My first impressions of the Playtest 6 Monk and its Subclasses

[LudicSavant]

Here's my very early first impressions for Monks and all of their subclasses:


Heightened Metabolism is a straight up buff to the Monk's resource longevity. Neat! The most positive thing here. The main question after that is just how much they're getting done per turn.


The Monk's fists doing Force damage rather than Magical BPS is a slight improvement (at least in 2014 5e it's resisted by fewer things, and moreover allows you choices: If you have a magical weapon, you can do magical BPS or Force).


Grappling got nerfed for Monks specifically. No more Dex grappling in this UA.


Open Hand's level 3 feature got nerfed. The only feature that didn't allow a saving throw now allows one. Also the pushback is less unique now because of weapon masteries and such.


Open Hand's new level 6 feature isn't much of an improvement over the original. At level 6 with 16 Wis it'll heal ~22.5 hp over the course of an entire adventuring day for 3 ki and 3 bonus actions, whereas the old version would heal 18 hp for 0 ki and 1 action. At level 20 with 20 Wis the new version will heal ~57.5 hp for 5 ki and 5 bonus actions, while the original will heal 60 hp for 0 ki and 1 action. Both will likely be used mostly out of combat, but the new one eats ki and requires Wis investments.


Open Hand's level 11 feature actually does something now; it saves you 1 ki when you use Step of the Wind. While this is better than nothing, you already have enough ki at this level to be using a Flurry of Blows and the 1/turn Stunning Strike every round, and (thanks to the addition of Heightened Metabolism and removal of stacked Stunning Strike, Focused Aim, and other such features) there's not much more to spend your ki on until you're picking up very high level features like Perfect Defense.


Martial arts die increased, but can no longer be used for weapons, and unarmed strikes have no weapon masteries. Uh oh.


KFA is gone (and the new thing they get instead is weaker).


Focused Aim is gone.


Sharpshooter synergy is gone.


The best subclass lost its best tools, affecting the power ceiling of the whole class.


Using martial weapons is gone, which means gunks are gone. And whip monks and dwarf axe monks and elf longsword monks and so forth are all gone.


Monks likely have fewer good magic item options than before because of newly added compatibility issues.


The defensive use of Deflect Missiles got nerfed until 13th level, at which point it's buffed. Monk defensive features in general are even more backloaded than before (the earlier ones generally got nerfed, the later ones generally got buffed).


The offensive use of Deflect Missiles now offers enemies a Dex saving throw to negate all of the damage, and deals damage based on your martial arts die (no stat added) rather than the original attack, which is very frequently not an improvement.


Evasion got slightly nerfed (even if it is a change I agree with -- after all, it is rather hard to dodge while incapacitated :smalltongue:).


Poison damage immunity was a good feature, and was completely removed with no replacement. Poison is one of the most common monster damage types in the game (possibly the most common after BPS), and savvy Monk players could have fun by switching into a sort of aggressive tanking role in favorable matchups -- a change of pace instead of playing every fight the same way. It also did a lot to help mitigate their poor Con saves (since a lot of con saves are against poison). I'd also seen it used for utility and story purposes, and also for interesting teamwork combos (like dropping poison spells directly on your monk).


Poison status immunity removed, replaced with the ability to remove the condition as a precious bonus action. Stillness of Mind got buffed to a bonus action but this is significantly less impactful for Monks than the poison change (they could play around fear anyways, and the charms that are worth using action economy to get rid of frequently prevent you from using bonus actions anyways).


Base Monk kit's per-turn offense looks like it might scale even less in tier 3+ than before, because spending more ki on Stunning Strike or Focused Aim isn't a thing anymore. Even things like Quivering Palm got nerfbatted (this is a tier 4 thing that takes setup and 3 ki then an action targeting a single creature with a Con save, and it only does Disintegrate-ish damage on a success).


The new capstone is kind of boring and comes right after you just got Superior Defense. Is generic tankiness ki discipline options really what they need more of right after Superior Defense? Also it's at level 20, the sort of things that are really good at bursting characters down might just bypass this feature anyway.


Perfect Discipline, while not a weak feature, is annoying design. Look forward to Monks wasting ki doing nothing out of combat just to make sure it recharges to 4 when the next fight starts, or people starting tiresome discussions about whether they can start initiative so they can heal their friend.


Stunning Strike is not only once per turn, but also now ends a turn earlier, reducing your ability to combo with yourself. It's significantly less useful for melee characters... but if I'm reading this correctly does appear to work on ranged attacks now, so that's something to look forward to. It's now far less committal (which also means you have to think less about when and whether to use it... which I don't personally take as a positive thing).

Anyways, the old Stunning Strike was pretty much the main excuse for ever heading into melee as a Monk -- it was definitely an interesting addition to a ranged Monk's decision tree to decide whether they'd go all in on a high value target (usually something like a Mind Flayer Arcanist or other dangerous enemies that lack Legendary Resistance) or hang back and use their ki on other things.

As it is now... well, it's no longer a strategic choice to go all in for your big glory kill moment against a high value target, it's instead an unreliable hail mary for moderate reward, and moreover you just hang back and use your ranged weapon for it.


Some of the 2024 PHB classes got their Tasha's optional features rolled into the base kit. Monks, who arguably had the most important changes in Tasha's (like, enough that it was actually bumping them up to lower-mid-tier on some optimizer sites! Wow!), lost their changes, and concepts like Monk Weapons don't exist anymore so you can't just add those features back on either.


Many of the Monk's old design issues look like they're still present.

For instance, one of the issues with Monk is that their defensive features are backloaded, while their offensive ones are frontloaded.

WotC actually nerfed their lower level defensive features and added more higher level ones like Energy Deflection and Defy Death and Superior Defense as a bonus action now.

As for later level offensive scaling, WotC got rid of Monks being able to use Focused Aim and Stunning Strikes more aggressively with more ki, and Empty Body (renamed Superior Defense) is now purely defensive and takes a bonus action (whereas before it gave you Advantage on all your attacks for a whole combat unless enemies could see through invisibility). Heck, they even beat Quivering Palm with a nerf bat.

2024 D&D Monks are still the most MAD class in the game, not just because of the number of attributes they want, but also how much they scale based on said attributes. This means that they lose more for not boosting an attribute than a Paladin or Ranger would, and thus are less free to select feats instead of stat bumps, narrowing their build options further in practice. It also means they're a lot swingier based on attribute rolls (if you use that instead of point buy). It's just an all-around mess.

The Monk's various little quality of life issues are largely still there, such as the mildly annoying timing issue of Flurry of Blows needing to happen immediately after the attack action.

They also seem to be considerably reducing their non-combat utility and breadth of options when it should be the other way around.


The new UA allows you to raise a stat to 22 via ASIs now -- which just exacerbates their issues of MADness and stat scaling even further.


Superior Defense is now a bonus action rather than an Action, and it costs 1 less ki! But this may not be quite as good a deal as it might seem at first blush. With the old version you would also get greater invisibility, and could still make an (advantaged) magic weapon attack with KFA, and attach Stunning Strike to it, or use any of the Monk's many other bonus action options. If this ported over to 1D&D they could also benefit from Weapon Masteries on that KFA bonus action. And Astral Projection just vanished entirely with no replacement (again with us losing utility features on martials).


Shadow Monks (previously the best designed Monk in the PHB and -- alongside Mercy -- the standard that other Monk subclasses should have been looking to in their design) lost KFA Silence and PWT and the ability to give their entire party Darkvision effectively forever, changing them from versatile ninja strike team leaders who enable a variety of stealthy gameplans for the whole party to participate in into... a one-trick Devil's Sight / Darkness character, as if the game needed more of those.


Old Shadow Monks could already be built to see through Darkness if they wanted, but now this is basically their entire gimmick, especially since casting Darkness is only 1 ki for them now -- too cheap not to use. They're now something you put in a Darkness party and that's basically their whole identity. They can't even see through the obscurement of anyone but themselves. Why did they decide martials needed even less utility options?


Since being a Darkness battery is basically their whole gimmick now, it leaves them significantly more vulnerable to counterplay and bad matchups (both for allies and enemies) than previously. Many enemies can see through darkness (or just don't depend on sight at all), upcast Continual Flames can passively suppress it, etc etc. Old Shadow Monks had an answer to most of these enemies (most casters were weak to KFA silence, devils were often weak to stacked SS, PWT worked against anything vulnerable to stealth, and so forth). New ones, not so much.


Shadow Monks also lost their ability to turn invisible at-will at 11th level. This ability was mostly useful out of combat, yes... but it's just continuing with the theme of WotC deleting utility options from martials in 2024, and this was an actually good utility option.


The new level 11 Shadow Monk feature could have just been written in as scaling for the level 6 feature, not replace the level 11 feature.


Various utility or flavor features like Astral Projection, perma-Tongues, and timeless body were removed entirely. Did they get new utility or flavor features elsewhere? Nope! Fewer utility features overall, and less flavor overall. They even gave otherwise-unchanged features more generic names.


Warrior of the Elements is dramatically simplified a la Sun Soul. Again I'm a little annoyed by the narrowness of choices in the new Monk, but are the new choices at least good? Well, let's take a look. Reach and knockback on unarmed strikes is a bit samey to Open Hand. The elemental typing on unarmed attacks is only a minor feature since there are few enemies with vulnerabilities or nonmagical resistance early on, and at level 6 you get Force damage. The new AoE's ki cost is cheap, but the damage is quite low (lower than the old 4E Monk or even the Sun Soul's), and can't do KFA (just an unarmed strike). The new Elementalism cantrip does virtually nothing (whereas stuff like Control Flames, Shape Water, and Mold Earth are cool -- why aren't we giving stuff like that to the Elements Monk?). Stride of Elements offers excellent mobility (that, at least, is something the 1D&D Monk hasn't been lacking). Elemental Epitome is just a modest damage boost (and even then you can't burst like even the old 4E Monk could); the Resistance isn't a huge deal since that's about when you're getting Superior Defense and such.


Step of the Wind Disengage got buffed so that you move twice as fast and avoid OAs at the same time. Personally I find this a little overkill for most purposes but hey, at least it's an actual buff. Open Hand gets to use this ki-free at level 11. However, their main concern is pretty much what it was before: how useful they are to their teammates when they get to wherever they're running.


Ki now takes 3 times longer to say and 5 times longer to write. :smalltongue:


I haven't gone through 100% of all of the playtest documents yet so there may be some synergy (or anti-synergy) with something outside the class that changes the above.

[Psyren]

It's depressing but I'm still hopeful. Rogue's first pass was abysmal, and they were able to rally it to something that isn't just functional, but outright exciting.

Though it's worth pointing out that Rogue, as usual, doesn't have to choose between its attack stat and its save DC stat, while monk, as usual, does. I'll be very, very surprised if that changes. (And I wouldn't be mad about it, if they would just... give monk another ASI or two!)

[Unoriginal]

The blatantly false, trivially-verifiable-as-false "justification" they gave to remove the Monk's (and Paladin's) immunity to disease annoys me to no end.

It was a niche perk, but it was a fitting perk none the less, and the fact they're removing it is a big indicator of their mindset.

Same for things like the Tongue of the Sun & Moon.

A lot of the 5e Monk's awesomeness came from being just weird enough to bypass obstacles, and it's pretty clear the 5eRRoR team is trying to remove any weirdness.

[LudicSavant]

The blatantly false, trivially-verifiable-as-false "justification" they gave to remove the Monk's (and Paladin's) immunity to disease annoys me to no end.

That was definitely weird.

WotC says...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1116449275556143114/1124697721689886833/image.png
...but then we've got page 256-257 of the DMG being a whole section on diseases, none of which are delivered by the Poisoned condition.

Also, they just straight up don't give any justification at all for removing the Poison damage immunity. It's just... gone. No notes.

[J-H]

Disease immunity, RAW, also makes you immune to Harm, which is a nice niche buff.

[LudicSavant]

Disease immunity, RAW, also makes you immune to Harm, which is a nice niche buff.

Yup. It's just another way in which the level 10 feature helped cover the Monk against numerous Con save effects.

[Chaos Jackal]

...but then we've got page 256-257 of the DMG being a whole section on diseases, none of which are delivered by the Poisoned condition.

I think what they're saying is less in relation to whether diseases are described and more about published mechanics on creatures, which are indeed quite lacking when it comes to delivering diseases as, well, diseases. The tlacatecolo, for example, emits a "disease-ridden wind" with its Plague Winds ability, but the effect is a poison, while something like mummy rot is a curse. Hell, even the contagion spell causes the poisoned condition, but at least it clarifies that anti-disease effects stop it.

So yes, diseases are described in the game, but they're very infrequently seen in creatures and were probably dropped as something incomplete and not worth bothering with. Mind you, I'm not saying I like the fact that disease immunity is gone, or that the monk gets nothing in return (and even loses poison immunity to boot), but I believe the above is the point of the explanation.

[verbatim]

One change that I think would really help would be to put monks on the cantrip +1 progression but for their unarmed attacks becoming +1, +2, +3 magic weapons (at 6, 12, 18). It addresses the complaint that they benefit less from magic weapons than other martials, incentivizes melee, fixes their damage, adds another dimension to how Flurry of Blows scales, etc.

Maybe +0, +1, +2 if the damage ends up being too much but just looking at fighter I suspect it won't be a problem.

[LudicSavant]

It addresses the complaint that they benefit less from magic weapons than other martials

I'm not actually worried about that for the current (2014+supplements) Monk. Most martials make 2-3 weapon attack per turn. A current, post-Tasha's 5e Monk makes 2-3 weapon attacks per turn. Yes, they also make unarmed attacks, but the magic weapon is still boosting 2-3 attacks -- they're not actually benefiting from a flametongue less than that Paladin over there.

Current 5e Monks also get some extra synergy with various magic items due to their Martial Arts die (for example, they can essentially double the damage die of potent magic items like the Two Birds Sling).

The problem is that this is no longer true for the 2024 Monk, which is losing not one but several of their abilities that make them more synergistic with weaponry (such as KFA, FA, DW, SS, the entire concept of Monk Weapons, and the ability to replace weapon dice with martial arts dice).

[Unoriginal]

If they want to make weapons less attactive for the Monk, they should start by taking inspiration from the UA Tavern Brawler fest they published a bit ago and let the Monk do both unarmed damage and the unarmed options (push, knock prone, grapple,etc) at the same time, and for every unarmed strike they do.

A Monk moving an enemy 40ft thanks to flurry of blows wpuld be both awesome, thematic, and useful.

Heck, they should do that even if they don't want to make weapons less attractive.

But that would require the devs to know their own work.

[Boverk]

I agree that monks should get some method of increasing accuracy (primarily) and might as well have it be damage too.

The +1 to unarmed necklace and tattoo exists, but I'd like to see +1,+2,and +3 versions in the upcoming player's handbook....they need to republish the belts from FTD to remove the word ki anyway, right?

[Unoriginal]

they need to republish the belts from FTD to remove the word ki anyway, right?

Reading your post let me connect the dots for something else that bothered me without being able to put the finger on it.


The "Warrior of the Elements" is the Dragon Monk from the Fizban's, but through the 5eRRoR filter and without any of the lessons the devs had learned.

[Boverk]

It's kinda like astral self and ascendant dragon had a baby

[tKUUNK]

Dancing bards, although they may get less attacks per round, get the same unarmed strike dice as monks, and at later levels, get the increase in dice size a level ahead of monks. they get evasion (which can apply to the entire party), can use Bardic Inspiration and unarmed strike with the same action. They have unarmored defense, too.

Oh, and bards are full casters, of course, with arguably the best out of combat utility of any class. If that's even arguable.

So it's like this: I guess we can't FINALLY give the monk that much needed boost to damage dice without making sure some other class gets it too, plus way more besides.

okay I'm done venting. Am I off base here?

[Melil12]

There should be no distinction between a monks unarmed attacks or a monks weapon. They are one and the same.

I would have it so that “While a monk is wielding a monk weapon their unarmed attacks gain that weapons mastery property.”

Nick - your Ma bonus attack can be used during the attack action (cannot use flurry with this)
Versatile - You can use the weapons damage dice instead of your MAs. (Including dmg type)

Also MAs allows for a monk to use dexterity in place of Str for push/trip ect

Next step of the wind can be used as a Bonus action. If you spend a Discipline point you may also dodge or disengage.

Lastly Stunning strike leave it as once per turn but if the target passes their con save they become dazed.

[LudicSavant]

The new Monk is better at resource longevity (almost entirely because of the new level 7 feature), but point for point buys meaningfully less with those resources than they used to, with one main exception.

They made Monks better at mobility, both in their core features and their subclass features (especially the level 11 subclass features). I mean, they didn't really need much help here, but they got it.

The problem is, their ability to actually do things when they arrive at wherever they need to be positioned got nerfed.


I guess we can't FINALLY give the monk that much needed boost to damage dice without making sure some other class gets it too, plus way more besides.

Not only that, but they couldn't give them a boost to their martial arts die without nerfing the basic concept of how martial arts dice function to begin with. They no longer affect monk weapons.

Oh, they also reverted all of the Tasha's changes that helped Monks so much, which works out to their damage being lower than it was before. Oi vey.

Oh, and they nerfed the best (core) Monk subclass into a bland one trick pony (I mean, it's a good trick, but it's still one trick that's vulnerable to counterplay), which further leads to them being weaker than before.

[Amnestic]

Look at how they massacred my boy (shadow monk)...

What we got in return for what they took away isn't equal. A shame. 2014 monk rides on (with a few changes here and there).

[LudicSavant]

Look at how they massacred my boy (shadow monk)...

What we got in return for what they took away isn't equal. A shame.

Yeah, they basically just gutted the best designed Monk subclass in the PHB.

[Scarytincan]

Covered basically every issue I had with it perfectly. As a monk main, at this point it almost feels personal how opposed they seem to be to giving monks any grapple/shove love in particular

[Amechra]

I would honestly prefer it if they replaced the Monk with the Artificer moving forward if this is their idea of a better Monk. And I don't even like the Artificer.

And, while I'm wishing on fairy dust... please, for the love of anything just make unarmed strikes a normal weapon option, and figure out some way to represent martial arts that isn't just "here, have some kinda naff free weapons and armor".

[verbatim]

I'm not actually worried about that for the current (2014+supplements) Monk. Most martials make 2-3 weapon attack per turn. A current, post-Tasha's 5e Monk makes 2-3 weapon attacks per turn. Yes, they also make unarmed attacks, but the magic weapon is still boosting 2-3 attacks -- they're not actually benefiting from a flametongue less than that Paladin over there.
This is a good point, under the current system monks generally are incentivized to make more weapon attacks than unarmed attacks in most tiers of play.




The problem is that this is no longer true for the 2024 Monk, which is losing not one but several of their abilities that make them more synergistic with weaponry (such as KFA, FA, DW, SS, the entire concept of Monk Weapons, and the ability to replace weapon dice with martial arts dice).

One issue imo with both Tasha's Monk and the 5.5e one is that the changes from base 5e both seem to increasingly encourage bow and arrow kiting and never meleeing unless forced to.

Giving specifically unarmed strikes the cantrip progression as magic weapons is something I'm going to look at if when the dust settles their DPS really lags other martials in cqc or is equivalent to their ranged DPS which should be lower, also rolling back stunning strike.

[Garfunion]

In terms of the monk weapons, no longer benefiting from martial arts damage die. It would make the subclasses like the Kensei more unique, for they would actually have a unique feature, allowing them to use their martial arts damage die for their weapons.

[Kane0]

I'm loving all this, gives me plenty of perspective on what to do and not do on my own work, especially for classes I'm not as deep into

[Damon_Tor]

My take:

This is more evidence that this first round of "play tests" is fake. Marketing. New Coke. They are deliberately releasing bad content so that when they show us the changes they actually want to make we'll be all "well at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been, thank goodness they listened to feedback and care about the community."

Take the wildshape changes. Wildshape is STILL being nerfed. But because they showed us SUCH an irredeemable version of it first, the community is happy to take the coffee that good cop is offering.

[Kane0]

My take:

This is more evidence that this first round of "play tests" is fake. Marketing. New Coke. They are deliberately releasing bad content so that when they show us the changes they actually want to make we'll be all "well at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been, thank goodness they listened to feedback and care about the community."

Take the wildshape changes. Wildshape is STILL being nerfed. But because they showed us SUCH an irredeemable version of it first, the community is happy to take the coffee that good cop is offering.

Which could definitely work if people forget they can just keep using the 2014 book, or in Gary's words 'as soon as they realise you only need pencils and dice we're finished'

[animorte]

in Gary's words 'as soon as they realise you only need pencils and dice we're finished'
Such a good quote. Maybe this reminder would do some good.

[Psyren]

Ok, I get that Shadow Monk lost Pass Without Trace and Silence and that's sad and all - but everything else about it is really great. You can see through the magical darkness you create, it only costs 1 point to make now, you can reposition it for free so it doesn't screw your allies, you get darkvision without having to spend points on it and you get a benefit even if you already have it racially, and Improved Shadow Step is way, way better than the old Cloak of Shadows because it doesn't burn your action to use. Being able to fight effectively in magical darkness at low levels helps mitigate a lot of monk's offensive and defensive problems against most foes.

[Segev]

I cannot help but wonder if these designers honestly looked at the 5e monk and thought, "Wow, what an overpowered class! People will thank us for nerfing it to make it less abusive!"

[LudicSavant]

Look at how they massacred my boy (shadow monk)...

What we got in return for what they took away isn't equal. A shame.

I think Amnestic hit it on the head: What they got in return is not equal to what was lost.


you can reposition it

You could already reposition Darkness, this is just one more way to do so. It's a relatively small change.


Cloak of Shadows

The main point of Cloak of Shadows is to keep Invisibility up out of combat.

Between that and the other features lost, their out of combat utility has been substantially reduced.


you get darkvision without having to spend points on it

2014 Shadow Monk could give the entire party Darkvision, not just themselves. Also, since the spell lasts such a long time, you could basically just cast it on everyone then short rest before even taking on a dungeon.

A big part of the 2014 Shadow Monk's identity was their ability to turn their party into a ninja strike team. That teamwork is what made them good.

You would ensure that nobody in the party would need to light a torch by giving that pesky VHuman teammate Darkvision. You'd knock down a wall to make your own entrance into the dungeon for your ninja strike team under cover of Silence. You'd sneak them all in with Pass Without Trace to let the party get Surprise.

You also could do things like walk around as long as you want out of combat with invisibility and no-verbal-component Minor Illusion for fun shenanigans.

The Shadow Monk's identity as a team player and non-combat utility bringer got replaced by being a one note generic Darkness/Devil's Sight spammer, which definitely feels disappointing to me.

[Psyren]

What they got in return is not equal to what was lost

I don't see how; in most combats (especially at the low levels when this comes online) this is guaranteed advantage and disadvantage in the monk's favor, making up for a lot of their intrinsic shortcomings.


It's a relatively small change

You still have the move object option (which uses your object interaction at a minimum, assuming we'll even still have those, while this is completely free) and this works on the "point in space" usage as well. Again though, being able to see through it is the far larger buff.


gave the entire party Darkvision without having to spend points on it

How do you figure? The old one's Darkvision spell does cost points.



another generic Darkness/Devil's Sight user

You mean "the only other?" And while I wouldn't mind them getting PWT back, I'd rather them be effective in combat. Surprising enemies is great when you get it, but way too DM-dependent, never mind the fact that those rules appear to be getting changed anyway.

[Kane0]

You still have the move object option (which uses your object interaction at a minimum, assuming we'll even still have those, while this is completely free) and this works on the "point in space" usage as well. Again though, being able to see through it is the far larger buff.

How do you figure? The old one's Darkvision spell does cost points.


You could cast it on a worn or carried item, then use blind fighting style or Devil sight from feat or dip

Its no concentration and 8 hours duration, so you can spam it in the morning then take a short rest before starting the day. Same trick as warlocks with things like aid and death ward

[Psyren]

You could cast it on a worn or carried item, then use blind fighting style or Devil sight from feat or dip

But now you don't need to burn a feat or multiclass to do it, that's still a buff. And you can see through the entire effect rather than only 10ft, so enemies attacking/shooting at you from outside that small radius still have disadvantage to hit you rather than it being negated.


Its no concentration and 8 hours duration, so you can spam it in the morning then take a short rest before starting the day. Same trick as warlocks with things like aid and death ward

Fair enough, but this is a minor nerf, most party members are running around with darkvision anyway.

I'd rather a Shadow Monk that is effective solo like this one is than one whose identity revolves around minor buffs to the group.

[LudicSavant]

Ah, another thing I just noticed: The offensive use of Deflect Missiles now offers enemies a Dex saving throw to negate all of the damage, and deals damage based on your martial arts die (no stat added) rather than the original attack, which is very frequently not an improvement.

I'll edit that into the original post.

[Unoriginal]

Which could definitely work if people forget they can just keep using the 2014 book, or in Gary's words 'as soon as they realise you only need pencils and dice we're finished'

They're going to burn the 2014 version off the face of the Earth in any way they can.

They don't have the capacity to burn it off completely, of course, but losing all official ressources overnight and books with the same name but different rules showing up in bookstores starting spring 2024 will have a considerable impact.

