Should MAD classes get additional ASIs?

[Saelethil]

Should MAD classes get additional ASIs?

That's about it.

Casters really only need to give much attention to 1.5 abilities, their casting stat and con. of course they should probsbly pay attention to more but it makes sense for them to get the baseline ASI distribution but Martials are all MAD to some degree and the ones that could get away with only focusing on 1 stat are the ones that get extras.

Fighters presumably get a few more so they can round out their kit or specialize via feats.
Rogues presumably get more so that they can be better at their skills.

Monks could benefit a lot from a couple more ASIs to round up their Con. and Wis. They're already expected to be in melee with a d8 hit die so give them the option to have a few more hit points and improve their Ki save DC.
Paladins probably don't need much help but they could probably do with an extra that would theoretically go to Cha. or Con.
Rangers need more help than ASIs can give but giving them a couple more to improve their spell save DC wouldn't be ridiculous.
Barbarians might as well get an extra at some point as well for Dex., Con., or a feat in late game to add some variety.

But Monks? Should probably get an extra at 6, 10, and 14. They're already fighting uphill and they need 3 stats to be at least decent if they want to take advantage of the playstyle they are sold. I feel like they should be able to boost them.

I know this probably looks like another Monk rant (probably becasue they are what got me thinking about this) but all martials struggle to keep up with casters at high level and I feel like this might help a little.

[KillingTime]

I can definitely se an argument for giving Ranger and Monk the same ASI progression as Rogue.

[Warder]

I think the proper way to "fix" this is to make every class MAD, or rather make all stats useful for all classes. But that requires ripping out a lot more of 5e's core rules, so I don't think that's very viable. There should be meaningful choices involved in character creation and levelling up, and whereas I'm all for more opportunities for stats and feats, just giving more ASIs to classes that are more MAD focuses on fixing the wrong issue, imho. That's a step away from meaningful choices, if you can have it all.

[diplomancer]

Interesting; that's probably the easiest way to fix a "weak" class, specially in a game with feats; just give it more ASIs.

[DarknessEternal]

Paladins are already one of the strongest classes.

Monks and Rangers could certainly use the help and Barbarians are pure garbage.

[JNAProductions]

Paladins are already one of the strongest classes.

Monks and Rangers could certainly use the help and Barbarians are pure garbage.

I agree to your first point.

I don't necessarily agree to your second point, on Monks and Rangers. Monks are pretty good, but could use a little more flavorful picks (since you really do want two maxed stats and one good stat) and Rangers just kinda need an overhaul entirely.

But the last point... What makes you think Barbarians are garbage?

[OldTrees1]

Monks and Rangers do not need extra ASIs.

Paladin is not MAD. Paladin can use multiple abilities, but it does not require them. If a class (Monk) becomes MAD, redesign them to not be dependent on multiple abilities. Instead have the designed so they can, but don't have to, take advantage of multiple abilities.


Basically imagine a Monk with 16 Dex, 12 Wis, one with 14 Dex, 14 Wis, and one with 12 Dex, 16 Wis. How would you design the Monk class so those are all valid options for a Monk?

[DarknessEternal]

But the last point... What makes you think Barbarians are garbage?
Only the first 2 levels of Barbarian have any reason to exist. After that, there is nothing Barbarians offer that isn't performed better by something else. And I do mean everything at once, not just piecemeal bits.

[Dork_Forge]

No, because that detracts from the balance of them being MAD to begin with.

Perfect example: Paladins are an excellent class only somewhat held back by being MAD, if you gave them additional ASIs they'd firmly sit in OP territory.

[OldTrees1]

Only the first 2 levels of Barbarian have any reason to exist. After that, there is nothing Barbarians offer that isn't performed better by something else. And I do mean everything at once, not just piecemeal bits.

Huh. I am usually one of the harsher critics of class features being lacking, but I see Totem Warrior or Ancestral Guardian Barbarians as being mostly fine through 11th level (with 7th and 9th as dead levels).

[Dork_Forge]

Only the first 2 levels of Barbarian have any reason to exist. After that, there is nothing Barbarians offer that isn't performed better by something else. And I do mean everything at once, not just piecemeal bits.

What's wrong with fast movement or feral instinct? They're both solid abilities, with the former being even better since it comes alongside extra attack.

[Catullus64]

I think it's not outrageous to consider giving an extra ASI to Monks and Rangers. If I had to say when, probably at Level 10 for both, which is around where I think their relative effectiveness starts to taper off. No more than that, though.

Paladins are perfectly fine. Crucially, even though Paladins want good Charisma in addition to primarily boosting Strength or Dexterity, they don't necessarily need to boost it all that much. Charisma's impact for Paladins (not counting the odd Oath feature) is the following:


Multiclassing Requirement
Number of uses for Divine Sense & Cleansing Touch
Number of spells prepared
Spell save DC and spell attack rolls
Aura of Protection bonus


A Paladin who leaves his or her Charisma at 14 will still be able to make great use of those features. Divine Sense and Cleansing touch are not cornerstones of the class, Oath Spells mean that Paladins have no shortage of prepared spells, and Paladins tend not to cast many spells with saving throws or spell attack rolls. Only Aura of Protection will lag a bit, but even at a small bonus that feature is still amazing. A Paladin with low Charisma will suffer far less than a Monk with low Wisdom.

Barbarians are not only fine, but I wouldn't even call them much of a MAD class at all. They need Strength, and they want a decent Constitution just like anybody else (although they are rewarded for having it high). Any Dexterity they have is really just gravy; a Barbarian doesn't tank with his AC, but with his HP. (Unless, that is, it's a Barbarian of the Path of the Wardancer, my new homebrew up for critique on the Homebrew sub-forum. Or so I hear.)

[verbatim]

I think giving all of the non-magic martials (Monk, Barbarian, rouge/fighter already have this) an ASI at level 10 would be a more consistent pattern and help two classes that are often perceived to be lacking in tier 3 and tier 4 by the powergaming community.

This is probably not the first "solution" most people would pick for buffing the classes, but I think it's among the simplest, which is a point in its favor imo.

[Tanarii]

No. Monks are one of the better classes in the game, they don't need a boost.

[mr_stibbons]

Monks are the worst class in the game by a good margin and need all the help they can get.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. Monks are one of the better classes in the game, they don't need a boost.


Monks are the worst class in the game by a good margin and need all the help they can get.

Ok, the juxtaposition of these two adjacent comments makes me smile.

[Catullus64]

Ok, the juxtaposition of these two adjacent comments makes me smile.

I may be a relative young'un around here, but I think that just completed the set for me of seeing every class called the worst class in the game. Do I win a prize?

Checks scorecard. Nope. Still waiting on Clerics.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I may be a relative young'un around here, but I think that just completed the set for me of seeing every class called the worst class in the game. Do I win a prize?

Checks scorecard. Nope. Still waiting on Clerics.

Well, this is close?


And I'd happen to agree. From a pure narrative perspective, I think the cleric is the worst-designed class in the game. The template of the cleric class and its subclasses really, really hurt the narrative possibilities of the class. There's absolutely no reason for every cleric subclass to mechanically have the same level 1 (domain spell and perhaps some heavy armor/martial weapon spice?), 2 (channel divinity option), and 8 (cantrip/weapon attack bonus) subclass features, but they do.

Of course, no one talks about underrated cleric subclasses from a narrative perspective, since they're all pretty samey. And even from a mechanical perspective, there's Trickery and... that's about it. Even though I think that Trickery isn't as underrated as people think, from both ends.

It's the worst at something?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

After thinking about this question a bit my answer is a hard no. Reason being: the Paladin. We've had Paladins in every single campaign we've run in 5e, and every one has been different. Different fighting styles, subclasses, and (pertinent to this discussion) ASI/Feat progession. That's a well designed class. The decisions a player makes as they level are meaningful and difficult. Whether they lean into Chr, attack stat, or Feats (and in what combination) a unique and viable character will emerge.
So I'd say if other classes don't have these meaningful choices to make as they level (that can make a solid character regardless of choice), then the last thing that should be done is to eliminate the decision. Yes, it'd be easy, but it doesn't make for the variation that we've seen in Paladins at our table. Fix something else to make a variety of options.

[Tanarii]

Ok, the juxtaposition of these two adjacent comments makes me smile.
Yeah I laughed pretty hard too. :smallamused:

[Selion]

I think the proper way to "fix" this is to make every class MAD, or rather make all stats useful for all classes. But that requires ripping out a lot more of 5e's core rules, so I don't think that's very viable. There should be meaningful choices involved in character creation and levelling up, and whereas I'm all for more opportunities for stats and feats, just giving more ASIs to classes that are more MAD focuses on fixing the wrong issue, imho. That's a step away from meaningful choices, if you can have it all.

I could see int wis and cha used as base spellcasting abilities:
Int of spells known
Wis for spell slots
Cha for spell power (metamagic)
I would still keep the DC scaling locked to classes, with additional benefits coming from other abilities.

[mmcgeach]

I've toyed with giving characters a Feat AND an ASI at certain levels; which has sort of the same effect of forcing characters to take an ASI even when they'd have otherwise taken a feat.

The other idea I had was giving certain classes a +2 to their lowest of their still-useful-but-not-primary stats. Like, for a Fighter maybe the lowest of their STR, DEX, CON. Or for a Rogue the lowest of their INT, CON, WIS. Etc.

I feel like I want to fix things with various classes, but I have issues with every class at some level (like, I wish the Wizard subclasses felt more like specialists of various magic schools), and fixing everything mostly leads to power increases across the board. Which is potentially ok, but makes encounter design more challenging.

[Gtdead]

I don't think more ASIs will make any difference in this particular case (although it would be nice to have them). The reason is that even MAD classes really key off a single stat and everything else is a lesser boost, which makes the decision between feats and ASIs heavily skewed in favor of feats.

Essentially the problem is that secondary stats are just not as good, so the MAD class can pretty much ignore them and pick feats that offer a substantial boost to whatever the focus of specialization is.

Some obvious examples would be Barbarian, Monk and Ranger. Each of them requires at least 3 stats to make the most out of their class features, but DEX/STR and CON are always more valuable, which makes them pretty much the same as any other class, for example casters, who need their casting stat + CON. I'd even argue that CON is more useful to casters than to the majority of Martial builds.

You can say that Ranger and Monk have a lot to gain from WIS. But do they really? Some of the Ranger's stronger spell options are not tied to WIS, and Monk's stunning strike loses momentum fairly quickly due to the ramping up of CON saves.

Also in both cases, focusing on the secondary stat naturally increases the need for resource expenditure, which is very counterproductive, considering that resources are finite and finding alternatives is usually the better deal. A lot of caster builds pick telekinetic for this particular reason, so they can do something without having to spend slots.

If these abilities were so awesome that really turned the tide of the battle, then we would see more builds where these classes focused on WIS>DEX and giving them an extra ASI or two would make a huge difference in the playstyle. But we don't see it very often.

And yes, stunning strike can be a DM's nightmare, with a lot of evidence to back it up, but I don't think that this was due to prioritizing WIS.

TLDR: Giving extra ASIs will allow the builds to become stronger, but chances are that they will do that by adding more feats and ignoring secondary stats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TLDR: Giving extra ASIs will allow the builds to become stronger, but chances are that they will do that by adding more feats and ignoring secondary stats.

I'll note that this is exactly what happens with fighters--they have tons of ASIs, but (generally) spend them all on making them even better at fightering. And then complain about not having any out-of-combat abilities or defenses...when they spent all their choices laser-focused on doing more damage. It's all a consequences of the optimization/combat difficulty arms race mentality.

[Gtdead]

I'll note that this is exactly what happens with fighters--they have tons of ASIs, but (generally) spend them all on making them even better at fightering. And then complain about not having any out-of-combat abilities or defenses...when they spent all their choices laser-focused on doing more damage. It's all a consequences of the optimization/combat difficulty arms race mentality.

Yea, the focus on most Fighter builds is too one dimensional but I can't really fault the players who do this because these feats are so damn efficient. GWM offers damage, PAM offers a reliable bonus action and increases the chances to use the reaction dramatically. At this point they are no brainers. However it's kind of sad to see even archery BMs with precision strike to just mindlessly boost DEX up to level 8. They could take a step back and at least consider a utility/support feat at lvl 6.

[jas61292]

Yeah, as others are saying extra ASIs will never make people boost secondary stats when feats are an option (except maybe monks). And also, feats will rarely be used to expand a characters depth when combat feats are an option. Its a nice idea, but it would really require a separation of ASIs and feats (or at the very least ASIs and combat feats) for it to be meaningful in the slightest.

[Pex]

I think the proper way to "fix" this is to make every class MAD, or rather make all stats useful for all classes. But that requires ripping out a lot more of 5e's core rules, so I don't think that's very viable. There should be meaningful choices involved in character creation and levelling up, and whereas I'm all for more opportunities for stats and feats, just giving more ASIs to classes that are more MAD focuses on fixing the wrong issue, imho. That's a step away from meaningful choices, if you can have it all.

The better way is to make all classes SAD or perhaps DAD - Dual Ability Dependent. Another way is to have the main Class be SAD and player choice of subclass to determine what one other ability score is relevant. Every Class being MAD makes everyone equal, but they're equally miserable.


I'll note that this is exactly what happens with fighters--they have tons of ASIs, but (generally) spend them all on making them even better at fightering. And then complain about not having any out-of-combat abilities or defenses...when they spent all their choices laser-focused on doing more damage. It's all a consequences of the optimization/combat difficulty arms race mentality.

They're not wrong. Not all feats are for combat. A Fighter could spend a feat on Skilled, and it would be worth it if the DM encourages skill use. A Fighter needs ST and/or DX and CO. Why should he make himself extra MAD by taking Actor? If he spends the allotment on ASI, what good is +2 IN or CH? It's not about optimization, or maybe it is a little but it's not blasphemy. Plus 1 on all knowledge skills is not useless, but it's still highly dependent on the emphasis the DM makes. If the Wizard is covering it anyway the Fighter doesn't need to. The player is right to feel he needs something more to be worth it. Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior have class features dependent on IN, so players of those subclasses will spend an ASI on +2 IN. The bonus to Knowledge checks is a side effect.

[Gurgeh]

Also a problem with 5e treating an ASI as a full level's worth of feature - so any ASI level is effectively a dead level in terms of class identity. The Fighter really suffers from a lack of flavour progression because of the sheer number of levels where they get something useful but utterly flavourless.

[Tanarii]

If the Wizard is covering it anyway the Fighter doesn't need to.
This is a DM problem.

[Hytheter]

No. Monks are one of the better classes in the game, they don't need a boost.

I have to say this is a pretty hot take. The most charitable thing I've seen said of monks before now is probably "they aren't actually that bad."

[Gurgeh]

tbf the Monk has a lot of 3.X baggage to shake off. I wouldn't call 5e's take particularly powerful, but I would call it fit for purpose, which is more than you can say for the older incarnations of the class.

[Pex]

This is a DM problem.

Could be, but that still doesn't make the player wrong for not wanting to spend ASI on non-fightery things.

[Angelalex242]

I could've sworn I wasn't the only one playing max Charisma Paladins and leaving Str at 16 (and con at 14) till gloves or a belt comes along.

I prefer my Paladins to have Charisma 20, or even 22 if I manage to play the right adventure to get the Charisma Book.

...I also tend to play Oath of Ancients defensively, despite leaving con at a humble 14 the entire time...and not even using an amulet of health cause I can't be bothered to lose the attunement slot to something so meager as a +4 to con.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Could be, but that still doesn't make the player wrong for not wanting to spend ASI on non-fightery things.

Hmm. Define "fightery things" as combat only. Then complain that you don't have anything to do outside of combat but refuse to use the tools you were given to gain such things, because that's not fightery. Sounds rather like a self-inflicted wound to me.

[Gtdead]

I could've sworn I wasn't the only one playing max Charisma Paladins and leaving Str at 16 (and con at 14) till gloves or a belt comes along.

I prefer my Paladins to have Charisma 20, or even 22 if I manage to play the right adventure to get the Charisma Book.

...I also tend to play Oath of Ancients defensively, despite leaving con at a humble 14 the entire time...and not even using an amulet of health cause I can't be bothered to lose the attunement slot to something so meager as a +4 to con.

I'd say that Paladin is kind of an oddball, and that's thanks to good design. Conquest and Devotion for example gain much from prioritizing CHA because their features are strong and scale well with it, while Vengeance will most likely prioritize STR and GWM because his unique feature is offensive advantage.

