TheRPGSite

Where does the Monk stack compared to the other classes? Supposedly it was considered the weakest in the past, and I've heard that it is even weaker now. Lower damage and number of attacks than the Fighter, lower AC and HP than the Barb, and high level abilities are just low level spells.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;840738Where does the Monk stack compared to the other classes? Supposedly it was considered the weakest in the past, and I've heard that it is even weaker now. Lower damage and number of attacks than the Fighter, lower AC and HP than the Barb, and high level abilities are just low level spells.

My limited response here is purely based on my actual play experience with a monk up to 5th level, and doesn't include any attempts at comparing charop approaches to the classes or anything more than a cursory forward look to later levels. I also don't try to factor in ki points/advantage dice/rages because who can say what the short rest/long rest ratio will be for any given group.

With regard to the Fighter in the group ( a TWF guy), I currently have the same number of attacks.  The fighter will pull ahead at 11th level, though. The damage at this point seems about the same (1d8+4 1d6+4, 1d8+4 more or less for either of us).

With regard to the Barbarian (actually in a another group, but who also happens to be 5th level), the monk AC is one point better due to the Barbarian's (unarmored defense with no shield because his hands are full) ability score spread between STR/DEX/CON vs the monk being more focused on just DEX/WIS.

Hit dice are obviously smaller for Monk, and I have also rolled ... poorly.   When an enemy gets a solid piece of me I eat some dirt.

I enjoy the ability to dish out stuns, knocking 'em prone, or quashing the ability to use reactions.  I got no complaints so far.

One of the folks here who has more of a penchant for numerical analysis of the classes will surely chime in with a more comprehensive take.

At least they got the Bard right this edition, finally, after 4 editions of failure with that class.

Quote from: Mistwell;840814At least they got the Bard right this edition, finally, after 4 editions of failure with that class.

Your kidding right? The 4e Bard is awesome and a lot of fun to play

As for the monk, my experiences is limited to my buddy playing one while we were running one of the pre-made adventures for 5e. He seemed to have a fun time until one of the other players, who's character died so he ended up playing a Kobold we ended up saving, turned on us and made it into a TPK. The monk was the last one to fall but not before taking down a handful of skeletons in the process. I think we were 2nd level so the bulk of character options weren't in play yet.

From some of the optimization I've seen on other sites, the Monk does a decent job compared to the v3.5 version. He uses lots of status effects and if you play him right by moving in, attacking, and the moving out you'll do yourself a favor. We also weren't using Opportunity Attack rules at the time so there is that to consider.

It's a front line fighter type with less than a D10 hitpoints and exceedingly limited armour options and none of the built-in powers help shore up that deficiency.  In my opinion, it still is a weak class.  Is it the weakest?  I don't know, because no one has played a Sorcerer or a Bard at my table yet.  Maybe those two are even weaker, I cannot say.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840834It's a front line fighter type with less than a D10 hitpoints and exceedingly limited armour options and none of the built-in powers help shore up that deficiency.  In my opinion, it still is a weak class.  Is it the weakest?  I don't know, because no one has played a Sorcerer or a Bard at my table yet.  Maybe those two are even weaker, I cannot say.

I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not. Second, I'd say tactics is something you're gonna want to keep forefront in your mind. Running into a mob of enemies and staying there in the same round is dumb. Use the move/attack/move tactic. Keep mobile. Attack foes that aren't wielding great swords or huge axes. Take out support, artillery, and magic-using foes.  You shouldn't be swinging your arms toe-to-toe with a plate-armored warrior holding a large weapon unless you mean to stun him or use some sort of status effect and then get out of there ASAP.

Quote from: Batman;840845I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not. Second, I'd say tactics is something you're gonna want to keep forefront in your mind. Running into a mob of enemies and staying there in the same round is dumb. Use the move/attack/move tactic. Keep mobile. Attack foes that aren't wielding great swords or huge axes. Take out support, artillery, and magic-using foes.  You shouldn't be swinging your arms toe-to-toe with a plate-armored warrior holding a large weapon unless you mean to stun him or use some sort of status effect and then get out of there ASAP.

Yes, rush the ranged characters and expect to absorb the damage.  Oh right, you have less than the usual hitpoints, no real scaling armour bonus and no ranged attack.  That'll end well.

Friend of mine had a lot of success running a Monk in the Mines of Alphabet Soup (cannot remember much less spell that name).  For him, it wasn't about hurting the enemy, although he was decent as it, but making their lives hell.  Moving them around, knocking them on their asses and stunning them.  A bunch of possible party wipes were stopped cold because of him.