[Segev]

Speaking as one who played a shadow monk, the changes here would have made him significantly worse at infiltration, party friendliness, and stealth in general.

He had darkvision, natively, and while this would have made his own vision extend further, he didn't need that. The inability to give other PCs darkvision, on the other hand, would have meant leaving the party behind a lot more often. Especially with PWT no longer an option.

He used darkness to great effect without needing devil's sight, casting it on other PCs' projectiles to negate the ability of enemies to attack from long range easily. (The DM used ink blot magical darkness.)

He DID have a combination of magic item and racial feature that allowed the exact same tactics as the 'I can see through my own darkness' trick allows; he could see through fog and had an eversmoklng bottle that spewed fog instead of smoke. The number of times he used it from levels three through eleven could be counted on one hand. It was too disruptive to the party. The same will be true of the new darkness tactic unless the whole party spends a feat, multiclasses, or are straight warlocks.

It doesn't even combo well with a second shadow monk or a shadow sorcerer; these each see only through their own darkness.

The changes are only good design if forcing exactly one play style surrounding one trick that only works well in very particular party compositions or when you abandon your party is the goal. I do not think this was the goal; I therefore think they designed this poorly.

[Psyren]

It was too disruptive to the party. The same will be true of the new darkness tactic unless the whole party spends a feat, multiclasses, or are straight warlocks.

I don't think it would be the same as that. Eversmoking Bottle creates a vastly larger radius of obscurement than Darkness, and it can't be repositioned for free either; of course that's going to be disruptive. You can even turn off Darkness at any time since it uses concentration, whereas the bottle's obscurement persists long after you stopper it (which also takes your Action.)

[ZRN]

Rogue's first pass was abysmal, and they were able to rally it to something that isn't just functional, but outright exciting.


To carry through the comparison, the first draft of the rogue displayed a few general design strategies: they wanted to (1) get rid of abilities/effects that had powerful unintended consequences, especially when those consequences would surprise and screw over inexperienced DMs or encourage weird builds; and (2) raise the floor and lower the ceiling for build effectiveness, which also encourages more build variety. But when they got pushback on specific changes, they largely reverted them. (So for example they wanted to get rid of sneak attack on reactions because it doubles DPR for optimizers and plays counter to the stick-and-move overall rogue design, but when people complained they let it go. And they changed Fast Hands because it was weird that thief rogues were really good field medics and because nobody understood the difference between using magical and nonmagical items, but when people complained they said okay, use magic items too.)

For monks, they're taking an interesting tack here in removing ALL spell abilities from the class, which I like in principle because I hate having to dip into the Spells chapter with a non-caster character. Sometimes this results in a nerf and sometimes a buff; the elements monk, for example, can fly for way cheaper and without concentration, but loses a lot of other options.

Another thing they're doing here is taking what was previously a build idea that optimizers knew about and putting it front and center with the shadow monk's darkness. Now you don't need Devil's Sight or blind-fighting or whatever to make use of your primary subclass ability. Which is good! I get that LudicSavant has been able to do that for the better part of a decade but a lot of PHB-only and less-experienced players will probably enjoy the darkness shenanigans for the first time now. Still really sucks that they're losing silence and PWT (although PWT is a silly spell.)

[Hurrashane]

Would the idea that a lot of people playing Monk would likely grab the Tavern Brawler feat at 1st level make the monk as a whole better? Re-roll 1s on unarmed and can shove for free when you hit (better than a mastery as now your unarmed strikes can do two things, push and trip).

It doesn't seem like the feat would be required to make the monk playable (seems pretty playable if undertuned) but also seems like a no-brainer feat for most players to take when thinking of playing a monk

[Boverk]

Would the idea that a lot of people playing Monk would likely grab the Tavern Brawler feat at 1st level make the monk as a whole better? Re-roll 1s on unarmed and can shove for free when you hit (better than a mastery as now your unarmed strikes can do two things, push and trip).

It doesn't seem like the feat would be required to make the monk playable (seems pretty playable if undertuned) but also seems like a no-brainer feat for most players to take when thinking of playing a monk

I've thought similar. Tavern Brawler is basically a sorta fighting style (rerolling 1's is similar to great weapon fighting) and a weapon mastery (basically push, but only once per turn) for unarmed attacks.

And it doesn't require a saving throw to shove, so its better than Open Hand Technique Push.

Are they not giving monks unarmed fighting styles because it would step on open hand monk's toes?

[Segev]

I don't think it would be the same as that. Eversmoking Bottle creates a vastly larger radius of obscurement than Darkness, and it can't be repositioned for free either; of course that's going to be disruptive. You can even turn off Darkness at any time since it uses concentration, whereas the bottle's obscurement persists long after you stopper it (which also takes your Action.)Eversmoking bottle moves its origin with you.

And the notion that wasting the ki and action you used to turn it on by turning off the darkness early is a selling point only drives home that it is 'good' because you can choose to waste the resources rather than inconvenience the party if you foolishly tried to use it.

It isn't a tactic that will be useful without a party built around it, and the only way to do that is through Warlock or Eldritch Adept. Remember: two shadow monks cannot see through each other's darkness, either.




For monks, they're taking an interesting tack here in removing ALL spell abilities from the class, which I like in principle because I hate having to dip into the Spells chapter with a non-caster character. Sometimes this results in a nerf and sometimes a buff; the elements monk, for example, can fly for way cheaper and without concentration, but loses a lot of other options. Except they left casting darkness in place.

]
Another thing they're doing here is taking what was previously a build idea that optimizers knew about and putting it front and center with the shadow monk's darkness. Now you don't need Devil's Sight or blind-fighting or whatever to make use of your primary subclass ability. Which is good! I get that LudicSavant has been able to do that for the better part of a decade but a lot of PHB-only and less-experienced players will probably enjoy the darkness shenanigans for the first time now. Still really sucks that they're losing silence and PWT (although PWT is a silly spell.)
The Darkness spell was not the front-and-center of the Shadow Monk before. Nor should it be, now. I don't mind them giving the Shadow monk the abiLity to see through their own darkness, but it should not be their main and only useful combat trick. It shouldn't replace their utility stuff.

I genuinely do not get how the designers could look at the 5e monk and think, "The way to fix this class and its subclasses is to take stuff away and make it less capable of working with a party than it was before."

[Scarytincan]

Would the idea that a lot of people playing Monk would likely grab the Tavern Brawler feat at 1st level make the monk as a whole better? Re-roll 1s on unarmed and can shove for free when you hit (better than a mastery as now your unarmed strikes can do two things, push and trip).

It doesn't seem like the feat would be required to make the monk playable (seems pretty playable if undertuned) but also seems like a no-brainer feat for most players to take when thinking of playing a monk

If I recall correctly, it only gives the push option, can't use it to trip. That would be too useful. We must only be permitted to agonize over when to attempt to push for disengage vs gamble on pushing later if it hits for another attack worth of damage, like crusher.

[Hurrashane]

If I recall correctly, it only gives the push option, can't use it to trip. That would be too useful. We must only be permitted to agonize over when to attempt to push for disengage vs gamble on pushing later if it hits for another attack worth of damage, like crusher.

It shares the name with the ability that unarmed strikes have, but it looks like you're right the tavern brawler shove can only be used to push.

Something kind of fun is that unarmed strike sort of has a mastery already in that you can substitute it's damage for a push, trip, or grapple attempt. So even at level 1 a monk can run up to a foe and trip it then grapple it in 1 turn.

Arguably less useful than a mastery as it doesn't do damage -and- have a rider (Tavern Brawler not withstanding) but every time a monk strikes they have 4 options of what to do next; damage, grapple, trip, or shove. And I think that's kind of neat if you're looking for the monk to be a sort of battlefield controller melee class.

[LudicSavant]

Remember: two shadow monks cannot see through each other's darkness, either. Good point, that's another thing that really bothered me. Previously, a team of ninjas was actually a scary thing that comboed well with each other (think stealthy burst/lockdown characters with good initiative combining PWT, KFA-Silence, and KFA-Darkness simultaneously, with the ability for everyone involved to deal burst through it). Now they actually nonbo each other -- it's almost like WotC wanted the Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu to apply.


It isn't a tactic that will be useful without a party built around it, and the only way to do that is through Warlock or Eldritch Adept.

Nitpick: There's quite a few more ways to do it than Warlock/Eldritch Adept. But yeah; that doesn't change the fact that they basically reduced the Shadow Monk's entire identity to 'I'm an inexhaustible Darkness bubble, that's the entire reason I exist and the sum total of my party role, please build a party around my darkness bubble.'

They took the best designed PHB Monk subclass and turned it into gimmick subclass.

Then they basically Sun Soul'd the Elements Monk and nerfed most of the abilities of the Open Hand Monk.


The Darkness spell was not the front-and-center of the Shadow Monk before. Nor should it be, now.
Strongly agreed.


Another thing they're doing here is taking what was previously a build idea that optimizers knew about and putting it front and center with the shadow monk's darkness. Now you don't need Devil's Sight or blind-fighting or whatever to make use of your primary subclass ability. Which is good! I get that LudicSavant has been able to do that for the better part of a decade but a lot of PHB-only and less-experienced players will probably enjoy the darkness shenanigans for the first time now. Still really sucks that they're losing silence and PWT (although PWT is a silly spell.)

I'm all for accessibility, but they're not actually letting new players do the kind of thing I was doing for the better part of a decade. The new Shadow Monk ability doesn't let them see through the obscurement created by allies or enemies (my builds did, and not just the obscurement from Darkness, either), and they don't do any of the cool things that aren't Darkness (which is important not only because one trick ponies are boring, but because many enemies can casually counter Darkness so having it as your whole schtick -- as opposed to just one more thing in the utility belt -- is bad). And as Segev said, Darkness wasn't the front and center of the class's optimization to begin with, it was just one more facet of it.

[ZRN]

If I recall correctly, it only gives the push option, can't use it to trip. That would be too useful. We must only be permitted to agonize over when to attempt to push for disengage vs gamble on pushing later if it hits for another attack worth of damage, like crusher.

Yeah, especially with weapon masteries as widespread as they are now they could probably remove the 1/turn limit on the tavern brawler push.

Let's not forget that the feat also lets you smash someone with a chair or table to slow or push them (via club/greatclub masteries)!

[LudicSavant]

If I wanted to add the ability for the Shadow Monk to innately see through darkness, I would have just given them Blind-Fighting. That way 1) they can work off any obscurement, not just the overly narrow and self centered case of their own Darkness, and 2) it gives them an actual reason to maybe hit something in melee from time to time. You know, once in a blue moon, at least.

I also would make extra sure to retain their identity as a team player with a bag of tricks, both in and out of combat.

[Foxhound438]

One change that I think would really help would be to put monks on the cantrip +1 progression but for their unarmed attacks becoming +1, +2, +3 magic weapons (at 6, 12, 18). It addresses the complaint that they benefit less from magic weapons than other martials, incentivizes melee, fixes their damage, adds another dimension to how Flurry of Blows scales, etc.

Maybe +0, +1, +2 if the damage ends up being too much but just looking at fighter I suspect it won't be a problem.

Eh, most DM's I've played with (and me) were perfectly okay with "+1/2/3 gloves" being a thing, and there's a few named magic items that boost unarmed strikes as well.


If they want to make weapons less attactive for the Monk, they should start by taking inspiration from the UA Tavern Brawler fest they published a bit ago and let the Monk do both unarmed damage and the unarmed options (push, knock prone, grapple,etc) at the same time, and for every unarmed strike they do.

A Monk moving an enemy 40ft thanks to flurry of blows wpuld be both awesome, thematic, and useful.

Heck, they should do that even if they don't want to make weapons less attractive.

But that would require the devs to know their own work.

I feel like they should just not force unarmed strikes. Nimble, fast, dextrous weapon users are a thing in many fictions.

I don't want to feel like i'm getting punished for leaving the eastern fantasy punching man ghetto, which is half the reason I don't like pathfinder 2's execution of the monk. The 5e monk as it is pretty much allows both and you can pick what you want to use to match the aesthetic you're going for.

[LudicSavant]

I feel like they should just not force unarmed strikes. Nimble, fast, dextrous weapon users are a thing in many fictions.

I don't want to feel like i'm getting punished for leaving the eastern fantasy punching man ghetto

Strongly agreed. IMHO, a good Monk design would give compelling reasons to play either archetype, as the player prefers.

We ideally want a Monk class that embraces the wire-fu swordfight monk and dwarven axe monk and gun kata monk and whip climbing monk and so forth, but also gives a reason to like, actually go into melee and punch something sometimes (which is not helped by design choices like changing Stunning Strike from a high commitment high payoff situational melee option to a low commitment ranged option).

Funnily enough, the post-Tasha's Shadow Monk and Mercy Monk are among the best at walking this line. Mercy for example is happy to play at range but also like to occasionally punch things for their poison. Shadow Monk could pressure people by getting up in their face with blind-fighting KFA lockdown. And both opportunistically want to jump in to commit to Stunning Strike on a high value target (like a Mind Flayer Arcanist or Drow Matron or Solar).

[verbatim]

My take:

This is more evidence that this first round of "play tests" is fake. Marketing. New Coke. They are deliberately releasing bad content so that when they show us the changes they actually want to make we'll be all "well at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been, thank goodness they listened to feedback and care about the community."

Take the wildshape changes. Wildshape is STILL being nerfed. But because they showed us SUCH an irredeemable version of it first, the community is happy to take the coffee that good cop is offering.

I can't imagine they're reading every single paragraph(s) in every single feedback form sent in, but I think it's entirely possible that the first pass on druid and rogue were good faith attempts and then they looked at the average feedback 1 out of 10 ratings and said "oh ****".

The druid wildshape change was a very logical extension of the Tasha's summons which they felt comfortable putting in print, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

[Skrum]

they wanted to (1) get rid of abilities/effects that had powerful unintended consequences, especially when those consequences would surprise and screw over inexperienced DMs or encourage weird builds; and (2) raise the floor and lower the ceiling for build effectiveness, which also encourages more build variety.

See this really concerns me. Like I guess if it was done very careful, I can absolutely see addressing the mechanically "best" options (especially if they're based on an unintended interactions*). But from I've seen of the changes so far, it looks a lot more like Syndrome-syndrome: When everyone is special, no one will be. I.e., I see a lot of flattening, and a lot of "the ability only gets to be used this way!!!"

As someone who plays the game for equal parts storytelling AND "combat simulator optimization," it's going to remove a large part part of my interest and enjoyment in the game.





* Does 5e even have that many unintended interactions that become mechanically best choices? I can't really think of any. The balance problems are 95% spell superiority and 5% obviously best feat options

[LudicSavant]

But from I've seen of the changes so far, it looks a lot more like Syndrome-syndrome: When everyone is special, no one will be. I.e., I see a lot of flattening, and a lot of "the ability only gets to be used this way!!!"

That's a good way of putting it.

[Foxhound438]

* Does 5e even have that many unintended interactions that become mechanically best choices? I can't really think of any. The balance problems are 95% spell superiority and 5% obviously best feat options

I mean, there's a handful of cheese options involving bags of rats and/or copious amounts of caffine, and of course good old spike dragging. More than zero, less than a book worth of "no (insert cheese)" house rules to make the game fun for the lactose intolerant at the table.

Aside from that, pretty much multiclassing is what'll get you. Sorcerer/warlocks for quickened eldritch blasts at full scaling, sorcerer/paladins for more and better smiting, any caster with two levels of fighter...

[LudicSavant]

* Does 5e even have that many unintended interactions that become mechanically best choices? I can't really think of any.

I can think of a few, but they pretty much always involve casters. Even the ones that can involve martials somewhere in the equation (like spike dragging rune knights being able to cost-efficiently apply literally several hundred damage to multiple creatures at a time in tier 2 with no save) are generally enabled by caster teammates (the whole thing wouldn't exist if Spike Growth didn't have uncapped damage potential).

Funnily enough, they're adding more broken caster options, even as they nerf martial stuff. For example, any Cleric can now can cast Hallow as an Action!! 1/day with no spell slot cost at level 10. It was scary when people were spending Wish to do it, now it's just... what...

[verbatim]

Does 5e even have that many unintended interactions that become mechanically best choices? I can't really think of any. The balance problems are 95% spell superiority and 5% obviously best feat options

Aura of Protection used to stack (per Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/629526633683103745)) prior to being errata'd. If a DM let you do this I feel like the optimal t3-t4 party Has to bring at least 2 people who are X/paladin 6.

We haven't seen what said stacking rule will look like going forward, but Playtest Paladin AoP now has an added rider explicitly specifying that it does not stack with itself.

[Skrum]

Aura of Protection used to stack (per Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/629526633683103745)) prior to being errata'd. If a DM let you do this I feel like the optimal t3-t4 party Has to bring at least 2 people who are X/paladin 6.



Just my 2 cents, two characters that are paladin 6/something else X sounds pretty optimal even without stacking. If I was going to build an "optimal" party of level 12's, I'd probably do something like

Paladin 6/Hexblade 1/Divine Soul Sorcerer 5
Paladin 11 Fighter 1
Wizard 12
Twilight Cleric 12


I can think of a few, but they pretty much always involve casters. Even the ones that can involve martials somewhere in the equation (like spike dragging rune knights being able to cost-efficiently apply literally several hundred damage to multiple creatures at a time in tier 2 with no save) are generally enabled by caster teammates (the whole thing wouldn't exist if Spike Growth didn't have uncapped damage potential).


Yeah spike growth is a good callout. I think that might be the best 5e cheese; the infamous coffeelock kinda relies on the DM "letting" you break the game. Every game I've played in puts hard limits on how many rests characters get (my sense is that's closer to the norm than giving players unlimited rest potential). Limit rests, and the build is entirely unremarkable. Spike Growth on the other hand is really straight forward and can be set up within 1 round.



Funnily enough, they're adding more broken caster options, even as they nerf martial stuff. For example, any Cleric can now can cast Hallow as an Action!! 1/day with no spell slot cost at level 10. It was scary when people were spending Wish to do it, now it's just... what...

Yeah I noticed that too. Even just the quality of life changes the caster classes are getting, like Valor Bards being able to cast with their weapon, that's a big deal when stacked on top of existing power discrepancies. A *huge* area of contention at my table is the little difficulties gish characters have when trying to use a shield, a weapon, and cast spells. IMO, there should be cost to doing all that because the payoff - static AC of 22-23 and being able to shield to 27 or 28 - is really really good. Like why would you be a martial at all.

[Psyren]

Eversmoking bottle moves its origin with you.

Sure, but it's still 60-120ft radius - i.e. 120-240ft diameter, that's still going to cover the majority if not entirety of most battlefields no matter where you yourself stand. And you had a houseruled version on top of that to make it less of a pain for you to use. You're almost guaranteed to get in a teammate's way, if not all of them. It's just incomparable compared to a 15' radius.



And the notion that wasting the ki and action you used to turn it on by turning off the darkness early is a selling point only drives home that it is 'good' because you can choose to waste the resources rather than inconvenience the party if you foolishly tried to use it.

You won't have to turn off a 15' movable radius most of the time. But knowing that you can if needed, even on their turn instead of just yours, is still a good tactical option. Moreover, it only cost you 1 disc rather than 2, so effectively you get one free deactivate per combat to be on par with the old one.

Again, I don't mind PWT and will push for them to get it back. But the new darkness is still great.

[ZRN]

I can think of a few, but they pretty much always involve casters. Even the ones that can involve martials somewhere in the equation (like spike dragging rune knights being able to cost-efficiently apply literally several hundred damage to multiple creatures at a time in tier 2 with no save) are generally enabled by caster teammates (the whole thing wouldn't exist if Spike Growth didn't have uncapped damage potential).

Funnily enough, they're adding more broken caster options, even as they nerf martial stuff. For example, any Cleric can now can cast Hallow as an Action!! 1/day with no spell slot cost at level 10. It was scary when people were spending Wish to do it, now it's just... what...

My theory on this is that unlike competitive games where you’re balancing for the most optimized player options, in D&D the limiting factor the devs are balancing for is the LESS competent/technically-minded DMs who have a hard time dealing with stuff like player damage spikes and 5MWD issues. If spike growth shenanigans and the like is even on their radar it probably isn’t something they want to broadly playtest (because 95% of their testers won’t know what the issue is or whether it’s fixed). So maybe the worst spell exploits will be fixed in the actual 2024 release, maybe not, but don’t expect to see much before then.

[verbatim]

My theory on this is that unlike competitive games where you’re balancing for the most optimized player options, in D&D the limiting factor the devs are balancing for is the LESS competent/technically-minded DMs who have a hard time dealing with stuff like player damage spikes and 5MWD issues. If spike growth shenanigans and the like is even on their radar it probably isn’t something they want to broadly playtest (because 95% of their testers won’t know what the issue is or whether it’s fixed). So maybe the worst spell exploits will be fixed in the actual 2024 release, maybe not, but don’t expect to see much before then.

IIRC the powergamer analysis of weapon mastery was that it raises the damage floor for but the ceiling is still lower without Sharpshooter and GWM's -5/+10, which imo tracks pretty well with this theory of the case.

[Opsimos]

Ludic,
I fully agree with your analysis.

[ZRN]

IIRC the powergamer analysis of weapon mastery was that it raises the damage floor for but the ceiling is still lower without Sharpshooter and GWM's -5/+10, which imo tracks pretty well with this theory of the case.

Yeah, and honestly if all the changes were like this (remove a powerful option that crowds out variety and replace it with a new feature that encourages more diverse weapon selection), I think most "powergamers" would be happy. Instead in this case (shadow monk) they're taking a well-built niche role (stealth-team enabler) and shifting it to a broader role (mobile striker who uses darkness effects to teleport around and blind enemies). I can certainly see why: a lot of players who don't know about Devil's Sight or blind fighting probably felt like the old shadow monk was a bit janky, and "team-stealth enabler" is a role that's most effective in certain types of groups (i.e. when the rest of the players and the DM actually WANT to play fantasy Ninja Strike Force) so a broader archetype might work better for lots of groups.

[verbatim]

I think turning -5/+10 on 2H weapons only into a universal gameplay mechanic (a la grapple and shove) for everyone could have been an interesting twist. Martials need the buff and having something to make up for the downsides of forgoing a shield seems important from a game design standpoint.

[Amechra]

I think turning -5/+10 on 2H weapons only into a universal gameplay mechanic (a la grapple and shove) for everyone could have been an interesting twist. Martials need the buff and having something to make up for the downsides of forgoing a shield seems important from a game design standpoint.

The problem with -5/+10 is that it isn't an interesting choice once you do the math. Due to the nature of bounded accuracy, the situations where it isn't just equivalent to a small boost to your expected damage are straight-up pathological. Like, if you're normally at or around a 60% chance to hit, it's roughly equivalent to dealing +1d6 damage on normal attacks and +1d10 damage on attacks made with advantage. If you want to reward people with extra damage for not using shields, just do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem with -5/+10 is that it isn't an interesting choice once you do the math. Due to the nature of bounded accuracy, the situations where it isn't just equivalent to a small boost to your expected damage are straight-up pathological. Like, if you're normally at or around a 60% chance to hit, it's roughly equivalent to dealing +1d6 damage on normal attacks and +1d10 damage on attacks made with advantage. If you want to reward people with extra damage for not using shields, just do that.

Yeah. I'm all for giving people choices. But dominating choices (where one of the options is always better than the other, or so nearly that you'd be a fool not to use it) aren't interesting choices.

[Amechra]

The issue isn't even that it's a dominating choice, it's that it's a non-choice mathematically speaking.

When you're calculating how much damage you can expect to deal, you get the result by multiplying your chance to hit by the amount of raw damage you deal. As a result you can calculate precisely when it's worth it to make the trade as long as you have a good idea of your accuracy and how much damage you deal without it. Contrast that with, say, Reckless Attack, where you're trading defense for offense, which is a much more uncertain trade.

[Witty Username]

They don't have the capacity to burn it off completely, of course, but losing all official ressources overnight and books with the same name but different rules showing up in bookstores starting spring 2024 will have a considerable impact.

They will definitely "errata" d&d beyond at least.
--
I am in the monk is the weakest class crowd, so I am baffled by nerfs across the board except for the one area they didn't need significant changes too, which would be mobility.

[Melil12]

Why they did the monk this way is because if they left Monk weapons and Fighting Styles warrior group feats. The monk would blow away any other Martials.

Twf Nick Monk with the style feat:
Lvl 2-4
1 attack main
1 attack Nick
1-2 Martial arts or fury
All at 1d6+stat

Lvl 5 adds another attack and makes them 1d8s.

Level 11 makes them all 1d10s

Stunning strike on 5ish attacks per turn is on par with nova smiting all your spells slots. So of course it got the same treatment.

—————————————-
The issue is we now have a monk who is confused.
Weapon Masteries bring almost nothing to the table for a monk.
Versatile? Monks never cared if they held a weapon in 1 or 2 hands.
Nick? Currently we donÂ’t get fighting styles and are limited to a d4 weapon. No feat support.
Vexing? Â… advantage for 1 weapon attack a round Â… woot.
Slow? Yeah we were worried about out running stuff.
Sap? Pretty much our best option. Makes us on par with vicious mockery now.
————————————————
There is absolutely no feat support for the monk since we donÂ’t get martial weapons. Unless you waste a leveled feat Â… to pick up martial weapons. Cuz they give (light medium and shields out at level 1) but not martial weapons.
Pam gone
Sentinel gone
Twf feat gone
Mage slayer gone
Instead of mobility we now get speeder Â…🙄
Tavern brawler and grappling are str based only
—————————————
To fix this Â…

Make Martial Arts apply weapon mastery to your unarmed attacks when wielding corresponding weapons.

