4-elements Monk

[Zuras]

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

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

The basic argument for why Shadow is better than Four Elements is pretty simple. Both provide additional abilities, but Four Elements provides mediocre combat abilities, interesting but highly situational environmental control, and (at 11th+ level) excellent mobility features. Shadow provides powerful, but situational enhancements to stealth.

The difference (and why Shadow is generally superior) is that situational bonuses to stealth are far more likely to be relevant than situational features that rely on the availability of bodies of water or environmental hazards to throw enemies into. Most of the time adventuring parties have the ability to actively select stealth-based solutions to their problems, whereas the relevance of elemental abilities is entirely up to campaign circumstances (e.g. a nautical campaign is great for Shape the Flowing River, a desert campaign, not so great). Similarly, it's up to the DM whether you encounter a bunch of hobgoblins or a couple of hill giants, but often (say at least half the time) the party can choose if they want to sneak up on them.

[Desteplo]

Thereve been previous posts to give 4 disciplines at lvl3 Like shadow monk gets and let the monk swap as they lvl

Others to just give them 2 at lvl3 dnd 2 more per breakpoints

[Asisreo1]

The basic argument for why Shadow is better than Four Elements is pretty simple. Both provide additional abilities, but Four Elements provides mediocre combat abilities, interesting but highly situational environmental control, and (at 11th+ level) excellent mobility features. Shadow provides powerful, but situational enhancements to stealth.

The difference (and why Shadow is generally superior) is that situational bonuses to stealth are far more likely to be relevant than situational features that rely on the availability of bodies of water or environmental hazards to throw enemies into. Most of the time adventuring parties have the ability to actively select stealth-based solutions to their problems, whereas the relevance of elemental abilities is entirely up to campaign circumstances (e.g. a nautical campaign is great for Shape the Flowing River, a desert campaign, not so great). Similarly, it's up to the DM whether you encounter a bunch of hobgoblins or a couple of hill giants, but often (say at least half the time) the party can choose if they want to sneak up on them.

The combat abilities are only mediocre in comparison to full or half casters. Compared to basic monk abilites, it's nearly impossible to gain these other benefits from something else. Even at lower levels, you've got AoE and the ability to change damage type.

If we're talking exactly tier 1, all your attacks are still nonmagical. This means shadows, imps, bearded devils, wights, specters, Quasits, gargoyles, etc are unable to be hit effectively. I was thinking "There's only firesnakes, thunderwave, and burning hands that lets you attack non-PBS, and two are highly resisted.

Well, looking back. The monsters aren't resistant to nonmagical PBS, they're resistant to PBS attacks by nonmagical Weapons. This means that basically nothing resists WW and UA. So that's more versatility even at tier 1.

At tier 2, you should have a decent idea what you're fighting. If you're doing political intrigue, chances are you're fighting humanoids and should take hold person. If you're fighting elementals at this point, maybe shatter would be good. If you're fighting flying enemies, shatter is also good. It may just be good to have shatter for the long range just in case. Otherwise, you could pick up one of the whips if you don't already have one or thunderwave. If you want to swap, you can swap EA with Flowing River or Gust of Winds. You can upcast at this point meaning your whips can do 4d10 if desired or your smaller AoE like thunderwave can do an extra d8. Would I recommend it for Ki-efficiency sake? No. But if you're more worried about ending the encounter and resting immediately after, you could upcast and keep going with some fuel in your tank.

[Zalabim]

Well, looking back. The monsters aren't resistant to nonmagical PBS, they're resistant to PBS attacks by nonmagical Weapons. This means that basically nothing resists WW and UA. So that's more versatility even at tier 1.

They're not just not weapons/not attacks to use the post errata term. All Elemental Disciplines are magical effects. So if you choose to use WW or FoUA they deal magical physical-type damage, one of the most reliable types of damage.

[Zuras]

The combat abilities are only mediocre in comparison to full or half casters. Compared to basic monk abilites, it's nearly impossible to gain these other benefits from something else. Even at lower levels, you've got AoE and the ability to change damage type.

Having the versatility to drop AoEs can be nice, but whether it’s a worthwhile option (relative to both your build resources and action economy) is dictated by the capabilities of the rest of your party. In a small party it can be great. In a 6 PC group with an Evoker, Tempest Cleric and Land Druid, though, being the #4 AoE option isn’t bringing much to the table.

It’s similar to spellcasters spending build resources (racial choice, feats, level dips, subclass options, etc.) to become competent in melee. A Mountain Dwarf Abjurer wearing Half Plate and wielding a battle axe is objectively better in melee than a Gnome Illusionist without armor. That doesn’t mean they got the same value out of their race and subclass choices, or that the Dwarf is getting good value for their ASIs if they invest them in Strength to improve their axe damage, or that the Dwarf should be using Booming Blade and whacking things in combat rather than casting leveled spells.

Most of the time, the armored Dwarf will prove somewhat less effective than the more traditional squishy wizard Gnome. In a 3 PC party with no back line to speak of, the relative merits of the Dwarven Abjurer are much higher.

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”

[Asisreo1]

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”

Not in my experience. Fullcasters are usually happy that other people are capitalizing on the same opportunities because the damage over the area is increased by alot. Think 1 fireball vs 2 fireballs in a round. The fact that if they need you to monk, you're still able to makes it good, too. You aren't locked out of being a monk.

Would you compare the spellcasting abilities of a paladin to a cleric at equal levels? No, because one doesn't get any features outside of better spellcasting at certain level ups and the whole class is based off of that versus a class that engages the enemy like a martial and has spellcasting to boot.

[JellyPooga]

You keep saying the 4 Elements Monk shouldn’t be compared with full casters, but why? The full casters are right there in the party, saying “Dude, I’ve got this, go do your monk thing instead of trying to do my job!”

Because they're not one?