When you try and measure all classes simply by the amount of damage that they can inflict per round and the amount of damage that they can take, yes there will be some classes weaker than others by those metrics.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840909Yes, rush the ranged characters and expect to absorb the damage.  Oh right, you have less than the usual hitpoints, no real scaling armour bonus and no ranged attack.  That'll end well.

Then dont rush the ranged foes and expect to absorb damage with a hit-and run class. The Rogue plays much the same. They work best with teamwork and not so well on their own as a frontliner.

Quote from: Omega;840937Then dont rush the ranged foes and expect to absorb damage with a hit-and run class. The Rogue plays much the same. They work best with teamwork and not so well on their own as a frontliner.

Here's the funny thing about the Rogue, it has other uses outside of combat, the Monk, no.  Also, the Rogue has a scaling AC bonus (in the form of magical armour it can wear), so it actually has some survivability.  And finally, the Monk requires three stats (Dex, Wis, Con), where as every other melee specialist just has two (Attack Stat and Con) and like the Barbarian, it needs ALL it's stats to be decently high, because something will take a swing at it.

So the Monk still is weak.  Again, though, the Sorcerer and the Bard may be weaker, but I've not seen them being used, however, I have seen the monk get used, and it's not as good as those who want to play it think it will be.

Quote from: Batman;840845I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not.

I have a history of spirited disagreement with our caped crusader, but here we find common ground. Agreed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961Here's the funny thing about the Rogue, it has other uses outside of combat, the Monk, no.

I ... disagree.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961Also, the Rogue has a scaling AC bonus (in the form of magical armour it can wear), so it actually has some survivability.

The back of my cocktail napkin says...

Starting Point:
Rogue with Studded Leather Armor (AC 12), +4 from Dex = 16 AC
Monk with no armor, +4 from Dex, +3 from Wis = 17 AC

Terminal Point:
Rogue with Studded Leather Armor +3, +5 from Dex = 20 AC
Monk with Bracers of Defense (+2), +5 from Dex, +5 Wis = 22 AC

Not seeing anything there to support your claim.  Does your cocktail napkin have something more convincing?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961And finally, the Monk requires three stats (Dex, Wis, Con), where as every other melee specialist just has two (Attack Stat and Con) and like the Barbarian, it needs ALL it's stats to be decently high, because something will take a swing at it.

As far as I can tell, the monk doesn't require CON any more than the rogue requires CON. Things will take swings at rogues, too.

Do you consider the barbarian to not be a melee specialist?  Every barbarian I've ever seen played (4, admittedly not the biggest sample size) have been unarmored defense-ers, and rely on STR, DEX, and CON.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961So the Monk still is weak.  Again, though, the Sorcerer and the Bard may be weaker, but I've not seen them being used, however, I have seen the monk get used, and it's not as good as those who want to play it think it will be.

I was not disappointed. So, there's one.

*shrug*

Only ran the playtest Monk, and I had a lot of fun with it. Mobility made him a nice, back-rank fighter, sort of like old-style Cavalry, mucking up the enemies' plans.

On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

Quote from: cranebump;841015Only ran the playtest Monk, and I had a lot of fun with it. Mobility made him a nice, back-rank fighter, sort of like old-style Cavalry, mucking up the enemies' plans.

On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

Sometimes, in the battle between dignity and survival, we have to make the hard choices.

Did you ever make it to Assmaster of Flowers?

Ok, that's AD&D, but it was all I could come up with.

Quote from: cranebump;841015On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

:rotfl:
That's almost worth cracking open a 4e webpage to check out other powers to rename. Wouldn't play it again right now, though. That'd be going too far for a joke.
:nono:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;840923When you try and measure all classes simply by the amount of damage that they can inflict per round and the amount of damage that they can take, yes there will be some classes weaker than others by those metrics.

Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm clearly tolerance-challenged in this area, but I'm trying to be better.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;841138Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm clearly tolerance-challenged in this area, but I'm trying to be better.

What other balance measure is there?  And I'm not trying to be funny, dismissive or sarcastic, here.  I'm clearly wondering what else you could use as a measuring stick.

Everything else is pretty easily handwaved or improvised, and frankly, for example, the various skills are their own, relatively ubiquitous, thing.  Everyone has several skills, most overlap, and have a universally wide use outside of combat.

And combat is a clear contest, whether against each other, or against NPC's, it's a measure of power and control.

So what else can we use?

Oh for fucks sake. We've been over this how many times?

For fairness of stupid lets assume both are using point buy, are human and have min maxed so 16,16,16, 9, 9, 9.

