a Giant (of the mystical, demi-god type, rather than the "just a big dude" D&D type) and his wife; a mountain Fey/Goddess (who was subsequently eaten by said Giant/husband) and that's where this character is at; looking for revenge for the devouring of his foster mum/lover (yeah, we got some Oedipal overtones going on here too).

Anyways, I digress. The point being; this guy is heading for 4-Elements Monk for reasons, so I wanted to discuss/ask advice on some of the options available. So let's get to it;

I know it's not considered the best Monk subclass, but this will be my first Monk and would appreciate any advice. Cheers.
@JellyPooga
So choice is indeed tricky, but I'd say it's rather because all options are effective, but their effective worth does depend on your party composition.
(By the way, it's actually one of the best archetypes to play, it just has a slower start and is more complex to "build" than others).

Quick rundown.

1. Fangs of the Fire Snake
My default go-to when I don't expect water bodies to be prominent (or even at least common). For just one Ki, you effectively get the benefits of Disengage and 2/3 of a Dash along with ensuring you bypass physical resistance. Making it by far the most cost-effective ability of all 4e kit (and in the top half of all archetypes).

The main limitation is that if affects only unarmed attacks, so until you get at least 1d6 (level 5) it should be seen more as a "offensive defense" or "slight damage boost".
It's still usable at later levels, in fact even better on the "enhanced mobility" part since many more creature get 10 feet reach and higher speed, but the fact that it's forcibly fire damage makes it useless against quite a number of creatures. Which is the main reason why one usually will swap it for something else at level 11 at most, unless you have some ways to nullify elemental resistance.
(If we could freely choose the element type, this would be hands-down the best of all <17 abilities).

So the sweet spot for using it is usually somewhere between level 3 and level 9, more levels meaning you can use it more often. Possibly trying a nova lashout with "spend extra ki for more damage", although it's imx not often the best use for your Ki unless short rest coming soon after.

2. Shape Flowing Water
My default go-to in adventures where body waters are expectedly common. You did a pretty good brush on what it can be used for. My most common uses for it have been creating unexpected paths for creatures (crossing a river to greatly cut time instead of finding a bridge, bypassing a water trench that was supposed to prevents invaders from reaching castle walls), otherwise setting up environmental advantage (block a ship, create cover) or water itself (try and redirect some part of flow to keep objects/creatures from flooding away).
Honestly YMMV greatly depending on circumstances, but if you feel creative, you will probably find enough uses for it to be glad you picked it. Plus it's not using any Ki, so it's not like experimentations cost you anything (except maybe some bad rep if you end hurting people or people's goods XD).

3. Thunderwave
Great panic button, although I would argue the best efficiency for it is when you're surrounded, and a good Monk normally never lets himself be surrounded... Unless on purpose.
The 2ki cost makes it best used from level 6-7 onwards anyways, it's not friendly, and it targets Constitution.
Making it probably the lest option of all: if creatures are weak against CON, it's probably better to just avoid surround and Stun one. If you want an AOE option, DEX-ones (Burning Hands, Shatter) will usually work better.
Unless for fluff reasons, not a good pick overall sadly.

4. Unbroken Air & Water Whip
Both must be seen as control abilities with ensured minimum damage.
Of both, I usually prefer Unbroken Air because it "pushes" and I rarely play my Monk as the main frontliner and I usually keep distances rather than closing them.
So I'll use it most often as a deterrent to prevent an enemy from reaching me because I can't simply move away myself, or freeing up a friend from OA risk by pushing threatening enemy away.
However, both are really great and can be equally useful. For exemple, Water Whip can be used to set up a Sentinel / Grapple for your melee pal, or simply bringing a creature (back) in any AOE (Cleric's Spirit Guardians, Stinking Cloud, etc).

Both actually have no real ceiling: the more you level up, the more often you can afford to use them "basically" or "as a nova", making them also great against casters (minimum scalable damage means if party's life or death depends on caster failing save, you have a high probability of breaking it).

And combined with Fly, it makes you great against any enemy, including Flying ones (usually a simple Stunning Strike would be more efficient cost-wise to make them fall prone, but either of these provides an alternative when CON is unlikely to land).

5. Burning Hands
A pretty decent ability cost-wise: your mobility helps you position efficiently to get as many creatures as possible, and it does decent damage: you can consider it an good enough use with 3 creatures affected, efficient beyond that.
Sweet spot for use is level 4-8.
Honestly a good pick in a low AOE party. Of course, if you have a Fiend Warlock or an Evoker Wizard, forget it. ^^ Unless you play a chaotic character that threatens everything and everyone through fire, could work too. XD

6. Shatter
Overall an improvement over Burning Hands: you cannot set objects ablaze (but a torch can do the job, just carry a backpack even if it hurts the "only my own body" Monk image XD), but it's now a distance AOE, that creates big sound, has less resisted damage type, and can destroy objects. Too bad it targets Constitution and has a small radius. Grab it to use creatively.
If your main aim is "using ability to damage group of enemies", you'd better stick to Burning Hands until you can get Fireball because it targets DEX.

7. Gust of Wind
a great spell to use... In a small array of situations. Sadly, too small to make it a good pick as an ability to keep for dozens of hours. If at least the duration was more on the hour, it could be used as an autonomous propeller for sailing.
As is, it's great essentially to take care of fires or hamper enemy movement and attack (Dodge + Deflect Arrows) in a small corridor while your friends rain arrows and spells on them.

8. Hold Person
My default choice for level 6 pick. This is Stunning Strike, except much better: targets WIS, makes 5-feet away attacks autocrit, can last several rounds without further interaction, does not require melee range to try.
If people expect you to exert single-target control through Stun, this is the definitive option. And it scales!
Yeah, it targets only humanoids, but honestly, I never encountered a game where humanoids weren't at least 1/3 (if not 50%) of all enemies encountered.
Of course, if you fear that in your own game this would rarely be usable, then put it aside.

9. Gaseous Form
A great, great pick if you want to act as the team spy: benefits from Monk's bonus speed, gives ways to infiltrate places even Shadow Monk could have trouble sneaking into.
Otherwise could be mainly used as an emergency defense/runaway feature, but that's in my taste too situational to justify taking it if spy/scout is not up to your taste.
NOTE though: technically you could spend all time in Gaseous Form if you wanted so. ^^

10. Fireball
Another great pick: great casting distance, great damage, for just 4 measly Ki points.
Unless your party has already solid AOE (like aforementioned Warlock or Wizard, or dedicated blasting Sorcerer) and you don't fancy damage that much this cannot be a bad choice. The "damage/cost" ratio surpasses everything any Monk can offer (except Quivering Palm ;)) and groups of creatures are a constant in any game.
Of course, you cannot except mass-kill because by that level most creatures would require at least 3 (or two damn lucky) Fireball, and that's if they are not resistant.
But having one more guy that guy take out a big chunk of health of a group of enemies is never a bad thing.
One of my two defaulting choices for level 11, the other being obviously...

11. Fly
Unless you're in a subterranean campaign or something, this spell is simply an amazing enabler and enhancer of your Monkiness. And it becomes awesome when you make a decent grappler of your Monk (which does require Expertise in Atlhetics one way or another).
Of course, you can be awesome without it too, it's not like it's "mandatory" for a regular Monk, especially since you already get wall run and water run on top of +20 feet already.
But it just makes it so easier to thwart whatever plan or defensive formation enemy have to keep a treasure or protect a caster. If makes you so damn threatening against flyers, it makes it so much more difficult for people to block and/or threaten you!
And it makes all your other abilities so much easier to use in an optimal way!
It does require quite a bit of space to be really enjoyed though. In that regard, one could argue that Gaseous Form actually provides a more versatile form of flight... But Fly allows you to fight. ^^

12. Cone of Cold
great AOE, especially paired with Fly. Problem is the high cost of both combined, so I would only pick it if by that level you could confirm that your party is great at providing short rests AND it still needs high AOE. Or, of course, you just fancy being the master of cold and heat (pair with Fire Wall ^^).

13. Stoneskin
the only one ability that is just here to make the list count go up by one. Next level you get resistance to all damage + higher defense and offense in most cases, for one minute, for just 4 Ki.
This spell could have been decent at level 11. NOT at 17. Let's politely forget it.

14. Wall of Fire
even at that level, still a great use for your ki. Lasts one minute, blocks sight (use defensively), gets automatic damage (melee deterrent): especially good paired with Unbroken Air or if anyone else in your party has push abilities (*cough* Repelling Blast *cough*).
One of my go-to picks for level 17, depending on how I played in the party so far.

15. Wall of Stone
My "true default" choice for level 17: can be used to quickly create some defenses, to block view from enemies, as a protected vantage point for fellow archers, as a makeshift prison, as a makeshift safe place, as your personal gladiator arena to face an enemy one-on-one (knowing that you can still easily run away by wall-running if needed you leazy Monk)... And otherwise useful to help people around, accelerating building construction, making temporary barrages, etc...
Just useable in so many ways I'm usually reluctant to pass on it, even at that level.


And here follows a few example builds. :)

My usual picks as 4E:
- Versatile: has something pertinent to do in any situation
Elemental Attunement -> Unbroken Air | Water Whip | Shape River (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake -> Fireball (lvl 11) (because I took Mobile somewhen)
Hold Person -> Fireball (lvl 11) (if I feel it's become too situational)
Fly
Wall of Stone
NOTE: Gaesous Form sometimes gets over Fireball or Fly depending on party specifics.

- Controller Monk (STR): priority on controlling enemy movement and actions (Alert + Grappler)
Elemental Attunement -> Water Whip (close distance by all means) (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake (kept because spares some feet for Stunning Strike)
Hold Person (change for Unbroken Air if feels too situational)
Fly
Wall of Stone (drop people in prison or block escape, or both at once)

- Damaging Monk (WIS): priority on engaging with AOE, closing in for Stunning Strike
Elemental Attunement -> Burning Hands (lvl 6) -> Fireball (lvl 11)
Unbroken Air
Hold Person -> Cone of Cold (lvl 17).
Fly
Wall of Fire
(classic combos: opening Fireball + Fly + Stunning Strike, or Wall of Fire + Unbroken Air, or Fly then "vertical" Cone of Cold).

- "Sparing" (not sparring!) Monk: use Ki sparingly because short rests are scarce.
Elemental Attunement -> Unbroken Air | Shape River (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake
Hold Person
Fly
whatever

- "Spy" Monk: grab Ritual Caster: Cleric to get some Detect Rituals and Silence, Observant.
Elemental Attunement
Fangs of the Fire Snake -> Water Whip (if DM allows it to grab objects) | Shatter
Gaseous Form
Fly



Finally, some general tips.
1. Use and abuse distance attacks until you have a real reason to get close & dirty (like using Flurry because you have 100% chance of finishing an enemy off). Don't be afraid to be afraid if I may: thrown weapons and Dodge as bonus action are your friends, even if you do pick either Fangs of Fire Snake or Mobile feat early to finally be able to engage into full round melee attacks with controlled risk of backlash.

2. Don't see Stunning Strike as an autowin button, it really isn't. People speak to its glory widely on this forum, but forget about all the times it fails. And that will be often. See it as an all-in option until your party starts getting the hang of enabling regular short rests and you can do a full-blown attempt while keeping at least 2-3 ki for the remaining of the fight.

3. Don't use the "extra damage per ki" options on anything you decide to learn unless it's really imperative that your target dies/fails concentration right now (= before it can act: still worth if your nova puts HP low enough it gets killed by your friends if it means avoiding a nasty attack/effect on next round).

4. Your strength is your mobility: make it your mantra ;) Even more than with regular martials try to plan your positioning to minimalize melee threat to you, don't hesitate to make wild moves from one round with another if it puts you to safety unless you do want to aggro some threat to protect a friend.

5. You're no good if you're down: following points 2 and 4, don't hesitate to spend Ki on a Dodge or Dash rather than a "damage improvement" option, unless you feel it makes a real difference in your target ending dead before next round or not. Once you get enough defensive features and AC improvements to make you more resilient you can start shifting depenses towards offensive abilities.

-----
If you're unsure about what you may fancy, I'd suggest asking your DM a simple houserule: not even "learning more", simply having the ability to swap one Discipline if possible during downtime, at worst on every level (and not only when you learn another discipline).

[Asisreo1]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

@JellyPooga
So choice is indeed tricky, but I'd say it's rather because all options are effective, but their effective worth does depend on your party composition.
(By the way, it's actually one of the best archetypes to play, it just has a slower start and is more complex to "build" than others).

Quick rundown.

1. Fangs of the Fire Snake
My default go-to when I don't expect water bodies to be prominent (or even at least common). For just one Ki, you effectively get the benefits of Disengage and 2/3 of a Dash along with ensuring you bypass physical resistance. Making it by far the most cost-effective ability of all 4e kit (and in the top half of all archetypes).

The main limitation is that if affects only unarmed attacks, so until you get at least 1d6 (level 5) it should be seen more as a "offensive defense" or "slight damage boost".
It's still usable at later levels, in fact even better on the "enhanced mobility" part since many more creature get 10 feet reach and higher speed, but the fact that it's forcibly fire damage makes it useless against quite a number of creatures. Which is the main reason why one usually will swap it for something else at level 11 at most, unless you have some ways to nullify elemental resistance.
(If we could freely choose the element type, this would be hands-down the best of all <17 abilities).

So the sweet spot for using it is usually somewhere between level 3 and level 9, more levels meaning you can use it more often. Possibly trying a nova lashout with "spend extra ki for more damage", although it's imx not often the best use for your Ki unless short rest coming soon after.

2. Shape Flowing Water
My default go-to in adventures where body waters are expectedly common. You did a pretty good brush on what it can be used for. My most common uses for it have been creating unexpected paths for creatures (crossing a river to greatly cut time instead of finding a bridge, bypassing a water trench that was supposed to prevents invaders from reaching castle walls), otherwise setting up environmental advantage (block a ship, create cover) or water itself (try and redirect some part of flow to keep objects/creatures from flooding away).
Honestly YMMV greatly depending on circumstances, but if you feel creative, you will probably find enough uses for it to be glad you picked it. Plus it's not using any Ki, so it's not like experimentations cost you anything (except maybe some bad rep if you end hurting people or people's goods XD).

3. Thunderwave: great panic button, although I would argue the best efficiency for it is when you're surrounded, and a good Monk normally never lets himself be surrounded... Unless on purpose.
The 2ki cost makes it best used from level 6-7 onwards anyways, it's not friendly, and it targets Constitution.
Making it probably the lest option of all: if creatures are weak against CON, it's probably better to just avoid surround and Stun one. If you want an AOE option, DEX-ones (Burning Hands, Shatter) will usually work better.
Unless for fluff reasons, not a good pick overall sadly.

4. Unbroken Air & Water Whip: both must be seen as control abilities with ensured minimum damage.
Of both, I usually prefer Unbroken Air because it "pushes" and I rarely play my Monk as the main frontliner and I usually keep distances rather than closing them.
So I'll use it most often as a deterrent to prevent an enemy from reaching me because I can't simply move away myself, or freeing up a friend from OA risk by pushing threatening enemy away.
However, both are really great and can be equally useful. For exemple, Water Whip can be used to set up a Sentinel / Grapple for your melee pal, or simply bringing a creature (back) in any AOE (Cleric's Spirit Guardians, Stinking Cloud, etc).

Both actually have no real ceiling: the more you level up, the more often you can afford to use them "basically" or "as a nova", making them also great against casters (minimum scalable damage means if party's life or death depends on caster failing save, you have a high probability of breaking it).

And combined with Fly, it makes you great against any enemy, including Flying ones (usually a simple Stunning Strike would be more efficient cost-wise to make them fall prone, but either of these provides an alternative when CON is unlikely to land).

5. Burning Hands: a pretty decent ability cost-wise: your mobility helps you position efficiently to get as many creatures as possible, and it does decent damage: you can consider it an good enough use with 3 creatures affected, efficient beyond that.
Sweet spot for use is level 4-8.
Honestly a good pick in a low AOE party. Of course, if you have a Fiend Warlock or an Evoker Wizard, forget it. ^^ Unless you play a chaotic character that threatens everything and everyone through fire, could work too. XD

6. Shatter: overall an improvement over Burning Hands: you cannot set objects ablaze (but a torch can do the job, just carry a backpack even if it hurts the "only my own body" Monk image XD), but it's now a distance AOE, that creates big sound, has less resisted damage type, and can destroy objects. Too bad it targets Constitution and has a small radius. Grab it to use creatively.
If your main aim is "using ability to damage group of enemies", you'd better stick to Burning Hands until you can get Fireball because it targets DEX.

7. Gust of Wind: a great spell to use... In a small array of situations. Sadly, too small to make it a good pick as an ability to keep for dozens of hours. If at least the duration was more on the hour, it could be used as an autonomous propeller for sailing.
As is, it's great essentially to take care of fires or hamper enemy movement and attack (Dodge + Deflect Arrows) in a small corridor while your friends rain arrows and spells on them.

8. Hold Person: my default choice for level 6 pick. This is Stunning Strike, except much better: targets WIS, makes 5-feet away attacks autocrit, can last several rounds without further interaction, does not require melee range to try.
If people expect you to exert single-target control through Stun, this is the definitive option. And it scales!
Yeah, it targets only humanoids, but honestly, I never encountered a game where humanoids weren't at least 1/3 (if not 50%) of all enemies encountered.
Of course, if you fear that in your own game this would rarely be usable, then put it aside.

9. Gaseous Form: a great, great pick if you want to act as the team spy: benefits from Monk's bonus speed, gives ways to infiltrate places even Shadow Monk could have trouble sneaking into.
Otherwise could be mainly used as an emergency defense/runaway feature, but that's in my taste too situational to justify taking it if spy/scout is not up to your taste.
NOTE though: technically you could spend all time in Gaseous Form if you wanted so. ^^

10. Fireball: another great pick: great casting distance, great damage, for just 4 measly Ki points.
Unless your party has already solid AOE (like aforementioned Warlock or Wizard, or dedicated blasting Sorcerer) and you don't fancy damage that much this cannot be a bad choice. The "damage/cost" ratio surpasses everything any Monk can offer (except Quivering Palm ;)) and groups of creatures are a constant in any game.
Of course, you cannot except mass-kill because by that level most creatures would require at least 3 (or two damn lucky) Fireball, and that's if they are not resistant.
But having one more guy that guy take out a big chunk of health of a group of enemies is never a bad thing.
One of my two defaulting choices for level 11, the other being obviously...

11. Fly: unless you're in a subterranean campaign or something, this spell is simply an amazing enabler and enhancer of your Monkiness. And it becomes awesome when you make a decent grappler of your Monk (which does require Expertise in Atlhetics one way or another).
Of course, you can be awesome without it too, it's not like it's "mandatory" for a regular Monk, especially since you already get wall run and water run on top of +20 feet already.
But it just makes it so easier to thwart whatever plan or defensive formation enemy have to keep a treasure or protect a caster. If makes you so damn threatening against flyers, it makes it so much more difficult for people to block and/or threaten you!
And it makes all your other abilities so much easier to use in an optimal way!
It does require quite a bit of space to be really enjoyed though. In that regard, one could argue that Gaseous Form actually provides a more versatile form of flight... But Fly allows you to fight. ^^

12. Cone of Cold: great AOE, especially paired with Fly. Problem is the high cost of both combined, so I would only pick it if by that level you could confirm that your party is great at providing short rests AND it still needs high AOE. Or, of course, you just fancy being the master of cold and heat (pair with Fire Wall ^^).

13. Stoneskin: the only one ability that is just here to make the list count go up by one. Next level you get resistance to all damage + higher defense and offense in most cases, for one minute, for just 4 Ki.
This spell could have been decent at level 11. NOT at 17. Let's politely forget it.

14. Wall of Fire: even at that level, still a great use for your ki. Lasts one minute, blocks sight (use defensively), gets automatic damage (melee deterrent): especially good paired with Unbroken Air or if anyone else in your party has push abilities (*cough* Repelling Blast *cough*).
One of my go-to picks for level 17, depending on how I played in the party so far.

15. Wall of Stone: my "true default" choice for level 17: can be used to quickly create some defenses, to block view from enemies, as a protected vantage point for fellow archers, as a makeshift prison, as a makeshift safe place, as your personal gladiator arena to face an enemy one-on-one (knowing that you can still easily run away by wall-running if needed you leazy Monk)... And otherwise useful to help people around, accelerating building construction, making temporary barrages, etc...
Just useable in so many ways I'm usually reluctant to pass on it, even at that level.


My usual picks as 4E:
- Versatile: has something pertinent to do in any situation
Elemental Attunement -> Unbroken Air | Water Whip | Shape River (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake -> Fireball (lvl 11) (because I took Mobile somewhen)
Hold Person -> Fireball (lvl 11) (if I feel it's become too situational)
Fly
Wall of Stone
NOTE: Gaesous Form sometimes gets over Fireball or Fly depending on party specifics.

- Controller Monk (STR): priority on controlling enemy movement and actions (Alert + Grappler)
Elemental Attunement -> Water Whip (close distance by all means) (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake (kept because spares some feet for Stunning Strike)
Hold Person (change for Unbroken Air if feels too situational)
Fly
Wall of Stone (drop people in prison or block escape, or both at once)

- Damaging Monk (WIS): priority on engaging with AOE, closing in for Stunning Strike
Elemental Attunement -> Burning Hands (lvl 6) -> Fireball (lvl 11)
Unbroken Air
Hold Person -> Cone of Cold (lvl 17).
Fly
Wall of Fire
(classic combos: opening Fireball + Fly + Stunning Strike, or Wall of Fire + Unbroken Air, or Fly then "vertical" Cone of Cold).

- "Sparing" (not sparring!) Monk: use Ki sparingly because short rests are scarce.
Elemental Attunement -> Unbroken Air | Shape River (lvl 6)
Fangs of the Fire Snake
Hold Person
Fly
whatever

- "Spy" Monk: grab Ritual Caster: Cleric to get some Detect Rituals and Silence, Observant.
Elemental Attunement
Fangs of the Fire Snake -> Water Whip (if DM allows it to grab objects) | Shatter
Gaseous Form
Fly

-----
If you're unsure about what you may fancy, I'd suggest asking your DM a simple houserule: not even "learning more", simply having the ability to swap one Discipline if possible during downtime, at worst on every level (and not only when you learn another discipline).
Most people who say 4-Elements is a bad archetype hssn't played it over 2-3 adventures. They never got the feel for the character, they just got a feel for their calculators. 4-elements is a nice class.

Stoneskin is a pretty garbage pick but if you're looking for any niche usefulness: it lasts longer. Since it lasts longer, it's more cost effective when roaming trap-filled dungeons. You'd probably encounter a trap every 10-20 minutes and the majority of them are physical so you can use it then.

It's still probably not worth a pick, though. I dunno, I might make it work.

[HiveStriker]

Most people who say 4-Elements is a bad archetype hssn't played it over 2-3 adventures. They never got the feel for the character, they just got a feel for their calculators. 4-elements is a nice class.

Stoneskin is a pretty garbage pick but if you're looking for any niche usefulness: it lasts longer. Since it lasts longer, it's more cost effective when roaming trap-filled dungeons. You'd probably encounter a trap every 10-20 minutes and the majority of them are physical so you can use it then.

It's still probably not worth a pick, though. I dunno, I might make it work.
Honestly, I tried to follow that logic too...
But even in my own experience which is apparently significantly different than people on these forums, it's rare that fights last more than 7 rounds.
And when they do, it means party is in an attrition fight, so often enough they'll try to get a short rest after anwyays.

More importantly, we are talking about level 17+ characters. So we can imo reasonably expect that each and every fighting encounter (and traps) sports a vast array of non-physical damage.
And because Stoneskin doesn't affect magical phyical damage, it basically means it affects only "basic (natural) weapon damage": threats against which you already have 0-Ki great options: 60+ base speed (few creatures can match it) to prevent melee reach, 19+ AC (depending on feat), and Deflect Arrows (works against only one attack, but just costs a reaction).

So yeah, even at that level you can probably find situations where it would be actually cost-efficient, but imo those would happen too scarcely to justify locking definitely in that spell (since you cannot change anymore).

That's really sadly a matter of cost/effectiveness, the one spell I feel they should have "recreated" as a "pure Monk" ability, possibly scaling with level...

Overall the only real gripe of 4e is the lack of flexibility on Discipline choice. Just allowing a more liberal swap (or learning more) would resolve all problems.
I also regret they didn't take the chance and make all "replicable spells" element-versatile (like Monk could choose element on cast like Nature Cleric on its bonus damage), or at the very least the Fangs ability (would have made it very thematic too), but hey...
Since we have official authorization as DM to override whatever we want, not that big of a deal. ^^

Arguably, your Monk movement boost should apply to Gaseous Form. And, funnily enough, it does not stop you from using Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip, since they don't involve an attack roll and they aren't spells.

I... FRIGGING NEVER MADE THAT CONNECTION IN MY BRAIN!!!
But you're right, it's legal by RAW (as would be Shape the Flowing River & Elemental Attunement now that I pay attention to it ^^)

OMG. A huge number of fun and nasty tricks to do opens in my mind.
We can be real nasty tricksters now. XD



I'm a big fan of Gaseous Form, especially when you're able to use it frequently (as would be the case here); it's a great infiltration and scouting spell that also renders doors and locks irrelevant to you. I suppose the other big consideration is that the party as a whole should probably have access to Fly anyway, whether from magic items or full-casters being able to cast it. This makes the utility aspect of Gaseous Form a little more relevant.

Also useful to escape or hide by using grounds faults or tree holes depending on your environment.
AND, pretty sure this is a houserule, but if your DM allows you to "stay" inside an object as long as it has enough volume for you to fit in, it opens some nice possibilities for spying too. :)

[Asisreo1]

Honestly, I tried to follow that logic too...
But even in my own experience which is apparently significantly different than people on these forums, it's rare that fights last more than 7 rounds.
And when they do, it means party is in an attrition fight, so often enough they'll try to get a short rest after anwyays.

More importantly, we are talking about level 17+ characters. So we can imo reasonably expect that each and every fighting encounter (and traps) sports a vast array of non-physical damage.
And because Stoneskin doesn't affect magical phyical damage, it basically means it affects only "basic (natural) weapon damage": threats against which you already have 0-Ki great options: 60+ base speed (few creatures can match it) to prevent melee reach, 19+ AC (depending on feat), and Deflect Arrows (works against only one attack, but just costs a reaction).

So yeah, even at that level you can probably find situations where it would be actually cost-efficient, but imo those would happen too scarcely to justify locking definitely in that spell (since you cannot change anymore).

That's really sadly a matter of cost/effectiveness, the one spell I feel they should have "recreated" as a "pure Monk" ability, possibly scaling with level...

Overall the only real gripe of 4e is the lack of flexibility on Discipline choice. Just allowing a more liberal swap (or learning more) would resolve all problems.
I also regret they didn't take the chance and make all "replicable spells" element-versatile (like Monk could choose element on cast like Nature Cleric on its bonus damage), or at the very least the Fangs ability (would have made it very thematic too), but hey...
Since we have official authorization as DM to override whatever we want, not that big of a deal. ^^
I'm not really talking combat, though. I'm talking traps where they're spaced minutes at a time. And if you had it activated and combat began, you don't need to use an action. And after combat, it's still up in case there's another trap or other that you might take.

It's important to remember not everything in D&D is combat.

[HiveStriker]

I'm not really talking combat, though. I'm talking traps where they're spaced minutes at a time. And if you had it activated and combat began, you don't need to use an action. And after combat, it's still up in case there's another trap or other that you might take.

It's important to remember not everything in D&D is combat.
I was including traps too, although I admit I was not clear on it. :)
Why would traps at that level be only physical damage?
Why would you be the one walking as a scout if you don't have a great Perception to anticipate those traps? And if you anticipate them, why wouldn't you either disarm them (if in party) or simply wall-run / jump around them?

Not trying to be picky here, just trying to understand: if you developed as a scout, I don't see why/how you woudln't get the means to disable at least regular traps.


Even an ancient dragon would get within 20ft. It's breath weapon is, by far, the greatest attack it has but it's a recharge skill. While it's up there, a warlock might be shooting EB's and the fighter might be landing their +3 bow attacks 4 times.

The dragon can't just wait, it needs to attack as much as possible. They'd want as many people dead as soon as possible so they'd swoop down and take out the spellcasters and ranged combatants. But if they swoop for you, or if you stay close to the spellcaster, you can intercept and knock it prone. The barbarian can try grappling and next turn you can go for the stunning strikes.

Other monks can't really do this. Even a Kensei monk only really gets to hit the dragon, they can't knock it prone as much. It's impressive enough they can cast and upcast fireball too. You get AoE from far away. 4-Element monks seem underwhelming on paper but nobody really takes the full scope of an adventure in those calculations. You can't really beat a trap with damage and your high AC isn't going to steer the boat. Likewise, a full adventure is going to have places where you can't solve everything with ranged attacks and high damage.
+100 Amen to that.

There is a vast number of tactics only a 4E Monk can pull (like Shadow Monk which also has a handful tactics no other Monk can use, although they could probably do something similar in the right circumstances).

Quick note about the aforementioned dragon example though: woudn't it also have enough pull strength to simply go pick some few dozen feet large rock and drop it on party (or use it as an "under" cover)?

Those creatures are supposedly intelligent after all in that mythology no?
(NOTE: true question, I rarely DMed Dragons and the few encounters I had dragons were behaving more as "lambda enemies" than crafty ancient creatures).

[Chronic]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/35yn4u/way_of_the_four_elements_remastered_a/

If you are free to use modified version of a class I suggest this. It's a good homebrew and it Feels good to play. Unlike many I find the base subclass OK, and fairly good if you use pré errata water whip, but the remastered version actually expend the powers you have access to and it's its great strength.

[Asisreo1]

I was including traps too, although I admit I was not clear on it. :)
Why would traps at that level be only physical damage?
Why would you be the one walking as a scout if you don't have a great Perception to anticipate those traps? And if you anticipate them, why wouldn't you either disarm them (if in party) or simply wall-run / jump around them?

Not trying to be picky here, just trying to understand: if you developed as a scout, I don't see why/how you woudln't get the means to disable at least regular traps.


+100 Amen to that.

There is a vast number of tactics only a 4E Monk can pull (like Shadow Monk which also has a handful tactics no other Monk can use, although they could probably do something similar in the right circumstances).

Quick note about the aforementioned dragon example though: woudn't it also have enough pull strength to simply go pick some few dozen feet large rock and drop it on party (or use it as an "under" cover)?

Those creatures are supposedly intelligent after all in that mythology no?
(NOTE: true question, I rarely DMed Dragons and the few encounters I had dragons were behaving more as "lambda enemies" than crafty ancient creatures).
It probably wouldn't be all that effective, otherwise it'd be listed as an action like the winged kobold's. It's possible, sure, but I don't think it would be better than doing the multiattack damage.

I'd say it'd be a dex save for dropping the boulder, though. Maybe strength so the barbarian can catch it (depending on the size.)

As for traps: they probably wouldn't all be physical. Then again, If I was designing a dungeon from a protection pov I'd have mundane traps on the perimeter and near the entrances while having the powerful magical traps closer to the heart. Why put in all the work to have every trap super unbeatable when you can make a couple near your room and everything else kills the stragglers.

That and some traps might not have been made by the magical BBEG. Even at level 17+, Kobolds and Goblins exist.

The discipline still sucks, though.

[Zuras]

Most people who say 4-Elements is a bad archetype hssn't played it over 2-3 adventures. They never got the feel for the character, they just got a feel for their calculators. 4-elements is a nice class.

Stoneskin is a pretty garbage pick but if you're looking for any niche usefulness: it lasts longer. Since it lasts longer, it's more cost effective when roaming trap-filled dungeons. You'd probably encounter a trap every 10-20 minutes and the majority of them are physical so you can use it then.

It's still probably not worth a pick, though. I dunno, I might make it work.

4 Elements is perfectly playable, but it really is just bad in comparison to all the other martial subclasses that get spells. The action economy of the abilities is terrible, and it depletes your ki too fast. In Tier 3 it finally gets going, but in the early levels it is much weaker than Open Hand or Shadow.

The worst aspect is that it doesn’t deliver the fantasy of chucking elemental effects around. You effectively get the casting of a half warlock, but unsurprisingly a half caster warlock is worse than a 1/3 caster Wizard if you don’t get a separate resource pool to power it, invocations, or an Eldritch Blast equivalent. The official subclass also misses out on all the elemental spells outside of the PHB, making it doubly annoying.

I have seen plenty of 4 Elements monks in action, and the vast majority of the time they definitely were better off using their ki for stunning strike or Fly over damage dealing. The class needs either a separate resource pool to power its features or more always-on or cantrip like features.

[Sparky McDibben]

Is stunning strike really all that good? Like, honestly? Most BBEG's are going to have some combination of Con save proficiency, Stun immunity, and Legendary Resistance to back them up. And you probably don't want to use your Stunning Strike on the mook. Stunning Strike falls off heavy later levels, too. Almost all creatures begin to get magical resistance and the aforementioned buffs.

Not on a mook, but if they have an in/succubus lieutenant? An oni? Anything tricksy and with a "bug-out" option is my go-to for Stunning Strike. For a big bruiser like a dragon I either try to block movement, or make it chase me. I like the grappler monk build, though. Another option is to use Martial Adept (Tripping or Goading Attack) to get the BBEG to focus on you rather than the glass cannons.

[Asisreo1]

4 Elements is perfectly playable, but it really is just bad in comparison to all the other martial subclasses that get spells. The action economy of the abilities is terrible, and it depletes your ki too fast. In Tier 3 it finally gets going, but in the early levels it is much weaker than Open Hand or Shadow.

The worst aspect is that it doesn’t deliver the fantasy of chucking elemental effects around. You effectively get the casting of a half warlock, but unsurprisingly a half caster warlock is worse than a 1/3 caster Wizard if you don’t get a separate resource pool to power it, invocations, or an Eldritch Blast equivalent. The official subclass also misses out on all the elemental spells outside of the PHB, making it doubly annoying.

I have seen plenty of 4 Elements monks in action, and the vast majority of the time they definitely were better off using their ki for stunning strike or Fly over damage dealing. The class needs either a separate resource pool to power its features or more always-on or cantrip like features.

The first issue is that you're comparing the 4-E monk to a warlock or fighter when they are a completely separate class. 4-E monks have passive defensive abilities no spellcaster has access to, like evasion and unarmored defense, which makes your monk's wisdom high wisdom more effective for both offense and defense. Isolating a subclass and comparing it to a class can make any class look stronger in comparison because that's not how that works.

[Asisreo1]

Not on a mook, but if they have an in/succubus lieutenant? An oni? Anything tricksy and with a "bug-out" option is my go-to for Stunning Strike. For a big bruiser like a dragon I either try to block movement, or make it chase me. I like the grappler monk build, though. Another option is to use Martial Adept (Tripping or Goading Attack) to get the BBEG to focus on you rather than the glass cannons.
All of those have a fly speed and are ineligible to be stunning striked until they engage in melee with the monk, which they probably won't. Even if they get close, they can take the OA and not risk flurry of blows.

An Oni, in particular, is proficient in Con saves but they also have a fly speed and 10ft melee reach. They have no incentive to get within 5ft of the monk and not fly away.

A succubus isn't going to get in melee of the monk. They're going to fly above the party's melee reach and charm a PC. They'll then pick up the PC and take them to a secure location where they kiss them. If the plan gets messed up, they'll swear their revenge and use etherealness to escape.

[ImproperJustice]

Really.
Been playing one in a side game for awhile.

They work just fine.
In some battles I act like a garden variety Monk, hit n’ run, flurry and stun.

In some, I am water whipping people to the ground for beatdowns or over pits.

In others a spam a pair of fireballs to obliterate an entire encounter worth of minions. Then short rest and do it again.

Or I take to the air, completely invulnerable to enemy strikes from the ground, while water whipping people to their doom, striking from range.

And lord help any squishy casters. They can’t escape me. On the ground, in the air, i will find them, I will stun them, and I will whoop’em good.

[Zuras]

The first issue is that you're comparing the 4-E monk to a warlock or fighter when they are a completely separate class. 4-E monks have passive defensive abilities no spellcaster has access to, like evasion and unarmored defense, which makes your monk's wisdom high wisdom more effective for both offense and defense. Isolating a subclass and comparing it to a class can make any class look stronger in comparison because that's not how that works.

Sure, It may not necessarily be fair to compare subclasses across different classes, but neither Monk, Fighter nor Rogue have heavily weighted subclasses (compared to the Ranger, for example) so I think comparisons in this case are apt. Is it unfair to compare an Eldritch Knight to an Arcane Trickster? All of the other subclasses that get spellcasting tacked on to a martial chassis get additional features to make them more effective, like War Magic and Magical Ambush. Otherwise, casting a 3rd level spell at 13th level (or even 11th) is underwhelming.

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away. Shield allows the EK to momentarily break Bounded Accuracy with their AC, while Absorb Element shores up a STR fighter’s bad DEX saves against numerous AoEs. ATs get tremendous improvements in their stealth and infiltration roles from Mage Hand and Minor Illusion.

Until the 4 Elements Monk accesses Fly and Gaseous Form at 11th level, features improving core Monk competencies like mobility and soft control are thin on the ground. Your soft control options (Gust of Wind, Fist of Unbroken Air, Hold Person, Water Whip) are all weaker uses for your action than simply attacking and using stunning strike, since they don’t allow you to follow up with a bonus action martial arts attack and rely on a secondary stat for their save DC.

If you had access to both Open Hand Technique and your elemental disciplines, how often would you use Fist of Unbroken Air versus an entire routine of 4 attacks (Extra Attack + Flurry of Blows)? In a dire situation, an Open Hand attack routine can end up forcing 4 saves against stun and two against proning. If you use an elemental discipline, on the other hand, if your opponent makes the save, that’s your whole offensive output for that turn. Emotionally, it just feels bad when that happens. You also don’t have enough disciplines known to have real utility, you just have to hope you luck into a situation where your picks are useful. It’s noticeably weaker than Open Hand or Shadow, and puts you in position to attempt to do something cool but fail more often than any other subclass I’ve seen in play.

[JellyPooga]

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away.

Arguably, the core weakness of Monk is lack of AoE and lack of Ranged capability. 4E shores up this weakness. Neither PHB Way does.


If you had access to both Open Hand Technique and your elemental disciplines, how often would you use Fist of Unbroken Air versus an entire routine of 4 attacks (Extra Attack + Flurry of Blows)?

I guess you'd use them any time you weren't able to engage in melee or any time you didn't quite have the speed/mobility to engage the foe you wanted to. In this regard, 4E gives immediate access to an extension of an already enhanced mobility; a "core competency", if you will.

Yes, Flurry+Stun paired with Open Hand may be a more efficient/better option when available, but it won't always be an option. 4E gives a greater versatility and while it doesn't stack with the core function, it does compensate a weakness (range) and enhance a strength (mobility). 4E also provides a defence against foes that have speed and/or reach on the Monk; a Readied Action from a 4E Monk will produce results in a way that no Open Hand or Shadow Monk will.

Add to that, every 4E damage option offers half damage even if the opponent Saves. Not a huge selling point, but worth considering nonetheless when calculating the Ki cost. Even a creature with Legendary Saves will be taking damage from a 4E Monk utilising a Discipline. The same cannot be said for (correct me if I'm wrong) any other Way.

[Nifft]

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away. Shield allows the EK to momentarily break Bounded Accuracy with their AC, while Absorb Element shores up a STR fighter’s bad DEX saves against numerous AoEs. ATs get tremendous improvements in their stealth and infiltration roles from Mage Hand and Minor Illusion.

Just wanted to note that Absorb Element really ought to be available to a gosh-darn Four Elements Monk.

Giving them actual spellcasting would have been a very obvious way to make it available.

Same deal with the cantrips in the Elemental Evil pdf, they ought to be available somehow.

And yeah, it seems quite resonable to give a new resource comparable to what Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights get. I kinda like the idea of the 4EM having one daily resource (spell slots) and one encounter resource (ki pool), makes 'em fit better into different parties.

[MaxWilson]

Arguably, the core weakness of Monk is lack of AoE and lack of Ranged capability. 4E shores up this weakness. Neither PHB Way does.

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

[Amechra]

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

Slightly off-topic, but I keep eyeing a Kensei Archer build. 2x 1d8+1d4+Dex with a +1d6 smite 1/round by 6th level is kinda appealing.

[JellyPooga]

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

It's worth noting that "pre-Tier 3" is a wide criteria. Pre-5th level, Monks have zero support for ranged combat barring a general Dex focus. From 5th lvl. onwards they have Extra Attack, granted, but otherwise zero support, combined with a counter-focus on melee combat (and thus less incentive to take options to support it, such as Sharpshooter). It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race, ranged capability and at-will options for those that have superior, albeit limited resource, ranged options (basically any spellcaster) or well supported ranged attacks (basically any other martial class)...which is just about every other Class.

About the only Classes that are potentially worse at any kind of ranged combat are Strength focused Barbarian and Paladin (granted that is many, if not most such) and maybe Bard, and even then it's arguable that they're equally bad. Monk has a far cry from the ranged capability/support of a Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger or Warlock, significantly less incentive to even bother with it compared to Druid, Cleric or Bard and given such a massive incentive to be melee focused, it's clearly a fair argument for 4E that they have a decently solid, reactive, weaponless ranged option compared to other subclasses.

Don't get me wrong, I still think 4E Monk is largely weak compared to other subclasses...on paper.

I am, however, seeing more of the hidden strengths of it in actual play. At the tabletop, it's easy to overlook the so-called strength of highly focused builds when compared to those that have greater versatility, because it's very common for that narrow focus to be wasted (e.g. Great Weapon Master vs. low-HP Mooks), while greater versatility is always useful.

[Asisreo1]

It's worth noting that "pre-Tier 3" is a wide criteria. Pre-5th level, Monks have zero support for ranged combat barring a general Dex focus. From 5th lvl. onwards they have Extra Attack, granted, but otherwise zero support, combined with a counter-focus on melee combat (and thus less incentive to take options to support it, such as Sharpshooter). It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race, ranged capability and at-will options for those that have superior, albeit limited resource, ranged options (basically any spellcaster) or well supported ranged attacks (basically any other martial class)...which is just about every other Class.

About the only Classes that are potentially worse at any kind of ranged combat are Strength focused Barbarian and Paladin (granted that is many, if not most such) and maybe Bard, and even then it's arguable that they're equally bad.

Whoops looks like a misread something. Ignore this comment!

[Asisreo1]

I would like to note that a 4E monk can stunning strike from 15ft away, with fire snakes. Meaning they can catch a flying enemy or not have to engage in melee with a strong melee enemy and still get the stunning strikes.

[MaxWilson]

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.


It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race

???

Come again?

Wood elves are already a common Monk choice due to stat mods, but the ability to use a bow is in no way limited to elves.

[Nifft]

???

Come again?

Maybe some new kind of Elf who can summon a Monk at-will?

[Zuras]

I would like to note that a 4E monk can stunning strike from 15ft away, with fire snakes. Meaning they can catch a flying enemy or not have to engage in melee with a strong melee enemy and still get the stunning strikes.

Fangs of the Fire Snake is literally the only discipline that has synergy with the base Monk chassis, unfortunately. A better design would have provided other disciplines with similar synergy, ideally one for each element. With all the anti synergies you run into using your ki to power it, you should either get more utility or more firepower out of the deal.

[Asisreo1]

Fangs of the Fire Snake is literally the only discipline that has synergy with the base Monk chassis, unfortunately. A better design would have provided other disciplines with similar synergy, ideally one for each element. With all the anti synergies you run into using your ki to power it, you should either get more utility or more firepower out of the deal.
Both WW and Unbroken Air can knock a flier prone and when they get proned, you can use your melee capabilities. Fly gives them the ability to do their melee stunning strike thing. If they're stunned, they'll fall from the sky and since they fail their saving throws, you can follow up with a spell like burning hands.

Other disciplines cover weaknesses like cone of cold's high damage AoE a regular monk wouldn't have. Hold person is a mage's worst nightmare, especially if they're flying.

Wall of stone is hilarious, if you get the chance, you can make an entire building by yourself in under a day. Uh, combat, it locks down a creature from moving in all three dimensions, including vertically. Making a good trap for a nasty opponent while you take care of their minions. Think liches or pit fiends. If you're smart, you can layer each panel doubled up in a cubic symmetry so that breaking one AC15 180hp panel reveals another similar panel.

Wall of fire is amazing for this as well, bonus points for damage but it can't keep a lich or pit fiend contained for long. Maybe better for capturing a group of minions. What's fun is that the initial damage can be halved with a saving throw but the DoT damage and the escape damage does not have a half save. Each creature is guaranteed at least 7d8 damage or more depending. But if they escape? Push em back in with gust of wind or unbroken air.

[JellyPooga]

???

Come again?

Wood elves are already a common Monk choice due to stat mods, but the ability to use a bow is in no way limited to elves.

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

[Asisreo1]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.
By what metric? Sure, a monk isn't doing the damage output of a spellcaster, most martials aren't, but they are much tankier than any spellcaster and a monk's stunning strike gives plenty of opportunities to attempt to stun an opponent, which is huge.

Warlocks don't have as high AC, don't have evasion, and don't have dexterity save proficiency. Monks do. It's not fair to compare one class to another based on a single metric since I could say warlock is a weak class because they're susceptible to other spellcaster's attacks, especially with limited access to counterspell.

But you'd realize why that's not inherently true.

[JellyPooga]

By what metric? Sure, a monk isn't doing the damage output of a spellcaster, most martials aren't, but they are much tankier than any spellcaster and a monk's stunning strike gives plenty of opportunities to attempt to stun an opponent, which is huge.

Warlocks don't have as high AC, don't have evasion, and don't have dexterity save proficiency. Monks do. It's not fair to compare one class to another based on a single metric since I could say warlock is a weak class because they're susceptible to other spellcaster's attacks, especially with limited access to counterspell.

