4-elements Monk

[MaxWilson]

Tip: if you can manage to splash oil on an enemy, every turn you invest a ki point for fire snakes, each hit does +5 fire damage.

Surely you mean "the first hit" not "every hit".

[Asisreo1]

Surely you mean "the first hit" not "every hit".

It should be every hit, there isn't anything about oil that states it only works once during the 1 minute time period. In fact, I'm sure you can do it each round that you have the Ki for.

[MaxWilson]

It should be every hit, there isn't anything about oil that states it only works once during the 1 minute time period. In fact, I'm sure you can do it each round that you have the Ki for.

We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.

[Asisreo1]

We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.

I don't think the oil stops taking effect after one instance, though. For example, true strike specifies "The first attack" on it's "if" clause and while unconscious, "if you take damage, you suffer a failed death saving" is implied to be continuous and not once per instance of being at 0 hp.

In fact, I'm not familiar with the term "if" being used as a one-time conditional at all outside of coding, which has to have distinctions between if statements and loops.

"If you touch the stove while it's hot, you'll burn yourself" implies you'll burn yourself each time you touch the hot stove. Likewise, "if an effect moves your mount against it's will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount." Implies everytime the mount is unwillingly moved, you make a save and not just the first time and you're immune to falling off every other instance until you dismount and re-mount again.

[Skylivedk]

My vote is for Thunderwave instead of Burning Hands and here is why:

(1) Similar damage by the time you reach level 5 and can upcast (with 3 ki, 4d6 = 14, 3d8 = 13.5),
(2) Additional effect (10' knockback),
(3) Better damage type (thunder vs. fire),
(4) AoE is larger (9 squares vs ~6 squares)

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.

The goal is "recon". Stealth is just a means to that end. Survivability and mobility prevent recon from being suicide.

Thanks. Agreed! Stealth is part of a package especially on non-rogues (who don't rely on it to keep DPR on par).

My experience is different: a bard with Stealth expertise makes a fantastic recon buddy for a Shadow Monk because he has pretty good combat capabilities, and may have access to Invisibility and Dimension Door (both are on the bard list, no Magical Secrets required). If they need to beat a hasty retreat, the Bard can teleport them both to safety even if there's no darkness. (The monk may or may not be able to teleport through darkness while carrying the bard with them--ask your DM.)

There were so many parameters missing in that rundown it is embarrassing. Teaches me to not use my sleepy brain and phone to answer posts.

The list was for solo stealthers/stealth team leader/S1 (preferably not spending a ton of resources). I completely agree on the bard as a stealth buddy (S2)- I should have been explicit about this being the example for solo-stealthing. I find the bard great to be the S2 or stealth buffer (ie if you have a druid and a monk, I'd probably send those and have the bard buff the worst of the two). Minor Illusion/Message also makes him great at being the relay between the monk/rogue and the rest of the group. As S2, he'd be around 20-30 feet behind S1, able to reach S1 in a round if necessary, but not so prone to die if fast moving enemies are spotted/spot them (since S1 would be closer to them).

Hmm, ok. When I'm thinking about scouting and stealth, I'm normally thinking about having a decent amount of time to do it; rushed stealth is bad stealth in my play-book. For your style of scouting I can see the benefit of speed.

Still gonna have to agree to disagree on AC; by that metric, a full-plate Fighter is good at Stealth because while they might fail at sneaking, at least they won't die before the party catches up. AC is handy for adventuring, certainly, of which Stealth is or can be a part, but that doesn't make AC a factor of stealth in itself. AC is only going to be a factor of stealth when the consequence of failure is being attacked; which is frequently enough going to not be the case that I think it can be disregarded.

Which is also why I've used the term scouting rather than stealth. Stealth is a tool, most often used for scouting and positioning. For rogues it is also an advantage generator. And I disagree on the not-attacked part; or rather - I see the consequences of being attacked as being quite severe. It is the #1 cause of death amongst my players (both when I DM and amongst my teams as a player).

As for wall-running; I'm not saying it's any more noisy, just that stealth is in large part the art of staying out of view. Walls rarely have handy hiding spots on their vertical plain, so running up a wall in plain view is often going to be pretty obvious. That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a scenario where wall-running would have been a solid or favourable stealth tactic, per se, but then again, maybe that's just my experience and maybe I just wasn't looking for it. It also depends on whether you differentiate infiltration from stealth; wall running definitely has benefits for the former, but it's also worth bearing in mind that you don't get wall running until level 9, when flight has already become pretty common, which lessens the impact of being able to wall run for that purpose.

Corners on walls and especially patrol timings play a huge role here. If you have frequent patrols, being able to get up that wall quickly is solid gold. Again, quite common IMX, YMMV.

For the character in question, there's a Cleric of a Water deity in the party; I'm pretty sure I can get water on demand! I'm definitely considering taking Flowing River for 3rd level. Depending on how the game pans out, that may change, but I like the potential of it.

At 6th, I was considering picking up Water Whip. It sticks with the watery theme and is a solid anti-air feature around the time that flying enemies are going to become increasingly common. I could switch out Elemental Attunement for Shatter, but despite everything, it feels a little, I dunno, cheap? Plus the party already has some decent AoE anyway. Clench is probably off the table; the campaign is heavily fey themed.

Cheap? Up to you. It is a 3rd of your choice slots. That is significant. Then again, as a DM, I'd just give the 4e monk that unique cantrip on top. I love Flowing River. Immensely cool, flavourful and scales very very well (as enemies grow in size, so do their lairs and water reservoirs).

11th is a toss up between Fly and Gaseous Form; I think the former is definitely the "power" option, but the latter is more in-keeping with the water theme and I like the utility of it.

If you don't have Fly at another character in the party and you have melee characters, take Fly. Seriously. They will love you. If you do have a full-caster with Fly, you can become a vapour so hard-hitting even Redman would be scared to inhale ;)

[Zalabim]

I don't think the oil stops taking effect after one instance, though. For example, true strike specifies "The first attack" on it's "if" clause and while unconscious, "if you take damage, you suffer a failed death saving" is implied to be continuous and not once per instance of being at 0 hp.

In fact, I'm not familiar with the term "if" being used as a one-time conditional at all outside of coding, which has to have distinctions between if statements and loops.

"If you touch the stove while it's hot, you'll burn yourself" implies you'll burn yourself each time you touch the hot stove. Likewise, "if an effect moves your mount against it's will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount." Implies everytime the mount is unwillingly moved, you make a save and not just the first time and you're immune to falling off every other instance until you dismount and re-mount again.

There's an implicit "the oil can only burn once." It's a lot like how you can only fall off your mount once. Also, from a game-balance perspective, hitting with a torch does 1 fire damage. Hitting with oil does 5 fire damage later. Not 5/10/15/20/... fire damage adding up with every hit for a minute. And both values should add the relevant ability modifier too.

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.

I think for the kind of creatures a low level PC is likely to encounter in groups, Con is the better save to target. Goblins, kobolds, bandits, guards, pack animals, and other low CR critters all favor Dex over Con if they're not just equal.

If you don't have Fly at another character in the party and you have melee characters, take Fly. Seriously. They will love you. If you do have a full-caster with Fly, you can become a vapour so hard-hitting even Redman would be scared to inhale ;)

The monk's Fly has to target yourself. I suppose it doesn't say only yourself, assuming you cast it at a higher level to allow additional targets.

[Asisreo1]

There's an implicit "the oil can only burn once." It's a lot like how you can only fall off your mount once. Also, from a game-balance perspective, hitting with a torch does 1 fire damage. Hitting with oil does 5 fire damage later. Not 5/10/15/20/... fire damage adding up with every hit for a minute. And both values should add the relevant ability modifier too.

I think you misunderstand me, what I mean is that the damage in each instance has a +5. For your torch example, it would be 6+str/6+str/6+str each round.

So with Fire Snakes, you just do your regular attacks +5 damage on every hit. So 1d20+5 attack roll, 1d4+3+5 for every hit.

I don't think there's any implicit conotation to how oil works, it just says "If they take fire damage before the oil dries, they take an additional +5." There's no "first time" clause, and I really have a hard time reading it as such.

Yeah, you can only fall off a mount once, but the cause is the mount being unwillingly moved and the effect is a dex save which doesn't imply it only happens once. The cause is the oil not being dried while taking fire damage and the effect is the additional fire damage.

It's not like this is too broken, oil is a resource and unlike most other resources, requires you to go back to a town to replenish. Plus, it took you an action to even attempt to cover the creature. If you miss, which you might since there's no proficiency bonus, you used up your action and the oil.