Arguably, you could say the same about basically any Class/Subclass about any other. "Why is that Wizard doing damage to that one guy? The Fighter's got that covered" "Why's the Bard bothering with stealth? Rogue has that down, man." "Psh, sit down Barbarian, Druid's Tanky AF". At the end of the day, regardless of party composition, 4E Monk gaining AoE function is never a bad thing, because when AoE is required, no amount of solo stunning or mobility is going to help.

[MaxWilson]

Having the versatility to drop AoEs can be nice, but whether it’s a worthwhile option (relative to both your build resources and action economy) is dictated by the capabilities of the rest of your party. In a small party it can be great. In a 6 PC group with an Evoker, Tempest Cleric and Land Druid, though, being the #4 AoE option isn’t bringing much to the table.

It’s similar to spellcasters spending build resources (racial choice, feats, level dips, subclass options, etc.) to become competent in melee. A Mountain Dwarf Abjurer wearing Half Plate and wielding a battle axe is objectively better in melee than a Gnome Illusionist without armor. That doesn’t mean they got the same value out of their race and subclass choices, or that the Dwarf is getting good value for their ASIs if they invest them in Strength to improve their axe damage, or that the Dwarf should be using Booming Blade and whacking things in combat rather than casting leveled spells.

Most of the time, the armored Dwarf will prove somewhat less effective than the more traditional squishy wizard Gnome. In a 3 PC party with no back line to speak of, the relative merits of the Dwarven Abjurer are much higher.

While I basically agree with you about Elemonks in an AoE-heavy party, the interesting thing about this analogy with heavy armor is that defensive options (like heavy armor) at most valuable when everybody in the party has them, while offensive choices like AoE don't require that. If you have three guys in the party with AC 23 and one guy with AC 12, the party still has to be concerned about goblin shortbows unless they leave the AC 12 guy out of the scenario by somehow splitting the party.

Sure, the AC 12 guy can hide behind total cover and be fairly safe, or maybe the AC 23 guys can attract more attention and be a "front line" as you say, or hold a chokepoint against melee monsters that the AC 12 guy can stay behind, but they can't just wade into a horde of hobgoblins with impunity the way a pure AC 23 party can.

Similar things are true of highly-mobile parties, or all-Alert parties where somebody is concentrating on Darkness or Fog Cloud.

In contrast, an AoE-heavy party will still kill hordes almost as efficiently with 3 AoEs as with 4. If there's already an Evoker, Tempest Cleric, and Land Druid in the party, I'd probably play a Goblin Shadow Monk instead of an Elemonk, so that the party can ~always win surprise even if the Land Druid has 16 conjured wolves or whatnot.

[Zuras]

Would you compare the spellcasting abilities of a paladin to a cleric at equal levels? No, because one doesn't get any features outside of better spellcasting at certain level ups and the whole class is based off of that versus a class that engages the enemy like a martial and has spellcasting to boot.

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

[Asisreo1]

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

A paladin has Lay on Hands, so they don't particularly need to focus on healing spells. Although, it wouldn't hurt for a paladin to pick one up in case you're the one that gets put down.

Besides, Healing and damage are different by the fact that going from 0 to 1 is enough to get back into a fight while doing alot of damage over multiple enemies at once is valuable.

[MaxWilson]

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

That seems wrongheaded, since the Paladin is actually better at healing than a typical Cleric. Paladin can heal 70 HP with a 3rd level spell slot. Cleric has to spend a 6th level slot to get the same effect.

[Skylivedk]

Pardon if my attempts at wordplay and humour come across as denigrating. I don't think less of you or anyone else who think that the 4e monk is equal to the Shadow Monk in early tiers of play. It wouldn't be the case in most of my campaigns, if any of them so far since the release of 5e.

Then again my groups tend to cover casting pretty well.

Naturally, most of the things we write will be subjective. A few things aren't. I'll give this a last go and then I think I've turned every leaf and shaken every goodberry bush. I do my best to presume you argue in good faith, but at certain points I have a hard time seeing it.

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

I see that my phrasing was harder to parse than broken code.

By discipline consequences I mean that the much vaunted variety/covering weaknesses that 4es are claimed to offer isn't much on display early on since you have a forced cantrip (ish) and one discipline.

Unfortunately, when faced with a group of archers in the other side of violently flowing river, you cannot make an elevated ice bridge one round, take cover behind it and race across the bridge to explode with a dragon's fury (burning hands... OK, granted, baby dragon) the round after and scorch the assailants for daring to rain fire on you.

The example isn't one of great play or tactics, I know, but it does show that you are stuck to one spell and one cantrip at level 3 and you can't combo them for that sweet 4 elements feel.

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.

Not in the Stealth/infiltration/scouting discussion. It is fact that Shadow gets more abilities that don't use ki than 4e monk. 4e monk camp has given no quarter or acknowledgement to the fact that burning a third of the ki pool to infiltrate alone can be tremendously risky.

I, on the other hand, have said that yes, gaseous form is great and the monk chassis supports it to be better for the monk than most/all casters, but it's risky and it is getting more benefits in some players' campaign than can be defended by a strict reading of the spell (becoming soundless for example). Not all tables allow that, just like it's wildly different if/when invisible creatures are allowed to auto pass Stealth checks (I'm thinking of distance and background noise levels here).

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.

Silence is such a clutch tool against casters that my groups strive to have it in redundancy (on 2 PC's) alongside some lockdown. Shadow Monk is fantastic at being out of sight/counterspell range (60 ft vs 120 ft and AoE) to get the spell off when it is the most disturbing. Clear cut case of YMMV. To us, it's the cheap caster killer of choice, to you it's situational.

With Darkness, I think you are making it more situational than it is. Maybe a case subobjectivity ;)

With Alert you give everybody constant disadvantage to hit you as well as the other benefits including the all important blocking line of sight which disturbs a lot of spells and quite a few other abilities.