But you'd realize why that's not inherently true.

I'm not saying the Monk as a whole is weak at all. I'm saying that, generally speaking, they have poor ranged capability in response to MaxWilsons assertion that they have better at-will ranged damage than most spellcasters (pre-Tier 3), which as I said and agree with you on, is an unfair comparison to make.

[Zalabim]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.
Not being as good as a warlock is no damning verdict. A monk is competent at range by virtue of focusing on Dexterity and being proficient with weapons. They just demonstrably are competent. Not the best, though they do make up for some of that with deflect missiles. Put a monk in any challenge that requires ranged competency and they will generally pass.

What is the average anyway? Cantrips deal less damage. Strength types too. Sneak attack usually means someone else is in melee. Monks aren't as good at it as dedicated archer characters, warlocks, or spell slot use, but they also get bonus speed and better defenses. It's not the highest DPR, but I could put a level 8 monk with their no support for ranged combat head to head against a level 8 fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow expert.

[Zuras]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

AoE wise, Monks are indeed lacking. In my experience, however, Thunderwave and Shatter don’t really cut it as swarm removal (unless you are a Tempest Cleric) so again you’re not coming into your own till 11th level. By that point it’s too late for most campaigns. Battle Master gives you very little as a subclass after 10th level, but that has zero effect on its popularity. 4E monks have the opposite problem.

[JellyPooga]

Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

AoE wise, Monks are indeed lacking. In my experience, however, Thunderwave and Shatter don’t really cut it as swarm removal (unless you are a Tempest Cleric) so again you’re not coming into your own till 11th level. By that point it’s too late for most campaigns. Battle Master gives you very little as a subclass after 10th level, but that has zero effect on its popularity. 4E monks have the opposite problem.

Don't get me wrong; I tend to agree. Monks aren't terrible at range, but it is generally a weakness as a consequence of it not being a strength. I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung. The question is often "Why bother equipping a bow at all when you're often better served spending the action engaging your enemy on your best terms?" Especially if said bow is only capable of doing some mediocre damage.

The Monk class, as a whole, is largely a vector for status effects, whether it be Stun, knocking prone or for some builds grappling. The 4E Monk offers an extension of this core function with the likes of Water Whip. You'll also note that I said 4E shores up the general weakness, not that it makes it into a strength. It allows you not just to deal damage at range, but to be a Monk at range.

It's worth noting that many Disciplines that duplicate spells also fulfil this function; Thunderwave might not slay an entire mook-squad, but it will Push them around. Hold Person is comparable to a ranged Stunning Strike. Fly and Gaseous Form offer massive speed and infiltration enhancement, respectively. All of these are extensions of what it means to be a Monk, except used in a way that other Monks do not or cannot duplicate, just as other Ways offer enhancements that 4E doesn't.

Monks aren't great damage dealers as a rule (beyond the first couple of levels) and 4E doesn't offer a solution to this problem; so much is evident from the Disciplines available. It offers you similar effects to those you ordinarily use, but in two areas (at range and AoE) that the Monk otherwise doesn't fulfil its core function.

[HiveStriker]

4 Elements is perfectly playable, but it really is just bad in comparison to all the other martial subclasses that get spells. The action economy of the abilities is terrible, and it depletes your ki too fast. In Tier 3 it finally gets going, but in the early levels it is much weaker than Open Hand or Shadow.

The worst aspect is that it doesn’t deliver the fantasy of chucking elemental effects around. You effectively get the casting of a half warlock, but unsurprisingly a half caster warlock is worse than a 1/3 caster Wizard if you don’t get a separate resource pool to power it, invocations, or an Eldritch Blast equivalent. The official subclass also misses out on all the elemental spells outside of the PHB, making it doubly annoying.

I have seen plenty of 4 Elements monks in action, and the vast majority of the time they definitely were better off using their ki for stunning strike or Fly over damage dealing. The class needs either a separate resource pool to power its features or more always-on or cantrip like features.
Nope. Tooootally not. Having the same resource is a big, big boon. It gives you same kind of flexibility a Sorcerer converting spells has, on a Warlock-like short-rest basis.
If you really ran numbers you'd see that 4E can get similar casting as 1/3 caster and still get enough Ki left for a few full-round Flurrys.
You can blow everything on spells, or not. It's up to you to choose.
But having the option to choose the amount, and having resources come back on a short rest, are making false assumptions and errors in situation assessment much more forgiving for a 4E than for a, say, EK or AT.
It also provides you better resource economy: since upcast one level is just one Ki away, means you have less chance to get overkill like a Warlock can be.

If you doubt that, play an experiment.
- Be a level 5 Sorcerer,
- Picking spells that can "mimick" or "have close enough" effects of Monk abilities,
- Take the relevant amount of spell points following DMG, divide it by 3 (rounding down) make it replenish on short rest.
- Ignore the amount of SP you'd normally get but allow use of spell points to fuel Metamagic.
Play it until you're level 7-8. The probability that you don't come back after and say "wow, that's just awesome how much more efficient I am" will be damn close to 0.


Sure, It may not necessarily be fair to compare subclasses across different classes, but neither Monk, Fighter nor Rogue have heavily weighted subclasses (compared to the Ranger, for example) so I think comparisons in this case are apt. Is it unfair to compare an Eldritch Knight to an Arcane Trickster? All of the other subclasses that get spellcasting tacked on to a martial chassis get additional features to make them more effective, like War Magic and Magical Ambush. Otherwise, casting a 3rd level spell at 13th level (or even 11th) is underwhelming.

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away. Shield allows the EK to momentarily break Bounded Accuracy with their AC, while Absorb Element shores up a STR fighter’s bad DEX saves against numerous AoEs. ATs get tremendous improvements in their stealth and infiltration roles from Mage Hand and Minor Illusion.

Until the 4 Elements Monk accesses Fly and Gaseous Form at 11th level, features improving core Monk competencies like mobility and soft control are thin on the ground. Your soft control options (Gust of Wind, Fist of Unbroken Air, Hold Person, Water Whip) are all weaker uses for your action than simply attacking and using stunning strike, since they don’t allow you to follow up with a bonus action martial arts attack and rely on a secondary stat for their save DC.

If you had access to both Open Hand Technique and your elemental disciplines, how often would you use Fist of Unbroken Air versus an entire routine of 4 attacks (Extra Attack + Flurry of Blows)? In a dire situation, an Open Hand attack routine can end up forcing 4 saves against stun and two against proning. If you use an elemental discipline, on the other hand, if your opponent makes the save, that’s your whole offensive output for that turn. Emotionally, it just feels bad when that happens. You also don’t have enough disciplines known to have real utility, you just have to hope you luck into a situation where your picks are useful. It’s noticeably weaker than Open Hand or Shadow, and puts you in position to attempt to do something cool but fail more often than any other subclass I’ve seen in play.
This sentence just shows you missed the whole point of the features.
Again, if you really took time to check numbers, you'd see that those actions are worth "at worst" the same as spending your action on attacks (mixing attack and attempt to Shove if we want to be the closest).
Because let's remind that...
- Constitution saves are arguably the best save to target: rarely do monsters have high STR and high DEX, but apart casters most have a decent constitution bonus for their level, and it gets worse with level. So Stunning Strike is not always good.
- Stunning is great for denying enemy action, but who cares about that if providing advantage is enough to make him go down before next round (because you have friends ready to strike in melee and the odds of landing enough damage are good enough, like 80%+)?
- Monks SUCK at Grappling of Shoving, unless you build them for that from the get-go, with the limitations it implies (delay in progression by multiclass or start Human / Half-Elf for Prodigy). Because usual Monk has crappy STR, you can't use DEX for the checks, and target can use the best between Acrobatics (DEX) and Athletics (STR). So a) you need to roll real good and b) you need to roll better than opponent to overcome it.
- And Stunning strike requires first you to connect with your attack, so when you are going against high AC, you'll either count on luck and possibly decide to Flurry (thus denying any other option) or try and get advantage (confer point above).

By the way, Monk's main things are dealing damage in melee,avoiding hits and apply some control on enemy action and movement, so features that deal damage and put prone are completely in tune with this.

As for Fangs of Fire Snake specificallly, its only drawback is making your damage fire-based, which in some situations will be counter-productive;
Apart from that.
- Reach 15 feet instead of 5 means you spare 10 feet getting into melee attack reach, can attack, can attempt Stunning Strike, spare a Disengage to avoid OA when pulling away, spare another 10 feet moving back. You get Dash+Disengage+magic damage for one ki. And you can apply Stunning Strike on this.
Meaning that even smart enough to usually attempt a Ready because they know Monk can stun them are half-powerless because the most they can do now is Readying a Dash away or Readying a single ranged attack. COnsidering that the majority of enemies, casters aside, are creatures whose primary threat relies on melee, it's a very big deal.
- Also, Open Hand's level 3 feature costs one ki, because it requires a Flurry to be taken, and it also means you cannot Dodge / Dash / Disengage (since it required you to take the Attack action in the first place) so there is that. In fact, I'd argue that Open Hans is by far the weakest and the blandest of all archetypes, because lvl 6 is self-heal, lvl 11 is (sadly) situational, so until you get the crowning Quivering Palm all you get is an additional effect that amounts to a Shove except with higher chance than with a check (which is incidentally the same with those 4E features).

I advise you to ready my lengthy post, should give you some input on how good 4E actually can be, when you try to use features proactively instead of reluctantly. Just trying to really play the class and archetype basically instead of trying to force-apply a rigid mindset copy/pasted from another experience of another class or archetype. :)

[Amechra]

This sentence just shows you missed the whole point of the features.
Again, if you really took time to check numbers, you'd see that those actions are worth "at worst" the same as spending your action on attacks (mixing attack and attempt to Shove if we want to be the closest).
Because let's remind that...
- Constitution saves are arguably the best save to target: rarely do monsters have high STR and high DEX, but apart casters most have a decent constitution bonus for their level, and it gets worse with level. So Stunning Strike is not always good.
- Stunning is great for denying enemy action, but who cares about that if providing advantage is enough to make him go down before next round (because you have friends ready to strike in melee and the odds of landing enough damage are good enough, like 80%+)?
- Monks SUCK at Grappling of Shoving, unless you build them for that from the get-go, with the limitations it implies (delay in progression by multiclass or start Human / Half-Elf for Prodigy). Because usual Monk has crappy STR, you can't use DEX for the checks, and target can use the best between Acrobatics (DEX) and Athletics (STR). So a) you need to roll real good and b) you need to roll better than opponent to overcome it.
- And Stunning strike requires first you to connect with your attack, so when you are going against high AC, you'll either count on luck and possibly decide to Flurry (thus denying any other option) or try and get advantage (confer point above).

Eh, most of this runs into the following issues:
1) Stunning Strike is dirt cheap. For the same 2 ki as Fist of Unbroken Air, you can potentially force two Con saves vs. a decent DC. Even if your target has, say, an 80% chance to pass those saves, spamming stunning strike would drop that to a 64% chance. Sure, you have to hit twice, but you get 3-4 attacks per round once you hit that level. Also, I'm unsure where you're getting your data on monsters having better Con scaling than Str or Dex scaling - care to share that source?
2) Stunning denies actions and gives all your allies advantage on their attacks (including ranged attackers) and makes the target automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saves and makes grapples automatically succeed. Meanwhile, knocking someone prone helps out your melee allies and utterly screws over your ranged allies (who now have disadvantage on their attack rolls).
3) It's true that Monks aren't good grapplers, but why would they need to be? If you want to knock people over, go Open Hand and potentially force two saves against going prone per round.
4) Sure, Stunning Strike requires you to hit with your attack, but... you have 3-4 attacks per round. Even if you only have a 50% chance of hitting with a given attack, you'd only have a 12.5% chance of missing with all of them if you don't flurry, and a 6.25% chance of missing if you do flurry.

However, I do agree that Stunning Strike's importance can be over-emphasized by these forums. Given the kinds of complaints I see about the Monk, I sometimes wonder if people had one bad experience with the class and swore it off forever, or just never actually played it and are going off the numbers.

[Zuras]

Don't get me wrong; I tend to agree. Monks aren't terrible at range, but it is generally a weakness as a consequence of it not being a strength. I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung. The question is often "Why bother equipping a bow at all when you're often better served spending the action engaging your enemy on your best terms?" Especially if said bow is only capable of doing some mediocre damage.

The Monk class, as a whole, is largely a vector for status effects, whether it be Stun, knocking prone or for some builds grappling. The 4E Monk offers an extension of this core function with the likes of Water Whip. You'll also note that I said 4E shores up the general weakness, not that it makes it into a strength. It allows you not just to deal damage at range, but to be a Monk at range.

It's worth noting that many Disciplines that duplicate spells also fulfil this function; Thunderwave might not slay an entire mook-squad, but it will Push them around. Hold Person is comparable to a ranged Stunning Strike. Fly and Gaseous Form offer massive speed and infiltration enhancement, respectively. All of these are extensions of what it means to be a Monk, except used in a way that other Monks do not or cannot duplicate, just as other Ways offer enhancements that 4E doesn't.

Monks aren't great damage dealers as a rule (beyond the first couple of levels) and 4E doesn't offer a solution to this problem; so much is evident from the Disciplines available. It offers you similar effects to those you ordinarily use, but in two areas (at range and AoE) that the Monk otherwise doesn't fulfil its core function.

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

[JellyPooga]

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

While I don't disagree that 4E probably needs a bit of a bump in utility and versatility, I think it's unfair to compare them to EK/AT. While on the surface 4E resembles them by adding de facto spellcasting, the focus and mechanics are very different. As I mentioned in my last post, 4E is not exactly adding entirely new features to the Monk, but rather extending and modifying existing ones. Both EK and AT, largely speaking, add entirely new functions to their base Class. It's why, I figure, 4E has such a limited list of Disciplines; the focus is intentionally narrow to coincide with that core function of the base class. Whether that design decision is a good one or not, is moot and while I agree that it makes the 4E a little weak compared to other Ways, I do think it's a mistake to compare it to other subclasses that I don't think are designed to fulfill the same purpose.

[ImproperJustice]

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

The advantage 4e has over the EK and AT is not being chained to long rests.

So many EKs hold back on using their spells and such because they don’t know when that next break will happen.

4e has the mental freedom to spam their abilities far more often knowing recovery is only a short rest away.

[Satori01]

, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's .

Sharpshooter is actually a very good option for a monk.

Darts/Shuriken now have a 60 foot range with no disadvantage on the attack roll.

You ignore most cover penalties, so say attacking just the rider of a flying creature is viable.
When the Wizard has polymorphed a friendly into a flying creature and has an enemy grappling the friendly flyer in air, this feat allows you to “pick the nits of the friendly flyer”

All of the above of the above of course sets up the use of the -5/+10 hit/dmg portion of the feat.

A kensei, with a Kensei weapon is going to do D10 dmg at top tiers with their monk weapons, which could be Longbow or Darts/Shuriken.

2d10 +2x Dex+ 2d4+ potentially +20 from Sharpshooter, without spending any Ki points...at either 60’ range for darts or 600’ range with a bow...plus being able to re-roll a miss once (Kensei subclass power).

The Sharpshooter feat is very viable for a monk.

[Asisreo1]

Eh, most of this runs into the following issues:
1) Stunning Strike is dirt cheap. For the same 2 ki as Fist of Unbroken Air, you can potentially force two Con saves vs. a decent DC. Even if your target has, say, an 80% chance to pass those saves, spamming stunning strike would drop that to a 64% chance. Sure, you have to hit twice, but you get 3-4 attacks per round once you hit that level. Also, I'm unsure where you're getting your data on monsters having better Con scaling than Str or Dex scaling - care to share that source?
2) Stunning denies actions and gives all your allies advantage on their attacks (including ranged attackers) and makes the target automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saves and makes grapples automatically succeed. Meanwhile, knocking someone prone helps out your melee allies and utterly screws over your ranged allies (who now have disadvantage on their attack rolls).
3) It's true that Monks aren't good grapplers, but why would they need to be? If you want to knock people over, go Open Hand and potentially force two saves against going prone per round.
4) Sure, Stunning Strike requires you to hit with your attack, but... you have 3-4 attacks per round. Even if you only have a 50% chance of hitting with a given attack, you'd only have a 12.5% chance of missing with all of them if you don't flurry, and a 6.25% chance of missing if you do flurry.

However, I do agree that Stunning Strike's importance can be over-emphasized by these forums. Given the kinds of complaints I see about the Monk, I sometimes wonder if people had one bad experience with the class and swore it off forever, or just never actually played it and are going off the numbers.
Here's the thing with action economy and stunning strike: You're only ever going to have 2-3 rounds a combat encounter if it's lengthy and you're assumed to only have roughly 2 combats per short rest. Factoring in the fact that stunning mooks like a goblin or kobold isn't really a priority, there's going to be some rounds where it's just worth doing 2 Ki to AoE big guaranteed damage like burning hands rather than 1 Ki for a flurry of blows.

Sometimes you won't be in the right position to use stunning strike. If you're not in melee, you'll have to use whatever attack method at range for the entire turn. If you don't attack your turn, you can't use stunning strike, either.

Proning makes the target more eligible to be stunning striked. Of course, if they're flying, they'll never really engage with the monk's melee enough to be stunning striked anyways.

You're not really running out of Ki points that often, though. Stunning Strike is good for a single monster encounter but everything is good against a single monster. AoE is great for multiple creatures.

[Zuras]

Sharpshooter is actually a very good option for a monk.

Darts/Shuriken now have a 60 foot range with no disadvantage on the attack roll.

You ignore most cover penalties, so say attacking just the rider of a flying creature is viable.
When the Wizard has polymorphed a friendly into a flying creature and has an enemy grappling the friendly flyer in air, this feat allows you to “pick the nits of the friendly flyer”

All of the above of the above of course sets up the use of the -5/+10 hit/dmg portion of the feat.

A kensei, with a Kensei weapon is going to do D10 dmg at top tiers with their monk weapons, which could be Longbow or Darts/Shuriken.

2d10 +2x Dex+ 2d4+ potentially +20 from Sharpshooter, without spending any Ki points...at either 60’ range for darts or 600’ range with a bow...plus being able to re-roll a miss once (Kensei subclass power).

The Sharpshooter feat is very viable for a monk.

It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

[MaxWilson]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

"Almost as good as the second-best ranged blaster" isn't bad at all. Barbarians, Paladins, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and especially Bards and Druids are far worse. I don't know why you're singling out the monk for special denigration here--they're relatively good at ranged combat. (No build specialization needed or encouraged.)


Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

Yes, this exactly. Remember the context: we got here because we were discussing flying opponents like dragons and (in post #27) Oni. The monk is relatively well-off in this scenario compared to other classes and most monsters.

In general, if you're good enough at ranged combat that a Fire Giant wants to enter melee instead of chucking rocks, you're not bad at ranged combat.


I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung.

This explains so much about your posts in this thread.


It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

I agree with you overall about Sharpshooter (not worth it for non-Kensei monks), but RE: darts, if the DM says no to darts you'll just switch to shortbow and get more range and more damage.

[Amechra]

While I don't disagree that 4E probably needs a bit of a bump in utility and versatility, I think it's unfair to compare them to EK/AT. While on the surface 4E resembles them by adding de facto spellcasting, the focus and mechanics are very different. As I mentioned in my last post, 4E is not exactly adding entirely new features to the Monk, but rather extending and modifying existing ones. Both EK and AT, largely speaking, add entirely new functions to their base Class. It's why, I figure, 4E has such a limited list of Disciplines; the focus is intentionally narrow to coincide with that core function of the base class. Whether that design decision is a good one or not, is moot and while I agree that it makes the 4E a little weak compared to other Ways, I do think it's a mistake to compare it to other subclasses that I don't think are designed to fulfill the same purpose.

I honestly think the 4E Monk would have been better off if none of their disciplines mimicked spells. Then you wouldn't get that comparison to EK/AT in the first place. Or, alternatively, if they hadn't included it in the core rules, and instead put it in the Elemental Evils Player's Companion, so that it could have drawn spells from there.

Part of my problem with the subclass is that there doesn't really seem to be a good outline of how it's supposed to be special. Take the other magic-heavy core subclass - the Shadow Monk is blatantly supposed to be a stealthy scout/ninja. All four of the spells it gets (at 3rd level, mind you) are built around making you stealthier and making use of shadows. The 4E Monk doesn't really make those steps towards opening up a new role or redefining their old one - it's like the thought process when designing it started and ended with "they should have elemental powers!".

Or, to look at it in another way: a Shadow Monk can do things with their features that a spellcaster who focuses on shadow spells just plain can't. At-will invisibility and teleportation while in poor lighting isn't something that can be replicated by making appropriate spell choices, and the four spells they get are drawn from distinct spell lists¹ so that it'd be really hard to copy them spell-wise without bending over backwards. Meanwhile, every single spell that a 4E Monk can pick from is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list. And, at the same time, their unique disciplines are available from 3rd level, and consist of a mediocre cantrip replacer, three combat options, and one bit of kinda interesting utility.

¹ Darkness is a Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell, Darkvision is an Artificer/Druid/Ranger/Sorcerer/Wizard spell, Pass Without Trace is a Druid/Ranger spell, Silence is a Bard/Cleric/Ranger spell, and Minor Illusion is a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell.


Here's the thing with action economy and stunning strike: You're only ever going to have 2-3 rounds a combat encounter if it's lengthy and you're assumed to only have roughly 2 combats per short rest. Factoring in the fact that stunning mooks like a goblin or kobold isn't really a priority, there's going to be some rounds where it's just worth doing 2 Ki to AoE big guaranteed damage like burning hands rather than 1 Ki for a flurry of blows.

Sometimes you won't be in the right position to use stunning strike. If you're not in melee, you'll have to use whatever attack method at range for the entire turn. If you don't attack your turn, you can't use stunning strike, either.

Proning makes the target more eligible to be stunning striked. Of course, if they're flying, they'll never really engage with the monk's melee enough to be stunning striked anyways.

You're not really running out of Ki points that often, though. Stunning Strike is good for a single monster encounter but everything is good against a single monster. AoE is great for multiple creatures.

Believe me, I understand these things - I played a Monk from the start of Tier 2 to the midpoint of Tier 3. Also, you're responding to the wrong post - I'm not comparing Stunning Strike to AoEs at all, and I really don't know where you're getting that. I'm comparing Attack+Stunning Strike to Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip, and expressing my confusion at HiveStriker's argument vis-a-vis Prone vs. Stunned.

Like, I accept the whole "if you knock them prone, you'll have advantage on your attack rolls, helping you land more hits to proc Stunning Strike" idea, but once you've used FUA or WW, you can't make any more attacks that turn, and you don't have any features that would drop their speed and prevent them from standing up. If you want an enemy to be Prone so that you can apply your particular set of violent massage techniques to them, work with another party member.

Also, I will say that I really don't understand where the whole "if you aren't in melee" stuff is coming from. You're a Monk. By 6th level you have a +15ft bonus to all of your speeds, and you have Step of the Wind if you need to cross 90ft in a single round to punch someone. As far as flying creatures are concerned... flying is actually pretty easy for PCs to pick up once they're in Tier 2. Ignoring magic items, Fly is a 3rd level spell that's on most arcane lists, and the party Monk is a really good target for it.


It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

If you're seriously looking at Sharpshooter on a Monk (probably because you're a Kensei), you don't need to care about Wisdom nearly as much as you would normally. Literally the only reason you'd care about having a decent Wisdom is so that your AC isn't terrible, and ranged characters can happily get away with having an AC of 14-16 (i.e. a Wisdom of 13). You also pretty much don't care about your saving throw DC (because the only thing that calls for it on the base Monk is Stunning Strike, which is melee only), and those are the only things the base Monk has that care about Wisdom.

[LudicSavant]

Since I'm sure pretty much everyone will be talking about the balance of 4E Monks, I'll address something else.


17th level
As solely damage dealing spells, Cone of Cold and Wall of Fire just aren't cutting the cheese at this level. Stoneskin could be a decentish choice if it were effective against magical attacks, but it's not. So that leaves Wall of Stone. It's no Wall of Force or Forcecage, but it's still pretty solid (pun intended). I'd appreciate any tips on using it.

Okay, here's a tip for Wall of Stone: You know how Wall of Stone gives you a save against being enclosed?

It requires them to use their Reaction. If it's baited out for any reason (they counterspelled someone, you "accidentally" left yourself open to an OA, whatever), you can just lock them right up.

You also might be able to make a shape that they simply don't have enough movement speed to escape even if they make the save and can use the reaction.

You can also use your short rest schedule to build permanent structures with Wall of Stone (by concentrating to the full duration, then refreshing your ki).

There's an additional trick for Evokers, in that they can use Wall of Stone to give their allies Reaction moves, almost like they were doubling as a Glamour Bard while casting a powerful Wall spell.

Do note that in order to cast the spell it must be "solidly supported by existing stone."

[JellyPooga]

"Almost as good as the second-best ranged blaster" isn't bad at all.

I contend this statement, because Monks are by no means almost as good as a warlock. I'll say it again; yes, they have decent dex, but they don't have anywhere near the support to capitalise on it.

2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

There's a reason I've seen a lot of Monks that simply don't use ranged weapons and it's because while they're not bad at it, per se, neither is it an attractive or interesting option for them, let alone a powerful one.

@Amechra: I agree that Disciplines shouldn't have mimicked spells. I think the Dev team got lazy and it shows.

[MaxWilson]

There's an additional trick for Evokers, in that they can use Wall of Stone to give their allies Reaction moves, almost like they were doubling as a Glamour Bard while casting a powerful Wall spell.

Hey, that's pretty clever! Nice find.


2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

I really wish you would stay on topic and stop moving the goalposts. Now you're trying to change the subject to Tier 3 when we are explicitly discussing Tiers 1-2 (because it's already been stipulated that monk ranged attacks fall off in Tier 3 and Fireball comes online). In actual play as opposed to theorycrafting, Hex doesn't get used much IME (and forum discussions support that this is not just me (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?515800-Warlock-without-Hex)) because it's a poor use of concentration, and for pure warlocks also a poor use of spell slots.

That leaves you with:

2(1d8+dex) at level 5 is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to beingis "almost as good".

Once again, in context, the key point is that the monk is better in Tier 1-2 ranged combat than most other classes, and is good enough to encourage opponents to close to melee range if they can.

[ImproperJustice]

I contend this statement, because Monks are by no means almost as good as a warlock. I'll say it again; yes, they have decent dex, but they don't have anywhere near the support to capitalise on it.

2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

There's a reason I've seen a lot of Monks that simply don't use ranged weapons and it's because while they're not bad at it, per se, neither is it an attractive or interesting option for them, let alone a powerful one.

@Amechra: I agree that Disciplines shouldn't have mimicked spells. I think the Dev team got lazy and it shows.

Eeeh, just because I am a Monk, I don’t feel compelled to be in melee.

If I see a T-Rex I would much rather run / fly 90’ around it and plink it to death than charge straight in and get eaten just like that Open Hand Monk just did.....

Different play-styles I assume.

[MaxWilson]

Eeeh, just because I am a Monk, I don’t feel compelled to be in melee.

If I see a T-Rex I would much rather run / fly 90’ around it and plink it to death than charge straight in and get eaten just like that Open Hand Monk just did.....

Different play-styles I assume.

Yep, this is what I've seen too, though not from every player.

[Zuras]

I advise you to ready my lengthy post, should give you some input on how good 4E actually can be, when you try to use features proactively instead of reluctantly. Just trying to really play the class and archetype basically instead of trying to force-apply a rigid mindset copy/pasted from another experience of another class or archetype. :)

I’m glad you enjoy playing the class, but believe me, after watching many, many monks in practice, I’m not touching a 4E one, because I personally would find it incredibly annoying and limited. You give the example of playing a Sorcerer with short rest spell recovery, as a comparison to an Elements Monk, but straight away that’s a bad comparison, since the sorcerer is casting spells using their primary stat, while almost all Monk saves key off Wisdom, not Dexterity. If you are pumping Wis to improve your save DCs, your damage will suffer, and if you don’t, your spells & spell like abilities will be much more likely to whiff.

Time and time again, I have watched 4E Monks try to do something cool, but have the attempt completely whiff because it relied on a creature failing a save. That’s a lot times I had to hold my tongue and avoid saying “maybe try stunning strike instead?” It's easily the most disappointing official subclass (the only real competition is the beast master) because it has all the ingredients, but they don’t work effectively together.

You can eat cookie dough—some people even like it—but it isn’t a cookie. The 4E Monk is a bunch of ingredients tacked on to the Monk without additional features to get them to work together. And annoyingly (to continue the analogy) you can’t even add the chocolate chips and M&Ms that have since been added to the other cookies (the Elemental & Xanathar’s spells) to your raw cookie dough, even if you’re the sort that enjoys it.

[MaxWilson]

You can eat cookie dough—some people even like it—but it isn’t a cookie. The 4E Monk is a bunch of ingredients tacked on to the Monk without additional features to get them to work together. And annoyingly (to continue the analogy) you can’t even add the chocolate chips and M&Ms that have since been added to the other cookies (the Elemental & Xanathar’s spells) to your raw cookie dough, even if you’re the sort that enjoys it.

Speaking as an interested DM here: what Xanathar's or EE spells are you most annoyed to miss out on? Magic Stone? Erupting Earth?

[Amechra]

Eeeh, just because I am a Monk, I don’t feel compelled to be in melee.

If I see a T-Rex I would much rather run / fly 90’ around it and plink it to death than charge straight in and get eaten just like that Open Hand Monk just did.....

Different play-styles I assume.

Monks are really good at hitting people in melee without being in melee, though. If nothing else, you can Disengage as a bonus action. Subclasses, on the other hand, can give you more tools - I think the only published subclass that can't forcibly remove themselves from melee are Sun Soul Monks (because they're supposed to stay at range).

Though it makes me kinda sad that Four Element Monks don't get thematic cantrips like Shocking Grasp...

EDIT:


Speaking as an interested DM here: what Xanathar's or EE spells are you most annoyed to miss out on? Magic Stone? Erupting Earth?

I can't speak for Zuras, but I'd love to get the Investiture of Flame/Ice/Stone/Wind spells as Disciplines.

[Zuras]

Speaking as an interested DM here: what Xanathar's or EE spells are you most annoyed to miss out on? Magic Stone? Erupting Earth?

#1 would be Absorb Element.
#2 would be Warding Wind. That would be totally awesome to pick up at 6th level.

Wall of Water and Wall of Sand would also be fun if you could pick them up before 11th. As it is you don’t get enough disciplines for situational picks. Erupting Earth, Storm Sphere and Tidal Wave would also be nice thematically, if you wanted a quality AoE that doesn’t involve fire (following a single element theme).

Additionally, if the 4E monk could pick up Shape Water, Control Flames, Mold Earth and Gust along the way, that would help a lot at earlier levels where you otherwise run low on Ki and can’t do your elemental tricks.

When I looked at homebrewing a fix, I also considered the equivalent of Warlock invocations that let you cast spells once per Long Rest. For example, at 17th level you gain the ability to cast one of the four Investiture spells (chosen on level-up) for 6 ki once per LR.

[LudicSavant]

#1 would be Absorb Element.
#2 would be Warding Wind. That would be totally awesome to pick up at 6th level.

Wall of Water and Wall of Sand would also be fun if you could pick them up before 11th. As it is you don’t get enough disciplines for situational picks. Erupting Earth, Storm Sphere and Tidal Wave would also be nice thematically, if you wanted a quality AoE that doesn’t involve fire (following a single element theme).

Additionally, if the 4E monk could pick up Shape Water, Control Flames, Mold Earth and Gust along the way, that would help a lot at earlier levels where you otherwise run low on Ki and can’t do your elemental tricks.

When I looked at homebrewing a fix, I also considered the equivalent of Warlock invocations that let you cast spells once per Long Rest. For example, at 17th level you gain the ability to cast one of the four Investiture spells (chosen on level-up) for 6 ki once per LR.

You can't just give the Four Elements Monk spells and abilities that would fit its theme! Don't you know that making the Four Elements Monk interesting, useful, or fun runs counter to WotC's design goals for the subclass?

[JellyPooga]

I really wish you would stay on topic and stop moving the goalposts. Now you're trying to change the subject to Tier 3 when we are explicitly discussing Tiers 1-2.

Um...whut? Who said anything about Tier 3. I specifically mentioned Level 5 and the figures I posted are accurate to that level. I am genuinely confused as to where you got the notion I was talking about anything else.

I'm also not sure what your expurgated version of my post proves either, aside from your ability to use the strikethrough tags. Like, genuinely, I'm confused at what you're trying to get at because I can't see the point you're making.

I mean, I was generous by granting the Monk 1d8. Hex is a common spell used by Warlocks and as you admit yourself is in the lower tier of a Warlocks capabilities in this sphere. The lower bound of Warlock is distinctly better, if not significantly so, than the upper bound of Monk, let alone the Monks lower bound.

I'm not moving goalposts here. The Monk is average, at best, at ranged combat. The comparison to a baseline, low-balled Warlock isn't even close.

[Asisreo1]

You can't just give the Four Elements Monk spells and abilities that would fit its theme! Don't you know that making the Four Elements Monk interesting, useful, or fun runs counter to WotC's design goals for the subclass?
I don't think anyone thinks a monk having the Xanathar's spells available wouldn't be nice. Because of course they're thematic and cool. That Does Not mean they are insufficient without the spells. It would just be a nice bonus.

[LudicSavant]

Is stunning strike really all that good? Like, honestly? Most BBEG's are going to have some combination of Con save proficiency, Stun immunity, and Legendary Resistance to back them up. And you probably don't want to use your Stunning Strike on the mook. Stunning Strike falls off heavy later levels, too. Almost all creatures begin to get magical resistance and the aforementioned buffs.

The point he's making is that you basically have to keep thinking "Sure, I could cast Cone of Cold, but is that better than 6 Stunning Strikes in this situation? And if so, how much better is it? Worth a whole subclass better?" As to the factors you mention...

1) Immunity to being Stunned is not common. There are 553 monsters of CR1+ in the MM, VGtM, and MToF. Of those, a measly 15 have stun immunity.
2) Magic resistance doesn't affect Stunning Strike.
3) Iterative probability means that 4 Con saves will often be difficult, even when 1 is not. This also helps chew through Legendary Resistance (particularly if your party is also using iterative saves).

[Asisreo1]

The point he's making is that you basically have to keep thinking "Sure, I could cast Cone of Cold, but is that better than 6 Stunning Strikes in this situation? And if so, how much better is it? Worth a whole subclass better?" As to the factors you mention...

1) Immunity to being Stunned is not common. There are 553 monsters of CR1+ in the MM, VGtM, and MToF. Of those, a measly 15 have stun immunity.
2) Magic resistance doesn't affect Stunning Strike.
3) Iterative probability means that 4 Con saves will often be difficult, even when 1 is not. This also helps chew through Legendary Resistance (particularly if your party is also using iterative saves).
High constitution is very common, though. And to put things in a different perspective, whenever the monster saves, the Ki point does nothing. Stun is a great debuff, don't get me wrong, but a DM isn't going to let their monsters get stunlocked. At least, I'm not. In practice, it's just not as good as it's being implied in my groups. As a DM, sure, you'll get a mook or maybe a hench but you're not going to be able to lock down a stunning strike on a good portion of enemies because all grounded fights with only melee combatants are boring, imo.

But then again, a monk casting an AoE spell means they're trying for AoE damage all at once. You're not getting 6 stunning strikes at one turn, it'll take at least two to even do that, and stunning strike doesn't add damage, just makes them more susceptible. Meanwhile, you're doing 6d8 damage to multiple creatures. The DMG suggests you'll land an average of 6 enemies at once with cone of cold. Realistically, that's 36d8 scattered across 6 different creatures.

The point is: High AoE damage can be invaluable and Cone of Cold delivers with a wide 6d8 damage with damage on-save and 60ft range. If you cast Cone of Cold on a single monster, you're a fool. But if your DM does nothing but single monster encounters at level 17, you probably didn't need to use stunning strike either.

[LudicSavant]

High constitution is very common, though.

I know. Which was the whole point of including #3 in that list...

The ability to force multiple saves for the same ki cost means that despite targeting Con, you're likely to land more effects with Stunning Strike than, say, Clench of the North Wind.

[Asisreo1]

I know. Which was the whole point of including #3 in that list...

The ability to force multiple saves for the same ki cost means that despite targeting Con, you're likely to land more effects with Stunning Strike than, say, Clench of the North Wind.
CNW gives you paralysis, which is stronger than stun because you auto-crit when it lands, it forces the save without relying on hitting, it can target up to 4 humanoids in one turn, it's a wisdom save, and it's continuous for your concentration rather than just until your next turn.

I'm not saying CNW is Better than stun strike, but there's an argument that, depending on the fight, CNW might come in clutch rather than stunning strike. What you have said is true but it's worthwhile to make judgements about your toolkit but I think the differences are enough that they aren't a redundant feature. It gives options for paralysis/stunning.

[HiveStriker]

Also, I will say that I really don't understand where the whole "if you aren't in melee" stuff is coming from. You're a Monk. By 6th level you have a +15ft bonus to all of your speeds, and you have Step of the Wind if you need to cross 90ft in a single round to punch someone. As far as flying creatures are concerned... flying is actually pretty easy for PCs to pick up once they're in Tier 2. Ignoring magic items, Fly is a 3rd level spell that's on most arcane lists, and the party Monk is a really good target for it.

That's a usual, and sad, assumption made on these forums as soon as we start talking about any melee fighter.
Thing is...
1. There are many kind of obstacles, including walls (which you can't run over until level 9), chasms (which need at best Step of The Wind = no fallback and no Flurry, at worst prevent any reach to melee) and flying capabilities.
2. You're a frigging MONK. You will have 16 starting AC, 17 at level 4 and 18 at level 8 if you follow the classic track. You don't have enough Ki to allow spamming Dodge/Disengage every round. Coming into melee without Mobile means if you don't leave a stunned enemy you'll risk an OA.
3. More enemies get nasty tricks as you level: CON/STR targeting effects (which you're not good at), multiple attacks (you're not *that* sturdy either), or even mental ones (at least you're relatively safe against dominance).

The Monk is not a frontliner, he's a skirmisher. That state changes in the last tier when he gets good enough AC, great saves and ultimately damage resistance, and large enough Ki pool that he can afford a handful of Stun attempts without feeling like a lesser Fighter for the rest of the fight. Things many players will never even taste in regular campaign with lvl 1 starting players.
If you play Monk like a Barbarian and enjoy your victory at the end of the day, either your enemies are stupid, or you have a great party covering your hide, or your group is exceptionnally adept at strategizing and coordinating (in which case treasure them, it's rare XD).

As for Fly... Only Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard can learn it (or Lore Bard). It uses up a precious spell known, uses the highest level slot for two levels, uses up concentration, whereas same caster could instead try an Hypnotic Pattern, Slow, Fireball or whatnot: the number of cases where "delegating" to a martial by Flying him is the best option is very probably low.
I could see a Warlock specializing in this though, for a 3-man party (so you can Fly everyone at level 9). ^^



Eh, most of this runs into the following issues:
1) Stunning Strike is dirt cheap. For the same 2 ki as Fist of Unbroken Air, you can potentially force two Con saves vs. a decent DC. Even if your target has, say, an 80% chance to pass those saves, spamming stunning strike would drop that to a 64% chance. Sure, you have to hit twice, but you get 3-4 attacks per round once you hit that level. Also, I'm unsure where you're getting your data on monsters having better Con scaling than Str or Dex scaling - care to share that source?
2) Stunning denies actions and gives all your allies advantage on their attacks (including ranged attackers) and makes the target automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saves and makes grapples automatically succeed. Meanwhile, knocking someone prone helps out your melee allies and utterly screws over your ranged allies (who now have disadvantage on their attack rolls).
3) It's true that Monks aren't good grapplers, but why would they need to be? If you want to knock people over, go Open Hand and potentially force two saves against going prone per round.
4) Sure, Stunning Strike requires you to hit with your attack, but... you have 3-4 attacks per round. Even if you only have a 50% chance of hitting with a given attack, you'd only have a 12.5% chance of missing with all of them if you don't flurry, and a 6.25% chance of missing if you do flurry.

However, I do agree that Stunning Strike's importance can be over-emphasized by these forums. Given the kinds of complaints I see about the Monk, I sometimes wonder if people had one bad experience with the class and swore it off forever, or just never actually played it and are going off the numbers.

1) Stunning Strike is not especially cheap: you need to make weapon attacks, you need them to hit, and then you need to spend one ki per attempt. "You get 3-4 attacks per round at that level" meaning you'd be ready to blow more than half your resources one a single turn, because you recognize yourself you usually need 2 attempts to have SS work reliably.
Meaning 2 (or 3 if Flurry) Ki, and possibly bonus action locked to this end too, and putting yourself much closer to threat in general.
And then you say that 4E is bad because abillities are expensive? That's a very biaised view here.

2) Yeah, it does all that. So what? You don't *always* need *all of that*. Confer my previous post, which apparently you didn't quite read. If just having allies attack at advantage before enemy's next turn is "normally enough to have it killed ASAP" (= unless real streak of bad luck), why "waste" attacks on Stunning Strike? In fact, why even use Ki at all? Unless a) two attempts at Shoving won't cut it whereas a saved based ability has a real good chance to work or b) you need to also deal regular damage...
Besides, if you really want to go that way: Hold Person does all that and more, from a distance, can last several rounds, and targets a save few enemies are good at until much later, for just 3 ki.

3) Do you realize you're basically saying "if you want to use basic melee options reliably you have to go Open Hand"? Which is a) plain wrong, b) reflecting a very rigid mindset. Reminder: Open Hand needs you to take Attack action, needs you to spend one Ki on Flurry, and can use only one effect on the same enemy.
I hope you see by yourself how much that can be limitating in an actual fight.
At least 4E has the option of either tryin regular Shove and possibly have advantage on several attacks himself, or prefer "accuracy" and use action on Air/Whip, which leaves him the ability to use Dash/Dodge/Disengage.
Anyways, in general, you should not, and you effectively do not, need to go Open Hand to use Shove. It's just that you usually have a crappy chance if you don't do anything about it, it does not mean you should never attempt.
Although that is definitely the benefit of 4E here, especially since on top of that, you don't need close contact to try and put prone.

4) Theory is nice. Practice is better. In practice...
a) You can be at disadvantage
b) You can face enemy with insane AC
c) You do not necessarily put yourself that close to that dangerous of an enemy (because if he's not really dangerous, why would you try to use Ki in the first place?).
d) You may simply not be able to reach enemy you want to hit, even as a Monk with great mobility (flying enemy, chasm too big to be jumped over, translucid/with openings wall taking too much speed to "run over"...
e) You do not necessarily want to spend ki on extra attacks (you don't have much left, you want to keep some for next turns or next fight, etc).

Meaning at most 3 attacks, possibly 2 because you want to keep bonus action for Disengage/Dodge.
Against an AC 16, you'll have 50% chance to hit per attack if "cookie-cutter" Monk (16/16, +2 DEX).
Against an AC 18? 40%
Against an AC 20? 30%.
Conversely, higher the AC usually pairs with either higher Constitution, or higher Strength.
Take a look by yourself at the bestiary. You can check by yourself that the following assertions are true until at least CR 12 (didn't check after too lazy for that but it should hold true until at least CR 17).
"A massive majority of monsters have lower effective WIS save than any physical save.
"A majority of monsters, especially the ones with high STR or CON, also have a weak DEX save"
"It's very rare past CR 4 that monsters have less than +3 on CON save".
"It's very rare until CR 9 that monsters have more than +2 (and often +1) on WIS".
"Even as soon as CR 3 having creatures with 18 AC is not uncommon."
"It's extremely rare that creatures have less than +3 modifier against a Shove, and it slightly but steadily goes up with CR".

At level 5 and until level 8, considering same Monk, your DC will be 8+3+3 = 14.
I'll suppose AC 18 on enemy (if lower, I'd strongly think about whether spending any ki at all is really necessary ;)).
Chance to hit 40%, chance for enemy to fail save 45%.
-> You need a succession of precise occurence of two events with each a less than 50% probability. And you may deal no damage at all.
Hold Person will usually have a much better chance of success, and does not require to be in melee, so you spare movement and threat.
Water Whip will usually have a slightly better chance of success, and does not require to be in melee either, so same benefits.

It gets much worse with higher, 9-12 CR creatures: bonus to STR is usually >6-7, CON save has a 5 baseline, and most get multiattacks of some sort and/or reach and/or higher speed than standard.
And they are usually not alone either.

So if you want to pace yourself to avoid risking your hide, it's 2 attacks at best. If you want a full-round of attempts, you only have your base speed (or rather, what's left of it) to try and put back some distance, with the risk of getting focused by enemy's friends.
Worst case, you went and did all 4 attacks, never landed Stun for whatever reason. Now you're fully exposed, without even Dodge.

4E's abilities are great because they allow you to still be effective in many kind of situations where other Monk would feel useless or would need to make some kind of "all-in" bets and hope for the best.



Time and time again, I have watched 4E Monks try to do something cool, but have the attempt completely whiff because it relied on a creature failing a save. That’s a lot times I had to hold my tongue and avoid saying “maybe try stunning strike instead?” It's easily the most disappointing official subclass (the only real competition is the beast master) because it has all the ingredients, but they don’t work effectively together.

I'm sorry to say, that's only a self-biais of perception of yours.
Because if the target creature made its save against a DEX/WIS or even a STR save, it would have certainly also passed the CON save in ~90% of all cases.
Which rolls back at the first point: Stunning Strike is awesome on paper, but realistically whatever level you play at you'll need at least 2 attempts to make it more or less reliable of a tactic. And it gets far worse with level because your DC doesn't progress as much as CON saves.