Monk weapons return.

Dmg Dice Â… I would allow for reverting back to allow the above, but that is debatable.

Nick allows for the MA BA attack to be apart of your main attack action (do not allow flurry)
Versatile lets your unarmed attacks use your weapons dmg dice.
Vexing would be more meaningful
Sap would let us debuff different enemies at once.

Stunning fist if it is left once per turn should apply dazed on a successful test.

[Amechra]

I've been thinking about the Playtest Monk... and I feel like part of the issue is that the Monk really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to fit with the rest of the system. And it needs to be rebuilt by someone who's actually willing to let the Monk do wacky stuff with their overall theme of "preternatural awareness/grace/speed". Screw fussing around with damage, why do I have to wait until 9th level to run up walls?

Though, speaking of damage... you could actually solve quite a few issues with the Monk by making Martial Arts trigger off of Dodging instead of Attacking and then cranking up their Martial Arts damage die to compensate. You'd have to redesign Flurry of Blows (maybe as a straight "Spend 1 ki to make an unarmed strike. Use only once per turn"?) and Patient Defense (because "you can attack as a bonus action after Dodging" and "you can Dodge as a bonus action" kinda conflict with each-other), but it'd at least introduce a distinctive playstyle.

[animewatcha]

So WOTC wanted Mercy monk to be a part of this playtest. How does Mercy Monk fair with these class abilities?

[ZRN]

They will definitely "errata" d&d beyond at least.
--
I am in the monk is the weakest class crowd, so I am baffled by nerfs across the board except for the one area they didn't need significant changes too, which would be mobility.

I think they're nerfing anything that plays "weird" or confuses people, and then reverting any changes that really piss people off.

It would be better design for them to carry through with the rogue sneak attack nerf, for example - it's dumb that rogues have to sit around in melee waiting for opportunity attacks to deal effective damage - but they didn't want to do a big rework so when people complained they just shrugged and reverted to the 2014 version.

For shadow monk, for example, if they just added back in Silence I'd call it an improvement overall.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm sure everyone dislikes the new capstone as written, but I'm struggling to think of a suggestion that can benefit a Monk of any build. The more I think about it, all capstones should be done like Paladin - one for each subclass.

Defy Death is so bad, it still sucks even if it cost 0 Discipline Points. And the fact that they allow you to use it a 2nd time at 50% more cost is just insulting. That means to use it twice, you need to save at least half your total DP. Points that could be used to not be in that situation to begin with.

[animewatcha]

I'm sure everyone dislikes the new capstone as written, but I'm struggling to think of a suggestion that can benefit a Monk of any build. The more I think about it, all capstones should be done like Paladin - one for each subclass.

Defy Death is so bad, it still sucks even if it cost 0 Discipline Points. And the fact that they allow you to use it a 2nd time at 50% more cost is just insulting. That means to use it twice, you need to save at least half your total DP. Points that could be used to not be in that situation to begin with.

IIRC, the very first capstone proposed for monk at the playtest for DnD Next or so when we had 4e and 3.5e archive and such. IIRC, the capstone was all ability scores became 20. So in this situations, all ability scores become a minimum of 20?

[LudicSavant]

I'm sure everyone dislikes the new capstone as written, but I'm struggling to think of a suggestion that can benefit a Monk of any build.

X/day, double your martial arts die for a round (no action required). This not only would give you +4d12 damage on your flurry for any Monk, it would also open avenues like letting an ascendant dragon do better AoEs, a Mercy do better heals, etc.

[Psyren]

So WOTC wanted Mercy monk to be a part of this playtest. How does Mercy Monk fair with these class abilities?

The 1/day quick rest is nice. Mercy wants to be unarmed (as much if not moreso than Open Hand?) so the weapon masteries don't matter. The healing and damage of your Hands were slightly buffed by the martial arts die buff.

At the end of the day the chassis isn't that different; Mercy was good* before, it's still good. It helps mitigate the monk's most glaring flaw - its defense - by letting you hand out no-save disadvantage to your attackers and to a lesser extent heal yourself while attacking. The damage boost isn't too shabby either.

*for a monk

[Schwann145]

The only Monks I've really been a fan of are Shadow and Kensai.

Shadow takes too many hits here and losing almost all of it's party-friendly tools is too much.
Kensai will need to be rebuilt from the ground up; as-is, this new chassis utterly slaughters it.

RIP

[Jerrykhor]

IIRC, the very first capstone proposed for monk at the playtest for DnD Next or so when we had 4e and 3.5e archive and such. IIRC, the capstone was all ability scores became 20. So in this situations, all ability scores become a minimum of 20?

Interesting, that is actually be a lot less powerful than it sounds, considering Monks have no way to put the 20 Int/Cha/Str to good use. Having +11 in all saves is nice though.

[Amnestic]

I'm sure everyone dislikes the new capstone as written, but I'm struggling to think of a suggestion that can benefit a Monk of any build. The more I think about it, all capstones should be done like Paladin - one for each subclass.

My homebrew capstone for monk is +2 to all stats (max 22), similar to the Barb +4 Str/+4 Con capstone.

The +2 to all is more total stats (12 vs. 8), more versatile+well rounded (boosts all skills, boosts all saves), but less total throughput on their "damage" and health pool. Getting +2 to Int and Cha? Not really a big deal, but it's nice to have, sometimes.

Seeing that they were originally going to get "20 to all stats" is kinda interesting but I'm glad they scrapped it; it makes ASIs instead of feats feel a bit wasted once you get there. I don't think their current 5e capstone is good enough, but it at least doesn't obsolete your ASIs, unless you planned far, far ahead.

I do think "every class capstone is a subclass capstone" is interesting+fun design though.

[Psyren]

Seeing that they were originally going to get "20 to all stats" is kinda interesting but I'm glad they scrapped it; it makes ASIs instead of feats feel a bit wasted once you get there. I don't think their current 5e capstone is good enough, but it at least doesn't obsolete your ASIs, unless you planned far, far ahead.

I'm glad they scrapped this too - in addition to the reason you gave (i.e. any monk who didn't go all feats was a fool), it also makes every Monk 20 pretty samey.

+2 all is better but isn't that exciting. I would go for something like them getting an extra bonus action each turn, since Monks usually have so many competing uses for it.

[Kane0]

I'm leaning on improving all the level 2 ki powers myself. Flurry gives you another attack (which doesn't use your bonus action under my plan), patient defense lasts until end of next turn, step of the wind gives both dash + disengage (because I'm not doing that by default)

[Hurrashane]

I would go for something like them getting an extra bonus action each turn, since Monks usually have so many competing uses for it.

That would be a good one. A 1/LR short rest as an action or at least getting their (some? All?) discipline points back as an action I think could work too. Then a 20th level monk could really burn through their DP.

[animewatcha]

Interesting, that is actually be a lot less powerful than it sounds, considering Monks have no way to put the 20 Int/Cha/Str to good use. Having +11 in all saves is nice though.

A comparable to this would be artificer capstone. Full attuned slots meant +6 to all saves with a 1/turn 'Defy Death' 6 times.

[verbatim]

The problem with -5/+10 is that it isn't an interesting choice once you do the math. Due to the nature of bounded accuracy, the situations where it isn't just equivalent to a small boost to your expected damage are straight-up pathological. Like, if you're normally at or around a 60% chance to hit, it's roughly equivalent to dealing +1d6 damage on normal attacks and +1d10 damage on attacks made with advantage. If you want to reward people with extra damage for not using shields, just do that.

This is true, it very much has an ivory tower aspect of "good if you google what to do and when".

really the answer here is to make the 2H weapon masteries better to such a degree that it offsets the loss of said feats, or maybe bake something else in to offset the loss.

[Amechra]

This is true, it very much has an ivory tower aspect of "good if you google what to do and when".

Heck, why even Google it? The math behind it is basic algebra, and I suspect that most people who play D&D could get a rough estimate of when it'd be worth it for their character with a few minutes of work.

[Oramac]

The blatantly false, trivially-verifiable-as-false "justification" they gave to remove the Monk's (and Paladin's) immunity to disease annoys me to no end.


That was definitely weird.

WotC says...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1116449275556143114/1124697721689886833/image.png
...but then we've got page 256-257 of the DMG being a whole section on diseases, none of which are delivered by the Poisoned condition.

This, imo, is the most egregious and ridiculous change, not because of its power (real or perceived), but because of its implications. It shows that one of two things is true: 1. they don't know their own game, and have not read/understand the DMG rules on diseases; or 2. they don't want to implement diseases in any meaningful way and will (most likely) remove the diseases from the 2024 DMG.

Which brings me to...


I think what they're saying is less in relation to whether diseases are described and more about published mechanics on creatures, which are indeed quite lacking when it comes to delivering diseases as, well, diseases.

So WOTC just needs to make more monsters that use diseases. Not hard. Either reference the DMG rules or, more likely (and easier), just change the word "poison" to "disease" on the monsters for whom it makes sense.

[verbatim]

Heck, why even Google it? The math behind it is basic algebra, and I suspect that most people who play D&D could get a rough estimate of when it'd be worth it for their character with a few minutes of work.

Either/or. Either way -5/+10 builds were one of the better ways for martials to keep up with casters in higher optimization games, and it is really weird to see the top martial feats get decimated while the caster ones generally are left untouched and then also now wizards can get medium armor and shield prof in one feat without having to multiclass.

The general vibe I've seen for reactions to weapon mastery is that they're cool but the effects could be cooler. I think if they lean into that that could prove to be a solid solution.

[LudicSavant]

The general vibe I've seen for reactions to weapon mastery is that they're cool but the effects could be cooler.

Agreed with the 'could be cooler' bit.

I think the main reason people like weapon masteries is just because they're starved for anything for martials. As far as changes that they could have made, I feel like weapon masteries leave a lot to be desired. Especially since the biggest issues for most of the martials with problems are:

- A dearth of utility features (...and utility feats and features for martials actually getting nerfed in 2024 UAs).
- Scaling beyond low levels.
- Versatility in play (both in the sense of having the power to adapt to more diverse situations, and in the sense of having less 'I just use my one best option almost every round.' Some UA martials actually are way more of a case of just doing the same thing every round than they used to be!)
- UA nerfs in places martials really can't handle nerfs, "offset" by buffs in places that they were already mostly fine.
- UA buffs in places casters really didn't need buffs (Hallow as a slot-free Action at level 10? This was already scary when people had to use a 9th level slot to do it).

[verbatim]

Agreed with the 'could be cooler' bit.

I think the main reason people like weapon masteries is just because they're starved for anything for martials. As far as changes that they could have made, I feel like weapon masteries leave a lot to be desired.

in the original 5e playtest martials had battlemaster maneuvers (ranger got given spellcasting pretty late in playtesting after maneuvers were shoved into a fighter subclass, probably why Ranger has so many signature spells that are basically just powers), 4e had powers, etc. Bringing them back in some form would be nice.

[Amnestic]

The fact that all the weapon masteries are 1st level features and that there aren't any tier 2/3/4 weapon masteries means they're always going to feel a bit lame. Hard to call it mastery when it's closer to "Proficiency+".

[Skrum]

The fact that all the weapon masteries are 1st level features and that there aren't any tier 2/3/4 weapon masteries means they're always going to feel a bit lame. Hard to call it mastery when it's closer to "Proficiency+".

Excellent point. But martial abilities not scaling seem as embedded in DnD as ability scores are at this point.


The problem with -5/+10 is that it isn't an interesting choice once you do the math. Due to the nature of bounded accuracy, the situations where it isn't just equivalent to a small boost to your expected damage are straight-up pathological. Like, if you're normally at or around a 60% chance to hit, it's roughly equivalent to dealing +1d6 damage on normal attacks and +1d10 damage on attacks made with advantage. If you want to reward people with extra damage for not using shields, just do that.

This raises a really interesting/damning point: at the table I play at, AC is at a premium. The characters that take GWM are either barbs (who have resistance) or....yeah, just barbs. Shields are too valuable to give up, and there are enough other sources of damage, like divine smite, that characters will build towards that are compatible with shields to make two-handed fighting pretty strictly the domain of barbarians.

That to me strongly implies that two-handed fighting is not good enough, and even after paying the feat tax, it's not a good option overall.

But, I have to point out something that I think gets missed in talks of average damage: GWM *feels* way better than that. Like the +d6 might work out to the same thing if you attacked 100 times, but in a round to round sense, sometimes you use GWM and do 50+ damage at level 5. Or you miss twice cause you only have a 40% chance to hit. That swingyness is honestly pretty fun, and would be lost by doing something like getting rid of GWM all together and having all the THW do +d6 damage.

[verbatim]

Shields are too valuable to give up, and there are enough other sources of damage, like divine smite, that characters will build towards that are compatible with shields to make two-handed fighting pretty strictly the domain of barbarians.

That to me strongly implies that two-handed fighting is not good enough, and even after paying the feat tax, it's not a good option overall.


One of the hardest design problems 5e has is that shields are basically always optimal on casters (thematically very unlikely to use them outside of clerics and paladins) and considered a trade off that gates you out of strong 2 handed options on martials. There are ways to fix it but they would require redoing how proficiencies work which I don't think WOTC has the appetite for.

[Skrum]

One of the hardest design problems 5e has is that shields are basically always optimal on casters (thematically very unlikely to use them outside of clerics and paladins) and considered a trade off that gates you out of strong 2 handed options on martials. There are ways to fix it but they would require redoing how proficiencies work which I don't think WOTC has the appetite for.

Or change somatic components/spellcasting generally to require two hands. Hand use/economy is ridiculously high, and casters' "weapons" being all 1-handed gives them a big leg up over martials, cause as you point out, martials have a trade their defense for offense if they want increase their damage beyond what their class gives them.

[ZRN]

One of the hardest design problems 5e has is that shields are basically always optimal on casters (thematically very unlikely to use them outside of clerics and paladins) and considered a trade off that gates you out of strong 2 handed options on martials. There are ways to fix it but they would require redoing how proficiencies work which I don't think WOTC has the appetite for.

Honestly, they're gating off fighting styles so hard that it's actually impossible to get TWF as a rogue or monk or barbarian without multi-classing, so it's not like it'd be an impossible lift to keep single-class mages from using shields. Just get rid of Moderately Armored and any racial proficiencies and you're most of the way there. If a wizard wants to dip a level in fighter or cleric for +2 AC, great.

[LudicSavant]

One of the hardest design problems 5e has is that shields are basically always optimal on casters (thematically very unlikely to use them outside of clerics and paladins) and considered a trade off that gates you out of strong 2 handed options on martials. There are ways to fix it but they would require redoing how proficiencies work which I don't think WOTC has the appetite for.

Another ttrpg system I'm fond of solves this by having two handed and one handed foci (the one handed ones are weaker, of course).

[verbatim]

Another ttrpg system I'm fond of solves this by having two handed and one handed foci (the one handed ones are weaker, of course).

Which one, if I may? Sounds intriguing.



Honestly, they're gating off fighting styles so hard that it's actually impossible to get TWF as a rogue or monk or barbarian without multi-classing, so it's not like it'd be an impossible lift to keep single-class mages from using shields. Just get rid of Moderately Armored and any racial proficiencies and you're most of the way there. If a wizard wants to dip a level in fighter or cleric for +2 AC, great.

I think this is the most feasible path forward.

Another imo less feasible (mainly because it's more confusing) is making it so that class spells can only be cast while your gear meets the armor proficiencies of that specific class.

[LudicSavant]

Which one, if I may? Sounds intriguing.

Well, quite a few systems do that, but of all the various new systems our groups tried out in the wake of the OGL fiasco, Fabula Ultima is my favorite. Combines FATE-like 'pass the story stick' mechanics with a compelling tactical game that's easy to learn but has depths to master, and makes tasteful use of JRPG motifs and themes. Oh, and though high level casters still get to do fun things like just throw a castle into the sky and then live there, martials are actually interesting and effective! Lots of interesting stuff going on in that system -- pretty much every group I've introduced it to has gotten addicted so now like all of our DMs are running it, and therefore I'm in 4 FabU campaigns at the moment (in addition to 5e campaigns and a superhero campaign).

[Kane0]

Some thoughts.

Monks still need to be able to use dex for shoving, grappling and jumping.

Give them a fighting style for goodness sake. I've already thought-vomited elsewhere about styles and stances vs this half baked weapon mastery thing.

Your offense and defense are still tug-of-warring for your bonus action. Make Flurry 1 ki to add an attack to the attack action, leave martial arts as another bonus action attack.

Deflect missiles could just do the magic attacks from when you get it too really, since most attack roll spells are cantrips or tier 1 spells other than the new monster statblocks that use them more. No real opinions on the redirection being a save, though its nice you don't have to hold it anymore.

The new Dazed condition would be a great fit for Stunning strike, maybe if it still stunned if you failed the save by X amount or more?
And if you're limiting it to once per turn, give it it's own resource pool separate from Ki unless you're increasing the base amount you have to work with or putting in some Ki regeneration.

In fact, do both of those anyway. Level+Wis ki right from the start, and at level 11 add in a feature that says 'if you start your turn with less than Prof Bonus Ki points you regain 1 ki point'. Remove the 1min rest and change the capstone.

I can understand the removal of disease immunity, but what about poison? That was cool! Can we get like some extra exhaustion resistance or something in it's place? Or don't need to eat/sleep/breathe, or move the no-aging here?

I think Stillness of Mind should also let you shrug off confusion and sleep effects in the same way as charms and fear, even if you normally wouldn't be able to take the bonus action to do so.

Haven't really delved into the subclasses much yet.

And no, I'm not going to be calling it discipline.

[Garfunion]

How about instead of getting Ki on a short/long rest, what if you gain Ki when the monk makes an unarmed attack. You can hold a number of Ki equal to your proficiency bonus, and it goes away after a minute. The Ki you gain is used to enhance your actions not used to make actions.

[LudicSavant]

Perhaps even more worrying to me than the Monk's nerfed output is the general directiom the design appears to be taking. It reminds me of how in 2014 5e they made a bunch of Ranger abilities that made you engage *less* with wilderness exploration as a player.

Generally speaking the current Monk has fewer interesting decisions to make.

Ki resources are now more abundant (and not just slightly so, you basically get a whole extra short rest for free and early Perfect Self *and* ki costs are reduced), but your ability to actually get stuff done on per-round is markedly reduced. This, plus the general erosion of any situational options, makes it less of a resource management case and more of a 'do the same thing every round' class.

Do I close to Stunning Strike or stay at range? No need to make this decision, SS works on ranged attacks.

Do I risk going all in on Stunning Strike on an important foe? No, because you can't. It's now just something you toss in every round and maybe get lucky.

What spell do I cast as a Shadow Monk? Darkness amd only Darkness, ever. Even if you're probably gonna fight enemies that see through darkness.

What about my weapon choices? Yeah those got removed.

Can I do stuff out of combat? Don't be silly, you're a martial, your noncombat stuff has to get nerfed hard.

Monks now have significantly fewer options, in combat and utility, and less per-turn oomph. But hey, at least you won't run out of ki! Also their mobility got meaningfully improved (as though that were the thing they really needed help with).

[Amechra]

One of the hardest design problems 5e has [...]

The hardest design problem that 5e is level-by-level multiclassing and the way it skews how classes are balanced.

Take armor, for example. If you look closely at the 2014 core and how it handles armor proficiency, a few things stand out:



All of the classes without light armor proficiency have native ways to get AC better than picking up light armor proficiency.
Unless your class is Strength focused, medium armor and heavy armor essentially just give you the same AC.
None of the races offer light armor proficiency, and the one race that offers medium armor proficiency doesn't give you proficiency with shields.


Together, those two design decisions soft-ban Sorcerers and Wizards from having really good base AC (which, you know, allowed them to make Shield so powerful). Sure, you can build a Wizard that walks around in Plate if you want, but doing so eats up ASIs that could be spent on being a better Wizard, and you might as well just cast Mage Armor and call it a day.

Then you look at multiclassing and see that it's absolutely trivial to go Cleric 1/Wizard X or Paladin 2/Sorcerer X and end up with the durability of your dreams without compromising your spellcasting too much. Suddenly, the fact that the Sorcerer and the Wizard were balanced around being squishy is wholly irrelevant, and we have to start worrying about how spellcasters generally have a hand free to use a shield (because the caster classes that natively get shields or that have easy access to shields are actually balanced around that). Whoopsies!

Feats also contribute to this, but not nearly to the same extent. The only one that really stands out as being memo-missing is Resilient (Con), and that's just because:



Concentration DCs are set really low by default, implying that they were designed around spellcasters without Con save proficiency.
The spellcaster statblocks in the 2014 core have miserable Con saves.
The only full caster that gets Con save proficiency is the Sorcerer.


(OK, Sharpshooter also stands out, but that feels less like "someone missed the memo" and more "someone got the memo, decided that they hated the memo, and managed to slip their counter-memo past the proofreaders".)

[Witty Username]

Concentration DCs are set really low by default, implying that they were designed around spellcasters without Con save proficiency.
The spellcaster statblocks in the 2014 core have miserable Con saves.
The only full caster that gets Con save proficiency is the Sorcerer.


Technically, Transmuter Wizard also gets con save proficiency.

I generally agree though.
I think armor is one of the smaller problems, personally, but it is one of the easiest to measure.

I think the bigger thing is how it distorts martial design. For nearly every martial build, multiclassing is worth considering in ways that are less apparent for casters, due to dead and psuedo dead levels.

Like say fighter 9, you get a reroll a save. Once. But hey if you have it you'll use it. But when multiclassing is on the table, and maybe you have a relatively subclass feature. This could be instead of 7-9, basically any class to 3rd level. Say you picked purple dragon knight, instead of expertise on persuasion, and another skill, you could take 3 levels in Bard, get Expertise in persuasion, a few levels in spell casting, bardic inspiration a subclass and jack all trades. And the biggest thing you lose, is offseting the ASI, not even Indomitable is as big as that and that is how we got down this line of reasoning.
Many classes the first 5 levels or so are really good, and past that, there is alot of bad.

I personally think this would be ammendable by improving high level design accross the board, at least some. If fighter 10, is a worse fighter than fighter 6/bard 4, the problem isn't nessasarily being able to multiclassing into bard.

[LudicSavant]

Ludic,
I fully agree with your analysis.

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


I am in the monk is the weakest class crowd, so I am baffled by nerfs across the board except for the one area they didn't need significant changes too, which would be mobility.

I personally only think it's somewhere around the third weakest class in terms of optimization ceiling (in 2014 5e, anyway), but yeah, the nerfs are baffling.

The 2024 Monk has more resources to do their thing more often, but their impact on a given turn is worse. And they've got buffed movement but less impact when they arrive on location, either in or out of combat. Even the feats for Monks got nerfed.

[Foxhound438]

Concentration DCs are set really low by default, implying that they were designed around spellcasters without Con save proficiency.
The spellcaster statblocks in the 2014 core have miserable Con saves.
The only full caster that gets Con save proficiency is the Sorcerer.



I dunno, I feel like concentration saves are poorly designed all around. Yes, at low levels taking resilient con is really strong for casters. But, that only goes so far. From every experience I've had playing past like level 11, you're usually taking something like 50 damage from a single hit (as an example, disintegrate deals like 75 on average and is a spell you would expect some kind of wizard at that level to have), meaning casting a concentration spell is kind of a big risk even with con save proficiency and war caster, especially if you need to be in the fray, like with paladin's few cool aura spells and clerics with spirit guardians. The conc spells that are worth it when you're fighting stronger enemies are the ones you can keep up while standing out in the hallway anyways.

[Boverk]

Regarding the Warrior of Shadows Monk, one of its biggest problems is that if the party isn't specifically built around it, having darkness up is a hindrance to everyone but the monk.

Would it be reasonable to let the Monk designate Wisdom Modifier creatures that can see through the darkness as well? It would make the Monk a help rather than a hindrance.

[Psyren]

Well, quite a few systems do that, but of all the various new systems our groups tried out in the wake of the OGL fiasco, Fabula Ultima is my favorite. Combines FATE-like 'pass the story stick' mechanics with a compelling tactical game that's easy to learn but has depths to master, and makes tasteful use of JRPG motifs and themes. Oh, and though high level casters still get to do fun things like just throw a castle into the sky and then live there, martials are actually interesting and effective! Lots of interesting stuff going on in that system -- pretty much every group I've introduced it to has gotten addicted so now like all of our DMs are running it, and therefore I'm in 4 FabU campaigns at the moment (in addition to 5e campaigns and a superhero campaign).

Explicitly going full-on JRPG/anime from the outset would indeed solve the C/MD problem nicely.



Monks still need to be able to use dex for shoving, grappling and jumping.

Give them a fighting style for goodness sake. I've already thought-vomited elsewhere about styles and stances vs this half baked weapon mastery thing.