You also don't provoke opportunity attacks in Darkness allowing you to run more or less straight through (or jump over) the enemy front line to get to the backline where you also automatically block escapes such as misty step and party poopers (counterspell, healing word if your DM gives named NPCs death saves, probably a bunch of others).

Not provoking opportunity attacks also means you can provide better escape covers for squishy players than most. Ie. the enemy had a group flank you? Summoned a bunch of wolves that are closing in? Darkness will give your friends a free opportunity to run out; pseudo mobility in an AoE in a pinch.

And it's not just Druid and Warlock that can exploit Darkness. I mentioned those two for level 3 - most of the others come later. I suggest getting more acquainted with summoning spells and some of the shape changing if you prefer the cheese to the situational (elementals, spiders, scorpions, snakes, fiends and more). Not only is it effective, a dark cloud of flesh-eating creepy-crawlies is pretty damn flavorful (if you've read Worm: think Night and Day)

If you play to your and your team's strengths, Darkness can trivialise a lot encounters. Very, very far from situational and as mentioned: I would most often pick Darkness over burning hands/thunder wave/water whip (harder choice with water whip). Calling Darkness highly situational or Out of Combat primarily is one of the points I feel is hardly arguing in good faith. Especially since it is so easy to turn off for a round of need be (just lock your locket, put the pepple under your tongue)

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.

It doesn't have enough choices =\= people think less of it because it has fewer spells available in tier 1 and 2 where it has the same spell levels available. Ie. in my case I would look at the two classes and look at my mental scoreboard:
"Minor illusion + Darkness... You are great! I love you! 2 points"
"Elemental Attunement and Water Whip... I likes you and I wants you. 2 points!"
"Pass without Trace and Silence. The earliest spell to break bounded accuracy AND it works for the group? Fantalastic! Plus my cheapest and cheesiest caster killer? 2 points!"
"Shape the Following River... You are like an upgraded version of one of my favourite cantrips and a traditional Eskimo real estate developer all rolled up in one: dare I say coolest spell on the list? Sweeping Cinder Strike, neat! Now I can be Super Blast Brothers with the Sorcerer/Wizard. 2 points! Wait, what? That's all folks, really?"

Yes, I've also had players so adept at using Darkness that I was wondering if they were role-playing mind control. You are obviously better than that. And since you are, it does make the comparison at level 3 unfavorable for the 4e in most players' eyes. If you don't understand why (regardless of personal opinion) then I will admit defeat. I don't think I can communicate it any clearer. I didn't mention darkvision, but vHumans will probably thank you for supporting their free feat tax.

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).

I think tiers 1 and 2 impact public opinion a lot. I was grateful for this thread because I hadn't looked at 4e monk for years having deemed it subpar for tier 1 and 2. It gets a lot of points in my book in tier 3 and 4. Crawford confirmed you were intended to be able to use shadows of creatures to Shadow Step. Tremendously flavorful and can probably save you a lot of step of the wind ki. Most parties have some light generation (torches, light on arrow heads) which can also lead to a lot of nice team play with a dynamic no other class brings to the table. It's occasionally powerful, but it's always flavorful.

Again, I don't think I can communicate it clearer, so if this point didn't make sense this time, then I'm not going to provide a better pay to understanding.

To 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.

I can see how that can have come across as being obtuse and annoying on purpose. I probably should have explained how often it sees use in a grappling/lockdown team (again, summons especially add to the efficiency) as a go to strategy for dealing with casters.

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".

I think I went through enough uses of Darkness earlier. Burning Hands also require that enemies assume Fireball position, and unlike Darkness, Thunder Wave, Burning Hands and Shatter don't scale (if that's the word) with team coordination nearly as much. At later levels, I'd have it on most of the time in enemy territory (being great at scouting helps tell me when), using a locket to kill the action cost of casting it in combat.

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.

Yeah, pardon me, I couldn't resist. I found the cavalry scout point to be arguing in bad faith. It's honestly not a point I could take seriously. A horse is noisy. It works for armies, not for groups who want to avoid ambushes. Maybe it's my Army Intelligence training, but that kind of scouting will get you killed in my campaigns.

I never claimed either of your two points vis-a-vis Scouting and Stealth either. I said Stealth on its own didn't make sense except for Peeping Toms (and you are not beating the PHB ranger in the creep category of Stealth) and that Stealth's main purpose was for recon and rogue advantage generation IMX. I should add it is also great for ambushes, but in those cases, speed still is the peanut butter to Stealth's jelly. Also, especially in published adventures, PCs are usually not in the best spot to be doing ambushes, since they are more often the offensive and intruding force.

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

Well, the character in question did have PTSD after some demonic rituals (the player's own choice). Stabbing the carpet in question was also a deadly procedure. Once the innocent carpet was nothing, but a ball of yarn with a bad hair day, the playes entered the room and applied for the jobs as pincushions as the group of hobgoblins unleashed their volley. 4 hp from a tpk. Glorious.

As to Gaseous Form: I think it was MaxWilson that made me aware of this: in some campaigns bad guys who want to avoid spying eyes will murder all familiar-like animals in a certain radius, in some they won't. In mine they will. Likewise: fog cloud on a sunny/frosty day while BBEG summoning a small world-ending demon invasion? Attack on sight/sound small alarm and see if the fig can spread by reaching a cloak at it. Especially if the BBEG has a healthy fear of vampires and the like.

It's tier 3. Players are probably facing smart enemies.

[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It's not inconspicuous at all, only if there's already fog in the area (which players can make more probable by infiltrating at certain hours in the early morning), ref: Vampires. Smart guards will know about this.