[Asisreo1]

2) Magic resistance doesn't affect Stunning Strike

What official ruling says Ki isn't magical? I know Crawford wrote a tweet some odd years ago but there's been nothing official besides the Sage Advice compendium that says that if the description says it's magical, it is. But The Magic of Ki describes Ki as magical. It's a bit inconsistent and it's obviously known by the design team to cause confusion, so why not put it in the sage advice? Or make an errata where it outright claims Ki isn't magical.

[HiveStriker]

I honestly think the 4E Monk would have been better off if none of their disciplines mimicked spells. Then you wouldn't get that comparison to EK/AT in the first place. Or, alternatively, if they hadn't included it in the core rules, and instead put it in the Elemental Evils Player's Companion, so that it could have drawn spells from there.

Part of my problem with the subclass is that there doesn't really seem to be a good outline of how it's supposed to be special. Take the other magic-heavy core subclass - the Shadow Monk is blatantly supposed to be a stealthy scout/ninja. All four of the spells it gets (at 3rd level, mind you) are built around making you stealthier and making use of shadows. The 4E Monk doesn't really make those steps towards opening up a new role or redefining their old one - it's like the thought process when designing it started and ended with "they should have elemental powers!".

Or, to look at it in another way: a Shadow Monk can do things with their features that a spellcaster who focuses on shadow spells just plain can't. At-will invisibility and teleportation while in poor lighting isn't something that can be replicated by making appropriate spell choices, and the four spells they get are drawn from distinct spell lists¹ so that it'd be really hard to copy them spell-wise without bending over backwards. Meanwhile, every single spell that a 4E Monk can pick from is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list. And, at the same time, their unique disciplines are available from 3rd level, and consist of a mediocre cantrip replacer, three combat options, and one bit of kinda interesting utility.

This I totally understands and globally agree with.
Small caveat though: redesigning everything as pure Monk feature would further expand the need to learn for players. Mimicking spells has at least the advantage of reusing features that everyone knows already and is familiar with using and ruling about.

[Zalabim]

What official ruling says Ki isn't magical? I know Crawford wrote a tweet some odd years ago but there's been nothing official besides the Sage Advice compendium that says that if the description says it's magical, it is. But The Magic of Ki describes Ki as magical. It's a bit inconsistent and it's obviously known by the design team to cause confusion, so why not put it in the sage advice? Or make an errata where it outright claims Ki isn't magical.
"The magic of Ki" is part of the class fluff, not the game's rules. The magic of Ki also separates "creating magical effects" from exceeding physical limitations. There are some Ki abilities that say they are magical, (like Elemental Disciplines) which would be redundant if they all were magical already. Stunning strike is as magical as a white dragon's freezing breath.

[Asisreo1]

"The magic of Ki" is part of the class fluff, not the game's rules. The magic of Ki also separates "creating magical effects" from exceeding physical limitations. There are some Ki abilities that say they are magical, (like Elemental Disciplines) which would be redundant if they all were magical already. Stunning strike is as magical as a white dragon's freezing breath.
While I'm inclined to agree, I'm not entirely convinced. There isn't a blurb that separates mechanics from fluff. The best way to state it would be that it isn't in the "Class Features" section. There's still too much leeway with that explanation. A dragon is a magical creature but it's breath weapon is not magical. A monk isn't inherently magical but Ki is. I'd definitely rule that Ki is nonmagical, though. I just don't know how I'd go about completely changing someone's mind that it isn't.

[Zalabim]

While I'm inclined to agree, I'm not entirely convinced. There isn't a blurb that separates mechanics from fluff. The best way to state it would be that it isn't in the "Class Features" section. There's still too much leeway with that explanation.
There's this SRD thing. It has the rules, but not the class write-up stuff. If something in the class write-up were vital to the basic rules, they shouldn't have been left out. It's not just not part of class features.

[Asisreo1]

There's this SRD thing. It has the rules, but not the class write-up stuff. If something in the class write-up were vital to the basic rules, they shouldn't have been left out. It's not just not part of class features.
Eh...still seems like pulling on hairs for me. They left out wood elves but I'd think they were basic rules. On the other side, they left in Druid's little flavor text blurb about gods which means they aren't exactly cutting all the fat in the SRD.

[JellyPooga]

I honestly think the 4E Monk would have been better off if none of their disciplines mimicked spells. Then you wouldn't get that comparison to EK/AT in the first place. Or, alternatively, if they hadn't included it in the core rules, and instead put it in the Elemental Evils Player's Companion, so that it could have drawn spells from there.

Part of my problem with the subclass is that there doesn't really seem to be a good outline of how it's supposed to be special. Take the other magic-heavy core subclass - the Shadow Monk is blatantly supposed to be a stealthy scout/ninja. All four of the spells it gets (at 3rd level, mind you) are built around making you stealthier and making use of shadows. The 4E Monk doesn't really make those steps towards opening up a new role or redefining their old one - it's like the thought process when designing it started and ended with "they should have elemental powers!".

Or, to look at it in another way: a Shadow Monk can do things with their features that a spellcaster who focuses on shadow spells just plain can't. At-will invisibility and teleportation while in poor lighting isn't something that can be replicated by making appropriate spell choices, and the four spells they get are drawn from distinct spell lists¹ so that it'd be really hard to copy them spell-wise without bending over backwards. Meanwhile, every single spell that a 4E Monk can pick from is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list. And, at the same time, their unique disciplines are available from 3rd level, and consist of a mediocre cantrip replacer, three combat options, and one bit of kinda interesting utility.

¹ Darkness is a Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell, Darkvision is an Artificer/Druid/Ranger/Sorcerer/Wizard spell, Pass Without Trace is a Druid/Ranger spell, Silence is a Bard/Cleric/Ranger spell, and Minor Illusion is a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell.

This I totally understands and globally agree with.
Small caveat though: redesigning everything as pure Monk feature would further expand the need to learn for players. Mimicking spells has at least the advantage of reusing features that everyone knows already and is familiar with using and ruling about.

I completely agree as well. Yes, the other subclasses utilise spells, but aren't focused on them to the same degree. 4E was lazily designed and could easily have followed a similar pattern to the Way of Shadow or Open Palm without being overcomplicated. As I've discovered in exploring the class over the course of this thread, 4E isn't the "spellcasting" subclass; the Way of Shadow actually gets the same number of spells, just at lvl.3, as 4E gets over its entire career! Yet you don't see people comparing the Way of Shadow to EK or AT in the same manner as 4E. As you point out Amechra, 4E get's virtually nothing unique and I don't think that adding additional spell options would ever fix that.

[Zuras]

Time and time again, I have watched 4E Monks try to do something cool, but have the attempt completely whiff because it relied on a creature failing a save. That’s a lot times I had to hold my tongue and avoid saying “maybe try stunning strike instead?” It's easily the most disappointing official subclass (the only real competition is the beast master) because it has all the ingredients, but they don’t work effectively together.




I'm sorry to say, that's only a self-bias of perception of yours.
Because if the target creature made its save against a DEX/WIS or even a STR save, it would have certainly also passed the CON save in ~90% of all cases.
Which rolls back at the first point: Stunning Strike is awesome on paper, but realistically whatever level you play at you'll need at least 2 attempts to make it more or less reliable of a tactic. And it gets far worse with level because your DC doesn't progress as much as CON saves.

Completely discounting my actual table experience because you disagree with my conclusions is a kind of argument, I suppose. Telling me what I’ve actually seen at my tables through over 300 hours of play with various monks is mere biased perception is rather unpersuasive, though.

My basic assertion flows from a general theory of action economy in combat:

A: In combat, you have the best chance to win by taking the most productive actions possible each turn, and by using features that get you additional actions (bonus actions, uses for your reaction, action surge, etc.).

B: PCs with a martial base class have strong uses for their action in combat purely from their base class features.

C: Any additional combat actions you gain via a subclass (or multi classing) feature should be compared to your existing options to determine if they are any good.

D: Normally, casting a low level spell or cantrip with your action will be worse than simply attacking, for any class that has the extra attack feature. This is amplified if the spell relies on a save DC from a secondary stat. The exceptions are spells that are situationally more effective than their level indicates, buff spells that will improve your effectiveness through the rest of the fight, or classes with features allowing better action economy than normal.

Given that framework, using your action to Attack and use Stunning Strike if you hit will be more effective than elemental disciplines most of the time. Most creatures have better Con than Wis, but it’s seldom +5 better, and forcing two consecutive Con saves is slightly better than forcing them to save at disadvantage. Plus, even if it fails, your attacks still dealt damage. Since two stunning strike attempts use the same ki as even the cheapest offensive disciplines, involve attacks you would be making anyway, and allow you to follow up with a bonus action attack if desired, simply attacking and stunning is a better use for your action in most cases.

Sure, in some cases range, high AC or weaknesses to non-Con saves will make a discipline a better option, but those are the exception, not the rule. There are plenty of glass cannons out there with bad Con saves that you really would like to miss their turns (mages, Mind flayers, etc). Situational advantage against smart enemies is probably at least as valuable as situational advantage against dumb ones, and in most parties having the Monk specialize on killing wizards while someone else worries about hitting Fire Giants in their Dex saves is probably a better division of labor.

In any event, Clench of the North Wind isn’t where I’d try to defend the 4E Monk, because Hold Person isn’t that great even on a prepared caster, much less as one of the five spells/spell likes you get for your entire career.

In theory, if you simply focus on spells with primarily non-combat and specialized uses, the 4E Monk can be perfectly competent. Gust of Wind, Shape the Flowing River, Fly and Wall of Stone can all come up aces in the right situation, and Water Whip is a reasonable choice if you want to hit high AC, low Dex opponents (a decently common scenario). Fireball and Cone of Cold are also decent picks in a smaller party short on AoEs.

In practice, people want to blow stuff up with elemental energy and then punch someone in the face, maybe with a superhero landing in between. The 4E Monk doesn’t deliver on that, and when people try they get disappointed. Even played judiciously, they have fewer chances to shine than the other Monk subclasses, especially prior to 11th level. Like the Beast Master, they are playable but their optimal play style is at odds with how the archetype behaves in other media, thus the disappointment.

[Asisreo1]

In practice, people want to blow stuff up with elemental energy and then punch someone in the face, maybe with a superhero landing in between. The 4E Monk doesn’t deliver on that, and when people try they get disappointed. Even played judiciously, they have fewer chances to shine than the other Monk subclasses, especially prior to 11th level. Like the Beast Master, they are playable but their optimal play style is at odds with how the archetype behaves in other media, thus the disappointment.
"I'm going to cast burning hands on the two orcs, doing 10 damage to both of them for a total of 20 damage. I'll then jump down this 30ft ledge and reduce all my damage using slow fall, with a cool superhero landing."

Buddy, this is level 4. Before you even get extra attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't just give the Four Elements Monk spells and abilities that would fit its theme! Don't you know that making the Four Elements Monk interesting, useful, or fun runs counter to WotC's design goals for the subclass? What design goals? Evidence? :smallbiggrin:
There isn't a blurb that separates mechanics from fluff. You are correct.
There was such a blurb in 4e, but in 5e you see an assertion that "x is fluff" then you are dealing with someone who is perhaps making stuff up, is offering an opinion based on some other edition, or may be trying to be dismissive of "point x"

[Zuras]

"I'm going to cast burning hands on the two orcs, doing 10 damage to both of them for a total of 20 damage. I'll then jump down this 30ft ledge and reduce all my damage using slow fall, with a cool superhero landing."

Buddy, this is level 4. Before you even get extra attack.


Flashy presentation, but both Orcs are still alive with 5 hp. If you just waled away at one and added a Flurry of blows, you’d probably have killed it and only be facing attacks from one, a significantly better tactical situation. If you were Open Hand you could have probably kicked one (or both) over that same 30’ cliff, too.

[Asisreo1]

Flashy presentation, but both Orcs are still alive with 5 hp. If you just waled away at one and added a Flurry of blows, you’d probably have killed it and only be facing attacks from one, a significantly better tactical situation. If you were Open Hand you could have probably kicked one (or both) over that same 30’ cliff, too.
You're forgetting that both ogres are at 5hp, meaning the two-weapon-fighting rogue can sweep them both up in one turn. Not only that, you could theoretically do 3 ogres!

[MaxWilson]

Flashy presentation, but both Orcs are still alive with 5 hp. If you just waled away at one and added a Flurry of blows, you’d probably have killed it and only be facing attacks from one, a significantly better tactical situation. If you were Open Hand you could have probably kicked one (or both) over that same 30’ cliff, too.

For what it's worth, I rolled this out (d8+3, plus d4+3 x2, all at +5 to hit vs AC 13) and killed an orc 4 times out of 10. Damage totals were 15, 25, 7, 4, 14, 15, 10, 11, 16, 10.

But let's not get too hung up on the "two orcs" scenario. The whole point of AoEs is that whereas normal attacks get worse as the number of attackers increase, AoEs get better. If the monk is facing 2 orcs, the whole party is probably facing 8 orcs, right? Find the biggest cluster you can and nuke it as hard as you can.

[Asisreo1]

Flashy presentation, but both Orcs are still alive with 5 hp. If you just waled away at one and added a Flurry of blows, you’d probably have killed it and only be facing attacks from one, a significantly better tactical situation. If you were Open Hand you could have probably kicked one (or both) over that same 30’ cliff, too.
Wait, hold on. If you use flurry of blows on an orc, you're not guaranteed to hit them all. Orcs don't have good dex saves and you'd have a roughly 40% miss rate on your flurry. If you miss one unarmed strike, you'd only do 13(1d8+1d4+6) damage which means the orc is still alive with another one unscathed.

Orcs are also better at strength saves than dex saves.

And that doesn't disprove the fact that you can fulfill the fantasy just fine if you play the darn subclass.

[Zuras]

Wait, hold on. If you use flurry of blows on an orc, you're not guaranteed to hit them all. Orcs don't have good dex saves and you'd have a roughly 40% miss rate on your flurry. If you miss one unarmed strike, you'd only do 13(1d8+1d4+6) damage which means the orc is still alive with another one unscathed.

Orcs are also better at strength saves than dex saves.

And that doesn't disprove the fact that you can fulfill the fantasy just fine if you play the darn subclass.

Fulfilling the fantasy requires that the abilities feel effective relative to the rest of the party. If you are in a 3 PC group with a Champion Fighter and a Life Cleric, you’ll feel fine.

If the party Wizard casts Dragon’s Breath on their familiar and it proceeds to do the same 3d6 fire damage three times over the next three rounds, you may feel a little underpowered. If the two of you wanted to work together, the Wizard could even Dragonbreath you while you use your Ki on patient Defense and close with the orcs to maximize the number caught in the damage cone.

Being a decent monk who can periodically act like a bad wizard when desired doesn’t match my fantasy of being an element-bender.

[LudicSavant]

Fulfilling the fantasy requires that the abilities feel effective relative to the rest of the party. If you are in a 3 PC group with a Champion Fighter and a Life Cleric, you’ll feel fine.

If the party Wizard casts Dragon’s Breath on their familiar and it proceeds to do the same 3d6 fire damage three times over the next three rounds, you may feel a little underpowered. If the two of you wanted to work together, the Wizard could even Dragonbreath you while you use your Ki on patient Defense and close with the orcs to maximize the number caught in the damage cone.

Being a decent monk who can periodically act like a bad wizard when desired doesn’t match my fantasy of being an element-bender.

Pretty much this.

Simply having a long range attack isn't sufficient on its own to nail the fantasy of being a sniper, in the game design sense. It's more complicated than just that.

[Asisreo1]

Pretty much this.

Simply having a long range attack isn't sufficient on its own to nail the fantasy of being a sniper, in the game design sense. It's more complicated than just that.
But you're not fulfilling the fantasy of a sniper. You're fulfilling the fantasy of a trained martial artist that uses their mystic connection to the elements to supernaturally enhance their abilities, like The Last Airbender.

In relation to the whole group, 1 fireball from the wizard and 1 shatter from the monk on an area of multiple targets is more effective than 1 fireball from the wizard and 4 attack rolls from the monk.

Don't compare yourself to the wizard or the sorcerer. If you wanted to just be a spellcaster, you would've been just a spellcaster. But you wanted to be a martial class with the ability to both strike your foes and blow them up and fly with your connections to the elements.

Nobody ever complains that there's two spells being cast in a round rather than one and remaining as the evasion tank mage killer all monks are makes you very competent in a variety of situations.

If you want to be a sniper, there's other options, though.

[MaxWilson]

Fulfilling the fantasy requires that the abilities feel effective relative to the rest of the party. If you are in a 3 PC group with a Champion Fighter and a Life Cleric, you’ll feel fine.

If the party Wizard casts Dragon’s Breath on their familiar and it proceeds to do the same 3d6 fire damage three times over the next three rounds, you may feel a little underpowered. If the two of you wanted to work together, the Wizard could even Dragonbreath you while you use your Ki on patient Defense and close with the orcs to maximize the number caught in the damage cone.

Being a decent monk who can periodically act like a bad wizard when desired doesn’t match my fantasy of being an element-bender.

I'm not familiar with anime. Can you tell me why your fantasy of being an element-bender needs to be a monk at all, instead of a wizard? Surely there are some aspects that the monk is already satisfying better than the owl familiar.

That doesn't mean the monk couldn't be improved via additional discipline options (which honestly should be easy: DM just has to whitelist the spells and give a ki cost for each), but I'm interested in knowing how much would be enough for your fantasy. Do you even need Extra Attack and Stunning Strike, for instance? If Extra Attack is needed, would a Bladesinger fit your ideal element-bender fantasy better than a monk would?

[Asisreo1]

Fulfilling the fantasy requires that the abilities feel effective relative to the rest of the party. If you are in a 3 PC group with a Champion Fighter and a Life Cleric, you’ll feel fine.

If the party Wizard casts Dragon’s Breath on their familiar and it proceeds to do the same 3d6 fire damage three times over the next three rounds, you may feel a little underpowered. If the two of you wanted to work together, the Wizard could even Dragonbreath you while you use your Ki on patient Defense and close with the orcs to maximize the number caught in the damage cone.

Being a decent monk who can periodically act like a bad wizard when desired doesn’t match my fantasy of being an element-bender.

Again, stop comparing yourself to the wizard. You can't be both equally good as a wizard and an equally good monk.

The wizard is a double-downed spellcaster. Without their spellcasting trait, they're pretty much nothing. The wizard needs stronger spells and the ability to cast more because without that, they're literally the weakest class. If they're in an antimagic field, if they get counterspelled, if they get dispel magiced, they become useless for the round. They have so limited defensive option, they have so limited hp, they have so limited AC, if they're put in an unfavorable position with a melee fighter, they're getting rocked.

Not you, not the 4-elemonk. You're a third-caster casting on a short rest resource with spell-progression of a half-caster and the defensive abilities to go in a toe-to-toe melee with some of the baddest melee NPC's like a giant if you must.

But just stop trying to compare across classes, different toolsets.

You're not a wizard, you're not an eldritch knight, you're not a sorcerer or a druid. You're a 4-elemonk and you need to understand that your role isn't for your spells to compete with fullcasters.

Your role isn't to be a decent wizard. You're goal is to be an excellent monk. And with these new tools, you'll make an amazing monk.

[Zuras]

I'm not familiar with anime. Can you tell me why your fantasy of being an element-bender needs to be a monk at all, instead of a wizard? Surely there are some aspects that the monk is already satisfying better than the owl familiar.

That doesn't mean the monk couldn't be improved via additional discipline options (which honestly should be easy: DM just has to whitelist the spells and give a ki cost for each), but I'm interested in knowing how much would be enough for your fantasy. Do you even need Extra Attack and Stunning Strike, for instance? If Extra Attack is needed, would a Bladesinger fit your ideal element-bender fantasy better than a monk would?

A properly built UA Mystic using a mix of Wu Jen and Immortal features does everything I want from an element bender, actually.

[Asisreo1]

A properly built UA Mystic using a mix of Wu Jen and Immortal features does everything I want from an element bender, actually.
Couldn't you go druid if you just wanted mastery of the elements, no monk-ness involved? Thunderwave, fog cloud, heat metal, flame blade, gust of wind, call lightning, wind wall.

If you just wanted to be an elemental spellcaster with non of the monk benefits, why don't you?

[Amechra]

I'm not familiar with anime. Can you tell me why your fantasy of being an element-bender needs to be a monk at all, instead of a wizard? Surely there are some aspects that the monk is already satisfying better than the owl familiar.

That doesn't mean the monk couldn't be improved via additional discipline options (which honestly should be easy: DM just has to whitelist the spells and give a ki cost for each), but I'm interested in knowing how much would be enough for your fantasy. Do you even need Extra Attack and Stunning Strike, for instance? If Extra Attack is needed, would a Bladesinger fit your ideal element-bender fantasy better than a monk would?

Using the word "bender" implies very heavily that their fantasy is informed by Avatar: the Last Airbender and Avatar: The Legend of Korra, where the visuals and lore for elemental manipulation are based on martial arts.

This is a pretty good example of what they're probably thinking of. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWNo21jmlU)

[LudicSavant]

But you're not fulfilling the fantasy of a sniper. You're fulfilling the fantasy of a trained martial artist that uses their mystic connection to the elements to supernaturally enhance their abilities, like The Last Airbender.

If you want to be a sniper, there's other options, though.

By the same principle that simply having a long ranged weapon is not sufficient on its own to nail the fantasy of being a sniper, being able to punch things and use elemental abilities is not sufficient on its own to nail the fantasy of being Aang or the like. It takes more than just those surface-level elements.

Nobody is saying that they want the Four Elements Monk to fill the fantasy of being a sniper. That is just... totally missing the point.

[Garfunion]

To be honest after reading through this thread. If anyone wants to fill the role of an elemental bender, I would suggest re-skinning the Sun Soul Monk. Choose your element and replace all the damage type to appropriate elemental damage chosen.

However with all the variant versions of elemental benders out there (vine bending, lava bending, sparky boom boom bending, metal bending, and etc), the druid would be a better option. Perhaps creating a Druid archetype that provides Monk like features, Including using your wild shape as a form of avatar state.

[Asisreo1]

Wow that is... completely missing the point. It's an analogy.

In the same way that simply having a long ranged weapon is not sufficient to nail the fantasy of being a sniper on its own, being able to punch things and use fire abilities is not sufficient to nail the fantasy of being Aang or the like.

Nobody is saying that they want the Four Elements Monk to fill the fantasy of being a sniper. -_-
But you have all the tools. Fire, water, earth, wind. And you get them at the offset with elemental attunement. You can make fire dance, create weapons of ice and stone, light flames at your whim, create caltrops, anything you can imagine crudely made from all 4 elements are able to be made from level 3.

You have unbroken air, gusts of wind, shape of flowing water, shatter, cone of cold, clench of the north wind. You're exaggerating just to put your point across.

It's not for everybody but it's all but weak

[Zuras]

Couldn't you go druid if you just wanted mastery of the elements, no monk-ness involved? Thunderwave, fog cloud, heat metal, flame blade, gust of wind, call lightning, wind wall.

If you just wanted to be an elemental spellcaster with non of the monk benefits, why don't you?

The simplest PHB legal way to shore up the 4E monk’s worst shortcomings is indeed to take Magic Initiate: Druid, with Absorb Element as your 1st Level spell and Shape Water, Control Flames or Mold Earth as your cantrips.

As to why be a monk rather than a full caster specializing in elemental spells, the archetype I believe we’re attempting to create is a warrior who uses speed, skill and mastery of the elements to prevail in combat rather than raw strength and mastery of weapons. The Mystic can support it by burning additional resources for buffing, or you can put it on the Monk chassis but do a better job of integrating the elemental features and provide more at-will options.

[Nifft]

Nobody is saying that they want the Four Elements Monk to fill the fantasy of being a sniper. That is just... totally missing the point.

You are absolutely correct.


However, now that you've brought it up, I wonder about a different 4 elements...

Sniper: the element of surprise!
Scribe: the elements of style!
Sneak: the criminal element!
Stove: the heating element!

[MaxWilson]

Using the word "bender" implies very heavily that their fantasy is informed by Avatar: the Last Airbender and Avatar: The Legend of Korra, where the visuals and lore for elemental manipulation are based on martial arts.

This is a pretty good example of what they're probably thinking of. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWNo21jmlU)

I watched the clip and I'm still a little confused why it needs to be a monk at all. She throws maybe two punches, which he blocks, but for the most part it looks like you could play a bog-standard Evoker and fulfill a large part of the fantasy--in fact you'd probably be more frustrated with the lack of cool elemental spells like "cage of Ice" and "flying water skateboard" (or whatever that thing was) than with the lack of martial arts. Just ask the DM if your somatic and verbal spell components can be flavored as resembling martial arts.

Basically it sounds like elemental benders are more closely related to wu jen than to elemental monks. If you gave elemental monks enough powers to fulfill the wu jen fantasy they'd be overpowered by getting all of the monk stuff for free.

[Asisreo1]

The simplest PHB legal way to shore up the 4E monk’s worst shortcomings is indeed to take Magic Initiate: Druid, with Absorb Element as your 1st Level spell and Shape Water, Control Flames or Mold Earth as your cantrips.

As to why be a monk rather than a full caster specializing in elemental spells, the archetype I believe we’re attempting to create is a warrior who uses speed, skill and mastery of the elements to prevail in combat rather than raw strength and mastery of weapons. The Mystic can support it by burning additional resources for buffing, or you can put it on the Monk chassis but do a better job of integrating the elemental features and provide more at-will options.
But I fail to see how the 4-elemonk fails this archetype. You get elements, you get martial arts, you get speed. But what everyone wants isn't something new, everyone just wants a buff because it seems weak to them. Because their playstyle was never a third-caster, so they can't get into their mindset.

People never play the class but call for buffs like Ki point cost reduction, spell options, not because they've seen firsthand if they are troublesome but because they're off-put.

You guys are off-put by 2Ki points an action when you have 3 in the tank, even though you'd only get to do flurry of blows as your other damaging Ki spent at that level.

You're off-put by the lack of options when there's alot of options for a monk's action, bonus action, stunning strike, reaction. But because those options aren't in the list of spells, they put you off.

This is most likely a relic of 4e, where everyone was expected to be very similar to each other, or 3-3.5e where if you didn't compete with spellcasters, you didn't compete at all.

But I'm telling you that the buffs presented so far doesn't solve the problem you're experiencing without becoming just a half-caster. It just feels nice because bigger numbers go bang.

[Zuras]

So I've recently started in a new game playing a Monk and have been considering, for largely RP reasons, of going for the Way of 4-Elements. The campaign is heavily influenced by irish/celtic mythology and my character is loosely based on the style of the hero Cuchulain, which Monk fits well, I think. Add to that a background where he was raised/trained by a Giant (of the mystical, demi-god type, rather than the "just a big dude" D&D type) and his wife; a mountain Fey/Goddess (who was subsequently eaten by said Giant/husband) and that's where this character is at; looking for revenge for the devouring of his foster mum/lover (yeah, we got some Oedipal overtones going on here too).

Anyways, I digress. The point being; this guy is heading for 4-Elements Monk for reasons, so I wanted to discuss/ask advice on some of the options available. So let's get to it;

3rd Level
- Fist of Unbroken Air vs. Water Whip. On the surface, these two abilities look very similar; 3d10 damage, +1d10/extra Ki point spent, push/pull, prone effect. Much of a muchness, right? Except Water Whip is a Bonus Action while Unbroken Air is an Action. That's something I've overlooked since, uh, forever; straight up never noticed it. That's a game-changer. I mean, ok, it's 2 Ki compared to 1 for a Flurry, but it's 3d10 (avg.16) damage and also yanks a foe up to 25ft closer to you or knocks them prone, ready to be ganked by your main weapon attack. Just looking at damage, this is directly comparable to the output of a (Tier 1/Tier 2) Flurry of Blows and gives you a similar additional "control" to that which Open Hand offers. Yes, using Water Whip forgoes the additional Stunning Strike opportunities, but you still also have that option if stuns are what you need/want. Water Whip is...actually a pretty solid ability compared to other 3rd lvl. Monk subclass features. Scratch all of that; just checked the Errata, which changed Water Whip to be an Action, which puts it straight back into the "that pretty much sucks" category, along with all the other direct damage spells/abilities 4E Monk has access to. I'd welcome any insights to the contrary.

- Shape the Flowing River. At first I overlooked this one because it seems to be predicated on having access to significant quantities of water to be any use at all. However...assuming you do have access to a decent body of water/ice, it's actually pretty damned good considering the level you have access to it. I think it's worth reiterating that this is a feature you can get at 3rd level. Functionally, albeit situationally, this is a Wall of Ice style ability that can also be used to bridge rivers, create pits or difficult terrain that also forces Dex saves vs. being knocked prone, or anything your imagination can conjure...you can't directly damage or trap a creature with it, but you can shape ice capable of damaging or trapping a creature. It's not limited by duration or concentration either; once you turn the water to ice, it's ice. At least until it melts. Ice can be scary lethal, especially when you get to shape it (and I quote) "in any manner you desire". As a result of this lack of
Don't forget the utility of this ability either; it doesn't create magical ice, limited by the strictures of a spell description, it turns water to ice (or vice versa) and that has all sorts of function that doesn't necessarily rely on having a massive quantity to hand. Break a lock, shatter stone, freeze a sword in its scabbard, to name just a few things. Note also that this ability is not limited by line of sight or weight or anything else; it's only limited by area and the physical properties of water. If you like Minor Illusion for its utility, a clever player should also see the incredible potential in this.

6th level
For no apparent reason, the options here are super limited; take a 3rd level one, one that does basically the same thing as Stunning Strike or a sucky direct damage one that isn't significantly better than the 3rd lvl options. Tough one. I may just take Water Whip here anyway and stick to a watery theme.

11th level
Let's face it. It's Fly. I like Gaseous Form a lot and I may still go for it for flavour reasons, but Fly is the strong choice here. Right?

17th level
As solely damage dealing spells, Cone of Cold and Wall of Fire just aren't cutting the cheese at this level. Stoneskin could be a decentish choice if it were effective against magical attacks, but it's not. So that leaves Wall of Stone. It's no Wall of Force or Forcecage, but it's still pretty solid (pun intended). I'd appreciate any tips on using it.

I know it's not considered the best Monk subclass, but this will be my first Monk and would appreciate any advice. Cheers.

I doubt anyone with a strong opinion on the Way of the Four Elements is going to be swayed either way by this point in the discussion, but I wanted to summarize the pro-4E points that have been made that I agree with in light of JellyPooga's original question, even if I think, on balance, the strengths aren't enough to make the subclass worth it compared to other Monk options.

1) Extra utility from disciplines like Shape the Flowing River and Elemental Attunement give you creative options unavailable to other monks. My personal feeling is that Elemental Attunement is underpowered compared to the subsequent Elemental Evil/Xanathar's cantrips, and upgrading it from affecting a 1' cube to a 5' cube wouldn't break anything, but I have nothing bad to say about Shape the Flowing River except five disciplines known is too few.

2) Your normal attacks and Stunning Strike target AC and Con saves, and additional combat options that target other saves are valuable. In my experience high Con enemies in plate mail with bad Dex saves are bigger problems than humanoids with bad Wis saves, so Water Whip is far better than Hold Person, but the principle is valid in both cases.

3) Monks have no AoE capability in their core class. Personally I think the cost/benefit of the available AoEs aren't worth it till you can get Fireball and Cone of Cold, but the option is there, and may be valuable if your party is otherwise low on AoE options.

4) Monk ranged capability is sub-par. It's good enough to be a valid option rather than a glaring weak point, but that's it. 4E monks add multiple ways to attack at range or otherwise deal with flying enemies (knocking them prone or flying yourself, then stunning them).

5) At higher levels you get some handy control spells. I have nothing bad to say about Wall of Fire and Wall of Stone. Even in Tier 3 & 4 play they will often be worth the ki expenditure.

6) At higher levels you get some great mobility spells. Fly and Gaseous Form are awesome and work well with the monk stuff you do.

7) Range: Self spells often work much better on a 1/2 or 1/3 caster than on a Wizard or Sorcerer. The 4E monk admittedly has nothing as good as Blur is on an Eldritch Knight, but you can get much better positioning for Gust of Wind and Thunderwave while risking less than a Wizard or Druid.


Given these potential strengths, my advice to JellyPooga, or anyone playing a 4E Monk, would be:

Take Water Whip over Fist of Unbroken Air. Enemies with bad Str saves probably don't have great Con saves either, but plenty of things with high AC and Con have bad Dex saves. The designers even acknowledge this, given that FoUA both shoves and knocks prone while WW merely gives you a choice of effects.

Unless your campaign in in a desert, Shape the Flowing River is a strong choice and will let you do things no other party member can.

Gust of Wind is a surprisingly strong option, since it lasts a whole minute. It's very situational, but that may be a plus, since you won't be tempted to use it in situations where it isn't a strong option.

Fangs of the Fire Snake is the only discipline that provides the elemental effects and action economy I would prefer out of the class. It's a good choice if other party members are already focusing on control options but you are light on nova potential.

I don't think any of the AoE options besides Fireball, Wall of Fire and Cone of Cold are worth their opportunity cost, so I wouldn't bother taking them unless the rest of the party was very light on AoEs.

To get back to arguing (which, let's face it, is what I'm here for), all the nice stuff you can get from the disciplines just isn't as good as what you can get from the other subclass choices, and *in my opinion* if your subclass choice is intended to help you out by providing more options, rather than more raw power, maybe it should provide more than one option at level up, especially given that the other caster-like subclasses get five or six extra things to do (2-3 cantrips and 3 spells).

As I've stated before, my experience watching others play 4E monks has been negative, especially in tiers 1 & 2. I'm open to arguments that the players running the 4E monks at my tables were doing it wrong, or that the tables I play at have a play style that disfavors the 4E monk (maybe we don't get enough short rests, which leads me to value always-on abilities and efficient uses of ki). If so, maybe try to argue about the specifics, rather than just telling me that my actual table experiences are irrelevant simply because it doesn't match your experiences or opinions.

[Specter]

If you're going down the min/max road, 4 Elements is not good, period. What you need to take away from the subclass is versatility. If your buddies are facing an army, you can just fly above the ranks and go stun the bosses yourself. If you want to be the one to blast dozens of mooks, instead, Fireball them. Etc.

People who think that versatility is bad are the same people that think Ranger is bad because it doesn't do as much damage as the fighter.

[HiveStriker]

Fulfilling the fantasy requires that the abilities feel effective relative to the rest of the party. If you are in a 3 PC group with a Champion Fighter and a Life Cleric, you’ll feel fine.

If the party Wizard casts Dragon’s Breath on their familiar and it proceeds to do the same 3d6 fire damage three times over the next three rounds, you may feel a little underpowered. If the two of you wanted to work together, the Wizard could even Dragonbreath you while you use your Ki on patient Defense and close with the orcs to maximize the number caught in the damage cone.

Being a decent monk who can periodically act like a bad wizard when desired doesn’t match my fantasy of being an element-bender.
well, you'd probably be interested in some homebrew someone posted months ago, although it was rather crude. Had lots of potential though. :)

Otherwise, to use some bits of aforementioned in a simple way, create a Fighter subclass.
- give "Ki" (change name) pool that "follows" proficiency mod, recharge on short rest.
- use N ki, minimum 1, to mimic the effect of any buff/defensive spell until the start of your next turn, appliable when you make a weapon attack. Make effects scalable with more ki, allow up to two different effects at once from level 7 onwards.
- get it to automatically learn relevant spells following the Eldricht Knight progression.

Pick up every "elemental-changing" spell (Absorb Elements, Chromatic Orb, Dragon's Breath, Elemental Weapon), and homebrew Fangs of Fire Snake as a 1st level spell, bonus action, lasting for one round, that make all weapon damage elemental although you choose the damage type.

To be clearer I envision the "1-turn effects" as is:
- Absorb Elements: damage absorption equal, per ki spent, to twice your WIS mod. All absorbed damage is stacked and released on the nex melee attack you land, or the end of your next turn, whichever happens first.
- "Elemental Damage conversion": 1 ki to make all damage elemental, 4 ki to bypass resistance against a single enemy, 6 Ki to bypass immunity against a single enemy.
- Elemental Weapon: 1ki = +1 & 1d4, 2 Ki = +2 & +2d4, 4 ki = +3 & 3d4, 6 ki = +4 & 4d4.

Also give ability to cast those spells "as regular", using 4e's cost and "Ki max per use" system (really needed to keep things balanced).
It means that this subclass will get much more mileage of Absorb Elements than a regular Eldricht Knight, will be able to get some bonus elemental damage when needed thanks to the homebrew spell and/or quick appliance of an Elemental Weapon, while still avoiding power creep thanks to the low ceiling of pool limiting any risk of nova.

Finally, of course, give it "utility elemental cantrips" from level 3 onwards. Because those are great, and thematically what better could fit? :)


A properly built UA Mystic using a mix of Wu Jen and Immortal features does everything I want from an element bender, actually.
That's not surprising to me, UA Mystic is notoriously broken. ^^


If you're going down the min/max road, 4 Elements is not good, period. What you need to take away from the subclass is versatility. If your buddies are facing an army, you can just fly above the ranks and go stun the bosses yourself. If you want to be the one to blast dozens of mooks, instead, Fireball them. Etc.

People who think that versatility is bad are the same people that think Ranger is bad because it doesn't do as much damage as the fighter.
That sentence is devoid of any meaning really.
1. Optimization is always geared towards some goal. If you don't define the goal, you can't evaluate.
2. If you just "compute values" of 4e's disciplines that have measurable benefits, 4E is *very* competitive. Confer my above posts.
3. It's otherwise very hard to evaluate the "min/max benefit" of abilities which true value will be heavily dependant on context (like prone effects, teleportation, fear effects)...

You incidentally demonstrate yourself with your examples: there are some (many) situations where 4E will prove having been the optimal choice, the "min/max" choice to use your words, because he can the "the max" where others would be reduced to "the min".

It's just a matter of "do I want to double down on my usual Monkiness strengths" (Drunken Master, Kensei, Open Hand), "or would I prefer to shore up / improve a particular area (resilience with Long Death, short-range and AOE with Sun Soul)", "or do I prefer being much better at spying (Shadow)"...
In summary, "do I want to be more efficient in the situations I'm great at, although I'll still suck in all other situations, or so I prefer broadening the array of situations where I can be efficient".

4E fits in all those categories. Just usualy not all at once (and certainly not before high level in that case ^^).

TL;DR: I know we both overall share the same opinion on 4e (and Ranger), but I don't agree that 4e would not be a min-max choice because imo that notion is simply meaningless when faced with real game.

[Asisreo1]

As I've stated before, my experience watching others play 4E monks has been negative, especially in tiers 1 & 2. I'm open to arguments that the players running the 4E monks at my tables were doing it wrong, or that the tables I play at have a play style that disfavors the 4E monk (maybe we don't get enough short rests, which leads me to value always-on abilities and efficient uses of ki). If so, maybe try to argue about the specifics, rather than just telling me that my actual table experiences are irrelevant simply because it doesn't match your experiences or opinions.

Well, that would require me to know how your players played the class, right? Though if I were to guess based on your complaints, they were rather reserved with their Ki usage and kept comparing themselves to the fullcaster who's entire playstyle is "Big AoE damage go boom."

[MaxWilson]

If you're going down the min/max road, 4 Elements is not good, period. What you need to take away from the subclass is versatility. If your buddies are facing an army, you can just fly above the ranks and go stun the bosses yourself. If you want to be the one to blast dozens of mooks, instead, Fireball them. Etc.

People who think that versatility is bad are the same people that think Ranger is bad because it doesn't do as much damage as the fighter.

Agreed. In addition to this, having multiple Fireballers in the party is much better than one. Per Xanathar's, at higher levels you may be fighting dozens of CR 2-3 creatures with 40-70ish HP, and one Fireball won't kill them, but two or three will. Two or three Fireballs from the wizard and the monk is much cheaper in real opportunity cost than a single Meteor Swarm from the wizard to do the same job.

And don't underestimate the monk's Shatter either. There are scenarios, even at low levels, where a Shatter is about as effective as a Fireball anyway due to fire resistance. (E.g. when you're fighting a mob of Shadows.)

[Zuras]

Well, that would require me to know how your players played the class, right? Though if I were to guess based on your complaints, they were rather reserved with their Ki usage and kept comparing themselves to the fullcaster who's entire playstyle is "Big AoE damage go boom."

Oh no, they blew all their Ki on a spell or two with minimal effect and then spent the remaining and subsequent fights with almost no ki. Like many monk players, they were seduced by the Dark Side of the monk’s mobility, and would effortlessly maneuver into the right position to blast the evil high priest off the mountain of doom with Fist of Unbroken Air, then the priest would make his save and the rest of the party would need to rescue the monk.

This was all in AL, generally with tables of 5-7 players, almost always multiple full casters. Every time it seemed like they would do better focusing on what monks are good at and stun somebody, since the full casters had the spellcasting covered.

I grant A fair bit of this might be self-fulfilling prophecy, as the players with high system mastery thought it was garbage and avoided it. I’ve heard plenty of complaints about the Ranger, but when experienced players used the class at my tables it never felt weak.

Also, I keep hearing comments about variety in the context of the 4E Monk, but you literally only get two options for most of your career (3rd-10th level), three if you trade in Elemental Attunement. That did not seem like a lot of variety to me in practice..

[MaxWilson]

Oh no, they blew all their Ki on a spell or two with minimal effect and then spent the remaining and subsequent fights with almost no ki. Like many monk players, they were seduced by the Dark Side of the monk’s mobility, and would effortlessly maneuver into the right position to blast the evil high priest off the mountain of doom with Fist of Unbroken Air, then the priest would make his save and the rest of the party would need to rescue the monk.

This was all in AL, generally with tables of 5-7 players, almost always multiple full casters. Every time it seemed like they would do better focusing on what monks are good at and stun somebody, since the full casters had the spellcasting covered.

I grant A fair bit of this might be self-fulfilling prophecy, as the players with high system mastery thought it was garbage and avoided it. I’ve heard plenty of complaints about the Ranger, but when experienced players used the class at my tables it never felt weak.

Also, I keep hearing comments about variety in the context of the 4E Monk, but you literally only get two options for most of your career (3rd-10th level), three if you trade in Elemental Attunement. That did not seem like a lot of variety to me in practice..

Yeah, that does sound partly like an AL/system mastery problem. Brittle plans attached to a weak ability. The wizard equivalent is something like "upcast Globe of Invulnerability to 9th level and then get in a fist fight with a lich" (yes, I've witnessed this multiclassed wizard/cleric, and it's not the wizard class's fault but it is super painful to watch).

I think post #28 did a good job summarizing the versatility factor, but yes, some of that doesn't really kick in until after level 11. If you plan to stop at level 10 you might not enjoy the elemonk, and I might add that before level 14 monks actually have some of the worst saving throws in the game too so you might want to just pick another class entirely.

But still, three elemental options plus six or seven warrior options really isn't bad. (Kiting, tanking, ranged weapons, Stunning Strike, Hiding/sneaking, throwing nets, grappling/proning.) When I've played elemonks I actually haven't felt limited as to quantity of options, even at low levels. They're just... not extremely powerful options.

[Asisreo1]

Also, I keep hearing comments about variety in the context of the 4E Monk, but you literally only get two options for most of your career (3rd-10th level), three if you trade in Elemental Attunement. That did not seem like a lot of variety to me in practice..
Not Variety, versatility. You're no longer a Single-Target damage dealer and when the situation arises where you go "Aw man, AoE would've been sweet." A 4-elemonk can capitalize.

[Asisreo1]

Oh no, they blew all their Ki on a spell or two with minimal effect and then spent the remaining and subsequent fights with almost no ki. Like many monk players, they were seduced by the Dark Side of the monk’s mobility, and would effortlessly maneuver into the right position to blast the evil high priest off the mountain of doom with Fist of Unbroken Air, then the priest would make his save and the rest of the party would need to rescue the monk.


If they were fighting a priest and they had to get rescued from melee as a monk, I suspect there was something else in play. Within 30ft of a spellcaster is exactly where you want to be as a monk, saving still means he takes damage and he still had to make his Concentration check. Next turn, they could strike him twice and not relent or, since there was a cliff, shove him off.

And after fighting what sounds like a miniboss, it would've been wise to short rest. If the priest wasn't really that threatening, the monk probably didn't need saving or he could've not had to use Ki points at all.

[Zuras]

Not Variety, versatility. You're no longer a Single-Target damage dealer and when the situation arises where you go "Aw man, AoE would've been sweet." A 4-elemonk can capitalize.

I agree that adding AoE capability to a mostly martial character is a net plus, but getting that as your primary benefit of a whole subclass pick seems mighty underwhelming. You can get similar results by finding a Wand of Fireball.

If you give Grog the 10th level Bear Totem Barbarian a Wand of Fireballs, how often will he be using it instead of Raging and closing to melee? 1 in 10 combats? 1 in 5?

In my actual play experience, I’ve seen multiple Arcane Tricksters with Wands of Fireball/Lightning Bolt, and while it was handy, especially with Magical Ambush giving disadvantage on saves, it was not especially powerful in Tier 3. For my Tier 3 AT, my Wand of Lightning Bolts was fighting a Gem of Seeing for my third attunement slot, and most of the time I ended up regretting picking the wand, because nasty illusions and shapeshifters are more likely to ruin your Tier 3 day than a bunch of orcs.




If they were fighting a priest and they had to get rescued from melee as a monk, I suspect there was something else in play. Within 30ft of a spellcaster is exactly where you want to be as a monk, saving still means he takes damage and he still had to make his Concentration check. Next turn, they could strike him twice and not relent or, since there was a cliff, shove him off.

And after fighting what sounds like a miniboss, it would've been wise to short rest. If the priest wasn't really that threatening, the monk probably didn't need saving or he could've not had to use Ki points at all.

The priest was an Orc, and pretty buff. The monk got knocked off the side of the mountain and was hanging on by his fingernails most of the fight. Monks using their mobility to consistently get into more trouble than they can handle is a common problem for all their subclasses, though, not just the 4E variety, but I think the 4E Monk makes it even more tempting.