At 5th level the monk with unarmed does 1d6 damage x3 + DEX or STR. AC is 10 + DEX & WIS mod. Unarmored AC is 16.(Top end is a theoretical 20 AC which is achievable for a point buy Monk.)
At 5th level the fighter with a longsword  does 1d8 damage x2 +STR mod. Lets say the fighter has gotten some Chainmail by now. AC 16. no mods. +2 if he uses a shield so AC 18. If instead went for the Greatsword and that 2d6 damage then drop AC down to 16 as cant use shield then. (Top end with Plate + shield is 20. Or just 18 if going for those 2-handers.)

Not much difference overall. The monk is much more mobile and fairly versatile at the expense of a few HP. The fighter doesnt get 3rd attack till level 11. By which time the monk is now up to a d8 damage.

So again the classes balance out surprisingly well.

In actual play, the one time I saw one the Monk was pretty awesome at levels 2 to 5, relative to classes like Bard, Paladin, and Druid.  That particular Monk had pretty decent ability scores (via the 4d6 drop one in order method) but I doubt it would have been ineffective with the standard array.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169What other balance measure is there?  And I'm not trying to be funny, dismissive or sarcastic, here.  I'm clearly wondering what else you could use as a measuring stick.

First, I appreciate this. Thanks.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;841138Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm not sure I know of a useful metric for "combat balance".  The usual suspects that get bandied about (DPS, who has the most HP/AC etc.) do seem somewhat useful to me in the domain of combat, and most certainly do not seem to provide a measure for the the balance of the game.  

Combat is a fun part of the game, but blackballing classes because they don't have "that one combat element they are supposed to be best at"  is, in my opinion, horribly reductive, and potentially harmful to the game at large.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169Everything else is pretty easily handwaved or improvised, and frankly, for example, the various skills are their own, relatively ubiquitous, thing.  Everyone has several skills, most overlap, and have a universally wide use outside of combat.

It's the intersection of the choices made at creations: Class, race, attribute assignment, background, and then interaction with others, that informs the whole game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169And combat is a clear contest, whether against each other, or against NPC's, it's a measure of power and control.
So what else can we use?

Combat doesn't occur in a vacuum (well, except for when it actually occurs in an actual vacuum).  If someone has a measure they like for "combat balance", I have no beef with that.  It's when that measure is no longer described as combat balance, and is relabeled just "balance," and suddenly we find ourselves saying XYZ class is the "worst", and then some folks are scared off of it because it's a "trap", and then folks who might would have played that supposed "trap" class.

Do I have a quantitative measure that rates all race/class combos against all possible situations they might encounter in an RPG.  I do not, and I'm thankful that such a thing would be nigh impossible.

My measure is to play something for a while, and rate my enjoyment of it, the ups and downs, and how many awesome adventures were had.

So, I'm trying to keep my personal preference on my sleeve here, so everyone can see it.

A question for you.  Did you find my quick comparison of the monk & rogue armor class arc compelling enough to dissuade you from your prior opinion about the monk being disadvantaged because of a lack of armor options?  Or do you still feel the same way?

Proof monks are not weak.

(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2080839_lg.jpg)

Aren't monks generally a weak sort of class? I mean, they're popular with some players because of their style, and sometimes because of particular special abilities, but it seems to me that in early editions at least they were usually a lot less generally optimal than the other classes.

The issue with the monk is that they have to be played in an exact way, with very little leeway, need three stats for when it does get in melee, as opposed to one or two.

And Natty Bodack, very few players start out with a 20, and secondly, the 16, 16, 16, 9, 9, 9 spread for stats is discouraged in D&D Adventures, it's typically assumed that players will be using the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which gives at best a +5 AC (assuming you get a Race or choice to get a +1 to +2 bonus and put the 15 into a Defense stat, like Dex or Wis.  A Dwarven Monk, for example, may not get that.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841928The issue with the monk is that they have to be played in an exact way, with very little leeway, need three stats for when it does get in melee, as opposed to one or two.

And Natty Bodack, very few players start out with a 20, and secondly, the 16, 16, 16, 9, 9, 9 spread for stats is discouraged in D&D Adventures, it's typically assumed that players will be using the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which gives at best a +5 AC (assuming you get a Race or choice to get a +1 to +2 bonus and put the 15 into a Defense stat, like Dex or Wis.  A Dwarven Monk, for example, may not get that.)

My example didn't have any 20s for a starting player, although looking back at it, it did assume a 16 for both the rogue and the monk, which isn't appropriate for RAW point buy or standard array.