I too prefer prioritizing CHA on Paladins and my goto feat for a Vhuman build is alert.

[Pex]

Hmm. Define "fightery things" as combat only. Then complain that you don't have anything to do outside of combat but refuse to use the tools you were given to gain such things, because that's not fightery. Sounds rather like a self-inflicted wound to me.

The player gets four skill proficiencies to use for non-combat stuff. Even "fightery" Athletics is good for non-combat use such as climbing building walls to reach windows. The player can still choose to be proficient in Persuasion despite only having a 10 CH. After all, DMs aren't supposed to make everything DC 20, right? The Background feature can be used as well. Urchin can mean the player knows how to travel a city without being seen. Criminal gets him an audience with the local gang leader without being accosted. Noble allows him to socialize with high society who would never speak to the filthy urchin bard despite his expertise in persuasion. Outlander with Survival and maybe Animal Handling and he can keep the party safe from normal animal predators while they travel the forest. He doesn't need to spend ASI on non-fightery things. What the player is really criticizing is the lack of a Fighter button to push that directly affects a non-combat thing. If the player doesn't realize what he can do with background and skills out of combat that has no bearing on his not spending ASI on non-combat stuff.

[Tanarii]

Could be, but that still doesn't make the player wrong for not wanting to spend ASI on non-fightery things.
True. And as you say, background feature and skills can give a Fighter plenty to do for non-fightery things. Including Int or Cha checks, at least in a limited scope based on proficiencies.

[Warder]

The better way is to make all classes SAD or perhaps DAD - Dual Ability Dependent. Another way is to have the main Class be SAD and player choice of subclass to determine what one other ability score is relevant. Every Class being MAD makes everyone equal, but they're equally miserable.

Miserable? I mean different strokes for different folks, but that's the complete opposite of what I feel. I'll point to 5eNeedsDarksun's answer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25154015&postcount=19) above to explain why, because it sums up my stance really well. I don't feel like I'm missing out by not being able to max out all relevant stats as a paladin. I feel like I'm specializing in the things that are important to me, and by extension, I'm building my character into a different paladin than what a friend might. Most classes don't get that luxury, and I think it's a shame.

[elyktsorb]

Eh, maybe? I feel like it's definitely waay more class dependent than just the madness of them. I mean as someone who likes to play monk I'd definitely enjoy more asi's.

Also can we give monks wis saving throw proficiency out of the gate instead of str? Like, if you stay monk most of they way you'll have both, chances are if your doing a dex monk, your str saving throw is gunna be bad anyway, so why not let it have the wisdom saving throw it'll get more use out of.

[Gtdead]

It's important to remember that it doesn't matter if a class is SAD or MAD, these are just terms coined to describe a class but they don't define it. What matters is the actual value that the stat brings to the class. For example, after all this time, people still ask for help in optimizing STR based Clerics. This stat does nothing for the class, yet a lot of people think that they have to raise it. Does this make Clerics MAD? I mean, most of the subclasses get heavy armor/martial weapons and divine strike, so naturally there is a clear connection between STR and the class features.

On the other hand, both Paladin and (DEX) Ranger have a similar degree of MADness, but a CHA Paladin is perfectly fine while a WIS Ranger not so much IMO.

Comparing Devotion to Vengeance is telling. They have different action economy, their unique features scale with different stats and their spell lists work well to accentuate the differences. So you can have a CHA Devotion which is as effective as a STR Vengeance, and while they have a lot of overlap, they have enough differences to feel like specializing.

Rangers don't really have that luxury. STR rangers need 14 DEX and as much CON as they can get, so they can't really get high WIS. DEX rangers on the other hand don't really have any feature to leverage with a high WIS build. The Tasha's classes tried to do something with WIS, but one is an on-hit effect and the other is a skill bonus and a situational reaction. Better than nothing, but hardly a reason to go heavy on the stat and create a build out of it.

[Person_Man]

My preference is to give all players enough points that they can have at least two high ability scores without having to completely dump everything else. That basically resolves the MAD problem, without “punishing” SAD classes.

Alternatively, I think its fine to give the Ranger, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, and Paladin an additional ASI or two at high levels, to help balance the fact that they don’t get high level spells. But I wouldn’t consider it at low-mid levels, when classes are already jam packed with abilities.

[Yakk]

No, MAD classes shouldn't be patched up with more ASIs.

If they don't have enough oomph or scaling compared to SAD classes, just make them scale faster or add more oomph.

If anything, the problem is the lack of good feats to make spellcasters better at spellcasting, and the narrow set of good feats that make weapon users better at weapons. By "good" I mean "is in serious competition to boosting your primary spellcasting or attack stat".

For weapon users, you have XBE, SS, GWM and PAM. Almost every other feat, you'd be better off boosting your attack stat simply because +1 to hit and +1 to damage on every tap is pretty strong. (I mean, there is also Elven Accuracy and Revenant Blade)

Like take a double shortsword character with twf style at level 4. Baseline, they have +5 to hit for 1d6+3 damage (13)

+2 attack stat gives +6 to hit for 1d6+4 damage (15). Getting dual wielder feat upgrades them to longswords or rapiers, for +5 to hit for 1d8+3 damage (15) and +1 AC and quick draw of both swords.

If you are a dex based character, you gain quick draw, and lose +1 to hit, +1 to dex saves, +1 initiative (the AC is a wash) and +1 to a bunch of dex(skill) checks. On, and slightly larger crit damage.

The only reason you should grab DW before maxing Dex is because you don't have the choice.

[JackPhoenix]

Also can we give monks wis saving throw proficiency out of the gate instead of str? Like, if you stay monk most of they way you'll have both, chances are if your doing a dex monk, your str saving throw is gunna be bad anyway, so why not let it have the wisdom saving throw it'll get more use out of.

No, but you could argue for getting Wis instead of Dex. Both Dex and Wis are "strong" saves that come up more often. Every class starts one strong (Dex, Con, Wis) and one weak (Str, Int, Cha) save.

[Dork_Forge]

Eh, maybe? I feel like it's definitely waay more class dependent than just the madness of them. I mean as someone who likes to play monk I'd definitely enjoy more asi's.

Also can we give monks wis saving throw proficiency out of the gate instead of str? Like, if you stay monk most of they way you'll have both, chances are if your doing a dex monk, your str saving throw is gunna be bad anyway, so why not let it have the wisdom saving throw it'll get more use out of.

JackPhoenix addressed the reason why you can't have Dex and Wis, but I just wanted to voice my confusion over 'your str saving throw is going to be bad anyway.' This is a notion I've seen on the forum a lot, that proficiency apparently means little to nothing without a strong mod behind it.

That's just confusing, a bad saving throw is something that you have a negative, a zero, or maybe a plus one in. Just by having proficiency a save will clear most of those out of the gate and will definitely clear all of them by 5th level.

What would you consider a bad save, medium save, and good save in term of bonuses?

[Pex]

Miserable? I mean different strokes for different folks, but that's the complete opposite of what I feel. I'll point to 5eNeedsDarksun's answer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25154015&postcount=19) above to explain why, because it sums up my stance really well. I don't feel like I'm missing out by not being able to max out all relevant stats as a paladin. I feel like I'm specializing in the things that are important to me, and by extension, I'm building my character into a different paladin than what a friend might. Most classes don't get that luxury, and I think it's a shame.

It does no good to give a PC an ability he can't use. It's a dead level. The specialization you want is better served as subclasses. Individual subclasses can each prefer a different ability score, and let the player choose which one he wnts to focus on. It's not player choice when he's forced to have an ability but can't use it because he had to put his 8 somewhere.

[Dork_Forge]

It does no good to give a PC an ability he can't use. It's a dead level. The specialization you want is better served as subclasses. Individual subclasses can each prefer a different ability score, and let the player choose which one he wnts to focus on. It's not player choice when he's forced to have an ability but can't use it because he had to put his 8 somewhere.

What are you actually referring to here or is this just really abstract?

The thread seems to be the Paladin, and having them rely on two stats seems just fine as it allows you to gear it how you want or go to the wall and max both, with the penalties that will come with that power.

Your example of the 8 having to go somewhere doesn't really make much sense, there's 6 ability scores, if you can't find one to reasonably put an 8 in then your character concept is as MAD as possible, and likely involves heavy multiclassing or just player preference for high stats in non mechanically relevant areas.

[mr_stibbons]

No, but you could argue for getting Wis instead of Dex. Both Dex and Wis are "strong" saves that come up more often. Every class starts one strong (Dex, Con, Wis) and one weak (Str, Int, Cha) save.

Starting a class with two strong saves doesn't seem more unusual than a barbarian having a unique hit die higher than other martial classes or rogues starting with 4 skills instead of 2. Would it be a notable strength of the class? Sure, but being very resilient to saves is in the monk's thematic and historical wheelhouse. It won't break the game in two, especially since monks have worse hp than other melee classes.

[Dork_Forge]

Starting a class with two strong saves doesn't seem more unusual than a barbarian having a unique hit die higher than other martial classes or rogues starting with 4 skills instead of 2. Is it a notable strength of the class? Sure, but being very resilient to saves is in the monk's thematic and historical wheelhouse. It won't break the game in two, especially since monks have worse hp than other melee classes.

There's no reason to break that mold, it's an unnecessary buff to the class. Your examples don't really fit either:

-there's already a sliding die scale for class hit die, there's only one class with a D12, but there's only 2 with a D6, it's the same system/scale

-two skills is not the universal rule, it's the base number. Rogue goes higher with four, but Bard also goes higher with three, even letting you pick whatever you want

All of those things exist within their ruleset, the strong/weak save dynamic is unbroken by any class and would be a significant power boost to the Monk.

[mr_stibbons]

There's no reason to break that mold, it's an unnecessary buff to the class. Your examples don't really fit either:

-there's already a sliding die scale for class hit die, there's only one class with a D12, but there's only 2 with a D6, it's the same system/scale

-two skills is not the universal rule, it's the base number. Rogue goes higher with four, but Bard also goes higher with three, even letting you pick whatever you want

All of those things exist within their ruleset, the strong/weak save dynamic is unbroken by any class and would be a significant power boost to the Monk.

I'm on record as believing that Monks are in need of a significant power boost, and don't buy your arguments that getting a wis save proficiency is out of line. Just because there are currently no exceptions to the rule that classes get one strong and one weak save doesn't mean that if an exception existed, it would be a massive power boost.

Even among strong saves, they aren't all equal. Many people for instance feel that a sorcerer is better off than a wizard by having a con save instead of wis save as their "good" save. So there is a "sliding scale" of save values. Besides, several classes and subclasses do pick up extra save proficiencies as they level, and you can always take feats, so there is precedent that characters can have proficiency in multiple strong saves.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm on record as believing that Monks are in need of a significant power boost, and don't buy your arguments that getting a wis save proficiency is out of line. Just because there are currently no exceptions to the rule that classes get one strong and one weak save doesn't mean that if an exception existed, it would be a massive power boost.

Between proficiency and the above average to good Wis of a Monk, it would make them incredibly difficult to stick with Wis save effects, which the game shifts to pretty heavily as levels go up.

And I feel that it's worth mentioning that said rule is a core principle of how the classes were designed across the board. We've received one post launch class, and it still upheld that design framework.

Will the game fall apart if you change it? Probably not, but it is a meaningful defense boost and depending on what you think is wrong with the Monk, probably won't address it.

So where exactly does the Monk fall flat for you?


Even among strong saves, they aren't all equal. Many people for instance feel that a sorcerer is better off than a wizard by having a con save instead of wis save as their "good" save. So there is a "sliding scale" of save values. Besides, several classes and subclasses do pick up extra save proficiencies as they level, and you can always take feats, so there is precedent that characters can have proficiency in multiple strong saves.

Con is highlighted because of concentration, it's more broadly applicable for a caster because of damage triggers. Failing a Wis save is often a good way to lose your concentration too, be it through being incap'd, controlled, or otherwise.

That last part just isn't true:

-There's only two classes that get additional save profs, the Rogue gets Wis and the Monk gets everything. Which just further calls into question why they should get additional save bumps.

-Subclasses I can think of three-ish -- Samurai and Gloom Stalker give Wis at L7 and Transmutation Wizards can get it from their stone, but that's a flexible choice not always on passive. I don't think there's any in Tasha's but I could be wrong about that.

Your point is that classes can have more than one strong save, they can and that was never in question. The point actually is that they only have one strong and one weak from their base proficiencies and anything above that takes design space.

[quindraco]

There's only two classes that get additional save profs, the Rogue gets Wis and the Monk gets everything. Which just further calls into question why they should get additional save bumps.

I think it's the opposite. Since Monks get Wisdom save proficiency anyway at level 14, it simplifies the discussion - giving them Wisdom proficiency instead of Strength proficiency at level 1 only changes Monks from levels 1 to 13. Put another way, we're not discussing giving them a new ability - just an ability they already get, in a different order.

As you mentioned, Gloomstalkers have Str/Dex/Wis by level 7, and Samurai have Str/Con/Wis by level 7. Fighters can also get Wis using their extra ASI at L6, of course. Paladins get +CHA to all saves (including Charisma, so their Charisma saves are +CHAx2 total) at L6. Transmuters have Int/Wis/Con but better at L6, as you also pointed out.

So there's no question having Dex/Wis proficiency (without Str proficiency), in a vacuum, is well within the game's normal limits. You could make the argument this is overpowered at level 1, maybe. But it's a hard sell that it's overpowered at level 6, and WOTC straight-up asserts it's fine by level 14 at the absolute latest for monks.

I agree with Stibbons - giving Monks L1 access to Dex/Wis proficiency would help make up for their deficits in a way that just wouldn't be OP.

[Dork_Forge]

I think it's the opposite. Since Monks get Wisdom save proficiency anyway at level 14, it simplifies the discussion - giving them Wisdom proficiency instead of Strength proficiency at level 1 only changes Monks from levels 1 to 13. Put another way, we're not discussing giving them a new ability - just an ability they already get, in a different order.

As you mentioned, Gloomstalkers have Str/Dex/Wis by level 7, and Samurai have Str/Con/Wis by level 7. Fighters can also get Wis using their extra ASI at L6, of course. Paladins get +CHA to all saves (including Charisma, so their Charisma saves are +CHAx2 total) at L6. Transmuters have Int/Wis/Con but better at L6, as you also pointed out.

So there's no question having Dex/Wis proficiency (without Str proficiency), in a vacuum, is well within the game's normal limits. You could make the argument this is overpowered at level 1, maybe. But it's a hard sell that it's overpowered at level 6, and WOTC straight-up asserts it's fine by level 14 at the absolute latest for monks.

I agree with Stibbons - giving Monks L1 access to Dex/Wis proficiency would help make up for their deficits in a way that just wouldn't be OP.

All of those additionals take design space that they'd get an additional ability for instead if they got it as a base proficiency.

Moving Wis prof down from 14 takes away from Diamond Soul, but let's be real here, Diamond Soul is such a bonkers ability that it's not really hurting for the loss.



This really just raises this question for me:

People that feel the Monk is 'lacking,' is what you're really dissatisfied with their Wis save modifier? Something that is entirely passive and out of the PCs control to make relevant whatsoever? Or is this just a case of 'the Monk needs something' and this is a bump that's filling that something role?

I think that people dissatisfied with the Monk overall that choose to make this change, will still feel that it's lacking and just continue to search for other buff to tack onto the chassis until those pennies starting making pounds.

[mr_stibbons]

This really just raises this question for me:

People that feel the Monk is 'lacking,' is what you're really dissatisfied with their Wis save modifier? Something that is entirely passive and out of the PCs control to make relevant whatsoever? Or is this just a case of 'the Monk needs something' and this is a bump that's filling that something role?

I think that people dissatisfied with the Monk overall that choose to make this change, will still feel that it's lacking and just continue to search for other buff to tack onto the chassis until those pennies starting making pounds.

For monks

-you're a melee only class with less AC and HP than any other pure melee class. Your only baseline option to improve your defences or disengage freely cost you damage and resources. Adding improved saves is a way to give the monk some "durability" in a way that is different from a normal Heavy armour class or barbarian.

-your damage starts falling behind by level 3 when other classes pick up their much more powerful subclasses and falls off a cliff at level 11.

-Your only debuff, while powerful, is going to have a lower DC unless you sacrifice your damage output entirely by neglecting Dex and targets a high save.

-you have no better out of combat utility than any dex fighter. This is not a problem conceptually, but it means all of the above isn't being compensated by other pillars of play.