[HiveStriker]

Maybe I was unclear. Gust of wind is an exception, but otherwise 4e monks pay lvl+1 in ki for a spell where Shadow pays 2 Ki. And yes, generally speaking I think Darkness, Silence and Pass without Trace can be said to be more powerful. They're above average to great for lvl 2 spells, easily beating level one spells. Gust of wind is normally seen to be low tier. I do find it better on a monk than on a full caster.

Trying to catch up to the discussion.

That bit is amongst the most puzzling me.
People seem not to realize that it's the Shadow archetype that is an exception. NOT 4E.
Just check the DMG for optional "spell points" rule, or peek back at Sorcerer's "make a slot".
Both follow the exact same rule for level 1 & 2 spells.

Shadow has a lesser cost because its spells bear absolutely nothing offensively per se (and don't scale at all either except Darkvision). In other words there is no measurable value (except for Pass Without Trace even though you still can fail the check).
They are as worthy, in combat or otherwise, as you make it as a player with your own wits.

Of course, a counter-point could be made with "Sun Soul's Burning Hands"... Or not. Look, he also has an offensive spell, and he also needs to spend 2 Ki (only benefit is being a bonus action BUT requires Attack).

In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.

(Which, incidentally, is one reason why AOE spells as Monk are nice even though the best ones come very late: you spend actually less "points" than a Sorcerer from level 3rd spell onwards, since Monk keeps it a linear scale. Probably to keep it simple to track and to compensate the lower pool ceiling compared to a Sorcerer who could technically convert every spell ^^).

I love Flowing River, I fully agree it's awesome. In this case: if you take it at level 3, that's almost all you get. You have a prestidigitation level power as well, but nothing more. Speed of power acquisition matters, and in this case 4e is clearly behind between lvl 3 and 6. They only get access to one effect of their own choice and most of their choices are high-tier level 1/low tier level 2 spells. When they get a less restricted access to level 2 spells, Shadow Monk gets an ability similar to one of the most popular level 2 spells (misty step), but for free and arguably better.

Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.

Why don't you want to be next to the enemy Wizard while your sniper shoots at them?

Why would you want to be next to the Ancient Dragon, a Balor, a Purple Worm, a Marid, or whatever other high-end creature that has usually a) high AC b) high CON save c) multiattacks with good to-hit?

See? That kind of argument has simply no bearing. It's contextualized in essence, thus situational in essence.

You mentioned it before and I silently disagreed. Being fast and without an armour giving disadvantage already puts the Monk in the upper tiers of Stealth if it wants too. You don't get expertise, granted, but otherwise you are as stealth focused as they come. High Dex and Wis, Evasion and good mobility... Sounds like a scout to me.

Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.

Besides that, I'd say that Shadow and 4E can both be great at infiltration, simply in a very different way. Shadow will obviously have upper hand in Stealth rolls if he can use Pass Without Trace, but then he'll need to wait for the night. Because you can't concentrate on both that and Silence or Darkness (plus a cloud of Darkness in day would be very fishy).
Yet in a fortress where guard's patrols and lighting are all well defined, you may simply luck out because there won't be any way to stealth without giving away your presence one way or another.
4E can find alternative ways thanks to Gaseous Forms, or create distractions in various ways with Elemental Attunement (although 30 feet is not giving a huge margin of manoeuver :/ I would have loved it being doubled at 60 ^^).

In short, Shadow > 4E when conditions for stealth are fulfilled. And when the requirement for those is taking out/bypassing just one guard, you can often make do with a Silence rush.
But 4E has ways to enable stealth in many contexts where Shadow (or any other Monk in general) would struggle.

As for scouting?
4E probably trumps Shadow in many situations.
Outdoors, Gaseous Form then Fly gives you panoramic views than Shadow can't expect to match (and Deflect Arrows helps getting out of range should you get noticed). Except of course if want you want to scout is a place which is mostly underground or "closed off". ^^

Indoors, it's hard to say because so many parameters influence. 4E I'd say could have an edge moving around thanks to those same spells: no footsteps, so hard to track on sound, and fly speed mean that if ceiling is high enough to make low visibility you can "stick" to it, while guards are focused on ground. You may also, or not, depending on where you are (concrete building vs loose ground) find some interstices where you can go through or hole up (probably houserule the latter).
On the other hand, once Shadow gets level 11, as long as you're exploring an area with numerous patches of dim light/darkness, the invisibility makes it much easier to move stealthily around (just reminder though: invisibility is not automatic stealth, you'd need at least Pass without trace active so that the DM may houserule such ;)).

As far as running away goes however, 4E has only Fly plus usual. That speed may be moot once building goes into lockdown and every door is closed shut or you have to go through narrow corridors. Gaseous Form may actually shine, but it will be very DM-dependent.
Comparatively, Shadow's Darkness can shine in that kind of situation while being less contextual / more straightforward to use (cast on a stone after you got bearings, start running, throw the stone when you feel is best). :)

Shadow Step is a great ability, for sure. It's also limited to 60ft, line of sight and can only be used in darkness. This makes it handy to enhance your infiltration abilities, but is still quite limited and isn't any more useful to your team than Gaseous Form, which may be slow, but it lasts an hour, works in direct sunlight, gives you flight, an inconspicuous appearance, a malleable form and isn't limited by line of sight. In the infiltration game, Gaseous Form trumps "being a ground-pounding humanoid" every day.

Cloak of Shadows is incredibly limited. Yes, it may be "free", but a torch being waved in your general direction dispels/ends it. You can't maintain it while moving through any area of bright light.

Small tidbit in favor of Cloack of Shadows: you can still use Shadow Step with it. So if you're in a place that is generally low-light (or outdoors by moonless night) you can normally maintain invisibility easily enough.
Which also means that, in optimal context, you can "end" close to a guard, move, and land the first attack against him with advantage (making the attack breaks invisibility, ergo, you should -imo- benefit from it).
Making Shadow straightforward to use efficiently as a vanguard tasked to disable enemy guards (again, when the context is right, aka low lighting). You can probably achieve a similar result with Gaseous Form, but imo you'd have more chance to get noticed on the way. ^^

Otherwise, taking in "isolation", yeah, it would fare globally as Ranger's "Hide in Plain sight": great for long duration, static observation but requires some context to be used.

The long story short - the Four Elements Monk is disappointing because most of its early abilities are trying really hard to replace your combat abilities at a point in time where Monks are good at combat. Meanwhile, the Shadow Monk feels good because it makes you great at something you're normally not all that good at.

Annnd that's the best summary ever of that false perception.
Those abilities don't *replace*.
They shore up empty space where your usual Monkiness won't cut it (or will require extra luck).
The distinction may be subtle but it's crucial. :)

An interesting change to the Elemonk would be to change nothing about it except that you don't have to choose specific disciplines: you just know all of the disciplines in the PHB when you reach the appropriate level.

It would not be broken (would not overshadow other classes), but it might be fun, and might increase the fantasy "feel" of being a master of all the elements.

100% agreed here.
I have the strong feeling they didn't do that just because they were afraid of some backlash on the terms of "look, one subclass got 3* more different things to do than any other".
I really think that's the only reason because, apart from maybe the AOE spells, every discipline explore its own area of capability, so it's not like it would be any unjustified power boost: just getting the peak of your potential versatility. :)

[Zalabim]

I think you misunderstand me, what I mean is that the damage in each instance has a +5. For your torch example, it would be 6+str/6+str/6+str each round.

So with Fire Snakes, you just do your regular attacks +5 damage on every hit. So 1d20+5 attack roll, 1d4+3+5 for every hit.

I don't think there's any implicit conotation to how oil works, it just says "If they take fire damage before the oil dries, they take an additional +5." There's no "first time" clause, and I really have a hard time reading it as such.

Yeah, you can only fall off a mount once, but the cause is the mount being unwillingly moved and the effect is a dex save which doesn't imply it only happens once. The cause is the oil not being dried while taking fire damage and the effect is the additional fire damage.

It's not like this is too broken, oil is a resource and unlike most other resources, requires you to go back to a town to replenish. Plus, it took you an action to even attempt to cover the creature. If you miss, which you might since there's no proficiency bonus, you used up your action and the oil.

It says "from the burning oil." It doesn't re-burn. It burns and then it's burnt, and then you hit them with more oil and burn that oil too. It's still quite cheap, and it seems in line with the strength type's option of using a lit torch. 5+Dex damage but the ammunition is expended and it has to be ignited. Potentially adding infinite damage, only limited by how many times the target takes fire damage in a minute, doesn't make sense and isn't how anything else works, let alone a little 1 sp flask that anyone could use.