Also Gaseous Form doesn't give you the ability to contract your total volume according the spell, just that you can pass through gaps and cracks, meaning RAW, you are still medium sized, just spread differently. It's a bit like Fireball explicitly saying it ignites stuff. According to the PHB, Gaseous Form simply doesn't do the things I've seen claimed in this thread. No badwrongfun, so you are of course free to play it differently (same as with sounds, where I would also rule in favour of no/little sound, knowing that it's a ruling/houserule).

Same as with mice and spider-forms. I've mostly let them be super sneaky forms, but there's a valid argument to Druids having to pass a deception check to act naturally as an animal. In higher tiers, when I DM, pest control also goes up amongst smart enemies.

Points 2 and 3 are the same.

Did I write that wrong? *checks* No. They are not the same. Spending resources to achieve something is not that same as doing it for free. If it were, I'd have a vastly higher amount of jetpacks in my flat and Teslas parked in front of my home (and by vastly higher, I mean I'm super fine with 1 of each of you have spares). I don't know if you misread it, if you're being obtuse on purpose or if you seriously argue that spending resources is the same as not spending resources.

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)

Definitely in the rulings category. Attacks usually break Stealth and it's table dependent if using metal on metal (ie. hammer blow on helmet) can be heard. I doubt you'll find tables that rule unarmed attacks to be more noisy than weapons - garrotes and daggers might be the exception.

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.

I guess you mean half-plate? And no 1 AC is not irrelevant. It's a fighting style. As a player, my highest organically leveled character is a Hexblade. I hated losing my Stealth, but I kinda had too. I was also really close to picking mitral over adamantine, but crit-control won out. Also we got Pass without Trace. Point not ceded and I don't even understand you argue it when you end up saying that there's an opportunity cost for stealth when you use medium armour (important for the class list).

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

My impression is honestly that you don't want to cede this point out of pride by now. You started off by not wanting to recognise movement at all, you proceed to say my point of opportunity cost in AC is irrelevant and then proceeds to describe the exact same opportunity cost I was referring to.

That's not a great list.

You say and proceed to have the same top-4 as me except our point of contention. Strong play. Sorcerer/Wizard(excepting bladesingers)/most Warlocks are not good at Stealth. Especially not resource-free stealth. They're better off casting invisibility on someone who is. They're average besides that. Dex Barbarians and Fighters would be my next in line (in that order).

If you don't have pass without trace in the party, I can see ranger push the other monks down a spot. Both favoured enemy and favoured terrain can be supporting features to getting value out of Stealth.

- 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.

Eh, no. It's a holistic consideration. Everybody who would naturally max Dex would get points for any Stealth ranking worth its salt.

- 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.
[/QUOTE]
And this is why I had point 2 and 3 earlier. Being able t do something better for a resource cost is better than not having the option. It's not the same as having always on capabilities. For a ranger, longstrider is expensive. Partly in slots, but especially in spells known. All the longstrider classes you mention naturally get some Stealth points in my eyes, but longstrider is worse than a monk's speed and it costs resources.

For the Warlock, spending slots on Stealth is expensive if you are in a dangerous area.

For a Druid, especially a moon druid relying on wildshape in combat, using a Stealth form is far from free (but can definitely be worth it). Dimension door is expensive in resources. I'd add arcane eye though. Barring some harsh rulings it's a supreme stealth/recon tool. But yeah, this is kinda the infinite ki-pool argument all over again. If you equal a non-cost option with a costly option, I have a hard time believing you are arguing in good faith.

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)

A) expertise has been acknowledged repeatedly. On a lot of bards, it is not an obvious choice either. All the cha skills, thieves' tools and some of the knowledge skills are providing stiff competition. Max points to rogue here, slightly fewer to bard due to the opportunity cost (lore bard scoring higher than the others)

B) all spells: not free. Important. Most of the casters would do better using Stealth buffs on others. Druid scores highly.

C) you want to spend Action Surge on Stealth? You must be joking or thinking of some cornercase. From the top of my mind that is so unlikely to be a good choice that I don't count it, normally. I'm happy to be enlightened of you have seen something I haven't.

Post level 14, Rangers are a lot better, since Stealth can help them generate advantage. Some points for ranger, max for rogue.

Rhis 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.

We seem to use different parameters for good Stealth and in general my impression is that you don't attach much value to the cost of abilities. That might be connected to the style of your campaigns, how easy rests are to come by, etc.

That might mean we won't reach an agreement. I hope we do agree that Shadow Monk bumps the monk from wherever (for me top 3-4) to sitting only in the rogue's shadow.

Further reasons to us not agreeing seem to be grounded in my experience being closer to Combat as War, where I have an impression of you playing more Combat as Sport. There's nothing wrong in either approach, they're just very very different.

I've seen traces of evidence that bad guys in your experience don't prepare for magic to the degree bad guys do in my experience. That changes a lot of things.

Based on what you wrote, you don't play around with (ab)using special senses on summons and shape changes as much as my campaigns tend to, nor do you play with set tactical protocols amongst the players to minimise resource use to deal with certain enemy types.

I have tried to give a fairly thorough insight into a (especially tier 1 and 2) 4 Elements monk sceptic's mind. I hope it was exhaustive and detailed enough that you can see where my points of contention don't apply in your games (maybe gaseous form), where they have different weights (ie if scouting is good for you, but not doing it is not the same as inviting death as in my experience) and maybe even something you can use when you play (maybe some Darkness and summoning shenanigans).

I'm open to answer anything that's unclear. Otherwise I'm out of Camp Explain Shadow.

[Zuras]

Um, I totally would compare the spellcasting of a Paladin and a Cleric. After comparing I would tell the Paladin to save their spell slots for buffs and smites and let me do most of the healing. In particular, in high level play I would tell them to favor preparing buffs over save or suck spells, and recommend Aura of Life over trying to banish things.