Fully agreed on both. In fact, the whole point of Monks being Warriors was so they could pick up styles at 1st level whether they got them or not, why did they change that??


Your offense and defense are still tug-of-warring for your bonus action. Make Flurry 1 ki to add an attack to the attack action, leave martial arts as another bonus action attack.

I don't mind monks being able to choose between more offense and more defense with their BA - but the problem is that the latter is too weak baseline and costs a resource just to get them on par.


Deflect missiles could just do the magic attacks from when you get it too really, since most attack roll spells are cantrips or tier 1 spells other than the new monster statblocks that use them more. No real opinions on the redirection being a save, though its nice you don't have to hold it anymore.

The new Dazed condition would be a great fit for Stunning strike, maybe if it still stunned if you failed the save by X amount or more?
And if you're limiting it to once per turn, give it it's own resource pool separate from Ki unless you're increasing the base amount you have to work with or putting in some Ki regeneration.

In fact, do both of those anyway. Level+Wis ki right from the start, and at level 11 add in a feature that says 'if you start your turn with less than Prof Bonus Ki points you regain 1 ki point'. Remove the 1min rest and change the capstone.

Agree on +Wis to disc/ki.

Do they have "fail by X amount or more" mechanics in 5e? It seems like that might be a way to metagame out someone's save bonus, which I don't think they're big fans of.

[ZRN]

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png
he 2024 Monk has more resources to do their thing more often, but their impact on a given turn is worse. And they've got buffed movement but less impact when they arrive on location, either in or out of combat. Even the feats for Monks got nerfed.

Rogues got a pretty good mobility boost this playtest with the Withdraw thing as well. I think this is more evidence that they're targeting these changes for a lower level of tactical play: people aren't complaining that they do 20% less damage than an optimized fighter, they're complaining that they take too many OAs trying to wade into melee, so the devs are trying to make it easier to get into and out of melee to do your baseline damage.

[LudicSavant]

Regarding the Warrior of Shadows Monk, one of its biggest problems is that if the party isn't specifically built around it, having darkness up is a hindrance to everyone but the monk.

Would it be reasonable to let the Monk designate Wisdom Modifier creatures that can see through the darkness as well? It would make the Monk a help rather than a hindrance.

IMHO, it's not reasonable for Darkness to be the 2024 Shadow Monk's entire schtick whether the party can see through it or not. It's just too narrow a gimmick. Not only because it's boring as sin to just do the same thing all of the time, but also because there's a lot of enemies that can just hard counter darkness.

Heck, if the BBEG has a positive Int score and learns that one of the heroes trying to oppose them is a Shadow Monk with a party full of Darkness-utilizing allies, they could just start issuing Continual Flames to their more valued minions that don't already have blindsight or something.

The Shadow Monk shouldn't be reduced to a one trick pony.


Do they have "fail by X amount or more" mechanics in 5e?

Yes.

[Boverk]

Snip

The Shadow Monk shouldn't be reduced to a one trick pony.


Fair, and honestly I agree and will say this in my feedback. I'm also trying to think of suggestions that will make them a little more team friendly without requiring major overhauls (which I don't think they'll be doing at this point).

I've got my rough feedback document set up with bullet points and comments, now I'll just tweak it a bit here and there and revisit before doing the survey.


I really love the wisdom modifier + monk level Ki points as a way to help alleviate the discipline issues at lower levels.

[Psyren]

Rogues got a pretty good mobility boost this playtest with the Withdraw thing as well. I think this is more evidence that they're targeting these changes for a lower level of tactical play: people aren't complaining that they do 20% less damage than an optimized fighter, they're complaining that they take too many OAs trying to wade into melee, so the devs are trying to make it easier to get into and out of melee to do your baseline damage.

Would have been nice if they kept Mobile around if that was the case!

[LudicSavant]

Would have been nice if they kept Mobile around if that was the case!

Mobile was largely a trap option for Monks.

Not that they kept the options that actually worked around, either...

[Kane0]

Im still not seeing how mobile is a trap for monks. Its speed on top of your speed plus negates the need for step of the wind as ling as you keep swinging.

[Melil12]

Im still not seeing how mobile is a trap for monks. Its speed on top of your speed plus negates the need for step of the wind as ling as you keep swinging.

Because they removed mobile in one dnd and replaced it with speedster which dosnt negate the need for step of the wind.

[Psyren]

Because they removed mobile in one dnd and replaced it with speedster which dosnt negate the need for step of the wind.

I think Ludic was talking about the existing/2014 Mobile; Speedster isn't likely to trap anyone, it's just bad (even as a half-feat.)

[LudicSavant]

I think Ludic was talking about the existing/2014 Mobile

Correct.


Im still not seeing how mobile is a trap for monks.

Answered this for someone else semi-recently, so I'll just repost that answer:






Mobile is often rated red or orange by Monk guides, and (IMHO) with good reason (I can elaborate why if desired). Yes, please do. I was under the impression that it was borderline mandatory at lower levels (though hardly of much use at higher levels, somewhere past 8 to 10 skirmishing becomes good even without Mobile).

Okay! https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

I generally recommend that most Monks don't take Mobile.

If you want to be a full kiting playstyle, you should probably just be an actual ranged Monk. There's no need to blow a significant amount of your movement running in to punch someone, just shoot them and use all that movement you saved for superior positioning. Run up a wall and drop prone or something. If you took Mobile, you're now a Sharpshooter or Gunner behind the bloke who decided to just shoot things. You're less evasive and less damaging and (if you're always retreating after your punches) aren't even taking up space to control a forward position.

If you want to be a melee Monk, you want to get some extra payoff for getting into melee, and that doesn't mean giving up ASIs for feats that don't do much to help you kill, suppress, or absorb attacks from enemies. If you're not getting some extra payoff for getting into melee (such as threatening unusually heavy-hitting OAs, controlling space, protecting allies, etc), it often isn't worth it to actually get into melee. Spending an ASI (or race) on mobile means you're not taking an ASI (or race) that helps you get that extra battlefield presence.

You're already more mobile than most martials without this feat. You already have tools to help you disengage in a pinch -- not just Step of the Wind, but also Stunning Strike, and subclass abilities (e.g. you can't OA a person in Darkness, or if they're teleporting into shadows, or if they knocked you away and/or disabled your reactions on a flurry, etc. And some subclasses like Mercy and Long Death just plain grow into chonky bois after a bit).

If you're always feeling that your Monk constantly needs to run away, realize that taking Mobile might have increased that feeling relative to other builds because you're giving up features that would help both you and your party stand your ground better (or make it harder for your enemies to stand theirs, which is just as good).

What can you take instead of Mobile?
Well, here's a couple options.

There's Gunner (+1 Dex). You now basically have a greataxe as a Dex weapon you can swing 3 times (with KFA), that also can hit people from range. And you boosted the best stat in the game (Dex) and all attendant class features (almost all of them) while you were at it.

Want a different tack? There's also Fighting Initiate. If you wanna be a Monk that's fully unarmed from the get-go, a VHuman with the Unarmed Fighting Style is an option for Monks at tier 1. Being able to hit for about 30 (3d8+1d4+12) at full accuracy is a serious threat at tier 1 -- outdamaging early PAM users and the like.

The style goes obsolete later, but Fighting Initiate conveniently allows you to swap which Fighting Style you have any time you gain an ASI, so it can just transform it into Blind-Fighting (helps any Monk take advantage of vision blockers, and is especially good for Shadow Monks) or Archery (good for ranged Monks) or whatever floats your boat.

Want some more ideas? Try Crusher, Sharpshooter, Elven Accuracy, Aberrant Dragonmark, Skill Expert (Perception), Fey-Touched, heck you could even just take Tough and pretend you have a d12 hit die instead of Mobile (though other stuff is often more valuable than Tough, even hp-wise).

There's also not being VHuman. There's tons of good races for Monks these days. Multiverse Bugbears are one of the best around. There's also stuff like Mountain Dwarf, Half-Drow, Half-Wood Elf, Half-Sun Elf, Shadar-Kai, Fairy, Aarakocra, Winged Tiefling, Eladrin, Astral Elf, Beasthide Shifter, Gem Dragonborn, Protector Aasimar, Simic Hybrid, Satyr, Ravenite Dragonborn, or multiverse Goliath (which gives you nearly 20 extra effective hit points at level 1 and grows from there).Enlightening. I guess I have vastly underestimated, at the very least, how much Tasha's has affected the general landscape, since it came out right around the point I was dropping out of 5e.

[Kane0]

Alright i can accept not optimal, but I wouldnt use the term 'trap'.
It does legitimately help melee monks by saving them ki/actions and doubling down on one if their strengths (movement). I can see how it not being a damage or survivability aid makes it not ideal, but its not like it advertises something then fails to accomplish it, or is literally just a lesser version of another feat.

[Psyren]

Alright i can accept not optimal, but I wouldnt use the term 'trap'.
It does legitimately help melee monks by saving them ki/actions and doubling down on one if their strengths (movement). I can see how it not being a damage or survivability aid makes it not ideal, but its not like it advertises something then fails to accomplish it, or is literally just a lesser version of another feat.

Yeah I view it as useful, it's just painful because Monks place such a premium on their ASIs as well as having multiple other feats they probably need to get first.

If they took current Mobile and just made it a half-feat it would offer at least somewhat competitive value.

[Melil12]

In 2014 mobility was ok but the issue was always the lack of free asi.

With need to max dex and wisdom you had little room for anything outside of +2 for stats.

2024 - you have the same issue but can probably do 1-2 half feats. That is if there was a half feat that was worth taking. Which currently you would be hard pressed to find one.

[ZRN]

If you want to be a full kiting playstyle, you should probably just be an actual ranged Monk. There's no need to blow a significant amount of your movement running in to punch someone, just shoot them and use all that movement you saved for superior positioning. Run up a wall and drop prone or something. If you took Mobile, you're now a Sharpshooter or Gunner behind the bloke who decided to just shoot things. You're less evasive and less damaging and (if you're always retreating after your punches) aren't even taking up space to control a forward position.

If you want to be a melee Monk, you want to get some extra payoff for getting into melee, and that doesn't mean giving up ASIs for feats that don't do much to help you kill, suppress, or absorb attacks from enemies. If you're not getting some extra payoff for getting into melee (such as threatening unusually heavy-hitting OAs, controlling space, protecting allies, etc), it often isn't worth it to actually get into melee. Spending an ASI (or race) on mobile means you're not taking an ASI (or race) that helps you get that extra battlefield presence.


Honestly, if I were a WOTC designer and I intended the monk to be a melee skirmisher class (which clearly they do), and the best optimization advice out there for the 2014 monk was to be either a ranged skirmisher or a tank, I'd probably think that the class needed some more mobility too. (And I'd probably consider toning down weapons outside of the kensai subclass.)

This of course does not detract from your critique that they're stripping away non-combat utility egregiously.

[Foxhound438]

Honestly, if I were a WOTC designer and I intended the monk to be a melee skirmisher class (which clearly they do), and the best optimization advice out there for the 2014 monk was to be either a ranged skirmisher or a tank, I'd probably think that the class needed some more mobility too. (And I'd probably consider toning down weapons outside of the kensai subclass.)

This of course does not detract from your critique that they're stripping away non-combat utility egregiously.

The class as is in the 2014 book is perfectly good at skirmishing, you just have to... you know, skirmish. The problem is if your party really just wants to go in and fight in a big deathball, you aren't going to be able to harass and force a group of enemies to split up searching for you in order for you to take them each down separately, which in my opinion is a good example of what skirmishing is (not an exhaustive list or anything). If you do split off a high value enemy (ie a wizard) and fight them alone, a monk is really good at that thanks to stunning strike. You can even still do that in a big cluster fight if whoever you're fighting isn't 100% melee grunts, because you have tools like step of the wind, wall running, and super jumps to get at squishy's to really mess with them.

Where monk suffers is when you're in a fight with a big singular boss with con saves too high to stunning strike (by design often), rooms too barren or small to get away from a boss, and the boss is vulnerable to effects that give the GWM/SS guys free advantage and they just inherently do double the damage you do. No amount of mobility in the world will make monk "good" in a fight that gives no opportunity to use mobility.

[LudicSavant]

Honestly, if I were a WOTC designer and I intended the monk to be a melee skirmisher class (which clearly they do), and the best optimization advice out there for the 2014 monk was to be either a ranged skirmisher or a tank, I'd probably think that the class needed some more mobility too. (And I'd probably consider toning down weapons outside of the kensai subclass.)

This of course does not detract from your critique that they're stripping away non-combat utility egregiously.

The problem is more that being 'fake ranged' isn't as good as being ranged (especially when the ranged person took Sharpshooter instead of Mobile), and running from melee negates many of the benefits of melee (controlling space, threatening OAs, inflicting Disadvantage on ranged attacks, etc). And melee is already operating on thin margins for relevance compared to ranged characters, so you give up payoffs for being in melee at your peril.

That, and Mobile is better on other martials than it is on Monks. Part of this is that once you get a certain amount of mobility getting more has diminishing returns (still returns, but they're diminishing). Another part is that putting Mobile on a Monk is kind of like... putting Tough on a Barbarian. It's not the area you desperately need help.

Also, nerfing the Monk's better options won't suddenly make the Monk's bad options good, because a Monk has to not only compete with other Monks, but other classes built to do the Monk's job.

Like Dance Bards.


The class as is in the 2014 book is perfectly good at skirmishing, you just have to... you know, skirmish. The problem is if your party really just wants to go in and fight in a big deathball, you aren't going to be able to harass and force a group of enemies to split up searching for you in order for you to take them each down separately, which in my opinion is a good example of what skirmishing is (not an exhaustive list or anything). If you do split off a high value enemy (ie a wizard) and fight them alone, a monk is really good at that thanks to stunning strike. You can even still do that in a big cluster fight if whoever you're fighting isn't 100% melee grunts, because you have tools like step of the wind, wall running, and super jumps to get at squishy's to really mess with them.

Where monk suffers is when you're in a fight with a big singular boss with con saves too high to stunning strike (by design often), rooms too barren or small to get away from a boss, and the boss is vulnerable to effects that give the GWM/SS guys free advantage and they just inherently do double the damage you do. No amount of mobility in the world will make monk "good" in a fight that gives no opportunity to use mobility.

This is another thing, yeah. Basically, mobility isn't much of a party role in and of itself. It's usually an enabler for whatever your actual role is.

It's an aspect of your personal durability, and it's an enabler for (insert whatever thing you do when you get into position). Personal durability is nice but isn't a party role unless you can leverage it to protect others (e.g. the difference between a turtle and a tank), and enabling (whatever you do when you get into position) depends on that thing being good -- something the 2024 Monk currently lacks.

There is of course the notable case of being able to convert mobility directly into damage via Spike Growth, but other classes are often better at taking advantage of this than Monks are.

[Oramac]

Fabula Ultima is my favorite.

I had to look it up, but I actually played this at a free RPG day hosted by my FLGS. I recall it being pretty awesome, and the melee character I played certainly didn't lack for things to do.

===============================

Back on topic, I never thought the 2014 monk deserved its reputation as being a bad class. That said, the more I think about it, the more I agree that the proposed UA version is just straight up worse in almost every way.

[Psyren]

That, and Mobile is better on other martials than it is on Monks. Part of this is that once you get a certain amount of mobility getting more has diminishing returns (still returns, but they're diminishing). Another part is that putting Mobile on a Monk is kind of like... putting Tough on a Barbarian. It's not the area you desperately need help.

Someone wanting to punch fast monsters or monsters with reach (or both) might appreciate the added speed boost to get out again but otherwise I agree.



Like Dance Bards.

And Beast Barbarian.
And ShadowHexBlade.
And Soulknife!

...Wait, why are we bothering with Monk again? :smallbiggrin:



Back on topic, I never thought the 2014 monk deserved its reputation as being a bad class. That said, the more I think about it, the more I agree that the proposed UA version is just straight up worse in almost every way.

I don't think it's worse (well, other than the SS nerf.) Just not nearly different enough.

[elyktsorb]

Mobility is great and all, I'd hate to not have it (on top of not having anything else), but I'd also like something to actually do with that mobility. If you don't have anything meaningful to use that mobility for, than it's kind of pointless. If Monk could only be really good at one thing, I wouldn't pick mobility.

It's like, any game thing really, being fast is only good if you can do something with it.

Like... What do you need mobility for right now? You can kite better as a ranged attacker? There's no point in using your mobility to get up close and personal, since you have no benefits to getting up close and personal, especially when you consider that being up close and personal is usually a horrible position to be in if you don't have stuff to mitigate that, so, nothing to help you if you are up close, and no benefits to being up close..

I also have to wonder why the Dance Bard just gets a better Unarmored Defense than the Monk (and the Barbarian) one that is just always on and doesn't shut off any abilities or anything if you wear armor or use Shields.

[Kane0]

It's like, any game thing really, being fast is only good if you can do something with it.

Like... What do you need mobility for right now? You can kite better as a ranged attacker?


Yeah it's a big design problem where its hard to justify making encounters that slow melee guys can't engage in, since that's almost guaranteed to be at least one party member. If you had more instances where you need to be able to attack at range or cover considerable distances quickly then nobility becomes more applicable and thus desirable. Its just kinda painful to contrive those sorts of situations more than a handful of times, especially where the tactical squad combat element of the game often assumes pretty short distances and tight quarters with the occasional intervening obstacle or setpiece checkovgun.

Chase scenes could be a great place for monks to shine, and maybe fast recon or would be necessary but once stuff like invisibility, flight and teleportation starts becoming common...
At least they are never caught without their armor on if ambushed by a random encounter while sleeping or a social situation turns hostile i guess?

[Amechra]

Honestly, a big problem with 5e combat is that they made ranged weapons too good in a game where they made all of the interesting alternative options for martial characters require melee range. It also doesn't help that there's no restriction on movement for ranged characters, which combines with the long range of ranged weapons (ranged attacks in general, really) to make it really easy to play keep-away.

I wonder if 5e would be better in general if ranged attacks had disadvantage if you moved before making them, maybe in conjunction with dropping ranges across the board?

[Segev]

Honestly, a big problem with 5e combat is that they made ranged weapons too good in a game where they made all of the interesting alternative options for martial characters require melee range. It also doesn't help that there's no restriction on movement for ranged characters, which combines with the long range of ranged weapons (ranged attacks in general, really) to make it really easy to play keep-away.

I wonder if 5e would be better in general if ranged attacks had disadvantage if you moved before making them, maybe in conjunction with dropping ranges across the board?

I see this point made a lot, but in practice, in real play, I have not seen ranged weapons be the dominant playstyle, nor dominate over melee combat. In fact, the best control builds I have seen have not been spellcasters, but the admittedly-almost-boilerplate Sentinel+PAM warrior types who plant themselves in choke points or arrange themselves as the front line. Yes, casters CAN augment this, but you've not seen a DM pull his hair out until you've had a PAM+Sentinel Conquest Paladin or Battlemaster Fighter standing in the middle of a web he can consistently make the Strength save against, locking enemies down who try to get in, out, or through it.

[Amechra]

I see this point made a lot, but in practice, in real play, I have not seen ranged weapons be the dominant playstyle, nor dominate over melee combat. In fact, the best control builds I have seen have not been spellcasters, but the admittedly-almost-boilerplate Sentinel+PAM warrior types who plant themselves in choke points or arrange themselves as the front line. Yes, casters CAN augment this, but you've not seen a DM pull his hair out until you've had a PAM+Sentinel Conquest Paladin or Battlemaster Fighter standing in the middle of a web he can consistently make the Strength save against, locking enemies down who try to get in, out, or through it.

It might be the groups I've played with, then. I've seen multiple parties devolve into having 1-2 people play tanky frontliners while everyone else plays ranged characters.

[LudicSavant]

I see this point made a lot, but in practice, in real play, I have not seen ranged weapons be the dominant playstyle, nor dominate over melee combat. In fact, the best control builds I have seen have not been spellcasters, but the admittedly-almost-boilerplate Sentinel+PAM warrior types who plant themselves in choke points or arrange themselves as the front line. Yes, casters CAN augment this, but you've not seen a DM pull his hair out until you've had a PAM+Sentinel Conquest Paladin or Battlemaster Fighter standing in the middle of a web he can consistently make the Strength save against, locking enemies down who try to get in, out, or through it.

I am currently one of the moderators for an 800-member server for doing challenging dungeon runs (in real play), in addition to being involved in some other active play communities. So I get to see a fair variety of real play experience, and I can tell you I've definitely been seeing terrifying caster frontliners and lots of ranged builds.

That said, there are some advantages to being close range. A lot of potent effects have modest range (like Spirit Guardians, or Rune Knight grappling). And being in melee with something threatens OAs, and imposes Disadvantage on their ranged attacks.

[Segev]

It might be the groups I've played with, then. I've seen multiple parties devolve into having 1-2 people play tanky frontliners while everyone else plays ranged characters.Right, but you have the front-liners, and they presumably play an important role beyond "not being as good as the ranged guys."


I am currently one of the moderators for an 800-member server for doing challenging dungeon runs (in real play), in addition to being involved in some other active play communities. So I get to see a fair variety of real play experience, and I can tell you I've definitely been seeing terrifying caster frontliners and lots of ranged builds.

That said, there are some advantages to being close range. A lot of potent effects have modest range (like Spirit Guardians, or Rune Knight grappling). And being in melee with something threatens OAs, and imposes Disadvantage on their ranged attacks.

Fair assessment. And yes, front-line casters can easily be a thing. Heck, clerics are all but meant for it, and druids are known for their ability to do it, too. Yes, I know front-line wizards are also a thing, but you do have to deliberately build for it, so it's not so athematic that you stumble into it accidentally. And, as you note, melee fighter-types who build to be melee fighter-types are good at their jobs and can do things that are not replicable by ranged fighter-types or ranged casters. (Heck, most front-line wizards aren't as good at the kind of battlefield control stuff the warrior-types do as the bespoke melee warriors. Which is as it should be.)

I fully acknowledge that there are balance discrepancies. My only point - which I think you've backed up, here - is that it's not so bad that it truly distorts the game in actual play. People play what they want to play, and are able to play it well, without being consistently and completely overshadowed by somebody playing something else accidentally also doing their whole thing better. At least, not generally. (It happens, sometimes; it happens in EVERY game, sometimes, when one person is just that much better at optimization or that much luckier in choices made than someone else.)

[Kane0]

Honestly, a big problem with 5e combat is that they made ranged weapons too good in a game where they made all of the interesting alternative options for martial characters require melee range. It also doesn't help that there's no restriction on movement for ranged characters, which combines with the long range of ranged weapons (ranged attacks in general, really) to make it really easy to play keep-away.

I wonder if 5e would be better in general if ranged attacks had disadvantage if you moved before making them, maybe in conjunction with dropping ranges across the board?

Id take a different approach, dont reduce ramged accuracy but rather damage and capability to apply riders and conditions. Plus also make OAs a bit more frequent and dangerous for martial classes (not everyone by default which would include everything the DM throws at the party and thus be counterproductive)

[Damon_Tor]

I'd like to see monks be able to refund their ki if the thing they're attempting with it fails: if either unarmed strike misses, refund the ki cost. If the target passes his con save on stunning strike, refund the ki cost. This is how the soulknife works with it's psi dice, and I think it's a pretty good system.

[LudicSavant]

The 2024 Monk got a bunch more ki at mid-high levels to a point where you just aren't really worried about running out, but the ability to actually use it to win fights got nerfed.

I don't like this approach -- if I'm just supposed to use something constantly, make it resourceless. If I'm gonna worry about resources, make the choice about when to use how much interesting, but make the options worth their cost. This isn't some super hard ask; spells manage to do this all the time. I mean, some spells don't (either being so bad they should never be used, or so good that they're basically free power if they're allowed), but a lot of spells do.

[finley]

I see this point made a lot, but in practice, in real play, I have not seen ranged weapons be the dominant playstyle, nor dominate over melee combat. In fact, the best control builds I have seen have not been spellcasters, but the admittedly-almost-boilerplate Sentinel+PAM warrior types who plant themselves in choke points or arrange themselves as the front line. Yes, casters CAN augment this, but you've not seen a DM pull his hair out until you've had a PAM+Sentinel Conquest Paladin or Battlemaster Fighter standing in the middle of a web he can consistently make the Strength save against, locking enemies down who try to get in, out, or through it.

I think it may be down to the character building styles at the tables you're at. Most classes can get to a reasonably high 17-19 AC without making major character building sacrifices, and at that point, there's less of a need for a big guy to sit on the front lines slowing people down. Most enemies are also way more threatening at close range, so you save yourself tons of hit dice, while dealing about the same damage as you would've as a melee build.

There are absolutely subclass or spell-based reasons you'd want to be in close range, like for using Spirit Guardians, applying EBARB movement in a certain di or if you're an PAM/Sentinel Echo Knight or Conquest Paladin. In general, though, 5E doesn't really give you a ton of reasons to be up close to enemies, IMO.

[Schwann145]

I'd be shocked if ranged-heavy groups weren't incredibly reliant on melee support.

Also, it's worth noting that AC 17-19 stops being good enough if you get to high enough levels. If you build ranged characters to be extremely successful for X level range, and then never play outside of X level range, well... duh.