What is the point? Any other melee class can do more damage and is tougher. You're fast, but an archer or caster can just shoot backline enemies from safety with better damage and more reliable control effects. You can't even compensate for your weak combat stats with utility effects.

How do you fix this? Probably a pretty extensive overhaul. To put my money where my mouth is, I put a rework idea in the homebrew forum https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634883-Monk-Rework. This was, in retrospect, probably too good, but it explains my thoughts about the class.

[Dork_Forge]

For monks

I'll preface this by saying that I think part of the issue here is not properly factoring in subclasses, to a class where subclasses greatly influence play.


-you're a melee only class with less AC and HP than any other pure melee class. Your only baseline option to improve your defences or disengage freely cost you damage and resources. Adding improved saves is a way to give the monk some "durability" in a way that is different from a normal Heavy armour class or barbarian.

The only 'pure melee' class is the Barbarian, the Monk is tied to Melee, but by no means limited at all.

If you go 16s in both Dex and Wis to begin with then you start with a 16AC, ahead of the curve of light armor wearers, and on par with starting gear heavy armor wearers. Some people use shields, they lose a hand to do so. Some people use heavy armor and take penalties for doing so. On the top end the Monk can reasonably hit 18AC and top out at 20 with their core formula. That is more than just okay, that's pretty darn good for a non-shield user, on top of that there's multiple subclass AC boosting options.

You're a d8 class... but if you're playing a melee Monk then you're heavily encouraged to skirmish (because you have a lotttt of options to do so) which helps mitigate that and Deflect Missiles and Evasion go a long way to compensate for that.


-your damage starts falling behind by level 3 when other classes pick up their much more powerful subclasses and falls off a cliff at level 11.

Not really no, the bonus action attack keeps Monks competitive at the very least into mid tier 2, adding damage is something that Monk subclasses can do, but generally that's not what they're intended for. If you're looking for supreme DPR the Monk is not the place for you, and that's okay it does other things. It certainly isn't uncompetitive, but it's hard to compare without an actual example.


-Your only debuff, while powerful, is going to have a lower DC unless you sacrifice your damage output entirely by neglecting Dex and targets a high save.

The Monk has plenty of debuffs, they're just scattered into subclasses like the Open Hand's suite of various debuffs.

Tying Stunning Strike to Wis is good design, it's a very powerful ability and making the Monk MAD helps to make that a reasonable proposition as well as making things more interesting than just being Dex SAD


-you have no better out of combat utility than any dex fighter. This is not a problem conceptually, but it means all of the above isn't being compensated by other pillars of play.

Huh?

-Superior movement speed that later includes vertical and liquid based movement

-ime the added jump distance of Step of the Wind is primarily an environmental obstacle tool, so exploration pillar

- Tongue of the Sun and Moon is roleplay pillar

-Slow Fall feels more exploration than combat

-Timeless Body, primarily roleplay, I guess a little exploration

Then there's all of the non combat stuff built into the various subclasses including: proficiencies, cantrips, spells, magical effects alas 4E monks, Astral Self visage, Mercy healing etc.


What is the point? Any other melee class can do more damage and is tougher. You're fast, but an archer or caster can just shoot backline enemies from safety with better damage and more reliable control effects. You can't even compensate for your weak combat stats with utility effects.

Control, hyper mobility, decent-good damage, wanting to be as dangerous in your underwear as in full gear.

If you want to play a ranged Monk, then just do it. Kensei were always good archers, but after Tasha's they are very good archers. Sun Souls are ranged based on radiant damage at will, which is it's own kind of nice. Ranged Monks have been perfectly viable for years and switch hitting is something Monks can easily excel at.


How do you fix this? Probably a pretty extensive overhaul. To put my money where my mouth is, I put a rework idea in the homebrew forum https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634883-Monk-Rework. This was, in retrospect, probably too good, but it explains my thoughts about the class.

Not one of those things is changing Str to Wis and seeing how much you wish to change I don't see how making that change would really accomplish anything you want.

Reading through your arguments I'm left thinking that you seriously undervalue the contributions of the subclasses and seem to be focused on high DPR as a competitive baseline. If I'm wrong about this, then please let me know what you find competitive.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Reading through your arguments I'm left thinking that you seriously undervalue the contributions of the subclasses and seem to be focused on high DPR as a competitive baseline.

Springboarding off of this (and the other analysis that got snipped)--

The statement "Class X is stronger than class Y at Z" does not inherently imply that class Y needs to get buffed in area Z. To determine that, you'd need an external, non-relative baseline against which to measure both of them. As well as some measure of importance. It could be that class X is the one that is outside the intended balance and should be brought to heel. It could be that area Z just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things and differences there can just be ignored.

Relative measures of performance, absent an agreed-upon, fixed design baseline, are not useful for knowing who should change. And the only fixed baseline[1] presented by the published rules is one that very few here would agree to use, because it's one that all the classes pass with flying colors.

[1] viability under replacement--take a Basic Rules party and swap one member for the class under question. Will that party struggle when presented with a pretty-much-stock 1st-party module where the original party would not have? Effectively using a Quick Build champion fighter, life cleric, thief rogue, and evocation wizard (etc) as your touchpoints. No feats, no particular attempt to optimize races, no magic items other than what's presented in the module.

[mr_stibbons]

I'll preface this by saying that I think part of the issue here is not properly factoring in subclasses, to a class where subclasses greatly influence play.



I don't think factoring in subclasses makes the monk look better. Monk subclasses, as a design principal, are some of the weakest subclasses around, often only providing alternative or slightly more efficient ways to spend your existing resources, where other martial subclasses can provide their own deep pool of resources or powerful "always on" effects. Compare an open hand monk making two creatures fall prone when you use a flurry, to a battle master getting 4d8 extra damage on short rest and the ability to pick from a wider selection of debuffs. Or even a hunter ranger, getting +d8 damage per round via a trivial condition with no resource cost.

Now, this isn't inherently a problem. Different classes have the balance of power between their subclasses and main classes at different points. But the base monk class is not powerful enough to have such weak subclasses. They add options, but require you to spread your already limited resources even thinner.



If you go 16s in both Dex and Wis to begin with then you start with a 16AC, ahead of the curve of light armor wearers, and on par with starting gear heavy armor wearers. Some people use shields, they lose a hand to do so. Some people use heavy armor and take penalties for doing so. On the top end the Monk can reasonably hit 18AC and top out at 20 with their core formula. That is more than just okay, that's pretty darn good for a non-shield user, on top of that there's multiple subclass AC boosting options.

You're a d8 class... but if you're playing a melee Monk then you're heavily encouraged to skirmish (because you have a lotttt of options to do so) which helps mitigate that and Deflect Missiles and Evasion go a long way to compensate for that.


While it depends on the campaign, in my experience Heavy armour users generally have splint before lv4 and plate well before lv8. By the time you hit 12, Magic plate has been a possibility for a while. The monk is playing catchup compared to a non-shield user in heavy armour.

And, a lot of options to skirmish? All of them require you provoking opportunity attacks or spending your limited supply of ki. If you take open hand or Drunken master this is an option while you have points to spend, certainly. Once you're out, though, what are you doing?




Not really no, the bonus action attack keeps Monks competitive at the very least into mid tier 2, adding damage is something that Monk subclasses can do, but generally that's not what they're intended for. If you're looking for supreme DPR the Monk is not the place for you, and that's okay it does other things. It certainly isn't uncompetitive, but it's hard to compare without an actual example.


Bonus action attacks are not hard to come by these days-for instance, anyone can pick up two weapons. A ranger or fighter with the two weapon fighting style and and any subclass that doesn't rely on a conflicting bonus action are doing more damage than the monk. And the fighter is much tougher, and the ranger has much more non-combat utility. The fact that these character types are generally not played in favour of better options says a lot.



The Monk has plenty of debuffs, they're just scattered into subclasses like the Open Hand's suite of various debuffs.

Tying Stunning Strike to Wis is good design, it's a very powerful ability and making the Monk MAD helps to make that a reasonable proposition as well as making things more interesting than just being Dex SAD


Stunning strike is a reasonably powerful tool in the monks kit, but it isn't reliable enough to make monks good at locking down enemies. Making stunning strike better would probably be a bad idea, but I think providing a monk other ways to provide conditions more potent than prone could actually give them a role in combat.



Huh?

-Superior movement speed that later includes vertical and liquid based movement

-ime the added jump distance of Step of the Wind is primarily an environmental obstacle tool, so exploration pillar

- Tongue of the Sun and Moon is roleplay pillar

-Slow Fall feels more exploration than combat

-Timeless Body, primarily roleplay, I guess a little exploration

Then there's all of the non combat stuff built into the various subclasses including: proficiencies, cantrips, spells, magical effects alas 4E monks, Astral Self visage, Mercy healing etc.


Despite claims to the contrary, fighters aren't useless in exploration play. The extra feat slots and various noncombat subclass abilities do give them things to do, they just aren't as good as a dedicated skills class or full caster.

Similarly, the above isn't nothing, but it's pretty underwhelming. Step of the wind lets you make up for your poor strength score, but leaves you at about the same results as a regular strength based class, and tounge of the sun and moon comes at a point when casting tounges as a ritual should be trivial. Slow fall and walking up walls are more useful, but by 9th flight from spells, class features or magic items is a possibility, and grappling hooks and rope has been available since level 1. A monk can certainly contribute in exploration, but you aren't a ranger or rogue, with so much non-combat utility that you can justify your presence despite lacking in raw oomph. Some of the subclasses provide better results, but fighters have subclasses like Rune Knight psi warrior, so my comparison stands.




If you want to play a ranged Monk, then just do it. Kensei were always good archers, but after Tasha's they are very good archers. Sun Souls are ranged based on radiant damage at will, which is it's own kind of nice. Ranged Monks have been perfectly viable for years and switch hitting is something Monks can easily excel at.


I'll be honest-I don't want to play a ranged monk. I picked the martial arts class to beat people up with martial arts, not toss darts or shoot people with a light crossbow. But honestly, no, Kensai are not that great archers, unless you multi class. +d4 damage is worse than the +2 to hit from archery fighting style, and by 6th, other classes that are designed to be archers have picked up more impressive tricks than spending a Ki for an extra die of damage. And have you read sun soul recently? The subclass is awful, even by the low standard of monk subclasses.




Not one of those things is changing Str to Wis and seeing how much you wish to change I don't see how making that change would really accomplish anything you want.

Reading through your arguments I'm left thinking that you seriously undervalue the contributions of the subclasses and seem to be focused on high DPR as a competitive baseline. If I'm wrong about this, then please let me know what you find competitive.

As I said, I feel that rework was too powerful and am not happy with it. I did add some other options to make a monk better at saving throws, because "good at saving throws/NADs" is part of the monk's history and concept that I feel got left behind in 5e.

I don't feel DPR is the be all and end all, though it is easy to compare and spitball because it turns into a nice clean number. I generally look at classes in the four areas I outlined above, and ability to support your party-Are you survivable, through stats, range, or ability to easily disengage, can you do damage on par with other classes, do you have the ability to debuff and control the monsters, and can you provide out of combat utility. I don't require classes do well in all of these areas, but I don't see monks doing well in any of these areas, and that is just not acceptable.

[Pex]

What are you actually referring to here or is this just really abstract?

The thread seems to be the Paladin, and having them rely on two stats seems just fine as it allows you to gear it how you want or go to the wall and max both, with the penalties that will come with that power.

Your example of the 8 having to go somewhere doesn't really make much sense, there's 6 ability scores, if you can't find one to reasonably put an 8 in then your character concept is as MAD as possible, and likely involves heavy multiclassing or just player preference for high stats in non mechanically relevant areas.

And their 10 and their 12. The point stands. I find it bad form to give a power a player can't use. To me it's an inherent design flaw. It is better off for all classes to be SAD, but to get in some variation go for DAD leting the player choose the second ability by being given choices of specialization where each uses a different ability score. That makes it an interesting decision.

[Gurgeh]

Like take a double shortsword character with twf style at level 4. Baseline, they have +5 to hit for 1d6+3 damage (13)
I'm confused - leaving aside the TWF attack (which you seem to have chosen to not describe), isn't the shortsword's damage die 1d4, not 1d6?

EDIT: the 5e d20 srd (https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm) is badly out of date, it seems. Sorry for quibbling without even having the facts correct.

[JNAProductions]

I'm confused - leaving aside the TWF attack (which you seem to have chosen to not describe), isn't the shortsword's damage die 1d4, not 1d6?

It's 1d6. 1d4 is a dagger.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think factoring in subclasses makes the monk look better. Monk subclasses, as a design principal, are some of the weakest subclasses around, often only providing alternative or slightly more efficient ways to spend your existing resources, where other martial subclasses can provide their own deep pool of resources or powerful "always on" effects. Compare an open hand monk making two creatures fall prone when you use a flurry, to a battle master getting 4d8 extra damage on short rest and the ability to pick from a wider selection of debuffs. Or even a hunter ranger, getting +d8 damage per round via a trivial condition with no resource cost.


Generally Monk subclasses either primarily enhance Flurry, give you new options for Ki, or give you at will powers. The Kensei, for example, gives you the ranged damage bump and the AC bump to use without Ki cost in any way.

Your comparison is seriously flawed.

Battle Master requires the creature to fail a typically monster strong save, the Open Hand just knocks them prone on a Flurry hit. One is giving you something else to do, one is enhancing what you can already do. It's apples to oranges and the Battlemaster isn't as straight forward better as you seem to think.

I'm also not sure why you regard prone as a trivial condition, it's a team game and prone can be capitalised on by other party members. At worst you've halved the monster's speed for a round at no real cost to yourself.


Now, this isn't inherently a problem. Different classes have the balance of power between their subclasses and main classes at different points. But the base monk class is not powerful enough to have such weak subclasses. They add options, but require you to spread your already limited resources even thinner.

I touched on this above, but that generalisation doesn't sit right.

The Monk subclass also isn't weak... They're competent at damage, incredibly mobile and can specialise into different things with their subclasses. They have features through out most of their levels and some featurest that have built in scaling.


While it depends on the campaign, in my experience Heavy armour users generally have splint before lv4 and plate well before lv8. By the time you hit 12, Magic plate has been a possibility for a while. The monk is playing catchup compared to a non-shield user in heavy armour.

Yeah vast table differences here, I generally see plate as a thing to happen around level 8. If martials are advancing through armor progression so quickly then there's a serious amount of gold being handed out.

You're including the prospect of magic items for the heavy armor user... but not the Monk? There's at least three different magic items that I can think of off the top of my head that would boost their AC.



And, a lot of options to skirmish? All of them require you provoking opportunity attacks or spending your limited supply of ki. If you take open hand or Drunken master this is an option while you have points to spend, certainly. Once you're out, though, what are you doing?


What are you doing? ...Being out of melee range, that's the whole point of skirmishing. Then next turn you dart in, hit them, and run away again.

Let's get something straight, as a Monk in melee you will be wanting to use Flurry of Blows regardless. Are points being spent? Yes, but they'd have been spent anyway, it's not the same as additional abilities requiring Ki on their own.

-Step of the Wind

-Patient Defense

-Open Hand

-Drunken Monk

-Shadow Monk teleport

-Astral Self reach

-Kensei using a whip




Bonus action attacks are not hard to come by these days-for instance, anyone can pick up two weapons. A ranger or fighter with the two weapon fighting style and and any subclass that doesn't rely on a conflicting bonus action are doing more damage than the monk. And the fighter is much tougher, and the ranger has much more non-combat utility. The fact that these character types are generally not played in favour of better options says a lot.

So it doesn't matter to you that to be competitive in that regard they need to invest a fighting style?

How are they doing more damage? The Monk is doing roughly the same or more at will damage as a TWFing Fighter or Ranger with the style, and can Flurry for an additional attack on top of that...

And the Monk has a lot more mobility and better defenses at range, different classes are different.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about character types, is this a TWF thing? That's generally people having bad perceptions about it, despite it being a perfectly viable option, and a superior option in Tier 1.


Stunning strike is a reasonably powerful tool in the monks kit, but it isn't reliable enough to make monks good at locking down enemies. Making stunning strike better would probably be a bad idea, but I think providing a monk other ways to provide conditions more potent than prone could actually give them a role in combat.

It's a saving throw based ability, none of them are going to be particularly reliable, you take your chance the DM rolls the dice.

And the Monk does do this already, the Mercy Monk heavily features the poisoned condition, the 4E Monk has access to Hold Person.