That seems wrongheaded, since the Paladin is actually better at healing than a typical Cleric. Paladin can heal 70 HP with a 3rd level spell slot. Cleric has to spend a 6th level slot to get the same effect.

In actual Tier 3 play, effective Paladins (assuming Deadly+ fights where it matters) get the most out of Crusader’s Mantle and Aura of Life, in my experience. Also by healing I was thinking about in-combat healing that I normally see happen, which is mostly Lesser/Greater Restoration status fixing or full on Heal.

Once a Cleric has Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon up, they lose little damage output if they have to spend an action to get a party member up. Even for Bounce healing, the Cleric can use a bonus action while the Paladin has to use a full action. Worse, they have to move adjacent to heal (touch range only for both cure wounds and lay on hands) when they are likely already locked in melee with someone.

I agree that the Paladin should have some healing spells prepared, but that’s mostly in case the full casters with healing go down.

[Asisreo1]

In actual Tier 3 play, effective Paladins (assuming Deadly+ fights where it matters) get the most out of Crusader’s Mantle and Aura of Life, in my experience. Also by healing I was thinking about in-combat healing that I normally see happen, which is mostly Lesser/Greater Restoration status fixing or full on Heal.

Once a Cleric has Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon up, they lose little damage output if they have to spend an action to get a party member up. Even for Bounce healing, the Cleric can use a bonus action while the Paladin has to use a full action. Worse, they have to move adjacent to heal (touch range only for both cure wounds and lay on hands) when they are likely already locked in melee with someone.

I agree that the Paladin should have some healing spells prepared, but that’s mostly in case the full casters with healing go down.

So the martial is going to focus on being a martial class with concentration spells and spellslot consuming attacks with a slight overlap with the fullcaster at tier 3. Isn't that just like the elemonk?

[MaxWilson]

In actual Tier 3 play, effective Paladins (assuming Deadly+ fights where it matters) get the most out of Crusader’s Mantle and Aura of Life, in my experience.

Interesting. My experience is different: if you're going through multiple deadly fights in a row, having the ability to heal back to full HP after every fight is really important, but Crusader's Mantle is not. (Aura of Life is not, but only because pop-up healing doesn't work in my games--if you hit negative HP, 1 HP of healing is not sufficient to get you back up and fighting.) It's not that unusual for a deadly fight to have one guy get unlucky and take a huge amount of damage, but Aura of Vitality or the equivalent (v1 Healing Spirit) usually suffices to patch that guy up. Crusader's Mantle is just a minor damage boost that works only at short range--even if you have a dozen conjured minions, Crusader's Mantle would still be a bad investment if it put your ability to Aura of Vitality in doubt.

IME you'd be better off making the cleric do the Crusader's Mantle equivalent (which is probably some variation on upcasted Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians) instead of healing, and let the paladin save his spell slots for healing.

Also by healing I was thinking about in-combat healing that I normally see happen, which is mostly Lesser/Greater Restoration status fixing or full on Heal.

Interesting. I think it's generally known that between-combat healing in 5E is better than in-combat healing. Do you let Paladins handle the between-combat healing (which they are better at)? Or do you just not do between-combat healing at all because you healed everything in-combat using expensive spells like Heal?

Once a Cleric has Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon up, they lose little damage output if they have to spend an action to get a party member up. Even for Bounce healing, the Cleric can use a bonus action while the Paladin has to use a full action. Worse, they have to move adjacent to heal (touch range only for both cure wounds and lay on hands) when they are likely already locked in melee with someone.

I assume by "bounce healing" you mean popping someone up from 0 HP to 1 HP, which Paladins can do with a bonus action on Aura of Vitality (and just leave it running after combat to top everyone's HP of). Aura of Vitality and Spirit Guardians have the same action cost, so that's a wash. They don't have to move adjacent.

Really the only area the cleric has an edge is in Tier 1 play (where druid > bard/cleric > paladin at healing) and in certain Tier 3+ scenarios, if they have to heal someone 70 HP in a single action from far away using Heal (e.g. +50 HP to prevent someone from getting disintegrated by a beholder next round). But their out-of-combat healing is bad enough that relying on clerical healing (in repeated deadly encounters) is probably what left you low on HP and vulnerable to the beholder in the first place! By Tier 3, 5E clerics are relatively bad at healing compared to bog-standard Paladins, let alone Paladorcs (with Extended Aura of Vitality) and Lore Bards.

[Zuras]

In actual Tier 3 play, effective Paladins (assuming Deadly+ fights where it matters) get the most out of Crusader’s Mantle and Aura of Life, in my experience. Also by healing I was thinking about in-combat healing that I normally see happen, which is mostly Lesser/Greater Restoration status fixing or full on Heal.

Once a Cleric has Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon up, they lose little damage output if they have to spend an action to get a party member up. Even for Bounce healing, the Cleric can use a bonus action while the Paladin has to use a full action. Worse, they have to move adjacent to heal (touch range only for both cure wounds and lay on hands) when they are likely already locked in melee with someone.

I agree that the Paladin should have some healing spells prepared, but that’s mostly in case the full casters with healing go down.

Interesting. My experience is different: if you're going through multiple deadly fights in a row, having the ability to heal back to full HP after every fight is really important, but Crusader's Mantle is not. (Aura of Life is not, but only because pop-up healing doesn't work in my games--if you hit negative HP, 1 HP of healing is not sufficient to get you back up and fighting.) It's not that unusual for a deadly fight to have one guy get unlucky and take a huge amount of damage, but Aura of Vitality or the equivalent (v1 Healing Spirit) usually suffices to patch that guy up. Crusader's Mantle is just a minor damage boost that works only at short range--even if you have a dozen conjured minions, Crusader's Mantle would still be a bad investment if it put your ability to Aura of Vitality in doubt.