Area damage, like create bonfire and spreading the oil on the ground and igniting that, gets a pass because it's adding damage to movement, not adding damage to more damage. They're still limited to once per turn. So a creature covered in oil takes additional fire damage once if they run through fire, but not extra additional damage for each of three burning oil grounds, a created bonfire, and a wall of fire that they move through and then even more if they're hit by fire bolts afterwards.

[Asisreo1]

It says "from the burning oil." It doesn't re-burn. It burns and then it's burnt, and then you hit them with more oil and burn that oil too. It's still quite cheap, and it seems in line with the strength type's option of using a lit torch. 5+Dex damage but the ammunition is expended and it has to be ignited. Potentially adding infinite damage, only limited by how many times the target takes fire damage in a minute, doesn't make sense and isn't how anything else works, let alone a little 1 sp flask that anyone could use.

Area damage, like create bonfire and spreading the oil on the ground and igniting that, gets a pass because it's adding damage to movement, not adding damage to more damage. They're still limited to once per turn. So a creature covered in oil takes additional fire damage once if they run through fire, but not extra additional damage for each of three burning oil grounds, a created bonfire, and a wall of fire that they move through and then even more if they're hit by fire bolts afterwards.

I mean, things can burn and re-burn. I don't necessarily see it as them going completely ablaze since being on fire would typically be a per-round deal, like alchemist's fire. The entire oil may not completely sizzle off, each swing of a flame sword or hit of firebolt is a quick sizzling.

If you've ever cooked or used oil IRL, you can certainly have fire erupt from oil and when the oil stops burning, it can be re-lit.

I think certain primitive lanterns worked like this, too.

[HiveStriker]

Something that's been eating at me throughout the thread: you keep telling us what Monks have a tendency to do, or how things will happen, etc... but you say you've never even played a Monk before. And you said that you wanted tips on how to play Monks better in your original post, but when people with thousands of hours of experience in the class come and give you those tips you appear to have largely ignored those posts in favor of arguing for your preconceptions of balance.

I guess I'm just wondering whether you actually have any interest in getting tips on how to play a Monk better, or whether you think you already know how best to play them. Are the people who are here to give tips on how to get more bang for your EleMonk buck wasting their time?

Well, let's be honest here.
The FIRST answer to his OP has started with a non-constructive, non-argumented dismiss of his choice ("4E suck"). Which never helps, especially when doubling down on "look how every other is good" because you implicitely devaluate the people's ability to analyse, and possibly their taste.
So it was expected that OP would feel required to start detailing his own vision.

As for most people interjecting to say that 4E is a bad archetype, you included, all their points tend to simply demonstrate you never really tried to play the archetype for its strengths because you simply favor small enhancements on what any Monk can do over versatility. Which is perfectly legitimate, but undermines your point.
(As for the "thousands of hours". Not only is it absolutely not credible for one people, it does not make any opinion more valid per se. Even if more hours played means more chance to try out some mechanic in a new context, if you always follow the same mindset and logic to make your decisions, the gain is ultimately much closer to a flat algorithmic curve than a linear or "rocketing" one ;)).

Also, Jelly said he has little experience playing a Monk, but he's an experienced played (and probably DM) in general, and with stealth and melee in particular (*cough* unreasonable love for Rogues *cough*) so there is no reason why one should consider he's not able to "project" respective strengths and weaknesses of mechanics.
As a reminder, he wanted people to help him choose options for an 4e Monk fitting him the best, not people to come spite on something that is simply just not up to their personal taste (and more or less actively trying to convince him it's a bad archetype so that "he chose wrong") . :)

Gathering intel while staying out of view sometimes requires approaching from an unexpected angle. That's where wall-running comes in.

On the other hand, at least on paper, everyone in 5E can scale sheer walls at half-speed, by PHB rules. It may or may not involve an Athletics or Acrobatics check but it's not like monks are the only ones who can climb the outside of a wizard's tower, they just do it faster and probably without an Acrobatics check (ask your DM).

Small tidbit that Shadow monk can do, and which can be nice, although I'm making up a totally theorical example, not sure how often the circumstances could align up THAT favorably. :)

1) Building with openings you can view through.
2) High enough ceiling so that the highest parts of wall are in dim light or darkness (in general "people will rarely look up to it unless they feel there is something abnormal).
3) Speed enough to get into the building and up to those portions of wall with just Dash as bonus action at most.
4) Nobody close enough that they'd have a decent chance to hear you run on wall (or you have some equipment muffling steps sound).
5) Wall that is malleable enough, or is ""just stones piled up" (so interstices).

a) Cast Silence as soon as you are close enough, on a patch of wall near ceiling.
b) Run to it.
c) Use your action to firmly set some clawing/vantage point with some climbing equipment.
d) Enjoy. :)

(okay, the more I see it the more it appears irrealistic. If anybody could share an idea/experience on achieving a similar tactic, I'm all eyes. ;))

Even though I have enjoyed elemonk in the past, this thread has me considering letting elemonks change their disciplines on the fly as a bonus action instead of only on level-up.

How would you feel if your DM did this? Too much, or not enough?

Far too good imo.
Admitedly for a player who is not sure of his choices, even "on level up" may be too "far away" (confer the discussions about UA class changes on sorcerer and ranger).

IMHO the maximum flexibility you could allow while still being reasonable would be "one discipline change on short rest".
And I'd personally find a "change x disciplines during long rest" ideal.

The main gripe I'd have with "change as bonus action" is that it makes them, kinda... "Transparent". I mean, it's like mastering them require no "continuous" effort at all.
Of course, that's my personal taste speaking. Mechanically there would be no problem with change as bonus action.

We're talking about oil from the equipment list, right?

Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

If you hit with a Flames of the Fire Snake, the target has now taken some fire damage, so it takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. If you hit it again with Flames of the Fire Snake, nothing changes: it has already taken the damage from the oil. Nothing says it takes more damage every time it takes any fire damage. It's just a binary yes/no: any fire damage? If so then 5 damage, else zero damage.

Disagreed.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a different effect when it's poured on ground: 5 fire every time creature enters area or ends turn in, once per turn.
And the formulation of the first point is ambiguous as is. So it's fair to assume that "at worst" you'd could trigger the extra damage once per turn if you want to avoid it being too powerful.
Then again, since fiery oil is on the creature itself in the first point, unless you consider for some justifiable reason that a creature "burns lesser" than some ground (which could be stone, so dubious), there is no reason why you wouldn't read the sentence as is, meaning without limitation (reminder: limitations are near always explicit in 5e) so extra damage on every hit.

[NaughtyTiger]

If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

the larger text says 2 things:
burns for 2 rounds
only takes 5 fire damage once per round.

so i don't think you get the +5 per hit, but you do get the +5 on the next round even if you don't hit

[JellyPooga]

Agreed on all points, but the Con Save and the noise drive me away. Also at 5 you are 1 level away from Shatter which would provide the same, but with better range. I'd rather have the higher damage and better save at level 3 and 4. Resistance to fire is not a huge concern at those levels IMX.

Generally speaking, the noise factor of Thunderwave, Shatter and even Knock always gives me pause for thought; I wonder how significant a factor it is for other players.

Which is also why I've used the term scouting rather than stealth. Stealth is a tool, most often used for scouting and positioning. For rogues it is also an advantage generator. And I disagree on the not-attacked part; or rather - I see the consequences of being attacked as being quite severe. It is the #1 cause of death amongst my players (both when I DM and amongst my teams as a player).

My point was that the consequence of failed scouting or stealth is not always that you'll be attacked; I was not saying that being attacked isn't a bad thing. Further, as a rule, "being attacked" is going to be a consequence of failure more often for scouting, I imagine, than stealth in general. So to reiterate my contention; Monks are not natively better at stealth, specifically, even if they are better at scouting. A fully armoured person on a horse can be good at scouting and the Monk base class has many of the benefits that said cavalryman has (including speed and AC), agreed, but that doesn't make either of them good at stealth.

Corners on walls and especially patrol timings play a huge role here. If you have frequent patrols, being able to get up that wall quickly is solid gold. Again, quite common IMX, YMMV.

I'll endeavour to look out for more opportunities on that front in the future, thanks.

In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.
[snip]
Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.

I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios. Shadow Arts getting a "discount" and wider access seems reasonable to me given the more limited use cases.

Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.

Agreed. See point above RE: cavalry scout.

(*cough* unreasonable love for Rogues *cough*)

My love for Rogues is unreasonable, it's true...