Despite claims to the contrary, fighters aren't useless in exploration play. The extra feat slots and various noncombat subclass abilities do give them things to do, they just aren't as good as a dedicated skills class or full caster.

What? No where in what I said did I say anything about Fighers. I actually agree with you, I just have no idea why you're bringing this up at all, nevermind in a way that suggests I said something to the contrary.


Similarly, the above isn't nothing, but it's pretty underwhelming. Step of the wind lets you make up for your poor strength score, but leaves you at about the same results as a regular strength based class, and tounge of the sun and moon comes at a point when casting tounges as a ritual should be trivial. Slow fall and walking up walls are more useful, but by 9th flight from spells, class features or magic items is a possibility, and grappling hooks and rope has been available since level 1. A monk can certainly contribute in exploration, but you aren't a ranger or rogue, with so much non-combat utility that you can justify your presence despite lacking in raw oomph. Some of the subclasses provide better results, but fighters have subclasses like Rune Knight psi warrior, so my comparison stands.

If the Monk has a 10 Str, then a Str based character would have to have a 20 Str to make the jumping equal. SotW puts the Monk ahead for a while.

Just because there is another option doesn't invalidate the option the Monk gets. And spending ten minutes ritually casting something you need to prepare/know is outright worse than an always on ability.

Grappling hooks and rope are not the same thing. Spending 3rd level slots and concentration to fly are not the same thing. And again, there being multiple options for something is a good thing, it doesn't invalidate the at will option. You also really shouldn't be inserting magic items into this comparison, it serves no purpose other than stacking the deck against the Monk.

I don't really understand why you're making these comparisons, the Monk can contribute in all pillars. The fact that a lot of it's options are at will makes it fairly good at those things. There being other options does not invalidate the options the Monk has.


I'll be honest-I don't want to play a ranged monk. I picked the martial arts class to beat people up with martial arts, not toss darts or shoot people with a light crossbow. But honestly, no, Kensai are not that great archers, unless you multi class. +d4 damage is worse than the +2 to hit from archery fighting style, and by 6th, other classes that are designed to be archers have picked up more impressive tricks than spending a Ki for an extra die of damage. And have you read sun soul recently? The subclass is awful, even by the low standard of monk subclasses.

Spending Ki to turn hits into misses, passively magic bow, ability to make your bow up to a +3, bonus action bow attacks, the mobility to stay at range and the melee chops to deal with not being in range. How is that not a good archer?

Saying something is awful doesn't make it so, an at will radiant ranged attack with the option to Flurry at range is good. Burning Hands is not a good spell, but making it a bonus action makes it a heck of a lot better. An at will radiant AOE that you can upscale to be a radiant Fireball is damn good.



As I said, I feel that rework was too powerful and am not happy with it. I did add some other options to make a monk better at saving throws, because "good at saving throws/NADs" is part of the monk's history and concept that I feel got left behind in 5e.

Diamond Soul is arguably the best saving throw feature in the game. Yes it's high level, it's powerful enough to warrant being high level.

In the meantime the Monk is MAD into a desirable save and has Evasion, they are still good at saving throws.


I don't feel DPR is the be all and end all, though it is easy to compare and spitball because it turns into a nice clean number. I generally look at classes in the four areas I outlined above, and ability to support your party-Are you survivable, through stats, range, or ability to easily disengage, can you do damage on par with other classes, do you have the ability to debuff and control the monsters, and can you provide out of combat utility. I don't require classes do well in all of these areas, but I don't see monks doing well in any of these areas, and that is just not acceptable.

Monks are survivable, they have tools to easily get out of melee (you just don't like them) and they have excellent defenses for a variety of situations.

They can do damage on par with other classes... Just because you can optimise damage higher doesn't mean they're not competitive.

They have what is widely regarded as one of the, if not the, best debuff abilities in the game, with access to other debuffs through subclasses.

They have out of combat features in the main and subclasses.

TBH I'm not sure what would be good enough to you in any of those areas, your comparisons have been fairly nebulous and imo actually favour the Monk (casting spells or relying on magic items is a win for the passive ability classs...).

So since you like the number factor of DPR, what is a competitive damage number for each Tier? Not the absolute, feat invested optimised, but a reasonable DPR baseline?


And their 10 and their 12. The point stands. I find it bad form to give a power a player can't use. To me it's an inherent design flaw. It is better off for all classes to be SAD, but to get in some variation go for DAD leting the player choose the second ability by being given choices of specialization where each uses a different ability score. That makes it an interesting decision.


If you're going by standard array then there's a 15, 14, and 13 before racials, if you're pushing into needing more than 3 stats higher than +1 then you're incredibly MAD. And at no point is this giving a PC an ability they can't use, I mean even if for some reason you dump your Cha to 8 on a Paladin you can still use all of your abilities: Divine Sense is Cha +1, Aura of Protection is minimum of 1, your casting interfaces with your level and profiency bonus. Then problem you're talking about isn't here and would require frankly intentionally bad building to be a problem even if the option was there.

Your suggestion is just moving things around, the class still needs the same number of stats, having that on every class doesn't seem interesting it just makes the classes more samey. The thing you want already exists, it's just a subclass design that belongs in the SAD classes: Fighter and Rogue.

[Pex]

If you're going by standard array then there's a 15, 14, and 13 before racials, if you're pushing into needing more than 3 stats higher than +1 then you're incredibly MAD. And at no point is this giving a PC an ability they can't use, I mean even if for some reason you dump your Cha to 8 on a Paladin you can still use all of your abilities: Divine Sense is Cha +1, Aura of Protection is minimum of 1, your casting interfaces with your level and profiency bonus. Then problem you're talking about isn't here and would require frankly intentionally bad building to be a problem even if the option was there.

Your suggestion is just moving things around, the class still needs the same number of stats, having that on every class doesn't seem interesting it just makes the classes more samey. The thing you want already exists, it's just a subclass design that belongs in the SAD classes: Fighter and Rogue.

I'm not the one who brought up the idea in the first place that all classes be MAD. That is bad design for me. Paladin can get by right now, and isn't MAD. It's DAD, ST and CH and can even have 14 CO long with it. In fact most 5E classes aren't MAD. Barbarian is if you care about the iconic loin cloth look. If wearing armor then ST and CO all the way, DX is 14. Fighter can be if you care about the iconic musclehead look, but even then some might be willing to forgo DX since they're wearing heavy armor anyway and accept not being so good at archery. DX fighters have the advantage of being good at melee and range without being MAD. Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior need IN, so they have to sacrifice ST or DX. CO is too important for Fighters to ignore, but a few might be willing to pay a feat for Toughness to accept a lower CO than other Fighters. Monks are not MAD - DX and WI. CO 14 is enough.

Actually everyone would be better off if hypothetical 6E divorced hit points from CO and gave everyone decent hit points relative to class. For example, barbarians get 1d12 + 4, fighters, rangers, and paladins 1d10 + 3, everyone else 1d8 + 2 or 1d6 + 2. Put the expected CON modifier into the HD, but this thread derails.

Anyway, I still stand by my point. Don't give a power a player can't use. Give choices of powers.

[Witty Username]

JackPhoenix addressed the reason why you can't have Dex and Wis, but I just wanted to voice my confusion over 'your str saving throw is going to be bad anyway.' This is a notion I've seen on the forum a lot, that proficiency apparently means little to nothing without a strong mod behind it.

That's just confusing, a bad saving throw is something that you have a negative, a zero, or maybe a plus one in. Just by having proficiency a save will clear most of those out of the gate and will definitely clear all of them by 5th level.

What would you consider a bad save, medium save, and good save in term of bonuses?

It depends on level but it is a scaling thing, generally speaking monsters use the same math as characters for DC (8+prof(determined by CR)+relevant mod) because of this you do alright with saves that are in primary stats with proficiency, one or the other stings, and neither will hurt. So generally, prof in a dump stat doesn't help much against on level opponents according to math. That being said being proficient is always better than not.

Note, I don't actually agree that straight proficiency is a bad save, so much as how the math causes the feel bad, even if the effect is minor.

[diplomancer]

I'm not the one who brought up the idea in the first place that all classes be MAD. That is bad design for me. Paladin can get by right now, and isn't MAD. It's DAD, ST and CH and can even have 14 CO long with it. In fact most 5E classes aren't MAD. Barbarian is if you care about the iconic loin cloth look. If wearing armor then ST and CO all the way, DX is 14. Fighter can be if you care about the iconic musclehead look, but even then some might be willing to forgo DX since they're wearing heavy armor anyway and accept not being so good at archery. DX fighters have the advantage of being good at melee and range without being MAD. Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior need IN, so they have to sacrifice ST or DX. CO is too important for Fighters to ignore, but a few might be willing to pay a feat for Toughness to accept a lower CO than other Fighters. Monks are not MAD - DX and WI. CO 14 is enough.

Actually everyone would be better off if hypothetical 6E divorced hit points from CO and gave everyone decent hit points relative to class. For example, barbarians get 1d12 + 4, fighters, rangers, and paladins 1d10 + 3, everyone else 1d8 + 2 or 1d6 + 2. Put the expected CON modifier into the HD, but this thread derails.

Anyway, I still stand by my point. Don't give a power a player can't use. Give choices of powers.

From what I understand, MAD is, originally, a 3E concept. But didn't 3E have more ASIs (or ASIs decoupled from feats, makes no difference)?

I'd suggest that, for the parameters of a 5e game with feats, being MAD means having to use ASIs to raise more than 1 stat; so basically Monks and Paladins (and, to a lesser extent, Barbarians and Rangers, in that they don't NEED to be MAD, but certain Barbarian/Ranger concepts will be very MAD). Raising Con, for pretty much everyone, is a nice bonus, but it's never necessary, and will usually take a back-seat to Feats.

In this paradigm, 5e only has SAD and MAD classes, but no DAD classes. In your paradigm, I'd say that in 5e there are NO MAD classes, only MAD concepts.

[Pex]

From what I understand, MAD is, originally, a 3E concept. But didn't 3E have more ASIs (or ASIs decoupled from feats, makes no difference)?

I'd suggest that, for the parameters of a 5e game with feats, being MAD means having to use ASIs to raise more than 1 stat; so basically Monks and Paladins (and, to a lesser extent, Barbarians and Rangers, in that they don't NEED to be MAD, but certain Barbarian/Ranger concepts will be very MAD). Raising Con, for pretty much everyone, is a nice bonus, but it's never necessary, and will usually take a back-seat to Feats.

In this paradigm, 5e only has SAD and MAD classes, but no DAD classes. In your paradigm, I'd say that in 5e there are NO MAD classes, only MAD concepts.

Of course that is what makes Variant Human so good. Get the feat you really want and still use ASIs. Eat your cake and have it too. Otherwise, yes, even DAD classes have it rough if they want a feat. However, that's more evidence to me that MAD should not be expanded to all classes. Hypothetical 6E needs to separate ASI and Feats. The game can handle it given 5E style feats.

I have mentioned in other threads that I personally find it ideal to have an 18 by 8th level. A non-Variant Human DAD character can't have both be 18 and have a feat using Point Buy. You can have 18/16/feat. Fighter can have 18/18/feat. A 16 isn't great after 8th, but depending what you need it for it might not be so bad. As a Paladin I'd rather have 18 ST 16 CH. Others of course will prefer the other way. It's more important to me to hit my opponent to smite. I'll take the +3 bonus to saving throws, thank the cleric for Bless or do it myself, and get 18 CH at 12th level. Other people may find the saving throws more important. Bless is still there to help hit, and perhaps the bad guys' ACs haven't been so high only having a 16 hasn't been a bother. Obligatory: This is why some people dip Hexblade, so the Paladin only needs CH and never worry about anything.

[elyktsorb]

That's just confusing, a bad saving throw is something that you have a negative, a zero, or maybe a plus one in. Just by having proficiency a save will clear most of those out of the gate and will definitely clear all of them by 5th level.

What would you consider a bad save, medium save, and good save in term of bonuses?

To clarify, when I play a monk, I'm usually dumping Str and Int because I'd rather start with 16 Dex, Wis, and 14 Con. Cha stays at 10 because monks get a smattering of cha stuff, but it's interchangeable with Int.

I also don't define a save as bad, medium, and good. I just go by, reliable, and not reliable.

Dex always feels like a reliable save on a Monk, 16 dex out of the gate, +2 prof, +5 total save.

Strength is a +1, Wisdom is +3, Intelligence -1, Constitution +2, Charisma 0.


And I never really feel like any of my other saves are all that reliable until Diamond Soul, which I think is alright for the most part, your saves outside of the ones you start with aren't usually going to be good. It's just annoying that I'm investing in Wisdom, but it doesn't feel like a reliable save, or even something I get to take advantage of until Stunning Fist happens. And with only 2 skills I can't take advantage of the plethora of Wisdom skills either.

And I'll leave off with the fact that I think most things that require you to make a Str save, are some of the least impactful things for Monk in general.

[Hytheter]

From what I understand, MAD is, originally, a 3E concept. But didn't 3E have more ASIs (or ASIs decoupled from feats, makes no difference)?

In 3rd edition ASIs were every four levels but only increased one Ability by +1, so you functionally only had half as many as now before accounting for feats. Getting multiple high ability scores was therefore more difficult (though this could be supplemented with magic items, which were intended to be more common) and maxing them out was impossible (because no cap existed) so a MAD class could never hope to get its relevant scores as high as a SAD focusing a single stat.

[quindraco]

Monks are not MAD - DX and WI. CO 14 is enough.

If you don't think Monks are MAD, you don't think any class is MAD, and the term has no meaning to you. For the rest of us, the definitionally MAD classes are the ones that need one ability to hit and another ability to set save DCs, so Monk, Ranger, and Paladin for classes, and then specific subclasses in a variety of classes, depending. Also Bladepact Warlocks if they're not Hexblades, which is why all of them are Hexblades.

[OldTrees1]

If you don't think Monks are MAD, you don't think any class is MAD, and the term has no meaning to you. For the rest of us, the definitionally MAD classes are the ones that need one ability to hit and another ability to set save DCs, so Monk, Ranger, and Paladin for classes, and then specific subclasses in a variety of classes, depending. Also Bladepact Warlocks if they're not Hexblades, which is why all of them are Hexblades.

1) Being able to use multiple abilities is not the same as depending on multiple abilities.
Paladin is not dependent on Cha. Sure it can use Cha for its save DCs, but how often do your allies save against Bless? The low Cha Paladin has a negligibly shorter spell list, fewer channel options, and a +1 Aura of Protection.

2) Yes, it is true that 5E on giantitp uses "MAD" when they mean "Depends on 2+ abilities plus some minor Con". There is a special name for that. Dual Ability Dependency is the better descriptor for classes like Monk that rely on 2 abilities. There is a reason why the origin of the concept made a connotation split between (SAD & DAD) vs (MAD).

Pex then goes into analyzing which classes DEPEND on a single, two, or three or more abilities. Remember MAD is about Dependency.

Although Pex is wrong about Eldritch Knight. Like Arcane Trickster the 1/3rd casters don't actually depend on their casting stat. They can follow the Paladin's advice and ignore saves/spell attacks. This is very easy on an Eldritch Knight and doable on an Arcane Trickster (I have tested it in practice with Dun).

[Ertwin]

I may be a relative young'un around here, but I think that just completed the set for me of seeing every class called the worst class in the game. Do I win a prize?

Checks scorecard. Nope. Still waiting on Clerics.

Clerics are the worst class in the game.

[diplomancer]

In 3rd edition ASIs were every four levels but only increased one Ability by +1, so you functionally only had half as many as now before accounting for feats. Getting multiple high ability scores was therefore more difficult (though this could be supplemented with magic items, which were intended to be more common) and maxing them out was impossible (because no cap existed) so a MAD class could never hope to get its relevant scores as high as a SAD focusing a single stat.

Ouch. I can see now exactly why 3e developed those concepts; being MAD did hurt, a lot; I suppose even being DAD was far from ideal.

But I still posit that, for 5e, these concepts have to be updated; there's no reason to even have the DAD concept as distinct from MAD.

I also see people here downplaying the importance of CHA for Paladins, which is really surprising to me; maybe because there are + magic weapons usually available in my games, CHA is primary, STR is secondary, I think.

[mr_stibbons]

Generally Monk subclasses either primarily enhance Flurry, give you new options for Ki, or give you at will powers. The Kensei, for example, gives you the ranged damage bump and the AC bump to use without Ki cost in any way.

Your comparison is seriously flawed.