[finley]

I'd be shocked if ranged-heavy groups weren't incredibly reliant on melee support.

Also, it's worth noting that AC 17-19 stops being good enough if you get to high enough levels. If you build ranged characters to be extremely successful for X level range, and then never play outside of X level range, well... duh.

What situations do you see arising where a ranged group would need someone in melee? The most potent lockdown abilities for keeping enemies away from ranged PCs come from casters using CC spells, which are mostly usable at range. There aren't many consistent ways for a melee character to force a monster to stay in melee range other than certain subclass and feat selection, and even those are usually only applicable to a single enemy per turn. Otherwise, the monsters can just walk past the melee guy for the price of an OA or two, which is not very useful in a game where martials primarily scale by their number of attacks.

Additionally, if everyone in your party is about the same durability, having them whale on your melee party member instead of your ranged ones isn't really that useful. And if having 19 AC isn't a reliable way to avoid taking hits at high level, I think that would be an even stronger reason to avoid getting into taking-a-hit range of monsters.

[stoutstien]

Looks like they're falling further in the old habits of mechanic forward design combined with them using the current meta as the basis of said design.

Usually it's always ends up the same way where you have more complexity but somehow less actual choice and flexibility/freedom.

[Segev]

What situations do you see arising where a ranged group would need someone in melee? The most potent lockdown abilities for keeping enemies away from ranged PCs come from casters using CC spells, which are mostly usable at range. There aren't many consistent ways for a melee character to force a monster to stay in melee range other than certain subclass and feat selection, and even those are usually only applicable to a single enemy per turn. Otherwise, the monsters can just walk past the melee guy for the price of an OA or two, which is not very useful in a game where martials primarily scale by their number of attacks.

Additionally, if everyone in your party is about the same durability, having them whale on your melee party member instead of your ranged ones isn't really that useful. And if having 19 AC isn't a reliable way to avoid taking hits at high level, I think that would be an even stronger reason to avoid getting into taking-a-hit range of monsters.

If your CC is squishier than your DPS, guess which gets focused down first if it's equally easy to get to both. Yes, the ranged fighter and the melee fighter can be equally durable, but having the CC be the tank is actually superior for keeping the whole party up and active. Having caster CC and melee CC is a little redundant, but not entirely; the caster just becomes secondary CC, adding something else when the fighter types have it under control. But if there are more flanks than the fighter types can lock down, or the fighter types, themselves, don't need high mobility, they can combine very nicely.

The "tank" role is about giving enemies reasons to target the person who can TAKE the hits. Tier 2+ tends to start to see enemies who hit even AC 20 a fair bit of the time; 5e is designed to scale up in hp as your defensive resource more than it is AC as your defensive resource. And casters just don't scale up as fast as warriors, by design. You want your warriors to be the ones the enemies go after if they can get to the party. Obviously, if your CC is so good that nobody ever gets into range of enemy attacks, then it doesn't matter, but I have rarely seen that pulled off in practice.

[LudicSavant]

5e is designed to scale up in hp as your defensive resource more than it is AC as your defensive resource. And casters just don't scale up as fast as warriors, by design.

I'm afraid I gotta disagree on that one.

Base HD size is one of the smaller variables when determining personal durability. So small, in fact, that an HD size bump is often worth less than a single level 1 slot spent on Absorb Elements, or the value of a single racial feature.

What really matters is features, and they keep giving a lot of the tankiest features to caster classes.

[stoutstien]

I'm afraid I gotta disagree on that one.

Base HD size is one of the smaller variables when determining personal durability. So small, in fact, that an HD size bump is often worth less than a single level 1 slot spent on Absorb Elements, or the value of a single racial feature.

What really matters is features, and they keep giving a lot of the tankiest features to caster classes.

Aye. Resistance and other forms of reduction are more important than your actual HP. Not only is the return much higher it also bleeds over to other mitigation factors like reducing concentration checks and avoiding damage spikes which are really the only real threats when it comes to reduction of health. Between how easy it is to generate thp and recover your HP in general as long as you have enough to eat the occasional Spike the rest is basically wasted.
That brings you back to avoiding the damage in the first place which is always going to be the better tactic and a lot of ways it's the easier to achieve goal. Most of the boilerplate style crowd control spell casters also do more for mitigation than the entirety of the package of some other options.

This doesn't mean that options like the rune knight aren't good at it but they're good because they're one of the few options that aren't spells so they have the ability to bypass defensive features designed to counter spells and spell adjacent features.

[finley]

If your CC is squishier than your DPS, guess which gets focused down first if it's equally easy to get to both.

I'm saying your CC is not squisher than your DPS. Maybe in other games, but not in 5E. Free modular multiclassing and the Moderately Armored feat means that a 19 AC is accessible to every single class in the game, and casters also get access to spells like Shield and Absorb Elements that provide a greater level of durability. Meanwhile, a melee martial will get a 19 AC with no defensive reactions, but a greater hit dice.

I undestand the tables you play at may not take advantage of these options, which is fine. I actually think the game is more fun that way. But the fact is that they're there, and stuff like the new Lightly Armored and Clerics and Druids getting heavy armor proficiency makes it clear that's not an accident. It's fully intended by the developers for a substantial number of casters to have a 19-20 AC.



Having caster CC and melee CC is a little redundant, but not entirely; the caster just becomes secondary CC, adding something else when the fighter types have it under control. But if there are more flanks than the fighter types can lock down, or the fighter types, themselves, don't need high mobility, they can combine very nicely.

It's the opposite, in my view. Melee martials actually don't have any good tools to keep enemies from just moving away from them outside specific subclasses, and even then, they can usually only apply their control to one or two enemies. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian can only give disadvantage to one enemy, for example, and the Sentinel feat is limited by the fact you only get 1 Opportunity Attack per turn. The actual base class is even more dire. A melee martial's only tool for keeping enemies in place is an opportunity attack, which doesn't even stop an enemy from moving, it just punishes it with a single attack of damage. And since 5E martials primarily scale via number of attacks, the damage of an OA will probably only increase by a few points over the course of levels where enemy health is doubling or tripling. A tank should be able to concretely stop enemies from getting to their allies, not allow them to get there in exchange for a little damage. And if there's a second enemy, the melee martial can't even threaten that small punishment, since they already used up their reaction on the first OA.

In comparison, a caster can half or quarter enemy speed in a wide area, or apply conditions that take them out of the fight completely, with spells like Hypnotic Pattern, Plant Growth, Sleet Storm, etc. all without ever having to get near them.


The "tank" role is about giving enemies reasons to target the person who can TAKE the hits. Tier 2+ tends to start to see enemies who hit even AC 20 a fair bit of the time; 5e is designed to scale up in hp as your defensive resource more than it is AC as your defensive resource. And casters just don't scale up as fast as warriors, by design. You want your warriors to be the ones the enemies go after if they can get to the party.


The problem is that there isn't a reason to target the tank once things get into melee. Martials have no good tools to actually make enemies attack THEM instead of anyone else. They can't control space or restrict enemy movement reliably enough to keep enemies hitting them. If there's another higher-priority target, an enemy can just walk up and attack them instead, possibly eating an OA. That's the opposite of what a tank is supposed to do. If your DM sends the enemies after your burly barbarian first, that's cool, but the game doesn't give you tools to force that to happen reliably.

I also think that you're vastly overestimating HP. HP from a higher hit dice can be negated by a single casting of Shield or Absorb Elements. A level 14 fighter will have an average of a 28 HP lead over a Wizard with the same CON. If both go fight a Young Red Dragon, and both fail their save against the breath weapon, the Wizard can negate 28 damage with a casting of Absorb Elements, putting them on exact equal footing.

[stoutstien]

Think one major stick of point is people trying to apply traditional roles to find me when for the most part really all it is is tropes.
Everybody brings damage, mitigation, control, utility, and so on. The issue is that some features just stack more easily and/or cheaper to obtain. It's actively erodes some trope such as the big brawny guy stands in the front and protects their friends or the mundane problem solver.

In order for tables not to fall into the exact same repetitive patterns DMs have to actively engage player concepts on a deeper level than just the math. The world's logic should be supported by the rules rather than trying to build the world based on the rules.

[Psyren]

The 2024 Monk got a bunch more ki at mid-high levels to a point where you just aren't really worried about running out, but the ability to actually use it to win fights got nerfed.

I think this is a valid point; at high levels when monks have plenty of ki to cover their flurry/defensive needs and not much to spend it on, they at least had the option of dumping it into SS to take down a tough threat or help the casters burn through a boss monster's LRs.

I still see this as bad design because it's so swingy - either all those points get wasted, which feels awful (see the Critical Role Stunning Strike tracker for Beauregard if you like amusing math) - or what might be worse, they succeed and the boss very quickly becomes a joke. SS being nerfed makes sense in that respect, but they weren't given anything to replace that small niche they once had in 5e. The subclasses don't appear to be giving them anything impactful to spend their ki on either; a Shadow or Open Hand Monk at 15 is going to have the same tactics as one at 7th, and they probably won't even have any feats to break things up since they (a) don't qualify for any of the ones that need a martial weapon and (b) likely needed to spend their first three ASIs on shoring up Dex and Wis anyway.

At an absolute minimum, Monk more than any other class badly needs 1-2 bonus ASIs.

[LudicSavant]

I think this is a valid point; at high levels when monks have plenty of ki to cover their flurry/defensive needs and not much to spend it on, they at least had the option of dumping it into SS to take down a tough threat or help the casters burn through a boss monster's LRs. It's not just Stunning Strike either, it's pretty much everything. Subclass features in 2014 cost more ki but did more. Open Hand's level 3 and 17 features got nerfed. Four Elements actually got significantly weaker AoEs and burst. Shadow Monk lost KFA Darkness, KFA Silence, and Pass Without Trace. All Monks lost Focused Aim. All Monks lost their ability to replace weapon dice with martial arts dice and all related combos. All Monks lost the offensive aspect of Empty Body. All Monks got the offensive aspect of Deflect Missiles nerfed.


I still see this as bad design because it's so swingy - either all those points get wasted, which feels awful (see the Critical Role Stunning Strike tracker for Beauregard if you like amusing math) - or what might be worse, they succeed and the boss very quickly becomes a joke.

The new SS is actually more swingy based on RNG than the old one. The main effect of spending more ki on SS was to increase the consistency of landing the effect. Keep in mind that there are characters (usually casters) that can set failure chance for similar schticks to literally zero. There's nothing broken about stacking Stunning Strike.

[Dalinar]

Real quick sidebar:

Well, quite a few systems do that, but of all the various new systems our groups tried out in the wake of the OGL fiasco, Fabula Ultima is my favorite. Combines FATE-like 'pass the story stick' mechanics with a compelling tactical game that's easy to learn but has depths to master, and makes tasteful use of JRPG motifs and themes. Oh, and though high level casters still get to do fun things like just throw a castle into the sky and then live there, martials are actually interesting and effective! Lots of interesting stuff going on in that system -- pretty much every group I've introduced it to has gotten addicted so now like all of our DMs are running it, and therefore I'm in 4 FabU campaigns at the moment (in addition to 5e campaigns and a superhero campaign).

Thanks for namedropping this system. I took a gander yesterday and think it looks super fun, so now I'm trying to convince my group to give it a go. (The urge to figure out a better abbreviation is very strong though LOL)

---

As for the actual topic of the thread, all I'll say is my first stab at a Monk rework homebrew came out of the proverbial oven way too hot, so I'm maybe a little more sympathetic than some that WOTC seems to have also flubbed their first go at it, if in the other direction. (I do think one-minute-short-rest abilities are probably a great way to mitigate the possibility of a class struggling when played at a table that uses relatively few short rests, though! That part was good, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar if Warlock were to go back to Pact Magic. But it needs to come online earlier, and not at the cost of so much power budget overall, and also it's hard to justify an unarmed/unarmored mobile combat class in the first place when you can instead run a couple sticky frontliners and put everyone else on ranged damage and end up with both stronger offense and less risk. I think that's all been said, though.)

[Witty Username]

Oh, an observation from Treantmonk that I don't think has been brought up, is that monk between the playtest feats and these changes is monk is lossing out on the feat support that other martials get.

So your trading reduced impact in comparison to other martials in exchange for features with reduced impact that cost resources.

The full hosing, in other words.

[LudicSavant]

Oh, an observation from Treantmonk that I don't think has been brought up, is that monk between the playtest feats and these changes is monk is lossing out on the feat support that other martials get.

The reduced synergy with feats has been brought up. It's definitely a hosing, yeah -- they hosed the feats, the class, the subclasses, pretty much everything that they actually do with their actions.

They gave them more ki and mobility, but a good deal less to actually do with it.

[Psyren]

Nearly every buff the class got was accompanied by a corresponding nerf:


You get proficiency with and Mastery for all simple weapons now! (but got locked out of nearly all the martial half feats since they need at least one martial weapon.)
You get a faster scaling Martial Arts die now! (But can only use it unarmed, so if you want to use weapon masteries instead, you're pretty much stuck with d4 and d6 weapons.)
You can Stunning Strike using your weapons now, including ranged weapons! (But only 1 attempt per round, and the duration is shorter.)
Deflection works on energy now and can redirect attacks regardless of the missile size! (But it's a save instead of an attack roll to affect an enemy now, and the damage becomes a much swingier 2-12 to 2-24.)
You get other QOL improvements like the free short rest, Step of the Wind including both options, and Self-Restoration using your BA instead of your Action now! (And you lost your other QOL improvements like Dedicated Weapon, KFA, and Focused Aim unless your DM is nice.)
You lost the flavorful but weak ribbon features like Tongue of the Sun & Moon and Timeless Body! (But alongside them, you lost the flavor more powerful things like Empty Body and Purity of Body.)


I'm just curious as to the thought process behind that kind of oscillation.

[LudicSavant]

Look at how they massacred my boy (shadow monk)...

I have produced a meme that sums up the 2024 Shadow Monk.

https://i.imgflip.com/7s1fx0.jpg

[KorvinStarmast]

If they want to make weapons less attactive for the Monk, they should start by taking inspiration from the UA Tavern Brawler fest they published a bit ago and let the Monk do both unarmed damage and the unarmed options (push, knock prone, grapple,etc) at the same time, and for every unarmed strike they do. Agree, but I love the versatility that "all simple weapons are monk weapons" offers. Heck, I'd like to see that "all improvised weapons are monk weapons" as a theme ... "I can kill him with a pencil!" (see the novel Shibumi for a reference)

A Monk moving an enemy 40ft thanks to flurry of blows would be both awesome, thematic, and useful. Heck yes.
But that would require the devs to know their own work. But they don't.

Giving specifically unarmed strikes the cantrip progression as magic weapons is something I'm going to look at if when the dust settles their DPS really lags other martials in cqc or is equivalent to their ranged DPS which should be lower, also rolling back stunning strike. I'll suggest that in the feedback.

My take:

This is more evidence that this first round of "play tests" is fake. Marketing. New Coke. Or that the are Explicitly narrowing all archetypes to make it more portable as an MMO/VTT video game style of game. :smallfurious: (Insert rant here). If you look at the recent thread on "4e made money but not enough to pleae Hasbro suits" that's happening agai as D&Done approaches. (We have discussed the "We need to double and triple monetize this property" a few months back, not desiring a rehash of that in this thread).

I cannot help but wonder if these designers honestly looked at the 5e monk and thought, "Wow, what an overpowered class! People will thank us for nerfing it to make it less abusive!" If they did, I'd like a taste of what they are smoking/drinking/snorting. :smalltongue:

I think Amnestic hit it on the head: What they got in return is not equal to what was lost. Nice understatement.

The main point of Cloak of Shadows is to keep Invisibility up out of combat.
I agree. Made the Shadow Monk a nice operative ...

Between that and the other features lost, their out of combat utility has been substantially reduced. Which is a part of what is so tragic about these nerfs.

2014 Shadow Monk could give the entire party Darkvision, not just themselves. Also, since the spell lasts such a long time, you could basically just cast it on everyone then short rest before even taking on a dungeon. If you look at the "we need to make this into something more like a combat video game" theme that people suspect is coming from Hasbro suits, then getting rid of 'out of combat' skills on a combat chassis makes mechanical sense for that video game.

A big part of the 2014 Shadow Monk's identity was their ability to turn their party into a ninja strike team. That teamwork is what made them good.
yes!! and D&D is About the Team, which the devs seem to have lost sight of.

The Shadow Monk's identity as a team player and non-combat utility bringer got replaced by being a one note generic Darkness/Devil's Sight spammer, which definitely feels disappointing to me. It feels video gamey to me. :smallwink:

Speaking as one who played a shadow monk, the changes here would have made him significantly worse at infiltration, party friendliness, and stealth in general. Shadow Monk was good, yes. I wish the campaign I was in with a Shadow Monk had lasted longer.

The changes are only good design if forcing exactly one play style surrounding one trick that only works well in very particular party compositions or when you abandon your party is the goal. I do not think this was the goal; I therefore think they designed this poorly. What if it is the goal? They want to broaden the revenue stream, VTT, video game ...

I feel like they should just not force unarmed strikes. Nimble, fast, dextrous weapon users are a thing in many fictions.

I don't want to feel like i'm getting punished for leaving the eastern fantasy punching man ghetto, which is half the reason I don't like pathfinder 2's execution of the monk. The 5e monk as it is pretty much allows both and you can pick what you want to use to match the aesthetic you're going for. Bravo, and well said. I like taking a dagger monk and slowly but surely making the dagger more lethal In The Hands of a Master! :smallsmile: Using the MA dice for simple weapons allows that. And it's great thematically.

I think the main reason people like weapon masteries is just because they're starved for anything for martials. As far as changes that they could have made, I feel like weapon masteries leave a lot to be desired. Especially since the biggest issues for most of the martials with problems are:

- A dearth of utility features (...and utility feats and features for martials actually getting nerfed in 2024 UAs).
- Scaling beyond low levels.
- Versatility in play (both in the sense of having the power to adapt to more diverse situations, and in the sense of having less 'I just use my one best option almost every round.' Some UA martials actually are way more of a case of just doing the same thing every round than they used to be!)
- UA nerfs in places martials really can't handle nerfs, "offset" by buffs in places that they were already mostly fine.
- UA buffs in places casters really didn't need buffs (Hallow as a slot-free Action at level 10? This was already scary when people had to use a 9th level slot to do it). Nicely put. (On the other hand I like a cleric being able to Hallow as an inherently cleric skill...but I also just like playing clerics).

The fact that all the weapon masteries are 1st level features and that there aren't any tier 2/3/4 weapon masteries means they're always going to feel a bit lame. Hard to call it mastery when it's closer to "Proficiency+". I need to look at those again, but thanks for making this point.

Also, getting rid of Tongue of Sun and Moon annoys me a lot, and removing the disease/poison immunity is outrageous, particularly given the lame excuse offered as to why.
"They don't know their own game" is a fair criticism here. Given that Crawford has been with D&D since 4e (and possibly before?) I find this strange.

[Psyren]

If people really want Tongue of the Sun and Moon to stick around, make it a high level feat or epic boon that gives the character Truespeech as one of it benefits. There's really no reason that a monk should be the only class that learns how to speak the language of the universe/talk to any creature and say, a cleric, warlock, paladin or druid can't.

[Segev]

If people really want Tongue of the Sun and Moon to stick around, make it a high level feat or epic boon that gives the character Truespeech as one of it benefits. There's really no reason that a monk should be the only class that learns how to speak the language of the universe/talk to any creature and say, a cleric, warlock, paladin or druid can't.

HEck, I think druids had something similar in earlier editions.

Linguist is generally considered a poor feat. I don't know that going all the way to "speaks every language" is not overdoing it for a feat, but...it might not be? Especially if it's level-gated, the way OneD&D seems to want to introduce.

[Saelethil]

I’m sure my experience is an anomaly but the shadow monks I’ve seen in action haven’t cast darkness. They used pass without trace a lot and on a few occasions made really good use of silence so that we could eviscerate clumps of enemies in large encampments without alerting the entire camps. Darkness, while it can be useful, is just much more niche in my experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's really no reason that a monk should be the only class that learns how to speak the language of the universe/talk to any creature and say, a cleric, warlock, paladin or druid can't. Yes there is. It's a monk. :smallyuk:

[Psyren]

Yes there is. It's a monk. :smallyuk:

I don't see why monks have a thematic monopoly on that concept though. Non-monastic creatures like angels and cosmic horrors can talk to literally anyone too. And the entire lore behind Bards is that they're studying the language that predates all others in the multiverse, from] which all of the rest are derived. The ability should be accessible to multiple classes at high levels, and that means a feat or boon in game terms.

[LudicSavant]

I don't see why monks have a thematic monopoly on that concept though. Non-monastic creatures like angels and cosmic horrors can talk to literally anyone too.

Agreed; Monks don't have a monopoly on the concept.

I just want to add that Monks can't talk to literally anyone. Heck, they can't even talk to some of the beings they could in older editions (where they could use Speak With Animals and even Speak With Plants at will -- at a lower level than they get Tongue of the Sun and Moon in 5e, too).

[Amnestic]

It's true that monks don't have a monopoly on the concept.

But Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard all get the Tongues spell available to them at 5th level, if they want it. Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard also get Comprehend Languages at 1st (or anyone with Ritual Caster can get it).

So I think it's, frankly, already covered by feats and/or spells for the classes mentioned. If you wanted to add an epic feat at 20th level that gives the equivalent of TOTSAM to anyone who takes it? Sure, I guess, but it's not like other classes can't get language-based options before then, nor should other classes getting/not getting something be a reason to take it away from monks.

[Psyren]

Just to clarify - by "anyone" I meant sapient/sophont creatures, contrasted against "anything" which would have included non-sophont living creatures like animals and plants, or talking directly to a force like nature etc.


It's true that monks don't have a monopoly on the concept.

But Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard all get the Tongues spell available to them at 5th level, if they want it. Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard also get Comprehend Languages at 1st (or anyone with Ritual Caster can get it).

So I think it's, frankly, already covered by feats and/or spells for the classes mentioned.

Sure, but the ability in question is constant/passive. That's why I think a (half-)feat is appropriate here, for those who want that without needing to cast something first. By the time you cast a spell (especially a ritual), it might be too late to decipher what you need to have heard or say what you wanted to say.

[Amnestic]

Sure, but the ability in question is constant/passive. That's why I think a (half-)feat is appropriate here, for those who want that without needing to cast something first. By the time you cast a spell (especially a ritual), it might be too late to decipher what you need to have heard or say what you wanted to say.

Yeah, it's also a 13th level ability. It should be better than 3rd level spell or a 1st level ritual. "The monk gets this cool t3 utility feature that rarely crops up, but when it does makes them feel special - lets turn it into a feat so anyone can get it" like...?

Are we developing level-gated feats for 7th level spells or Divine Intervention too while we're at it? Anyone can pray for help from a god after all, so why should Clerics get a monopoly on divine intervention?

[Psyren]

Yeah, it's also a 13th level ability. It should be better than 3rd level spell or a 1st level ritual. "The monk gets this cool t3 utility feature that rarely crops up, but when it does makes them feel special - lets turn it into a feat so anyone can get it" like...?

Are we developing level-gated feats for 7th level spells or Divine Intervention too while we're at it?

I can see why only a Cleric gets Divine Intervention. I don't see why only a Monk gets access to TOTSAM, especially when it has historically meant getting nothing else at that level.

Moreover - flavorwise, baking the ability into monk specifically seems to still be aligning it with the various far-east stereotypes that they seem to be trying to nudge the class away from.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see why only a Cleric gets Divine Intervention.

Why? Serious question here--the same fiction that says "anyone can learn to speak Truespeech" also says that anyone can be devout enough to have their god intervene for them, not just clerics. Especially if clerics aren't actually tied directly to gods for their power (a stance you've taken). Clerics might be better at it, but in a world of active gods (which is what having an ability like Divine Intervention directly implies)...anyone can be devout enough to access their power.

[Kane0]

I'd just move it to a lower level. If anyone else was going to get universal communication as an ability i'd peg it on bards, but as mentioned we already have plenty of ways to get it as a spell so meh.

[Psyren]

Why? Serious question here--the same fiction that says "anyone can learn to speak Truespeech" also says that anyone can be devout enough to have their god intervene for them, not just clerics.

I don't agree with this. Everyone can serve a deity, sure, but a deity's relationship to their Clerics is more special than that of other followers - it has to be, otherwise there's no real point to Clerics existing.

"Transcending language" meanwhile is an end state that can be achieved via multiple paths. The arguably best version of that going to monks of all people is only justifiable via a combination of sacred cow and highly specific legacy flavor.

[LudicSavant]

Commentary / design analysis on Monk's Martial Arts die:

- In current (2014+supplements) 5e, any Monk can get a d8 weapon at level 1 (like a quarterstaff in two hands), and many will have a d10 (such as being an elf or dwarf or anything else that gets a martial weapon proficiency). Gunks will of course be using a d12 as soon as they can afford a musket. Also, many of an optimized Monk's bonus action attacks come from KFA.

This means that for most or all of a Monk's career, the martial arts die is only used for some of your bonus action attacks (not your KFA ones). There's not that much scaling there.