IME you'd be better off making the cleric do the Crusader's Mantle equivalent (which is probably some variation on upcasted Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians) instead of healing, and let the paladin save his spell slots for healing.

Interesting. I think it's generally known that between-combat healing in 5E is better than in-combat healing. Do you let Paladins handle the between-combat healing (which they are better at)? Or do you just not do between-combat healing at all because you healed everything in-combat using expensive spells like Heal?

I assume by "bounce healing" you mean popping someone up from 0 HP to 1 HP, which Paladins can do with a bonus action on Aura of Vitality (and just leave it running after combat to top everyone's HP of). Aura of Vitality and Spirit Guardians have the same action cost, so that's a wash. They don't have to move adjacent.

Really the only area the cleric has an edge is in Tier 1 play (where druid > bard/cleric > paladin at healing) and in certain Tier 3+ scenarios, if they have to heal someone 70 HP in a single action from far away using Heal (e.g. +50 HP to prevent someone from getting disintegrated by a beholder next round). But their out-of-combat healing is bad enough that relying on clerical healing (in repeated deadly encounters) is probably what left you low on HP and vulnerable to the beholder in the first place! By Tier 3, 5E clerics are relatively bad at healing compared to bog-standard Paladins, let alone Paladorcs (with Extended Aura of Vitality) and Lore Bards.

Do you really get that much mileage out of Aura of Vitality/Healing Spirit? All my experience in Tier 3 play is in Adventurer's League, which means most modules are intended to be run in a single 4-6 hour session, and not be auto-lose situations if 5 rogues show up to play, so no base amount of healing besides short resting is assumed (I've never quite seen 5 rogues, but have played with 4 rogues and a druid).

As I said, most of my healing was actually status fixing of nasty effects like charms and madness that Tier 3 rocket tag combats tend to hand out like candy. HP healing was mainly to pick someone up after getting hit with a Hellfire Orb or for the PCs who failed one of their six banshee wail saves, where it was critical to bring up multiple players at once and Mass Healing Word/Mass Cure Wounds are the most efficient ways to do that.

I am really surprised that Aura of Vitality has been more effective than Crusader's Mantle for you. It's not always a given at my Tier 3 tables, but any time a Bard and Paladin can combine for the Animate Objects/Crusader's Mantle combo, it's almost always a dominant strategy (obviously assuming the combat is one worth spending a 5th level spell slot in). The in-combat value of Aura of Vitality seems fairly modest to to me, and not usually worth it versus just casting Bless, but as I said, I see lots of rocket tag style combat as normal, so the edge on saves is normally better than a nice bonus action healing resource that occupies your concentration. Also, I see very few pure paladins, and lots of paladorcs & padlocks, who have many additional offensive uses for their bonus action.

[MaxWilson]

Do you really get that much mileage out of Aura of Vitality/Healing Spirit? All my experience in Tier 3 play is in Adventurer's League, which means most modules are intended to be run in a single 4-6 hour session, and not be auto-lose situations if 5 rogues show up to play, so no base amount of healing besides short resting is assumed (I've never quite seen 5 rogues, but have played with 4 rogues and a druid).

As I said, most of my healing was actually status fixing of nasty effects like charms and madness that Tier 3 rocket tag combats tend to hand out like candy. HP healing was mainly to pick someone up after getting hit with a Hellfire Orb or for the PCs who failed one of their six banshee wail saves, where it was critical to bring up multiple players at once and Mass Healing Word/Mass Cure Wounds are the most efficient ways to do that.

I am really surprised that Aura of Vitality has been more effective than Crusader's Mantle for you. It's not always a given at my Tier 3 tables, but any time a Bard and Paladin can combine for the Animate Objects/Crusader's Mantle combo, it's almost always a dominant strategy (obviously assuming the combat is one worth spending a 5th level spell slot in). The in-combat value of Aura of Vitality seems fairly modest to to me, and not usually worth it versus just casting Bless, but as I said, I see lots of rocket tag style combat as normal, so the edge on saves is normally better than a nice bonus action healing resource that occupies your concentration. Also, I see very few pure paladins, and lots of paladorcs & padlocks, who have many additional offensive uses for their bonus action.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

I've actually never seen charm effects dealt with via healing (Greater Restoration), only via Paladin aura (Devotion 7 aura grants immunity), Dispel Magic, breaking the caster's concentration if it's a spell, or in several cases (like the beholder's charm ray) simply doing something else until it wears off naturally. (Occasionally also via proactive measure like Protection From Evil.)

My experience with spells like Conjure Animals and Animate Object is that they are good enough already (for both tanking and killing) that Crusader's Mantle would only add slightly to their damage, and it's better to save spell slots for later when something goes badly wrong instead (you mention banshee wails already; also demilich wails, fire giant crits, or the party Sharpshooter getting dominated and Action Surging 7 attacks into another PC is another example).

IOW Summon Mooks (Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, Tiny Servant, Create Undead, etc.) is typically already a dominant strategy, and if you want a combo it's good to focus on vision because most objects have blindsight: Fog Cloud/Darkness (or Cloudkill if you've got it) + Animate Objects is stronger both offensively and defensively than Crusader's Mantle unless you're fighting zombies or vampires, and it's also cheaper and longer lasting. Another form of combo is just using the mooks to buy time (especially if they're set to Dodge + threaten opportunity attacks) while the PCs do the killing.

I feel your pain on the madness front though. Especially from regional effects outside of combat. Stupid daelkyr! There's a reason I hate not having at least one bard, druid, divine soul, or cleric in the party.

Anyway, thanks for the answers!