[Sindeloke]

I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios.

For the record, I believe this right here is the main source of people saying that Shadow Arts (or Open Palm self-healing) doesn't conflict with "being a monk" the way 4elements does, despite the similar action economy. Casting darkness in combat does something unique for the monk; there's no expectation that it should behave a certain way in order to be "monklike". Dealing damage in combat, however, has a very defined feel for the monk: you make many fast hits that let you make more fast hits. Replacing that entirely with One Big Hit that does not allow you to make more fast hits feels like it interferes with the monk playstyle in a way that healing or creating darkness does not, even when the action economy is otherwise identical.

In this vein, if they wanted it to feel "monklike", unique abilities like fire snake or an ice knife version of sun soul bolts or w/e, that compliment your attacks rather than replacing them, should have been the default, not the exception. Alternately, casting a 4ele spell should enable flurry as though it were an attack, which makes the ki consumption more obvious but at least makes the spells feel like they're martial arts moves and not wizard muttering.

(The other problem is that it's the "bender" subclass on a resource schedule when the bender fantasy requires bending every single turn, but that would require a far more extensive overhaul to fix).

[Nifft]

(The other problem is that it's the "bender" subclass on a resource schedule when the bender fantasy requires bending every single turn, but that would require a far more extensive overhaul to fix).

I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.

[Desteplo]

I feel like magic initiate (druid) and focus on wisdom first works best for me
-variant human: shileleigh, (flavor cantrip) and absorb elements
-of course it’s different for non humans but in that case it’s a little different. Though I’ve been in games where they hand out a free feat at lvl1
-sucks for me to have to rely on a feat but I’ve also tried lvl1 dips in druid and it felt just as awesome.
-the lack of earth flavor spells until later stings. But that entangle spell from druid or whatever but that spot

[MaxWilson]

Generally speaking, the noise factor of Thunderwave, Shatter and even Knock always gives me pause for thought; I wonder how significant a factor it is for other players.

For me it depends on whether you're trying to be sneaky or not. Stealth is potentially very, very powerful, but (by the same token) sometimes not very fun. If you really can just bypass or surprise all or most of the monsters in the dungeon just by PWT + stealth proficiency on everybody, the game can feel unsatisfyingly easy. In contrast, frontal assaults are fun even when they're kind of a bad strategy. (Bad strategies can lead to the need for good tactics, and 5E is really more about tactics than strategy.)

To me, "Shatter" is the kind of spell you use when you're perfectly okay with the possibility that all of the monsters in the dungeon may converge on your position sometime in the next ten minutes. Maybe that's because you agree with Sethra Lavode about defense generally being stronger than offense (thanks to e.g. Mold Earth for partial cover, Spike Growth and caltrops), maybe it's because you've got horses nearby and can abuse the mounted combat rules, maybe you're highly mobile PCs who are good at disengaging from combat, maybe it's because you just like nuking huge hordes of monsters with your AoE spells.

Anyway, I don't see the noise factor as necessarily a negative. If it attracts monsters, well, there are ways to exploit that, and when you need to be sneaky you can just not cast those spells.

[Skylivedk]

@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.

Trying to catch up to the discussion.

That bit is amongst the most puzzling me.
People seem not to realize that it's the Shadow archetype that is an exception. NOT 4E.
Just check the DMG for optional "spell points" rule, or peek back at Sorcerer's "make a slot".
Both follow the exact same rule for level 1 & 2 spells.

What difference does that make? Spell points are not regular play (and discouraged for a reason). I can understand that having spell-point casting is a buff, but people can see that and not think the buff outweighs the minuse

Shadow has a lesser cost because its spells bear absolutely nothing offensively per se (and don't scale at all either except Darkvision). In other words there is no measurable value (except for Pass Without Trace even though you still can fail the check).
They are as worthy, in combat or otherwise, as you make it as a player with your own wits.

Of course, a counter-point could be made with "Sun Soul's Burning Hands"... Or not. Look, he also has an offensive spell, and he also needs to spend 2 Ki (only benefit is being a bonus action BUT requires Attack).

In other words, 4E has the regular cost for casting spells with a point system. I'm pretty sure if Shadow had any directly offensive spells those would cost exactly the same as 4E ones.

I can't remember if I made this point myself already, or if I was just thinking about it; either way, I think it's a valid concern that most 4E Disciplines have more direct application in combat than any of Shadow Arts, outside of specific scenarios. Shadow Arts getting a "discount" and wider access seems reasonable to me given the more limited use cases.

A grappled Acererak would disagree.

Spoiler: Acererak and Silence

Show

That's how we killed him in 2 rounds in ToA. Grappling a silence cast where the caster was out of Line of Sight. We added some smites and some lava-dipping for good measure

And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock

Honestly I think the main reason why Shadow gets everything in a nice single package at level 3 is because they probably felt gating spell knowledge on level would feel artificial considering all 4 spells are of same level and utility ones, half of them being relatively situational.


Why would you want to be next to the Ancient Dragon, a Balor, a Purple Worm, a Marid, or whatever other high-end creature that has usually a) high AC b) high CON save c) multiattacks with good to-hit?

The purple worm has no reach nor ranged attacks. The Ancient Dragon has one, some of the time, a Marid only has 60 ft water jet. The Balor has no reach or range (but teleports). In all cases: if the Shadow Monk keeps those creatures next to the enemy Wizard at a healthy distance, he has already earned his keep. Half the XP budget (if we assume the caster is strong enough to have such pets) has just been blown on a pet that doesn't do anything. Fantastic! Otherwise: resistance to all damage and proficiency in all saves + rerolls for 1ki. Ez. If pet moves, you stop the pitiful pling plings from your bow and you and the ranged members rip the caster a new one. With most of them, the Shadow Monk can just use Step of the Wind, run in, hit caster, spam stunning fist, run back. Pet isn't fast enough to do anything about it. And since our example is Shadow Monk, you DIDN'T spend between 20% (at level 20) and 36,36 % of the encounter's Ki budget by being the exhale of Devin the Dude.

See? That kind of argument has simply no bearing. It's contextualized in essence, thus situational in essence.

No, I don't see. Someone must have cast Darkness and I forgot to refresh my pact with the Lord of the Morning while making coffee.

You pull up a contrived scenario and if the Wizard is the greater threat with a Balor Pet, we're talking 66.000 xp worth of encounter budget (22.000 x 2 x 1.5). Deadly is 50.800 xp for 4 level 20 characters according to the DMG. That encounter has just been trivialised by being split in two without using a forcecage, and the Shadow Monk hasn't even moved yet. If that's the effect of a useless ability, then give me more useless abilities please.

Scout and Stealth are two VERY different things, although one may depend on the other to be more efficient.
Being stealthy is better to scout, but not required per se.

No, you can of course trade away stealth and ride in on your horsie in full-plate. If you aren't ambushed, I hope you bought your DM beer.

Besides that, I'd say that Shadow and 4E can both be great at infiltration, simply in a very different way. Shadow will obviously have upper hand in Stealth rolls if he can use Pass Without Trace, but then he'll need to wait for the night. Because you can't concentrate on both that and Silence or Darkness (plus a cloud of Darkness in day would be very fishy).

What? Why does he need to wait for night? Tomorrow at 10 am, go to the side of the building where the sun isn't shining. Notice something? The distinct lack of bright light and how everything is covered in shadow?

Yet in a fortress where guard's patrols and lighting are all well defined, you may simply luck out because there won't be any way to stealth without giving away your presence one way or another.
4E can find alternative ways thanks to Gaseous Forms, or create distractions in various ways with Elemental Attunement (although 30 feet is not giving a huge margin of manoeuver :/ I would have loved it being doubled at 60 ^^).

Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...

In short, Shadow > 4E when conditions for stealth are fulfilled. And when the requirement for those is taking out/bypassing just one guard, you can often make do with a Silence rush.
But 4E has ways to enable stealth in many contexts where Shadow (or any other Monk in general) would struggle.

Gaseous form doesn't make you invisible. It doesn't give you advantage on Stealth. I would probably rule it didn't make a sound, but the spell doesn't say so. Going by the common way I've seen of ruling spells (they ONLY do what they say), Gaseous Form doesn't confer all these bonuses I've seen applied in this thread (some of which I would definitely give as DM myself though). For all we know Gaseous Form makes a hissing sound when it moves equalling the sound of the footsteps of your character. Since it doesn't mention any advantage or automatic passing of stealth check, we ought to presume it doesn't do that.