Bumping the martial arts die is thus not much of an improvement; the current bar-setting Monk builds are rolling d10s and d12s for most of their attacks for most of their careers anyway.

To add injury to insult, they took away the ability for the Martial Arts die to apply to weapons (so now your high level Monk can't, say, use a whip to hit like a sword), and then added Weapon Masteries to the equation. And "martial weapon proficiency" as a prerequisite to many combat feats, to boot. And nerfed the feats that synergized with Monks in 2014 5e. And nerfed or removed a whole bunch of features that aided their damage output (like Focused Aim, Stunning Strike stacking, subclass features, etc).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't agree with this. Everyone can serve a deity, sure, but a deity's relationship to their Clerics is more special than that of other followers - it has to be, otherwise there's no real point to Clerics existing.

"Transcending language" meanwhile is an end state that can be achieved via multiple paths. The arguably best version of that going to monks of all people is only justifiable via a combination of sacred cow and highly specific legacy flavor.

Except you yourself have argued that clerics don't have to have a relationship with a deity at all. That you can have an entirely self-made cleric, one who believes in themselves and gets power from it. That doesn't mesh at all with "clerics are special because they have special relationships with deities."

And D&D (not to mention closely-allied) fiction is full of instances of people who aren't actual "clerics" getting divine intervention for their faith. Heck, good old poster-boy for D&D Drizzt has it happen lots. Both for and against him (Lolth intervenes even without clerics present from book 1, he gets divine intervention to guide him along the path fairly frequently along the way).

I could see clerics being better at it, but in a world where you can pick up divine spells with a feat (which are exactly and explicitly said to be channeling the god's power) and where paladins have Channel Divinity at core...there's nothing thematically special about Divine Intervention.

Of course, I believe this whole "build a bear" thing goes way too far...or not far enough. Every class should have cool things that no one else can even possibly touch. Lots of them. Most things, in fact. "Shared" features should be minimal background stuff or really foundational stuff (like basic proficiencies, the ability to make attacks, etc). Alternatively, classes should just go away and everything should be build a bear.

[Psyren]

Except you yourself have argued that clerics don't have to have a relationship with a deity at all. That you can have an entirely self-made cleric, one who believes in themselves and gets power from it. That doesn't mesh at all with "clerics are special because they have special relationships with deities."

No, I never said anything about "clerics believing in themselves and getting power from it" in that other thread you're dragging an airport load of baggage from. I said clerics' ultimate source of power is the outer planes themselves, as shown in the playtest language I previously quoted:



Clerics draw power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes—where gods dwell—and channel that energy to bolster people and to battle foes.

Even in a setting without deities - which, to be clear, no published setting is as of this writing - those realms/planes still exist and can still fuel clerics. What I went on to say however is that it's not possible to worship a philosophy/concept and reject the deity whose portfolio champions it, not and care about said concept enough to become a cleric. So if I believe fervently in the concept of Beauty but know nothing about Sune and so never pray to her, she or an aligned entity might still bless me and enable me to draw clerical power from her domain.

What that means for the Divine Intervention ability is that that entity is what responds to my plea for aid. That is by definition a special relationship, and has nothing whatsoever to do with TOTSAM.

[Segev]

I think the core reason people are saying it shouldn't be a monk feature exclusively is that it never shows up in the source fiction monks emulate, and is not a particularly "monkly" thing. The only reason it is there now is legacy, and I could not tell you why it showed up the first time it did in the class.

[LudicSavant]

The only reason it is there now is legacy, and I could not tell you why it showed up the first time it did in the class.

The reason was because high level Monks were supposed to achieve physical and mental perfection, enlightenment, immortality, and a oneness with all things (which is why in older editions let you connect with every living creature, not just creatures with a language. Original D&D Monks just straight up could cast Speak With Animals and Speak With Plants and such). By the end of their progression they are supposed to be transcendent beings, able to astrally project and become planeswalkers. In some older editions they wouldn't even count as humanoid anymore.

Also, Tongue of the Sun and Moon used to be a high level feature, connected to their transition into an enlightened master that transcends the self and attains a sort of oneness with the multiverse. It got moved down to level 13, got nerfed to only work on creatures that understand a language, etc. Which is kind of weird since AFAIK the idea is that you're just sort of feeling the energy that flows through all living things, and just sort of understanding each other -- I'm not really clear on why there would be a spoken language requirement.

2024 D&D seems to want to reduce Monks (even tier 4 Monks) to 'guy at the gym who can do a bit of parkour,' even as they keep buffing casters (like the new Divine Intervention or Create Spell). Oh, and just sort of scrubbing noncombat utility out of the class in general, and replacing it with a big ol' sack of nothin'.

[Psyren]

I think the core reason people are saying it shouldn't be a monk feature exclusively is that it never shows up in the source fiction monks emulate, and is not a particularly "monkly" thing. The only reason it is there now is legacy, and I could not tell you why it showed up the first time it did in the class.

I have no idea either, and even if I could find the ultimate source fiction, it's very likely based on one very narrow (and dated) conception of what "enlightenment" and "mastery" meant to that author, with a bunch of assorted tropes and stereotypes thrown in.

...

I'm all for making monks more powerful and versatile, but I also think the ability to speak lojban / ask a random tree how it's day went is at best a superficial means of achieving that. In a lot of groups, the fact that the monk can talk to theoretically any NPC or set decoration doesn't end up meaning much when they're often the party member their peers want to be talking to NPCs the least of all.

A compromise I could accept would be if the monk got a grab-bag of abilities aligned with a wider variety of ascetic traditions, that you could use to build your own tradition, similar to PF Unchained Monk's Ki Powers. But failing that, I'll settle for doing away with some sacred bovines instead.

[LudicSavant]

the fact that the monk can talk to theoretically any NPC or set decoration doesn't end up meaning much when they're often the party member their peers want to be talking to NPCs the least of all.

For me, this is the main thing that disappoints me: it's that they're bad at the thing. You've got the Great Teacher himself on your team and the last thing you want him to do is try to connect with someone by speaking directly to their soul like a Lion Turtle, because they've got a Cha score of 8 and no relevant noncombat features. Quick, stop Oogway from trying to talk!

It's like when they gave Ascendant Dragon Monks a persuasion / intimidation feature. They just made the feature really bad at its job, so it doesn't matter. It's like they're allergic to writing decent noncombat features for any class that isn't a caster or maybe a Rogue. Sometimes. If you're lucky. If you're not lucky you get something like the Mastermind's ability to counter a level 2 spell at level 17. Or a level 9 feature that is based off the Battle Master's dysfunctional level 7 feature.

It would have just been so easy to give them even a small thing, like "oh hey, yeah, Monk, you can add your Wisdom score to cha checks now, just like the Samurai feature." The idea that at some point a master's wisdom and insight has reached a point that people seek out and respond to their wisdom is ubiquitous in the fiction. But nope, they couldn't get that part. Just the ability to basically cast self-only Tongues as a party member you probably don't want talking to people much anyway.

Martials need more noncombat features, not less.

[Segev]

I had a sudden realization when another post reminded me that monks were originally transcending into perfected s?iritual beings. The conception a 'seinin' — which I might be misspelling and which is sometimes very poorly transliterated as 'saint' — shows up in Eastern mythology, and I can think of at least one anime where being one made you immortal stand came with an ability to understand all speech and to be understood by all who could speak, as well as read all writing and write all languages. That example being in an anime called "12 Kingdoms."

There may well be others. But I figured I would share at least that much for whatever insight into the Monk design it might grant.

[Kane0]

A compromise I could accept would be if the monk got a grab-bag of abilities aligned with a wider variety of ascetic traditions, that you could use to build your own tradition, similar to PF Unchained Monk's Ki Powers.

Ooh, i'm listening! What sort of stuff should we be adding?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, it's also a 13th level ability. It should be better than 3rd level spell or a 1st level ritual. "The monk gets this cool t3 utility feature that rarely crops up, but when it does makes them feel special - lets turn it into a feat so anyone can get it" like...?

Are we developing level-gated feats for 7th level spells or Divine Intervention too while we're at it? Anyone can pray for help from a god after all, so why should Clerics get a monopoly on divine intervention? Nice riposte, and FWIW, in Empire of the Petal Throne, divine intervention was available to any PC (from either a deity or cohort) but it was risky. One might ask for aid and get punished, or might get a boon. (For those not aware, EPT was the first D&D like campaign ever published, but it had a lot of difference from/to D&D, such as ability score generation by d100, Psychic Ability as a character trait, and gaining weapons and non weapons proficiencies as one rose in level ... Barker was ahead of his time)

I can see why only a Cleric gets Divine Intervention. I don't. See EPT, see Elric of Melnibone (Arioch is at least a demigod if not a god) just for starters.

Moreover - flavorwise, baking the ability into monk specifically seems to still be aligning it with the various far-east stereotypes that they seem to be trying to nudge the class away from. Medieval Western; monks were also scholars, and had to know multiple languages. Throw in a little syncretism/synergy, and stop it with the culture wars, add magic, and there you are: monks communicate (at a high level) with a wide variety of creatures.

... in a world of active gods (which is what having an ability like Divine Intervention directly implies)...anyone can be devout enough to access their power. A wide variety of Fantasy, and Swords and sorcery, fiction includes divine intervention.

I think the core reason people are saying it shouldn't be a monk feature exclusively is that it never shows up in the source fiction monks emulate Sorry, there is no single 'source fiction' and it's an eclectic mix. (Which you later presented in shenin example).

The reason was because high level Monks were supposed to achieve physical and mental perfection, enlightenment, immortality, and a oneness with all things (which is why in older editions let you connect with every living creature, not just creatures with a language. Original D&D Monks just straight up could cast Speak With Animals and Speak With Plants and such). By the end of their progression they are supposed to be transcendent beings, able to astrally project and become planeswalkers. In some older editions they wouldn't even count as humanoid anymore. Yep.
This conversion of a monk into a far less spiritual being (I punch stuff, woot!) is I suspect driven by the video gaminess spectre arising from the suits at Hasbro. It has their stink all over it.

It's like they're allergic to writing decent noncombat features for any class that isn't a caster or maybe a Rogue. Sometimes.

It would have just been so easy to give them even a small thing, like "oh hey, yeah, Monk, you can add your Wisdom score to cha checks now, just like the Samurai feature." Not a bad idea.

Martials need more noncombat features, not less. Concur. And now that Half Elf is off the table, the option to get two extra Proficiencies is gone as well. :smallfurious:

[Segev]

Sorry, there is no single 'source fiction' and it's an eclectic mix. (Which you later presented in shenin example).

I never said there was a "single 'source fiction.'" THe word "single" never entered into it.

[OvisCaedo]

For some reason I thought "Tongue of the Sun and Moon" was just a joke about subtitles and their common colors of yellow and white. That also happened to tie in pretty well with the "enlightenment" angle so it fit.

[titi]

My favorite thing about tongue of the sun and moon is that once you have it, everyone (with a language) always understands you, wether you want it or not

[Segev]

In another thread on the monk long ago, somebody came up with the idea of a "ki action." An idea I'd had aligns with that as a thing that I now want to propose as a better way of handling certain 5e monk staples, particularly going into OneD&D.

Monks now get a "ki action," which they may take once on each of their turns. A ki action does not consume their action nor bonus action. They must have spent ki on this turn or have ki in their ki pool to take a ki action. If they have not spent ki on the turn they use a ki action by the end of that turn, they must spend one ki at the end of that turn. Their choices for ki actions are: Flurry Attack, Step of the Wind, and Patient Defense. Subclasses might add more options.

Flurry Attack: The monk makes a single attack with a monk weapon or an unarmed strike as his ki action. This may be a special attack, such as a shove or a grapple.
Step of the Wind: The monk dashes and doubles his jump distance until the end of the turn as his ki action.
Patient Defense: The monk takes the Dodge action as his ki action.

This sets Step of the Wind and Patient Defense apart from the Rogue's Cunning Action by making it still require ki expenditure, but also making it not plain worse by leaving the bonus action unconsumed. It makes these abilities better than they currently are, ki-cost-wise, because you can use another ki feature in the same round to negate the cost of spending ki on them, specifically; they complement, rather than compete with, ki features for resources, unless they're all you want to do that round. Using your ki action is practically free if you do anything else that costs ki that round (e.g. Stunning Strike).

Flurry of Blows is replaced entirely by Flurry Attack. Instead of a ki and a bonus action for +2 unarmed strikes, it's a ki action to get +1 monk-ish attack, and martial arts still lets you spend a bonus action for an extra attack, and you still have your normal attack. So, for the ki action and spending at least 1 ki that turn, you get just as many attacks for the otherwise same action cost as the 5e monk does for Flurry of Blows, but you have more flexibility, too: Want to cast darkness and then use your bonus action teleport while still getting an attack off? Darkness costs its ki and an action, your bonus action lets you teleport, and you can use your ki action to make one attack, still.

[Witty Username]

Adding wisdom to social checks worked for ranger, I don't see why it wouldn't for monk.

I know a friend of mine has complained that there is no scan/libra equivalent in D&D, I feel like such a thing would fit monk pretty well.

[Saelethil]

Adding wisdom to social checks worked for ranger, I don't see why it wouldn't for monk.

I know a friend of mine has complained that there is no scan/libra equivalent in D&D, I feel like such a thing would fit monk pretty well.

I really like the idea of baking that into Tongue of the Sun and Moon.

[Psyren]

Ooh, i'm listening! What sort of stuff should we be adding?

Rather than tell you I can just show you:

Unchained Monk Ki Powers (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained#TOC-Ki-Power-Su-)
Qinggong Powers (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk)

Basically it's a mix of spells the monk can cast by spending ki, as well as some more unique non-spell abilities, either activated by spending ki or passive while you have a certain amount of ki in your pool. Some of these are already part of the 5e monk, e.g. spending ki to heal yourself, improve your defenses, move faster, or purge your body of toxins. Other standounts that could be brought to 5e include things like:

- Spend ki to treat {insert skill roll e.g. Athletics/Acrobatics} as a 20
- Spend ki to give yourself the benefits of (insert martial feat you don't have) for 1 minute


(^ I really like this one as it gives the monk a bit more flexibility to use their ASIs on their stats. Plus it gets stronger with each new book printed.)

- While you have at least X ki, you have advantage on initiative checks
- While you have at least X ki, you have {special sense, e.g. Blindsight 10ft}
- Spend ki to stand/fight in midair for 1 minute
- Spend ki to improve critical hit range
- Spend ki to cast {thematic spell 5th-level or lower}, such as: Barkskin/Stoneskin, Augury/Divination, Gaseous Form/Misty Step, Thunderwave/Warding Wind, etc.

[LudicSavant]

I know a friend of mine has complained that there is no scan/libra equivalent in D&D, I feel like such a thing would fit monk pretty well.


I really like the idea of baking that into Tongue of the Sun and Moon.

That's a neat idea as well. How would you suggest the scan/libra mechanic work?

[Amnestic]

That's a neat idea as well. How would you suggest the scan/libra mechanic work?

When I implemented it for my blue mage adaptation, I did it as follows:-

Libra
From second level you learn how to size up your opponents at a glance. As a bonus action, you can learn one of the following aspects of a creature that you can see, in addition to its creature type:


One Ability Score of your choice.
Armour Class
Current hit points
One damage resistance, immunity or vulnerability, at random.
One condition immunity, at random.
One Action or Legendary Action that the creature has, at random.

When you reach 7th, 12th and 17th level you can learn one additional facet of the observed monster with each use of Libra, such that a 12th level Blue Mage could learn three different aspects of an observed creature with one use of Libra.

[Sorinth]

Adding wisdom to social checks worked for ranger, I don't see why it wouldn't for monk.

I know a friend of mine has complained that there is no scan/libra equivalent in D&D, I feel like such a thing would fit monk pretty well.

I would take it a step further and open it up beyond just social checks. Basically have it be the Monk equivalent a Rogue's Expertise feature. Have it come online in tier 2 and maybe a second skill in tier 3 would probably be enough that you wouldn't be stepping on the Rogue's toes or creating too much multiclass problems.

It could potentially even be linked/limited to subclass, so at level 6 Shadow gets a choice of Stealth or Deception, Open Hand gets Acrobatics or Athletics, 4E gets Arcana or Nature, etc... and then with Tongue of Sun and Moon all monks get Persuasion. It would overall be quite thematic.

[ZRN]

When I implemented it for my blue mage adaptation, I did it as follows:-

The Way of the Cobalt Soul (from Critical Role) (https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/way-of-the-cobalt-soul) is an unofficial but probably fairly well-known subclass that does this - basically you learn all resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities when you hit an enemy with Flurry of Blows (and can also get an OA when they miss you with an attack from then on). Some of that could be absorbed into the core class, I guess, but I feel like it's fine as a subclass benefit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rather than tell you I can just show you:

Basically it's a mix of spells the monk can cast by spending ki, If you want a new something cool for a martial, it needs to be a spell.
Not sure if that is your intent, but that's how it comes across to me. (Then again, Shadow Monk does just that...so maybe because it's "wizards" of the coast it can't be helped ...)

[ZRN]

I would take it a step further and open it up beyond just social checks. Basically have it be the Monk equivalent a Rogue's Expertise feature. Have it come online in tier 2 and maybe a second skill in tier 3 would probably be enough that you wouldn't be stepping on the Rogue's toes or creating too much multiclass problems.

It could potentially even be linked/limited to subclass, so at level 6 Shadow gets a choice of Stealth or Deception, Open Hand gets Acrobatics or Athletics, 4E gets Arcana or Nature, etc... and then with Tongue of Sun and Moon all monks get Persuasion. It would overall be quite thematic.

It'd be easy to let you spend a Ki to add something (wis modifier? unarmed attack die?) to a skill check as a sort of Zen mastery thing, but dunno if that would step on experts' toes.

[LudicSavant]

When I implemented it for my blue mage adaptation, I did it as follows:-

Personally I'd want it to be less stingy with information, feeling mechanically less like Battlemaster level 7 and more like Fabula Ultima "dorkblade" builds (Loremaster / Darkblade builds are so damn fun, it's like being Sherlock Holmes as a Final Fantasy emotion-powered dark knight. You even get to trigger your Sherlock Holmes combat analysis (https://youtu.be/lLuhWLNqpiA?t=108) off enemies doing things to trigger your ire -- like spitting at the back of your head registering on an emotional level, as it were).

[verbatim]

Libra would have been a cool group wide feature for Experts to give them more identity, but then it also fits very well with Wizard and Monk, maybe it should just be a core mechanic anyone can do?

If a DM wants to give the party some breathing room but not the appearance of doing so having 2-3 CR 1/4 mooks try and discern who the weakest party member is gives the players time to regroup and also clearly signals who the boss's next target is.

[Gignere]

I think the core reason people are saying it shouldn't be a monk feature exclusively is that it never shows up in the source fiction monks emulate, and is not a particularly "monkly" thing. The only reason it is there now is legacy, and I could not tell you why it showed up the first time it did in the class.

I think it’s because of poorly translated 70’s kung fu movies, the movies themselves were from different fantasy canons and the monk is basically a mishmash of different wuxia canons of what a Shaolin monk is combined with poorly translated dubs and that’s why the D&D monk is so messed up with a suite of abilities that makes zero sense and have very little synergies.

[Psyren]

Adding wisdom to social checks worked for ranger, I don't see why it wouldn't for monk.

I know a friend of mine has complained that there is no scan/libra equivalent in D&D, I feel like such a thing would fit monk pretty well.

Hunter Ranger gets a Libra-like ability appended to their Hunter's Mark. Unfortunately, HM reverted to needing concentration so it sucks now.


If you want a new something cool for a martial, it needs to be a spell.
Not sure if that is your intent, but that's how it comes across to me. (Then again, Shadow Monk does just that...so maybe because it's "wizards" of the coast it can't be helped ...)

I listed a number of examples in that post that weren't spells though? Did you just jump to the links and move on? :smallconfused:

Spend ki to cast spells was only one item on that list (the last one.)

[Amnestic]

Personally I'd want it to be less stingy with information, feeling mechanically less like Battlemaster level 7 and more like Fabula Ultima "dorkblade" builds (Loremaster / Darkblade builds are so damn fun, it's like being Sherlock Holmes as a Final Fantasy emotion-powered dark knight. You even get to trigger your Sherlock Holmes combat analysis (https://youtu.be/lLuhWLNqpiA?t=108) off enemies doing things to trigger your ire -- like spitting at the back of your head registering on an emotional level, as it were).

I'm unfamiliar with Fabula Ultima so can't comment on that, though if you've got any suggestions for implementing it in 5e I'm open to 'em.
In my blue mage's case their BA is basically unspoken for otherwise, with the soft assumption it's getting used every turn (and with a later feature adding a damage boost from using it); it'd certainly need adjusting for any monk application.

[Sorinth]

It'd be easy to let you spend a Ki to add something (wis modifier? unarmed attack die?) to a skill check as a sort of Zen mastery thing, but dunno if that would step on experts' toes.

Could be an option but I would worry it would be too ki-hungry if you had to do it every check. Perhaps if it had a duration 10min/1hour? it could work.

I think the key to avoid stepping on the experts toes is twofold, limit the number of skills you can do it with, and have it come online much later. You for sure don't want a situation where you can become a master at everything by spending ki, but if you are built around a theme, then being as good as an expert in that theme is fine. For example it makes sense to me that a Ninja inspired Shadow Monk is one of the stealthiest classes, or a Open-Hand Monk is a top wrestler/grappler. I don't see that as stepping on toes so much as bringing the mechanics to be inline with the subclass theme.

[LudicSavant]

The fear of 'stepping on Experts' toes' is IMHO one of the foundational reasons that martials are worse in D&D than in so many other systems.

It's this idea that "noncombat utility is for rogues, fighting is for fighters." This is... not a good division of roles, because those things are pillars, and everyone should be playing in all pillars. Roles are things that should exist within pillars. Concepts like 'healer,' 'tank,' and 'damage dealer' are all roles within the combat pillar. Everyone should be good at combat, just in different ways. By a similar note, everyone should be good at noncombat.

Casters, of course, don't face this problem. They get to play fully in every pillar. There's no concept that "utility is just for Bards" or "combat is just for Sorcerers." Nor should there be.

Pretty much every step D&D has taken away from the 'skills are for rogues, fighting is for fighters' mindset has been healthy for the system. Remember the bad old days when people were worried about whether letting warriors jump would be stepping on the Thief's toes? D&D isn't quite as bad about it as it used to be, but the specter of that mentality still remains, haunting gamers to this day.

[ZRN]

The fear of 'stepping on Experts' toes' is IMHO one of the foundational reasons that martials are worse in D&D than in so many other systems.

It's this idea that "noncombat utility is for rogues, fighting is for fighters." This is... not a good division of roles, because those things are pillars, and everyone should be playing in all pillars. Roles are things that should exist within pillars. Concepts like 'healer,' 'tank,' and 'damage dealer' are all roles within the combat pillar. Everyone should be good at combat, just in different ways. By a similar note, everyone should be good at noncombat.

Casters, of course, don't face this problem. They get to play fully in every pillar. There's no concept that "utility is just for Bards" or "combat is just for Sorcerers." Nor should there be.

Pretty much every step D&D has taken away from the 'skills are for rogues, fighting is for fighters' mindset has been healthy for the system. Remember the bad old days when people were worried about whether letting warriors jump would be stepping on the Thief's toes? D&D isn't quite as bad about it as it used to be, but the specter of that mentality still remains, haunting gamers to this day.

100% agreed, which is why 1. fighters and monks definitely need class features that play more with the other pillars, but at the same time 2. it would be good if those other features felt different/distinct from rogues' skill benefits.

I think the new level 2 barbarian thing actually does a decent job of this: while you're raging you're a juggernaut and you can use that in combat, adjacent to combat (e.g. busting down a door, sneaking up for an ambush, intimidating a foe to surrender), and even sometimes out of strict combat situations. But you're still clearly combat-focused, and nobody's going to confuse you with a rogue.

I'd like it if there were similar features that suited fighters and monks, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. Fighters could interact more with the (newly expanded) inspiration system? Monks could use ki to do "zen" stuff? Definitely an unmet need in the current playtest versions.

[titi]

100% agreed, which is why 1. fighters and monks definitely need class features that play more with the other pillars, but at the same time 2. it would be good if those other features felt different/distinct from rogues' skill benefits.

I think the new level 2 barbarian thing actually does a decent job of this: while you're raging you're a juggernaut and you can use that in combat, adjacent to combat (e.g. busting down a door, sneaking up for an ambush, intimidating a foe to surrender), and even sometimes out of strict combat situations. But you're still clearly combat-focused, and nobody's going to confuse you with a rogue.

I'd like it if there were similar features that suited fighters and monks, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. Fighters could interact more with the (newly expanded) inspiration system? Monks could use ki to do "zen" stuff? Definitely an unmet need in the current playtest versions.

The most obvious for fighter would be to allow them to spend second wind (or undomitable) to do some out of combat stuff, but I think it's possible to find more interresting ideas.

[Sorinth]

The fear of 'stepping on Experts' toes' is IMHO one of the foundational reasons that martials are worse in D&D than in so many other systems.