I have no idea anymore what is appropriate for organized play, but I'll say my experience there in the past has been that RAW (as recognized by the RPGA or whoever) rules that day.  I never saw anyone "discouraging" anyone from a legal method of character creation, other than the occasional bit of passive aggressive charop bullying. OP ended up being not to my taste, so Ihaven't kept up with it. To educate myself on the current state of affairs, I referenced the Character Creation section of the D&D Adventurer's League Players Guide:

QuoteDetermine Ability Scores

You can generate your character's ability scores using
one of the following methods:
• Standard set (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)
• Customizing ability scores variant (Player's Handbook chapter 1)
After assigning ability scores, apply your racial benefits to derive your starting ability score at 1st level. You cannot roll your ability scores

If we want to compare dwarves in the mix, sure. I'm a fan of diversity in the dungeon-place.

So, assuming a standard array, we have the following 1st level characters:

Elf Rogue: Dex 17 (15 + 2) giving a +3 AC bonus, with Studded Leather (AC 12), for a total AC of 15.
Elf Monk: Dex 17 (15 + 2), Wis 15 (14+1), giving a +5 AC bonus, with no armor for a total of AC of 15.

Dwarf Rogue: Dex 15 (15 + 0) giving a +2 AC bonus with Studded Leather (AC 12), for a total AC of 14.
Dwarf Monk: Dex 15 (15 + 0), Wis 15 (14 +1) giving a +4 AC bonus, with no armor for a total AC of 14.

Over the course of their careers it seems that monks will have the opportunity to gain +10 to their stats, while rogues will have the opportunity to gain +12 to their stats.  +10 is enough to take any of our four starting characters based on the standard array to 20 in Dex and Wis, should they care to do so.  Along with the best magical additions to their AC available to each (discounting things like ring of protection that apply equally to either), we have the following:

Elf Rogue: Dex 20 (15 + 2 +3) giving a +5 AC bonus, with Studded Leather +3 (AC 15), for a total AC of 20.
Elf Monk: Dex 20 (15 + 2 +3), Wis 20 (14+1+5), giving a +10 AC bonus, with Bracers of Defense (AC +2) for a total of AC of 22.

Dwarf Rogue: Dex 20 (15 + 0 +5) giving a +5 AC bonus with Studded Leather +3 (AC 15), for a total AC of 20.
Dwarf Monk: Dex 20 (15 + 0 +5), Wis 20 (14 +1 +5) giving a +10 AC bonus, with with  Bracers of Defense (AC +2)  for a total AC of 22.

I see no evidence in any of these cases that the monk will be lacking in AC compared to the rogue, for an elf or a dwarf.  And not only is the "lack of scaling armor bonuses from magic armor" not hurting the monk in this comparison, at the top end the monk's AC is better than the rogue's.

And again, this isn't mean to be a comprehensive comparison of everything possible for a rogue's AC compared to a monk's AC, but I think it debunks the idea that "monks are weak" due in any part to a lack of access to magic armor.

The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

Quote from: Old One Eye;842006The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

XP is just a another chain keeping us from Valhalla, man.

No class neeeeeds a high CON, you just need to aim for at least a 10.

One thing that some monk players (and I) forget is that their monk weapons damage is the same as their unarmed damage once it exceeds the weapons damage.

So say the monk uses a dagger. 1d4. But once they hit level 5, that dagger now does a d6 damage, eventually the dagger is going to do a d10.

Y'know, now that I think about it, the 5E Monk's "Ass-bilities" are pretty good, as well:

Quivering Ass
Purity of Ass
Diamond Ass
Opportun-asst
Way of the Open Ass (this one scares me)
Ass of the Four Thunders (I want this...in real life...I feel it would impress people at parties)

But, to me, the ultimate goal has to be:

Perfect Ass

(Good God, it's even better than 4E!)

Quote from: Old One Eye;842006The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

I wouldn't attribute that to the monk being weak as much as the player acting idiotic.  I've seen fighters try that shit as well, and got properly murdered for it.

If you treat the monk as a happy-slappy warrior you deserve to go home in a pine box.

You've got no armour. You are screwed if you stop moving. But you have insane mobility, and disciplines on top of that.

So build that into your mission.

I'm using Fangs of the Fire Snake to attack from behind my friendly tank.
I'm starting beyond max range, using MOVE-ATTACK-MOVE to move in and out of max range to throw darts or whatever.
I'm using One Handed Technique to push my enemy off a cliff.
I'm using Shadow Step to get behind my foe.

So many options, whichever WAY you choose.

Quote from: Motorskills;842348If you treat the monk as a happy-slappy warrior you deserve to go home in a pine box.

You've got no armour. You are screwed if you stop moving. But you have insane mobility, and disciplines on top of that.