As for scouting?
4E probably trumps Shadow in many situations.
Outdoors, Gaseous Form then Fly gives you panoramic views than Shadow can't expect to match (and Deflect Arrows helps getting out of range should you get noticed). Except of course if want you want to scout is a place which is mostly underground or "closed off". ^^

At the cost of 20% - 36,36% of your Ki. AND one of your precious few disciplines (so 20-25% of your discipline slots). Fly is fantastic. That's why your warlock/sorcerer/wizard picked it, 6 levels ago. Even then, it is still amazing at lvl 11. Also expensive.

Indoors, it's hard to say because so many parameters influence. 4E I'd say could have an edge moving around thanks to those same spells: no footsteps, so hard to track on sound, and fly speed mean that if ceiling is high enough to make low visibility you can "stick" to it, while guards are focused on ground. You may also, or not, depending on where you are (concrete building vs loose ground) find some interstices where you can go through or hole up (probably houserule the latter).
On the other hand, once Shadow gets level 11, as long as you're exploring an area with numerous patches of dim light/darkness, the invisibility makes it much easier to move stealthily around (just reminder though: invisibility is not automatic stealth, you'd need at least Pass without trace active so that the DM may houserule such ;)).

Well, if the DM is already houseruling that Fly and Gaseous Form make you move without sound, why not give Invisibility a free pass at a certain distance? 60 ft? I mean, we're making up things anyway... Also, which is seemingly forgotten. Dogs. PwT leaves no trace (no exceptions given - so no scent either). And again, again: Cost! Pass Without Trace costs 2 ki points, and you get it at level 3. Most players will never see the Soundless Ninja Cloud of Infinite Ki, because they will never play that level.

I think Max Wilson gave a good example of just how much dim light you can expect normally. Tons. Remember, Shadow Monks only need enough shadow to cover them

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/21/in-an-area-of-bright-light-can-a-shadow-monk-use-hisher-shadow-step-to-teleport-into-a-creatures-shadow/

As far as running away goes however, 4E has only Fly plus usual. That speed may be moot once building goes into lockdown and every door is closed shut or you have to go through narrow corridors. Gaseous Form may actually shine, but it will be very DM-dependent.

Gaseous Form is sloooooooow. Even with fancy monk speed, you are still at only 30 ft until level 14. And if we used Heavy Vaping to get in, we are burning Ki quickly: almost nothing left in the tank if you hit a Dispel Magic. It is definitely a useful infiltration spell, but I'd be wary of using it twice at level 11, especially as an escape mechanism in enemy territory. It also has the minus of being very hard to get your Stealth Buddy with you (both in and out - they really frown upon the one-way tickets IMX).

@OP: as for playing 4e monk: I'd be really careful about sneaking in alone in a way that burns a third of your resources at level 11. Dispel Magic is common and unlike running up a wall, you usually can't pass a rope to your buddy or take out the guard on patrol so he can pass (excluding more ki burn ofc) if you used Gaseous Form to go through a crack somewhere. It is white room good, it is IMX PC death. YMMV.

Comparatively, Shadow's Darkness can shine in that kind of situation while being less contextual / more straightforward to use (cast on a stone after you got bearings, start running, throw the stone when you feel is best). :)

Well spotted.

I prefer having a rope with a small hook on it (in adamantine later) as well as locket on anyone who can fight in Darkness (close locket, gone Darkness).

Small tidbit in favor of Cloack of Shadows: you can still use Shadow Step with it. So if you're in a place that is generally low-light (or outdoors by moonless night) you can normally maintain invisibility easily enough.
Which also means that, in optimal context, you can "end" close to a guard, move, and land the first attack against him with advantage (making the attack breaks invisibility, ergo, you should -imo- benefit from it).

Agreed... but why not, follow behind him and wait, then strike next round? You still get advantage, now you also have your Bonus Action free and all of your movement speed.

Otherwise, taking in "isolation", yeah, it would fare globally as Ranger's "Hide in Plain sight": great for long duration, static observation but requires some context to be used.

Thank you for mentioning the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight. A prime example of why being good at stealth includes being good at moving (quickly) while stealthy in my criteria of being good at stealth. Stealth is a tool, not just a check. If passing the check doesn't do anything, then it doesn't matter how good you are at passing the check. And YMMV, but my DnD groups don't line up to roll a Peeping Tom. Hence by my metrics, Monk is top-3 on stealth:

• their two main stats (which they both usually max - very rare) are good for what stealth is most often used for on non-rogues: recon
• they have more movement speed and movement options that are free to use and stealth penalty free than any other class
• they can enhance said movement with Ki (some sub-classes more than others)
• the base class has no inherently noisy attacks (no metal or explosions here)
• they have no opportunity cost in foregoing armour with Stealth Disadvantage

1. Rogues. Expertise and delicious bonus actions (Dash and Hide as BAs are solid gold), reliable talent, all top-notch. The Thief's level 9 ability is a false positive IMX. 1/6 of your potential max sneaky speed for advantage? Yuck
2. Druid: depending on DM interpretation of how easy it is to look natural as a spider whatever. I would rule pro-spider stealth.
3. Monk
4. Bard/Ranger

The rest of the classes... not really worth going through.

Annnd that's the best summary ever of that false perception.
Those abilities don't *replace*.
They shore up empty space where your usual Monkiness won't cut it (or will require extra luck).
The distinction may be subtle but it's crucial. :)

Agreed on this point. It's not like you can afford to spam spells every round anyway, so you shouldn't be doing it instead of being a monk. They do replace abilities in your design space though. They have an opportunity cost in selecting them (both by selecting the subclass and the individual spells).

100% agreed here.
I have the strong feeling they didn't do that just because they were afraid of some backlash on the terms of "look, one subclass got 3* more different things to do than any other".
I really think that's the only reason because, apart from maybe the AOE spells, every discipline explore its own area of capability, so it's not like it would be any unjustified power boost: just getting the peak of your potential versatility. :)

I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance here:
If we all agree that 4e monks could easily do with more disciplines, isn't that the same as all of us agreeing that it could be slightly better?

I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.

That would be cool. In general, I think the original (non-spell) abilities they gave 4e are all (unless I've repressed one out of frustration) pretty solid. I don't mind if they redesigned it to be more around elemental fighting (and with more nova potential than the normal monk).

[Sindeloke]

I think it's possible to write a fix in this vein.

Just look to the Open Hand mechanics and augment existing expenditures instead of creating new expenditures. The augmentations should be mechanically similar, but in flavor should be Benderriffic.'

For example:

When you spend a point of Ki to use Patient Defense, a whip of water wards you and your nearby allies. An adjacent ally gains ________ benefit until the start of your next turn.

And so forth.

That's a promising thought, but still requires resources, so I'd want something baseline beyond that. Like... "As a bonus action, select cold, fire, thunder, or your normal bludgeoning damage. All your unarmed attacks until the end of your turn have a 30 foot range, and substitute the chosen damage type for their normal damage."

Then at higher levels, you can spend ki points to increase the range, or add effects to each type of damage (slow to cold, push to bludgeoning/thunder, whatev), and also add the ability to occasionally do expensive stuff like fire breath, walls of stone, bridges of ice, etc, by spending resources - but always with somatic components only, because you're doing these things kinetically, not casting spells, even if they look like spells mechanically.

It would require a different balance point than the current 4e, though, because of the added always-on utility and different casting restrictions of somatic only and the better action economy of tying things to Patient Defense or flurry or the normal attack routine. You might want to restrict it to one element per character, or increase the ki cost, or whatever, so it's a more extensive overhaul.

[MaxWilson]

I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance here:
If we all agree that 4e monks could easily do with more disciplines, isn't that the same as all of us agreeing that it could be slightly better?

Depends how you mean the latter. It could just be people acknowledging that Elemonk is already within the acceptable range of variation, but also that adding more disciplines wouldn't raise the power curve enough to obviate any other classes. That's my personal take in it: it's fine, and I am not going to proactively change it, but if a player wanted more disciplines to have more fun I would have zero concerns about agreeing.

As a contrasting example, if a sorcerer player wanted the ability to switch spells on a long rest, I would have concerns about that and would probably tell them "no, that's too much of a design change. If you want that I'm going to have to charge you something, like maybe a custom subclass where versatility and instinctive knowledge of a wide range of magic is your schtick."

I don't have these concerns about Elemonk because the disciplines are all pretty samey already and there's only a small number of them, and there's no other classes competing for the same design space (blasty elemental monk).

[Asisreo1]

[QUOTE=Skylivedk;24518279]@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.