It's this idea that "noncombat utility is for rogues, fighting is for fighters." This is... not a good division of roles, because those things are pillars, and everyone should be playing in all pillars. Roles are things that should exist within pillars. Concepts like 'healer,' 'tank,' and 'damage dealer' are all roles within the combat pillar. Everyone should be good at combat, just in different ways. By a similar note, everyone should be good at noncombat.

Casters, of course, don't face this problem. They get to play fully in every pillar. There's no concept that "utility is just for Bards" or "combat is just for Sorcerers." Nor should there be.

Pretty much every step D&D has taken away from the 'skills are for rogues, fighting is for fighters' mindset has been healthy for the system. Remember the bad old days when people were worried about whether letting warriors jump would be stepping on the Thief's toes? D&D isn't quite as bad about it as it used to be, but the specter of that mentality still remains, haunting gamers to this day.

True enough, but then what are the equivalent roles to 'healer', 'tank' 'damage dealer', etc...? You can split it along proficiency so things like 'face', 'scout', 'researcher', but then it's basically tied to your primary/secondary ability scores which tends towards mental stats being more relevant. The other split is between the character making the check and the support character helping.

Now some of this might be just a question of how to handle the checks, ie who makes the Persuasion check if the Monk is acting as an interpreter via Tongues of Sun and Moon. Does the Monk make the skill check with advantage from the high persuasion character who is "helping", or is it the other way around and the high persuasion character makes the check and it's the Monk that is in the support role? In the same vein how does a successful Insight check impact the situation. If a successful Insight check can lower the DC for a subsequent Cha check from another player, or if it gave meta-knowledge like what the DCs are if someone wants to use Persuasion, Intimidation, or Deception. Then there would be a fairly well defined out of combat role for high Insight characters like Monk, but that runs into problems for characters whose primary's are Str and Con.

[Kane0]

Rather than tell you I can just show you:

Unchained Monk Ki Powers (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained#TOC-Ki-Power-Su-)
Qinggong Powers (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk)

Basically it's a mix of spells the monk can cast by spending ki, as well as some more unique non-spell abilities, either activated by spending ki or passive while you have a certain amount of ki in your pool. Some of these are already part of the 5e monk, e.g. spending ki to heal yourself, improve your defenses, move faster, or purge your body of toxins. Other standounts that could be brought to 5e include things like:

- Spend ki to treat {insert skill roll e.g. Athletics/Acrobatics} as a 20
- Spend ki to give yourself the benefits of (insert martial feat you don't have) for 1 minute


(^ I really like this one as it gives the monk a bit more flexibility to use their ASIs on their stats. Plus it gets stronger with each new book printed.)

- While you have at least X ki, you have advantage on initiative checks
- While you have at least X ki, you have {special sense, e.g. Blindsight 10ft}
- Spend ki to stand/fight in midair for 1 minute
- Spend ki to improve critical hit range
- Spend ki to cast {thematic spell 5th-level or lower}, such as: Barkskin/Stoneskin, Augury/Divination, Gaseous Form/Misty Step, Thunderwave/Warding Wind, etc.

Alrighty, I spent a little bit going through them. These are already covered by existing 2014 content:

Empty Body (Su): Empty Body
High Jump (Ex): Step of the Wind
Ki Metabolism (Su): Timeless body
Slow Fall (Su): Slow Fall
Sudden Speed (Su): Step of the Wind
Wholeness of Body (Su): Wholeness of Body/Quickened Healing
Zephyr Blow (Su): Fist of Unbroken Air
Diamond Mind (Su): Stillness of Mind
Elemental Fury (Su): Fangs of the Fire Snake/Draconic Strike
Water Sprint (Su): Unarmored Movement Improvement
Formless Mastery (Ex): Fighting Style?
Furious Defense (Ex): Patient Defense
Diamond Body (Su): Purity of Body
Wind Jump (Su): Ride the Wind
Ki Hurricane (Ex): Base 5e rule, but also Hunter Ranger's Whirlwind Attack
Quivering Palm (Su): Quivering Palm
Elemental Burst (Su): Breath of the Dragon

Abundant Step (Su): [cast a spell]
Ki Visions (Su): [cast a spell]
Racing Current (Su): [cast a spell]
Qinggong Power (Su): [70x cast a spell, 45x get a feat, 11x repeat feature out of 126 options]


Discarding those, here's the rest with some quick and dirty conversions for:

Feather Balance (Ex): Spend 1 Ki to treat Acrobatics check result as a 20
Ki Range (Su): Thrown monk weapons ignore disadvantage for long range
Action Before Thought (Ex): Spend 2 Ki to gain advantage on Initiative roll
Ki Guardian (Su): Spend 1 Ki to roll saving throw on behalf of an ally within same area of effect
Ki Mount (Su): Action, spend 1 Ki to give mount THP plus share monk features
Breaking-Down Koan (Su): Bonus action, spend 1 Ki to target one creature with Wis save or be confused until end of next turn
Floating Breath (Su): Spend 1 Ki to end movement midair, hovering until end of next turn
Insightful Wisdom (Su): Reaction, spend 1 Ki to have ally reroll attack or save
Light Steps (Ex): Ignore difficult terrain
Ki Blocker (Su): When you hit with an unarmed strike, spend 1 ki to increase target's cost of spell slots by 1 level for 10 minutes
Cobra Breath (Su): When subject to a poison, can redirect it ala deflect arrows
Diamond Resilience (Ex): Bonus action, spend up to prof bonus ki to reduce damage taken by twice Ki spent for one minute
Diamond Soul (Ex): Bonus action, spend 2 Ki to gain advantage on saving throws vs magic until end of next turn
Master-Thought Koan (Su): When using Breakdown Koan spend extra 1 Ki to affect number of targets equal to wis mod
One Touch (Ex): As long as you have Ki remaining, when you take the attack action you can sacrifice one attack to make the other at advantage with a bonus to the damage roll equal to half monk level
Ki Volley (Su): While Diamond Soul is active, can redirect spells that you save against ala deflect arrows

Of these, the ones i'd like to see are Feather Balance, Ki Range, Floating Breath, Light Steps, Diamond Resilience and One Touch either as additions or alternatives. Tongue of Sun and Moon can stay.

[LudicSavant]

True enough, but then what are the equivalent roles to 'healer', 'tank' 'damage dealer', etc...? You can split it along proficiency so things like 'face', 'scout', 'researcher', but then it's basically tied to your primary/secondary ability scores which tends towards mental stats being more relevant.

Just as with combat, you needn't focus overmuch on labeling the roles, just make sure that the characters 1) actually do things in that pillar, and 2) those things are sufficiently good, and 3) those things aren't redundant with others in the party. So for example a character who can detect thoughts and a character who lies really well are both differently useful in a social encounter, and can collaborate for greater results (in the same challenge) than either of them could achieve alone.

Also important is to keep in mind that skill proficiencies aren't everything. Heck, full casters would still be better out of combat than many of the martials even if they had no skill proficiencies at all.

[Sorinth]

Just as with combat, you needn't focus overmuch on labeling the roles, just make sure that the characters 1) actually do things in that pillar, and 2) those things are sufficiently good, and 3) those things aren't redundant with others in the party. So for example a character who can detect thoughts and a character who lies really well are both differently useful in a social encounter, and can collaborate for greater results (in the same challenge) than either of them could achieve alone.

Also important is to keep in mind that skill proficiencies aren't everything. Heck, full casters would still be better out of combat than many of the martials even if they had no skill proficiencies at all.

But "lies really well" isn't really a class, anyone should be able to have a character that lies really well without needing X levels of a specific class and that's true for martials and casters alike. And your other example is magic, which basically defeats the purpose of giving martials cool things.

[Just to Browse]

I think that's just meant to be an example of the general principle (letting classes do different things in each of the pillars of play) as opposed to a specific suggestion for a class mechanic.

[LudicSavant]

I think that's just meant to be an example of the general principle (letting classes do different things in each of the pillars of play) as opposed to a specific suggestion for a class mechanic.

Precisely.

[DeadMech]

I kinda like tongue of the sun and moon even if it's weird and badly named. To use some definitely contemporary and not dated examples I think most people would be willing to say Neo from the matrix and Goku from dragonball should be represented best by monks in dnd.

Neo even outside of the matric just lifts his hand out and with his oneness with everything can telepathically communicate with machines.

Goku when he arrives on Namek puts a hand on Krillin's head and learns the events he missed on the planet in an instant.

[LudicSavant]

I kinda like tongue of the sun and moon even if it's weird and badly named. To use some definitely contemporary and not dated examples I think most people would be willing to say Neo from the matrix and Goku from dragonball should be represented best by monks in dnd.

Neo even outside of the matric just lifts his hand out and with his oneness with everything can telepathically communicate with machines.

Goku when he arrives on Namek puts a hand on Krillin's head and learns the events he missed on the planet in an instant.

That's kind of how I see it too.

Of course, whether it's Neo or Goku or the Lion Turtle or mythology, it's never really struck me as a spoken 'tongue' so much as sort of just like... connecting with the ki of all things (or the setting's equivalent).

How might you mechanically implement things like, say, the ability to put a hand on Krillin's head and learn the events you missed in an instant?

[Kane0]

Action to do, costs a bit of ki, get some telepathy plus keen mind recalling or detect thoughts effect?

[verbatim]

The most obvious for fighter would be to allow them to spend second wind (or undomitable) to do some out of combat stuff, but I think it's possible to find more interresting ideas.

Monks being able to add a roll of their martial arts die to skill checks (pb # of times/long rest?) could be interesting and offers a lot of opportunities for reflavoring how you use your otherworldly focus or determination or insight to succeed.

[Kane0]

Monks being able to add a roll of their martial arts die to skill checks (pb # of times/long rest?) could be interesting and offers a lot of opportunities for reflavoring how you use your otherworldly focus or determination or insight to succeed.

Seems a fair fit. Spend a ki, add MA die to a check.

[White Blade]

But "lies really well" isn't really a class, anyone should be able to have a character that lies really well without needing X levels of a specific class and that's true for martials and casters alike. And your other example is magic, which basically defeats the purpose of giving martials cool things.

Diamond Mind is a good example of a cross sectional ability: Good for exploring (anti trap), good for fighting (obvious), and it might be useful in social situations.

Reliable Talent (Athletics) or (Acrobatics) would also be cross sectional abilities. Climbing and swim speeds are usually better for exploration than combat.

3.5 Tongue of Sun and Moon was a very powerful social/exploration pillar trick, even if it was high key weird.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also important is to keep in mind that skill proficiencies aren't everything. Heck, full casters would still be better out of combat than many of the martials even if they had no skill proficiencies at all. Enhance ability, the spell, offers advantage on a bunch of ability checks; which is roughly +4 or +5 depending on the DC.

But "lies really well" isn't really a class, anyone should be able to have a character that lies really well without needing X levels of a specific class and that's true for martials and casters alike. Massively concur. My Rune Knight Fighter is using his Cloud Rune to get advantage on deception checks. He'll be picking up the skill next level up, but it's already worked a few times.

I kinda like tongue of the sun and moon even if it's weird and badly named. To use some definitely contemporary and not dated examples I think most people would be willing to say Neo from the matrix Nice example.

Seems a fair fit. Spend a ki, add MA die to a check. Ooh, also like this.

[Sorinth]

I think that's just meant to be an example of the general principle (letting classes do different things in each of the pillars of play) as opposed to a specific suggestion for a class mechanic.

I get that but the mechanics of it really do matter because that's often where the problems arise. They tend to go one of three ways
- It's a bonus to a roll or advantage on the roll which leads to there being very little differentiation between classes and can lead to issues when stacking which can break bounded accuracy
- It's a feature that shouldn't be a feature because everyone can/should be able to do it (The original Assassin's false identity being an example)
- Uses magic

Like I'm all for Monks doing something like being able to add Wisdom to a skill check, but it does make it so that it's essentially Expertise with a different name that can stack which isn't ideal. Especially since the end goal is for all martials to get something. So if you go down the route of Barbs can spend a rage, Fighter's can use a maneuver, Monks can use a ki point and they all just add some die/mod to a skill check then it wont feel like classes do different things, it will feel like they all do the same thing.

[Saelethil]

I may be in the minority but I’d be fine with just giving all maritals more skills/expertise.

[Amechra]

How might you mechanically implement things like, say, the ability to put a hand on Krillin's head and learn the events you missed in an instant?

That's pretty simple, really — the Monk can touch a willing target and put themselves in tune with their very essence, allowing them to learn everything that the target knows about a single topic in an instant. If the topic in question is a proficiency, you borrow that proficiency for a bit. You can reverse this process and lend someone a proficiency for a bit as well. Go you, well done.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's pretty simple, really — the Monk can touch a willing target and put themselves in tune with their very essence, allowing them to learn everything that the target knows about a single topic in an instant. If the topic in question is a proficiency, you borrow that proficiency for a bit. You can reverse this process and lend someone a proficiency for a bit as well. Go you, well done. That's a neat idea. Somewhat similar to Knowledge Cleric, but not the same.

[Sorinth]

That's pretty simple, really — the Monk can touch a willing target and put themselves in tune with their very essence, allowing them to learn everything that the target knows about a single topic in an instant. If the topic in question is a proficiency, you borrow that proficiency for a bit. You can reverse this process and lend someone a proficiency for a bit as well. Go you, well done.

I do like the idea of giving an ally proficiency for a bit, that's fairly unique support ability. I'd probably prefer it to be less magical, so not an action, but maybe as part of a long rest you can spend some of the time teaching/train with an ally/allies to give them proficiency in one of your skills until the next LR.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do like the idea of giving an ally proficiency for a bit, that's fairly unique support ability. I'd probably prefer it to be less magical, so not an action, but maybe as part of a long rest you can spend some of the time teaching/train with an ally/allies to give them proficiency in one of your skills until the next LR.

For me, that runs into big ludonarrative issues--why should this training only last one day? And even the most skilled (non-supernatural) teacher can't actually teach an appreciable amount of anything even moderately complex in an hour or two unless you've already got a strong background.

So this comes across as "magical, but we're just going to make it worse because we're squeamish about calling it magical".


My WIP 5e fork gives everyone stamina and aether (the latter basically being mana). And some of the things anyone (well, any PC) can do (added basic actions) are:

Exert: As a reaction, spend 2 stamina[1] to add your proficiency bonus to a STR/DEX/CON check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

Focus: As a reaction, spend 2 aether[2] to add your proficiency bonus to an INT/WIS/CHA check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

[1] Martials get level + CON stamina/short rest. But that also fuels a lot of other actions--for example the barbarian analogue's "rage" costs stamina. Full casters get 1/2 level stamina per short rest. So this one's a lot harder for them. Half casters get stamina = level but use it for some features.

[2] Full casters get 4x level aether/long rest. But this also fuels their spells and several of their other features. And spells are much more expensive than STA abilities generally. Half casters get 2x level; martials get aether = level.

[ZRN]

That's kind of how I see it too.

Of course, whether it's Neo or Goku or the Lion Turtle or mythology, it's never really struck me as a spoken 'tongue' so much as sort of just like... connecting with the ki of all things (or the setting's equivalent).

How might you mechanically implement things like, say, the ability to put a hand on Krillin's head and learn the events you missed in an instant?

Here's the trap: right now, the system assumes that all magical abilities will be described as spells with very specific parameters and limitations, while almost anything non-magical will be adjudicated with broad skill proficiencies UNLESS somewhere stipulated otherwise. So while every new spell makes spell casters more broadly versatile, every new non-magical ability potentially makes everyone who doesn't have it LESS powerful. (We saw this a lot in 3.5e and Pathfinder when they'd make a new feat or skill and all the sudden something that would otherwise be articulated through existing skills, like "leadership," now requires an investment.)

In any case, this ki telepathy thing seems to me pretty clearly a very specific flavor of monk, which I feel like is exactly what subclasses are for.

(By the way, isn't Tongue of the Sun and Moons from one of those 70s TV shows like Kung Fu that were the original specific inspiration of the monk class?)

[Sorinth]

For me, that runs into big ludonarrative issues--why should this training only last one day? And even the most skilled (non-supernatural) teacher can't actually teach an appreciable amount of anything even moderately complex in an hour or two unless you've already got a strong background.

So this comes across as "magical, but we're just going to make it worse because we're squeamish about calling it magical".


My WIP 5e fork gives everyone stamina and aether (the latter basically being mana). And some of the things anyone (well, any PC) can do (added basic actions) are:

Exert: As a reaction, spend 2 stamina[1] to add your proficiency bonus to a STR/DEX/CON check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

Focus: As a reaction, spend 2 aether[2] to add your proficiency bonus to an INT/WIS/CHA check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

[1] Martials get level + CON stamina/short rest. But that also fuels a lot of other actions--for example the barbarian analogue's "rage" costs stamina. Full casters get 1/2 level stamina per short rest. So this one's a lot harder for them. Half casters get stamina = level but use it for some features.

[2] Full casters get 4x level aether/long rest. But this also fuels their spells and several of their other features. And spells are much more expensive than STA abilities generally. Half casters get 2x level; martials get aether = level.


Because it's as much about the guided meditation putting you in the right headspace as it is the actual knowledge imparted. So if you aren't doing that daily session with the sensei then in the heat of the moment you revert to your defaults, whereas with that daily session in the heat of the moment you remember what sensei said and apply the teachings.

But honestly if you want to treat it as mystical/magical that's fine, a lot of the monk stuff is intentionally blurry when it comes to whether it's magical or or not. That's not a problem in my mind, nor is it being squeamish.

EDIT: And for the record I wouldn't be opposed to doubling down on the whole meditation -> temporary better mental state and do something like "The monk can take 10 min to lead another creature on a guided meditation. Choose a skill, that creature has advantage on skill checks for that skill for the next hour or until they take any damage"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's the trap: right now, the system assumes that all magical abilities will be described as spells with very specific parameters and limitations, while almost anything non-magical will be adjudicated with broad skill proficiencies UNLESS somewhere stipulated otherwise. So while every new spell makes spell casters more broadly versatile, every new non-magical ability potentially makes everyone who doesn't have it LESS powerful. (We saw this a lot in 3.5e and Pathfinder when they'd make a new feat or skill and all the sudden something that would otherwise be articulated through existing skills, like "leadership," now requires an investment.)


I agree with this. It's air-breathing mermaid, skills edition.



(By the way, isn't Tongue of the Sun and Moons from one of those 70s TV shows like Kung Fu that were the original specific inspiration of the monk class?)

This is an important thing to keep in mind--the D&D monk is not attempting to emulate any authentic mythological figure/type. It was specifically patterned after a specific sub-genre. The semi-mystical (in unexplained ways) Kung Fu monk of cheesy pop culture.

Should it stay that way? Mu. But that's where it started and how it was designed. And seen in that light, a lot of the hodgepodge of abilities are more coherent thematically (they're still a hodgepodge mechanically).

[titi]

I do like the idea of giving an ally proficiency for a bit, that's fairly unique support ability. I'd probably prefer it to be less magical, so not an action, but maybe as part of a long rest you can spend some of the time teaching/train with an ally/allies to give them proficiency in one of your skills until the next LR.

I'm sorry, but since when is the ghost-punching class not allowed to feel magical ?

[Sorinth]

I'm sorry, but since when is the ghost-punching class not allowed to feel magical ?

Never said it wasn't, but not every monk ability needs to be magical either. This particular one would fit the whole sensei/teacher vibe that is classic to monk lore and there's no reason to make it magical unless we are talking about a specific sub-class theme.

[KorvinStarmast]

I do like the idea of giving an ally proficiency for a bit, that's fairly unique support ability. I'd probably prefer it to be less magical, so not an action, but maybe as part of a long rest you can spend some of the time teaching/train with an ally/allies to give them proficiency in one of your skills until the next LR.
In 5e, there's a thing called the Help action that is not gated by proficiency, FWIW. :smallcool: (But I seem to recall that in D&Done they are considering formally establishing that gate which is {further text is best not typed out} :smallfurious::smallfurious:

[animorte]

My WIP 5e fork gives everyone stamina and aether (the latter basically being mana). And some of the things anyone (well, any PC) can do (added basic actions) are:

Exert: As a reaction, spend 2 stamina[1] to add your proficiency bonus to a STR/DEX/CON check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

Focus: As a reaction, spend 2 aether[2] to add your proficiency bonus to an INT/WIS/CHA check or save even if you already have your proficiency added to it.

[1] Martials get level + CON stamina/short rest. But that also fuels a lot of other actions--for example the barbarian analogue's "rage" costs stamina. Full casters get 1/2 level stamina per short rest. So this one's a lot harder for them. Half casters get stamina = level but use it for some features.

[2] Full casters get 4x level aether/long rest. But this also fuels their spells and several of their other features. And spells are much more expensive than STA abilities generally. Half casters get 2x level; martials get aether = level.

Love this.

I'm working on something in which skills are removed entirely from "caster/martial" and proficiency carries a lot more weight.

[Sorinth]

In 5e, there's a thing called the Help action that is not gated by proficiency, FWIW. :smallcool: (But I seem to recall that in D&Done they are considering formally establishing that gate which is {further text is best not typed out} :smallfurious::smallfurious:

Kind of the point actually, anyone can help, part of the goal is to provide unique/different ways for the classes to fill that role. It's adding versatility that is usually only found via spells to a non-caster which is the whole point. In this example a Monk giving everyone stealth is similar to a caster using Pass Without Trace, it's not as powerful in the specific case but unlike PWT can target any skill instead of just stealth, has a better duration, etc... so it's not even strictly worse then the spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Love this.

I'm working on something in which skills are removed entirely from "caster/martial" and proficiency carries a lot more weight.

I'm keeping proficiency somewhat similar, but also adding Skill Tricks. Some of which cost stamina or aether, others don't. Everyone gets one at each ASI (with level gating basically per tier and usually requiring proficiency in the relevant skill/tool/etc); rogues, rangers, and spellblades (the bard replacement) get a couple extras. Rogues, in particular, get extras with lower qualifications. So they can pick up high-tier ones several levels early or even for things they're not proficient in. These more or less entirely replace feats.



Basic skill tricks only require a +2 proficiency or level 4 characters.

\subsection{Alert}
\textit{Wisdom(Perception) Basic Skill Trick}
You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks against being surprised.

\subsection{Arcane Initiate}
\textit{Intelligence Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Arcanist list, as well as one spell costing no more than 2 AET from that same list. Intelligence is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Divine Initiate}
\textit{Wisdom{Religion} Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Priest list, as well as one spell costing no more than 2 AET from that same list. Wisdom is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Feint}
\textit{Charisma(Deception) Basic Skill Trick}
You fake an attack as a bonus action, trying to misdirect the enemy. Expend 1 STA. The opponent must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, you have advantage on your next attack roll against them.

\subsection{Frighten} \label{st:frighten}
\textit{Charisma(Intimidation) Basic Skill Trick}
As an action, you can expend 1 STA to threaten one enemy that can hear you. The target must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, they are frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

\subsection{Jump}
\textit{Strength(Athletics) Basic Skill Trick}
You always count as having a running start when jumping. Additionally, you can fall an additional 10 ft. before taking fall damage. Start counting fall damage from 20 ft = 1d6 instead of 10 ft = 1d6.

\subsection{Linguist}
\textit{Intelligence Skill Trick}
When you listen to conversation in a language you don't speak for at least 10 minutes, you can pick up the rudiments. Enough to be understood, but not enough to convey subtle details.

Additionally, you can make out the basic sense of any text written in a script for which you are fluent in at least one language. This does not help you decipher intentionally obfuscated or encoded messages.

\subsection{Lung Capacity}
\textit{Constitution Skill Trick}
You can hold your breath for twice as long. In addition, you can spend 1 STA when you are exposed to a source of poison gas (such as \nameref{spell:cloudkill} or a dretch's Stench ability) that requires a Constitution saving throw to gain advantage on the Constitution saving throw.

\subsection{Medic}
\textit{Wisdom(Medicine) Basic Skill Trick}
When you make a Wisdom (Medicine) check to stabilize someone at 0 HP and succeed, the target regains 1 hit point and is conscious instead.

\subsection{Misdirect}
\textit{Dexterity(Stealth) Basic Skill Trick}
When you are hidden, you can spend 1 STA to force a number of creatures equal to your proficiency bonus to make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, they do not notice you even if you move out of heavy obscurement, as long as you end your turn behind heavy obscurement.

\subsection{Primal Initiate}
\textit{Wisdom Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Shaman list, as well as one spell costing no more than 2 AET. Wisdom is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Scholar: Religion}
\textit{Intelligence(Religion) Basic Skill Trick}
You automatically recognize holy symbols of currently-active ascendants and know at least the basic tenants of that religion. Additionally, when you make an Intelligence (Religion) check to know information about dead or obscure religions or their worshippers, you have advantage on the check.

\subsection{Sense Baleful Magic}
\textit{Intelligence(Arcana) Basic Skill Trick}
You are sensitive to the presence of hostile magics in your proximity. When you are within 30 ft. of a magical trap, spell glyph, or other hostile magical environment, you can use your passive Intelligence (Arcana) instead of your passive Wisdom (Perception) to determine their location and nature.

Additionally, you have advantage on checks made to determine the spell being cast.