Battle Master requires the creature to fail a typically monster strong save, the Open Hand just knocks them prone on a Flurry hit. One is giving you something else to do, one is enhancing what you can already do. It's apples to oranges and the Battlemaster isn't as straight forward better as you seem to think.

I'm also not sure why you regard prone as a trivial condition, it's a team game and prone can be capitalised on by other party members. At worst you've halved the monster's speed for a round at no real cost to yourself.

I touched on this above, but that generalisation doesn't sit right.

The Monk subclass also isn't weak... They're competent at damage, incredibly mobile and can specialise into different things with their subclasses. They have features through out most of their levels and some features that have built in scaling.



The battle master can, using a resource that recharges on short rest, do 1d8 extra damage and make a target fall prone if it fails a strength save. The open hand monk can, using a resource that recharges on short rest, make and extra unarmed attack (which can miss) and make the target fall prone if it fails a dex save. There are subtitles, sure. Dex is a better save to target, but the fighter's DC is based on it's primary stat. The monk can get a second save if both attacks hit, but has to make all it's regular attacks first and has a risk of missing both unarmed strikes and not even making the monster roll a save, while the fighter can knock prone on the first strike and get advantage on any other attacks he makes.

The big difference, is that the monk is spending resources that are part of the base monk chassis to do this. A battlemaster's dice are on top of a fighters base abilities. The same applies to spell slots, fighting spirit, runes, psi dice, etc. This means that the gain in character power upon entering the subclass is larger for the fighter. Fighter subclasses make up a bigger part of a fighter's power budget than monk subclasses, that's just the way it is. This means that comparing the classes without subclasses is going to look better for the monk than with subclasses. It's similar with ranger subclasses, which skew more towards passive effects than fighter ones, but still. Ranger subclasses in general add d6-d8 damage per round at no resource cost, and many now have expanded spell lists as well. In general, that's favourable compared to a Kensai's 1 damage per hit, and options to trade damage for ac.

The only reference to a trivial condition in my statement was a hunter ranger's colossus slayer bonus damage being conditional on a target having taken damage. That is, in my experience, going to be active on 95% of turns, unless you are facing huge swarms of weak enemies.

Prone is in my mind, one of the weaker conditions you can inflict- it requires favorable circumstances to take advantage of it. Yes, you can give advantage to melee allies, if they are available, exist, and are between you and the target in initiative. With clever positioning or other slowdown/movement effects, you can sometimes force a melee enemy to waste it's action, but only sometimes. If you can grab the target reliably, it does become a powerful debuff. Otherwise, the monster is going to make it's attacks at full efficiency next turn. It is not trivial, but it's not strong




What are you doing? ...Being out of melee range, that's the whole point of skirmishing. Then next turn you dart in, hit them, and run away again.

Let's get something straight, as a Monk in melee you will be wanting to use Flurry of Blows regardless. Are points being spent? Yes, but they'd have been spent anyway, it's not the same as additional abilities requiring Ki on their own.

-Step of the Wind

-Patient Defense

-Open Hand

-Drunken Monk

-Shadow Monk teleport

-Astral Self reach

-Kensei using a whip



All of these options, save shadow teleports, require to ki function or cut into your damage before 11th level (at which point the monks damage falls off a cliff regardless). Shadow teleports are heavily dependent on the setting of the encounter and/or the willingness of the DM to let you create areas of dim light in the middle of a fight cheaply. You don't have the Ki to use flurry every round until around 10th assuming you don't care about stunning strike or other Ki options (assuming generously two five round fights per short rest), and once you're out, you either use a ranged weapon (which for anyone but Kensai is a serious damage penalty), provoking opportunity attacks, or staying in melee.

I have no conceptual problem with a fragile melee class with limited skirmishing, but it would need to excel at something else, like damage or crowd control, to make it feel worth the risk



So it doesn't matter to you that to be competitive in that regard they need to invest a fighting style?

How are they doing more damage? The Monk is doing roughly the same or more at will damage as a TWFing Fighter or Ranger with the style, and can Flurry for an additional attack on top of that...

And the Monk has a lot more mobility and better defenses at range, different classes are different.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about character types, is this a TWF thing? That's generally people having bad perceptions about it, despite it being a perfectly viable option, and a superior option in Tier 1.


Yes, by character types I mean using Two weapon fighting instead of other weapons. I don't regard selecting the obvious option for a given build as an investment, especially when the monk isn't getting a corresponding increase "for free" or sitting with a comparable character build option unselected. Compare a level 1 monk with a level 1 two weapon fighter and the monk has apparently traded second wind for the utility of not needing conventional weapons. Conceptually, a monk is "locked in" to using the TWF fighting style. The fact that other classes have options is a point in their favour.

As for how the others are doing more damage, we revisit my point about subclasses from the top of this post-monk subclasses do not provide the same amounts of power as fighter or ranger subclasses. This is why I specified "a subclass without a critical bonus action feature" because a bunch of ranger subclasses are anti-synergistic with TWF. The monk can spend Ki to flurry, but the battle master has action surge and four superiority dice that can be used to make extra attacks or boost damage. With the exception of Mercy, monk subclasses do not provide comparable damage benefits.



It's a saving throw based ability, none of them are going to be particularly reliable, you take your chance the DM rolls the dice.

And the Monk does do this already, the Mercy Monk heavily features the poisoned condition, the 4E Monk has access to Hold Person.


Mercy is the best monk subclass by lot because it actually does fix a lot of my complaints. Getting a second debuff that isn't dependent on a target's con is really helpful if you want to debuff, (and by debuffing reliably you don't need to disengage) and the increased ki efficiency at level 11 actually lets it keep up with t3 damage, and you provide a decent amount of healing and excellent condition removal, a meaningful amount of party support. If we were talking about classes in the context of only taking their best subclass or subclasses, I would be singling out monks less. But as a class in general, hiding behind what one outlier subclass can do is dishonest in my mind.

Hold person is a situational spell-it literally can't target most of the monsters in the game.



What? No where in what I said did I say anything about Fighers. I actually agree with you, I just have no idea why you're bringing this up at all, nevermind in a way that suggests I said something to the contrary.

If the Monk has a 10 Str, then a Str based character would have to have a 20 Str to make the jumping equal. SotW puts the Monk ahead for a while.

Just because there is another option doesn't invalidate the option the Monk gets. And spending ten minutes ritually casting something you need to prepare/know is outright worse than an always on ability.

Grappling hooks and rope are not the same thing. Spending 3rd level slots and concentration to fly are not the same thing. And again, there being multiple options for something is a good thing, it doesn't invalidate the at will option. You also really shouldn't be inserting magic items into this comparison, it serves no purpose other than stacking the deck against the Monk.

I don't really understand why you're making these comparisons, the Monk can contribute in all pillars. The fact that a lot of it's options are at will makes it fairly good at those things. There being other options does not invalidate the options the Monk has.


My initial statement was that a monk "did not contribute to other pillars of play more than a dex based fighter". When you respond to that with a laundry list of every non-combat ability in the class, that makes it seem that you feel a monk is significantly ahead of said fighter. If you don't than we do agree. A monk has non-combat abilities, but they are situational, or show up so late that they are unremarkable by the time they arrive. I know balance discussions like to pretend that magic items don't exist, but that is a polite fiction by the mid to late tiers.

When judging utility features, which are often a question of "can at least one person in the party do this thing", it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that the party has acquired a magic item that would let them do said thing, especially if we are talking about a common item or a task that can be accomplished by a range of uncommon items.



Spending Ki to turn hits into misses, passively magic bow, ability to make your bow up to a +3, bonus action bow attacks, the mobility to stay at range and the melee chops to deal with not being in range. How is that not a good archer?

Saying something is awful doesn't make it so, an at will radiant ranged attack with the option to Flurry at range is good. Burning Hands is not a good spell, but making it a bonus action makes it a heck of a lot better. An at will radiant AOE that you can upscale to be a radiant Fireball is damn good.


I'll grant you if the DM is willing to make deft strike trigger Ki-fueled attack, a Kensai is a pretty good archer. I wouldn't be surprised if that is not allowed at a table though.

For the sun soul, your ranged attack has a mere 30ft of range, and has the damage die of a simple weapon until tier 3. I don't know why that needs to be spelled out for you, the entire level 3 ability amounts to learning an above average cantrip and giving your flurry range. You may appreciate burning hands more than I do, but when your only subclass feature is "learn a level 1 spell" without even getting you free casts, it is not good.

[OldTrees1]

Ouch. I can see now exactly why 3e developed those concepts; being MAD did hurt, a lot; I suppose even being DAD was far from ideal.

But I still posit that, for 5e, these concepts have to be updated; there's no reason to even have the DAD concept as distinct from MAD.

I also see people here downplaying the importance of CHA for Paladins, which is really surprising to me; maybe because there are + magic weapons usually available in my games, CHA is primary, STR is secondary, I think.

For extra context about 3E SAD, DAD, MAD:
It was reasonable for a 10th level character to have ASIs of
SAD: +8 => for a 26
DAD: +6/+4 => for a 22/20
MAD: +4/+4/+2/+2 => for a 18/18/16/16
5E doesn't really have MAD anymore. They do have DAD and the ability score caps technically decrease the difference between SAD and DAD, but not enough to be worth talking about.

I can understand why you would posit using "MAD" to talk about "DAD" in 5E. I can understand that. However we also need to remember that it was talking about Dependency. Some classes with secondary abilities are not DAD/MAD.

It depends on how you play the Paladin. Out of the box the Paladin could be STR SAD if you are going for a Holy Warrior. If you are going for an Auradin then you need to reach 6th level, however a 6th+ level Auradin could be CHA SAD because they don't really care about attacking with their actions. For Paladins that want to split the difference they can spec into STR/CHA or CHA/STR.

I play Paladin as CHA SAD that can use STR. You use it as a CHA/STR. Others use it as STR/CHA or even STR SAD.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: for monsters (not PCs), Dex is a weaker save than STR (average modifier of 2.2 vs 2.5).

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not the one who brought up the idea in the first place that all classes be MAD. That is bad design for me. Paladin can get by right now, and isn't MAD. It's DAD, ST and CH and can even have 14 CO long with it. In fact most 5E classes aren't MAD. Barbarian is if you care about the iconic loin cloth look. If wearing armor then ST and CO all the way, DX is 14. Fighter can be if you care about the iconic musclehead look, but even then some might be willing to forgo DX since they're wearing heavy armor anyway and accept not being so good at archery. DX fighters have the advantage of being good at melee and range without being MAD. Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior need IN, so they have to sacrifice ST or DX. CO is too important for Fighters to ignore, but a few might be willing to pay a feat for Toughness to accept a lower CO than other Fighters. Monks are not MAD - DX and WI. CO 14 is enough.

Actually everyone would be better off if hypothetical 6E divorced hit points from CO and gave everyone decent hit points relative to class. For example, barbarians get 1d12 + 4, fighters, rangers, and paladins 1d10 + 3, everyone else 1d8 + 2 or 1d6 + 2. Put the expected CON modifier into the HD, but this thread derails.

Anyway, I still stand by my point. Don't give a power a player can't use. Give choices of powers.

I think there's a serious disconnect between what we see as MAD. From the thread I can see that this is 3.x terminology, and I can understand why it's being used, but tbh I don't think it's as applicable to 5e anymore. Just narrowing things to SAD and MAD is enough to cover classes in 5e, but if the terminology itself can be a quibble, there's no class in the game that makes you depend on 3 stats.

I disagree about a hypothetical 6E separating Con from hp, it'd just whittle the stat down into a shell.


It depends on level but it is a scaling thing, generally speaking monsters use the same math as characters for DC (8+prof(determined by CR)+relevant mod) because of this you do alright with saves that are in primary stats with proficiency, one or the other stings, and neither will hurt. So generally, prof in a dump stat doesn't help much against on level opponents according to math. That being said being proficient is always better than not.

Note, I don't actually agree that straight proficiency is a bad save, so much as how the math causes the feel bad, even if the effect is minor.

I don't personally see it that way, my personal feelings and table observations are where the frequent saves are the ones you have -1 to +1 in, or the dice make you fail a strong save.

The ideal is to be as reliable as possible, but settling for just prof is pretty nice in the case like the Monk, who ends up having one really strong save and two okay to good saves (before Diamond Soul).


1) Being able to use multiple abilities is not the same as depending on multiple abilities.
Paladin is not dependent on Cha. Sure it can use Cha for its save DCs, but how often do your allies save against Bless? The low Cha Paladin has a negligibly shorter spell list, fewer channel options, and a +1 Aura of Protection.

2) Yes, it is true that 5E on giantitp uses "MAD" when they mean "Depends on 2+ abilities plus some minor Con". There is a special name for that. Dual Ability Dependency is the better descriptor for classes like Monk that rely on 2 abilities. There is a reason why the origin of the concept made a connotation split between (SAD & DAD) vs (MAD).

Pex then goes into analyzing which classes DEPEND on a single, two, or three or more abilities. Remember MAD is about Dependency.

Although Pex is wrong about Eldritch Knight. Like Arcane Trickster the 1/3rd casters don't actually depend on their casting stat. They can follow the Paladin's advice and ignore saves/spell attacks. This is very easy on an Eldritch Knight and doable on an Arcane Trickster (I have tested it in practice with Dun).

1) No one in 5e depends on abilities in that case then, there's always a minimum of one or a separate number mixed in. When the effectiveness of a large part of your kit is based on a stat, then it's fair to say that class depends on that stat. Otherwise you can say that a Figher isn't dependent on any physical stat, they'll always have a +2 to hit, Second Wind and Action Surge don't depend on it etc.

2) That split would be near meaningless in 5e, M is multiple, anything above SAD falls into that category. If you use DAD then the only thing in 5e that is actaully MAD are non stat synergistic multiclassing.

MAD is about needing a stat to perform to expectations, you can never be truly dependent on any stat in 5e by this definition because pretty much everything has a floor built into it. Even a -1 Cha Bard has a single BI die.


To clarify, when I play a monk, I'm usually dumping Str and Int because I'd rather start with 16 Dex, Wis, and 14 Con. Cha stays at 10 because monks get a smattering of cha stuff, but it's interchangeable with Int.

I also don't define a save as bad, medium, and good. I just go by, reliable, and not reliable.

Dex always feels like a reliable save on a Monk, 16 dex out of the gate, +2 prof, +5 total save.

Strength is a +1, Wisdom is +3, Intelligence -1, Constitution +2, Charisma 0.

You shouldn't have all reliable saves, or even most unless it's something you're actively pursuing, what would the fun of that be? By seeing things as reliable or not, you're going to see things as more bad than good. In a game where we roll dice to determine outcomes not many things are actually reliable.


And I never really feel like any of my other saves are all that reliable until Diamond Soul, which I think is alright for the most part, your saves outside of the ones you start with aren't usually going to be good. It's just annoying that I'm investing in Wisdom, but it doesn't feel like a reliable save, or even something I get to take advantage of until Stunning Fist happens. And with only 2 skills I can't take advantage of the plethora of Wisdom skills either.

Your AC is based off of it, Perception is based off of it, and you get two skills from being a Monk but it's impossible to only have two skills. You'll get two from your background and possibly more from your race. If you want to make use of the stat, then make use of it and seek those out.


And I'll leave off with the fact that I think most things that require you to make a Str save, are some of the least impactful things for Monk in general.

Getting knocked prone (attacked at advantage,can't get away)/getting restrained/being swallowed are all bad things for everyone.


The battle master can, using a resource that recharges on short rest, do 1d8 extra damage and make a target fall prone if it fails a strength save. The open hand monk can, using a resource that recharges on short rest, make and extra unarmed attack (which can miss) and make the target fall prone if it fails a dex save. There are subtitles, sure. Dex is a better save, but the fighter's DC is on a higher stat. The monk can get a second save if both attacks hit, but has to make all it's regular attacks first, while the fighter can knock prone on the first strike and get advantage on any other attacks he makes.

For reference I went off memory and forgot the Dex save on prone, it's the only Open Hand effect that relies on a save, denying reactions and pushing are automatic.

Your view seems very focused in your opinion. Yes the specific maneuver we're talking about adds damage on a hit, but you still need to make a save. If that creature succeeds the save then you have to hit again, spend another die, then make another save. That's worse than having to hit your second Flurry strike if they succeed the first save, the only upside here is the damage.