Isn't devil's advocate the one that's against popular opinion? Anyways, it's the same way when talking about wizards in these forum discussion, they somehow have shield and burning hands and mage armor and magic missile and sleep and find familiar and identify at level 1 all at once.

They can also always afford to shield whenever they get hit regardless of how many spellslots they've used prior. Because if they ran out, obviously they would have long rested which is free and the DM must always respect it.

What difference does that make? Spell points are not regular play (and discouraged for a reason). I can understand that having spell-point casting is a buff, but people can see that and not think the buff outweighs the minuse

Despite how it seems, spellpoint casting is used in places you wouldn't expect. The conversion rate for sorcerer spells are exactly spellpoints.


A grappled Acererak would disagree.

Spoiler: Acererak and Silence

Show

That's how we killed him in 2 rounds in ToA. Grappling a silence cast where the caster was out of Line of Sight. We added some smites and some lava-dipping for good measure

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?

And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock

Sure, but if they don't have magical darkvision, you could gimp your own spellcasters, which has happened before.

The purple worm has no reach nor ranged attacks.

The worm has a 10ft reach.

The Ancient Dragon has one, some of the time

All of an ancient dragon's attacks are greater than 5ft reach

, a Marid only has 60 ft water jet.

The Marid's trident has a 10ft reach and is also a ranged attack.

The Balor has no reach or range (but teleports)

Not only is a Balor's reach up to 30ft., it can drag it's enemy into melee distance on a dex save.

In all cases: if the Shadow Monk keeps those creatures next to the enemy Wizard at a healthy distance, he has already earned his keep.

What stops those creatures from just running by the monk, tanking the OA, and going into melee with the wizard?

Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...

I guess it depends on how well versed you are with magic because a 5ft cloud moving at your castle is sometimes called fog.

At the cost of 20% - 36,36% of your Ki. AND one of your precious few disciplines (so 20-25% of your discipline slots). Fly is fantastic. That's why your warlock/sorcerer/wizard picked it, 6 levels ago. Even then, it is still amazing at lvl 11. Also expensive.

20-36% of your Ki per short rest. You probably aren't fighting more than 3 fights per short rest and I doubt all of them call for the measures of using Fly.

Gaseous Form is sloooooooow. Even with fancy monk speed, you are still at only 30 ft until level 14. And if we used Heavy Vaping to get in, we are burning Ki quickly: almost nothing left in the tank if you hit a Dispel Magic. It is definitely a useful infiltration spell, but I'd be wary of using it twice at level 11, especially as an escape mechanism in enemy territory. It also has the minus of being very hard to get your Stealth Buddy with you (both in and out - they really frown upon the one-way tickets IMX).

It's not about speed, it's about getting through cracks and being resistant to all nonmagical attacks including fire/poison/acid as long as it isn't coming from a magical source. And also having advantage against the most common saves you'll be hit with while in melee.

@OP: as for playing 4e monk: I'd be really careful about sneaking in alone in a way that burns a third of your resources at level 11. Dispel Magic is common and unlike running up a wall, you usually can't pass a rope to your buddy or take out the guard on patrol so he can pass (excluding more ki burn ofc) if you used Gaseous Form to go through a crack somewhere. It is white room good, it is IMX PC death. YMMV.

I don't necessarily see how dispel magic is common. It depends on the setting but in the PHB it says practitioners of magic are rare and you're a "Hero of the Realm" by time you get dispel magic. So unless "Heroes of the Realm" are common amongst guards, it should be rare to find a dispel magic user.

[MaxWilson]

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?

In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max

[Asisreo1]

In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max

Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

[MaxWilson]

Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

I will note that players also sometimes underplay "the best of their ability". A Necromancer who is capable of summoning dozens of skeletons may only summon six or eight in actual play. A Shadow Monk who is capable of staying in stealth mode 100% of the time might make a frontal assault with the party instead. The players IME generally up their game when they know they're under serious threat, but against regular pesky everyday threats they may enjoy getting their hands dirty, sometimes taking it so far as Cherry Tapping (deliberately winning with underpowered weapons, like beating a bad guy to death with a mushroom).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to play a bad guy the same way, especially if the bad guy is immortal and isn't seriously inconvenienced by "death" in the first place, especially because, again, DMs don't like squashing players like bugs. Maybe Acererak had a good laugh about the lava afterward and made a note to self to watch out for Silence spells in the future, but AFAIK it's not like he had any reason to be really trying to get the PCs. My reading of page 186 of the Tomb of Annihilation is that he's basically Cherry Tapping them while taunting them. His spell loadout is terrible, and he doesn't even have any good gear on except for a staff that's arguably more interesting to a PAM fighter than to a wizard.

Disclaimer: Tomb of Annihilation has never interested me enough to run. This is just how I would run it based on reading it (and I'd play up his "puny mortals" taunting a la Spider Man to make it clear he's enjoying himself). His "look of horror" at actually losing is just that: disappointment at a surprise loss, plus the inconvenience of having to reform and track down his staff, if he eventually wants it back.

Edit: also I'm not suggesting that Acererak wouldn't play to the best of his tactical ability. I've been a player in a game where a lich lost in a fist fight with (of all things) a multiclassed cleric/wizard. It was totally stupid and not believable that the lich would do that, and I don't say that Acererak should play that badly. I'm just saying that it makes sense Acererak didn't do something more along the lines of immediately Forcecaging the closest member(s) of the party before retreating out the nearest door, then True Polymorphing into an Atropal and spending thirty minutes whistling up 50-odd Wraiths before coming back to smash the party into smithereens. (Trope: There Is No Kill Like Overkill.) Burying the party under a small army of Wraiths that can walk through walls would be highly effective but maybe not as much fun for Acererak as getting his hands dirty personally.

I believe it is very much the DM's job to think of reasons why the Acererak will not destroy them in this highly-effective way, at least the first time they meet each other.

[Skylivedk]

Couldn't Acerack just used counterspell and teleported out? If he was out of range, sure, but couldn't he have used his legion of undead? Or was it a solo encounter? Why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him, anyways?

Also @MaxWilson: in my dear DM's defence, if you go play ToA by the book, Acererak is holding the idiot ball in ToA. If you need, I can provide a drawing. But no: silence, grapple and a murdercloud with a little nova-capacity is plenty to knock him out.

Sure, but if they don't have magical darkvision, you could gimp your own spellcasters, which has happened before.

Despite my friends sometimes almost killing my characters to prove me wrong, I do presume competence from my co-players.

The worm has a 10ft reach.
All of an ancient dragon's attacks are greater than 5ft reach
The Marid's trident has a 10ft reach and is also a ranged attack. Not only is a Balor's reach up to 30ft., it can drag it's enemy into melee distance on a dex save.

Thanks for the corrections. Speaking of competence. I showed none when reading those entries. That can teach me not to be lazy and look in the damn book + read the whole damn attack paragraph :) It changes the scenario a bit: the monk can't run in and out if the baddies assume fireball position. On the bright side, they assume fireball position and all of the examples are still short of significant range (Ancient Dragon's breath being the outlier). Same plans before: proceed to nuke at a distance (not in fireball formation) until half the encounter is dead, then deal with Pet. It isn't me who came up with the contrived scenario of having 1 of these critters stand next to the Wizard and somehow see that as a winning plan.

What stops those creatures from just running by the monk, tanking the OA, and going into melee with the wizard?

Your frontline I would imagine. Either pointy stick dudes and dudedesses or maybe summons. Maybe wall-spells. Normally, not your monk (prior to level 18, where you care about half as much about the pet's damage).[/QUOTE]

I guess it depends on how well versed you are with magic because a 5ft cloud moving at your castle is sometimes called fog.

I'm originally from Denmark, so I can understand why someone wouldn't see that as being very situational.

20-36% of your Ki per short rest. You probably aren't fighting more than 3 fights per short rest and I doubt all of them call for the measures of using Fly.

Yup, but without Ki, you are playing the role of sidekick as a monk. 3d8 + 15 = 28,5 damage.

It's not about speed, it's about getting through cracks and being resistant to all nonmagical attacks including fire/poison/acid as long as it isn't coming from a magical source. And also having advantage against the most common saves you'll be hit with while in melee.

And I get all that. Gaseous Form was just made out to be the be-all, end-all of infiltration and it isn't. I'm not saying it isn't a good spell on 4e monk. It is. Great synergy. Especially with Water Whip and Fists of Unbroken Air. I'm saying it has significant drawbacks since you'll be solo unless your stealth buddy can do something similar. Also it isn't free and it isn't undetectable (which it was pretty much made out to be in one or two posts).