\subsection{Shield Bash}
\textit{Strength(Shield) Basic Skill Trick}
You lash out with your shield. Expend 1 STA and make an attack with a proficient melee weapon. On a hit, the opponent takes 1d4 bludgeoning damage and is \nameref{condition:staggered} until the end of their next turn. If you score a critical hit, the target is \nameref{condition:staggered} until the end of your next turn. This can replace an attack when you take the Attack action.

\subsection{Soothe Domesticated Animal}
\textit{Animal Handling Basic Skill Trick}
You can make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check against a DC of 10 to alter the disposition of a domesticated animal to friendly toward you or prevent a domesticated animal from panicking. Trained guard animals have a DC of 15 if they were hostile toward you. This effect lasts for one hour unless you or your allies attack the animals or their friends.

\subsection{Tumble}
\textit{Dexterity (Acrobatics) Basic Skill Trick}
You can move through opponents spaces if they are only one size larger than you, not two by expending 1 STA. They count as difficult terrain and you cannot willingly end your movement in their space.


Advanced skill tricks require a +4 proficiency or level 9 characters.

\subsection{Arcane Journeyman}
\textit{Intelligence Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Arcanist list, as well as one spell costing no more than 3 AET from the same list. Intelligence is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Athlete}
\textit{Strength(Athletics) Advanced Skill Trick}
You can climb at full speed without making checks even on surfaces with few handholds or slick surfaces. You can expend 1 STA to climb even magically slick surfaces without needing hands or a check; if you are still on this surface at the start of your next turn, you must expend additional STA or use your hands.

Additionally, you gain a swimming speed equal to your normal speed and no longer need to make checks to swim even in very rough or fast waters.

Additionally, the distance you can jump doubles and the height at which you start taking fall damage increases to 30 ft (taking 1d6 for the first 30 ft you fall and 1d6 for every 10 ft above that).

\subsection{Befriend Wild Animal}
\textit{Wisdom(Animal Handling) Advanced Skill Trick}
As an action, you can attempt to soothe an angry creature that does not speak any language or befriend a wary one. The creature must make a Charisma saving throw, at advantage if it is actively hostile to you. On a failure, the creature becomes friendly. Originally non-hostile creatures may follow you and protect you as long as you feed them and do not harm them, although they are still wild animals and they are not under your control.

\subsection{Bond Breaker}
\textit{Strength Advanced Skill Trick}
You can spend 2 STA to break any non-magical shackles or bonds without a check. If the shackles are magical, you gain +10 on the Strength check to break free.

\subsection{Delay Unconsciousness}
\textit{Constitution Advanced Skill Trick}
As a reaction when you are brought to zero hit points, you can expend 3 STA and gain a level of exhaustion. If you do, you do not gain the \nameref{condition:unconscious} condition and can act normally. You still make death saving throws as normal, including when you take damage. If you are still at 0 HP at the end of your next turn, you go unconscious at that point.

\subsection{Demoralize}\label{st:demoralize}
\textit{Charisma(Intimidation) Advanced Skill Trick}
As an action, you expend 3 STA. You can either threaten a single enemy that can hear and see you or a group. If you threaten a single enemy, they must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, they suffer the consequences of failing a morale check and are \nameref{condition:broken}. If you threaten a group of creature, they all are affected as if you used the \nameref{st:frighten} skill trick on them.

\subsection{Divine Journeyman}
\textit{Wisdom Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Priest list, as well as one spell costing no more than 3 AET from the same list. Wisdom is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Fascinate}
\textit{Performance Advanced Skill Trick}
As an action, you begin a distracting performance. Expend 1 STA. Any number of creatures of your choice within 60 ft of you that can hear and see you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, they can't focus on anything but you and are effectively blinded and deafened to all other occurrences. Taking any damage breaks the effect, as does being shaken awake by someone else as an action. This effect lasts until you stop performing (using your action each round to maintain the distraction).

\subsection{Find Weakness}
\textit{Intelligence(Investigation) Advanced Skill Trick}
As a bonus action, you can search for flaws in your opponent. Expend 2 STA and make an Intelligence (Investigation) check against a DC of 10 + half the target's CR. On a success, you learn three of the following of your choice.
\begin{itemize}
\item Their highest and lowest saving throw modifiers
\item Any resistances or immunities they have.
\item Any vulnerabilities they have (whether ot damage particularly or things like Sunlight Sensitivity)
\item Their current goals
\end{itemize}

Alternatively on a success, you can temporarily remove any one damage resistance you know about by informing your allies how to bypass it.

\subsection{Like a Solid Snake}
\textit{Dexterity(Stealth) Advanced Skill Trick}
You can attempt to hide even if only lightly obscured. Additionally, missing with an attack does not remove the hidden or invisible status.

\subsection{Mental Toughness}
\textit{Charisma Advanced Skill Trick}
When you are afflicted by the \nameref{condition:charmed}, \nameref{condition:frightened}, or \nameref{condition:incapacitated} conditions at the beginning of your turn due to an effect that caused a Wisdom saving throw, you can spend 2 STA to ignore the effects of those conditions until the end of your turn.

\subsection{People Whisperer}
\textit{Wisdom(Insight) Advanced Skill Trick}
When you make a Wisdom (Insight) check and the result is above a 15, you gain one pertinent, specific detail about the target's mental or emotional state for every 5 higher you rolled (ie 1 at 15, 2 at 20, etc.).

\subsection{Primal Journeyman}
\textit{Wisdom Basic Skill Trick}
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Shaman list, as well as one spell costing no more than 3 AET from the same list. Wisdom is your casting ability for these spells. You can pick this skill trick more than once. Each time you do, pick a different cantrip and spell.

\subsection{Pocket Sand}
\textit{Dexterity(Sleight of Hand) Advanced Skill Trick}
As a bonus action, you can expend 1 STA and attempt to throw sand or dust into an opponent's eyes. The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, they are blinded until the end of your next turn. This does not work on targets that have non-standard vision (ie don't use eyes to see).

\subsection{Resuscitation}
\textit{Wisdom(Medicine) Advanced Skill Trick}
As an action, you can attempt to resuscitate someone who died within the last minute. Make a Wisdom (Medicine) check against a DC of 15 + the number of rounds since they died. On a success, the creature is restored to 1 HP and any mortal wounds are closed, but gains a permanent injury. Both you and the target gain one level of \nameref{condition:exhaustion}.

\subsection{Snow Job}
\textit{Charisma(Deception) Advanced Skill Trick}
When you make a Charisma (Deception) check to convince someone you know something you don't or are someone you are not, you do so at advantage. In addition, if you succeed by more than 5, the target willingly tells you the missing information.

\subsection{Sunder}
\textit{Strength(Carpentry, Mason's, or Blacksmith's Tools) Advanced Skill Trick}
When you make an attack against an unattended object and hit, you ignore its Damage Threshold and deal double damage.

Alternatively, you can target attended objects as follows, expending 2 STA:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Armor}: Make an attack against the target's AC. On a hit, the target takes half damage from the attack but any other attacks against the target have advantage until the target uses an action to realign the damaged piece.
\item \textbf{Weapons}: Make an attack against the target's AC. On a hit, the target takes half damage from the attack and has disadvantage on all attacks made with that weapon.
\item \textbf{Wielded Spell Foci or other objects in hand}: Make an attack at disadvantage against the target's AC. On a hit, the focus is knocked from their grasp and lands 1d6 \texttimes 5 ft away in a random direction.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Wrestler}
\textit{Strength(Athletics) Advanced Skill Trick}
You can grapple and shove creatures two sizes larger than yourself. If you expend 1 STA, you can remove the size limit entirely.

Additionally, when you start your turn with a creature grappled, you can expend 1 STA and attempt a second grapple check. If you succeed, the target is restrained until the grapple ends.


Expert comes on at level 13, Master at level 17. Those include such things as (Expert) "finding a planar portal within 1 mile of you"--higher results on a Wisdom (Survival) check mean more control over what plane it leads to and where you end up on that plane. Or (master)

\subsection{Balance on Thin Air}
\textit{Dexterity(Acrobatics) Master Skill Trick}
You can expend 1 AET per turn to walk on air as if it was solid ground.

[Schwann145]

I keep seeing comments by folks that lead me to believe that D&D is just not the right game for them.
If you think that concepts like "being a good liar" shouldn't be tied to one class, well then playing a class-based game is the wrong choice because that's exactly what classes exist to do: convert diversity into exclusion.
Just food for thought.

===

On the relevant Monk topic, it's really important to remember exactly what the D&D Monk class is meant to represent: the entirely fictional "Shaolin, Way of the , Brawler who can do things that regular people can't, kinda."
If you step outside of that, the Monk class falls apart entirely.
•Want to be inspired by the European cloistered monks who wore the tonsure haircut and copied texts all day? Then the Monk class absolutely sucks.
•Want to be inspired by the eastern pacifists who do things like take vows of silence (which makes TOTSAM even weirder!)? Then the Monk class absolutely sucks.
•Want to be inspired by the Japanese warrior Sohei who wear armor and wield polearms like Bisento and Naginata? Then the Monk class absolutely sucks.
Etc and so fourth.

What's particularly strange is, if WotC is going to insist that Monk be based on this very specific Eastern stereotype of bald, shirtless, Shaolin brawler, then the current playtest's utter whitewashing of the class should come off as [i]far more offensive than any potential claims of insensitive cultural appropriation.

[Kane0]

I remember Tongue of Sun and Moon being described as being able to speak and read subtitles.

[KorvinStarmast]

I keep seeing comments by folks that lead me to believe that D&D is just not the right game for them. What, they are playing it wrong if their Fighter is a master deceiver?
Suggest you take a look at the Skill Expert Feat. You can get expertise in a skill, and if you put it into deception, and you used the CRIMINAL background right out of the PHB, lookie there, you are all set up to be a fine liar, even with a modestly decent (12 or 14) Charisma.
Put it on a Rune Knight with the Cloud Giant rune active, and you have expertise plus advantage on deception checks.
5e's flexibility is a good thing, not a bad thing, although class bloat and overlap it still has in spades, which isn't unique to this edition.

Pro Tip: There are TWELVE classes in the game and typically 4-6 players in a given group, which means that any number of classes won't be in play.
Having overlap between classes allows the party to be made up of a wide variety of classes since the flexibility and the skill system enable that.
FWIW, I have been in a lot of games with only 3 players. The flex is very much needed for those campaigns.

Maybe it's you who has the wrong idea.

[LudicSavant]

Classes shouldn't lock you into roles.

Literally all of the caster classes are already like this -- they can be built to be good at whatever role you want. A Wizard could be a squishy AoE damage dealer evoker, or they could be a melee control hypertank warcaster abjurer, or they could be a jorasco healer, or pretty much anything else they might happen to want to specialize in. They just have a different style of doing it than other classes. But you can totally make a balanced party out of 4 members of the same class (unless we're talking about a class like Barbarian, poor guys). You can even do it with some of the martials (including Monks! At least in the 2014 version). Mercy is probably the best non-caster healer in the game. 2014 Shadow is very teamwork oriented and actually synergizes with other Monks (unlike the 2024 version). Various Monk subclasses (like Mercy and Long Death) can be built as disruptor tanks. Gunks can provide reliable ranged damage. You can even get AoE stuff (though it's under-par AoEs, and the 2024 AoEs are actually worse).

Noncombat roles are much the same -- you don't need to make roles exclusive to a class. You just have to make the class able to be good at whatever role they're investing in. And make sure that they actually, well, have one.

[Schwann145]

Suggest you take a look at the Skill Expert Feat. You can get expertise in a skill, and if you put it into deception, and you used the CRIMINAL background right out of the PHB, lookie there, you are all set up to be a fine liar, even with a modestly decent (12 or 14) Charisma.
Put it on a Rune Knight with the Cloud Giant rune active, and you have expertise plus advantage on deception checks.
5e's flexibility is a good thing, not a bad thing, although class bloat and overlap it still has in spades, which isn't unique to this edition.

•Skill Expert is one less ASI or Combat feat you could have had.
•14 Charisma is not "modestly decent." A 14 in a tertiary stat is a pretty hefty investment unless you just got lucky rolling. It's an even bigger investment when you consider Fighters need all the help they can get with Wis saves, so as far as tertiary stats go, Cha comes second at least.
•Going Rune Knight for the social utility options is further straying from your class-based expectations for party support.

Can you do it? Of course you can. But you could have done it with significantly less work and sacrifice by picking a class more suited to deception, like a Bard or Rogue. And, because of the way 5e is designed, it's much easier to make a Bard/Rogue into a good fighter than it is to make a Fighter into a good liar.

I'm not suggesting that anyone is "playing the game wrong." I'm suggesting that playing this game was probably the wrong choice, and there are other games (that aren't Class-based) that allow better realization of such characters.
At the end of the day, if anyone can be built to do anything, then what is the point of Classes? (Not a negative criticism; a genuine observation.)

[LudicSavant]

At the end of the day, if anyone can be built to do anything, then what is the point of Classes? (Not a negative criticism; a genuine observation.)

Because two characters who fill the same role (like, say, "glass cannon" or "tank" or "healer") can still have very different playstyles, aesthetics, gameplay, etc.

Even in hard-locked "Holy Trinity" MMOs (like say, FF14) that actually do sort classes by role, you'll see numerous classes of the same role, because there's plenty of point to having different classes that can fill the same role. Sure, a Black Mage and a Samurai might do basically the same thing for your party ("just make that party slot output as much damage as humanly possible"), but they offer very different play experiences.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say that classes should favor certain roles, but that roles should be a set of sliders, not a switch.

What I mean by that is that I prefer if, say, it's easier/cheaper (ie takes lower optimization) to build class X to do role Y than role Z. Barbarians are easier to build as "hulk smash" than "death by a thousand cuts" or "lock them all down" or "support the team". Getting a wizard to be tough and tanky should take more work than getting a fighter or barbarian to be tough and tanky (in an ideal world IMO). But instead of "you're a Striker, you're a Controller", it's more of "your class lends more to Strikerness with a side of Control than it does to Defenderness". Or whatever.

I've modeled combat roles (and combat only) as a set of four linked buckets: (S)upport, (D)amage, (C)ontrol, (T)oughness.

Support includes healing and buffing--basically making you and your allies better.
Damage is, well, damage. Making the enemy dead.
Control is hampering enemies--this includes debuffs as well as BFC. Basically the opposite of Support.
Toughness is, well, staying alive. Ability to resist becoming dead. Includes avoidance and all other defensive measures.

When designing a class's combat side, treat it as if you have 20 (number chosen fairly arbitrarily) points to allocate into each "slider". Note that one class's 20 points =/= another class's 20 points--this is for looking within a class, not between classes. An "equally balanced" class would have 5/5/5/5. A completely single-purpose damage class would have 0/20/0/0--fall over dead at any incoming damage (automatically hit, 1 HP), unable to do anything but make enemies dead. That's obviously not so great. Same with a 20 in any single aspect.

My personal aim is that
* Every class has one thing where they're better than the others (ie no 5/5/5/5's)
* No class has any 0s or 20s. Or even 10s. 2s and 3s are ok, as are 7s and 8s, but I generally try to have things more similar. A profile using the array [7, 6, 4, 3] (in any particular order) is pretty common. You've got "thing I'm good at, thing I'm better than normal at, and a few things I'm not so good at". [8, 6, 4, 2] might be your glass cannon or your "dedicated supporter". Give up one thing to boost another.
* I try not to go below about 4 Toughness. Pure glass cannons, IMO, don't work so well.

Is it a perfect model? Heck no. But it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to just be a guide to how classes should "feel" and what kinds of abilities I should give them. A class with high T gets a bunch of defensives and/or high HD. A cleric-analogue (decent S) should get at least some healing. Etc.

[Xetheral]

At the end of the day, if anyone can be built to do anything, then what is the point of Classes? (Not a negative criticism; a genuine observation.)

From a game design standpoint, one of the benefits of having classes is an increase the diversity of character options that see play in comparison to a point-buy system, especially when you assume heavy optimization. This is primarily because classes package multiple character options together, which changes the opportunity cost and relative benefit of each such option. A secondary reason is that those packaged abilities sometimes lead to more extra space in a build that can be filled in diverse ways, whereas in point-buy every point is precious.

For example, in a point-buy game, there may be multiple ways to make yourself hard to hit, but unless the game is balanced to the point of the options being mechanically indistinguishable, then chances are that one method of making yourself hard to hit is going to maximize your odds of not being hit, and another method is going to give you sufficient odds of not being hit while spending the fewest points. In optimized play, there's a high chance that most characters will use one of those two methods of being hard to hit.

By contrast, D&D has three types of armor, two methods of unarmored defense, and several spells for setting your AC. In various optimized builds, all of them see play (except Barkskin). This is because character options come in packages, so depending on what class(es) you picked the cost and benefit (or even availability) of each AC option changes. Getting heavy armor on a monk, for example, is both more costly and provides less incremental benefit over the class's built-in unarmored defense than getting heavy armor on a Fighter (or even a Wizard). Hence, monk unarmored defense sees play at optimized tables, even though heavy armor proficiency is both stronger and (for everyone except monks) cheaper to obtain and use than unarmored defense.

And for even more diversity in D&D, there still exist optimized armored monk builds! That's because for some builds it's worth spending levels just to get monk features (especially Stunning Strike and Shadow Step) that aren't disabled by armor, so Martial Arts and Unarmored Defense become extra space in the build that can be traded for better AC (or at least similar AC with less stat investment).

One could make a point-buy system with variable relative benefits and opportunity costs, but in my experience that usually leads to formal or informal ability packages that end up looking like classes. (E.g. Shadowun.) And you still tend to end up with certain unbalanced approaches being optimal for most characters. (Point-buy systems are more sensitive to imbalance since every option is competing for points with every other option.)

At the end of the day, level-by-level multiclassing in a class-based system seems to me to most reliably get the widest variety of character options to see play. It's counter-intuitive at first glance, but makes a lot of sense on further analysis.

[Segev]

From a game design standpoint, one of the benefits of having classes is an increase the diversity of character options that see play in comparison to a point-buy system, especially when you assume heavy optimization. This is primarily because classes package multiple character options together, which changes the opportunity cost and relative benefit of each such option. A secondary reason is that those packaged abilities sometimes lead to more extra space in a build that can be filled in diverse ways, whereas in point-buy every point is precious.

(...)

At the end of the day, level-by-level multiclassing in a class-based system seems to me to most reliably get the widest variety of character options to see play. It's counter-intuitive at first glance, but makes a lot of sense on further analysis.

This is an interesting observation and analysis. I will need to think on it a bit, but I think you've convinced me, and I hadn't thought of this before.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is an interesting observation and analysis. I will need to think on it a bit, but I think you've convinced me, and I hadn't thought of this before.

I agree with the basic idea...but disagree with the last sentence about level-by-level multiclassing. Because it (and feats and broad spell lists to a lesser but still significant degree) is just another way of doing point-buy. But badly. It puts things in contention with each other (do I take a level in X/feat Y/spell Z or do I take level in X'/Feat Y'/spell Z') that aren't actually comparable, pretending that they have the same cost (or even comparable costs).

In a world without multiclassing (for example), you're never trading off Fighter X vs Wizard 1 except at character creation. Which means you can (as a matter of class design) lean in and create cool things without having to worry about the combinatorial complexity of access. As long as the cumulative effect of taking the next level is comparable between classes, the actual "what do I get at each level" doesn't have to be. In a multiclassing world...that breaks.

In a "no multiclassing" game using the 2014 PHB (so no Tasha's ways of getting easy proficiencies via race), all the classes are 100% viable. And each one can be built in several ways. Adding multiclassing does increase the total number of concepts that can be expressed, but it severely restricts the number of viable ones. And creates lots of traps--things that look ok but really aren't. And that, to me, is worse than not having those options in the first place.

Optimization, generally, is about reducing the set of viable choices by defining up what it means to be viable (at that optimization level). And multiclassing allows a lot more optimization work to be done. So adding multiclassing without careful examination and calibration can actually reduce the total number of viable character concepts by exploding the top level of power. It certainly did in 3e.

[Segev]

I agree with the basic idea...but disagree with the last sentence about level-by-level multiclassing. Because it (and feats and broad spell lists to a lesser but still significant degree) is just another way of doing point-buy. But badly. It puts things in contention with each other (do I take a level in X/feat Y/spell Z or do I take level in X'/Feat Y'/spell Z') that aren't actually comparable, pretending that they have the same cost (or even comparable costs).

In a world without multiclassing (for example), you're never trading off Fighter X vs Wizard 1 except at character creation. Which means you can (as a matter of class design) lean in and create cool things without having to worry about the combinatorial complexity of access. As long as the cumulative effect of taking the next level is comparable between classes, the actual "what do I get at each level" doesn't have to be. In a multiclassing world...that breaks.

In a "no multiclassing" game using the 2014 PHB (so no Tasha's ways of getting easy proficiencies via race), all the classes are 100% viable. And each one can be built in several ways. Adding multiclassing does increase the total number of concepts that can be expressed, but it severely restricts the number of viable ones. And creates lots of traps--things that look ok but really aren't. And that, to me, is worse than not having those options in the first place.

Optimization, generally, is about reducing the set of viable choices by defining up what it means to be viable (at that optimization level). And multiclassing allows a lot more optimization work to be done. So adding multiclassing without careful examination and calibration can actually reduce the total number of viable character concepts by exploding the top level of power. It certainly did in 3e.
I still think there's a distinction. In a multiclassing world - especially the way 3e and later have done it - you're trading a lot more heights for the breadth. Yes, point-buy can do the same thing, but in point-buy, you can pick what might be a "rogue thing" and what might be a "wizard thing" and buy them both up basically as high as possible, and then dabble in other things. In multiclassing, you have to get a bunch of "rogue things" along with the one you wanted if you want to get that one "rogue thing" high. Same with "wizard things." Which means you have to pick whether the rogue or wizard things will be your strengths, or whether to accept a hit to both in terms of power.

The larger granularity of the packages changes the dynamics of how specialization can and does work.

[Just to Browse]

Personally I'd want it to be less stingy with information, feeling mechanically less like Battlemaster level 7 and more like Fabula Ultima "dorkblade" builds (Loremaster / Darkblade builds are so damn fun, it's like being Sherlock Holmes as a Final Fantasy emotion-powered dark knight. You even get to trigger your Sherlock Holmes combat analysis (https://youtu.be/lLuhWLNqpiA?t=108) off enemies doing things to trigger your ire -- like spitting at the back of your head registering on an emotional level, as it were).

Have you written any reviews of Fabula Ultima / would you be willing to write one up in the future? I tried getting into it based on recommendations from some other folks, but I bounced off the core rules pretty hard and I haven't gone back. I've seen gushing reviews online, but it seems like every game gets a gushing review nowadays. I'd love to read a post that examines the game in a critical light.

[animorte]

Have you written any reviews of Fabula Ultima / would you be willing to write one up in the future? I tried getting into it based on recommendations from some other folks, but I bounced off the core rules pretty hard and I haven't gone back. I've seen gushing reviews online, but it seems like every game gets a gushing review nowadays. I'd love to read a post that examines the game in a critical light.
I just recently encountered it and I would be very interested in this as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

•Skill Expert is one less ASI or Combat feat you could have had.
Someone seems to have missed the point I was making; what you just posted there smells of the assumption of optimization as the correct approach. (Despite the disclaimer lower down, which did not come across as sincere).
OBTW, bounded accuracy and the Fighter's 7 ASI/feat choices leaves a heck of a lot of room open for neat feats like Alert, Skill Expert, etcetera. You don't need a 20 in your "primary" stat to play. At level 6 with a 12 Charisma and expertise you have +7 in Deception, and at level 9 you have +9. As I noted above, with the Cloud Rune +9 with advantage makes for some great opportunities, but that's a bit of an "optimized" approach with strong deception skills as an aim. You don't have to be a rogue or a bard to do that, you can do it as a Fighter. (One of my favorite villain "fighters" was Rafael Montero from the first Antonio Banderas Zorro movie: charismatic, cunning, deceptive and a fine swordsman to boot).

With a Paladin, or a Monk, creating a nice boost to Deception can take a bit more work due to not having more ASIs like a Fighter does.

As to Ludic's point, with which I broadly agree, I'll try to put it in these terms: class and sub class themes are not intended to be straight jackets.
Yes, they do carry with them some core themes and character concept ideas to buy into, or embrace as a player, or ... well, maybe choose a different one whose themes appeal to you. What I like about the way PHB feats were originally presented as were customization options. (Won't go into my distaste for racially gated feats from Xanathar's).

The Tasha's feats seemed to me to return to that form.

[LudicSavant]

I just recently encountered it and I would be very interested in this as well.


Have you written any reviews of Fabula Ultima / would you be willing to write one up in the future? I tried getting into it based on recommendations from some other folks, but I bounced off the core rules pretty hard and I haven't gone back. I've seen gushing reviews online, but it seems like every game gets a gushing review nowadays. I'd love to read a post that examines the game in a critical light.

I know exactly what you mean; seems like there are a lot of TTRPG reviews that are just like, surface-level gushing that tells me little about the nitty gritty of the system.

Might be something I could do in the future. Though as usual I've got like 6 different projects I'm working on right now (plus several ongoing campaigns), so you might have to wait a bit to get a long form review.