The big difference, is that the monk is spending resources that are part of the base monk chassis to do this. A battlemaster's dice are on top ofa fighters base abilities. The same applies to spell slots, fighting spirit, runes, psi dice, etc. This means that the gain in character power upon entering the subclass is larger for the fighter. Fighter subclasses make up a bigger part of a fighter's power budget than monk subclasses, that's just the way it is. This means that comparing the classes without subclasses is going to look better for the monk than with subclasses. It's similar with ranger subclasses, which skew more towards passive effects than fighter ones, but still. Ranger subclasses in general add d6-d8 damage per round at no resource cost, and many now have expanded spell lists as well. In general, that's favourable compared to a Kensai's 1 damage per hit, and options to trade damage for ac.

Yes the Monk design is to not add additional resource pools, that does not mean they are at a disadvantage when being compared to a subclass that does. Again, Monk subclass design either improves Flurry (which you'd likely be spening Ki on anyway), or gives you at will abilities if it doesn't give you an additional option at 3rd. Monks could use a bit more Ki, but that doesn't mean they're that bad off from their subclasses.

What? Is the 1 damage thing about upgrading to a Longsword? Kensei can do that sure, they can also whip skirmish without losing much damage wise and have an excellent AC for little damage cost. Their ranged ability allow them to be excellent switch hitters too and that's not counting the RP proficiencies they (and a lot of Monk subclasses) get.



The only reference to a trivial condition in my statement was a hunter ranger's colossus slayer bonus damage being conditional on a target having taken damage. That is, in my experience, going to be active on 95% of turns, unless you are facing huge swarms of weak enemies.

It was a bit ambiguous, I thought it was referring to prone, apologies.

95% is an over estimation imo, if you go before your team mates, not hard since Rangers are mostly Dex based, or there's just multiple enemies and you attack a fresh one, or there was a heal or polymorph etc. There's plenty of little cases that you won't get that damage in, it's why I don't like the Hunter when comparing them to other subclasses, they don't need the restriction.


Prone is in my mind, one of the weaker conditions you can inflict- it requires favorable circumstances to take advantage of it. Yes, you can give advantage to melee allies, if they are available, exist, and are between you and the target in initiative. With clever positioning or other slowdown/movement effects, you can sometimes force a melee enemy to waste it's action, but only sometimes. If you can grab the target reliably, it does become a powerful debuff. Otherwise, the monster is going to make it's attacks at full efficiency next turn. It is not trivial, but it's not strong

A debuff doesn't have to effect a monster's attacks ongoingly, prone is cheap and mostly locks a monster in place. As for melee party members, are you really highligting that as an issue? If your party is full of ranged combatants then you wouldn't be proning the enemy to begin with, melee is a common build type and those that can switch hit can move to melee to synergise. That's of course assuming you don't drop them on the first hit, at which point you've also given youself advantage.


All of these options, save shadow teleports, require to ki function or cut into your damage before 11th level (at which point the monks damage falls off a cliff regardless). Shadow teleports are heavily dependent on the setting of the encounter and/or the willingness of the DM to let you create areas of dim light in the middle of a fight cheaply. You don't have the Ki to use flurry every round until around 10th assuming you don't care about stunning strike or other Ki options (assuming generously two five round fights per short rest), and once you're out, you either use a ranged weapon (which for anyone but Kensai is a serious damage penalty), provoking opportunity attacks, or staying in melee.


Astral Self reach is like your whole thing, it lasts ten minutes and is not an ongoing cost.

If there is no dim light, then use Darkness, yes it costs Ki, but it shouldn't be necessary all the time and shouldn't require a DM to allow it.

The whip 'cuts' into damage by 2-3 average damage depending on when you're talking about. That is an easy trade off (and tbh not significant) when you're getting the ability to effectively skirmish out of it.

Ranged weapons are easily accessible through races now, a short bow isn't much of a decrease and the Sun Soul switches back and forth just fine. You don't need to blow Ki every single turn, you're not going to need to skirmish every single turn, unless you explicitly fight low numbers (tougher) enemies all the time.

The options are there, Ki exists to be spent if necessary. This is kind of like complaining spells cost spell slots.



I have no conceptual problem with a fragile melee class with limited skirmishing, but it would need to excel at something else, like damage or crowd control, to make it feel worth the risk

The Monk is not fragile and you have not demonstrated any different.

It excels at mobility, crowd control through number of attacks and Stuns with subclass specialisation.



Yes, by character types I mean using Two weapon fighting instead of other weapons. I don't regard selecting the obvious option for a given build as an investment, especially when the monk isn't getting a corresponding increase "for free" or sitting with a comparable character build option unselected. Compare a level 1 monk with a level 1 two weapon fighter and the monk has apparently traded second wind for the utility of not needing conventional weapons. Conceptually, a monk is "locked in" to using the TWF fighting style. The fact that other classes have options is a point in their favour.

Using your Fighting Style is not free, it is an opportunity cost that could have been spent on a variety of other things including a +1AC.

I think there's a core misunderstanding here. People don't like TWF because they think it's underpowered. People do generally like bonus action attacks, just look at how prevalent PAM and CBE is in discussion.

The Monk isn't locked in to TWF, if anything it's locked into bonus action attacks in general which isn't really a bad thing to begin with.

The Monk 'trades' Second Wind for Unarmored Defense, which gives them superior AC to a comparative TWF Dex build. Though comparing directly level by level like this favours the Fighter heavily since they're extremely frontloaded, where as the Monk gets something at most levels.

Just look at level 5, they both get Extra Attack, but the Monk also receives Stunning Strike and a MD increase. You can't compare two classes like this, classes are designed differently.


As for how the others are doing more damage, we revisit my point about subclasses from the top of this post-monk subclasses do not provide the same amounts of power as fighter or ranger subclasses. This is why I specified "a subclass without a critical bonus action feature" because a bunch of ranger subclasses are anti-synergistic with TWF. The monk can spend Ki to flurry, but the battle master has action surge and four superiority dice that can be used to make extra attacks or boost damage. With the exception of Mercy, monk subclasses do not provide comparable damage benefits.

That Action Surge Battle Master looks real great in a single combat, across two combats things look different.

Yes other classes rely on damage scaling from their subclasses, this is just design difference. The Monk has damage scaling built into the core class with the MD, which is used by some subclass features.

And btw, your SD argument assumes that they're only used for damage related maneuvers. I have a BM in one of my games, one of his most used maneuvers is the one that adds to Investigation rolls. Unless the BM is hyper focused on damage, they have multiple options to spend that pool on, like temp hp and boosting checks. It's not a dedicated damage pool like you're painting it.


Mercy is the best monk subclass by lot because it actually does fix a lot of my complaints. Getting a second debuff that isn't dependent on a target's con is really helpful if you want to debuff, (and by debuffing reliably you don't need to disengage) and the increased ki efficiency at level 11 actually lets it keep up with t3 damage, and you provide a decent amount of healing and excellent condition removal, a meaningful amount of party support. If we were talking about classes in the context of only taking their best subclass or subclasses, I would be singling out monks less. But as a class in general, hiding behind what one outlier subclass can do is dishonest in my mind.

This entire time you've primarily used the Battle Master as your Fighter touchstone. Which is regarded as one of the, if not the best subclasses. If your argument wasn't dependent on having a good subclass, then it should hold water with the Champion, PDK and probably the Arcane Archer too.


Hold person is a situational spell-it literally can't target most of the monsters in the game.

And trip attack relies on the target being large or smaller, when if anything the bigger they are the more you want them to fall.


My initial statement was that a monk "did not contribute to other pillars of play more than a dex based fighter". When you respond to that with a laundry list of every non-combat ability in the class, that makes it seem that you feel a monk is significantly ahead of said fighter. If you don't than we do agree. A monk has non-combat abilities, but they are situational, or show up so late that they are unremarkable by the time they arrive. I know balance discussions like to pretend that magic items don't exist, but that is a polite fiction by the mid to late tiers.

I did not make a claim about the Fighter being useless in other pillars. I was defending the Monks out of combat usefulness. If you want it specifically compared to a Fighter, the core class to core class the Fighter has jack for out of combat, literally everything is combat based. Some subclasses can help with this, but there's going to be a deficit to catch up with the base Monk class, nevermind the additional options added by the subclasses.

You can't say 'but magic items' for one side. The Monk can use magic items as well as a Fighter can, the point of not talking about magic items is:

-With a couple excepetions, it's entirely out of your control, it's DM discretion

-Classes aren't designed with magic items in mind, so it's irrelevant to add in. If you say '+1 plate' I'll just say 'Cloak of Protection.'

When judging utility features, which are often a question of "can at least one person in the party do this thing", it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that the party has acquired a magic item that would let them do said thing, especially if we are talking about a common item or a task that can be accomplished by a range of uncommon items. Everyone that isn't a winged race or certain high level Sorcerers would love a flying item, Monks are included in that.



I'll grant you if the DM is willing to make deft strike trigger Ki-fueled attack, a Kensai is a pretty good archer. I wouldn't be surprised if that is not allowed at a table though.

There is no reason RAW or RAI that Deft Strike wouldn't trigger Ki Fueled Strike.

Focused Aim would also trigger it, which together is like a far superior version of Precision Attack.


For the sun soul, your ranged attack has a mere 30ft of range, and has the damage die of a simple weapon until tier 3. I don't know why that needs to be spelled out for you, the entire level 3 ability amounts to learning an above average cantrip and giving your flurry range. You may appreciate burning hands more than I do, but when your only subclass feature is "learn a level 1 spell" without even getting you free casts, it is not good.

You're a Monk, you have ample movement to move to compensate if an enemy is too far away and back again, the range will by and large not be an issue.

Nothing needs to be spelled out for me thanks, it's a good ability because it allows access to a valuable damage type and seamless switch hitting. If you don't value that, then I'd really have to ask how much of the dislike is you openly not wanting to play a ranged Monk.

I also have no idea why you're suggesting Searing Arc Strike is the Sun Souls only feature when you literally a sentence earlier were talking about a separate one.

It gives you an AOE as a bonus action, no it doesn't give you free casts, but again Ki exists to be spent. You toted the Rangers expanded spell list... but that doesn't give you free casts either, is that now bad?

[OldTrees1]

1) No one in 5e depends on abilities in that case then, there's always a minimum of one or a separate number mixed in. When the effectiveness of a large part of your kit is based on a stat, then it's fair to say that class depends on that stat. Otherwise you can say that a Figher isn't dependent on any physical stat, they'll always have a +2 to hit, Second Wind and Action Surge don't depend on it etc.

I do not believe that fairly represents what I said. I agree that if a large part of your effectiveness is dependent on an ability, then you are dependent on that ability. However that is exactly why Paladin is not MAD. If a Paladin dumps Cha (or is 6th+ level and dumps STR/DEX) then they still have the vast majority of their effectiveness.

A Paladin that dumps Charisma has only 3 downsides and they are not a big hit to Paladins. The biggest hit the SAD STR Paladin takes is they have a +1 Aura of Protection instead of a +3 (not a huge downgrade even at the point of biggest impact). The vast majority of the STR Paladin performance (attack, smite, buff spells, healing) is completely independent from CHA. That is why the STR Paladin is not MAD. The STR Paladin with 8 CHA is still almost as effective as the STR Paladin with 16 CHA.

We can see the Fighter is still dependent on 1 stat. That could be STR, DEX, or whatever they are using for their attacks when they use Extra Attack. Sure they could dump that stat, but it would impact the vast majority of their performance.

I can make an effective Auradin Paladin with 10 STR/DEX. I just focus on buffs, healing, and debuffs (good DCs)
I can make an effective Holy Warrior Paladin with 10 CHA. I just focus on attacks, buffs, healing, and smites.
I cannot make an effective Fighter with a 10 in the stat they use for attacks.
I cannot make an effective Monk with 10 WIS. Nor an effective Monk with 10 STR/DEX. Can you?



2) That split would be near meaningless in 5e, M is multiple, anything above SAD falls into that category. If you use DAD then the only thing in 5e that is actually MAD are non stat synergistic multiclassing.

MAD is about needing a stat to perform to expectations, you can never be truly dependent on any stat in 5e by this definition because pretty much everything has a floor built into it. Even a -1 Cha Bard has a single BI die.

I think it is worth remembering the distinction. It is unhelpful for me to bring the same zeal when arguing about how 5E Monk suffers from DAD as when I argue 3E Monk suffers from MAD. The design flaw is different and the design fix is different. With true MAD the only real answer is to increase stats. With DAD you can convert it from a dependency to an option. 5E Paladin is not DAD and it is fine, if 5E Monk looked like 5E Paladin, it too would not be DAD.

However I also agree that 5E has been calling it MAD,

[Dork_Forge]

I do not believe that fairly represents what I said. I agree that if a large part of your effectiveness is dependent on an ability, then you are dependent on that ability. However that is exactly why Paladin is not MAD. If a Paladin dumps Cha (or is 6th+ level and dumps STR/DEX) then they still have the vast majority of their effectiveness.

A Paladin that dumps Charisma has only 3 downsides and they are not a big hit to Paladins. The biggest hit the SAD STR Paladin takes is they have a +1 Aura of Protection instead of a +3 (not a huge downgrade even at the point of biggest impact). The vast majority of the STR Paladin performance (attack, smite, buff spells, healing) is completely independent from CHA. That is why the STR Paladin is not MAD. The STR Paladin with 8 CHA is still almost as effective as the STR Paladin with 16 CHA.

We can see the Fighter is still dependent on 1 stat. That could be STR, DEX, or whatever they are using for their attacks when they use Extra Attack. Sure they could dump that stat, but it would impact the vast majority of their performance.

By dumping you Cha you are sarificing a great deal of your effectiveness based on what your class provides you, if you're focused on attacks you may not perceive it as hindering your effectiveness as a character, but it is certainly hindering your effectiveness as a Paladin.


I can make an effective Auradin Paladin with 10 STR/DEX. I just focus on buffs, healing, and debuffs (good DCs)

Where is the AC coming from here then?

I can make an effective Holy Warrior Paladin with 10 CHA. I just focus on attacks, buffs, healing, and smites.

It isn't just the DCs though, you'd have significantly less spells available to you and Cure Wounds would become so weak it wouldn't be worth the spell slot (yes Paladins have LoH, ime they often also use Cure Wounds as supplemental healing for patch ups and when they're the primary healer in a group).


I cannot make an effective Fighter with a 10 in the stat they use for attacks.

It really depends on what you mean by effective, you can just load up on feats and take a subclass like PDK or Psi Warrior.


I cannot make an effective Monk with 10 WIS. Nor an effective Monk with 10 STR/DEX. Can you?

In the sense you can make an effective Paladin yes, if dumping Wis just pick a subclass that doesn't rely on it and pick a race that gives you an unarmored AC calculation.

Dumping physical stats, also yes, you can literally just play an Astral Self.



I think it is worth remembering the distinction. It is unhelpful for me to bring the same zeal when arguing about how 5E Monk suffers from DAD as when I argue 3E Monk suffers from MAD. The design flaw is different and the design fix is different. With true MAD the only real answer is to increase stats. With DAD you can convert it from a dependency to an option. 5E Paladin is not DAD and it is fine, if 5E Monk looked like 5E Paladin, it too would not be DAD.

However I also agree that 5E has been calling it MAD,


Personally I don't think it's particularly useful, it's a thing about a previous edition, all it really amounts to is 'you think this is bad? You should have seen them in 3.x!' and that is just a talking point more than anything.

It has no real impact on 5e and doesn't really seem appropriate, 5e uses MAD differently and bringing a previous edition's context to the table is just muddying the waters.

[mr_stibbons]

For reference I went off memory and forgot the Dex save on prone, it's the only Open Hand effect that relies on a save, denying reactions and pushing are automatic.

Your view seems very focused in your opinion. Yes the specific maneuver we're talking about adds damage on a hit, but you still need to make a save. If that creature succeeds the save then you have to hit again, spend another die, then make another save. That's worse than having to hit your second Flurry strike if they succeed the first save, the only upside here is the damage.



No, the open hand push applies after failing a strength save.

I did say that the monk can force a second save if they hit twice. It's an upside, yes. But, the monk can also spend a Ki and then miss both flurry attacks, while the fighter only spends resources after hitting, always getting the save and damage.




Yes the Monk design is to not add additional resource pools, that does not mean they are at a disadvantage when being compared to a subclass that does. Again, Monk subclass design either improves Flurry (which you'd likely be spening Ki on anyway), or gives you at will abilities if it doesn't give you an additional option at 3rd. Monks could use a bit more Ki, but that doesn't mean they're that bad off from their subclasses.