I don't necessarily see how dispel magic is common. It depends on the setting but in the PHB it says practitioners of magic are rare and you're a "Hero of the Realm" by time you get dispel magic. So unless "Heroes of the Realm" are common amongst guards, it should be rare to find a dispel magic user.

In this case, Acererak couldn't have Counterspelled because Silence was apparently being cast from outside his line of sight (i.e. the caster could see the center of the Silence AoE but couldn't see Acererak directly, just relied on the spell's 20' radius to get him). As for "why'd he let the frontliner get melee distance to him anyway,", well... this is just speculation on my part, but it fits a pattern.

(1) DMs don't like squashing players like bugs with no chance to even fight back, and
(2) "Bad guy is arrogant" is a popular fiction trope.

These two things go together and sometimes make enemies who are horrifically powerful compared to the PCs underestimate the PCs and do things that are not tactically optical. In this case "letting the melee frontliner get melee distance to him" is arrogant, especially if you are expecting to blow him away with magic and don't realize that someone outside your sightline might be about to Silence you.

-Max

Well, I guess? It feels disingenuous if the DM doesn't play the enemy to the best of their ability. Acerack didn't kill hundreds of powerful adventures just to die from arrogance. Even if I was super-sure I could beat a party easily, I still wouldn't let the melee combatants get into melee. I'd just taunt from a distance.

Fully agree with both of you. As mentioned above, this is another masterpiece of writing and encounter design from the WotC-team. Back then, our DM didn't change the encounters much. I think Acererak melting in lava after 12 seconds had him rethink that slightly.

[MaxWilson]

Fully agree with both of you. As mentioned above, this is another masterpiece of writing and encounter design from the WotC-team. Back then, our DM didn't change the encounters much. I think Acererak melting in lava after 12 seconds had him rethink that slightly.

Heh. We share some opinions about WotC it seems. Why do all of WotC's archwizards invariable have the worst 9th level spells in the book (Time Stop & Power Word Kill, every time) and not the good ones (True Polymorph, Wish). Just think how much the Acererak scenario changes if Acererak's first move is e.g. to Wish the dead Atropal back to life, to say nothing of

Spoiler: ...

Show

all the offscreen uses that can be made of it and/or True Polymorph to ramp up the pressure every time the PCs take a long rest. "There's an ever-increasing influx of Ulitharids infesting the local jungles, please help us quickly or we'll be overwhelmed!" (Actually even a single True Polymorph is enough to start a Slaad infestation...)

Why weren't there any Symbols or Glyphs (e.g. Wall of Force + Glyph of Summon Earth Elemental + Glyph of Cloudkill) set up to protect his students' phylacteries?

Why don't they have bodyguards or seek reinforcements? (Getting rid of the bodyguards should be possible via smart play, but by default the powerful bad guys shouldn't be alone.)

In this case because Acererak is immortal and powerful I can excuse it as cherry-tapping (it wouldn't be the first time I've seen a lich take "death" less than seriously), but there's a lot of WotC villains who don't have that excuse.

[Skylivedk]

I will note that players also sometimes underplay "the best of their ability". A Necromancer who is capable of summoning dozens of skeletons may only summon six or eight in actual play. A Shadow Monk who is capable of staying in stealth mode 100% of the time might make a frontal assault with the party instead. The players IME generally up their game when they know they're under serious threat, but against regular pesky everyday threats they may enjoy getting their hands dirty, sometimes taking it so far as Cherry Tapping (deliberately winning with underpowered weapons, like beating a bad guy to death with a mushroom).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to play a bad guy the same way, especially if the bad guy is immortal and isn't seriously inconvenienced by "death" in the first place, especially because, again, DMs don't like squashing players like bugs. Maybe Acererak had a good laugh about the lava afterward and made a note to self to watch out for Silence spells in the future, but AFAIK it's not like he had any reason to be really trying to get the PCs. My reading of page 186 of the Tomb of Annihilation is that he's basically Cherry Tapping them while taunting them. His spell loadout is terrible, and he doesn't even have any good gear on except for a staff that's arguably more interesting to a PAM fighter than to a wizard.

Disclaimer: Tomb of Annihilation has never interested me enough to run. This is just how I would run it based on reading it (and I'd play up his "puny mortals" taunting a la Spider Man to make it clear he's enjoying himself). His "look of horror" at actually losing is just that: disappointment at a surprise loss, plus the inconvenience of having to reform and track down his staff, if he eventually wants it back.

Edit: also I'm not suggesting that Acererak wouldn't play to the best of his tactical ability. I've been a player in a game where a lich lost in a fist fight with (of all things) a multiclassed cleric/wizard. It was totally stupid and not believable that the lich would do that, and I don't say that Acererak should play that badly. I'm just saying that it makes sense Acererak didn't do something more along the lines of immediately Forcecaging the closest member(s) of the party before retreating out the nearest door, then True Polymorphing into an Atropal and spending thirty minutes whistling up 50-odd Wraiths before coming back to smash the party into smithereens. (Trope: There Is No Kill Like Overkill.) Burying the party under a small army of Wraiths that can walk through walls would be highly effective but maybe not as much fun for Acererak as getting his hands dirty personally.

I believe it is very much the DM's job to think of reasons why the Acererak will not destroy them in this highly-effective way, at least the first time they meet each other.

Spoiler: Bad Day at the Office for Acererak

Show

Overall, it was a bad day at the office for dear Acererak. First, he is off all-jolly to check on his pet-project, his soul-battery charger. Just a quick check, because some alarm is flaring. Probably just a minion goofing about. He steps out his portal and gets whacked in the head immediately and grabbed by a filthy hairy hand. Annoying. He proceeds to erase the bugs, except he can't because subtle counterspell. Also, the disgusting meatbags keeps grabbing his arm like some necro-groupie. From there he goes from feeling fine, to losing his voice, to being smited 3 times and dropped in lava during the next 6 seconds. By the time he comes to, the meat bags have destroyed his staff (without dying), a bunch of his enslaved liches and burned his library (also the one in his backup dimension).

Bad day at the office.

Honestly, the design of that particular encounter and the counterspell mechanic makes it pretty tough to DM without playing idiotball.

@MaxWilson: Saw you posted at the same time. I think we do. The end of Storm King's Thunder is worse. Even after more than tripling everything there it still seemed easy and like thousands of years as a mastermind apex predator had led to nothing more than Messi-like skills in idiotball.

[Kane0]

I'm working on bits and pieces of elemonk changes.

Level 3: you can use delfect arrows on spell attacks against you that deal [elemental] damage
Level 6: when you use martial arts die for damage rolls you can change it to [elemental] damage

I'm also working on the disciplines themselves, i'm thinking of small chains of spells that use Ki like spell points to use. So then at level 11 or 17 there can be another ability to spend extra Ki to turn casting time from 1 action to 1 bonus action.

Edit: Wait how about this:

One discipline at each breakpoint, or maybe an extra at level 3. That means a total of 4-5 disciplines for 4-5 cantrips and 12-15 'spells known' in thematically linked bundles, using Ki as spell points. Set max Ki you can spend on Disc spells to [Prof bonus] or 2 with +1 at each subclass breakpoint.
Level 3: Deflect arrows with [elemental] spell attacks
Level 6: [Elemental Damage] with martial arts die
Level 11: Spend 1 extra Ki to cast Discipline spell as bonus action instead of action
Level 17: Spend 8 Ki to cast Conjure Elemental as action. Turning into an elemental is already a moon druid thing, maybe you summon a couple elementals and you disappear while you're concentrating on them, as in you become a bundle of different elementals for a short time.

This means you have a broader array of options available to you, some of which do and others do not cost Ki. The exact spell choice for each discipline determines the overall gain in power and versatility but you'd be limited to 3rd level spells at most, so even though you can spam spells pretty often you have less flexibility in spell choice and a slow progression

Edit2: to avoid going off-topic

[Desteplo]

My idea was to scale the unique special attacks
-making a ki blast at lvl3 dealing 2d10, scaling at lvl5,11,17 maxing out at 5d10
Spend 1 ki to add 1d10 Dmg and a rider similar to:
-water whip, unbroken fist and earth theme (Gaia’s grasp: decreasing movement speed by half)

Lvl6 unarmed attack have a 10ft reach
-during a long rest you can concentrate/conserve an element to add to your unarmed strikes, on hit can spend 1ki to add martial arts die to damage (damage is type you conserved: Fire, ice, electric (wind) thunder (earth))

Lvl11, spend 2 ki to make ki blast a bonus action with rider
-you can learn 2/4 of these spells And cast for 4ki (can swap on long rest)
Gaseous form, fly, fireball, stone skin

Lvl17 maybe sun soul route and deal whatever element you conserved for lvl6 feature as a reaction when hit

Or remove the limiter and allow the ki blast to deal additional 1d10 and increase the push/pull/slow by an additional 1ft per ki point

[JellyPooga]

@HiveStriker

I like the concept of 4e monk. I don't think it is well-executed especially for tier 1 and tier 2, and I honestly haven't seen very good arguments to counter that notion. Most of the arguments I have seen, have been:
a) using Schrödinger's 4e monk (no discipline consequences)
b) Infinite Ki pool (equalling free ki abilities with costly ones)
c) added quite powerful abilities to spells which not a single book mentions.