[Asisreo1]

I agree that adding AoE capability to a mostly martial character is a net plus, but getting that as your primary benefit of a whole subclass pick seems mighty underwhelming. You can get similar results by finding a Wand of Fireball.

If you give Grog the 10th level Bear Totem Barbarian a Wand of Fireballs, how often will he be using it instead of Raging and closing to melee? 1 in 10 combats? 1 in 5?

It'd probably have more to do with the fact that he's not a spellcaster and can't attune to a wand of fireballs. Which a monk can't either.

If, somehow, Grog was able to cast a spell from the magic item that forced a save, Grog wouldn't have a spellcasting ability modifier and have a save DC of 12. Which Grog might find too low to be worth it.


The priest was an Orc, and pretty buff. The monk got knocked off the side of the mountain and was hanging on by his fingernails most of the fight. Monks using their mobility to consistently get into more trouble than they can handle is a common problem for all their subclasses, though, not just the 4E variety, but I think the 4E Monk makes it even more tempting.
More tempting to be in melee than a shadow monk and an open palm monk? And not equally tempting if not less so than a radiant soul? I mean, if the monk couldn't hold up to a spellcaster, then *something* was wrong. Even if they got pushed off, they could reduce fall damage by at least 20 damage which covers falling from at least 30ft.

I either think the monk wasn't as in-danger as you thought or he was built poorly as a monk in-general.

[Zuras]

It'd probably have more to do with the fact that he's not a spellcaster and can't attune to a wand of fireballs. Which a monk can't either.

If, somehow, Grog was able to cast a spell from the magic item that forced a save, Grog wouldn't have a spellcasting ability modifier and have a save DC of 12. Which Grog might find too low to be worth it.


The specific example I cited was not an idle theoretical. Totem Barbarians gain spellcasting (ritual commune w/nature) at 10th level, and the save DC for the Wand in question is set at a straight 15. Ancestral Guardian Barbarians work similarly. Actual parties I’ve seen always gave wands to the Arcane Trickster (Magical Ambush!) or Bard (save magical secrets for something else), but it’s been a possibility discussed at my tables.

[Misterwhisper]

Essentially they made them 1/3 casters maybe generous and say 1/2 casters but made them use their normal power pool to use it.

They could have just given them spell progression like an eldritch knight or arcane trickster with a focus on elemental spells and it would have been fine but they didn’t, they have them more options to use their normal Ki points as the entire subclass but didn’t give them and extra Ki to use on it.

[MadBear]

Having both played as, and played with a 4e monk, they are super disappointing. They didn't feel good the entire time I and my friends played them. This was for a variety of reasons:
1. The Ki cost was high enough, that meant you often ran out quick
2. There's no good innately flavorful options that don't burn Ki. Especially compared to a Shadow Monks, Shadow step.

If I was looking for a "fix" I'd look to find ways to add flavorful, but not Ki intensive options.

For example I'd Add 1-2 abilities at later levels that were always on options that didn't burn Ki like Shadow Step. For example

Elemental Fist (6th level): As a bonus action you can infuse your fists with the elements. Doing so allows your attacks this turn to deal an additional 1d8 damage as either fire/cold (water)/ Thunder (air)/ Force (earth). At 11th level the damage becomes 1d10, and at 17th level it becomes 1d12

on average if both attacks hit that's an additional 9 points of damage. Comparatively, if they just made their bonus unarmed strike they'd be likely doing 1d6+4 extra damage. So it's a relatively minor damage boost that's mostly there to help the player feel like they're playing their class. I'd still say this is worse then Shadow Step, because it's not as good as a free ability that gives you a teleport and advantage on your next attack. Overall it would still not be as good as using Ki to get 2 extra attacks. But it'd allow a 4E Monk to feel like their subclass is giving them an option that let's the feel like they're always on, as opposed to a plain monk who can for 1-2 turns do something interesting before returning to doing nothing.

[Asisreo1]

Having both played as, and played with a 4e monk, they are super disappointing. They didn't feel good the entire time I and my friends played them. This was for a variety of reasons:
1. The Ki cost was high enough, that meant you often ran out quick
2. There's no good innately flavorful options that don't burn Ki. Especially compared to a Shadow Monks, Shadow step.

If I was looking for a "fix" I'd look to find ways to add flavorful, but not Ki intensive options.

For example I'd Add 1-2 abilities at later levels that were always on options that didn't burn Ki like Shadow Step. For example

Elemental Fist (6th level): As a bonus action you can infuse your fists with the elements. Doing so allows your attacks this turn to deal an additional 1d8 damage as either fire/cold (water)/ Thunder (air)/ Force (earth). At 11th level the damage becomes 1d10, and at 17th level it becomes 1d12

on average if both attacks hit that's an additional 9 points of damage. Comparatively, if they just made their bonus unarmed strike they'd be likely doing 1d6+4 extra damage. So it's a relatively minor damage boost that's mostly there to help the player feel like they're playing their class. I'd still say this is worse then Shadow Step, because it's not as good as a free ability that gives you a teleport and advantage on your next attack. Overall it would still not be as good as using Ki to get 2 extra attacks. But it'd allow a 4E Monk to feel like their subclass is giving them an option that let's the feel like they're always on, as opposed to a plain monk who can for 1-2 turns do something interesting before returning to doing nothing.

So that's free damage for choosing the subclass? Free damage that other subclasses don't get? Why, then, would I choose to play an open palm monk if the 4-elemonk just outperforms completely in all respects? Sure, it's level 6 but no subclass gets extra damage for melee except for 4-elemonks anyways.

You all realize that the attack pattern for a monk is similar to a warlock. That is, quickly expended resource that comes back on a short rest. It's a feature, not a bug. Just like a warlock has EB to fall back on, the monk has their fist. At 5th level, a monk can just make 3 attacks for free. Why not just do that until you find a good opportunity for spellcasting. It's not like running out of Ki points keeps you from being a monk as usual.

Spending Ki is good. Everytime you short or long rest without spending your Ki, that Ki goes into the air, spent doing 0 damage and stunning 0 people because you kept it under lock-and-key.

Some people are anal about not spending all their resources, but those people will obviously not enjoy 4-elemonk if they lean too heavily on spellcasting.

Elemonks are designed fine, a vocal minority doesn't change that.

[Asisreo1]

The specific example I cited was not an idle theoretical. Totem Barbarians gain spellcasting (ritual commune w/nature) at 10th level, and the save DC for the Wand in question is set at a straight 15. Ancestral Guardian Barbarians work similarly. Actual parties I’ve seen always gave wands to the Arcane Trickster (Magical Ambush!) or Bard (save magical secrets for something else), but it’s been a possibility discussed at my tables.
Totem Barbarians can cast spells at level 3. But they do not have a spellcasting ability modifier and their spellcasting DC is 10 at 3rd level and 12 at 10th level unless there was some houseruling involved.

[MaxWilson]

So that's free damage for choosing the subclass? Free damage that other subclasses don't get? Why, then, would I choose to play an open palm monk if the 4-elemonk just outperforms completely in all respects? Sure, it's level 6 but no subclass gets extra damage for melee except for 4-elemonks anyways.

??? But as MadBear pointed out, because it costs your bonus action it's hardly a damage boost at all. You're giving up d6+DEX (call it 7.5) damage in order to get 2d8 (9) elemental damage, times your hit rate. At higher levels it's actually net loss! Giving up d10+5 (10.5) to get 2d8(9) is a bad deal.


I agree that adding AoE capability to a mostly martial character is a net plus, but getting that as your primary benefit of a whole subclass pick seems mighty underwhelming. You can get similar results by finding a Wand of Fireball.

You're not wrong, but 5E classes aren't balanced against magical items in the first place. A 9th level Artillerist with a Wand of Fireballs is way more powerful than an Artillerist without one.

(I still agree with you that Elemonks ought to have access to more PHB/Xanathar's spells.)

[Asisreo1]

??? But as MadBear pointed out, because it costs your bonus action it's hardly a damage boost at all. You're giving up d6+DEX (call it 7.5) damage in order to get 2d8 (9) elemental damage, times your hit rate. At higher levels it's actually net loss! Giving up d10+5 (10.5) to get 2d8(9) is a bad deal.

His suggestion scales with levels. By time you would've been doing 1d10+5 (10.5)damage, you're now doing an extra 2d12(13) damage with the feature.

But I still don't see how elemental attunement doesn't make someone feel like a master of the 4 elements without Ki costs unless they just want more damage. There isn't even a limit to how you can shape the elements or how many you can have. You can damage with them, too. Instantly if you want.

You can cause earth spikes under someone's feet, you can dive underwater with a bubble of displaced water so you can breathe, you can shape the mists into the form like an illusion, and you can cover your fists with flames.

Or did you think you couldn't do that because the feature didn't explicitly say you can?

[JellyPooga]

But I still don't see how elemental attunement doesn't make someone feel like a master of the 4 elements without Ki costs unless they just want more damage. There isn't even a limit to how you can shape the elements or how many you can have. You can damage with them, too. Instantly if you want.

You can cause earth spikes under someone's feet, you can dive underwater with a bubble of displaced water so you can breathe, you can shape the mists into the form like an illusion, and you can cover your fists with flames.

Or did you think you couldn't do that because the feature didn't explicitly say you can?

Mmmmm....Elemental Attunement makes you feel a bit more like an apprentice than a master. 1ft cube is noticable, but hardly significant. It's limited to "rough" shapes too, so for example, if you shape some mist (which has to be extant; you can't create it) to look like a bird...well, it's a bit like a cloud that sort of looks a bit like a ducky, more than a masterpiece of art. Likewise, flames on your fists aren't going to actually do anything, 1ft cube of earthern spikes are pretty unimpressive and ineffectual, etc.

It really is super limited.

[Asisreo1]

Mmmmm....Elemental Attunement makes you feel a bit more like an apprentice than a master. 1ft cube is noticable, but hardly significant. It's limited to "rough" shapes too, so for example, if you shape some mist (which has to be extant; you can't create it) to look like a bird...well, it's a bit like a cloud that sort of looks a bit like a ducky, more than a masterpiece of art. Likewise, flames on your fists aren't going to actually do anything, 1ft cube of earthern spikes are pretty unimpressive and ineffectual, etc.

It really is super limited.
But you're getting it at level 3, you're exactly an apprentice by that level. Once you're in the "Master" territory, aka tier 4, you can create walls of stone that you can run up on and shoot blasts of fire and ice and levitate by riding the air.

Flames on your fists can light your enemy's worn or carried weapons, which spells cannot.

Imagine a whole foot-long spike entering your leg from the ground, that's probably effectual and impressive especially since it's fair game for that to restrict movement.

[Zuras]

Totem Barbarians can cast spells at level 3. But they do not have a spellcasting ability modifier and their spellcasting DC is 10 at 3rd level and 12 at 10th level unless there was some houseruling involved.

Heh. I’d forgotten about casting Beast Sense at 3rd level. I’ve actually seen totem Barbarians cast Commune With Nature, but never Beast Sense, so I was thinking about 10th level. The DC is still 15 though, because it is set by the Wand itself. Magic items are inconsistent in this regard, but the Wand of Fireballs has a set DC of 15.

[Asisreo1]

Heh. I’d forgotten about casting Beast Sense at 3rd level. I’ve actually seen totem Barbarians cast Commune With Nature, but never Beast Sense, so I was thinking about 10th level. The DC is still 15 though, because it is set by the Wand itself. Magic items are inconsistent in this regard, but the Wand of Fireballs has a set DC of 15.
As for why he didn't use it constantly, that sorta lends to my point. He had the option to use it but it wasn't a necessity and without it, he was doing just fine. Same thing with the Monk's fireball.

Of course, it all depends on how many magic items you get in a campaign, but I don't think a good metric for a class is whether or not they can attune to items. A DC 15 still isn't as good as a monk's probable DC 17

But regardless, it was a nice addition to the arsenal which a monk just gets without any DM fiat.

[JellyPooga]

But you're getting it at level 3, you're exactly an apprentice by that level. Once you're in the "Master" territory, aka tier 4, you can create walls of stone that you can run up on and shoot blasts of fire and ice and levitate by riding the air.

I guess that's part of the problem; no-one really wants to be an apprentice at level 3. Other classes have completed their apprenticeships and graduated to a degree of competence that they can really call themselves whatever they are; Paladins are actualising the boons of their Oath, Warlock Patrons are gifting their protegés their Pact Boons, Wizards are already professional Diviners and Necromancers rather than mere 'wizards'. Even multiclass characters only feel like they're really taking off in that 3-6 range...Level 3 is when most characters are starting to feel like their apprenticeship is over and they're getting into truly heroic territory. Except the 4E Monk who might be feeling pretty darned Monkish, but is still fumbling with the very basics of Elementalism (or whatever you want to call it).

Not saying I agree with the sentiment, necesaarily, but I can understand the complaint.

[MaxWilson]

I guess that's part of the problem; no-one really wants to be an apprentice at level 3. Other classes have completed their apprenticeships and graduated to a degree of competence that they can really call themselves whatever they are; Paladins are actualising the boons of their Oath, Warlock Patrons are gifting their protegés their Pact Boons, Wizards are already professional Diviners and Necromancers rather than mere 'wizards'. Even multiclass characters only feel like they're really taking off in that 3-6 range...Level 3 is when most characters are starting to feel like their apprenticeship is over and they're getting into truly heroic territory. Except the 4E Monk who might be feeling pretty darned Monkish, but is still fumbling with the very basics of Elementalism (or whatever you want to call it).

Not saying I agree with the sentiment, necesaarily, but I can understand the complaint.

Personally I don't feel like a "real wizard" until I get stuff like Hypnotic Pattern and Fireball, at level 5, which is the same point the elemonk gets access to 3d8 Thunderwave and Extra Attack.

[Asisreo1]

I guess that's part of the problem; no-one really wants to be an apprentice at level 3. Other classes have completed their apprenticeships and graduated to a degree of competence that they can really call themselves whatever they are; Paladins are actualising the boons of their Oath, Warlock Patrons are gifting their protegés their Pact Boons, Wizards are already professional Diviners and Necromancers rather than mere 'wizards'. Even multiclass characters only feel like they're really taking off in that 3-6 range...Level 3 is when most characters are starting to feel like their apprenticeship is over and they're getting into truly heroic territory. Except the 4E Monk who might be feeling pretty darned Monkish, but is still fumbling with the very basics of Elementalism (or whatever you want to call it).

Not saying I agree with the sentiment, necesaarily, but I can understand the complaint.
I think that if people want to play a high-level 4-elemonk, they should play more high-level games.

[JellyPooga]

I think that if people want to play a high-level 4-elemonk, they should play more high-level games.

Which rather proves my rebuttal of your assertation that Elemental Attunement alone (not 4E as a whole) "makes someone feel like a master of the 4 elements". It doesn't; it's the Discipline of an apprentice, not a master.

[LudicSavant]

"I'm going to cast burning hands on the two orcs, doing 10 damage to both of them for a total of 20 damage. I'll then jump down this 30ft ledge and reduce all my damage using slow fall, with a cool superhero landing."

Buddy, this is level 4. Before you even get extra attack.

Buddy, this is level 4. You're expected to bring more to the table than that.

In this situation, Flurry boosts your DPR from regular punching by 4.4 per ki spent on it (more with advantage). Burning Hands boosts your DPR by 3.275 per ki point spent on it (and requires you to split the damage between two targets rather than focusing someone down).

And that's comparing to your own flurry, not the benefits of being another subclass. An Open Palm Monk's DPR benefit for flurry is higher than that (particularly when you factor in their team combos, which is pretty much the entire point of putting one in your party).

In this situation where you've convinced yourself you're being versatile and awesome, you're actually being relatively weak, narrow, and resource-inefficient.

You could have spent those 2 ki on Pass Without Trace as a Shadow Monk and given the whole party the benefit of Surprise against the 10 passive perception orcs and had them all die before they drew their weapons. Or I could have been an Open Palm Monk and just kicked that guy through the caster's Create Bonfire and off that 30 foot ledge, and then come down for a landing on their face. And both of those subclasses are more versatile at this point.

And yes, you can of course just add several more clumped orcs to raise the relative value of Burning Hands, but that doesn't really change the fact that you seem to be consistently overestimating the value of what you're doing.


But I still don't see how elemental attunement doesn't make someone feel like a master of the 4 elements without Ki costs unless they just want more damage.

But you're getting it at level 3, you're exactly an apprentice by that level. Once you're in the "Master" territory, aka tier 4

[Asisreo1]

Buddy, this is level 4. You're expected to bring more to the table than that.

In this situation, Flurry boosts your DPR from regular punching by 4.4 per ki spent on it (more with advantage). Burning Hands boosts your DPR by 3.275 per ki point spent on it (and requires you to split the damage between two targets rather than focusing someone down). Once you hit 5 that comparison is going to get even worse, and you can't switch it out until 6th level.

And that's comparing to your own flurry, not the benefits of being another subclass. An Open Palm Monk's DPR benefit for flurry is higher than that (particularly when you factor in their team combos, which is pretty much the entire point of putting one in your party).

In this situation where you've convinced yourself you're being versatile and awesome, you're actually being relatively weak and resource-inefficient.

You could have spent those 2 ki on Pass Without Trace as a Shadow Monk and given the whole party the benefit of Surprise against the 10 passive perception orcs and had them all die before they drew their weapons. Or I could have been an Open Palm Monk and just kicked that guy through the caster's Create Bonfire and off that 30 foot ledge, and then come down for a landing on their face. And both of those subclasses are more versatile at this point.

And yes, you can of course just add several more clumped orcs to raise the relative value of Burning Hands, but that doesn't really change the fact that you seem to be consistently overestimating the value of what you're doing.

Across 2 targets, burning hands are 10.5 for 5.25 damage per Ki point. Why is everyone pretending they only fight single enemies like a band of 4 goblins isn't in the starter set of D&D. In fact, it's rare for D&D modules to have solo fights at all so it's not like I'm pulling enemies out of my head.

I mean, sure, "waste" 2 Ki points casting Pass without Trace on your heavy armor paladin and...oh wait, it's almost like it depends on your campaign and group composition.

But no, both of them are not "more versatile" since a shadow monk only has the schtick of stealth and open palm monks need to be in melee at all times.

Look, man, I'm not saying 4-elemonks are as broken as the most infamous builds or as versatile as a wizard. But it fits it's niche well with a good flavor.

And are we really splitting hairs on what counts as masterful? It's obviously a matter of opinions but if you were expecting to throw chromatic walls at level 3, you just need to be reacquainted with D&D leveling system in general.

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

So... basically everything you just said is mistaken.

1) The DPR value of Burning Hands over basic attacks in the scenario you gave actually is not 5.25 per ki point, because punching doesn't do zero damage, and orcs don't have a 100% chance of failing their saves. You are leaving out vital variables like accuracy, etc.

2) No, you didn't "waste" Pass Without Trace on the heavily armored paladin. He is the very reason that PWT has value here; you ensured that he'll pass the orc's Passive Perception.

3) No, the Shadow Monk doesn't "only" have the schtick of stealth, they can also do things like Silence casters, or use Minor Illusion, or grant Darkvision to a VHuman, and so forth. And as for the Open Palm Monk, versatility isn't just being able to do something from 15 feet away instead of 5, it's also the variety of things you can pull off at said range.

Edit: Incidentally, I forgot to account for the possibility of an ASI stat boost at level 4, in which case the comparison would be even worse for Burning Hands.

Normal Attack (18 Dex) vs AC 13: 10.85
Flurry (18 Dex) vs AC 13: 15.525 (4.675 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first.")
Burning Hands (16 Wis) vs +1 Dex save and 2 targets: 16.05 (2.6 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first")
Burning Hands (18 Wis) vs +1 Dex save and 2 targets: 16.3 (2.725 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first")

Which incidentally highlights another opportunity cost here, if you decide to invest in Wis first instead of Dex for the sake of your spells.

It also highlights that there's a good chance you could likely have just killed an orc outright (thereby reducing their action economy).

[Asisreo1]

1) The DPR value of Burning Hands over basic attacks in the scenario you gave actually is not 5.25 per ki point, because punching doesn't do zero damage, and orcs don't have a 100% chance of failing their saves. You are leaving out vital variables like accuracy, etc.


Okay then, let's lab it out. Assuming you have a +3 Dex and +2 Wis, your save DC would be 12 at that level. Orcs have a 50% chance to dodge burning hands. Meanwhile, your attack rolls are +5, meaning you have a 65% chance to hit. So, for your Ki point, you have 1d4+3 (5) using flurry of blows. Let's now take into account this miss rate into this: (5*.65)=3.25. Okay, but now we take into account burning hands average of 3d6 (10.5) damage times 2 because you wouldn't be using an AoE against a single target. Plus, they can save for half, which is 5 damage per Ki point even if they both save.

I wanted to check my math, so I used your calculator. It gave a 15.5 DPR, which is 7.25 damage per Ki. More than twice the Ki spent on Flurry of blows.


2) No, you didn't "waste" Pass Without Trace on the heavily armored paladin. He is the very reason that PWT has value here; you ensured that he'll pass the orc's Passive Perception.

Sure, the Ki points were effective but doesn't that mean you're "out of Ki points" using that technique. You can't do it again.

But obviously it was worth it for the surprise, I agree. I think shadow monks should be able to do cool sneaky stuff like that. It's just a different playstyle of monk. Maybe that's optimal for ogres with low perception but you might be fighting a bunch of Sahuagins or maybe the goblins got the jump on you.



3) No, the Shadow Monk doesn't "only" have the schtick of stealth, they can also do things like Silence casters, or use Minor Illusion, or grant Darkvision to a VHuman, and so forth. And as for the Open Palm Monk, versatility isn't just being able to do something from 15 feet away instead of 5, it's also the variety of things you can at any given range.

The last point was me being facetious. I know shadow monks have more utility but it doesn't change the fact that AoE coverage is very rare for a monk and flying enemies are forced into melee by a monk.

But versatility, while not just melee&range, is definitely to do with how adaptable you are to any given situation. And open-palm monks aren't adaptable to several enemies or flying enemies.

[MaxWilson]

Buddy, this is level 4. You're expected to bring more to the table than that.

In this situation, Flurry boosts your DPR from regular punching by 4.4 per ki spent on it (more with advantage). Burning Hands boosts your DPR by 3.275 per ki point spent on it (and requires you to split the damage between two targets rather than focusing someone down).

And that's comparing to your own flurry, not the benefits of being another subclass. An Open Palm Monk's DPR benefit for flurry is higher than that (particularly when you factor in their team combos, which is pretty much the entire point of putting one in your party).

In this situation where you've convinced yourself you're being versatile and awesome, you're actually being relatively weak, narrow, and resource-inefficient.

Hold on. I think this is a little bit unfair, because you're actually changing the subject. Asisreo was talking about the fantasy of elemental mastery, not the ki-efficiency of the mechanics. That makes it absolutely unfair to measure the ki-efficiency of the DPR increase instead of the total damage inflicted, which absolutely does go up (even though two orcs are a relatively poor choice for Burning Hands--for three hobgoblins, Burning Hands or Thunderwave is the hands-down winner AS WELL as being more ki-efficient than Flurry of Blows).

If you're playing with a group of roleplayers who play the game to express themselves as individuals and not so much for the tactical challenge, the ki-efficiency of your tactics probably doesn't even matter, but whether you can hop around shooting fire out of your hands probably does. It would be bad if shooting fire were mechanically BAD compare to just regular attacks, but since Burning Hands is adequate even in this scenario it doesn't matter that it's not optimal w/rt efficiency.

My sense is that you and Asisreo both agree that Elemonk is not exactly the best choice for a game of punishing tactical challenges, especially at levels 1-10 or so, but that isn't what Asisreo seems to be discussing.

[LudicSavant]

Okay then, let's lab it out

The flaw in your new comparison is that you're comparing Burning Hands to a single unarmed attack.

When you Flurry at level 4, you're making 3 attacks.


Sure, the Ki points were effective but doesn't that mean you're "out of Ki points" using that technique. You can't do it again. It costs the same as Burning Hands.

[MaxWilson]

The flaw in your new comparison is that you're comparing Burning Hands to a single unarmed attack.

When you Flurry at level 4, you're making 3 attacks.

It costs the same as Burning Hands.

Again, that's a little bit unfair. It's like saying that Fireball really only does 8d6-4d10 (6) damage for 5 spell points at 20th level, because otherwise you'd be casting Fire Bolt. It's one way of looking at it, but it doesn't make it wrong to say "Fireball does about 28 damage for 5 SP."

[Asisreo1]

Normal Attack (18 Dex) vs AC 13: 10.85
Flurry (18 Dex) vs AC 13: 15.525 (4.675 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first.")
Burning Hands (16 Wis) vs +1 Dex save and 2 targets: 16.05 (2.6 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first")
Burning Hands (18 Wis) vs +1 Dex save and 2 targets: 16.3 (2.725 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first")

Which incidentally highlights another opportunity cost here, if you decide to invest in Wis first instead of Dex for the sake of your spells.

It also highlights that there's a good chance you could likely have just killed an orc outright (thereby reducing their action economy).

I was calculating per-ki damage. AoE's are good because you can have a theoretical army of orcs in your blast range. Or even goblins.

Actually, I'm curious about how goblins would fare instead. They're very common in a D&D game.

[LudicSavant]

I was calculating per-ki damage.

So was I. The value per ki is based on how much you improved on whatever alternative action you could have taken.

In the case of Flurry, you're directly adding to the effectiveness of your actions. In the case of Burning Hands, you're replacing with a different action. This is a crucial variable for a practical evaluation.

[Asisreo1]

The flaw in your new comparison is that you're comparing Burning Hands to a single unarmed attack.

I'm comparing it for bang for your Ki-buck. It's basically a steal. In the example with the orcs, we're doing 16.05 burning hands damage a round based on your 16(+3) wisdom versus 15.5 flurry damage a round. Sometimes, an orc has more HP than regular or sometimes you're fighting two goblin bosses where three attacks aren't going to kill them on average. So DPR split would be better.


It costs the same as Burning Hands.
Yeah, I know. It was having fun at the people saying 2Ki points is too expensive for 1 spell.

[LudicSavant]

I'm comparing it for bang for your Ki-buck.

As am I. You are not accounting for the practical difference between a ki ability that augments an action, vs one that does an entirely new action.

Try looking at it this way. Let's say you have two turns.
Turn 1: Burning Hands (2 ki)
Turn 2: Punch (0 ki)

vs

Turn 1: Flurry (1 ki)
Turn 2: Flurry (1 ki)

Sequence #2 will do more DPR for the same cost.

You cannot disconnect the value of flurry from the value of the actions it augments and have a practical comparison.

[MaxWilson]

I'm comparing it for bang for your Ki-buck. It's basically a steal. In the example with the orcs, we're doing 16.05 burning hands damage a round based on your 16(+3) wisdom versus 15.5 flurry damage a round. Sometimes, an orc has more HP than regular or sometimes you're fighting two goblin bosses where three attacks aren't going to kill them on average. So DPR split would be better.

Okay LudicSavant, I was wrong. Apparently you guys are both talking about ki efficiency after all.

My mistake.

[LudicSavant]

Okay LudicSavant, I was wrong. Apparently you guys are both talking about ki efficiency after all.

My mistake.

NP, thanks for correction :smallsmile:

[Asisreo1]

NP, thanks for correction :smallsmile:
Well, I concede that orcs would have been more cost efficient with flurry, but hobgoblins would have better Ki efficiency using burning hands on 2.

[Asisreo1]

Okay LudicSavant, I was wrong. Apparently you guys are both talking about ki efficiency after all.

My mistake.
Though, don't get me wrong. I had come to an incorrect conclusion but I don't necessarily think elemonks are best at DPR. I was mistaken about the orc example, though.

My main point is still that AoE and anti-air are still great tools for monks.

[MaxWilson]

Though, don't get me wrong. I had come to an incorrect conclusion but I don't necessarily think elemonks are best at DPR. I was mistaken about the orc example, though.

My main point is still that AoE and anti-air are still great tools for monks.

Agreed there. Obviously in a game where Wands of Fireball are ubiquitous that won't matter :) but I have never played such a game.

(If only one such wand is found, but you have an elemonk and a wizard, now you can kill mobs of up to CR 4ish with three Fireballs in one round! And when there are single monsters or small groups instead of mobs, again monk is very comfortable via Stunning Strike + Fly if needed.)

P.S. Boy, I would love to find a Wand of Fireballs as an Eldritch Knight.

[Asisreo1]

As am I. You are not accounting for the practical difference between a ki ability that augments an action, vs one that does an entirely new action.

Try looking at it this way. Let's say you have two turns.
Turn 1: Burning Hands (2 ki)
Turn 2: Punch (0 ki)

vs

Turn 1: Flurry (1 ki)
Turn 2: Flurry (1 ki)

Sequence #2 will do more DPR for the same cost.

You cannot disconnect the value of flurry from the value of the actions it augments and have a practical comparison.

What's funny is: The spell I thought wouldn't amount to much is actually the one that eeks by per-Ki damage. Thunderwave is a 15ft cube. I calculated my targets based on the DMG's expected AoE targets. For a 15ft cube, that's 15÷5=3.

Calculating everything, it seems like for the 2 rounds of damage for 2 Ki spent is 31.05, meaning you're doing 15.525 damage per Ki in the case of flurry.

The 2 rounds of damage with one being thunderwave is 31.4375 which equates to 15.71875 damage per Ki which is just barely higher than flurry.

[HiveStriker]

As am I. You are not accounting for the practical difference between a ki ability that augments an action, vs one that does an entirely new action.

Try looking at it this way. Let's say you have two turns.
Turn 1: Burning Hands (2 ki)
Turn 2: Punch (0 ki)

vs

Turn 1: Flurry (1 ki)
Turn 2: Flurry (1 ki)

Sequence #2 will do more DPR for the same cost.

You cannot disconnect the value of flurry from the value of the actions it augments and have a practical comparison.
And means those targets will have had one turn to act in between.

{Scrubbed}

Focus-firing an enemy yourself if there is a high chance your next ally will deal enough damage by him|herself that the amount dealt with Flurry would be overkill.
Focus-firing an enemy is equally a bad idea if he has a good AC, because you'll have a chance to waste several attacks, and possibly not even a chance to impose an effect (like that Open Hand prone or push).
And if enemies are physically resistant, it may also make an AOE spell a better choice at least until you get "magical" on your Unarmed attacks (but not your weapon, unless you go Kensei).

Distributing hits to enemies would also mean that either they are both in range of your hit without moving, meaning you expose yourself to two OA if you want to move away, or that you can just Attack because you want to Disengage with your bonus action. And if they are not "in parallel", you may even need to spend some feet to reach the second.
Best case would be a) You're an Open Monk b) creatures are both within range of a "common spot" c) You hit them both with Flurry d) You try prone effect and they both fail, because you know there are allies that act before their own turn and can kill them.
That's a fair amount of variables there to really make that choice really shine.

Well, it's no different for 4E abilities. Picking Burning Hands/Shatter if you already have an Evoker or Light Cleric is very certainly subpar. In a martial-focused party, it may be largely worth. Same with Water Whip / Unbroken Air: if you're the only melee and everyone else is played ranged, trying to put people prone won't be appreciated. Playing with a Barbarian or Paladin though, classes which are notoriously chasing their prey unless specific build choices, will make Water Whip very valuable against high AC targets.

Same {Scrubbed} with your Shadow Monk: you're automagically supposing that a) you have blunt people in your party b) no other people in party could provide Pass Wtithout Trace (Trickery Cleric, Ranger, Druid, or anyone with the proper Ravnica thing bus spell) c) you are in a situation where hiding before a fight starts is possible. When you talk about Silence for shutting off casters, you conveniently forget that a Monk's concentration sucks unless he does something about it, so unless allies can aggro well, there is always a chance effect will break much earlier than what you'd like or expect. And you conviently assume that either Monk himself can reach caster in time and Stun him, or (better) he stunned on first turn then managed to Grapple and next turn cast Silence (meaning you have many enemies around), or that you had a sturdy and reliable ally like a Barbarian close enough to coordinate with you to lock caster up. Because otherwise, it's a waste of action: Silence is 20 feet radius, most creatures have at least 30 feet, nothing prevents caster from moving away on its turn before casting.
So there too, there is a more than fair number of assumptions to make it good.

It may be simpler to admit that you don't like 4E because you prefer focusing on being great at a very few things and rely on other members for every situation where you'd suck by yourself because you usually play in a large and varied party so having a "small perimeter" is fine, than trying to make a general case while hiding several handfuls of contextual assumptions.

[JellyPooga]

Try looking at it this way. Let's say you have two turns.
Turn 1: Burning Hands (2 ki)
Turn 2: Punch (0 ki)

vs

Turn 1: Flurry (1 ki)
Turn 2: Flurry (1 ki)

Sequence #2 will do more DPR for the same cost.

Thought I'd do my own calculations to check the numbers on this (see Spoiler) and came to the following conclusions;


Sorry this looks scruffy, so I hope it makes sense. Please correct me if any of the following is either a) an unfair assumption or b) incorrect.
Basic Assumptions
Monk lvl.3
Dex: 16, Wis: 16

2 Orcs
AC: 13
Dex Save +1
HP:15

Attacks:
- Quarterstaff +5 (1d8+3) - Avg. 7.5, Non-crit Hit Rate 60%
- Quarterstaff crit (2d8+3) - Avg. 12, Crit rate 5%
- Unarmed Strike +5 (1d4+3) - Avg. 5.5, Non-crit Hit Rate 60%
- Unarmed crit (2d4+3) - Avg. 8, Crit rate 5%
- Burning Hands DC:13 (3d6 Dex sv. for half) - Avg. 10.5 (5.25 on Save), Failed Save rate 55%

Burning Hands: (10.5x55%=5.775) + (5.25x45%=2.36) = 8.1375 x2 orcs = 16.275
Martial Arts: (7.5x60%=4.5) + (12x5%=0.6) + (5.5x60%=3.3) + (8x5%=0.4) = 8.8
Flurry: (Martial Arts) + (5.5x60% =3.3) + (8 x5% = 0.4)= 12.5

Burning Hands + Martial Arts = 25.075
Flurry + Flurry = 25
1) In a single round, Burning Hands deals roughly 4 points of additional damage compared to Flurry, albeit across multiple targets.
2) Over 2 rounds and equal Ki spent, Burning Hands deals insignificantly more damage than Flurry.
3) Neither Burning Hands or Flurry will (on average) kill an Orc in one turn.
4) At level 3, the difference is negligible except with regard to;
- Range, in which case Burning Hands has a marginal advantage
- Burst damage, in which case Burning Hands also has the edge advantage (at least with regard to total damage dealt)
- Single Target damage, in which case FoB has a the advantage

As level increases, yes, Flurry gains damage potential as Damage Die and Ability Score increases, but it's also worth noting that Burning Hands can also be upcast for greater burst damage potential and the obvious (and significant) gain from number of targets favours Burning Hands too; in the above calculations, for example, a third target increases Burning Hands total damage by about 8; about a 1/3 increase in total damage dealt more than FoB.

The Ki point comparison might have been a useful metric if the damage potential was significantly different, but as shown above it really isn't, especially given the use-case scenarios. Against a single target in this scenario, the 4E Monk is better off using no Ki at all than using Burning Hands, unless damage type or range are an issue. Against six targets in a handy cone-shape, Burning Hands total damage dealt is more than double that of Flurry for the same Ki and action cost (ignoring that using Burning Hands gives you an additional Bonus Action to use over FoB, but I digress...).

What does this prove other than "AoE is better for multiple targets"? For one, it proves that 4E can add a useful AoE damage option to the standard Monk package, at least at level 3 vs. Orcs. At higher levels and in different scenarios, the calculations will differ for obvious reasons, but that doesn't invalidate Burning Hands as a useful tool vs. multiple low-challenge foes.

[Chaos Jackal]

The reason 4e monk is a comparatively weak subclass isn't the efficiency of burning hands, though that is part of the problem too.

4e monk is a spellcasting subclass for a primarily martial class. However, unlike straight half-casters like paladins and spellcasting subclasses of other martial classes like eldritch knights, their spellcasting covers the entirety of their subclass features.

A paladin gets spellcasting built in their base chassis, and gets numerous other features both from its base class and its subclass, some of which synergize with its spellcasting. An eldritch knight's spellcasting is only one feature of the subclass, and the rest of the features work to augment it. 4e monk doesn't have that. 4e monk's features are its spells. It gets nothing more to synergize with them. It's the spellcasting subclass with the smallest number of spells known and the smallest number of spells available, and its list is fixed, which means it's never getting access to any cool or powerful thematic spells that have or will be printed in other books.

Worse yet, they're actually clashing with the main chassis, because both action economy and resource spending collide, and this makes them compare unfavorably to other monks too. A shadow monk, for example, gets as many spells at lv3 as a 4e monk does in the entire game. Sure, they aren't very powerful, but they are cheaper (ki=level compared to ki=level+1), they get synergy with both the class and the subclass, and they are just one of a number of useful features a shadow monk gets.

So yes, 4e monks can do a few things that other monks can't. But they don't do those things all too well. And worse yet, they have to choose between doing those things or being a monk, due to the usage of ki and actions, whereas other monk subclasses are effective at what their schtick is and don't have to sacrifice being a monk to pull it off.

Compared to other half-casters or third-casters, 4e monks suffer from a lack of synergies and a very limited spell list. Compared to other monks, 4e monks suffer because they can be either their class or their subclass, but not both (with very few exceptions), while most other monks can use most of their class and their subclass abilities together for greater effect.

So, regardless of whether or not you know when your weak, costly AoE option is a better choice than punching, you're not going to pull much out of a 4e monk for most levels, because there's not much there in the first place.

[LudicSavant]

Thought I'd do my own calculations to check the numbers on this (see Spoiler) and came to the following conclusions;

Sorry this looks scruffy, so I hope it makes sense. Please correct me if any of the following is either a) an unfair assumption or b) incorrect.

Okay! Happy to check the work. :smallsmile:


Basic Assumptions
Monk lvl.3
Dex: 16, Wis: 16

The scenario discussed above was level 4, so we're working with slightly different variables here.


Attacks:
- Quarterstaff +5 (1d8+3) - Avg. 7.5, Non-crit Hit Rate 60%
- Quarterstaff crit (2d8+3) - Avg. 12, Crit rate 5%
- Unarmed Strike +5 (1d4+3) - Avg. 5.5, Non-crit Hit Rate 60%
- Unarmed crit (2d4+3) - Avg. 8, Crit rate 5%


That all appears correct.


- Burning Hands DC:13 (3d6 Dex sv. for half) - Avg. 10.5 (5.25 on Save), Failed Save rate 55%

This is very slightly off because it doesn't account for the fact that in 5e, you round down when halving damage. The precise formula for "save for half" damage is damage/2 - 0.25 (so in this case, 5.0, not 5.25).


Burning Hands: (10.5x55%=5.775) + (5.25x45%=2.36) = 8.1375 x2 orcs = 16.275

There are two small inaccuracies here.

The first is that 5.25*45% = 2.3625, not 2.36 (maybe you were just rounding? But you don't do so elsewhere in your calculations)

The second is that your formula didn't account for 5e's rounding rule (mentioned above).

The precise result should be 8.025 per target, or 16.05 for both orcs.

Or to put it in your format (10.5*55%=5.775) + (5x45%=2.25) = 8.025 x2 orcs = 16.05. Which as you can see matches the numbers I provided earlier for the 16 Wis result.


Martial Arts: (7.5x60%=4.5) + (12x5%=0.6) + (5.5x60%=3.3) + (8x5%=0.4) = 8.8
Flurry: (Martial Arts) + (5.5x60% =3.3) + (8 x5% = 0.4)= 12.5

That's correct.


Burning Hands + Martial Arts = 25.075
You can't use Martial Arts on a turn that you use Burning Hands. That whole chunk of damage should not be included in the "Burning Hands" option.


When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.

Hope that helps! :smallsmile:

[NaughtyTiger]

Burning Hands: (10.5x55%=5.775) + (5.25x45%=2.36) = 8.1375 x2 orcs = 16.275
There are two small inaccuracies here.
The first is that 5.25*45% = 2.3625, not 2.36
The second is that your formula didn't account for 5e's rounding rule (mentioned above).
The precise result should be 8.025 per target, or 16.05 for both orcs.
Or to put it in your format (10.5*55%=5.775) + (5x45%=2.25) = 8.025 x2 orcs = 16.05. Which as you can see matches the numbers I provided earlier for the 16 Wis result.


fractional damage values are correct when discussing averages.
it is interesting that you claim otherwise on his post.

you noted (10.5*55%) is a correct representation of the average damage on a failed save
you claimed ' 15.525 (4.675 per ki over "normal attacks with the choice to boost Dex first.")'

ludic clarified the math for rounding on failed saves.

moreover

(10.5x55%) + (5.25x45%) = 8.1375, so at best you can claim he misformatted.

apparently Alucard is incorrect.

[LudicSavant]

fractional damage values are correct when discussing averages.

You seem to have misunderstood the mathematical principle at work here.

It's not that you round down fractional values when averaging. It's that the fact that you round down any given result on a die changes the average of said die rolls.

For example, the average of 1d8 is:

(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8 = 4.5

Then if you apply the save for half rule, it's:

1/2 rounded down (0) + 2/2 round down (1) + 3/2 rounded down (1) and so forth for a total of (0+1+1+2+2+3+3+4)/8 = 2

[LudicSavant]

I stand corrected on that point, i will adjust my post.

NP. :smallsmile:

Edit: Apparently you deleted your last post, and edited a new error into your last one.



moreover

(10.5x55%) + (5.25x45%) = 8.1375, so at best you can claim he misformatted.

apparently Alucard is incorrect.

No, you just put 5.25xx45%, when it should be 5x45%. Again, because the correct formula for halved damage is Damage/2 -0.25.

The reason for this is because half of all possible die results will be reduced by 0.5 by the 5e rounding rules.


(10.5*55%=5.775) + (5x45%=2.25) = 8.025 x2 orcs = 16.05.

[Zuras]

If you're playing with a group of roleplayers who play the game to express themselves as individuals and not so much for the tactical challenge, the ki-efficiency of your tactics probably doesn't even matter, but whether you can hop around shooting fire out of your hands probably does. It would be bad if shooting fire were mechanically BAD compare to just regular attacks, but since Burning Hands is adequate even in this scenario it doesn't matter that it's not optimal w/rt efficiency.


The problem (for me, others seem not to mind) is that the hopping around shooting fire doesn’t last very long at all. At 6th level it’s two rounds and then you’re out, and don’t have any ki for your regular monk stuff either. I feel like if you blow all your sub class and class resources on something it should be more spectacular.

Compare the Battle Master. 4 superiority dice isn’t actually a lot over the 2-3 encounters you should get between short rests, nor is it a massive amount of damage in the abstract (+4d8 total at 6th level). However, since you only spend it on a hit and don’t have to decide when to use it versus your regular attack routine, in practice it’s pure awesomesauce on top of your regular fighter stuff.

Again, some sort of cantrip-like always available abilities tied to the 4 Elements, about as potent as an EK using a blade cantrip, with different riders based on the element, would go a long way towards fixing my issues. Add some minor abilities that trigger when you spend ki on a discipline (similar to Storm Sorcerers movement on casting a levelled spell) and you should be good.

[Asisreo1]

You seem to have misunderstood the mathematical principle at work here.

It's not that you round down fractional values when averaging. It's that the fact that you round down any given result on a die changes the average of said die rolls.

For example, the average of 1d8 is:

(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8 = 4.5

Then if you apply the save for half rule, it's:

1/2 rounded down (0) + 2/2 round down (1) + 3/2 rounded down (1) and so forth for a total of (0+1+1+2+2+3+3+4)/8 = 2

Yeah, I guess I should reopen my math books to account for everything but in this particular example, it would've been better to either flurry or cast shatter.

There are examples where it's better to burning hands than flurry, like against hobgoblins. But you can't flurry against a flying opponent, which severely reduces your options unless you're an elemonk.

That's kinda what keeps 4-elemonks okay. They aren't locked out from attacking at any enemy. I actually recommend WW over shatter because of the range and proning effect.

[NaughtyTiger]

NP. :smallsmile:

Edit: Apparently you deleted your last post, and edited a new error into your last one.
i deleted my last post, because i agreed to your assessment without verifying it myself.
i did verify it myself, and have adjust the post accordingly.

you are incorrect about my editing in an error, because you misunderstood my intent.
you stated: "The first is that 5.25*45% = 2.3625, not 2.36"... this isn't an error, at best it is a misformat on his part.

you said he was not accurate.
given that (10.5x55%) + (5.25x45%) = 8.1375 is correct, and using 5.25*45%!= 2.36 would have given an incorrect result,
it is clear that he only reduced precision (not a math error) in transferring the value to the post.

since this reduction in displayed precision for the interim calculation didn't affect the result, he only made 1 error.

[Asisreo1]

The problem (for me, others seem not to mind) is that the hopping around shooting fire doesn’t last very long at all. At 6th level it’s two rounds and then you’re out, and don’t have any ki for your regular monk stuff either. I feel like if you blow all your sub class and class resources on something it should be more spectacular.

Compare the Battle Master. 4 superiority dice isn’t actually a lot over the 2-3 encounters you should get between short rests, nor is it a massive amount of damage in the abstract (+4d8 total at 6th level). However, since you only spend it on a hit and don’t have to decide when to use it versus your regular attack routine, in practice it’s pure awesomesauce on top of your regular fighter stuff.

Again, some sort of cantrip-like always available abilities tied to the 4 Elements, about as potent as an EK using a blade cantrip, with different riders based on the element, would go a long way towards fixing my issues. Add some minor abilities that trigger when you spend ki on a discipline (similar to Storm Sorcerers movement on casting a levelled spell) and you should be good.
Your regular monk stuff like martial arts, unarmored movement, and unarmored defense is still intact.

And you want to play judiciously. If it's more efficient to do flurry, use flurry until it's less efficient. But at some point an enemy's going to be in the air or there's going to be 3 enemies in close proximity.