This does not follow. As I originally said, monks start falling off in damage at level 3, when other classes get much more powerful subclass entry features. When that happens, it is entirely fair to look at what monks are getting at level 3, their subclasses. You could design a monk that works with the existing subclasses, but that would require actually having the resources and passive abilities in the base class that makes up for the discrepancy. But you don't. As you admit, monks do not have enough Ki, and their passive abilities are just increased movement speed and situational defences.




What? Is the 1 damage thing about upgrading to a Longsword? Kensei can do that sure, they can also whip skirmish without losing much damage wise and have an excellent AC for little damage cost. Their ranged ability allow them to be excellent switch hitters too and that's not counting the RP proficiencies they (and a lot of Monk subclasses) get.

Astral Self reach is like your whole thing, it lasts ten minutes and is not an ongoing cost.

The whip 'cuts' into damage by 2-3 average damage depending on when you're talking about. That is an easy trade off (and tbh not significant) when you're getting the ability to effectively skirmish out of it.


A whip is losing 4 damage from levels 5-10 two d10s going to d6s, compared to the longsword a Kensai could also be using. You're also unable to flurry or take your default bonus action attack, though with the interpretation of Ki-fueled attack you're using that's not that bad. Astral self is only losing two damage, but is locked out of getting a dedicated longsword, which is pretty attractive to other subclasses. This isn't a big decrease in damage, but we are already arguing that a monk does not do enough damage. Trading damage for survivability is not a trivial tradeoff that you are making.




Using your Fighting Style is not free, it is an opportunity cost that could have been spent on a variety of other things including a +1AC.

I think there's a core misunderstanding here. People don't like TWF because they think it's underpowered. People do generally like bonus action attacks, just look at how prevalent PAM and CBE is in discussion.

The Monk isn't locked in to TWF, if anything it's locked into bonus action attacks in general which isn't really a bad thing to begin with.

The Monk 'trades' Second Wind for Unarmored Defense, which gives them superior AC to a comparative TWF Dex build. Though comparing directly level by level like this favours the Fighter heavily since they're extremely frontloaded, where as the Monk gets something at most levels.

Just look at level 5, they both get Extra Attack, but the Monk also receives Stunning Strike and a MD increase. You can't compare two classes like this, classes are designed differently.


The thing is that both PAM and CBE take a better base weapon than a light weapon. PAM has reach and does more damage than dual-wield+fighting style, CBE gets to be a ranged attack without engagement penalties. More importantly, these both don't need you to use a fighting style on them. Why spend a fighting style, or worse, a class feature which cannot be swapped out like marital arts, on something that can be acquired in a variety of ways and does not stack?

This is why I say a monk is "locked in" to Two weapon fighting. You're damage is pegged to that of a normal dual wielder, at level 1 with 1-3 points of damage gained each time your die size goes up, getting the functionality of PAM requires sacrificing damage, and you don't have the option of getting one of the other ways of taking bonus action attacks and picking a different fighting style.

I agree with you. TWF fighting style is probably not the best choice of fighting style, there are serious opportunity costs. You could build a better fighter. But the monk doesn't have a choice.



That Action Surge Battle Master looks real great in a single combat, across two combats things look different.

Yes other classes rely on damage scaling from their subclasses, this is just design difference. The Monk has damage scaling built into the core class with the MD, which is used by some subclass features.

And btw, your SD argument assumes that they're only used for damage related maneuvers. I have a BM in one of my games, one of his most used maneuvers is the one that adds to Investigation rolls. Unless the BM is hyper focused on damage, they have multiple options to spend that pool on, like temp hp and boosting checks. It's not a dedicated damage pool like you're painting it.


Why would the battle master lose effectiveness across two combats? Are you claiming that the notoriously resource starved monk has more resources to spread over two battles? (And you have been advocating spending ki on Step of the wind during exploration, so it's not like the monk has no noncombat demands on it's resources). Or do you feel like the monk, who you have claimed has to spend ki every round to not get killed, is in a better place without resources than the fighter? This might be true at some levels, but it won't be once the fighter starts spending their extra ASI's on the more powerful feats available for fighters or gains their third attack.

That last bit is the elephant in the room we've been dancing around. Most classes, once they hit level 11, are supposed to have a big powerspike. Cantrips scale up, sixth level spells show up, fighters get a third attack, rangers get a subclass feature that usually is a conditional extra attack, paladins get +d8 damage per hit, and so forth. Monks get nothing. Just their usual +1ki +1 damage on your unarmed strike, and a collection of mostly awful subclass features.



This entire time you've primarily used the Battle Master as your Fighter touchstone. Which is regarded as one of the, if not the best subclasses. If your argument wasn't dependent on having a good subclass, then it should hold water with the Champion, PDK and probably the Arcane Archer too.



This kindof fair, there are some bad fighter subclasses, but the battle master is not head and shoulders above the other subclasses in the way the mercy monk is. Rune knight and Echo knight are, in my mind, better, and Eldritch knight and Psi warrior quite close, while cavalier and samurai aren't that far behind. The difference between a battle master and an "average fighter subclass" is not that big, most of them are good. The difference between mercy and an "average monk subclass" is very noticeable.




You're a Monk, you have ample movement to move to compensate if an enemy is too far away and back again, the range will by and large not be an issue.

Nothing needs to be spelled out for me thanks, it's a good ability because it allows access to a valuable damage type and seamless switch hitting. If you don't value that, then I'd really have to ask how much of the dislike is you openly not wanting to play a ranged Monk.

I also have no idea why you're suggesting Searing Arc Strike is the Sun Souls only feature when you literally a sentence earlier were talking about a separate one.

It gives you an AOE as a bonus action, no it doesn't give you free casts, but again Ki exists to be spent. You toted the Rangers expanded spell list... but that doesn't give you free casts either, is that now bad?

Or, hear me out, you could use the short bow you started the game proficient with. On anything without radiant damage vulnerability you'll come out ahead. A feature which is only relevant if the monsters have a damage vulnerability is an awful subclass.

And I apologize, I should have said that the only subclass feature you gain at level six is knowing one spell. But regardless ranger's expanded spell list is on top of passive subclass abilities at each subclass step. Options are nice, but only gaining options is worse than gaining resources to spend or passive power. See, Ki exists to be spent, but ki spent on burning hands is ki not spent on, say, stunning strike. Or flurry. Sometimes it's better the spend the ki on burning hands instead of flurries or stuns, but not often.

This is the other thing we've been dancing around. You've admitted you don't have enough Ki at level 2. While this might be controversial, a monk's ki progression is pretty bad. A level 2 half caster has 2 spell slots, and a monk has 2 ki. A level 9 monk has 9 ki, but a level 9 half caster has 9 spell slots, and five of those spell slots are for higher level spells. A monk's primary resources have grown more slowly that the class which isn't infamous for resource issues from the start. Has the monk gained more powerful passive abilities or additional resource pools since then? Generally no, it isn't noticeable that you have. So when you defend a monks abilities by assuming we have Ki to dedicate to a job, you need to keep in mind that you don't have a particularly large pool of resources to draw on compared to other classes, and you don't have more powerful baseline abilities.

[OldTrees1]

By dumping you Cha you are sarificing a great deal of your effectiveness based on what your class provides you, if you're focused on attacks you may not perceive it as hindering your effectiveness as a character, but it is certainly hindering your effectiveness as a Paladin.

It isn't just the DCs though, you'd have significantly less spells available to you and Cure Wounds would become so weak it wouldn't be worth the spell slot (yes Paladins have LoH, ime they often also use Cure Wounds as supplemental healing for patch ups and when they're the primary healer in a group).


If the player is focusing on attacks / smites, they might not perceive it as hindering the effectiveness of their character?

They know fewer spells, but they are planning on casting fewer spells, so they feel that is a negligible cost.

A STR SAD Paladin might not be the party's primary healer. Their Lay on Hands is probably more than sufficient for their healing objectives. You are right that Cure Wounds is weaker with lower Charisma, but the STR SAD Paladin would not necessarily care when they can smite instead or at worst case cast Bless.

Considering I am a fan of the CHA side of Paladin, I had to learn the hard way how little some Paladins care about the parts I care about.


Where is the AC coming from here then?
The CHA SAD Auradin could use medium armor. They don't need as much AC as the STR/DEX Holy Warriors. They can focus on buffs and healing. Any enemy that targets them is playing into the Auradin's plan.



It really depends on what you mean by effective, you can just load up on feats and take a subclass like PDK or Psi Warrior.
You might need to elaborate.



In the sense you can make an effective Paladin yes, if dumping Wis just pick a subclass that doesn't rely on it and pick a race that gives you an unarmored AC calculation.

Dumping physical stats, also yes, you can literally just play an Astral Self.

For dumping WIS I would still worry about Stunning Strike. I am under the, possibly false, impression that Monk relies on the ability to stun at higher levels.

Interesting Way of the Astral Self does answer the WIS based Monk.
More evidence that Tanarii is right about Monks.

[Gurgeh]

For extra context about 3E SAD, DAD, MAD:
It was reasonable for a 10th level character to have ASIs of
SAD: +8 => for a 26
DAD: +6/+4 => for a 22/20
MAD: +4/+4/+2/+2 => for a 18/18/16/16
My eyebrows are raising at these numbers. Are you including boosts from (many and/or expensive) magic items? A 10th level character in 3.5 will have had two single-point ability score gains.

[Kane0]

Should MAD classes get additional ASIs?

That's about it.

Casters really only need to give much attention to 1.5 abilities, their casting stat and con. of course they should probsbly pay attention to more but it makes sense for them to get the baseline ASI distribution but Martials are all MAD to some degree and the ones that could get away with only focusing on 1 stat are the ones that get extras.

Fighters presumably get a few more so they can round out their kit or specialize via feats.
Rogues presumably get more so that they can be better at their skills.

Monks could benefit a lot from a couple more ASIs to round up their Con. and Wis. They're already expected to be in melee with a d8 hit die so give them the option to have a few more hit points and improve their Ki save DC.
Paladins probably don't need much help but they could probably do with an extra that would theoretically go to Cha. or Con.
Rangers need more help than ASIs can give but giving them a couple more to improve their spell save DC wouldn't be ridiculous.
Barbarians might as well get an extra at some point as well for Dex., Con., or a feat in late game to add some variety.

But Monks? Should probably get an extra at 6, 10, and 14. They're already fighting uphill and they need 3 stats to be at least decent if they want to take advantage of the playstyle they are sold. I feel like they should be able to boost them.

I know this probably looks like another Monk rant (probably becasue they are what got me thinking about this) but all martials struggle to keep up with casters at high level and I feel like this might help a little.

Yeah I could see Rangers and Monks getting an extra ASI like Rogues do. Maybe gishy type Artificers and Clerics/Bards too but the former already have INT-attacks as an option and the latter are already strong and versatile enough as it is.

[OldTrees1]

My eyebrows are raising at these numbers. Are you including boosts from (many and/or expensive) magic items? A 10th level character in 3.5 will have had two single-point ability score gains.

It has been years, but IIRC a 10th level character could afford a +6 item, or 2 +4 items, or a +4 item and 3 +2 items. (cost is 36K, 32K, 28K respectively). 3E expected items like this would be purchased in some amounts.

Hence:
SAD: +8 => for a 26
DAD: +6/+4 => for a 22/20
MAD: +4/+4/+2/+2 => for a 18/18/16/16

[Gurgeh]

Gotcha, that makes sense - I'm just not wired to consider equpiment-based gains as ASIs (and none of the 3.5 games I played used the Olde Magick Item Shoppe approach even though they stuck to WBL, so there was no guarantee a PC would be able to fine-tune their gear to their desired stats). IIRC running a lot of small boosts gottricky as you went on since you'd run into slot issues. Still - gear is obviously a more flexible resource than stuff you get out of class levels.

[Dark.Revenant]

Here's my MAD Index:
Barbarian: STR, CON or CON, DEX (2–2.5)
Paladin: STR or DEX, CHA, optionally CON (2–2.5)
Monk: DEX, WIS (2)
Ranger: DEX, WIS or WIS | WIS, DEX or DEX (1.5–2)
Bard: CHA, DEX or DEX (1.5–2)
Warlock: CHA, DEX or DEX (1.5–2)
Wizard: INT, DEX or DEX (1.5–2)
Sorcerer: CHA, DEX (1.5)
Cleric: WIS, STR or DEX (1.5)
Artificer: INT, DEX or CON (1.5)
Druid: WIS, DEX (1.5)
Rogue: DEX, optionally INT or WIS or CHA (1–1.5)
Fighter: STR or DEX, optionally CON or INT (1–1.5)

A funny trend: the SADdest classes have the most ASIs. Well, at least until level 20, where Barbarian jumps from 5 ASIs to effectively 9 ASIs.

[Pex]

If you don't think Monks are MAD, you don't think any class is MAD, and the term has no meaning to you. For the rest of us, the definitionally MAD classes are the ones that need one ability to hit and another ability to set save DCs, so Monk, Ranger, and Paladin for classes, and then specific subclasses in a variety of classes, depending. Also Bladepact Warlocks if they're not Hexblades, which is why all of them are Hexblades.

I make a distinction between DAD and MAD. I'd prefer if everyone is SAD, but many people find it aesthetically pleasing for characters to want every ability score matter in some way. There's a point to it, but it doesn't work for class powers to depend on all of them as a default. I find it better to let the player choose which ones to focus on, and if a class is not to be SAD being DAD works as a compromise. I have no problem calling DAD a subset of MAD if it makes you feel any better, but it's as far as I'm comfortable with if "thou shalt not have" any SAD classes. I still maintain being a SAD class is an ok thing.



1) Being able to use multiple abilities is not the same as depending on multiple abilities.
Paladin is not dependent on Cha. Sure it can use Cha for its save DCs, but how often do your allies save against Bless? The low Cha Paladin has a negligibly shorter spell list, fewer channel options, and a +1 Aura of Protection.

2) Yes, it is true that 5E on giantitp uses "MAD" when they mean "Depends on 2+ abilities plus some minor Con". There is a special name for that. Dual Ability Dependency is the better descriptor for classes like Monk that rely on 2 abilities. There is a reason why the origin of the concept made a connotation split between (SAD & DAD) vs (MAD).

Pex then goes into analyzing which classes DEPEND on a single, two, or three or more abilities. Remember MAD is about Dependency.

Although Pex is wrong about Eldritch Knight. Like Arcane Trickster the 1/3rd casters don't actually depend on their casting stat. They can follow the Paladin's advice and ignore saves/spell attacks. This is very easy on an Eldritch Knight and doable on an Arcane Trickster (I have tested it in practice with Dun).

Eldritch Knight can avoid the spells that need to hit or a DC if he wants, player choice, but I object the notion he always will. It is reasonable to let a Cantrip be his range attack and forget archery to dump DX. Whether that is optimal or not is irrelevant. The Cantrip is good enough. He can cast Abjuration and Evocation spells. He is allowed to ignore Evocation, but that is not mandatory. If he wants Evocation then IN is important to him.

[OldTrees1]

Eldritch Knight can avoid the spells that need to hit or a DC if he wants, player choice, but I object the notion he always will. It is reasonable to let a Cantrip be his range attack and forget archery to dump DX. Whether that is optimal or not is irrelevant. The Cantrip is good enough. He can cast Abjuration and Evocation spells. He is allowed to ignore Evocation, but that is not mandatory. If he wants Evocation then IN is important to him.

I agree. I don't think Eldritch Knight depends on INT, but some Knights will depend on INT.

[Angelalex242]

Presuming Rangers and Monks are the weakest of classes, suppose they get A:Rogue ASIs or B:Fighter ASIs.

Most people get 5, Rogues get 6, Fighters get 7.

If Rangers and Monks get 7 like a Fighter, how much better do they really get?

[Saelethil]

Presuming Rangers and Monks are the weakest of classes, suppose they get A:Rogue ASIs or B:Fighter ASIs.

Most people get 5, Rogues get 6, Fighters get 7.

If Rangers and Monks get 7 like a Fighter, how much better do they really get?

Honestly? Not a huge difference unless they put both extra ASIs into the same stat but it would be enough to be noticeable.

Both are martial classes with wisdom resources so they would likely either bump Con. and be more effective in melee without external aid, or bump Wis. and have the saving throws for their spells/ki abilities improve, giving them more versatility or consistency.
Other people are saying they would just take feats instead of ASIs but is that a problem? I think giving a Ranger 7 ASIs would probably be too much after the Tasha’s updates but 6? Sure. With Monk, I would imagine most would be trying to cap Wis. or take feats they otherwise would have held out on to get their Wis. and Con. up. While they can function at range to some degree, they are mechanically incentivized to be up in the fray and I imagine that most would be trying to get their HP and AC up. I would have with my Monks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I may be a relative young'un around here, but I think that just completed the set for me of seeing every class called the worst class in the game. Do I win a prize?