I mean no personal offence or attack when I pick apart arguments. I am still playing Devil's Advocate here; merely showing and substantiating why the 4e is not seen as the bee's knees nor as groovy as the Bee Gees.

Talking specifically about Tier 1&2, all three of those points can easily be leveled at Shadow Monk.
a) Shadow Monk has just as many consequences of using their features (e.g. if you Shadow Step, you can't Flurry or use Patient Defence). As a rule, a Monk has as many uses for bonus actions and it's arguable that their bonus actions are what define them; Shadow offers competition for Bonus Actions with Shadow Step as well as competition for Actions with Shadow Arts
b) The Ki cost of Shadow Arts is functionally no higher than that of the Lvl.3 and lvl.6 Disciplines (the average Ki cost is 2, whether talking about Shadow or 4E, accounting for those Disciplines that cost 1 and 3). If "infinite Ki" is an issue, then Shadow Monk suffers from the same weakness.
c) It's not like the "Shadow Camp" doesn't elevate the benefits of the likes of Darkness or Silence above that of its actual in-game use.

I'll say it again; the argument isn't that either one is better or worse than the other, or even that one is good; it's that 4E is roughly the same as Shadow because it suffers roughly the same degree of limitations and drawbacks. Regardless of the comparison, Shadow Monk has some very real limitations that seem to be overlooked more often than the limitations of 4E, which seem to boil down to "It doesn't have enough choices" and "It feels too expensive", both of which are entirely subjective. The corollary and query that follows is; given that assertion (i.e. that 4E is comparable to Shadow), why is Shadow seen as being so much better (i.e. considered one of the best Monk subclasses compared to being one of the worst subclasses in the entire game).

A grappled Acererak would disagree.

So to counter my assertion about common combats and general use, you posit a specific scenario against a BBEG? I literally said in the quote you responded to here "outside of specific scenarios". I never said Silence was useless or bad, I said it was situational. Offering an example of a situation where it was useful does not disprove my statement.

And Darkness is definitely a combat spell. With no synergy, you can still block spellcasters something fierce. With synergy, we're looking at providing advantage on attack to all friends with blindsight or devil's sight and disadvantage to all enemies without. At level 3 that's a lot. And look, you just made friends with the party Druid and Warlock

Who has blindsight at level 3? Ok, so a Moon Druid might be able to function and a Warlock with one specific Invocation, but outside of that, many, if not most parties are going to be at as much of a disadvantage as the enemies your facing. Darkness is a great spell, no doubt, but it's "use case" is predicated on terrain, significant numbers and/or the type of foe (i.e. spellcasters and ranged). It's not exactly a "bust it out in any combat" kind of a spell. Compare this to Burning Hands, where simply facing three enemies gives it a solid "use case".

No, you can of course trade away stealth and ride in on your horsie in full-plate. If you aren't ambushed, I hope you bought your DM beer.

Facetious comments aside, that doesn't prove that Stealth is necessary for Scouting, let alone that being good at Scouting makes you good at Stealth.

Agreed on doubling the range. But gaseous form isn't what you make it out to be if the in-fiction is coherent. If a 5 ft cloud suddenly start moving past the open field outside my castle in a world of magic, I open fire. Of course. I've had a player stab carpets for several weeks because of one bad experience...p

Who said anything about Gaseous Form moving across an open field? The form is inherently malleable; seep through cracks in dirt or flagstones, along the corner of a wall, through floorboards or across a ceiling. Yeah, a 5ft cloud floating along on a happy breeze might, might, be unusual enough to take note of, but I'd call shenanigans if someone opened fire immediately. If your players are stabbing carpets and shooting clouds, their characters are paranoid crazy people and the world should reflect that with things like white coats and padded cells .

Gaseous form doesn't make you invisible. It doesn't give you advantage on Stealth. I would probably rule it didn't make a sound, but the spell doesn't say so. Going by the common way I've seen of ruling spells (they ONLY do what they say), Gaseous Form doesn't confer all these bonuses I've seen applied in this thread (some of which I would definitely give as DM myself though). For all we know Gaseous Form makes a hissing sound when it moves equalling the sound of the footsteps of your character. Since it doesn't mention any advantage or automatic passing of stealth check, we ought to presume it doesn't do that.

You're quite correct that it doesn't provide a bonus to Stealth checks. What it does do is obfuscate the need for a check at all. You don't need to roll Stealth when the onlooker is incapable of detecting and recognising you as an intruder. It's irrelevant what your Stealth check is if you're in a rat form scuttling down a city street; even if someone notices you, you don't have a giant "I'm a PC" sign floating over your head; why would they care? They see rats all the time. A similar argument can be made for Gaseous Form; a wisp of fog/mist is not an incentive to ring alarm bells unless you see it's actively doing something weird (e.g. swooshing through a keyhole or blatantly moving in the open against a breeze). It's an inconspicuous form.

Hence by my metrics, Monk is top-3 on stealth:

• their two main stats (which they both usually max - very rare) are good for what stealth is most often used for on non-rogues: recon
• they have more movement speed and movement options that are free to use and stealth penalty free than any other class
• they can enhance said movement with Ki (some sub-classes more than others)
• the base class has no inherently noisy attacks (no metal or explosions here)
• they have no opportunity cost in foregoing armour with Stealth Disadvantage

Points 2 and 3 are the same.
Point 4 is irrelevant; no attack is inherently "noisy" bar those that specifically call it out (e.g. Thunderwave or other spells with V components)
Point 5 is also irrelevant; only those armours that specifically call out disadvantage do so. Wearing Breastplate (as counter-intuitive as it might seem) is just as "stealthy" as being naked. There's literally one armour that offers a single point of better AC at the cost of Stealth Disadvantage and it's Full Plate. Otherwise, if we're looking at Classes/character that want to be stealthy, then Light and Medium armours that don't offer Stealth disadvantage are going to offer equal or better AC to those that do.

So in favour of Monks being stealthy is really just;
- They tend to have good Dex
- They have fast movement and decent movement options

That's not a great list.
- Other Classes that tend to have or desire decent to good Dex include (but is not limited to); Bard, Barbarian, Druid (Wild Shape), Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. Of those, at least two tend to have at least a good Dex as Monk does (Rogue, Ranger), as do others (e.g. Archer Fighter). I think we can discount "good Dex" as a factor that elevates Monk significantly above any other Class.
- Other Classes that offer increased speed and decent movement options include; Bard (Longstrider, Dimension Door), Barbarian (Fast Movement), Druid (Wild Shape), Ranger (Longstrider), Rogue (Cunning Action), Sorcerer (many spells), Warlock (spells), Wizard (spells). Monk is definitely not alone in having good movement and by no means would I consider them top 3 in movement, let alone Stealth. Hell, Monk doesn't even rate that highly on additional movement options until level 9 in the first place; spellcasters have been casting Fly on the regular, long before Monk gets to walk up walls.

Other features the base Monk doesn't have that contribute toward Stealth that feature on other core Classes;
- Expertise (Bard, Rogue)
- Teleportation (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Invisibility (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Alternate Forms/Appearance (Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
- Miscellaneous Stealth enhancing magic, e.g. Pass without Trace or Enhance Ability (basically every spellcaster)
- Additional Action Economy RE: Hide/Stealth (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue)

This isn't a complete list and nor is it counting features that also enhance Scouting as a whole, either; literally just Stealth. Monk has a decent base-line competence, agreed, but that is far from putting them in the top 3. I hesitate to say it, but I probably judge them closer to the bottom 3 than the top. In no particular order, in Stealth alone, I rank core Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard above core Monk. Barbarian and Fighter are about equal, give or take and the only Classes I rank actively below Monk are Cleric and Paladin (and even then, you can probably still build for about equal, if not better with specific or left-field choices). The point is that Monk isn't actively good at stealth, which isn't to say they're bad either, but they simply don't have anything that makes them good at it compared to other Classes.