These are the "Ki" (pun intended) moments that your elemental attacks should be. Otherwise, you can make stone quarterstaves, have a ft long line of fire, and create that air ball thing that aang rides. Also, the elemental attunment ability has 0 components, making it invisible. You can stealthily attack goblins from a distance without revealing your location or manipulate an NPC's interaction without being caught or spending Ki.

[JellyPooga]

So yes, 4e monks can do a few things that other monks can't. But they don't do those things all too well. And worse yet, they have to choose between doing those things or being a monk, due to the usage of ki and actions, whereas other monk subclasses are effective at what their schtick is and don't have to sacrifice being a monk to pull it off.

Is this a fair assessment? I mean, let's look at the PHB subclasses;

Open Hand
- Open Hand Technique. Yup. Absolutely. This does enhance something the Monk does already at no extra Ki or Action cost. Absolutely not sacrificing any Monk-ness here.
- Wholeness of Body. Healing. Self-only. As an Action. 1/Long rest. Hmm. Doesn't match any other Monk feature. It costs an Action, so pretty much definitely interfering with other Monk stuff, like punching people in the face; reckon this qualifies as "choosing between doing this or being a Monk". Pretty ineffective on the whole, or we can at least say that it's not doing the "healing" thing all that well, both because of its limited use and self only target. It doesn't exactly make you a Life Cleric, does it?
- Tranquility. Broken as soon as you throw your first punch. Just about the very definition of choosing between this and being a Monk.
- Quivering Palm. Ok, so it triggers when you land an unarmed attack. Doesn't interfere with normal Monk operation there, certainly. Costs an additional Action to actually activate it, though. Not going to complain about that, seeing as the effect is pretty decent, if a little limited in scope; i.e. single target only and it takes a turn to set up. Kind of like Power Word: Kill, but with a casting time of 2 rounds and you have to hit them first. At 17th lvl the "on the same plane" criteria can be pretty significant too, let's not forget. On the whole, pretty Monk-ish, but I'd hesitate to say it really synergises with normal Monk operations, per se.

Shadow
- Shadow Arts. Four spells (plus a cantrip), all of which take an Action to cast. Granted, they add to the versatility of the Monk with regard to stealth and anti-caster options, so some synergy with basic Monk there. Definitely choosing between "This" and "Regular Monk" though. Any Wizard could cast 4/5 of the options available and Pass Without Trace is a common pick for Rangers and Druids. You're hardly filling a niche role. Costs Ki, so are you sure you wouldn't be better off spending that Ki on Stunning Strike?
- Shadow Step. Situational (a common situation, granted, but situational nonetheless). Bonus Action competes with additional attacks, reducing chances for Stuns. Otherwise free. Yeah, I'll give this one its due; awesome feature that enhances mobility for almost zero cost. Synergises well with regular Monk function.
- Cloak of Shadows. Costs an action and it broken by combat actions, so is largely limited to solely stealth function, rather than combat. Innately, Monks aren't actually that good at stealth beyond a decent Dex and some ability to be in unexpected places due to Step of the Wind, Unarmoured Movement (9th lvl) and Slow Fall. This makes the Monk actively good at Stealth in the dark...which is a bit like the Invisible Boy who's only invisible when no-one is looking, IMO, but I digress. The other thing to consider is that as an 11th level feature, we're hardly breaking the bank; Invisibility and Greater Invisibility are both superior for their use cases and are available much earlier.
- Opportunist. At 17th level, most things you'll be fighting have a reach greater than 5ft, which means you'll be putting yourself in the situation of being able to use it. This is directly counter to the usual Monk mode of skirmish/kiting. I'd call this a "This or Monk" ability, myself.

4-Elements
- 3rd lvl. Choose between AoE damage (Burning Hands, Thunderwave), Ranged "tackle" (Unbroken Air/Water Whip), Terrain utility (Flowing River) or Punch Enhancement (Fire Snake). One of these directly enhances regular Monk attacks at no additional action cost. Flowing River offers terrain manipulation that the Monk is equipped to take advantage of with his enhanced mobility option. AoE is a weakness that the Monk has and gives him a solid alternative to feeling crummy when there's an army to fight. Ranged options for the Monk are on the whole lacklustre, so UA/WW offer something exciting and Monk-ish to do at range. Competes with Monk? Yes, mostly. Feels like Monk options but in a different package? Also yes.
- 6th lvl. Hold Person is Stun at range with longer duration. Prety Monk-ish. Shatter extends the AoE potential. Competing? Sure. Does it compete with regular Monk function any more than Wholeness of Body does? At least 4E can use Shatter multiple times a day.
- 11th lvl. Fly, Gaseous Form. What is a Monk if not mobile? This is literally a direct enhancement of what it means to be a Monk. Fireball offers respectable AoE damage if that's what you're here for; I'm not about to complain too hard about getting to use it multiple times per short rest.
- 17th lvl. Wall spells again manipulate the terrain, which the Monk is uniquely equipped to to capitalise on. Another AoE damage option if you want it, in the form of Cone of Cold.
So as far as I can tell, both Open Hand and Shadow Monks offer exactly one feature that directly enhances something that the core Monk already does at no cost in Ki or Actions. Other than that, their features compete for Ki, Actions and/or core function. I'm not saying 4E does any different and yeah, maybe 4E Disciplines cost a little too much Ki, but at least 4E offers some degree of versatility to tailor your suite of abilities to your taste (unlike either of the other two). I'd also be inclined to say that while they compete for Action and Ki economy, most of the Disciplines synergise pretty well with the core feel of what it means to be a Monk; whether that be inflicting status effects, push/pulling people around, mobility or just straight dealing damage, which is more than can be said for the Shadow Monk trying to add stealth to an otherwise not-that-stealthy chassis or Open Hand trying to add healing and not-fighting to a non-healer, fighting chassis.

[JellyPooga]

You can't use Martial Arts on a turn that you use Burning Hands. That whole chunk of damage should not be included in the "Burning Hands" option.

You can use it on the 2nd turn, though. The two values I gave were the total over two rounds; one for (Round 1: Burning Hands, Round 2: Q.staff+Martial Arts) and the other for (Round 1: Q.Staff+FoB, Round 2: Q/Staff+FoB). Ki is not the only consideration at hand when the Action economy of the scenario is also important. In terms of raw damage output, yes, Burning Hands is inefficient compared to FoB, but in terms of actions, it's superior. It's also worth reiterating that the Burning Hands option doesn't use your Bonus Action on that first round, while the Flurry option obviously does, giving the former a greater flexibility; on that 2nd round, Burning Hands guy could even FoB to deal more damage than the FoB guy (albeit at the cost of more Ki).

Rounding minutiae notwithstanding (thanks for checking my work, btw), my point remains the same; roughly speaking, whether you use Burning Hands or Flurry in this scenario against 2 Orcs, the (raw) damage output is about the same, making the use case the deciding factor of which to use. Neither has a significant advantage over the other in an "all cases" scenario, which means that either is a solid option and further that having both available to choose from is superior to only having one or the other. Enhancing FoB with Open Hand shenanigans, terrain considerations aside, doesn't make it better than Burning Hands if you're facing 6 Orcs in a handy cone. Neither does adding bonus damage to Burning Hands (e.g. like a Sorcerer can) if you're facing a single opponent.

[LudicSavant]

(thanks for checking my work, btw)

Happy to help :smallsmile:

[Zuras]

Is this a fair assessment? I mean, let's look at the PHB subclasses;

Shadow
- Shadow Arts. Four spells (plus a cantrip), all of which take an Action to cast. Granted, they add to the versatility of the Monk with regard to stealth and anti-caster options, so some synergy with basic Monk there. Definitely choosing between "This" and "Regular Monk" though. Any Wizard could cast 4/5 of the options available and Pass Without Trace is a common pick for Rangers and Druids. You're hardly filling a niche role. Costs Ki, so are you sure you wouldn't be better off spending that Ki on Stunning Strike?
- Shadow Step. Situational (a common situation, granted, but situational nonetheless). Bonus Action competes with additional attacks, reducing chances for Stuns. Otherwise free. Yeah, I'll give this one its due; awesome feature that enhances mobility for almost zero cost. Synergises well with regular Monk function.
- Cloak of Shadows. Costs an action and it broken by combat actions, so is largely limited to solely stealth function, rather than combat. Innately, Monks aren't actually that good at stealth beyond a decent Dex and some ability to be in unexpected places due to Step of the Wind, Unarmoured Movement (9th lvl) and Slow Fall. This makes the Monk actively good at Stealth in the dark...which is a bit like the Invisible Boy who's only invisible when no-one is looking, IMO, but I digress. The other thing to consider is that as an 11th level feature, we're hardly breaking the bank; Invisibility and Greater Invisibility are both superior for their use cases and are available much earlier.
- Opportunist. At 17th level, most things you'll be fighting have a reach greater than 5ft, which means you'll be putting yourself in the situation of being able to use it. This is directly counter to the usual Monk mode of skirmish/kiting. I'd call this a "This or Monk" ability, myself.

4-Elements
- 3rd lvl. Choose between AoE damage (Burning Hands, Thunderwave), Ranged "tackle" (Unbroken Air/Water Whip), Terrain utility (Flowing River) or Punch Enhancement (Fire Snake). One of these directly enhances regular Monk attacks at no additional action cost. Flowing River offers terrain manipulation that the Monk is equipped to take advantage of with his enhanced mobility option. AoE is a weakness that the Monk has and gives him a solid alternative to feeling crummy when there's an army to fight. Ranged options for the Monk are on the whole lacklustre, so UA/WW offer something exciting and Monk-ish to do at range. Competes with Monk? Yes, mostly. Feels like Monk options but in a different package? Also yes.
- 6th lvl. Hold Person is Stun at range with longer duration. Prety Monk-ish. Shatter extends the AoE potential. Competing? Sure. Does it compete with regular Monk function any more than Wholeness of Body does? At least 4E can use Shatter multiple times a day.
- 11th lvl. Fly, Gaseous Form. What is a Monk if not mobile? This is literally a direct enhancement of what it means to be a Monk. Fireball offers respectable AoE damage if that's what you're here for; I'm not about to complain too hard about getting to use it multiple times per short rest.
- 17th lvl. Wall spells again manipulate the terrain, which the Monk is uniquely equipped to to capitalise on. Another AoE damage option if you want it, in the form of Cone of Cold.
So as far as I can tell, both Open Hand and Shadow Monks offer exactly one feature that directly enhances something that the core Monk already does at no cost in Ki or Actions. Other than that, their features compete for Ki, Actions and/or core function. I'm not saying 4E does any different and yeah, maybe 4E Disciplines cost a little too much Ki, but at least 4E offers some degree of versatility to tailor your suite of abilities to your taste (unlike either of the other two). I'd also be inclined to say that while they compete for Action and Ki economy, most of the Disciplines synergise pretty well with the core feel of what it means to be a Monk; whether that be inflicting status effects, push/pulling people around, mobility or just straight dealing damage, which is more than can be said for the Shadow Monk trying to add stealth to an otherwise not-that-stealthy chassis or Open Hand trying to add healing and not-fighting to a non-healer, fighting chassis.

The point you are missing, at least regarding the Shadow Monk, is that all its ki abilities are high variance but zero disappointment.

You may not need to sneak up on or past anyone during a session, but if you do, you spend 2 ki and almost automatically succeed.

You may not have a variant human with you whose need for light is ruining your otherwise perfect stealth setup, but if you do, you can spend a short rest resource to solve the problem for 8 hours.

The Barbarian probably isn’t always grappling enemy wizards, but when they do, you can silence the wizard with 100% accuracy.

Basically all your options are either awesome, or they just don’t come up. Your features might be weak, but they are never disappointing. You are rarely in situations where your features are relevant but they underperform.

Shadow monk abilities are basically 0/10 or 10/10 in effectiveness, and you just don’t use them if they aren’t relevant. 4E disciplines are useful more often but consistently 4/10 or 5/10 in effectiveness.

[JellyPooga]

The point you are missing, at least regarding the Shadow Monk, is that all its ki abilities are high variance but zero disappointment.

You may not need to sneak up on or past anyone during a session, but if you do, you spend 2 ki and almost automatically succeed.

You may not have a variant human with you whose need for light is ruining your otherwise perfect stealth setup, but if you do, you can spend a short rest resource to solve the problem for 8 hours.

The Barbarian probably isn’t always grappling enemy wizards, but when they do, you can silence the wizard with 100% accuracy.

Basically all your options are either awesome, or they just don’t come up. Your features might be weak, but they are never disappointing. You are rarely in situations where your features are relevant but they underperform.

Shadow monk abilities are basically 0/10 or 10/10 in effectiveness, and you just don’t use them if they aren’t relevant. 4E disciplines are useful more often but consistently 4/10 or 5/10 in effectiveness.

I'm not sure why you think 4E abilities might be less than satisfying, or indeed why Shadow might always be perfectly so. Someone has already pointed out that Silence is easily negated by a number of means, and PWT can still fail to a bad roll despite the significant bonus. On the flipside, what's inconsistent about being able to cast Fly for enhabced mobility or use Flowing River to make an ice wall to protect the squishy caster or bridge a river? Even the AoE spells and UA/WW offer half damage for "failure", which is a consolation prize better than "no effect".

[MaxWilson]

The problem (for me, others seem not to mind) is that the hopping around shooting fire doesn’t last very long at all. At 6th level it’s two rounds and then you’re out, and don’t have any ki for your regular monk stuff either. I feel like if you blow all your sub class and class resources on something it should be more spectacular.

You're not wrong, and when I had a satisfying experience with an Elemonk it involved having two shticks: Elemonk + Prodigy (Athletics). It was pretty fun to hop around spewing fire (if I did it again I'd pick Thunderwave instead though) and grapple/proning monsters then beating them up with advantage.

I think it's really important for elemonks to have a fun thing to do that doesn't cost ki. Some people have suggested a houserule of letting all monks use Wisdom (Athletic) on grapples/shoves, and I think that's interesting and sounds justified by martial arts tropes.


Compare the Battle Master. 4 superiority dice isn’t actually a lot over the 2-3 encounters you should get between short rests, nor is it a massive amount of damage in the abstract (+4d8 total at 6th level). However, since you only spend it on a hit and don’t have to decide when to use it versus your regular attack routine, in practice it’s pure awesomesauce on top of your regular fighter stuff.

Meh, for me the Battlemaster has the same problem as the Elemonk. I still need some fun at-will stuff.


Again, some sort of cantrip-like always available abilities tied to the 4 Elements, about as potent as an EK using a blade cantrip, with different riders based on the element, would go a long way towards fixing my issues. Add some minor abilities that trigger when you spend ki on a discipline (similar to Storm Sorcerers movement on casting a levelled spell) and you should be good.

Those things aren't important to me personally but as your DM I'd have no problem adopting your suggestion of spending your bonus action on elemental damage. It's nicely-designed to be flavorful but not too strong, and I don't foresee any issues with fighters dipping monk 3 in order to steal it.

=======================================


Yeah, I guess I should reopen my math books to account for everything but in this particular example, it would've been better to either flurry or cast shatter.

There are examples where it's better to burning hands than flurry, like against hobgoblins. But you can't flurry against a flying opponent, which severely reduces your options unless you're an elemonk.

That's kinda what keeps 4-elemonks okay. They aren't locked out from attacking at any enemy. I actually recommend WW over shatter because of the range and proning effect.

Another thing is that flurry costs your bonus action and Burning Hands does not, so if you run up to a N orcs where N is sizable and Flurry one, they could kill you with their great big axes, but if you Burning Hands + Patient Defense you're probably safe. It costs more ki of course but it's an option.

Concrete example: you're a 3rd level monk with Thunderwave and 27 HP, and you spot a clump of 5 hobgoblins on the battlefield. You can run up and Thunderwave them, and have a chance to kill all or most of them, but what if you roll low on Thunderwave and they survive? You need a backup plan, and Patient Defense is that backup plan. If more than one Hobgoblin survives you will use Patient Defense.

Dex 16 3rd level monk with Flurry
Monk Death: 44.1%
Damage taken: 25.58
Ki spent: 1.00
Damage dealt: 6.86
Hobs left alive: 4.71

Dex 18 3rd level monk with Flurry
Monk Death: 36.7%
Damage taken: 22.56
Ki spent: 1.00
Damage dealt: 8.88
Hobs left alive: 4.50

Dex 16 3rd level monk with Thunderwave + Patient Defense only if multiple hobgoblins survived
Monk Death: 6.4%
Damage taken: 8.43
Ki spent: 2.96
Damage dealt: 30.62
Hobs left alive: 4.29

Dex 18 3rd level monk with Thunderwave + Patient Defense only if multiple hobgoblins survived
Monk Death: 4.0%
Damage taken: 6.43
Ki spent: 2.96
Damage dealt: 30.58
Hobs left alive: 4.29

By using Thunderwave instead of Flurry you do 4x more damage and cut your damage taken by 3x to 4x. Your chances of dying go from ~40% down to 5%. That feels pretty awesome, doesn't it?


let r = System.Random()
let d n = 1 + r.Next n
let sim dex flurry =
let mutable kiSpent = 0
let mutable pd = false
let hobs = Array.init 5 (fun _ -> 11)
let hob n =
if hobs.[n] <= 0 then 0
else
let ma = (hobs |> Seq.filter (fun x -> x > 0) |> Seq.length) > 1
let dmg =
match min (d 20) (if pd then d 20 else 20) with
| 20 when ma -> d 8 + d 6 + d 6 + d 8 + d 6 + d 6 + 1
| 20 -> d 8 + d 6 + d 6 + 1
| n when ma && n + 3 >= (13+dex) -> d 8 + d 6 + d 6 + 1
| n when n + 3 >= (13+dex) -> d 8 + 1
| _ -> 0
dmg
let monk() =
let mutable targetIx = 0
let att sz =
while hobs.[targetIx] <= 0 do
targetIx <- targetIx + 1
let dmg =
match d 20 with
| 20 -> d sz + d sz + dex
| n when n + 2 + dex >= 18 -> d sz + dex
| _ -> 0
hobs.[targetIx] <- hobs.[targetIx] - dmg
let thunder() =
let dmg = d 8 + d 8
kiSpent <- kiSpent + 2
hobs |> Array.iteri (fun i hp ->
let dmg = if d 20 + 1 >= (8 + 3 + 2) then dmg else dmg/2
hobs.[i] <- hp - dmg)
if flurry then
att 8; att 4; att 4
kiSpent <- kiSpent + 1
else
thunder()
if (hobs |> Seq.filter (fun x -> x > 0) |> Seq.length) > 1 then
pd <- true
kiSpent <- kiSpent + 1
monk()
let damageTaken = [0..4] |> List.sumBy hob
let damageDealt = [0..4] |> List.sumBy (fun i -> min 11 (11 - hobs.[i]))
let hobsAlive = (hobs |> Seq.filter (fun x -> x > 0) |> Seq.length)
let monkDeath = if damageTaken >= 27 then 1 else 0
monkDeath, damageTaken, kiSpent, damageDealt, hobsAlive

let summarize label dex flurry N =
let trials = List.init N (fun _ -> sim dex flurry)
let monkDeath, damageTaken, kiSpent, damageDealt, hobsAlive = trials |> List.reduce(fun (a,b,c,d,e) (a1,b1,c1,d1,e1) -> (a+a1), (b+b1), (c+c1), d+d1, e+e1)
let pct v = (float v * 100.)/(float N)
let norm v = (float v)/(float N)
printfn "%s\nMonk Death: %.1f%%\nDamage taken: %.2f\nKi spent: %.2f\nDamage dealt: %.2f\nHobs left alive: %.2f\n" label (pct monkDeath) (norm damageTaken) (norm kiSpent) (norm damageDealt) (norm hobsAlive)

summarize "Dex 16 3rd level monk with Flurry" 3 true 1000
summarize "Dex 18 3rd level monk with Flurry" 4 true 1000
summarize "Dex 16 3rd level monk with Thunderwave + Patient Defense only if multiple hobgoblins survived" 3 false 1000
summarize "Dex 18 3rd level monk with Thunderwave + Patient Defense only if multiple hobgoblins survived" 4 false 1000


=======================================


The point you are missing, at least regarding the Shadow Monk, is that all its ki abilities are high variance but zero disappointment.

You may not need to sneak up on or past anyone during a session, but if you do, you spend 2 ki and almost automatically succeed.

You may not have a variant human with you whose need for light is ruining your otherwise perfect stealth setup, but if you do, you can spend a short rest resource to solve the problem for 8 hours.

The Barbarian probably isn’t always grappling enemy wizards, but when they do, you can silence the wizard with 100% accuracy.

Basically all your options are either awesome, or they just don’t come up. Your features might be weak, but they are never disappointing. You are rarely in situations where your features are relevant but they underperform.

Apropos, one great way of leveraging Shadow Arts is to take the Alert feat. Now you can use 2 ki points and your concentration to:

(1) Give enemies disadvantage on attacks against you (unless they have blindsight/truesight/Devil's Sight), and
(2) Prevent opportunity attacks (unless they have...), and
(3) Prevent most spells from affecting you or anyone else in the party nearby, and
(4) Grant advantage on attacks and disadvantage to attackers of anyone else in the party who has blindsight or Devil's Sight, e.g. a Moon Druid in Giant Constrictor Snake Form or a Warlock.
(5) Potentially also enable additional Shadow Jumps, depending on DM rulings.

And it lasts for 10 minutes without requiring any more actions or bonus actions! And of course you're probably also the party scout and point man, so having +5 to initiative and never being surprised is great for seizing initiative in combat.

For a Shadow Monk, I would actually recommend prioritizing Alert even over Mobile.

[Zuras]

I'm not sure why you think 4E abilities might be less than satisfying, or indeed why Shadow might always be perfectly so. Someone has already pointed out that Silence is easily negated by a number of means, and PWT can still fail to a bad roll despite the significant bonus. On the flipside, what's inconsistent about being able to cast Fly for enhabced mobility or use Flowing River to make an ice wall to protect the squishy caster or bridge a river? Even the AoE spells and UA/WW offer half damage for "failure", which is a consolation prize better than "no effect".

My point is that players with a good grasp of tactics won’t waste their time with Silence or Darkness except in the (narrow) circumstances where they will probably work. It’s either good or irrelevant, like the Bard’s social skills or the Knowledge Cleric’s ridiculous Arcana score. I agree that the new Cleric player at their 3rd D&D session will continue to discover Silence is not the anti-caster button they were hoping for. Still, none of the Shadow Monk spells besides minor Illusion even have a save. For war gamer style players, this means any time they fail it’s due to bad player tactics, not the fickle d20. True, Shape the Flowing River, Fly and Gaseous Form just work, too, but that’s a big reason why the 4E Monk starts being fun to play at 11th level when more of those options are available.

If the 4E Monk got 4 strong but highly situational abilities like Shape the Flowing River at 3rd level (maybe one for each element) I would totally give it a try.

Having actually played a Shadow Monk though, I will say that Pass Without Trace is obviously head and shoulders above all the other features, not only because of its raw power but because of how it makes your preferred play style (solving problems via stealth) viable for the entire party.

[LudicSavant]

You can use it on the 2nd turn, though. The two values I gave were the total over two rounds; one for (Round 1: Burning Hands, Round 2: Q.staff+Martial Arts) and the other for (Round 1: Q.Staff+FoB, Round 2: Q/Staff+FoB)

Ah, that makes sense. I misinterpreted that particular line.

[JellyPooga]

My point is that players with a good grasp of tactics won’t waste their time with Silence or Darkness except in the (narrow) circumstances where they will probably work. It’s either good or irrelevant, like the Bard’s social skills or the Knowledge Cleric’s ridiculous Arcana score. I agree that the new Cleric player at their 3rd D&D session will continue to discover Silence is not the anti-caster button they were hoping for. Still, none of the Shadow Monk spells besides minor Illusion even have a save. For war gamer style players, this means any time they fail it’s due to bad player tactics, not the fickle d20. True, Shape the Flowing River, Fly and Gaseous Form just work, too, but that’s a big reason why the 4E Monk starts being fun to play at 11th level when more of those options are available.

If the 4E Monk got 4 strong but highly situational abilities like Shape the Flowing River at 3rd level (maybe one for each element) I would totally give it a try.

Having actually played a Shadow Monk though, I will say that Pass Without Trace is obviously head and shoulders above all the other features, not only because of its raw power but because of how it makes your preferred play style (solving problems via stealth) viable for the entire party.

I'm still struggling to see the difference. Surely a good tactical player will only use 4E Disciplines when it's appropriate to do so just as a Shadow Monk will only use Silence or Darkness when appropriate?

At Level 6, a 4E Monk has three Disciplines of their choice; for the sake of example, let's say they have Flowing River, Water Whip and Gong of the Summit (aka: Shatter). That's a utility, an AoE and a ranged pull/prone option. Both damaging options offer half damage even on a save and the utility option is both Ki efficient and always does exactly what you want it to. What makes that choice of Disciplines, that also offer a "consolation prize" on a failed result, any worse with regard to reliability or "power" compared to Shadow Arts, whilst also being largely less situational?

I'll concede that using Disciplines will compete with usual Monk shenanigans for Ki and Actions, but is that really any different from having to choose between casting two spells prepared or known? Does it take away from how good Invisibility is if it comes at the cost of casting Flaming Sphere?

[Amechra]

Shadow
- Shadow Arts. Four spells (plus a cantrip), all of which take an Action to cast. Granted, they add to the versatility of the Monk with regard to stealth and anti-caster options, so some synergy with basic Monk there. Definitely choosing between "This" and "Regular Monk" though. Any Wizard could cast 4/5 of the options available and Pass Without Trace is a common pick for Rangers and Druids. You're hardly filling a niche role. Costs Ki, so are you sure you wouldn't be better off spending that Ki on Stunning Strike?

The highlighted bit is incorrect. Wizards don't get Pass Without Trace or Silence. In fact, no spellcaster natively gets access to more than three of the five spells that the Shadow Monk gets. This changes when you throw in Magical Secrets and subclasses, but you'd actually have to try.

The other difference is that those spell options aren't competing for actions with the rest of your goodies. If a 4E Monk wants to use the Burning Hands they picked up, they have to spend a bunch of ki and forgo Attacking+BA Attacking. Conversely, the Shadow Monk isn't generally going to cast Pass Without Trace during combat, so the only trade-off they need to consider is their ki.

[MaxWilson]

The highlighted bit is incorrect. Wizards don't get Pass Without Trace or Silence. In fact, no spellcaster natively gets access to more than three of the five spells that the Shadow Monk gets. This changes when you throw in Magical Secrets and subclasses, but you'd actually have to try.

The other difference is that those spell options aren't competing for actions with the rest of your goodies. If a 4E Monk wants to use the Burning Hands they picked up, they have to spend a bunch of ki and forgo Attacking+BA Attacking. Conversely, the Shadow Monk isn't generally going to cast Pass Without Trace during combat, so the only trade-off they need to consider is their ki.

I agree with you that JellyPooga is underestimating Shadow Monks, but I want to address your point about elemonk action economy.

As shown above against the five hobgoblins, when AoEs are appropriate you're facing a mob, so BA attacking would often be inappropriate anyway compared to BA defending, which you can still do. BA attacking just results in getting killed. (Also, BA Defending may lead to getting an opportunity attack with your reaction, if they switch targets.)

[HiveStriker]

The problem (for me, others seem not to mind) is that the hopping around shooting fire doesn’t last very long at all. At 6th level it’s two rounds and then you’re out, and don’t have any ki for your regular monk stuff either. I feel like if you blow all your sub class and class resources on something it should be more spectacular.

Compare the Battle Master. 4 superiority dice isn’t actually a lot over the 2-3 encounters you should get between short rests, nor is it a massive amount of damage in the abstract (+4d8 total at 6th level). However, since you only spend it on a hit and don’t have to decide when to use it versus your regular attack routine, in practice it’s pure awesomesauce on top of your regular fighter stuff.

Again, some sort of cantrip-like always available abilities tied to the 4 Elements, about as potent as an EK using a blade cantrip, with different riders based on the element, would go a long way towards fixing my issues. Add some minor abilities that trigger when you spend ki on a discipline (similar to Storm Sorcerers movement on casting a levelled spell) and you should be good.
Yeah, that is perfectly understandable.
I'd argue that it's technically what Fangs of Fire Snake does already (no action required to get the effect) and it affects all unarmed strikes on your round.

Those houserules could work for you then.

1. Alter Fangs of Fire Snake to choose whatever element you like, and make it so that if you make an attack with a weapon you don't get extra reach but instead deal bonus damage equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Add ability to get a rider for another Ki on a single weapon attack: 5 feet reduction (cold), -1 AC against next attack (fire or acid), disadvantage on a next weapon attack (lightning), deafened for one turn (thunder).
The small amount of bonuses and apparently steep cost of my suggestion is (imo) compensated by the fact that those effects would "simply apply". So power creep is close.

2. Make 4E get "Sorcerer cantrip progression" among all "utility (non-damaging) elemental cantrips" and give him ability to cast them as bonus action: Mold Earth, Shape Water, Control Flames, Gust, Thunderclap, Shocking Grasp.

3. Allow also "self-range / melee" ones (Shocking Grasp, Thunderclap, Lightning Lure) and allow casting them as bonus action for 1 ki.

Point 1 will make you feel more powerful (it's a big bump actually at lower level, but will wane off later).
Point 2 will allow you to get creative with cantrips, so whether it's powerful or not is up to you (and DM), or you can simply pick the damaging ones to get yet another alternative.
Point 3 is only if you really want a significant damage boost (starts low, but scales with character level so ends pretty decent). Alternatively, you could also simply make Unbroken Air and Water Whip usable as bonus action (in addition to being usable as an action, so you can move a creature back and forth or instead double down).

And otherwise, if what you really want is not "an Elemental Monk" but really "an Elemental warrior", I'll find you the homebrew I spoke about earlier. :)
EDIT: Rereading more attentively your post, I feel that homebrew would definitely be to your liking, or at least provide you mechanical ideas you could "patch back" on Monk. I'll try my best to find it for you if you're interested (although not today, I'm back to work in a few minutes even if we are technically Sunday ^^).


Your regular monk stuff like martial arts, unarmored movement, and unarmored defense is still intact.

And you want to play judiciously. If it's more efficient to do flurry, use flurry until it's less efficient. But at some point an enemy's going to be in the air or there's going to be 3 enemies in close proximity.

These are the "Ki" (pun intended) moments that your elemental attacks should be. Otherwise, you can make stone quarterstaves, have a ft long line of fire, and create that air ball thing that aang rides. Also, the elemental attunment ability has 0 components, making it invisible. You can stealthily attack goblins from a distance without revealing your location or manipulate an NPC's interaction without being caught or spending Ki.
Could you please provide examples? I shamely admit I never thought that you could be using Elemental Attunement to "attack" (prepare an assault by snuffing torchs, sure, but actually attack?), I'm curious.



I think it's really important for elemonks to have a fun thing to do that doesn't cost ki. Some people have suggested a houserule of letting all monks use Wisdom (Athletic) on grapples/shoves, and I think that's interesting and sounds justified by martial arts tropes.

I hope I don't start a derailment here, but if we were gonna allow alternative attribute for Grapples/Shoves, wouldn't Dexterity make more sense?
From the little knowledge I have of martial arts, there are mainly two ways to limit (or completely stop) an enemy's movement: first is a brute power competition (holding him with such a grip the creature simply cannot superceded with its own strength); second is managing to put creature in such a position that it could still technically move but it would create excruciating pain or put a limb's health in jeopardy (like some "back arms-locks").

I would have no trouble explaining how a very agile and fast person manages to quickly grab a limb and turn it in such an "uncomfortable" way before the enemy has any chance to prevent it (by using muscle power to block or adjusting its own posture "on the flow").
Wisdom? Apart from the possible "you are aware and knwoledgable of anatomy so you know which point to target and how" (imo not enough ^^), not sure. Would you fluff it as sending a wave of energy into enemy body or something?

[JellyPooga]

The highlighted bit is incorrect. Wizards don't get Pass Without Trace or Silence. In fact, no spellcaster natively gets access to more than three of the five spells that the Shadow Monk gets. This changes when you throw in Magical Secrets and subclasses, but you'd actually have to try.

The other difference is that those spell options aren't competing for actions with the rest of your goodies. If a 4E Monk wants to use the Burning Hands they picked up, they have to spend a bunch of ki and forgo Attacking+BA Attacking. Conversely, the Shadow Monk isn't generally going to cast Pass Without Trace during combat, so the only trade-off they need to consider is their ki.

My mistake; I forgot Silence wasn't a Wizard spell. The point still stands that none of the spells the Shadow Monk gets are any more unique than those 4E gets; them all being on a single caster is not, necessarily a good thing either, even if it is thematic.

PWT and Darkvision won't compete for actions, but Darkness, Silence and Minor Illusion absolutely can and will. When 3/5 of the spells a feature gives you compete for actions, especially given that one of the ones that doesn't (Darkvision) is rarely, if ever, going to be used at all (depending on build), I think we can say that the feature does in general.

I'm not trying to "prove" that Shadow Monks are bad or anything, so much as asking the question of why they're rated so much higher than 4E. The point is that many, most, if not all the arguments being levelled against 4E can easily be fired at both Shadow and Open Hand; "doesn't synergise with other Monk features", "costs Ki", "competes for Actions", "doesn't compare favourably to other spellcasters"...4E is not alone in these regards. What makes 4E worse? Is it just the perceived high cost?

[LudicSavant]

Darkvision) is rarely, if ever, going to be used at all

I actually use Darkvision a lot as a Shadow Monk. Darkvision lasts for 8 hours, and you have it on a one-hour recharge. Basically you can give that entire party of VHumans Darkvision in the morning (level permitting), rest up, and have all your ki for the dungeon.

This means that not only can I ensure that the whole party is at least decently stealthy, but also that I can have them all skulking through the dark, no lights to give away our position.

[elyktsorb]

What makes 4E worse? Is it just the perceived high cost?

I think it's that 4E monk should definitely be way cooler than what it is.

[JellyPooga]

I actually use Darkvision a lot as a Shadow Monk. Darkvision lasts for 8 hours, and you have it on a one-hour recharge. Basically you can give that entire party of VHumans Darkvision in the morning (level permitting), rest up, and have all your ki for the dungeon.

And in a party of demi-humans, it will never see use at all. Anecdotal evidence is valid, but weak.

[HiveStriker]

My point is that players with a good grasp of tactics won’t waste their time with Silence or Darkness except in the (narrow) circumstances where they will probably work. It’s either good or irrelevant, like the Bard’s social skills or the Knowledge Cleric’s ridiculous Arcana score. I agree that the new Cleric player at their 3rd D&D session will continue to discover Silence is not the anti-caster button they were hoping for. Still, none of the Shadow Monk spells besides minor Illusion even have a save. For war gamer style players, this means any time they fail it’s due to bad player tactics, not the fickle d20. True, Shape the Flowing River, Fly and Gaseous Form just work, too, but that’s a big reason why the 4E Monk starts being fun to play at 11th level when more of those options are available.

I'll have to disagree here on the bolded part. :)
As I stressed already in a previous post, it's not because you have a solid tactic in mind that it will pan out as you expected.
Even if you as a party were perfectly coordinated, you cannot be 100% sure that the enemy will react as you expect.

As soon as enemy lands more than exactly "one ranged hit" (which is what Deflect Arrows is here for) during any turn, you have a decent chance of losing concentration early. And unless you also uses Patient Defense, even if you managed to have extra high AC at low level for some reason (like typicall stats roll, great luck), you can do nothing against enemy lucking in and rolling a natural critical.

As for Pass Without Trace: yeah, it's one of the spells I consider myself "mandatory" for any party (not *really*, but making life so easier I'd really get out of track to get it one way or another).
So if I had to join as a Monk in an otherwise complete party, and nobody had a way to get Pass Without Trace, I'd very strongly consider it (just taking the "temp" beforehand of players, because it's no use grabbing an awesome tactical spell for sneak and ambush if players are in a SWAT mindset).

Exactly like I'd totally pick Long Death Monk over any other archetype if I were in a party where I'd probably end as the only frontliner (or one of two frontliners, otherone being a Paladin). Because the extra THP on kill would make a big difference in survivability (especially if I could coordinate with archers/caster to get the finishing blow as often as possible) and the Fear action would give me crowd control far superior to most other martials (especially since I wouldn't need to care about "friendly fire", hence calling specifically for Paladin - +CHA on saves, immune to frightened at 10).

Exactly like I'd definitely pick Kensei if overall the party was varied enough in control options, but we had no ranged martial.

Exactly like I'd pick Sun Soul if the situation felt it was the best choice (undead-themed campaign, campaign that will end before level 10 and need of AOE -all cumulative factors, otherwise definitely 4e).

Exactly like I'd pick 4E in many other situations, simply because I can change disciplines as party tactics (and mine) evolve.

That's being when I pick an archetype "to fit in".
But choosing "depending on party" is never mandatory, choosing what you just like then actively think to use your abilities in synergy with others work too.

For choosing "by myself and for myself", honestly I like all archetypes, but my top three are definitely 4E, Shadow and Kensei.
Open Hand is extremely bland (you'll do the exact same thing from level 3 to level 17 -at least Shadow abilities can feel varied because the situations can bear different contexts of using the spells even if you ultimately do always the same few tricsk) and does not even do anything to shore up Monk's weak areas (contrarily to Kensei).
Long Death is roughly the same (in regular parties, Fear is kinda hard to land usefully at low levels imx, so you're basically a plain Monk with extra resilience).
Drunken Master is fun to play, but requires even more finesse than regular Monk, and I'm not always up for it.
Sun Soul is fun to play for a while, but apart from the occasional AOE nova exactly as bland as Open Hand so personally playing a few times was enough for me (I'd pick it only if really the campaign made it extra fitting).

[Skylivedk]

My mistake; I forgot Silence wasn't a Wizard spell. The point still stands that none of the spells the Shadow Monk gets are any more unique than those 4E gets; them all being on a single caster is not, necessarily a good thing either, even if it is thematic.

PWT and Darkvision won't compete for actions, but Darkness, Silence and Minor Illusion absolutely can and will. When 3/5 of the spells a feature gives you compete for actions, especially given that one of the ones that doesn't (Darkvision) is rarely, if ever, going to be used at all (depending on build), I think we can say that the feature does in general.

I'm not trying to "prove" that Shadow Monks are bad or anything, so much as asking the question of why they're rated so much higher than 4E. The point is that many, most, if not all the arguments being levelled against 4E can easily be fired at both Shadow and Open Hand; "doesn't synergise with other Monk features", "costs Ki", "competes for Actions", "doesn't compare favourably to other spellcasters"...4E is not alone in these regards. What makes 4E worse? Is it just the perceived high cost?

Not really. Shadow Monk has cheaper abilities, gets them faster and has features on top of the spells that are both strong and thematic.

If you look at tier 1-2 the Shadow Monk has 50%-100% more spells at a lower cost plus a crazy nice free ability as well. That's some significant differences. They also get level 2 spells at lvl 3 rather than 6.

On top of that, the action economy argument is not solid either since both minor illusion, darkness and pass without trace are often more useful out of combat (or can be precast on a pebble in medallion that can open and close in the case of darkness) than in combat.

In terms of design space, the Shadow Monk uses a fourth of its subclass features to reach the same number of spells. For the other three it gets always on features where none of them are strictly bad and one of them is amongst the best gotten by any class at that level (60 ft teleport for a bonus action would make most martials sick with envy - I'd take it over/as an ASI on most any day)

[Zalabim]

It's a common mistake, but 4 elements do get 2nd level spells at level 3. They then get more at level 6.

[Skylivedk]

It's a common mistake, but 4 elements do get 2nd level spells at level 3. They then get more at level 6.

You're right. Gust of wind (which also breaks with the ki cost convention of lvl+1). I had forgotten about it, probably because I have never seen it used. Did I miss others since you use plural?

[JellyPooga]

Not really. Shadow Monk has cheaper abilities, gets them faster and has features on top of the spells that are both strong and thematic.

If you look at tier 1-2 the Shadow Monk has 50%-100% more spells at a lower cost plus a crazy nice free ability as well. That's some significant differences. They also get level 2 spells at lvl 3 rather than 6.

On top of that, the action economy argument is not solid either since both minor illusion, darkness and pass without trace are often more useful out of combat (or can be precast on a pebble in medallion that can open and close in the case of darkness) than in combat.

In terms of design space, the Shadow Monk uses a fourth of its subclass features to reach the same number of spells. For the other three it gets always on features where none of them are strictly bad and one of them is amongst the best gotten by any class at that level (60 ft teleport for a bonus action would make most martials sick with envy - I'd take it over/as an ASI on most any day)

I'll say it again; I'm not saying Shadow Monk is bad. I'm saying it's comparable to 4E because the arguments people use against 4E also apply to Shadow. Not quoting anyone, but paraphrasing, here's some of them;

"It competes for Ki" and "You're better off just using Flurry or Stunning Strike": Shadow Arts might be cheaper, but it's not free. All of the 3rd level Disciplines cost 2 Ki points or less, which is the same cost as Shadow Arts, not more as you contend. Regardless of the level of the spells in question, the Ki expenditure is similar. Is a Darkness spell inherently more valuable than Gust of Wind or Thunderwave? Situationally yes, of course Darkness can be an amazing tool, but you won't be using Darkness or PWT when what you need is to create an ice bridge in a hurry, or Scorpion an enemy to "Get over here!" with Water Whip. The point is that whether you're using Shadow Arts or a (3rd lvl) Disclipline, you're still forgoing the same number of Flurries or Stuns.

"It competes for Actions": Yes, most Disciplines do take an Action that could be spent on doing another Monk thing, like punching someone in the face. So does casting Silence or Darkness, or using your Cloak of Shadows. You argue that certain Shadow Arts can be cast and/or are useful outside of combat and as such action competition isn't as much of an issue for Shadow Monks...well, yeah, but the same is true of a lot of Disciplines. What's your point? Shape the Flowing River is an awesome utility Discipline that can be used both in and out of combat and is Ki-cheaper than Shadow Arts. Shatter can be used for more than just combat AoE. Gaseous Form arguably grants better stealth/infiltration potential than the whole of the Shadow Monk package put together. Shall I continue? Further, the Action economy is entirely based on opportunity cost; being able to punch someones lungs out and stun-lock a single foe is great, but it's a waste of actions and possibly resources compared to a solid AoE blast if you're fighting a dozen goblins. Having abilities that trigger when you do something that you'd do anyway is great...but how many Shadow Monk features do that?

"It's not as good as other spellcasting subclasses": Setting aside the contention that 4E is supposed to be a "spellcasting subclass" at all; As many defenders of Shadow Monk, including yourself, are quick to point out, Shadow Monk gets more spells and quicker than 4E does. Why is Shadow Monk not called out for this same reason? What makes 4E a "spellcasting subclass" and Shadow not? Three of the four features Shadow Monk get are functionally spells; in effect if not by name, so if 4E is a spellcasting subclass, surely so should Shadow be. 4E Monk eventually gets access to 5th level spells; higher than an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster is capable of and equal to Ranger or Paladin, at least in terms of spell level available. Is that really so unfavourable? Shadow Monk only gets 2nd level spells and effects; who's the worse spellcaster?

"There's no synergy": Aside from being false, what's so synergistic about Shadow Monk? Ok, Shadow Step is good and synergises well with the Monk modus operandi, but it's really just replacing and improving on something the Monk chassis does well already; mobility. Shadow Arts and Cloak of Shadows add solid Stealth capability to the Monk, but as I've mentioned before, the Monk chassis is not inherently stealth focused and doesn't have any abilities that Shadow Monk is really enhancing or capitalising on; this is adding a feature, not synergism. Opportunist is, if anything, anti-synergy; it is predicated on sitting next to a target to be any use at all; largely speaking the last place a Monk wants to be, especially at 17th level. So that's one feature that has synergy, but is replacing/competing with base chassis features that have similar effect, two features that add an additional function and one that is entirely counter to the core theme. Is that really so different to what 4E offers?

As I say, I'm not trying to drag Shadow Monk through the dirt, I'm trying to understand what makes people see Shadow Monk as good and 4E as not, when as far as I can see, the arguments for Shadow and against 4E largely apply to both. The main and perhaps only difference being that 4E Disciplines all cost Ki, while Shadow Monk (and other Monk subclasses) get "free" features. But...shouldn't that be the case? Those higher level 4E Disciplines tend to be better in their effects. Compare Cloak of Shadows to Ride the Wind; one is worse than a situational Invisibility and the other is Fly; no caveats, no conditions, except it's self-only. At 11th level, I wouldn't pay for Cloak of Shadows, but I'll gladly pay for Fly.

[Zalabim]

You're right. Gust of wind (which also breaks with the ki cost convention of lvl+1). I had forgotten about it, probably because I have never seen it used. Did I miss others since you use plural?

They're not spells, but Water Whip and Fist of Unbroken Air would be the most powerful level 1 attack spells, so they're probably considered level 2. They deal the damage of Inflict Wounds, with a solid damage type, some range, extra effects, and still deal half damage on a save. There's really nothing to compare the others to (fire snake and flowing river), but they're cheap so they feel like level 1 effects.

[Specter]

I'll say it again; I'm not saying Shadow Monk is bad. I'm saying it's comparable to 4E because the arguments people use against 4E also apply to Shadow. Not quoting anyone, but paraphrasing, here's some of them;

"It competes for Ki" and "You're better off just using Flurry or Stunning Strike": Shadow Arts might be cheaper, but it's not free. All of the 3rd level Disciplines cost 2 Ki points or less, which is the same cost as Shadow Arts, not more as you contend. Regardless of the level of the spells in question, the Ki expenditure is similar. Is a Darkness spell inherently more valuable than Gust of Wind or Thunderwave? Situationally yes, of course Darkness can be an amazing tool, but you won't be using Darkness or PWT when what you need is to create an ice bridge in a hurry, or Scorpion an enemy to "Get over here!" with Water Whip. The point is that whether you're using Shadow Arts or a (3rd lvl) Disclipline, you're still forgoing the same number of Flurries or Stuns.