[MadBear]

One argument I saw in this thread, was that no complaint about the Element monk isn't also a problem for a shadow monk, and I believe that is incorrect. the one thing that Shadow monk has going for it that the element monk doesn't, is that when they're out of Ki, the Shadow monk has a meaningful option that makes them feel like a shadow monk, that an elements monk just doesn't have. Sure, it has limits. Not all encounters will have shadows, it uses a bonus action which competes with other useful options, but it is an option that makes the Shadow Monk stand out and feel like they have an ability no one else can mimic.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of adding a stance system for the elemental monk monk. It should probably come online at level 6, and take a bonus action to activate for 1 minute, but not come with a Ki cost. That way, it is competing with the action economy of the monk, but is not hampering their already extended uses of Ki. Could make it something simple:

Stance of the burning Flame: Use a reaction to deal 1d8 fire damage to a foe who hits you in melee
Stance of the crashing mountain: As a reaction and choose a 10 ft cube located within 30ft of you to become difficult terrain until the end of your turn.
Stance of fluid air: As a reaction you can choose to move 10 ft without provoking an attack of opportunity after an opponent misses an attack
Stance of the flowing river: ..... idk something along a similar vein

It's not that the 4e monk's abilities aren't good. They're perfectly adequate. It's just that at low levels you find yourself out of options early on, and then you stop feeling like a elements monk. This would alleviate that with small options that help a 4e Monk feel like they're doing something unique.

[Misterwhisper]

Everything about 4 elements monk could be solved with the simple change of making them 1/3 casters just like Eldritch Knights or Arcane tricksters.

They got the abilities of a 1/3 caster but were not given any extra resources to spend on it.

Make them 1/3 casters with elemental spells. Done and good to go.

[Asisreo1]

Everything about 4 elements monk could be solved with the simple change of making them 1/3 casters just like Eldritch Knights or Arcane tricksters.

They got the abilities of a 1/3 caster but were not given any extra resources to spend on it.

Make them 1/3 casters with elemental spells. Done and good to go.

What are they going to cast with? If it's Ki points, they'd be able to spellcast with the versatility of a third-caster at a short rest notice. Same thing if they gain the ability to convert Ki points to spell slots unless Ki points are now a long rest ability. But now you've nerfed monks extremely hard.

What's their spellcasting modifier? If it's wisdom, they are using their secondary ability score while fighters and rogues sacrifice their true secondary ability score just to be a competitive caster. They'd be the objective best third-caster. If it's intelligence, they'd start to have really bad AC or spellcasting since they'd need to sacrifice either dex or wis to raise intelligence.

Who's spell list are they taking from? Or are we setting a new precedent by having a whole spell list for one third-caster? Or are we telling them "elemental spells" and creating a new tag for spells? Or is it just all druid spells? Can they cast cure wounds, then?

[Kane0]

Everything about 4 elements monk could be solved with the simple change of making them 1/3 casters just like Eldritch Knights or Arcane tricksters.

They got the abilities of a 1/3 caster but were not given any extra resources to spend on it.

Make them 1/3 casters with elemental spells. Done and good to go.

Tada? Might not be exactly the same, but that's the idea I went with.

[Misterwhisper]

What are they going to cast with? If it's Ki points, they'd be able to spellcast with the versatility of a third-caster at a short rest notice. Same thing if they gain the ability to convert Ki points to spell slots unless Ki points are now a long rest ability. But now you've nerfed monks extremely hard.

What's their spellcasting modifier? If it's wisdom, they are using their secondary ability score while fighters and rogues sacrifice their true secondary ability score just to be a competitive caster. They'd be the objective best third-caster. If it's intelligence, they'd start to have really bad AC or spellcasting since they'd need to sacrifice either dex or wis to raise intelligence.

Who's spell list are they taking from? Or are we setting a new precedent by having a whole spell list for one third-caster? Or are we telling them "elemental spells" and creating a new tag for spells? Or is it just all druid spells? Can they cast cure wounds, then?

By being given spell slots and spell levels just like an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

Casting stat is wisdom.

Rogues and fighters don't need the number of stats that monks do, it is fine it they cast from wisdom, rangers do and NOBODY calls them overpowered.

Level 3:
Make them their own list. maybe even add in that all their spells have somatic components no matter what.
Give them elemental based cantrips, spells like burning hands, scorching ray, ect, and buff spells like Blur or Haste.

You may spend 1 ki to ignore penalties for casting a spell in melee range.

Level 6:
If they take the attack action on their turn they can cast a cantrip as bonus action for 1 ki.

Level 11:
You may spend 2 ki to become resistant to one of the 4 basic elements for 1 min.

Level 17:
If you spend your to take the attack action, you may cast a spell as a bonus action for 2 ki.

[HPisBS]

Spoiler: quote

Show

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

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

The basic argument for why Shadow is better than Four Elements is pretty simple. Both provide additional abilities, but Four Elements provides mediocre combat abilities, interesting but highly situational environmental control, and (at 11th+ level) excellent mobility features. Shadow provides powerful, but situational enhancements to stealth.

The difference (and why Shadow is generally superior) is that situational bonuses to stealth are far more likely to be relevant than situational features that rely on the availability of bodies of water or environmental hazards to throw enemies into. Most of the time adventuring parties have the ability to actively select stealth-based solutions to their problems, whereas the relevance of elemental abilities is entirely up to campaign circumstances (e.g. a nautical campaign is great for Shape the Flowing River, a desert campaign, not so great). Similarly, it's up to the DM whether you encounter a bunch of hobgoblins or a couple of hill giants, but often (say at least half the time) the party can choose if they want to sneak up on them.

Also because the cornerstones of the Shadow - teleportation and invisibility while in dim light or darkness - don't have any resource cost. So, while those abilities may compete for the monk's bonus action, they don't compete for his very limited ki pool.

In my estimation, any subclass ability that does cost a ki point needs to be about as valuable as a stunning strike would average out to be, and a fair bit more valuable than a flurry would be. Multiply this evaluation according to the ability's ki point cost.

[Asisreo1]

By being given spell slots and spell levels just like an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

Casting stat is wisdom.