Checks scorecard. Nope. Still waiting on Clerics.

There was a thread months back that argued this, basing it off the fact that the base class actually has almost no features, all you get from there base class is channel divinity, divine intervention and spell slot progression. It features a lot of "dead levels" that only give you a higher level spell slot.

If memory serves (full disclosure my memory isn't always right) the consensus was that despite Clerics having little option for offensive spells, their utility was outstanding enough that spell slot progression was enough of a bonus that it could be given with nothing else.

More on topic - I think more ASI would be fun, but I can't think of a class that really needs it to be effective. Monks would be the most obvious choice but if their strengths shined without their inherent weakness I'm worried they'd become even more dominant than they currently are when played optimally.

[Dork_Forge]

No, the open hand push applies after failing a strength save.

The sad thing is I even glossed over it before writing that, don't forum at work kids.


I did say that the monk can force a second save if they hit twice. It's an upside, yes. But, the monk can also spend a Ki and then miss both flurry attacks, while the fighter only spends resources after hitting, always getting the save and damage.

This is assuming the Fighter only ever uses maneuvers that trigger on a hit, there's plenty of maneuvers that can fail and end up wasting a SD (Precision Attack and Distracting Attack ) and some cost additional action economy. Maneuvers aren't created equally.


This does not follow. As I originally said, monks start falling off in damage at level 3, when other classes get much more powerful subclass entry features. When that happens, it is entirely fair to look at what monks are getting at level 3, their subclasses. You could design a monk that works with the existing subclasses, but that would require actually having the resources and passive abilities in the base class that makes up for the discrepancy. But you don't. As you admit, monks do not have enough Ki, and their passive abilities are just increased movement speed and situational defences.

There is a difference between ideally they could use more, and not having enough to be good enough.

The first passive ability they get is a bonus action attack, which underpins their damage and does make them competitive with other martials.


A whip is losing 4 damage from levels 5-10 two d10s going to d6s, compared to the longsword a Kensai could also be using. You're also unable to flurry or take your default bonus action attack, though with the interpretation of Ki-fueled attack you're using that's not that bad. Astral self is only losing two damage, but is locked out of getting a dedicated longsword, which is pretty attractive to other subclasses. This isn't a big decrease in damage, but we are already arguing that a monk does not do enough damage. Trading damage for survivability is not a trivial tradeoff that you are making.

Your mistake here is assuming that getting damage as high as possible is all that matters, being able to skirmish is it's own tool letting you harrass the enemy but remain relatively safe.

What's this interpretation of Ki fueled strike that I'm using? How can it be interpreted in any other way? And since you clearly do interpret it differently, how much does that impact your view of things?

I don't think most monks care about using a longsword, it's a nice perk the Kensei can make use of, but it's something you have to go out of your way to grab fro ma race for others...

You rarely ever get to have your cake and eat it too, compromises are made and the Monks damage isn't bad, and you haven't really illustrated it being sub par either.


The thing is that both PAM and CBE take a better base weapon than a light weapon. PAM has reach and does more damage than dual-wield+fighting style, CBE gets to be a ranged attack without engagement penalties. More importantly, these both don't need you to use a fighting style on them. Why spend a fighting style, or worse, a class feature which cannot be swapped out like marital arts, on something that can be acquired in a variety of ways and does not stack?

PAM can have reach, using it with a spear or quarterstaff is popular discussion fodder. The bonus action attack for PAM also knocks you down to a d4, somewhat offsetting that higher die to begin with.

CBE assuming a hand crossbow is a d6, you dismissed the Sun Soul as having an above average cantrip but you value mundane piercing damage? Yup magic items exist, but you still have to get them, which is a tough sell for a ranged weapon user to pitch.

A feat is expensive in 5e and can't be swapped out (unless that was a rule in Tasha's I missed), playing a Monk means you want to fight like that... Playing something else means going out of your way to make it happen. And that's what grabbing feats or investing a fighting style is, and whilst you might not see it that way, that's what it is. you have a choice of different buffs and you pick one to support damage, despite others still being applicable.


This is why I say a monk is "locked in" to Two weapon fighting. You're damage is pegged to that of a normal dual wielder, at level 1 with 1-3 points of damage gained each time your die size goes up, getting the functionality of PAM requires sacrificing damage, and you don't have the option of getting one of the other ways of taking bonus action attacks and picking a different fighting style.

A normal dual wielder doesn't have the fighitng style, only two classes get access to it, meanwhile as you point out, anyone can pick up two weapons. Rogues and Barbarians can both make use of that mode of fighting, but neither have the style.

I can see why you're trying to lump Monks as TWFers, but they aren't. You're just trying to equate them to TWF becuase they both use bonus action attacks.

The Monk has a hand (or both) free and has no issue with object interactions. Any old Monk can make their main attacks with a two handed quarterstaff for d8s, which would put them on par then ahead of TWFers.

This argument kind of feels like playing a Barbarian and then complaining you can't use Dex. If that's something you want then you shouldn't have picked the Barbarian, classes can specialise, if you want more openness then pick a more generalist class.


I agree with you. TWF fighting style is probably not the best choice of fighting style, there are serious opportunity costs. You could build a better fighter. But the monk doesn't have a choice.

I didn't say this.

And I've argued the case for TWFing on here many times. The point is that when you make a choice there's opportunity cost. That's something to consider and why your comparison to the Monk is flawed. The Monk made no class choices to have and be good with bonus action attacks, it's their key feature.


Why would the battle master lose effectiveness across two combats? Are you claiming that the notoriously resource starved monk has more resources to spread over two battles? (And you have been advocating spending ki on Step of the wind during exploration, so it's not like the monk has no noncombat demands on it's resources). Or do you feel like the monk, who you have claimed has to spend ki every round to not get killed, is in a better place without resources than the fighter? This might be true at some levels, but it won't be once the fighter starts spending their extra ASI's on the more powerful feats available for fighters or gains their third attack.

You've championed Action Surge, well that's a once per short rest resource, use it in one combat don't have it in the other.

You've spoken a lot about maneuvers, well the simple fact is that the minority of the BMs attacks will apply maneuvers unless they invest heavily in additional dice.

At no point did I say, claim, or suggest that the Monk has to spend Ki every round in order to not get killed. I mentioned options available to them. This is the second time in this post you've misrepresented or misunderstood something I said to the detriment of the Monk.

Just because Step of the Wind can be helpful out of combat doens't mean those situations are coming up all of the time, it'd frankly be weird if they did.

You like to use the Battle Master as a comparison, but you're just focusing on things like Trip Attack, there's plenty of non attacking maneuvers or ones that can be attempted and achieve nothing. Can a BM play that way? Sure, but ime they generally don't because it makes them one trick ponies and players tend to tire of that.

And depending on the level, yeah a Monk can be in a better place than the fighter, one has significantly more at will or passive abilities than the other. And you're assuming those ASIs will be spent on combat related feats or things that actively add to damage. There's a Str based BM in one of my games that rolled high stats. At 4th level he took Alert. That isn't making him hit harder, but it's a combat related feat and he enjoys it.



That last bit is the elephant in the room we've been dancing around. Most classes, once they hit level 11, are supposed to have a big powerspike. Cantrips scale up, sixth level spells show up, fighters get a third attack, rangers get a subclass feature that usually is a conditional extra attack, paladins get +d8 damage per hit, and so forth. Monks get nothing. Just their usual +1ki +1 damage on your unarmed strike, and a collection of mostly awful subclass features.

You are frequently, if not constantly, talking down about the Monk in a way that makes them seem far worse then they actually are. I don't know if that's a conscious choice, but it does not make for a compelling argument.

Here's something to think about: power =/= damage increase

And Monks don't get nothing, you literally just listed what they get, though you've no just cause to label them as mostly terrible features without justification.

At will invisibility with a trivial condition? Nice utility and first round combat relevant

The ability to cast Fireball twice a short rest with a bonus action weapon attack on the same turn? That's darn good

Giving yourself a magic weapon up to +3? Damn nice

At will radiant AOE that you can turn into a radiant Fireball three times per short rest with a bonus action weapon attack? That's very, very nice.

Negating disadvantage on a roll? A decent addition to the toolkit if not a show stopper.

Spending a Ki to not go down... Yeah pretty good

Cheaper damage and more healing for the same costs... Excellent

At will defense against elemental damage and an extra 1d8 a turn? Very nice

And that's on top of the general scaling of more Ki and a large martial arts die. Monks don't tend to jump massively in power, they gradually scale up all the time.


This kindof fair, there are some bad fighter subclasses, but the battle master is not head and shoulders above the other subclasses in the way the mercy monk is. Rune knight and Echo knight are, in my mind, better, and Eldritch knight and Psi warrior quite close, while cavalier and samurai aren't that far behind. The difference between a battle master and an "average fighter subclass" is not that big, most of them are good. The difference between mercy and an "average monk subclass" is very noticeable.

Your example throughout has been a Battle Master using their SD for nothing but guaranteed extra damage... that's hardly an average bar for comparison, it's a standout subclass optimising for damage...

Overall yeah Fighter subclasses are nice, and tbh so are Monks, it's just one tends to add damage and the other tends to add options and things you couldn't do normally. Different designs.

But you didn't actually address any of the subclasses I mentioned, you diverted into the other subclasses.



Or, hear me out, you could use the short bow you started the game proficient with. On anything without radiant damage vulnerability you'll come out ahead. A feature which is only relevant if the monsters have a damage vulnerability is an awful subclass.

You could, but unless you made it your dedicated weapon it's not going to scale up with you.

Sun Soul doesn't rely on radiant vulnerability, it overcomes any resistance/immunity to non magical BPS, which is nice to get as early as level 3, and there's multiple monsters that have things that interact with radiant that isn't vulnerability. Case in point, Vampire regeneration.

It's always relevant, you just seem to not like it.


And I apologize, I should have said that the only subclass feature you gain at level six is knowing one spell. But regardless ranger's expanded spell list is [I]on top of passive subclass abilities at each subclass step. Options are nice, but only gaining options is worse than gaining resources to spend or passive power. See, Ki exists to be spent, but ki spent on burning hands is ki not spent on, say, stunning strike. Or flurry. Sometimes it's better the spend the ki on burning hands instead of flurries or stuns, but not often.

If there's more than one target that aren't resistant to fire, then Burning Hands will often be better than Flurrying and it's reliable damage.


This is the other thing we've been dancing around. You've admitted you don't have enough Ki at level 2. While this might be controversial, a monk's ki progression is pretty bad. A level 2 half caster has 2 spell slots, and a monk has 2 ki. A level 9 monk has 9 ki, but a level 9 half caster has 9 spell slots, and five of those spell slots are for higher level spells. A monk's primary resources have grown more slowly that the class which isn't infamous for resource issues from the start. Has the monk gained more powerful passive abilities or additional resource pools since then? Generally no, it isn't noticeable that you have. So when you defend a monks abilities by assuming we have Ki to dedicate to a job, you need to keep in mind that you don't have a particularly large pool of resources to draw on compared to other classes, and you don't have more powerful baseline abilities.

Again, I agree that Monks could use a but more Ki, but that's an early level problem and is a 'would be nice' not a 'necessary for them to be good or even functional'

Take a look at the Monk progression, they get something at literally every single level. They have one of the strongest 5th levels of any martial, since they get two features and two scaling bumps.

Here's the thing: You don't have to spend Ki to be competent and capable. You just don't. Doing nothing but making three attacks a turn at basically wherever on the battlefield you want is good enough to get by. If you burn through all of your Ki then oops, you may wish you had some but you're still going to contribute just fine.

If you're so set on them being underwhelming, then please stop this comparison game of 'well the Fighter is just better' and actually put down a damage number they would have to hit regularly to be competitive in your eyes. Ideally with your reasoning for where that number came from.


If the player is focusing on attacks / smites, they might not perceive it as hindering the effectiveness of their character?

They know fewer spells, but they are planning on casting fewer spells, so they feel that is a negligible cost.

A STR SAD Paladin might not be the party's primary healer. Their Lay on Hands is probably more than sufficient for their healing objectives. You are right that Cure Wounds is weaker with lower Charisma, but the STR SAD Paladin would not necessarily care when they can smite instead or at worst case cast Bless.

Considering I am a fan of the CHA side of Paladin, I had to learn the hard way how little some Paladins care about the parts I care about.

If you actually dump Cha then you have a pathetic amount of spells known throughout most of your career since the formula becomes half your level rounded down -1. Not including Oath spells (which would be a mixed bag with a negative Cha) a 5th level Paladin would be able to prepare one spell.


The CHA SAD Auradin could use medium armor. They don't need as much AC as the STR/DEX Holy Warriors. They can focus on buffs and healing. Any enemy that targets them is playing into the Auradin's plan.

They could, but that raises the question what's their Dex mod? If they're rocking a +2 then this isn't as bad as I was picturing, which was a Paladin with no positive Str or Dex. If they've got a +2 then they can function much more reasonably.

I'm not sure how getting attacked is working to their plan? Is the Auradin strat to heavily pump Con or something? If they're focusing on buffs then they don't want to end up with concentration saves, even if they do have a high save mod for them.


You might need to elaborate.

PDK lets you share your Second Wind and Action Surge with your party, Psi Knight lets you reduce damage to your party members and yank them out of harms way amongst some utility. Feat wise you could pick up things like Healer, Inspiring Leader, grab some buffs from the various spell feats etc.

Fighting style can be Protection, Interception or used to grab the temp hp maneuver.

The Help action can be used in combat, between HP and Second Wind the Fighter can soak a beating in the process too.

You don't need to go full support, if you're buffing a mental for something like Inspiring Leader or Psi Warrior, then Magic Initiate will nab some cantrips for damage.



For dumping WIS I would still worry about Stunning Strike. I am under the, possibly false, impression that Monk relies on the ability to stun at higher levels.

It's useful, but imo the Monk isn't nearly as reliant on it as board talk would have you believe.


Interesting Way of the Astral Self does answer the WIS based Monk.
More evidence that Tanarii is right about Monks.


That they're really good? They are, some people see the MADness as something that holds them back, but tbh most casters straddle that line anyway and having to bump Wis is far from the worst thing in the world.

[OldTrees1]

If you actually dump Cha then you have a pathetic amount of spells known throughout most of your career since the formula becomes half your level rounded down -1. Not including Oath spells (which would be a mixed bag with a negative Cha) a 5th level Paladin would be able to prepare one spell.

True, but a 10 CHA means a 2nd/5th level Paladin can prepare 1/2 buff spells and they were planning on spending almost all the slots on smites anyways. Basically, if a character is not going to cast many spells, they don't need to prepare as many spells, so it is not as much of a loss for them.

(In contrast to the Auradins that want lots of spells prepared.)


They could, but that raises the question what's their Dex mod? If they're rocking a +2 then this isn't as bad as I was picturing, which was a Paladin with no positive Str or Dex. If they've got a +2 then they can function much more reasonably.

I'm not sure how getting attacked is working to their plan? Is the Auradin strat to heavily pump Con or something? If they're focusing on buffs then they don't want to end up with concentration saves, even if they do have a high save mod for them.

If they can get 14 Dex that would be nice, but it is still an option at 10 Dex.

Auradins are primarily focused in buffing and protecting everyone else. If the enemy attacks the Auradin, then the enemy failed to attack the Auradin's ally. This is true for the Auradins with or without ideal AC.



PDK lets you share your Second Wind and Action Surge with your party, Psi Knight lets you reduce damage to your party members and yank them out of harms way amongst some utility. Feat wise you could pick up things like Healer, Inspiring Leader, grab some buffs from the various spell feats etc.

Fighting style can be Protection, Interception or used to grab the temp hp maneuver.

The Help action can be used in combat, between HP and Second Wind the Fighter can soak a beating in the process too.

You don't need to go full support, if you're buffing a mental for something like Inspiring Leader or Psi Warrior, then Magic Initiate will nab some cantrips for damage.

It's useful, but imo the Monk isn't nearly as reliant on it as board talk would have you believe.

That they're really good? They are, some people see the MADness as something that holds them back, but tbh most casters straddle that line anyway and having to bump Wis is far from the worst thing in the world.

Thank you for elaborating.

I don't have much experience with 5E monk so I am primarily relying on other people's accounts. It seems really polarized.