"It competes for Actions": Yes, most Disciplines do take an Action that could be spent on doing another Monk thing, like punching someone in the face. So does casting Silence or Darkness, or using your Cloak of Shadows. You argue that certain Shadow Arts can be cast and/or are useful outside of combat and as such action competition isn't as much of an issue for Shadow Monks...well, yeah, but the same is true of a lot of Disciplines. What's your point? Shape the Flowing River is an awesome utility Discipline that can be used both in and out of combat and is Ki-cheaper than Shadow Arts. Shatter can be used for more than just combat AoE. Gaseous Form arguably grants better stealth/infiltration potential than the whole of the Shadow Monk package put together. Shall I continue? Further, the Action economy is entirely based on opportunity cost; being able to punch someones lungs out and stun-lock a single foe is great, but it's a waste of actions and possibly resources compared to a solid AoE blast if you're fighting a dozen goblins. Having abilities that trigger when you do something that you'd do anyway is great...but how many Shadow Monk features do that?

"It's not as good as other spellcasting subclasses": Setting aside the contention that 4E is supposed to be a "spellcasting subclass" at all; As many defenders of Shadow Monk, including yourself, are quick to point out, Shadow Monk gets more spells and quicker than 4E does. Why is Shadow Monk not called out for this same reason? What makes 4E a "spellcasting subclass" and Shadow not? Three of the four features Shadow Monk get are functionally spells; in effect if not by name, so if 4E is a spellcasting subclass, surely so should Shadow be. 4E Monk eventually gets access to 5th level spells; higher than an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster is capable of and equal to Ranger or Paladin, at least in terms of spell level available. Is that really so unfavourable? Shadow Monk only gets 2nd level spells and effects; who's the worse spellcaster?

"There's no synergy": Aside from being false, what's so synergistic about Shadow Monk? Ok, Shadow Step is good and synergises well with the Monk modus operandi, but it's really just replacing and improving on something the Monk chassis does well already; mobility. Shadow Arts and Cloak of Shadows add solid Stealth capability to the Monk, but as I've mentioned before, the Monk chassis is not inherently stealth focused and doesn't have any abilities that Shadow Monk is really enhancing or capitalising on; this is adding a feature, not synergism. Opportunist is, if anything, anti-synergy; it is predicated on sitting next to a target to be any use at all; largely speaking the last place a Monk wants to be, especially at 17th level. So that's one feature that has synergy, but is replacing/competing with base chassis features that have similar effect, two features that add an additional function and one that is entirely counter to the core theme. Is that really so different to what 4E offers?

As I say, I'm not trying to drag Shadow Monk through the dirt, I'm trying to understand what makes people see Shadow Monk as good and 4E as not, when as far as I can see, the arguments for Shadow and against 4E largely apply to both. The main and perhaps only difference being that 4E Disciplines all cost Ki, while Shadow Monk (and other Monk subclasses) get "free" features. But...shouldn't that be the case? Those higher level 4E Disciplines tend to be better in their effects. Compare Cloak of Shadows to Ride the Wind; one is worse than a situational Invisibility and the other is Fly; no caveats, no conditions, except it's self-only. At 11th level, I wouldn't pay for Cloak of Shadows, but I'll gladly pay for Fly.

Yeah, all this.

[Skylivedk]

I'll say it again; I'm not saying Shadow Monk is bad. I'm saying it's comparable to 4E because the arguments people use against 4E also apply to Shadow. Not quoting anyone, but paraphrasing, here's some of them;

I naturally cannot answer on behalf of others without their consent nor take responsibility for their utterings. I'll address where I differ and where I see any side having made points that haven't been acknowledged. Main thing of the bat: I explicitly made an effort to show how why people find they are not directly comparable.



"It competes for Ki" and "You're better off just using Flurry or Stunning Strike": Shadow Arts might be cheaper, but it's not free. All of the 3rd level Disciplines cost 2 Ki points or less, which is the same cost as Shadow Arts, not more as you contend.

Regardless of the level of the spells in question, the Ki expenditure is similar. Is a Darkness spell inherently more valuable than Gust of Wind or Thunderwave? Situationally yes, of course Darkness can be an amazing tool, but you won't be using Darkness or PWT when what you need is to create an ice bridge in a hurry, or Scorpion an enemy to "Get over here!" with Water Whip. The point is that whether you're using Shadow Arts or a (3rd lvl) Disclipline, you're still forgoing the same number of Flurries or Stuns.


Maybe I was unclear. Gust of wind is an exception, but otherwise 4e monks pay lvl+1 in ki for a spell where Shadow pays 2 Ki. And yes, generally speaking I think Darkness, Silence and Pass without Trace can be said to be more powerful. They're above average to great for lvl 2 spells, easily beating level one spells. Gust of wind is normally seen to be low tier. I do find it better on a monk than on a full caster.

I'd be thrilled to have Silence as a level 1 spell and meh about having gust of wind. I'd never take Burning Hands/Thunderwave as a level 2 spell (no upcasting). I definitely think the non-spells seem the most fun out of the 4e features. In other words, same price doesn't make sense. When it comes to spell equivalents, 4e gets a monowheel for the price of a bike



"It competes for Actions": Yes, most Disciplines do take an Action that could be spent on doing another Monk thing, like punching someone in the face. So does casting Silence or Darkness, or using your Cloak of Shadows. You argue that certain Shadow Arts can be cast and/or are useful outside of combat and as such action competition isn't as much of an issue for Shadow Monks...well, yeah, but the same is true of a lot of Disciplines. What's your point? Shape the Flowing River is an awesome utility Discipline that can be used both in and out of combat and is Ki-cheaper than Shadow Arts.

I love Flowing River, I fully agree it's awesome. In this case: if you take it at level 3, that's almost all you get. You have a prestidigitation level power as well, but nothing more. Speed of power acquisition matters, and in this case 4e is clearly behind between lvl 3 and 6. They only get access to one effect of their own choice and most of their choices are high-tier level 1/low tier level 2 spells. When they get a less restricted access to level 2 spells, Shadow Monk gets an ability similar to one of the most popular level 2 spells (misty step), but for free and arguably better.



Shatter can be used for more than just combat AoE. Gaseous Form arguably grants better stealth/infiltration potential than the whole of the Shadow Monk package put together.
3d8 = 13,5 avg. damage to objects while making a ton of noise... Yeah, it doesn't scream great utility to me.

How do you reach the conclusion about gaseous form? It honestly makes you seem to ride against the winds of evidence.

Shadow step can get through a lot of the same places as gaseous form (keyholes, under doors etc) and it doesn't take concentration (neither do cloak of shadows), so both can be used with pass without trace plus you can get your team with you without having to burn points by switching around. For example: getting to the other side of a big door/hate to the lever that opens it? Shadow Monk is better.



Shall I continue? Further, the Action economy is entirely based on opportunity cost; being able to punch someones lungs out and stun-lock a single foe is great, but it's a waste of actions and possibly resources compared to a solid AoE blast if you're fighting a dozen goblins. Having abilities that trigger when you do something that you'd do anyway is great...but how many Shadow Monk features do that?

Please do. I'm not even a Shadow Monk-fan. I want to like the 4e-monk more, but I'm just not seeing it. Well, if you picked AoE you don't have Flowing River. At level 6 you can have both and Water Whip (which looks like my default loadout if I were to 4e), but that's three levels later and roughly speaking your toolbox is still half of the Shadow Monk's at that point. If I'm fighting a dozen goblins, darkness seems great (especially with Alert). Of course it depends on the party composition whether it's a good idea. Shadow step and superior speed will also help you deal with the situation. Also, a lot of Shadow Monk abilities trigger like you mention:
Shadow Step: whenever you need it, trigger it.
Cloak of Shadow: every time you are out of combat, it can be automatically activated.
Opportunist: you and the ranged part of the party focuses on the backline? Go.



"It's not as good as other spellcasting subclasses": Setting aside the contention that 4E is supposed to be a "spellcasting subclass" at all; As many defenders of Shadow Monk, including yourself, are quick to point out, Shadow Monk gets more spells and quicker than 4E does. Why is Shadow Monk not called out for this same reason? What makes 4E a "spellcasting subclass" and Shadow not? Three of the four features Shadow Monk get are functionally spells; in effect if not by name, so if 4E is a spellcasting subclass, surely so should Shadow be.
Agreed and Shadow Monk is a spell casting subclass in my book. It's also more! While 4e isn't that much more post level 3 (maybe I'm missing something, but 4e only unlocks spells from the subclass for later levels, right?). I think that's why Shadow Monk didn't get the same predicate. SMs don't grow as casters, 4es do.



4E Monk eventually gets access to 5th level spells; higher than an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster is capable of and equal to Ranger or Paladin, at least in terms of spell level available. Is that really so unfavourable? Shadow Monk only gets 2nd level spells and effects; who's the worse spellcaster?

In tier 3-4, 4E, I'd say. I try to avoid starting in tier 1 anymore, but most people apparently play mostly tier 1 and 2 which is probably why 4e feels off to them. I really don't understand why they didn't give at least one extra discipline on 3 and 6. Game is game as the DOTA player would lament.




"There's no synergy": Aside from being false, what's so synergistic about Shadow Monk? Ok, Shadow Step is good and synergises well with the Monk modus operandi, but it's really just replacing and improving on something the Monk chassis does well already; mobility. Shadow Arts and Cloak of Shadows add solid Stealth capability to the Monk, but as I've mentioned before, the Monk chassis is not inherently stealth focused and doesn't have any abilities that Shadow Monk is really enhancing or capitalising on; this is adding a feature, not synergism.

You mentioned it before and I silently disagreed. Being fast and without an armour giving disadvantage already puts the Monk in the upper tiers of Stealth if it wants too. You don't get expertise, granted, but otherwise you are as stealth focused as they come. High Dex and Wis, Evasion and good mobility... Sounds like a scout to me.



Opportunist is, if anything, anti-synergy; it is predicated on sitting next to a target to be any use at all; largely speaking the last place a Monk wants to be, especially at 17th level. So that's one feature that has synergy, but is replacing/competing with base chassis features that have similar effect, two features that add an additional function and one that is entirely counter to the core theme. Is that really so different to what 4E offers?

Why don't you want to be next to the enemy Wizard while your sniper shoots at them?

On my count it's:
3rd level:
Minor illusion roughly the same as Elemental Attunement

4E
1 ki burner, effect of a lvl 1-2 spell. Either you add to your combat capacity or your utility, rarely both. Your combat choice competes for action economy.

Vs
SM
3 choices of ki-burners, all level 2 (not counting darkness since I presume you'd cast that prior to going into the dungeon). 2 of them are often pre-castable, one of them, PWT, pretty much exclusively so, while darkness is a mix of in and out of combat. Silence is stupid good against MM-casters, especially if the DM didn't change their spells.

6th
4e
One more ki-gobbler competing for actions
Lvl 2 effect.

SM
About double of a level 2 effect for no ki.

11th
4e
Same as 6th

Vs

Free, never-ending and concentration less Invisibility.

17th
4e
Same

Vs

Free ability, helping you kill backline quickly.


I don't see it.



As I say, I'm not trying to drag Shadow Monk through the dirt, I'm trying to understand what makes people see Shadow Monk as good and 4E as not, when as far as I can see, the arguments for Shadow and against 4E largely apply to both. The main and perhaps only difference being that 4E Disciplines all cost Ki, while Shadow Monk (and other Monk subclasses) get "free" features. But...shouldn't that be the case? Those higher level 4E Disciplines tend to be better in their effects. Compare Cloak of Shadows to Ride the Wind; one is worse than a situational Invisibility and the other is Fly; no caveats, no conditions, except it's self-only. At 11th level, I wouldn't pay for Cloak of Shadows, but I'll gladly pay for Fly.
Fly is great. It does have conditions though. It's a concentration spell and has V and S components.

I never argued that good abilities should be free. Quick math for me also says that the homebrew 4e that was linked to earlier would be too strong with all/most disciplines reduced by 1 in cost (they'd cast 3 fireballs at level 9 with the warlock stuck to 2 lvl 5 spells; IMO too much compared to the SR-full caster).

Infinite invisibility is also all kinds of neat. I'm not too fussed about the discipline cost to be honest. I'd maybe give the 4e monks a discount if they were close to a large body of the element they invoke (or cast at a level higher). Where they falter the most IMO is in how few disciplines they get. They simply get too few and I don't understand why. They wouldn't break the game with more.


They're not spells, but Water Whip and Fist of Unbroken Air would be the most powerful level 1 attack spells, so they're probably considered level 2. They deal the damage of Inflict Wounds, with a solid damage type, some range, extra effects, and still deal half damage on a save. There's really nothing to compare the others to (fire snake and flowing river), but they're cheap so they feel like level 1 effects.
I'd say Water Whip is better than Fire Snake in the right party (grapplers, crit-fishers or melee heavy). Again, it's more the low amount of disciplines that is annoying here.

Just one more discipline on level 3 and 6 would go so far (or for the very cautious: an extra at 3).

[Amechra]

My mistake; I forgot Silence wasn't a Wizard spell. The point still stands that none of the spells the Shadow Monk gets are any more unique than those 4E gets; them all being on a single caster is not, necessarily a good thing either, even if it is thematic.

PWT and Darkvision won't compete for actions, but Darkness, Silence and Minor Illusion absolutely can and will. When 3/5 of the spells a feature gives you compete for actions, especially given that one of the ones that doesn't (Darkvision) is rarely, if ever, going to be used at all (depending on build), I think we can say that the feature does in general.

I'm not trying to "prove" that Shadow Monks are bad or anything, so much as asking the question of why they're rated so much higher than 4E. The point is that many, most, if not all the arguments being levelled against 4E can easily be fired at both Shadow and Open Hand; "doesn't synergise with other Monk features", "costs Ki", "competes for Actions", "doesn't compare favourably to other spellcasters"...4E is not alone in these regards. What makes 4E worse? Is it just the perceived high cost?

Answering this and a bit of your next post:

It's useful to have them all on one caster if that caster is supposed to separate themselves from the party and scout ahead, like a Shadow Monk is.

Let's compare the features, though:

Four Elements Monk:
Disciplines: Most Disciplines cost an action and a bunch of ki. On top of that, most of them (especially at lower tiers) are combat-focused, in the form of things like Burning Hands. This conflicts with the rest of your Monk features in a few different ways:

Since they generally take up an action, you can't Attack on the same turn. This shuts you off from Flurry of Blows and the Martial Arts bonus-action attack.
Since you aren't making a weapon attack, you can't use Stunning Strike. Its awesomeness is sometimes a bit overstated, but it's generally considered to be one of the best features a Monk has.
There's a more subtle structural problem, though - Martial Arts is the only Monk feature that gives you a bonus action that doesn't cost ki. So if you're using a Discipline and trying to conserve ki (so you can use more Disciplines), it's pretty likely that you're effectively spending both your action and your bonus action doing so.
By making most of the options combat-focused, and then giving you one option at each tier, the subclass encourages you to try to use the powers you picked as often as possible. If you spent your once-per-tier power to pick up Burning Hands, why wouldn't you want to use it in most fights? This is where the disappointment starts seeping in.
Since 5e has such crazy HP scaling on monsters, your damage-dealing spells rapidly drop off in actual usefulness unless you upcast them, and you're pretty sharply limited in how well you can upcast them. There's a reason that half-casters generally don't cast direct damage spells. Guess what most of the early Disciplines are?
Disciplines generally don't synergize well with each-other. If they do, it's because of niche, probably-a-glitch combinations like how you can use Fist of Unbroken Air while in Gaseous Form. Or you're lucky and you can use both Hold Person and Fists of the Fire Snake on some poor dude.


Shadow Monk
Shadow Arts: You get five non-combat spells that collectively make you decent at being a ninja. While you can use some of them in fights, you aren't encouraged to spam Darkness just to feel like you got your money's worth.
Shadow Step: Crucially, this feature is both free and a bonus action. You're very rarely going to be in a situation where using Shadow Step is the only thing you do during your turn. It also synergizes with Shadow Arts, since you can use Darkness to control where you can teleport.
Shadow Cloak: I'd argue that this feature is kinda like Shadow Arts, in that it's a non-combat "I'm a sneaky ninja" feature first-and-foremost, with some potential combat utility. It's also entirely free, and it synergizes really well with Shadow Step if you need to run away from a situation.
Opportunist: This feature is kinda bad on a Monk, sure, but it gives you another option for your reaction that, again, doesn't cost ki.

Crucially, Shadow Monk gives you an at-will ability at every single tier, and all of the features that cost you ki are intended to be used out of combat, where most of your other ki sinks don't do anything. And the features generally work well with each-other - you can use Darkness to set up Shadow Cloak and Shadow Step, or use it to set up somewhere you can teleport to. If you're sneaking ahead to scout, you can combine Pass Without Trace and Shadow Cloak to really sell the whole "I'm a ninja" thing. That kinda stuff.

Meanwhile, the Four Elements Monk gives you two at-will options that you have to pick yourself, the number of powers you can actually learn are very limited, everything you do is really expensive, and you can't really set up cool combos until 11th level, where you finally get utility stuff that doesn't require you to have water on hand. It doesn't help that Monks are generally pretty decent in combat during Tier 1 and 2 - their damage only really drops off at later levels, so any early combat spells you give them are going to drop off in usefulness at about the same time as their mundane attacks.

-----

The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.

[Asisreo1]

The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.

That's certainly one way to look at it, but the ninja and elemonk has different things they're trying to enhance. The ninja usually needs to get all of his stuff ready out-of-combat. The ninja still doesn't solve the problems the elemonk does, though. It's still good for single target attacks but in a crowd or against flying enemies, it still suffers. Ninjas also suffer against, well, in broad daylight where they'd have to cast their darkness spell to use the majority of stuff and things like darkness/silence can interrupt their own teammates since a wizard usually requires sight and alot of bard's enchantments require the target to hear them.

Elemonks enhances a monk's options. Rather than thinking the abilities are competing, think of it as the abilities covering for each other. Sometimes you're too far for a flurry or hitting 3 enemies at once would be useful. Whether or not it "competes" doesn't matter. It's shoring up your weaknesses.

[JellyPooga]

How do you reach the conclusion about gaseous form? It honestly makes you seem to ride against the winds of evidence.

Shadow step can get through a lot of the same places as gaseous form (keyholes, under doors etc) and it doesn't take concentration (neither do cloak of shadows), so both can be used with pass without trace plus you can get your team with you without having to burn points by switching around. For example: getting to the other side of a big door/hate to the lever that opens it? Shadow Monk is better.

Shadow Step is a great ability, for sure. It's also limited to 60ft, line of sight and can only be used in darkness. This makes it handy to enhance your infiltration abilities, but is still quite limited and isn't any more useful to your team than Gaseous Form, which may be slow, but it lasts an hour, works in direct sunlight, gives you flight, an inconspicuous appearance, a malleable form and isn't limited by line of sight. In the infiltration game, Gaseous Form trumps "being a ground-pounding humanoid" every day.

Cloak of Shadows is incredibly limited. Yes, it may be "free", but a torch being waved in your general direction dispels/ends it. You can't maintain it while moving through any area of bright light.

Pass without Trace is a great stealth spell, definitely...but as a GM, I often don't even ask for a Stealth check from someone using Gaseous Form, any more than I ask for one from Druids using an inconspicuous Wild Shape like rat or cat. After all, even if someone notices such an infiltrator, what do they notice? A wisp of mist or a harmless animal. "No check" beats "+10".


You mentioned it before and I silently disagreed. Being fast and without an armour giving disadvantage already puts the Monk in the upper tiers of Stealth if it wants too. You don't get expertise, granted, but otherwise you are as stealth focused as they come. High Dex and Wis, Evasion and good mobility... Sounds like a scout to me.

Here you make the false assumption that "basic competence" equals "good". It's like with ranged attacks. Yeah, Monk has decent baseline competence, but that is far from being actively good at it or having any actual Class support. The core Monk doesn't get Expertise, it doesn't have anything like Cunning Action, it doesn't get spells or any other feature that enhances Stealth, infiltration or scouting. Yeah, Monks will tend to have high Dexterity and Wisdom and won't be wearing heavy armour, but any other character with equally high Dex and Wis and not wearing heavy armour is going to be equally good, if not better. Shadow Monk gives the Monk good infiltration and Stealth, it doesn't enhance it.


Why don't you want to be next to the enemy Wizard while your sniper shoots at them?

Because the enemy Wizard is also standing next to his pet Iron Golem? Because the Wizard is also a Lich or Vampire and you don't want your squishy butt getting paralysed or grappled and bit? The risk:reward ratio of Opportunist is so incredibly high. The "reward" is a single measly attack; noting that a single attack from a Monk is not benefiting from the likes of Smite, Sneak Attack or even Great Weapon Master and further, that if you haven't already stunned your target, yes, one extra chance would be welcome, but I wouldn't gamble on it. The "risk", especially at 17th level, is entirely counter to how the Monk wants to function. Opportunist might be great at level 3, but in Tier 4 play? Nuh-uh. Complete trash feature.


The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.

I disgree that 4E is necessarily encouraging you to use Ki any more than Shadow Monk does. You state that because 4E gives so few features, that you'll want to use them more often, yet why should that be the case? Why wouldn't a Shadow Monk want to spam Darkness every fight any more than the 4E Monk with Burning Hands? Surely both would only want to use them in appropriate scenarios? Arguably, it could be argued, based on the assumption that 4E is inherently bad, that the 4E Monks Player is less intelligent than the Shadow Monks and thus would be more inclined to waste his Ki...but that would be based on a false assumption :smallwink:

Just because something is usable at-will, doesn't make it good or better than a limited use option. Warlocks get plenty of at-will options, but that doesn't make them better or more thematic than a Wizards spell slots. Similarly, just because you have limited use features, doesn't mean you'll be more inclined to waste them just to feel like the class/subclass is "doing its thing".

The really important criteria that everyone seems to miss about 4E is the "use case scenario"; nothing is in competition when the scenario is exclusive or obviously more conducive to one or the other option. If you don't need to be able to fly, then you're not going to burn 4 Ki casting Fly. Nothing wasted, no competition. If you do need to fly, on the other hand, then no amount of free (highly limited) Invisibility is going to help and nor is burning Ki attacking thin air. Likewise, if you need to deal 10.5 damage to 6 dudes standing in a cone, then spending 2 Ki to cast Burning Hands is just the ticket; it's not "competing" with Flurry or Stunning Strike, either for the action used or the Ki spent because it's clearly a better use of both your action and your Ki. No-one is spending Ki to cast Burning Hands on a single target, any more than any Shadow Monk worth their tabi-boots is casting Darkness despite the Wizards and Archers in the party screaming at them not to. The use case scenario is what counts and 4E gives you more "use cases" for your Ki; tailored to your preference (depending on what Disciplines you pick).
Is it expensive? Yeah, maybe.
Is it limited in scope? Sure; there's only a small list to pick from and you don't get to choose many from that list.
Is it worth it? I'm inclined to say it is, but that's really the argument I suppose.

[Misterwhisper]

Answering this and a bit of your next post:

It's useful to have them all on one caster if that caster is supposed to separate themselves from the party and scout ahead, like a Shadow Monk is.

Let's compare the features, though:

Four Elements Monk:
Disciplines: Most Disciplines cost an action and a bunch of ki. On top of that, most of them (especially at lower tiers) are combat-focused, in the form of things like Burning Hands. This conflicts with the rest of your Monk features in a few different ways:

Since they generally take up an action, you can't Attack on the same turn. This shuts you off from Flurry of Blows and the Martial Arts bonus-action attack.
Since you aren't making a weapon attack, you can't use Stunning Strike. Its awesomeness is sometimes a bit overstated, but it's generally considered to be one of the best features a Monk has.
There's a more subtle structural problem, though - Martial Arts is the only Monk feature that gives you a bonus action that doesn't cost ki. So if you're using a Discipline and trying to conserve ki (so you can use more Disciplines), it's pretty likely that you're effectively spending both your action and your bonus action doing so.
By making most of the options combat-focused, and then giving you one option at each tier, the subclass encourages you to try to use the powers you picked as often as possible. If you spent your once-per-tier power to pick up Burning Hands, why wouldn't you want to use it in most fights? This is where the disappointment starts seeping in.
Since 5e has such crazy HP scaling on monsters, your damage-dealing spells rapidly drop off in actual usefulness unless you upcast them, and you're pretty sharply limited in how well you can upcast them. There's a reason that half-casters generally don't cast direct damage spells. Guess what most of the early Disciplines are?
Disciplines generally don't synergize well with each-other. If they do, it's because of niche, probably-a-glitch combinations like how you can use Fist of Unbroken Air while in Gaseous Form. Or you're lucky and you can use both Hold Person and Fists of the Fire Snake on some poor dude.


Shadow Monk
Shadow Arts: You get five non-combat spells that collectively make you decent at being a ninja. While you can use some of them in fights, you aren't encouraged to spam Darkness just to feel like you got your money's worth.
Shadow Step: Crucially, this feature is both free and a bonus action. You're very rarely going to be in a situation where using Shadow Step is the only thing you do during your turn. It also synergizes with Shadow Arts, since you can use Darkness to control where you can teleport.
Shadow Cloak: I'd argue that this feature is kinda like Shadow Arts, in that it's a non-combat "I'm a sneaky ninja" feature first-and-foremost, with some potential combat utility. It's also entirely free, and it synergizes really well with Shadow Step if you need to run away from a situation.
Opportunist: This feature is kinda bad on a Monk, sure, but it gives you another option for your reaction that, again, doesn't cost ki.

Crucially, Shadow Monk gives you an at-will ability at every single tier, and all of the features that cost you ki are intended to be used out of combat, where most of your other ki sinks don't do anything. And the features generally work well with each-other - you can use Darkness to set up Shadow Cloak and Shadow Step, or use it to set up somewhere you can teleport to. If you're sneaking ahead to scout, you can combine Pass Without Trace and Shadow Cloak to really sell the whole "I'm a ninja" thing. That kinda stuff.

Meanwhile, the Four Elements Monk gives you two at-will options that you have to pick yourself, the number of powers you can actually learn are very limited, everything you do is really expensive, and you can't really set up cool combos until 11th level, where you finally get utility stuff that doesn't require you to have water on hand. It doesn't help that Monks are generally pretty decent in combat during Tier 1 and 2 - their damage only really drops off at later levels, so any early combat spells you give them are going to drop off in usefulness at about the same time as their mundane attacks.

-----

The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.

Casting darkness does not help with shadow step, as a matter of fact it keeps you from using it. You can only teleport where you can see and unlike other classes, like warlock and sorcerer you don’t have a way to see through it.

[Nifft]

Hmm.

Open Hand and Shadow Monks both have subclass abilities which don't consume Ki, and I think that's a significant factor about how 4EM forces a trade-off between Monk-ness and 4EM-ness.

Both of the other PHB subclasses have stuff which either enhance your normal Monk activities or which don't cost Ki (or both, if you consider Stealth to be a normal Monk activity).

Regarding Stealth, I'm a bit on the fence, but I do feel like my Monks have always been Dex+Wis focused, and that's a great pair of abilities for a scout.

[JellyPooga]

Regarding Stealth, I'm a bit on the fence, but I do feel like my Monks have always been Dex+Wis focused, and that's a great pair of abilities for a scout.

Take two characters; a Monk and Fighter. Give them equal Dex and Wis. Which is better at Stealth? Arguably, it's the Fighter because they can Action Surge to "Do a Thing" and then Hide in one turn. Niche case? Sure. Does it make me wrong?

Yes, Monks have a greater tendency towards taking options like Skulker to become good at stealth, because they already have the basic competency by the Class offering an incentive to focus on Dex and Wis, but that doesn't make them natively good at it as a result. Other Classes can also take those options and be just as good. Put another way, the Monk Class encourages you to be good at it, but doesn't actually do anything to improve it itself.

[Asisreo1]

Hmm.

Open Hand and Shadow Monks both have subclass abilities which don't consume Ki, and I think that's a significant factor about how 4EM forces a trade-off between Monk-ness and 4EM-ness.

Both of the other PHB subclasses have stuff which either enhance your normal Monk activities or which don't cost Ki (or both, if you consider Stealth to be a normal Monk activity).

Regarding Stealth, I'm a bit on the fence, but I do feel like my Monks have always been Dex+Wis focused, and that's a great pair of abilities for a scout.
Yeah, but that's the point. You can either do typical monk stuff when that's appropriate or you can do unique elemonk stuff when you need it.

You're picking enhancements vs versatility and neither are bad but there are situations where doing monk stuff isn't quiet possible, which is why versatility has value, too.

[Skylivedk]

Because the enemy Wizard is also standing next to his pet Iron Golem? Because the Wizard is also a Lich or Vampire and you don't want your squishy butt getting paralysed or grappled and bit? The risk:reward ratio of Opportunist is so incredibly high

But at level 17 and upwards you are not squishy. You have great saves and at level 18 you can get resistance to everything. You naturally only stay there (at level 17) if it is actually a backline. With a readied silence you can even make sure that there will be no screams for help as you race in (depends on the initiative count).

Furthermore, if your mere presence compresses the battlefield to an extent that the heavy hitters are next to the enemy Wizard, you are already making a huge contribution since that means your slow Big Pointy Stick dudes can move in and get to sticking sticks through pointy hats and big brains.

Range of available abilities
While I can see the 4e monk be ok post level 11 that extra playability doesn't offset the mediocrity predating it (and I have no sympathy for balancing classes by giving different power curves; I dislike it vehemently).

A cantrip and a strong level 1 spell once per short rest.... The EK and AT start with 2 level 1 spells and 3 cantrips respectively and 2 spells known. They are a level later to the party when it comes to level 2 spells, but have abilities (synergetic ones) on top of their spell progression.

Scouting and Gaseous Form
Our play experiences also differ in terms of scouting. I mean, sure, getting in most places great, but:

A) again, tier 3

B) you can't get your team with you past obstacle 1, so without using even more ki (more than a third of your budget when you get it) you are a bad version of an arcane eye. Naturally, if you have ruling where you make gaseous form/wildshape ignore Stealth requirements, they become better.

C) if you take gaseous form that's 25% of your subclass features. It's half of your level 3 spells (if you trade up). To become a costly slow scout. That means you can only have fireball or fly for the other lvl 3 slot all the way to level 17. Rough. If you took fireball for the other one, trading shatter, you can't fly effectively in combat. If you took fly, you're stuck with shatter.

D) it's extremely rare you don't have shadows. Light casts shadows. In a flat landscape during noon, sure. Slightly overcast summer might be your worst. Otherwise not that huge an issue.

Stealth support from the class chassis
So which class besides Rogue is better suited natively for stealth?

Bard? Most abilities require sound. Lore bard does it decently (if they spend an expertise slot) but it's super awkward to be spotted: support class with little mobility, low hp and AC. That's why scouts are called bodybags by treeantmonk.

Dex is usually in the 14-16 range (so max at where you start, surpassed at level 4), but if they have chosen the expertise slot, they will have a total Stealth modifier on par or better. Probably horrible wisdom though.

Ranger? No expertise either, normally doesn't pump wisdom above 14. Not much in movement. Doesn't die as fast (good) and has some enhancements depending on version.

Druid? Sure, if you remove Stealth requirements (and pardon my presumption, but I guess deception as well) for them when they wildshape, then they're naturally good at it. Otherwise they're about the same as the monk. Better at adjusting size, worse at getting out, uses more resources.

That leaves only the rogue. You completely ignore the native support monk has for stealth: high speed, no incentive to use armour and almost guaranteed good stats for scouting.

Let me try another approach: would a 4E monk with two extra disciplines in tier 1-2 be broken? As far as I can see, it's a resounding no. It would still not be a A+ tier class. It would be a lot more playable and a lot less punishing to new players, but broken or top-tier? Nope. That is a clear indication to me that it is undertuned. I'm not saying you cannot pull some weight with the class or do some cool things. I'm saying that I think they get to little for their design space's worth in tier 1 and 2 and I personally would be frustrated with how little of their features you can actually have available.

[Skylivedk]

Take two characters; a Monk and Fighter. Give them equal Dex and Wis. Which is better at Stealth? Arguably, it's the Fighter because they can Action Surge to "Do a Thing" and then Hide in one turn. Niche case? Sure. Does it make me wrong?

Yes, Monks have a greater tendency towards taking options like Skulker to become good at stealth, because they already have the basic competency by the Class offering an incentive to focus on Dex and Wis, but that doesn't make them natively good at it as a result. Other Classes can also take those options and be just as good. Put another way, the Monk Class encourages you to be good at it, but doesn't actually do anything to improve it itself.
Yes it does. Speed and AC (and dodge as a bonus action). Also running on walls and jumping. Including the stats, and saying there's no class support for the Stealth is really grasping at straws.

Oh yeah, and you understand all languages making you the best at eavesdropping in the game.

[MaxWilson]

"There's no synergy": Aside from being false, what's so synergistic about Shadow Monk? Ok, Shadow Step is good and synergises well with the Monk modus operandi, but it's really just replacing and improving on something the Monk chassis does well already; mobility. Shadow Arts and Cloak of Shadows add solid Stealth capability to the Monk, but as I've mentioned before, the Monk chassis is not inherently stealth focused and doesn't have any abilities that Shadow Monk is really enhancing or capitalising on; this is adding a feature, not synergism. Opportunist is, if anything, anti-synergy; it is predicated on sitting next to a target to be any use at all; largely speaking the last place a Monk wants to be, especially at 17th level. So that's one feature that has synergy, but is replacing/competing with base chassis features that have similar effect, two features that add an additional function and one that is entirely counter to the core theme. Is that really so different to what 4E offers?

Side note: probably true at 17th level, but at 18th level Empty Body comes online and monks become tankier than Barbarians. So really the Shadow Monk has two synergies, plus of course Opportunist also synergizes with Stunning Strike.

On the other hand, 4E also has synergies. Shatter + Patient Defense can lead to enemies switching targets, which gives you an opportunity attack and therefore a chance to Stunning Strike. So Shatter + Patient Defense + Stunning Strike is a synergy, albeit an expensive one compared to Shadow Monk's very ki-efficient synergies. Also, as others on this have pointed out, Shape the Flowing River has synergies with monk wall-running and Slow Fall abilities: now any time you have access to water, you also have the ability to create total cover with elevation differences up to 30' between its highest and lowest points. Also the ability to drop a Fireball on your own position with advantage on the Dex save (from Patient Defense) and no damage on a successful save (from Evasion) is a definite synergy.

Remember that 7 Trolls in 5E is a 20th level Medium encounter! People sometimes say direct-damage AoEs aren't useful any more in Tier 3+ because monsters have too many HP but that's not really true because Bounded Accuracy means that lower-CR monsters never go out of style. When you actually do the CR math for a realistic encounter, like a Githyanki Kithrak and his Gish advisor and a dozen Githyanki Warrior bodyguards, it usually turns out to be a Deadly+ 20th-level encounter (even if you as a DM choose to offer it to players at ~11th level), and yet having concentration-free ways to inflict ~20ish HP of damage on an AoE is obviously going to be really helpful in that fight, could easily result in ~100 HP of damage as a single action. That's a great scenario for an Elemonk.

====================================


Cloak of Shadows is incredibly limited. Yes, it may be "free", but a torch being waved in your general direction dispels/ends it. You can't maintain it while moving through any area of bright light.

Torches shed dim light (which you don't care about) in a 40' radius/80' diameter, and bright light (which ends Cloak of Shadows) in a 20' radius/40' diameter. Shadow Step moves you up to 60' between two areas of darkness or dim light. Therefore if you need to get past a single torch you can just Shadow Step through the brightly-lit area, never actually entering the bright light. You only have a problem if it's a much brighter light source like a Bullseye Lantern or a bunch of torches spread out over a large area with no gaps.


Pass without Trace is a great stealth spell, definitely...but as a GM, I often don't even ask for a Stealth check from someone using Gaseous Form, any more than I ask for one from Druids using an inconspicuous Wild Shape like rat or cat. After all, even if someone notices such an infiltrator, what do they notice? A wisp of mist or a harmless animal. "No check" beats "+10".

In a world with vampires, a free-standing cloud of person-shaped mist where no mist should be definitely gets my attention. I'm definitely not going to just let it drift around my fortress scoping out all my defenses.


Because the enemy Wizard is also standing next to his pet Iron Golem? Because the Wizard is also a Lich or Vampire and you don't want your squishy butt getting paralysed or grappled and bit? The risk:reward ratio of Opportunist is so incredibly high. The "reward" is a single measly attack; noting that a single attack from a Monk is not benefiting from the likes of Smite, Sneak Attack or even Great Weapon Master and further, that if you haven't already stunned your target, yes, one extra chance would be welcome, but I wouldn't gamble on it. The "risk", especially at 17th level, is entirely counter to how the Monk wants to function. Opportunist might be great at level 3, but in Tier 4 play? Nuh-uh. Complete trash feature.

By 18th level, between Empty Body and Diamond Soul, the Shadow Monk is probably the one PC in the party who is least afraid to stand next to a lich or a wizard with an Iron Golem.

====================================


Let me try another approach: would a 4E monk with two extra disciplines in tier 1-2 be broken? As far as I can see, it's a resounding no. It would still not be a A+ tier class. It would be a lot more playable and a lot less punishing to new players, but broken or top-tier? Nope. That is a clear indication to me that it is undertuned. I'm not saying you cannot pull some weight with the class or do some cool things. I'm saying that I think they get to little for their design space's worth in tier 1 and 2 and I personally would be frustrated with how little of their features you can actually have available.

An interesting change to the Elemonk would be to change nothing about it except that you don't have to choose specific disciplines: you just know all of the disciplines in the PHB when you reach the appropriate level.

It would not be broken (would not overshadow other classes), but it might be fun, and might increase the fantasy "feel" of being a master of all the elements.

====================================


Oh yeah, and you understand all languages making you the best at eavesdropping in the game.

Interesting point! That's kind of neat.

[LudicSavant]

I know it's not considered the best Monk subclass, but this will be my first Monk and would appreciate any advice. Cheers.


Take two characters; a Monk and Fighter. Give them equal Dex and Wis. Which is better at Stealth? Arguably, it's the Fighter because they can Action Surge to "Do a Thing" and then Hide in one turn. Niche case? Sure. Does it make me wrong?

Yes, Monks have a greater tendency towards taking options like Skulker to become good at stealth, because they already have the basic competency by the Class offering an incentive to focus on Dex and Wis, but that doesn't make them natively good at it as a result. Other Classes can also take those options and be just as good. Put another way, the Monk Class encourages you to be good at it, but doesn't actually do anything to improve it itself.

Something that's been eating at me throughout the thread: you keep telling us what Monks have a tendency to do, or how things will happen, etc... but you say you've never even played a Monk before. And you said that you wanted tips on how to play Monks better in your original post, but when people with thousands of hours of experience in the class come and give you those tips you appear to have largely ignored those posts in favor of arguing for your preconceptions of balance.

I guess I'm just wondering whether you actually have any interest in getting tips on how to play a Monk better, or whether you think you already know how best to play them. Are the people who are here to give tips on how to get more bang for your EleMonk buck wasting their time?

[Skylivedk]

An interesting change to the Elemonk would be to change nothing about it except that you don't have to choose specific disciplines: you just know all of the disciplines in the PHB when you reach the appropriate level.

It would not be broken (would not overshadow other classes), but it might be fun, and might increase the fantasy "feel" of being a master of all the elements.
Considering that I haven't seen anyone in any of my groups wanting to stick to the 4e long enough to reach tier 3, I'm inclined to over-rather than undertune.


Something that's been eating at me throughout the thread: you keep telling us what Monks have a tendency to do, or how things will happen, etc... but you say you've never even played a Monk before. And you said that you wanted tips on how to play Monks better in your original post, but when people with thousands of hours of experience in the class come and give you those tips you appear to have largely ignored those posts in favor of arguing for your preconceptions of balance.

I guess I'm just wondering whether you actually have any interest in getting tips on how to play a Monk better, or whether you think you already know better than everyone else. Are the people who are here to give tips on how to get more bang for your EleMonk buck wasting their time?

Good question and thank you for reminding me that I have been part of the group derailing the thread (too eager to make the scepticism towards 4e understandable). I think I've nothing more to add in that regard.

As for the original topic:
My suggestion is for Water Whip for the first discipline unless there's tons of water in the campaign (then Flowing River) or the party misses AoE badly (then Burning Hands)

6th level
I'd take Shatter and swap Attunement for either Flowing River or Fangs. If tons of humanoids are a thing (they haven't been in my last many campaigns), Clench of the North Wind.

11th
Swap Shatter to Fireball, grab Fly

17th
Get Wall of Stone. Consider Wall of Fire of your party has good control of enemy movement (grapplers, push/pull Warlocks).


For stats: if you've gone a bunch of saving throw abilities (ie Water Whip, Shatter, Clench), I'd suggest giving wisdom an extra look rather than maxing Dex blindly. Doubly so if you want to play more to the bender side.

I'd really all the DM if he wouldn't be so kind as to give you some of the Elemental Cantrips, an extra discipline at level 3 (and 6!) and open the list of disciplines to more of the Elemental Spells.

I would suggest Wood Elf (with half an eye on their racial spell feat for pass without trace) or Aarakocra.

In the first two tiers, it pays off to memorize some saves (at least which CR appropriate monsters that are very weak or very strong against the type of saves you can provoke).

Positioning is key! - and remember that stunned enemies automatically fail Strength and Dex saves!

[JellyPooga]

Yes it does. Speed and AC (and dodge as a bonus action). Also running on walls and jumping. Including the stats, and saying there's no class support for the Stealth is really grasping at straws.

Oh yeah, and you understand all languages making you the best at eavesdropping in the game.

I'll grant the eavedropping thing, but what have AC, Dodge or speed got to do with Stealth? Being able to access slightly unexpected places with wall running is a boon to stealth, granted, but not a huge one; situational at best, liable to make you more noticable at worst.


Something that's been eating at me throughout the thread: you keep telling us what Monks have a tendency to do, or how things will happen, etc... but you say you've never even played a Monk before. And you said that you wanted tips on how to play Monks better in your original post, but when people with thousands of hours of experience in the class come and give you those tips you appear to have largely ignored those posts in favor of arguing for your preconceptions of balance.

I guess I'm just wondering whether you actually have any interest in getting tips on how to play a Monk better, or whether you think you already know how best to play them. Are the people who are here to give tips on how to get more bang for your EleMonk buck wasting their time?

How else am I going to learn how to use the features available/Class without questioning them?

I'm not new to d&d; I know how the rules work and based on my experience wirh other classes as well as seeing other players use Monk, I'm able to comment on how I might expect an ability to function. I'm happy to be corrected in my assumptions but, to use the most recent example, when someone like Skylivedk brings up AC as an example of a Stealth feature, I'm going to say "whut bro?", because AC has nothing to do with Stealth in my book.

I'm trying not to dismiss anything out of hand or deride opinions; I'm asking for clarification, because maybe there's something I've missed when someone says "Monks are good at ranged combat" or "Monks are good at Stealth" when the only basis for that statement is a tendency towards high Dex; something any character might have, irrespective of Class.

I will pick apart any assertion and question any response until I'm satisfied that it makes sense, because without explanation, merely stating a thing doesn't make it true and because I've not played a Monk before, I'm not familiar with its ins and outs. The likes of MaxWilsons last post is useful to me, because they've pointed out some solid counters to my own assumptions/assertions with solid information that I don't feel the need to question further.

edit: If it appears like I've ignored something; it's probably because I agree with it.

[Skylivedk]

I'll grant the eavedropping thing, but what have AC, Dodge or speed got to do with Stealth? Being able to access slightly unexpected places with wall running is a boon to stealth, granted, but not a huge one; situational at best, liable to make you more noticable at worst.

AC on a scout is to not turn your Scout into a bodybag if things go wrong. There are ways of detecting even a 35 roll on Stealth as rules are at the moment (ie spells, or if there's nothing to hide behind - maybe it was a moveable structure). A bard in this situation is pretty much in trouble. Most often he won't scout again, because he's too busy being dead.

The monk has both better escape and defense (if escape is not an option) to survive until team members can join the fray.

As for speed: if you have any kind of time pressure (which is very very normal IMX), your normal scout can't scout ahead and report back with any regularity without slowing everyone down. The scout with normal speed will also cover a very limited angle (basically only speed enough to go ahead).

Running on Water/walls has no mention of being more noisy than normal movement. Spells are though (unless you have Subtle). That's pretty significant - and btw remember you can use the wall running in combat to run over opponents if the ceiling isn't too low. It sounds like a YMMV. Our last many sessions have had places where the wall running could have helped our scouting team. Instead we had to burn resources or drop the idea of sneaking.

[MaxWilson]

As for the original topic:
My suggestion is for Water Whip for the first discipline unless there's tons of water in the campaign (then Flowing River) or the party misses AoE badly (then Burning Hands)

My vote is for Thunderwave instead of Burning Hands and here is why:

(1) Similar damage by the time you reach level 5 and can upcast (with 3 ki, 4d6 = 14, 3d8 = 13.5),
(2) Additional effect (10' knockback),
(3) Better damage type (thunder vs. fire),
(4) AoE is larger (9 squares vs ~6 squares)


Positioning is key! - and remember that stunned enemies automatically fail Strength and Dex saves!

Also remember that they auto-fail grapple and shove contests. If you Stunning Strike someone on round 1 but don't want to spend more ki, next round you can grapple/prone them (+bonus-action Martial Arts damage) to keep them mostly-neutered until they break your grapple, which costs at least one action unless they can teleport.


I would suggest Wood Elf (with half an eye on their racial spell feat for pass without trace) or Aarakocra.

If you do go Wood Elf, don't forget that you now have Longbow proficiency! In Tier 1-2 that's excellent. In Tier 3 it starts to feel a little bit anemic but by then you'll have Fireball.