Rogues and fighters don't need the number of stats that monks do, it is fine it they cast from wisdom, rangers do and NOBODY calls them overpowered.

Level 3:
Make them their own list. maybe even add in that all their spells have somatic components no matter what.
Give them elemental based cantrips, spells like burning hands, scorching ray, ect, and buff spells like Blur or Haste.

You may spend 1 ki to ignore penalties for casting a spell in melee range.

Level 6:
If they take the attack action on their turn they can cast a cantrip as bonus action for 1 ki.

Level 11:
You may spend 2 ki to become resistant to one of the 4 basic elements for 1 min.

Level 17:
If you spend your to take the attack action, you may cast a spell as a bonus action for 2 ki.

Rangers casting from wisdom isn't strong because they are semi-dedicated spellcasters. They aren't as married to the frontline as a fighter or monk is. Their wisdom isn't also tied to their AC.

So they're given spellslots but are unable to channel their bending through Ki...okay. That seems weird, but let's continue. They can cast blur, haste, scorching ray, and quite a few elemental cantrips. At the same time, none of these even puts a dent in their Ki so there's no competition with this resource at all, unlike the other monk subclasses outside of, uh, open hand? Except for quivering palm.

Anyways, they get access to haste which means they can dash, disengage, and attack with a +2 AC, advantage on dex saves, evasion, and their already high speed is doubled. This is an incredible buff for the monk to put on himself.

I'm unsure what you mean by spellcasting penalty with someone in melee. No such penalty exists unless you mean attack rolls. They can spend a ki point to disengage and back off anyways as a bonus action for scorching ray which seems to be the only spell relevant.

If they're using the attack action, why not just hit them with another melee attack since you'll be able to add dex to the damage roll?

What are the four basic elements? Uh, fire, cold?, bludgeoning for rock and force for air? Or what kind of resistances are we talking?

And as a bonus action and 2 out of my 17 Ki points, I can attack and cast a level 4 spell in one turn? While I can stunning strike the other two times?

[MaxWilson]

Everything about 4 elements monk could be solved with the simple change of making them 1/3 casters just like Eldritch Knights or Arcane tricksters.

They got the abilities of a 1/3 caster but were not given any extra resources to spend on it.

Make them 1/3 casters with elemental spells. Done and good to go.

But that's a huge nerf! Today an Elemonk can cast Fireball six times per standard two-rest day at level eleven, but with your rule they'd only get three Shatters. With your rule, they'd finally get Fireball by level 13, but only twice per day, whereas today they get nine Fireballs per day.

Ugh.

[Zalabim]

Everything about 4 elements monk could be solved with the simple change of making them 1/3 casters just like Eldritch Knights or Arcane tricksters.

They got the abilities of a 1/3 caster but were not given any extra resources to spend on it.

Make them 1/3 casters with elemental spells. Done and good to go.

What they should get is the subclass abilities that go alongside their elemental disciplines. They don't get dedicated resources because they're monks, and not fighters or rogues. Their subclasses have different values. An Eldritch Knight is giving up the resources of the other fighter subclasses. An Arcane Trickster is giving up Fast Hands. The 4 elements monk doesn't need to compare to them. It needs to compare to other monk subclasses.

[Zuras]

But that's a huge nerf! Today an Elemonk can cast Fireball six times per standard two-rest day at level eleven, but with your rule they'd only get three Shatters. With your rule, they'd finally get Fireball by level 13, but only twice per day, whereas today they get nine Fireballs per day.

Ugh.

It’s a nerf if and only if they still cast using ki. Otherwise it’s different, but not obviously worse or better till you look at the number of spells known and the type of spells available, including cantrips.

It’s ugly though, because you’re adding a major long rest resource to a short rest class, and probably fairly weak, because the elemental 1st level spells besides Absorb Element aren’t great. Most of the thematic spells I’d like to see the 4E Monk using are underpowered 2nd level spells like gust of wind and Warding Wind. The alternate method used by the current version does allow the flexibility to make those available at 3rd level.

[Desteplo]

Easier comparison would be getting 1 slot at lvl3 and 2 stating st lvl5
-they’d cast their stuff at max spell level

[MaxWilson]

It’s a nerf if and only if they still cast using ki. Otherwise it’s different, but not obviously worse or better till you look at the number of spells known and the type of spells available, including cantrips.

Hard disagree. Even if they cast using spell slots, you've still shrunk the number of Fireballs per day from 9 to 2 at level 13, for instance. That's a huge (78%!) nerf to Fireball capability even if the elemonk now has plenty of ki for Stunning Strikes.

If your goal is to do monk stuff while mostly ignoring elemental stuff, then it's not a nerf, but then why are you playing an elemonk in the first place? If you want an elemental monk who actually does elemental stuff, that's a huge nerf, regardless of the "extra" spell slots.

[Asisreo1]

It's important to understand that while we call 4-elemonks "third-casters," they're nothing of the sort and should not be played as such. The only similarities is that they cast spells as a martial and they get a limited number of choices in those spells.

Outside of that, their spell progression, upcast ability, and the fact that they don't even have the spellcasting trait shows they shouldn't be thought of as even a third-caster.

In terms of spell progression, they get access to a higher level spell instantly. Of course, the spell isn't this huge thing but they can cast it. What's interesting is the amount of times they can spellcast in a day. Assuming 2 short rests, they have 60 ki points throughout. Using textbook white-room analysis, they could potentially cast 30 first level spells (I'm purposefully leaving out gust of wind). Compare that to sorcerer who can cast a maximum of 32 1st level spells in a day.

Wizards get infinite 1st and 2nd level spells but if you were to ignore that feature, they could also cast a maximum of 32 1st level spells a day.

This is why it's so hard to point at some other class as a basic comparison, there's too much that is different.