==========================================


I'll grant the eavedropping thing, but what have AC, Dodge or speed got to do with Stealth? Being able to access slightly unexpected places with wall running is a boon to stealth, granted, but not a huge one; situational at best, liable to make you more noticable at worst.

The goal is "recon". Stealth is just a means to that end. Survivability and mobility prevent recon from being suicide.

IME you also ideally want a buddy for your recon, because solo recon is very dangerous if you fail the wrong saving throw against a trap or get ambushed by something that ignores Stealth (Intellect Devourer), and Pass Without Trace helps your recon buddy as much as it helps you.


I'm trying not to dismiss anything out of hand or deride opinions; I'm asking for clarification, because maybe there's something I've missed when someone says "Monks are good at ranged combat" or "Monks are good at Stealth" when the only basis for that statement is a tendency towards high Dex; something any character might have, irrespective of Class.

Now your earlier... protestations about ranged combat make more sense to me. I had forgotten that you've never played a monk before. No wonder you didn't realize that Wood Elf monks are common and made a big deal about them being "a specific race"! Longbow proficiency is more like a fringe benefit on a racial pick that is already common for other reasons, on a Monk.


edit: If it appears like I've ignored something; it's probably because I agree with it.

It might be courteous to say "thank you" instead of ignoring.


AC on a scout is to not turn your Scout into a bodybag if things go wrong. There are ways of detecting even a 35 roll on Stealth as rules are at the moment (ie spells, or if there's nothing to hide behind - maybe it was a moveable structure). A bard in this situation is pretty much in trouble. Most often he won't scout again, because he's too busy being dead.

My experience is different: a bard with Stealth expertise makes a fantastic recon buddy for a Shadow Monk because he has pretty good combat capabilities, and may have access to Invisibility and Dimension Door (both are on the bard list, no Magical Secrets required). If they need to beat a hasty retreat, the Bard can teleport them both to safety even if there's no darkness. (The monk may or may not be able to teleport through darkness while carrying the bard with them--ask your DM.)

[JellyPooga]

AC on a scout is to not turn your Scout into a bodybag if things go wrong. There are ways of detecting even a 35 roll on Stealth as rules are at the moment (ie spells, or if there's nothing to hide behind - maybe it was a moveable structure). A bard in this situation is pretty much in trouble. Most often he won't scout again, because he's too busy being dead.

The monk has both better escape and defense (if escape is not an option) to survive until team members can join the fray.

As for speed: if you have any kind of time pressure (which is very very normal IMX), your normal scout can't scout ahead and report back with any regularity without slowing everyone down. The scout with normal speed will also cover a very limited angle (basically only speed enough to go ahead).

Running on Water/walls has no mention of being more noisy than normal movement. Spells are though (unless you have Subtle). That's pretty significant - and btw remember you can use the wall running in combat to run over opponents if the ceiling isn't too low. It sounds like a YMMV. Our last many sessions have had places where the wall running could have helped our scouting team. Instead we had to burn resources or drop the idea of sneaking.

Hmm, ok. When I'm thinking about scouting and stealth, I'm normally thinking about having a decent amount of time to do it; rushed stealth is bad stealth in my play-book. For your style of scouting I can see the benefit of speed.

Still gonna have to agree to disagree on AC; by that metric, a full-plate Fighter is good at Stealth because while they might fail at sneaking, at least they won't die before the party catches up. AC is handy for adventuring, certainly, of which Stealth is or can be a part, but that doesn't make AC a factor of stealth in itself. AC is only going to be a factor of stealth when the consequence of failure is being attacked; which is frequently enough going to not be the case that I think it can be disregarded.

As for wall-running; I'm not saying it's any more noisy, just that stealth is in large part the art of staying out of view. Walls rarely have handy hiding spots on their vertical plain, so running up a wall in plain view is often going to be pretty obvious. That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a scenario where wall-running would have been a solid or favourable stealth tactic, per se, but then again, maybe that's just my experience and maybe I just wasn't looking for it. It also depends on whether you differentiate infiltration from stealth; wall running definitely has benefits for the former, but it's also worth bearing in mind that you don't get wall running until level 9, when flight has already become pretty common, which lessens the impact of being able to wall run for that purpose.

[MaxWilson]

As for wall-running; I'm not saying it's any more noisy, just that stealth is in large part the art of staying out of view. Walls rarely have handy hiding spots on their vertical plain, so running up a wall in plain view is often going to be pretty obvious. That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a scenario where wall-running would have been a solid or favourable stealth tactic, per se, but then again, maybe that's just my experience and maybe I just wasn't looking for it. It also depends on whether you differentiate infiltration from stealth; wall running definitely has benefits for the former, but it's also worth bearing in mind that you don't get wall running until level 9, when flight has already become pretty common, which lessens the impact of being able to wall run for that purpose.

Gathering intel while staying out of view sometimes requires approaching from an unexpected angle. That's where wall-running comes in.

On the other hand, at least on paper, everyone in 5E can scale sheer walls at half-speed, by PHB rules. It may or may not involve an Athletics or Acrobatics check but it's not like monks are the only ones who can climb the outside of a wizard's tower, they just do it faster and probably without an Acrobatics check (ask your DM).

TL;DR climbing is good for recon, even if you're not a monk.


Considering that I haven't seen anyone in any of my groups wanting to stick to the 4e long enough to reach tier 3, I'm inclined to over-rather than undertune.

If I were a WotC designer, the concern I'd raise about giving access to all disciplines would not be that it's overtuned (it's not) but that it makes all Elemonks fairly similar to each other, which means it decreases the potential for so-called "Expression" (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/), or in other words the opportunity to tell the world something about yourself by virtue of the PC that you make.

And my rebuttal to that concern would be, "Eh, every Thief is already mechanically similar to every other Thief in that exact same way, and every Berserker, and Shadow Monk, and every War Cleric. Subclass mechanics aren't the only way to differentiate characters--you've still got personality, background, even feats and ASIs. Not every subclass has to be a Battlemaster."

And then if I heard occasional player complaints about Elemonks being samey, I'd shrug it off, because it's better than Elemonks not feeling cool. I doubt I'd hear many complaints about Elemonks being overpowered.

[Asisreo1]

Gathering intel while staying out of view sometimes requires approaching from an unexpected angle. That's where wall-running comes in.

On the other hand, at least on paper, everyone in 5E can scale sheer walls at half-speed, by PHB rules. It may or may not involve an Athletics or Acrobatics check but it's not like monks are the only ones who can climb the outside of a wizard's tower, they just do it faster and probably without an Acrobatics check (ask your DM).

TL;DR climbing is good for recon, even if you're not a monk.
The sort-of issue with wall running is you can only do it 30ft before you fall. You can only run during the move so once you stop moving, you fall. And moving while trying to stealth makes the stealth much more difficult.

[MaxWilson]

The sort-of issue with wall running is you can only do it 30ft before you fall. You can only run during the move so once you stop moving, you fall. And moving while trying to stealth makes the stealth much more difficult.

Don't you mean 90'+? 135' if you burn ki on a Dash.

[JellyPooga]

As for the original topic:
My suggestion is for Water Whip for the first discipline unless there's tons of water in the campaign (then Flowing River) or the party misses AoE badly (then Burning Hands)

6th level
I'd take Shatter and swap Attunement for either Flowing River or Fangs. If tons of humanoids are a thing (they haven't been in my last many campaigns), Clench of the North Wind.

11th
Swap Shatter to Fireball, grab Fly

17th
Get Wall of Stone. Consider Wall of Fire of your party has good control of enemy movement (grapplers, push/pull Warlocks).


For stats: if you've gone a bunch of saving throw abilities (ie Water Whip, Shatter, Clench), I'd suggest giving wisdom an extra look rather than maxing Dex blindly. Doubly so if you want to play more to the bender side.

For the character in question, there's a Cleric of a Water deity in the party; I'm pretty sure I can get water on demand! I'm definitely considering taking Flowing River for 3rd level. Depending on how the game pans out, that may change, but I like the potential of it.

At 6th, I was considering picking up Water Whip. It sticks with the watery theme and is a solid anti-air feature around the time that flying enemies are going to become increasingly common. I could switch out Elemental Attunement for Shatter, but despite everything, it feels a little, I dunno, cheap? Plus the party already has some decent AoE anyway. Clench is probably off the table; the campaign is heavily fey themed.

11th is a toss up between Fly and Gaseous Form; I think the former is definitely the "power" option, but the latter is more in-keeping with the water theme and I like the utility of it.

17th. Yeah. Wall of Stone. It seems an obvious choice to me if the campaign ever actually reaches this level.


It might be courteous to say "thank you" instead of ignoring.

Granted, but I do have a tendency to make long posts and more than once someone has posted something I don't have any questions about or agree with while I'm writing another up. Rather than go back and edit or double post, for the sake of brevity I'll silently agree and move on. I can learn more from further questions/critique than thanking people :smallwink: That said, I do appreciate all the input people have provided in this thread; whether I agree with it or not and I've certainly learned at lot that I hadn't previously even considered. So without wanting to sound like I'm done here (I'm totally not), Thanks!

[MaxWilson]

Granted, but I do have a tendency to make long posts and more than once someone has posted something I don't have any questions about or agree with while I'm writing another up. Rather than go back and edit or double post, for the sake of brevity I'll silently agree and move on. I can learn more from further questions/critique than thanking people :smallwink: That said, I do appreciate all the input people have provided in this thread; whether I agree with it or not and I've certainly learned at lot that I hadn't previously even considered. So without wanting to sound like I'm done here (I'm totally not), Thanks!

The danger if you engage only to argue with people is that you may discourage people from sharing with you those tips that you were silently appreciating. If the thread turns into a bunch of arguments instead of helpful tips, you may learn less.

You're welcome and good luck.

P.S. General monk tip: in archery duels, it's worth accepting disadvantage to impose disadvantage on your opponents, due to Missile Catch. Don't hesitate to stay at long range and/or crawl around prone while shooting back, or standing only to shoot. The counterplay to prone is normally to threaten melee attacks, but as a monk you don't really mind melee, so it's win/win. Just don't end any turns within a single move+reach distance of any enemies.

[Asisreo1]

11th is a toss up between Fly and Gaseous Form; I think the former is definitely the "power" option, but the latter is more in-keeping with the water theme and I like the utility of it.


Gaseous form would actually work really well with the build you're making prior. You can still use your WW and Shape the Flowing River while in Gaseous form and your unarmored movement stacks with the fly speed. You have resistance to the majority of attacks like breath weapons (including the other elements, as long as the source is nonmagical). Advantage on dexterity is really good with your evasion plus it's a really good escape option to just squeeze in a crack.

Of course, fly allows you to do damage without Ki point expenditure, though.

[Kane0]

What bugs me about the 4E monk is threefold, which all feed into each other:
- The 4E monk doesn't get subclass features that go alongside their discipline choices, like say the EK and AT do.
- You get to choose only one discipline at each level break, for a grand total of four. That feels very limiting.
- All the disciplines you choose cost Ki. Every other monk subclass gives you something that doesn't cost Ki, but not the 4E.

These things I think are what drives the complaints on Ki/action/opportunity costs.

[Asisreo1]

What bugs me about the 4E monk is threefold, which all feed into each other:
- The 4E monk doesn't get subclass features that go alongside their discipline choices, like say the EK and AT do.
- You get to choose only one discipline at each level break, for a grand total of four. That feels very limiting.
- All the disciplines you choose cost Ki. Every other monk subclass gives you something that doesn't cost Ki, but not the 4E.

These things I think are what drives the complaints on Ki/action/opportunity costs.
So, thinking on it, I think a different perspective will help immensely. I see the comparison to fullcasters, halfcasters, and third-casters and I think making something clear will help:

You're none of the above, as a 4-elemonk. People would like extra discipline choices and I can understand that, but think about it a different way.

You get 2 subclass features, one is elemental attunement which emulates a subtle spell cantrip and the other is based on a choice. Everytime you gain a new subclass feature, you also have the ability to switch one of your old features with an expanded list of new ones. In essence, while you're spellcasting, you're not a spellcaster.

In exchange, you're able to cast higher level spells and more often in an adventuring day than even a halfcaster (at 3rd level, you have 3 ki points, meaning you get 9 in a day, that's a possible 4 casting of any given spell at that level) and you get to cast 2nd level damaging spells more often than a halfcaster (halfcaster can cast 2nd level spells at 5th level twice a day, you're predicted to be able to cast your damaging spells 5 times an adventuring day at 5th level.)

[Kane0]

So, thinking on it, I think a different perspective will help immensely. I see the comparison to fullcasters, halfcasters, and third-casters and I think making something clear will help:

You're none of the above, as a 4-elemonk. People would like extra discipline choices and I can understand that, but think about it a different way.

You get 2 subclass features, one is elemental attunement which emulates a subtle spell cantrip and the other is based on a choice. Everytime you gain a new subclass feature, you also have the ability to switch one of your old features with an expanded list of new ones. In essence, while you're spellcasting, you're not a spellcaster.

In exchange, you're able to cast higher level spells and more often in an adventuring day than even a halfcaster (at 3rd level, you have 3 ki points, meaning you get 9 in a day, that's a possible 4 casting of any given spell at that level) and you get to cast 2nd level damaging spells more often than a halfcaster (halfcaster can cast 2nd level spells at 5th level twice a day, you're predicted to be able to cast your damaging spells 5 times an adventuring day at 5th level.)

Okay, not a caster despite the supernatural effects you're using your magic of Ki on, some of which straight up duplicate spells. Patayto potahto. Compare to BM fighter then.

The BM fighter gets a separate pool of resources for their tricks and triple the number of tricks to choose from that can also be swapped around when you level up. The pool of tricks are about the same size and don't have level reqs but in return are on the whole weaker. You don't have to use or give up any fighter capabilities to do your BM thing (see also the Bannerett), and your range of options makes it feel more fun (totally subjective I know).
The BM also gets two features outside of maneuvers and superiority dice, a proficiency and Know Thy Enemy. Not a amazing but again not chained to the same resource as everything else.

I didn't say the disciplines were weak; in fact, that may factor into the problem. Because they are individually quite strong (at least in some cases) you don't get anything else to go with them because that would be too good.

Edit: If I want to be a 'master or four elements', I get a grand total of one cantrip and one power for each element by the time my subclass capstones. To me that doesn't feel like it's hit the mark.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: If I want to be a 'master or four elements', I get a grand total of one cantrip and one power for each element by the time my subclass capstones. To me that doesn't feel like it's hit the mark.

Even though I have enjoyed elemonk in the past, this thread has me considering letting elemonks change their disciplines on the fly as a bonus action instead of only on level-up.

How would you feel if your DM did this? Too much, or not enough?

[Kane0]

Without looking into it too hard I'd start with swapping during a short/long rest and see how it plays out from there.

[AdAstra]

Okay, not a caster despite the supernatural effects you're using your magic of Ki on, some of which straight up duplicate spells. Patayto potahto. Compare to BM fighter then.

The BM fighter gets a separate pool of resources for their tricks and triple the number of tricks to choose from that can also be swapped around when you level up. The pool of tricks are about the same size and don't have level reqs but in return are on the whole weaker. You don't have to use or give up any fighter capabilities to do your BM thing (see also the Bannerett), and your range of options makes it feel more fun (totally subjective I know).
The BM also gets two features outside of maneuvers and superiority dice, a proficiency and Know Thy Enemy. Not a amazing but again not chained to the same resource as everything else.

I didn't say the disciplines were weak; in fact, that may factor into the problem. Because they are individually quite strong (at least in some cases) you don't get anything else to go with them because that would be too good.

Edit: If I want to be a 'master or four elements', I get a grand total of one cantrip and one power for each element by the time my subclass capstones. To me that doesn't feel like it's hit the mark.

More than just the disciplines being strong, Monk subclasses on the whole are not the most powerful compared to Fighter subclasses, at least early on. There's a bit of a similar but opposite problem with Arcane Trickster. Rogue subclasses mostly don't offer very powerful features either (Exceptions: Scout gets some incredibly good stuff later on, and Swashbuckler's early abilities can be really useful if you play to them), so Arcane Trickster ends up being kinda the go-to option due to how much you get out of it (at least in my opinion).

I get the feeling that if 4e followed the 1/3-caster paradigm, it would be in a similar position. It's just way too much on top of the base compared to the existing Monk subclasses.

[Asisreo1]

The BM fighter gets a separate pool of resources for their tricks and triple the number of tricks to choose from that can also be swapped around when you level up. The pool of tricks are about the same size and don't have level reqs but in return are on the whole weaker. You don't have to use or give up any fighter capabilities to do your BM thing (see also the Bannerett), and your range of options makes it feel more fun (totally subjective I know).
The BM also gets two features outside of maneuvers and superiority dice, a proficiency and Know Thy Enemy. Not a amazing but again not chained to the same resource as everything else.

Well, with the BM, each maneuver can only target one creature, theoretically, an elemonk can hit 6 enemies with burning hands or 9 with thunderwave. AoE effects are just really good compared to single target attacks, especially since they only do a d8 extra.

Tip:
With a monk's mobility and elemonks firesnake, if they're fighting a humanoid with 30 move speed, at level 6, a monk could use 1 extra Ki point (which would've been the cost for a disengage anyways) to be 35ft away from an enemy, move 20ft to him and stunning strike him from that distance with a flurry on top, and move 20ft back to stay away from his melee range without provoking OA.



I didn't say the disciplines were weak; in fact, that may factor into the problem. Because they are individually quite strong (at least in some cases) you don't get anything else to go with them because that would be too good.

Well, like you say, it may be too strong to do anything else with your discipline.

Tip: if you can manage to splash oil on an enemy, every turn you invest a ki point for fire snakes, each hit does +5 fire damage.


Edit: If I want to be a 'master or four elements', I get a grand total of one cantrip and one power for each element by the time my subclass capstones. To me that doesn't feel like it's hit the mark.
Like I said before, you're much of an apprentice of the elements. But you can still manipulate them anyway you choose up to a 1ft cube. Like, you could snuff out light sources for the rogue to take advantage of and sneak on the enemy.

Tip: for elemental attunement...just have fun. You get it anyways and there may be some niche uses but you can still just have some wholesome RP fun. Take a break from the optimization and shoot tiny fireworks when you win a battle or blow light breezes at your cape to give yourself a cool fluttering effect. You can also pull no-harm shenanigans on NPC's without them knowing. Snuff the lights around, make a campfire story with dynamic fire, make a misty version of a goblin, make silly faces in the ground, or make a water balloon without the balloon. Think like prestidigation, which is good out-of-combat except EA doesn't have a "no damage or trap something" clause. You can trap a tiny creature is a earth room or make weapons out of the elements.

[Kane0]

I think I can see what you're getting at here, and I appreciate it. It is still totally possible to have fun playing a four elements monk, and they are still completely capable of being effective.

However shifting perspective and managing expectations will only work to a point.

The things commonly brought up in 5e as lacking (frenzy barb, 4E monk, beast, etc) aren't on the same scale as say the disparity in 3.X, but it's often seen in much the same light even if the overall balance window is smaller. But just because the gap is narrower doesn't mean these stop being problematic, and player fun is still a usable metric to collect even if it is subjective and anecdotal.

The 4E monk is objectively unpopular*. Figuring out why will lead to a solution, not ignoring the fact that it is unpopular.
Source (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/march-survey-results)

[MaxWilson]

Tip: if you can manage to splash oil on an enemy, every turn you invest a ki point for fire snakes, each hit does +5 fire damage.

Surely you mean "the first hit" not "every hit".

[Asisreo1]

Surely you mean "the first hit" not "every hit".
It should be every hit, there isn't anything about oil that states it only works once during the 1 minute time period. In fact, I'm sure you can do it each round that you have the Ki for.

[MaxWilson]

It should be every hit, there isn't anything about oil that states it only works once during the 1 minute time period. In fact, I'm sure you can do it each round that you have the Ki for.

We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.

[Asisreo1]

We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.
I don't think the oil stops taking effect after one instance, though. For example, true strike specifies "The first attack" on it's "if" clause and while unconscious, "if you take damage, you suffer a failed death saving" is implied to be continuous and not once per instance of being at 0 hp.

In fact, I'm not familiar with the term "if" being used as a one-time conditional at all outside of coding, which has to have distinctions between if statements and loops.

"If you touch the stove while it's hot, you'll burn yourself" implies you'll burn yourself each time you touch the hot stove. Likewise, "if an effect moves your mount against it's will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount." Implies everytime the mount is unwillingly moved, you make a save and not just the first time and you're immune to falling off every other instance until you dismount and re-mount again.

[Skylivedk]

My vote is for Thunderwave instead of Burning Hands and here is why:

(1) Similar damage by the time you reach level 5 and can upcast (with 3 ki, 4d6 = 14, 3d8 = 13.5),
(2) Additional effect (10' knockback),
(3) Better damage type (thunder vs. fire),
(4) AoE is larger (9 squares vs ~6 squares)

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.




The goal is "recon". Stealth is just a means to that end. Survivability and mobility prevent recon from being suicide.
Thanks. Agreed! Stealth is part of a package especially on non-rogues (who don't rely on it to keep DPR on par).



My experience is different: a bard with Stealth expertise makes a fantastic recon buddy for a Shadow Monk because he has pretty good combat capabilities, and may have access to Invisibility and Dimension Door (both are on the bard list, no Magical Secrets required). If they need to beat a hasty retreat, the Bard can teleport them both to safety even if there's no darkness. (The monk may or may not be able to teleport through darkness while carrying the bard with them--ask your DM.)
There were so many parameters missing in that rundown it is embarrassing. Teaches me to not use my sleepy brain and phone to answer posts.

The list was for solo stealthers/stealth team leader/S1 (preferably not spending a ton of resources). I completely agree on the bard as a stealth buddy (S2)- I should have been explicit about this being the example for solo-stealthing. I find the bard great to be the S2 or stealth buffer (ie if you have a druid and a monk, I'd probably send those and have the bard buff the worst of the two). Minor Illusion/Message also makes him great at being the relay between the monk/rogue and the rest of the group. As S2, he'd be around 20-30 feet behind S1, able to reach S1 in a round if necessary, but not so prone to die if fast moving enemies are spotted/spot them (since S1 would be closer to them).


Hmm, ok. When I'm thinking about scouting and stealth, I'm normally thinking about having a decent amount of time to do it; rushed stealth is bad stealth in my play-book. For your style of scouting I can see the benefit of speed.

Still gonna have to agree to disagree on AC; by that metric, a full-plate Fighter is good at Stealth because while they might fail at sneaking, at least they won't die before the party catches up. AC is handy for adventuring, certainly, of which Stealth is or can be a part, but that doesn't make AC a factor of stealth in itself. AC is only going to be a factor of stealth when the consequence of failure is being attacked; which is frequently enough going to not be the case that I think it can be disregarded.
Which is also why I've used the term scouting rather than stealth. Stealth is a tool, most often used for scouting and positioning. For rogues it is also an advantage generator. And I disagree on the not-attacked part; or rather - I see the consequences of being attacked as being quite severe. It is the #1 cause of death amongst my players (both when I DM and amongst my teams as a player).



As for wall-running; I'm not saying it's any more noisy, just that stealth is in large part the art of staying out of view. Walls rarely have handy hiding spots on their vertical plain, so running up a wall in plain view is often going to be pretty obvious. That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a scenario where wall-running would have been a solid or favourable stealth tactic, per se, but then again, maybe that's just my experience and maybe I just wasn't looking for it. It also depends on whether you differentiate infiltration from stealth; wall running definitely has benefits for the former, but it's also worth bearing in mind that you don't get wall running until level 9, when flight has already become pretty common, which lessens the impact of being able to wall run for that purpose.
Corners on walls and especially patrol timings play a huge role here. If you have frequent patrols, being able to get up that wall quickly is solid gold. Again, quite common IMX, YMMV.


For the character in question, there's a Cleric of a Water deity in the party; I'm pretty sure I can get water on demand! I'm definitely considering taking Flowing River for 3rd level. Depending on how the game pans out, that may change, but I like the potential of it.

At 6th, I was considering picking up Water Whip. It sticks with the watery theme and is a solid anti-air feature around the time that flying enemies are going to become increasingly common. I could switch out Elemental Attunement for Shatter, but despite everything, it feels a little, I dunno, cheap? Plus the party already has some decent AoE anyway. Clench is probably off the table; the campaign is heavily fey themed.
Cheap? Up to you. It is a 3rd of your choice slots. That is significant. Then again, as a DM, I'd just give the 4e monk that unique cantrip on top. I love Flowing River. Immensely cool, flavourful and scales very very well (as enemies grow in size, so do their lairs and water reservoirs).



11th is a toss up between Fly and Gaseous Form; I think the former is definitely the "power" option, but the latter is more in-keeping with the water theme and I like the utility of it.
If you don't have Fly at another character in the party and you have melee characters, take Fly. Seriously. They will love you. If you do have a full-caster with Fly, you can become a vapour so hard-hitting even Redman would be scared to inhale ;)

[Zalabim]

I don't think the oil stops taking effect after one instance, though. For example, true strike specifies "The first attack" on it's "if" clause and while unconscious, "if you take damage, you suffer a failed death saving" is implied to be continuous and not once per instance of being at 0 hp.

In fact, I'm not familiar with the term "if" being used as a one-time conditional at all outside of coding, which has to have distinctions between if statements and loops.

"If you touch the stove while it's hot, you'll burn yourself" implies you'll burn yourself each time you touch the hot stove. Likewise, "if an effect moves your mount against it's will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount." Implies everytime the mount is unwillingly moved, you make a save and not just the first time and you're immune to falling off every other instance until you dismount and re-mount again.
There's an implicit "the oil can only burn once." It's a lot like how you can only fall off your mount once. Also, from a game-balance perspective, hitting with a torch does 1 fire damage. Hitting with oil does 5 fire damage later. Not 5/10/15/20/... fire damage adding up with every hit for a minute. And both values should add the relevant ability modifier too.

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.
I think for the kind of creatures a low level PC is likely to encounter in groups, Con is the better save to target. Goblins, kobolds, bandits, guards, pack animals, and other low CR critters all favor Dex over Con if they're not just equal.

If you don't have Fly at another character in the party and you have melee characters, take Fly. Seriously. They will love you. If you do have a full-caster with Fly, you can become a vapour so hard-hitting even Redman would be scared to inhale ;)
The monk's Fly has to target yourself. I suppose it doesn't say only yourself, assuming you cast it at a higher level to allow additional targets.

[Asisreo1]

There's an implicit "the oil can only burn once." It's a lot like how you can only fall off your mount once. Also, from a game-balance perspective, hitting with a torch does 1 fire damage. Hitting with oil does 5 fire damage later. Not 5/10/15/20/... fire damage adding up with every hit for a minute. And both values should add the relevant ability modifier too.

I think you misunderstand me, what I mean is that the damage in each instance has a +5. For your torch example, it would be 6+str/6+str/6+str each round.

So with Fire Snakes, you just do your regular attacks +5 damage on every hit. So 1d20+5 attack roll, 1d4+3+5 for every hit.

I don't think there's any implicit conotation to how oil works, it just says "If they take fire damage before the oil dries, they take an additional +5." There's no "first time" clause, and I really have a hard time reading it as such.

Yeah, you can only fall off a mount once, but the cause is the mount being unwillingly moved and the effect is a dex save which doesn't imply it only happens once. The cause is the oil not being dried while taking fire damage and the effect is the additional fire damage.

It's not like this is too broken, oil is a resource and unlike most other resources, requires you to go back to a town to replenish. Plus, it took you an action to even attempt to cover the creature. If you miss, which you might since there's no proficiency bonus, you used up your action and the oil.

[HiveStriker]

Maybe I was unclear. Gust of wind is an exception, but otherwise 4e monks pay lvl+1 in ki for a spell where Shadow pays 2 Ki. And yes, generally speaking I think Darkness, Silence and Pass without Trace can be said to be more powerful. They're above average to great for lvl 2 spells, easily beating level one spells. Gust of wind is normally seen to be low tier. I do find it better on a monk than on a full caster.

Trying to catch up to the discussion.

That bit is amongst the most puzzling me.
People seem not to realize that it's the Shadow archetype that is an exception. NOT 4E.
Just check the DMG for optional "spell points" rule, or peek back at Sorcerer's "make a slot".
Both follow the exact same rule for level 1 & 2 spells.

Shadow has a lesser cost because its spells bear absolutely nothing offensively per se (and don't scale at all either except Darkvision). In other words there is no measurable value (except for Pass Without Trace even though you still can fail the check).
They are as worthy, in combat or otherwise, as you make it as a player with your own wits.

Of course, a counter-point could be made with "Sun Soul's Burning Hands"... Or not. Look, he also has an offensive spell, and he also needs to spend 2 Ki (only benefit is being a bonus action BUT requires Attack).

In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.

(Which, incidentally, is one reason why AOE spells as Monk are nice even though the best ones come very late: you spend actually less "points" than a Sorcerer from level 3rd spell onwards, since Monk keeps it a linear scale. Probably to keep it simple to track and to compensate the lower pool ceiling compared to a Sorcerer who could technically convert every spell ^^).



I love Flowing River, I fully agree it's awesome. In this case: if you take it at level 3, that's almost all you get. You have a prestidigitation level power as well, but nothing more. Speed of power acquisition matters, and in this case 4e is clearly behind between lvl 3 and 6. They only get access to one effect of their own choice and most of their choices are high-tier level 1/low tier level 2 spells. When they get a less restricted access to level 2 spells, Shadow Monk gets an ability similar to one of the most popular level 2 spells (misty step), but for free and arguably better.

Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.



Why don't you want to be next to the enemy Wizard while your sniper shoots at them?

Why would you want to be next to the Ancient Dragon, a Balor, a Purple Worm, a Marid, or whatever other high-end creature that has usually a) high AC b) high CON save c) multiattacks with good to-hit?

See? That kind of argument has simply no bearing. It's contextualized in essence, thus situational in essence.



You mentioned it before and I silently disagreed. Being fast and without an armour giving disadvantage already puts the Monk in the upper tiers of Stealth if it wants too. You don't get expertise, granted, but otherwise you are as stealth focused as they come. High Dex and Wis, Evasion and good mobility... Sounds like a scout to me.

Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.

Besides that, I'd say that Shadow and 4E can both be great at infiltration, simply in a very different way. Shadow will obviously have upper hand in Stealth rolls if he can use Pass Without Trace, but then he'll need to wait for the night. Because you can't concentrate on both that and Silence or Darkness (plus a cloud of Darkness in day would be very fishy).
Yet in a fortress where guard's patrols and lighting are all well defined, you may simply luck out because there won't be any way to stealth without giving away your presence one way or another.
4E can find alternative ways thanks to Gaseous Forms, or create distractions in various ways with Elemental Attunement (although 30 feet is not giving a huge margin of manoeuver :/ I would have loved it being doubled at 60 ^^).

In short, Shadow > 4E when conditions for stealth are fulfilled. And when the requirement for those is taking out/bypassing just one guard, you can often make do with a Silence rush.
But 4E has ways to enable stealth in many contexts where Shadow (or any other Monk in general) would struggle.

As for scouting?
4E probably trumps Shadow in many situations.
Outdoors, Gaseous Form then Fly gives you panoramic views than Shadow can't expect to match (and Deflect Arrows helps getting out of range should you get noticed). Except of course if want you want to scout is a place which is mostly underground or "closed off". ^^

Indoors, it's hard to say because so many parameters influence. 4E I'd say could have an edge moving around thanks to those same spells: no footsteps, so hard to track on sound, and fly speed mean that if ceiling is high enough to make low visibility you can "stick" to it, while guards are focused on ground. You may also, or not, depending on where you are (concrete building vs loose ground) find some interstices where you can go through or hole up (probably houserule the latter).
On the other hand, once Shadow gets level 11, as long as you're exploring an area with numerous patches of dim light/darkness, the invisibility makes it much easier to move stealthily around (just reminder though: invisibility is not automatic stealth, you'd need at least Pass without trace active so that the DM may houserule such ;)).

As far as running away goes however, 4E has only Fly plus usual. That speed may be moot once building goes into lockdown and every door is closed shut or you have to go through narrow corridors. Gaseous Form may actually shine, but it will be very DM-dependent.
Comparatively, Shadow's Darkness can shine in that kind of situation while being less contextual / more straightforward to use (cast on a stone after you got bearings, start running, throw the stone when you feel is best). :)


Shadow Step is a great ability, for sure. It's also limited to 60ft, line of sight and can only be used in darkness. This makes it handy to enhance your infiltration abilities, but is still quite limited and isn't any more useful to your team than Gaseous Form, which may be slow, but it lasts an hour, works in direct sunlight, gives you flight, an inconspicuous appearance, a malleable form and isn't limited by line of sight. In the infiltration game, Gaseous Form trumps "being a ground-pounding humanoid" every day.

Cloak of Shadows is incredibly limited. Yes, it may be "free", but a torch being waved in your general direction dispels/ends it. You can't maintain it while moving through any area of bright light.

Small tidbit in favor of Cloack of Shadows: you can still use Shadow Step with it. So if you're in a place that is generally low-light (or outdoors by moonless night) you can normally maintain invisibility easily enough.
Which also means that, in optimal context, you can "end" close to a guard, move, and land the first attack against him with advantage (making the attack breaks invisibility, ergo, you should -imo- benefit from it).
Making Shadow straightforward to use efficiently as a vanguard tasked to disable enemy guards (again, when the context is right, aka low lighting). You can probably achieve a similar result with Gaseous Form, but imo you'd have more chance to get noticed on the way. ^^

Otherwise, taking in "isolation", yeah, it would fare globally as Ranger's "Hide in Plain sight": great for long duration, static observation but requires some context to be used.





The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.
Annnd that's the best summary ever of that false perception.
Those abilities don't *replace*.
They shore up empty space where your usual Monkiness won't cut it (or will require extra luck).
The distinction may be subtle but it's crucial. :)



An interesting change to the Elemonk would be to change nothing about it except that you don't have to choose specific disciplines: you just know all of the disciplines in the PHB when you reach the appropriate level.

It would not be broken (would not overshadow other classes), but it might be fun, and might increase the fantasy "feel" of being a master of all the elements.

100% agreed here.
I have the strong feeling they didn't do that just because they were afraid of some backlash on the terms of "look, one subclass got 3* more different things to do than any other".
I really think that's the only reason because, apart from maybe the AOE spells, every discipline explore its own area of capability, so it's not like it would be any unjustified power boost: just getting the peak of your potential versatility. :)

[Zalabim]

I think you misunderstand me, what I mean is that the damage in each instance has a +5. For your torch example, it would be 6+str/6+str/6+str each round.

So with Fire Snakes, you just do your regular attacks +5 damage on every hit. So 1d20+5 attack roll, 1d4+3+5 for every hit.

I don't think there's any implicit conotation to how oil works, it just says "If they take fire damage before the oil dries, they take an additional +5." There's no "first time" clause, and I really have a hard time reading it as such.

Yeah, you can only fall off a mount once, but the cause is the mount being unwillingly moved and the effect is a dex save which doesn't imply it only happens once. The cause is the oil not being dried while taking fire damage and the effect is the additional fire damage.

It's not like this is too broken, oil is a resource and unlike most other resources, requires you to go back to a town to replenish. Plus, it took you an action to even attempt to cover the creature. If you miss, which you might since there's no proficiency bonus, you used up your action and the oil.
It says "from the burning oil." It doesn't re-burn. It burns and then it's burnt, and then you hit them with more oil and burn that oil too. It's still quite cheap, and it seems in line with the strength type's option of using a lit torch. 5+Dex damage but the ammunition is expended and it has to be ignited. Potentially adding infinite damage, only limited by how many times the target takes fire damage in a minute, doesn't make sense and isn't how anything else works, let alone a little 1 sp flask that anyone could use.

Area damage, like create bonfire and spreading the oil on the ground and igniting that, gets a pass because it's adding damage to movement, not adding damage to more damage. They're still limited to once per turn. So a creature covered in oil takes additional fire damage once if they run through fire, but not extra additional damage for each of three burning oil grounds, a created bonfire, and a wall of fire that they move through and then even more if they're hit by fire bolts afterwards.

[Asisreo1]

It says "from the burning oil." It doesn't re-burn. It burns and then it's burnt, and then you hit them with more oil and burn that oil too. It's still quite cheap, and it seems in line with the strength type's option of using a lit torch. 5+Dex damage but the ammunition is expended and it has to be ignited. Potentially adding infinite damage, only limited by how many times the target takes fire damage in a minute, doesn't make sense and isn't how anything else works, let alone a little 1 sp flask that anyone could use.

Area damage, like create bonfire and spreading the oil on the ground and igniting that, gets a pass because it's adding damage to movement, not adding damage to more damage. They're still limited to once per turn. So a creature covered in oil takes additional fire damage once if they run through fire, but not extra additional damage for each of three burning oil grounds, a created bonfire, and a wall of fire that they move through and then even more if they're hit by fire bolts afterwards.
I mean, things can burn and re-burn. I don't necessarily see it as them going completely ablaze since being on fire would typically be a per-round deal, like alchemist's fire. The entire oil may not completely sizzle off, each swing of a flame sword or hit of firebolt is a quick sizzling.

If you've ever cooked or used oil IRL, you can certainly have fire erupt from oil and when the oil stops burning, it can be re-lit.

I think certain primitive lanterns worked like this, too.

[HiveStriker]

Something that's been eating at me throughout the thread: you keep telling us what Monks have a tendency to do, or how things will happen, etc... but you say you've never even played a Monk before. And you said that you wanted tips on how to play Monks better in your original post, but when people with thousands of hours of experience in the class come and give you those tips you appear to have largely ignored those posts in favor of arguing for your preconceptions of balance.

I guess I'm just wondering whether you actually have any interest in getting tips on how to play a Monk better, or whether you think you already know how best to play them. Are the people who are here to give tips on how to get more bang for your EleMonk buck wasting their time?
Well, let's be honest here.
The FIRST answer to his OP has started with a non-constructive, non-argumented dismiss of his choice ("4E suck"). Which never helps, especially when doubling down on "look how every other is good" because you implicitely devaluate the people's ability to analyse, and possibly their taste.
So it was expected that OP would feel required to start detailing his own vision.

As for most people interjecting to say that 4E is a bad archetype, you included, all their points tend to simply demonstrate you never really tried to play the archetype for its strengths because you simply favor small enhancements on what any Monk can do over versatility. Which is perfectly legitimate, but undermines your point.
(As for the "thousands of hours". Not only is it absolutely not credible for one people, it does not make any opinion more valid per se. Even if more hours played means more chance to try out some mechanic in a new context, if you always follow the same mindset and logic to make your decisions, the gain is ultimately much closer to a flat algorithmic curve than a linear or "rocketing" one ;)).

Also, Jelly said he has little experience playing a Monk, but he's an experienced played (and probably DM) in general, and with stealth and melee in particular (*cough* unreasonable love for Rogues *cough*) so there is no reason why one should consider he's not able to "project" respective strengths and weaknesses of mechanics.
As a reminder, he wanted people to help him choose options for an 4e Monk fitting him the best, not people to come spite on something that is simply just not up to their personal taste (and more or less actively trying to convince him it's a bad archetype so that "he chose wrong") . :)


Gathering intel while staying out of view sometimes requires approaching from an unexpected angle. That's where wall-running comes in.

On the other hand, at least on paper, everyone in 5E can scale sheer walls at half-speed, by PHB rules. It may or may not involve an Athletics or Acrobatics check but it's not like monks are the only ones who can climb the outside of a wizard's tower, they just do it faster and probably without an Acrobatics check (ask your DM).

Small tidbit that Shadow monk can do, and which can be nice, although I'm making up a totally theorical example, not sure how often the circumstances could align up THAT favorably. :)

1) Building with openings you can view through.
2) High enough ceiling so that the highest parts of wall are in dim light or darkness (in general "people will rarely look up to it unless they feel there is something abnormal).
3) Speed enough to get into the building and up to those portions of wall with just Dash as bonus action at most.
4) Nobody close enough that they'd have a decent chance to hear you run on wall (or you have some equipment muffling steps sound).
5) Wall that is malleable enough, or is ""just stones piled up" (so interstices).

a) Cast Silence as soon as you are close enough, on a patch of wall near ceiling.
b) Run to it.
c) Use your action to firmly set some clawing/vantage point with some climbing equipment.
d) Enjoy. :)

(okay, the more I see it the more it appears irrealistic. If anybody could share an idea/experience on achieving a similar tactic, I'm all eyes. ;))


Even though I have enjoyed elemonk in the past, this thread has me considering letting elemonks change their disciplines on the fly as a bonus action instead of only on level-up.

How would you feel if your DM did this? Too much, or not enough?
Far too good imo.
Admitedly for a player who is not sure of his choices, even "on level up" may be too "far away" (confer the discussions about UA class changes on sorcerer and ranger).

IMHO the maximum flexibility you could allow while still being reasonable would be "one discipline change on short rest".
And I'd personally find a "change x disciplines during long rest" ideal.

The main gripe I'd have with "change as bonus action" is that it makes them, kinda... "Transparent". I mean, it's like mastering them require no "continuous" effort at all.
Of course, that's my personal taste speaking. Mechanically there would be no problem with change as bonus action.


We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.
Disagreed.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a different effect when it's poured on ground: 5 fire every time creature enters area or ends turn in, once per turn.
And the formulation of the first point is ambiguous as is. So it's fair to assume that "at worst" you'd could trigger the extra damage once per turn if you want to avoid it being too powerful.
Then again, since fiery oil is on the creature itself in the first point, unless you consider for some justifiable reason that a creature "burns lesser" than some ground (which could be stone, so dubious), there is no reason why you wouldn't read the sentence as is, meaning without limitation (reminder: limitations are near always explicit in 5e) so extra damage on every hit.

[NaughtyTiger]

If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

the larger text says 2 things:
burns for 2 rounds
only takes 5 fire damage once per round.

so i don't think you get the +5 per hit, but you do get the +5 on the next round even if you don't hit

[JellyPooga]

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.

Generally speaking, the noise factor of Thunderwave, Shatter and even Knock always gives me pause for thought; I wonder how significant a factor it is for other players.


Which is also why I've used the term scouting rather than stealth. Stealth is a tool, most often used for scouting and positioning. For rogues it is also an advantage generator. And I disagree on the not-attacked part; or rather - I see the consequences of being attacked as being quite severe. It is the #1 cause of death amongst my players (both when I DM and amongst my teams as a player).

My point was that the consequence of failed scouting or stealth is not always that you'll be attacked; I was not saying that being attacked isn't a bad thing. Further, as a rule, "being attacked" is going to be a consequence of failure more often for scouting, I imagine, than stealth in general. So to reiterate my contention; Monks are not natively better at stealth, specifically, even if they are better at scouting. A fully armoured person on a horse can be good at scouting and the Monk base class has many of the benefits that said cavalryman has (including speed and AC), agreed, but that doesn't make either of them good at stealth.


Corners on walls and especially patrol timings play a huge role here. If you have frequent patrols, being able to get up that wall quickly is solid gold. Again, quite common IMX, YMMV.

I'll endeavour to look out for more opportunities on that front in the future, thanks.


In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.
[snip]
Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.

I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios. Shadow Arts getting a "discount" and wider access seems reasonable to me given the more limited use cases.


Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.

Agreed. See point above RE: cavalry scout.


(*cough* unreasonable love for Rogues *cough*)

My love for Rogues is unreasonable, it's true...

[Sindeloke]

I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios.

For the record, I believe this right here is the main source of people saying that Shadow Arts (or Open Palm self-healing) doesn't conflict with "being a monk" the way 4elements does, despite the similar action economy. Casting darkness in combat does something unique for the monk; there's no expectation that it should behave a certain way in order to be "monklike". Dealing damage in combat, however, has a very defined feel for the monk: you make many fast hits that let you make more fast hits. Replacing that entirely with One Big Hit that does not allow you to make more fast hits feels like it interferes with the monk playstyle in a way that healing or creating darkness does not, even when the action economy is otherwise identical.

In this vein, if they wanted it to feel "monklike", unique abilities like fire snake or an ice knife version of sun soul bolts or w/e, that compliment your attacks rather than replacing them, should have been the default, not the exception. Alternately, casting a 4ele spell should enable flurry as though it were an attack, which makes the ki consumption more obvious but at least makes the spells feel like they're martial arts moves and not wizard muttering.

(The other problem is that it's the "bender" subclass on a resource schedule when the bender fantasy requires bending every single turn, but that would require a far more extensive overhaul to fix).

[Nifft]

(The other problem is that it's the "bender" subclass on a resource schedule when the bender fantasy requires bending every single turn, but that would require a far more extensive overhaul to fix).

I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.

[Desteplo]

I feel like magic initiate (druid) and focus on wisdom first works best for me
-variant human: shileleigh, (flavor cantrip) and absorb elements
-of course it’s different for non humans but in that case it’s a little different. Though I’ve been in games where they hand out a free feat at lvl1
-sucks for me to have to rely on a feat but I’ve also tried lvl1 dips in druid and it felt just as awesome.
-the lack of earth flavor spells until later stings. But that entangle spell from druid or whatever but that spot

[MaxWilson]

Generally speaking, the noise factor of Thunderwave, Shatter and even Knock always gives me pause for thought; I wonder how significant a factor it is for other players.

For me it depends on whether you're trying to be sneaky or not. Stealth is potentially very, very powerful, but (by the same token) sometimes not very fun. If you really can just bypass or surprise all or most of the monsters in the dungeon just by PWT + stealth proficiency on everybody, the game can feel unsatisfyingly easy. In contrast, frontal assaults are fun even when they're kind of a bad strategy. (Bad strategies can lead to the need for good tactics, and 5E is really more about tactics than strategy.)

To me, "Shatter" is the kind of spell you use when you're perfectly okay with the possibility that all of the monsters in the dungeon may converge on your position sometime in the next ten minutes. Maybe that's because you agree with Sethra Lavode about defense generally being stronger than offense (thanks to e.g. Mold Earth for partial cover, Spike Growth and caltrops), maybe it's because you've got horses nearby and can abuse the mounted combat rules, maybe you're highly mobile PCs who are good at disengaging from combat, maybe it's because you just like nuking huge hordes of monsters with your AoE spells.

Anyway, I don't see the noise factor as necessarily a negative. If it attracts monsters, well, there are ways to exploit that, and when you need to be sneaky you can just not cast those spells.

[Skylivedk]

@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.


Trying to catch up to the discussion.

That bit is amongst the most puzzling me.
People seem not to realize that it's the Shadow archetype that is an exception. NOT 4E.
Just check the DMG for optional "spell points" rule, or peek back at Sorcerer's "make a slot".
Both follow the exact same rule for level 1 & 2 spells.

What difference does that make? Spell points are not regular play (and discouraged for a reason). I can understand that having spell-point casting is a buff, but people can see that and not think the buff outweighs the minuse



Shadow has a lesser cost because its spells bear absolutely nothing offensively per se (and don't scale at all either except Darkvision). In other words there is no measurable value (except for Pass Without Trace even though you still can fail the check).
They are as worthy, in combat or otherwise, as you make it as a player with your own wits.

Of course, a counter-point could be made with "Sun Soul's Burning Hands"... Or not. Look, he also has an offensive spell, and he also needs to spend 2 Ki (only benefit is being a bonus action BUT requires Attack).

In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.


I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios. Shadow Arts getting a "discount" and wider access seems reasonable to me given the more limited use cases.

A grappled Acererak would disagree.
That's how we killed him in 2 rounds in ToA. Grappling a silence cast where the caster was out of Line of Sight. We added some smites and some lava-dipping for good measure

And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock



Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.


Why would you want to be next to the Ancient Dragon, a Balor, a Purple Worm, a Marid, or whatever other high-end creature that has usually a) high AC b) high CON save c) multiattacks with good to-hit?
The purple worm has no reach nor ranged attacks. The Ancient Dragon has one, some of the time, a Marid only has 60 ft water jet. The Balor has no reach or range (but teleports). In all cases: if the Shadow Monk keeps those creatures next to the enemy Wizard at a healthy distance, he has already earned his keep. Half the XP budget (if we assume the caster is strong enough to have such pets) has just been blown on a pet that doesn't do anything. Fantastic! Otherwise: resistance to all damage and proficiency in all saves + rerolls for 1ki. Ez. If pet moves, you stop the pitiful pling plings from your bow and you and the ranged members rip the caster a new one. With most of them, the Shadow Monk can just use Step of the Wind, run in, hit caster, spam stunning fist, run back. Pet isn't fast enough to do anything about it. And since our example is Shadow Monk, you DIDN'T spend between 20% (at level 20) and 36,36 % of the encounter's Ki budget by being the exhale of Devin the Dude.



See? That kind of argument has simply no bearing. It's contextualized in essence, thus situational in essence.
No, I don't see. Someone must have cast Darkness and I forgot to refresh my pact with the Lord of the Morning while making coffee.

You pull up a contrived scenario and if the Wizard is the greater threat with a Balor Pet, we're talking 66.000 xp worth of encounter budget (22.000 x 2 x 1.5). Deadly is 50.800 xp for 4 level 20 characters according to the DMG. That encounter has just been trivialised by being split in two without using a forcecage, and the Shadow Monk hasn't even moved yet. If that's the effect of a useless ability, then give me more useless abilities please.



Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.
No, you can of course trade away stealth and ride in on your horsie in full-plate. If you aren't ambushed, I hope you bought your DM beer.



Besides that, I'd say that Shadow and 4E can both be great at infiltration, simply in a very different way. Shadow will obviously have upper hand in Stealth rolls if he can use Pass Without Trace, but then he'll need to wait for the night. Because you can't concentrate on both that and Silence or Darkness (plus a cloud of Darkness in day would be very fishy).
What? Why does he need to wait for night? Tomorrow at 10 am, go to the side of the building where the sun isn't shining. Notice something? The distinct lack of bright light and how everything is covered in shadow?



Yet in a fortress where guard's patrols and lighting are all well defined, you may simply luck out because there won't be any way to stealth without giving away your presence one way or another.
4E can find alternative ways thanks to Gaseous Forms, or create distractions in various ways with Elemental Attunement (although 30 feet is not giving a huge margin of manoeuver :/ I would have loved it being doubled at 60 ^^).
Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...



In short, Shadow > 4E when conditions for stealth are fulfilled. And when the requirement for those is taking out/bypassing just one guard, you can often make do with a Silence rush.
But 4E has ways to enable stealth in many contexts where Shadow (or any other Monk in general) would struggle.
Gaseous form doesn't make you invisible. It doesn't give you advantage on Stealth. I would probably rule it didn't make a sound, but the spell doesn't say so. Going by the common way I've seen of ruling spells (they ONLY do what they say), Gaseous Form doesn't confer all these bonuses I've seen applied in this thread (some of which I would definitely give as DM myself though). For all we know Gaseous Form makes a hissing sound when it moves equalling the sound of the footsteps of your character. Since it doesn't mention any advantage or automatic passing of stealth check, we ought to presume it doesn't do that.



As for scouting?
4E probably trumps Shadow in many situations.
Outdoors, Gaseous Form then Fly gives you panoramic views than Shadow can't expect to match (and Deflect Arrows helps getting out of range should you get noticed). Except of course if want you want to scout is a place which is mostly underground or "closed off". ^^
At the cost of 20% - 36,36% of your Ki. AND one of your precious few disciplines (so 20-25% of your discipline slots). Fly is fantastic. That's why your warlock/sorcerer/wizard picked it, 6 levels ago. Even then, it is still amazing at lvl 11. Also expensive.



Indoors, it's hard to say because so many parameters influence. 4E I'd say could have an edge moving around thanks to those same spells: no footsteps, so hard to track on sound, and fly speed mean that if ceiling is high enough to make low visibility you can "stick" to it, while guards are focused on ground. You may also, or not, depending on where you are (concrete building vs loose ground) find some interstices where you can go through or hole up (probably houserule the latter).
On the other hand, once Shadow gets level 11, as long as you're exploring an area with numerous patches of dim light/darkness, the invisibility makes it much easier to move stealthily around (just reminder though: invisibility is not automatic stealth, you'd need at least Pass without trace active so that the DM may houserule such ;)).
Well, if the DM is already houseruling that Fly and Gaseous Form make you move without sound, why not give Invisibility a free pass at a certain distance? 60 ft? I mean, we're making up things anyway... Also, which is seemingly forgotten. Dogs. PwT leaves no trace (no exceptions given - so no scent either). And again, again: Cost! Pass Without Trace costs 2 ki points, and you get it at level 3. Most players will never see the Soundless Ninja Cloud of Infinite Ki, because they will never play that level.

I think Max Wilson gave a good example of just how much dim light you can expect normally. Tons. Remember, Shadow Monks only need enough shadow to cover them
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/21/in-an-area-of-bright-light-can-a-shadow-monk-use-hisher-shadow-step-to-teleport-into-a-creatures-shadow/




As far as running away goes however, 4E has only Fly plus usual. That speed may be moot once building goes into lockdown and every door is closed shut or you have to go through narrow corridors. Gaseous Form may actually shine, but it will be very DM-dependent.
Gaseous Form is sloooooooow. Even with fancy monk speed, you are still at only 30 ft until level 14. And if we used Heavy Vaping to get in, we are burning Ki quickly: almost nothing left in the tank if you hit a Dispel Magic. It is definitely a useful infiltration spell, but I'd be wary of using it twice at level 11, especially as an escape mechanism in enemy territory. It also has the minus of being very hard to get your Stealth Buddy with you (both in and out - they really frown upon the one-way tickets IMX).

@OP: as for playing 4e monk: I'd be really careful about sneaking in alone in a way that burns a third of your resources at level 11. Dispel Magic is common and unlike running up a wall, you usually can't pass a rope to your buddy or take out the guard on patrol so he can pass (excluding more ki burn ofc) if you used Gaseous Form to go through a crack somewhere. It is white room good, it is IMX PC death. YMMV.




Comparatively, Shadow's Darkness can shine in that kind of situation while being less contextual / more straightforward to use (cast on a stone after you got bearings, start running, throw the stone when you feel is best). :)
Well spotted.

I prefer having a rope with a small hook on it (in adamantine later) as well as locket on anyone who can fight in Darkness (close locket, gone Darkness).



Small tidbit in favor of Cloack of Shadows: you can still use Shadow Step with it. So if you're in a place that is generally low-light (or outdoors by moonless night) you can normally maintain invisibility easily enough.
Which also means that, in optimal context, you can "end" close to a guard, move, and land the first attack against him with advantage (making the attack breaks invisibility, ergo, you should -imo- benefit from it).
Agreed... but why not, follow behind him and wait, then strike next round? You still get advantage, now you also have your Bonus Action free and all of your movement speed.



Otherwise, taking in "isolation", yeah, it would fare globally as Ranger's "Hide in Plain sight": great for long duration, static observation but requires some context to be used.

Thank you for mentioning the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight. A prime example of why being good at stealth includes being good at moving (quickly) while stealthy in my criteria of being good at stealth. Stealth is a tool, not just a check. If passing the check doesn't do anything, then it doesn't matter how good you are at passing the check. And YMMV, but my DnD groups don't line up to roll a Peeping Tom. Hence by my metrics, Monk is top-3 on stealth:


their two main stats (which they both usually max - very rare) are good for what stealth is most often used for on non-rogues: recon
they have more movement speed and movement options that are free to use and stealth penalty free than any other class
they can enhance said movement with Ki (some sub-classes more than others)
the base class has no inherently noisy attacks (no metal or explosions here)
they have no opportunity cost in foregoing armour with Stealth Disadvantage




Rogues. Expertise and delicious bonus actions (Dash and Hide as BAs are solid gold), reliable talent, all top-notch. The Thief's level 9 ability is a false positive IMX. 1/6 of your potential max sneaky speed for advantage? Yuck
Druid: depending on DM interpretation of how easy it is to look natural as a spider whatever. I would rule pro-spider stealth.
Monk
Bard/Ranger

The rest of the classes... not really worth going through.


Annnd that's the best summary ever of that false perception.
Those abilities don't *replace*.
They shore up empty space where your usual Monkiness won't cut it (or will require extra luck).
The distinction may be subtle but it's crucial. :)
Agreed on this point. It's not like you can afford to spam spells every round anyway, so you shouldn't be doing it instead of being a monk. They do replace abilities in your design space though. They have an opportunity cost in selecting them (both by selecting the subclass and the individual spells).



100% agreed here.
I have the strong feeling they didn't do that just because they were afraid of some backlash on the terms of "look, one subclass got 3* more different things to do than any other".
I really think that's the only reason because, apart from maybe the AOE spells, every discipline explore its own area of capability, so it's not like it would be any unjustified power boost: just getting the peak of your potential versatility. :)
I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance here:
If we all agree that 4e monks could easily do with more disciplines, isn't that the same as all of us agreeing that it could be slightly better?


I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.
That would be cool. In general, I think the original (non-spell) abilities they gave 4e are all (unless I've repressed one out of frustration) pretty solid. I don't mind if they redesigned it to be more around elemental fighting (and with more nova potential than the normal monk).

[Sindeloke]

I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.

That's a promising thought, but still requires resources, so I'd want something baseline beyond that. Like... "As a bonus action, select cold, fire, thunder, or your normal bludgeoning damage. All your unarmed attacks until the end of your turn have a 30 foot range, and substitute the chosen damage type for their normal damage."

Then at higher levels, you can spend ki points to increase the range, or add effects to each type of damage (slow to cold, push to bludgeoning/thunder, whatev), and also add the ability to occasionally do expensive stuff like fire breath, walls of stone, bridges of ice, etc, by spending resources - but always with somatic components only, because you're doing these things kinetically, not casting spells, even if they look like spells mechanically.

It would require a different balance point than the current 4e, though, because of the added always-on utility and different casting restrictions of somatic only and the better action economy of tying things to Patient Defense or flurry or the normal attack routine. You might want to restrict it to one element per character, or increase the ki cost, or whatever, so it's a more extensive overhaul.

[MaxWilson]

I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance here:
If we all agree that 4e monks could easily do with more disciplines, isn't that the same as all of us agreeing that it could be slightly better?

Depends how you mean the latter. It could just be people acknowledging that Elemonk is already within the acceptable range of variation, but also that adding more disciplines wouldn't raise the power curve enough to obviate any other classes. That's my personal take in it: it's fine, and I am not going to proactively change it, but if a player wanted more disciplines to have more fun I would have zero concerns about agreeing.

As a contrasting example, if a sorcerer player wanted the ability to switch spells on a long rest, I would have concerns about that and would probably tell them "no, that's too much of a design change. If you want that I'm going to have to charge you something, like maybe a custom subclass where versatility and instinctive knowledge of a wide range of magic is your schtick."

I don't have these concerns about Elemonk because the disciplines are all pretty samey already and there's only a small number of them, and there's no other classes competing for the same design space (blasty elemental monk).

[Asisreo1]

@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.



Isn't devil's advocate the one that's against popular opinion? Anyways, it's the same way when talking about wizards in these forum discussion, they somehow have shield and burning hands and mage armor and magic missile and sleep and find familiar and identify at level 1 all at once.

They can also always afford to shield whenever they get hit regardless of how many spellslots they've used prior. Because if they ran out, obviously they would have long rested which is free and the DM must always respect it.

[QUOTE]

What difference does that make? Spell points are not regular play (and discouraged for a reason). I can understand that having spell-point casting is a buff, but people can see that and not think the buff outweighs the minuse
Despite how it seems, spellpoint casting is used in places you wouldn't expect. The conversion rate for sorcerer spells are exactly spellpoints.


A grappled Acererak would disagree.
That's how we killed him in 2 rounds in ToA. Grappling a silence cast where the caster was out of Line of Sight. We added some smites and some lava-dipping for good measure

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?



And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock

Sure, but if they don't have magical darkvision, you could gimp your own spellcasters, which has happened before.



The purple worm has no reach nor ranged attacks.
The worm has a 10ft reach.


The Ancient Dragon has one, some of the time
All of an ancient dragon's attacks are greater than 5ft reach
, a Marid only has 60 ft water jet.The Marid's trident has a 10ft reach and is also a ranged attack.
The Balor has no reach or range (but teleports)Not only is a Balor's reach up to 30ft., it can drag it's enemy into melee distance on a dex save.
In all cases: if the Shadow Monk keeps those creatures next to the enemy Wizard at a healthy distance, he has already earned his keep. What stops those creatures from just running by the monk, tanking the OA, and going into melee with the wizard?



Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...
I guess it depends on how well versed you are with magic because a 5ft cloud moving at your castle is sometimes called fog.


At the cost of 20% - 36,36% of your Ki. AND one of your precious few disciplines (so 20-25% of your discipline slots). Fly is fantastic. That's why your warlock/sorcerer/wizard picked it, 6 levels ago. Even then, it is still amazing at lvl 11. Also expensive.
20-36% of your Ki per short rest. You probably aren't fighting more than 3 fights per short rest and I doubt all of them call for the measures of using Fly.



Gaseous Form is sloooooooow. Even with fancy monk speed, you are still at only 30 ft until level 14. And if we used Heavy Vaping to get in, we are burning Ki quickly: almost nothing left in the tank if you hit a Dispel Magic. It is definitely a useful infiltration spell, but I'd be wary of using it twice at level 11, especially as an escape mechanism in enemy territory. It also has the minus of being very hard to get your Stealth Buddy with you (both in and out - they really frown upon the one-way tickets IMX).
It's not about speed, it's about getting through cracks and being resistant to all nonmagical attacks including fire/poison/acid as long as it isn't coming from a magical source. And also having advantage against the most common saves you'll be hit with while in melee.



@OP: as for playing 4e monk: I'd be really careful about sneaking in alone in a way that burns a third of your resources at level 11. Dispel Magic is common and unlike running up a wall, you usually can't pass a rope to your buddy or take out the guard on patrol so he can pass (excluding more ki burn ofc) if you used Gaseous Form to go through a crack somewhere. It is white room good, it is IMX PC death. YMMV.
I don't necessarily see how dispel magic is common. It depends on the setting but in the PHB it says practitioners of magic are rare and you're a "Hero of the Realm" by time you get dispel magic. So unless "Heroes of the Realm" are common amongst guards, it should be rare to find a dispel magic user.

[MaxWilson]

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?

In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max

[Asisreo1]

In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max

Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

[MaxWilson]

Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

I will note that players also sometimes underplay "the best of their ability". A Necromancer who is capable of summoning dozens of skeletons may only summon six or eight in actual play. A Shadow Monk who is capable of staying in stealth mode 100% of the time might make a frontal assault with the party instead. The players IME generally up their game when they know they're under serious threat, but against regular pesky everyday threats they may enjoy getting their hands dirty, sometimes taking it so far as Cherry Tapping (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping) (deliberately winning with underpowered weapons, like beating a bad guy to death with a mushroom).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to play a bad guy the same way, especially if the bad guy is immortal and isn't seriously inconvenienced by "death" in the first place, especially because, again, DMs don't like squashing players like bugs. Maybe Acererak had a good laugh about the lava afterward and made a note to self to watch out for Silence spells in the future, but AFAIK it's not like he had any reason to be really trying to get the PCs. My reading of page 186 of the Tomb of Annihilation is that he's basically Cherry Tapping (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping) them while taunting them. His spell loadout is terrible, and he doesn't even have any good gear on except for a staff that's arguably more interesting to a PAM fighter than to a wizard.

Disclaimer: Tomb of Annihilation has never interested me enough to run. This is just how I would run it based on reading it (and I'd play up his "puny mortals" taunting a la Spider Man to make it clear he's enjoying himself). His "look of horror" at actually losing is just that: disappointment at a surprise loss, plus the inconvenience of having to reform and track down his staff, if he eventually wants it back.

Edit: also I'm not suggesting that Acererak wouldn't play to the best of his tactical ability. I've been a player in a game where a lich lost in a fist fight with (of all things) a multiclassed cleric/wizard. It was totally stupid and not believable that the lich would do that, and I don't say that Acererak should play that badly. I'm just saying that it makes sense Acererak didn't do something more along the lines of immediately Forcecaging the closest member(s) of the party before retreating out the nearest door, then True Polymorphing into an Atropal and spending thirty minutes whistling up 50-odd Wraiths before coming back to smash the party into smithereens. (Trope: There Is No Kill Like Overkill (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereIsNoKillLikeOverkill).) Burying the party under a small army of Wraiths that can walk through walls would be highly effective but maybe not as much fun for Acererak as getting his hands dirty personally.

I believe it is very much the DM's job to think of reasons why the Acererak will not destroy them in this highly-effective way, at least the first time they meet each other.

[Skylivedk]

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?

Also @MaxWilson: in my dear DM's defence, if you go play ToA by the book, Acererak is holding the idiot ball in ToA. If you need, I can provide a drawing. But no: silence, grapple and a murdercloud with a little nova-capacity is plenty to knock him out.



Sure, but if they don't have magical darkvision, you could gimp your own spellcasters, which has happened before.

Despite my friends sometimes almost killing my characters to prove me wrong, I do presume competence from my co-players.


The worm has a 10ft reach.
All of an ancient dragon's attacks are greater than 5ft reach
The Marid's trident has a 10ft reach and is also a ranged attack. Not only is a Balor's reach up to 30ft., it can drag it's enemy into melee distance on a dex save.


Thanks for the corrections. Speaking of competence. I showed none when reading those entries. That can teach me not to be lazy and look in the damn book + read the whole damn attack paragraph :) It changes the scenario a bit: the monk can't run in and out if the baddies assume fireball position. On the bright side, they assume fireball position and all of the examples are still short of significant range (Ancient Dragon's breath being the outlier). Same plans before: proceed to nuke at a distance (not in fireball formation) until half the encounter is dead, then deal with Pet. It isn't me who came up with the contrived scenario of having 1 of these critters stand next to the Wizard and somehow see that as a winning plan.




What stops those creatures from just running by the monk, tanking the OA, and going into melee with the wizard?
Your frontline I would imagine. Either pointy stick dudes and dudedesses or maybe summons. Maybe wall-spells. Normally, not your monk (prior to level 18, where you care about half as much about the pet's damage).[/QUOTE]



I guess it depends on how well versed you are with magic because a 5ft cloud moving at your castle is sometimes called fog.
I'm originally from Denmark, so I can understand why someone wouldn't see that as being very situational.



20-36% of your Ki per short rest. You probably aren't fighting more than 3 fights per short rest and I doubt all of them call for the measures of using Fly.
Yup, but without Ki, you are playing the role of sidekick as a monk. 3d8 + 15 = 28,5 damage.



It's not about speed, it's about getting through cracks and being resistant to all nonmagical attacks including fire/poison/acid as long as it isn't coming from a magical source. And also having advantage against the most common saves you'll be hit with while in melee.
And I get all that. Gaseous Form was just made out to be the be-all, end-all of infiltration and it isn't. I'm not saying it isn't a good spell on 4e monk. It is. Great synergy. Especially with Water Whip and Fists of Unbroken Air. I'm saying it has significant drawbacks since you'll be solo unless your stealth buddy can do something similar. Also it isn't free and it isn't undetectable (which it was pretty much made out to be in one or two posts).



I don't necessarily see how dispel magic is common. It depends on the setting but in the PHB it says practitioners of magic are rare and you're a "Hero of the Realm" by time you get dispel magic. So unless "Heroes of the Realm" are common amongst guards, it should be rare to find a dispel magic user.


In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max


Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

Fully agree with both of you. As mentioned above, this is another masterpiece of writing and encounter design from the WotC-team. Back then, our DM didn't change the encounters much. I think Acererak melting in lava after 12 seconds had him rethink that slightly.

[MaxWilson]

Fully agree with both of you. As mentioned above, this is another masterpiece of writing and encounter design from the WotC-team. Back then, our DM didn't change the encounters much. I think Acererak melting in lava after 12 seconds had him rethink that slightly.

Heh. We share some opinions about WotC it seems. Why do all of WotC's archwizards invariable have the worst 9th level spells in the book (Time Stop & Power Word Kill, every time) and not the good ones (True Polymorph, Wish). Just think how much the Acererak scenario changes if Acererak's first move is e.g. to Wish the dead Atropal back to life, to say nothing of all the offscreen uses that can be made of it and/or True Polymorph to ramp up the pressure every time the PCs take a long rest. "There's an ever-increasing influx of Ulitharids infesting the local jungles, please help us quickly or we'll be overwhelmed!" (Actually even a single True Polymorph is enough to start a Slaad infestation...)

Why weren't there any Symbols or Glyphs (e.g. Wall of Force + Glyph of Summon Earth Elemental + Glyph of Cloudkill) set up to protect his students' phylacteries?

Why don't they have bodyguards or seek reinforcements? (Getting rid of the bodyguards should be possible via smart play, but by default the powerful bad guys shouldn't be alone.)

In this case because Acererak is immortal and powerful I can excuse it as cherry-tapping (it wouldn't be the first time I've seen a lich take "death" less than seriously), but there's a lot of WotC villains who don't have that excuse.

[Skylivedk]

I will note that players also sometimes underplay "the best of their ability". A Necromancer who is capable of summoning dozens of skeletons may only summon six or eight in actual play. A Shadow Monk who is capable of staying in stealth mode 100% of the time might make a frontal assault with the party instead. The players IME generally up their game when they know they're under serious threat, but against regular pesky everyday threats they may enjoy getting their hands dirty, sometimes taking it so far as Cherry Tapping (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping) (deliberately winning with underpowered weapons, like beating a bad guy to death with a mushroom).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to play a bad guy the same way, especially if the bad guy is immortal and isn't seriously inconvenienced by "death" in the first place, especially because, again, DMs don't like squashing players like bugs. Maybe Acererak had a good laugh about the lava afterward and made a note to self to watch out for Silence spells in the future, but AFAIK it's not like he had any reason to be really trying to get the PCs. My reading of page 186 of the Tomb of Annihilation is that he's basically Cherry Tapping (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping) them while taunting them. His spell loadout is terrible, and he doesn't even have any good gear on except for a staff that's arguably more interesting to a PAM fighter than to a wizard.

Disclaimer: Tomb of Annihilation has never interested me enough to run. This is just how I would run it based on reading it (and I'd play up his "puny mortals" taunting a la Spider Man to make it clear he's enjoying himself). His "look of horror" at actually losing is just that: disappointment at a surprise loss, plus the inconvenience of having to reform and track down his staff, if he eventually wants it back.

Edit: also I'm not suggesting that Acererak wouldn't play to the best of his tactical ability. I've been a player in a game where a lich lost in a fist fight with (of all things) a multiclassed cleric/wizard. It was totally stupid and not believable that the lich would do that, and I don't say that Acererak should play that badly. I'm just saying that it makes sense Acererak didn't do something more along the lines of immediately Forcecaging the closest member(s) of the party before retreating out the nearest door, then True Polymorphing into an Atropal and spending thirty minutes whistling up 50-odd Wraiths before coming back to smash the party into smithereens. (Trope: There Is No Kill Like Overkill (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereIsNoKillLikeOverkill).) Burying the party under a small army of Wraiths that can walk through walls would be highly effective but maybe not as much fun for Acererak as getting his hands dirty personally.

I believe it is very much the DM's job to think of reasons why the Acererak will not destroy them in this highly-effective way, at least the first time they meet each other.

Overall, it was a bad day at the office for dear Acererak. First, he is off all-jolly to check on his pet-project, his soul-battery charger. Just a quick check, because some alarm is flaring. Probably just a minion goofing about. He steps out his portal and gets whacked in the head immediately and grabbed by a filthy hairy hand. Annoying. He proceeds to erase the bugs, except he can't because subtle counterspell. Also, the disgusting meatbags keeps grabbing his arm like some necro-groupie. From there he goes from feeling fine, to losing his voice, to being smited 3 times and dropped in lava during the next 6 seconds. By the time he comes to, the meat bags have destroyed his staff (without dying), a bunch of his enslaved liches and burned his library (also the one in his backup dimension).

Bad day at the office.

Honestly, the design of that particular encounter and the counterspell mechanic makes it pretty tough to DM without playing idiotball.

@MaxWilson: Saw you posted at the same time. I think we do. The end of Storm King's Thunder is worse. Even after more than tripling everything there it still seemed easy and like thousands of years as a mastermind apex predator had led to nothing more than Messi-like skills in idiotball.

[Kane0]

I'm working on bits and pieces of elemonk changes.

Level 3: you can use delfect arrows on spell attacks against you that deal [elemental] damage
Level 6: when you use martial arts die for damage rolls you can change it to [elemental] damage

I'm also working on the disciplines themselves, i'm thinking of small chains of spells that use Ki like spell points to use. So then at level 11 or 17 there can be another ability to spend extra Ki to turn casting time from 1 action to 1 bonus action.

Edit: Wait how about this:

One discipline at each breakpoint, or maybe an extra at level 3. That means a total of 4-5 disciplines for 4-5 cantrips and 12-15 'spells known' in thematically linked bundles, using Ki as spell points. Set max Ki you can spend on Disc spells to [Prof bonus] or 2 with +1 at each subclass breakpoint.
Level 3: Deflect arrows with [elemental] spell attacks
Level 6: [Elemental Damage] with martial arts die
Level 11: Spend 1 extra Ki to cast Discipline spell as bonus action instead of action
Level 17: Spend 8 Ki to cast Conjure Elemental as action. Turning into an elemental is already a moon druid thing, maybe you summon a couple elementals and you disappear while you're concentrating on them, as in you become a bundle of different elementals for a short time.

This means you have a broader array of options available to you, some of which do and others do not cost Ki. The exact spell choice for each discipline determines the overall gain in power and versatility but you'd be limited to 3rd level spells at most, so even though you can spam spells pretty often you have less flexibility in spell choice and a slow progression

Edit2: to avoid going off-topic (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612680-Four-Elements-Monk-(take-three))

[Desteplo]

My idea was to scale the unique special attacks
-making a ki blast at lvl3 dealing 2d10, scaling at lvl5,11,17 maxing out at 5d10
Spend 1 ki to add 1d10 Dmg and a rider similar to:
-water whip, unbroken fist and earth theme (Gaia’s grasp: decreasing movement speed by half)

Lvl6 unarmed attack have a 10ft reach
-during a long rest you can concentrate/conserve an element to add to your unarmed strikes, on hit can spend 1ki to add martial arts die to damage (damage is type you conserved: Fire, ice, electric (wind) thunder (earth))

Lvl11, spend 2 ki to make ki blast a bonus action with rider
-you can learn 2/4 of these spells And cast for 4ki (can swap on long rest)
Gaseous form, fly, fireball, stone skin

Lvl17 maybe sun soul route and deal whatever element you conserved for lvl6 feature as a reaction when hit

Or remove the limiter and allow the ki blast to deal additional 1d10 and increase the push/pull/slow by an additional 1ft per ki point

[JellyPooga]

@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.

Talking specifically about Tier 1&2, all three of those points can easily be leveled at Shadow Monk.
a) Shadow Monk has just as many consequences of using their features (e.g. if you Shadow Step, you can't Flurry or use Patient Defence). As a rule, a Monk has as many uses for bonus actions and it's arguable that their bonus actions are what define them; Shadow offers competition for Bonus Actions with Shadow Step as well as competition for Actions with Shadow Arts
b) The Ki cost of Shadow Arts is functionally no higher than that of the Lvl.3 and lvl.6 Disciplines (the average Ki cost is 2, whether talking about Shadow or 4E, accounting for those Disciplines that cost 1 and 3). If "infinite Ki" is an issue, then Shadow Monk suffers from the same weakness.
c) It's not like the "Shadow Camp" doesn't elevate the benefits of the likes of Darkness or Silence above that of its actual in-game use.

I'll say it again; the argument isn't that either one is better or worse than the other, or even that one is good; it's that 4E is roughly the same as Shadow because it suffers roughly the same degree of limitations and drawbacks. Regardless of the comparison, Shadow Monk has some very real limitations that seem to be overlooked more often than the limitations of 4E, which seem to boil down to "It doesn't have enough choices" and "It feels too expensive", both of which are entirely subjective. The corollary and query that follows is; given that assertion (i.e. that 4E is comparable to Shadow), why is Shadow seen as being so much better (i.e. considered one of the best Monk subclasses compared to being one of the worst subclasses in the entire game).


A grappled Acererak would disagree.

So to counter my assertion about common combats and general use, you posit a specific scenario against a BBEG? I literally said in the quote you responded to here "outside of specific scenarios". I never said Silence was useless or bad, I said it was situational. Offering an example of a situation where it was useful does not disprove my statement.


And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock

Who has blindsight at level 3? :smallconfused: Ok, so a Moon Druid might be able to function and a Warlock with one specific Invocation, but outside of that, many, if not most parties are going to be at as much of a disadvantage as the enemies your facing. Darkness is a great spell, no doubt, but it's "use case" is predicated on terrain, significant numbers and/or the type of foe (i.e. spellcasters and ranged). It's not exactly a "bust it out in any combat" kind of a spell. Compare this to Burning Hands, where simply facing three enemies gives it a solid "use case".


No, you can of course trade away stealth and ride in on your horsie in full-plate. If you aren't ambushed, I hope you bought your DM beer.

Facetious comments aside, that doesn't prove that Stealth is necessary for Scouting, let alone that being good at Scouting makes you good at Stealth.


Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...p

Who said anything about Gaseous Form moving across an open field? The form is inherently malleable; seep through cracks in dirt or flagstones, along the corner of a wall, through floorboards or across a ceiling. Yeah, a 5ft cloud floating along on a happy breeze might, might, be unusual enough to take note of, but I'd call shenanigans if someone opened fire immediately. If your players are stabbing carpets and shooting clouds, their characters are paranoid crazy people and the world should reflect that with things like white coats and padded cells :smallconfused:.


Gaseous form doesn't make you invisible. It doesn't give you advantage on Stealth. I would probably rule it didn't make a sound, but the spell doesn't say so. Going by the common way I've seen of ruling spells (they ONLY do what they say), Gaseous Form doesn't confer all these bonuses I've seen applied in this thread (some of which I would definitely give as DM myself though). For all we know Gaseous Form makes a hissing sound when it moves equalling the sound of the footsteps of your character. Since it doesn't mention any advantage or automatic passing of stealth check, we ought to presume it doesn't do that.

You're quite correct that it doesn't provide a bonus to Stealth checks. What it does do is obfuscate the need for a check at all. You don't need to roll Stealth when the onlooker is incapable of detecting and recognising you as an intruder. It's irrelevant what your Stealth check is if you're in a rat form scuttling down a city street; even if someone notices you, you don't have a giant "I'm a PC" sign floating over your head; why would they care? They see rats all the time. A similar argument can be made for Gaseous Form; a wisp of fog/mist is not an incentive to ring alarm bells unless you see it's actively doing something weird (e.g. swooshing through a keyhole or blatantly moving in the open against a breeze). It's an inconspicuous form.


Hence by my metrics, Monk is top-3 on stealth:


their two main stats (which they both usually max - very rare) are good for what stealth is most often used for on non-rogues: recon
they have more movement speed and movement options that are free to use and stealth penalty free than any other class
they can enhance said movement with Ki (some sub-classes more than others)
the base class has no inherently noisy attacks (no metal or explosions here)
they have no opportunity cost in foregoing armour with Stealth Disadvantage



Points 2 and 3 are the same.
Point 4 is irrelevant; no attack is inherently "noisy" bar those that specifically call it out (e.g. Thunderwave or other spells with V components)
Point 5 is also irrelevant; only those armours that specifically call out disadvantage do so. Wearing Breastplate (as counter-intuitive as it might seem) is just as "stealthy" as being naked. There's literally one armour that offers a single point of better AC at the cost of Stealth Disadvantage and it's Full Plate. Otherwise, if we're looking at Classes/character that want to be stealthy, then Light and Medium armours that don't offer Stealth disadvantage are going to offer equal or better AC to those that do.

So in favour of Monks being stealthy is really just;
- They tend to have good Dex
- They have fast movement and decent movement options

That's not a great list.
- Other Classes that tend to have or desire decent to good Dex include (but is not limited to); Bard, Barbarian, Druid (Wild Shape), Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. Of those, at least two tend to have at least a good Dex as Monk does (Rogue, Ranger), as do others (e.g. Archer Fighter). I think we can discount "good Dex" as a factor that elevates Monk significantly above any other Class.
- Other Classes that offer increased speed and decent movement options include; Bard (Longstrider, Dimension Door), Barbarian (Fast Movement), Druid (Wild Shape), Ranger (Longstrider), Rogue (Cunning Action), Sorcerer (many spells), Warlock (spells), Wizard (spells). Monk is definitely not alone in having good movement and by no means would I consider them top 3 in movement, let alone Stealth. Hell, Monk doesn't even rate that highly on additional movement options until level 9 in the first place; spellcasters have been casting Fly on the regular, long before Monk gets to walk up walls.

Other features the base Monk doesn't have that contribute toward Stealth that feature on other core Classes;
- Expertise (Bard, Rogue)
- Teleportation (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Invisibility (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Alternate Forms/Appearance (Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Miscellaneous Stealth enhancing magic, e.g. Pass without Trace or Enhance Ability (basically every spellcaster)
- Additional Action Economy RE: Hide/Stealth (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue)

This isn't a complete list and nor is it counting features that also enhance Scouting as a whole, either; literally just Stealth. Monk has a decent base-line competence, agreed, but that is far from putting them in the top 3. I hesitate to say it, but I probably judge them closer to the bottom 3 than the top. In no particular order, in Stealth alone, I rank core Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard above core Monk. Barbarian and Fighter are about equal, give or take and the only Classes I rank actively below Monk are Cleric and Paladin (and even then, you can probably still build for about equal, if not better with specific or left-field choices). The point is that Monk isn't actively good at stealth, which isn't to say they're bad either, but they simply don't have anything that makes them good at it compared to other Classes.

[Zuras]

Talking specifically about Tier 1&2, all three of those points can easily be leveled at Shadow Monk.
a) Shadow Monk has just as many consequences of using their features (e.g. if you Shadow Step, you can't Flurry or use Patient Defence). As a rule, a Monk has as many uses for bonus actions and it's arguable that their bonus actions are what define them; Shadow offers competition for Bonus Actions with Shadow Step as well as competition for Actions with Shadow Arts
b) The Ki cost of Shadow Arts is functionally no higher than that of the Lvl.3 and lvl.6 Disciplines (the average Ki cost is 2, whether talking about Shadow or 4E, accounting for those Disciplines that cost 1 and 3). If "infinite Ki" is an issue, then Shadow Monk suffers from the same weakness.
c) It's not like the "Shadow Camp" doesn't elevate the benefits of the likes of Darkness or Silence above that of its actual in-game use.

I'll say it again; the argument isn't that either one is better or worse than the other, or even that one is good; it's that 4E is roughly the same as Shadow because it suffers roughly the same degree of limitations and drawbacks. Regardless of the comparison, Shadow Monk has some very real limitations that seem to be overlooked more often than the limitations of 4E, which seem to boil down to "It doesn't have enough choices" and "It feels too expensive", both of which are entirely subjective. The corollary and query that follows is; given that assertion (i.e. that 4E is comparable to Shadow), why is Shadow seen as being so much better (i.e. considered one of the best Monk subclasses compared to being one of the worst subclasses in the entire game).




The basic argument for why Shadow is better than Four Elements is pretty simple. Both provide additional abilities, but Four Elements provides mediocre combat abilities, interesting but highly situational environmental control, and (at 11th+ level) excellent mobility features. Shadow provides powerful, but situational enhancements to stealth.

The difference (and why Shadow is generally superior) is that situational bonuses to stealth are far more likely to be relevant than situational features that rely on the availability of bodies of water or environmental hazards to throw enemies into. Most of the time adventuring parties have the ability to actively select stealth-based solutions to their problems, whereas the relevance of elemental abilities is entirely up to campaign circumstances (e.g. a nautical campaign is great for Shape the Flowing River, a desert campaign, not so great). Similarly, it's up to the DM whether you encounter a bunch of hobgoblins or a couple of hill giants, but often (say at least half the time) the party can choose if they want to sneak up on them.

[Desteplo]

Thereve been previous posts to give 4 disciplines at lvl3 Like shadow monk gets and let the monk swap as they lvl

Others to just give them 2 at lvl3 dnd 2 more per breakpoints

[Asisreo1]

The basic argument for why Shadow is better than Four Elements is pretty simple. Both provide additional abilities, but Four Elements provides mediocre combat abilities, interesting but highly situational environmental control, and (at 11th+ level) excellent mobility features. Shadow provides powerful, but situational enhancements to stealth.

The difference (and why Shadow is generally superior) is that situational bonuses to stealth are far more likely to be relevant than situational features that rely on the availability of bodies of water or environmental hazards to throw enemies into. Most of the time adventuring parties have the ability to actively select stealth-based solutions to their problems, whereas the relevance of elemental abilities is entirely up to campaign circumstances (e.g. a nautical campaign is great for Shape the Flowing River, a desert campaign, not so great). Similarly, it's up to the DM whether you encounter a bunch of hobgoblins or a couple of hill giants, but often (say at least half the time) the party can choose if they want to sneak up on them.
The combat abilities are only mediocre in comparison to full or half casters. Compared to basic monk abilites, it's nearly impossible to gain these other benefits from something else. Even at lower levels, you've got AoE and the ability to change damage type.

If we're talking exactly tier 1, all your attacks are still nonmagical. This means shadows, imps, bearded devils, wights, specters, Quasits, gargoyles, etc are unable to be hit effectively. I was thinking "There's only firesnakes, thunderwave, and burning hands that lets you attack non-PBS, and two are highly resisted.

Well, looking back. The monsters aren't resistant to nonmagical PBS, they're resistant to PBS attacks by nonmagical Weapons. This means that basically nothing resists WW and UA. So that's more versatility even at tier 1.

At tier 2, you should have a decent idea what you're fighting. If you're doing political intrigue, chances are you're fighting humanoids and should take hold person. If you're fighting elementals at this point, maybe shatter would be good. If you're fighting flying enemies, shatter is also good. It may just be good to have shatter for the long range just in case. Otherwise, you could pick up one of the whips if you don't already have one or thunderwave. If you want to swap, you can swap EA with Flowing River or Gust of Winds. You can upcast at this point meaning your whips can do 4d10 if desired or your smaller AoE like thunderwave can do an extra d8. Would I recommend it for Ki-efficiency sake? No. But if you're more worried about ending the encounter and resting immediately after, you could upcast and keep going with some fuel in your tank.

[Zalabim]

Well, looking back. The monsters aren't resistant to nonmagical PBS, they're resistant to PBS attacks by nonmagical Weapons. This means that basically nothing resists WW and UA. So that's more versatility even at tier 1.
They're not just not weapons/not attacks to use the post errata term. All Elemental Disciplines are magical effects. So if you choose to use WW or FoUA they deal magical physical-type damage, one of the most reliable types of damage.

[Zuras]

The combat abilities are only mediocre in comparison to full or half casters. Compared to basic monk abilites, it's nearly impossible to gain these other benefits from something else. Even at lower levels, you've got AoE and the ability to change damage type.


Having the versatility to drop AoEs can be nice, but whether it’s a worthwhile option (relative to both your build resources and action economy) is dictated by the capabilities of the rest of your party. In a small party it can be great. In a 6 PC group with an Evoker, Tempest Cleric and Land Druid, though, being the #4 AoE option isn’t bringing much to the table.

It’s similar to spellcasters spending build resources (racial choice, feats, level dips, subclass options, etc.) to become competent in melee. A Mountain Dwarf Abjurer wearing Half Plate and wielding a battle axe is objectively better in melee than a Gnome Illusionist without armor. That doesn’t mean they got the same value out of their race and subclass choices, or that the Dwarf is getting good value for their ASIs if they invest them in Strength to improve their axe damage, or that the Dwarf should be using Booming Blade and whacking things in combat rather than casting leveled spells.

Most of the time, the armored Dwarf will prove somewhat less effective than the more traditional squishy wizard Gnome. In a 3 PC party with no back line to speak of, the relative merits of the Dwarven Abjurer are much higher.

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”

[Asisreo1]

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”
Not in my experience. Fullcasters are usually happy that other people are capitalizing on the same opportunities because the damage over the area is increased by alot. Think 1 fireball vs 2 fireballs in a round. The fact that if they need you to monk, you're still able to makes it good, too. You aren't locked out of being a monk.

Would you compare the spellcasting abilities of a paladin to a cleric at equal levels? No, because one doesn't get any features outside of better spellcasting at certain level ups and the whole class is based off of that versus a class that engages the enemy like a martial and has spellcasting to boot.

[JellyPooga]

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”

Because they're not one?

Arguably, you could say the same about basically any Class/Subclass about any other. "Why is that Wizard doing damage to that one guy? The Fighter's got that covered" "Why's the Bard bothering with stealth? Rogue has that down, man." "Psh, sit down Barbarian, Druid's Tanky AF". At the end of the day, regardless of party composition, 4E Monk gaining AoE function is never a bad thing, because when AoE is required, no amount of solo stunning or mobility is going to help.

[MaxWilson]

Having the versatility to drop AoEs can be nice, but whether it’s a worthwhile option (relative to both your build resources and action economy) is dictated by the capabilities of the rest of your party. In a small party it can be great. In a 6 PC group with an Evoker, Tempest Cleric and Land Druid, though, being the #4 AoE option isn’t bringing much to the table.

It’s similar to spellcasters spending build resources (racial choice, feats, level dips, subclass options, etc.) to become competent in melee. A Mountain Dwarf Abjurer wearing Half Plate and wielding a battle axe is objectively better in melee than a Gnome Illusionist without armor. That doesn’t mean they got the same value out of their race and subclass choices, or that the Dwarf is getting good value for their ASIs if they invest them in Strength to improve their axe damage, or that the Dwarf should be using Booming Blade and whacking things in combat rather than casting leveled spells.

Most of the time, the armored Dwarf will prove somewhat less effective than the more traditional squishy wizard Gnome. In a 3 PC party with no back line to speak of, the relative merits of the Dwarven Abjurer are much higher.

While I basically agree with you about Elemonks in an AoE-heavy party, the interesting thing about this analogy with heavy armor is that defensive options (like heavy armor) at most valuable when everybody in the party has them, while offensive choices like AoE don't require that. If you have three guys in the party with AC 23 and one guy with AC 12, the party still has to be concerned about goblin shortbows unless they leave the AC 12 guy out of the scenario by somehow splitting the party.

Sure, the AC 12 guy can hide behind total cover and be fairly safe, or maybe the AC 23 guys can attract more attention and be a "front line" as you say, or hold a chokepoint against melee monsters that the AC 12 guy can stay behind, but they can't just wade into a horde of hobgoblins with impunity the way a pure AC 23 party can.

Similar things are true of highly-mobile parties, or all-Alert parties where somebody is concentrating on Darkness or Fog Cloud.

In contrast, an AoE-heavy party will still kill hordes almost as efficiently with 3 AoEs as with 4. If there's already an Evoker, Tempest Cleric, and Land Druid in the party, I'd probably play a Goblin Shadow Monk instead of an Elemonk, so that the party can ~always win surprise even if the Land Druid has 16 conjured wolves or whatnot.

[Zuras]

Would you compare the spellcasting abilities of a paladin to a cleric at equal levels? No, because one doesn't get any features outside of better spellcasting at certain level ups and the whole class is based off of that versus a class that engages the enemy like a martial and has spellcasting to boot.

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

[Asisreo1]

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

A paladin has Lay on Hands, so they don't particularly need to focus on healing spells. Although, it wouldn't hurt for a paladin to pick one up in case you're the one that gets put down.

Besides, Healing and damage are different by the fact that going from 0 to 1 is enough to get back into a fight while doing alot of damage over multiple enemies at once is valuable.