Yes, keep moving when nothing else in a D&D fight actually moves.  I've seen more Monks die a miserable death because the rest of the party won't do anything inefficient, like breaking away from an opponent.

Any class played miserably will probably die. No amount of HP or AC or DPS or your trolling is going to change that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;840923When you try and measure all classes simply by the amount of damage that they can inflict per round and the amount of damage that they can take, yes there will be some classes weaker than others by those metrics.

IIRC, if you compare just AC, HP and damage, 3.5 wizards are supposedly balanced with Fighters:D!

Quote from: Motorskills;842348If you treat the monk as a happy-slappy warrior you deserve to go home in a pine box.

To me, that's always been the problem with the Monk.  People hear "monk" and they think "Kung Fu" movie, and think that the monk SHOULD be the class that can totally kick ass.  But it just doesn't hold up.

I've played a monk for a couple of adventures so far in 5e. I was expecting her to be kind of crappy but she's turned out to be really effective.

She's a Way of the Shadow Monk 11/Rogue 1 with that feat that gives you a cantrip. I chose Eldritch Blast, so straightaway I have a decent missile attack that requires no equipment or setup. I have AC19, a move rate of 55, the ability to walk up walls, invisibility at will, teleport at will, and 2 weapon attacks plus bonus unarmed attacks, all of which can stun if I spend a ki point. So although I don't have a huge amount of hit points if I play her as a hit and run assassin type she is really good. The stun effect lets me duck out of melee if I need to without triggering an attack of opportunity, and the high move rate plus teleport plus invisibility let me get out of Dodge pretty easily.

Out of combat I have Dex 20, the rogue expertise bonus, minor illusion, the ability to walk up walls, near immunity to falling damage, and a few other utility spells, so I am rarely short of options or unable to contribute.

Monks are pretty good.

Just read over a players replay notes of a fight between her monk and some NPC fighter of the same level in a one on one due to a sliding trap separating her fron the party. Both created with point buy. The monk was a relatively balanced in stats, the fighter min-maxed. Both were level 7.

Monk had an AC of 17 and 47 HP. Fighter had an AC of 19 (half plate and shield) and 60 HP. Fighter went with duelist.

Round 1.
Fighter gets initiative, action surges for 3 attacks with longsword. 2 hits doing a total of 22 damage. Monk attacks, flurry of blows for 4 attacks unarmed. 3 hits for 22 damage. Fighter makes his DEX save just bare.
Round 2
Fighter gets 1 hit for for 9 damage. Monk flurrys again, 1 hit for 10 damage. Fighter makes his CON vs being knocked back 10ft into a wall. (He would have taken 6 damage.)
Round 3
Fighter hits 1 time for 12 damage. Monk flurrys and hits 3 times for 25 damage and spends a Ki to try an stun. Fighter makes his push Con save handily. But just bare fails his CON save and is stunned.
Round 4
Monk finally gets first go and of course flurrys. 4 hits via advantage for 28 damage. Fighter goes down messily. Taken to 0 HP and then 2 automatic crits due to being at 0 HP splatter him like a bug.

The monk is down to 4 HP, but can recover 21 right there. She could have disengaged and used it during the fight, and then back at it. The NPC fighter could have used second wind. But got stunned on the round he was going to. (Apparently he would have got the max 17 back as they rolled after the fight to see and of course got a 10. figures.)

Apparently normally she teams up with a rogue for flanking, sneak attacks  and other tricks and the two are enjoying the teamwork. Sounds much like me and Kefra there as we do much the same.

Not yet having much personal action with a Monk, some thoughts.

Seemed pretty close overall. Both were about 1 more hit from going down. But the monks status effect attacks proved to be the key here. She probably should have opened with stun attempts, but was trying to conserve Ki she stated. "7 points goes pretty quick. Had I been with the others at the time then I would have just used bonus attacks." She stated that she did not bother trying to knock him prone because since he had perpetual initiative he could just get up before she could take advantage of it.

Anyone else have ideas?

Quote from: RPGPundit;842842To me, that's always been the problem with the Monk.  People hear "monk" and they think "Kung Fu" movie, and think that the monk SHOULD be the class that can totally kick ass.  But it just doesn't hold up.

This is exactly it!  Most of the people I've anecdotally encountered, all they ever want out of a Monk is the ability to 'Kung Fu' people, and often, over the years, every single player I've encountered just want to punch people for justice in D&D.  And very rarely does it work out that way.  Simply because they focus on the Punching For Justice, and completely ignore and don't care about any of the other powers that the Monk comes with.  Except for maybe the boosted Speed, but that's only for getting into the combat so that they can Punch People For Justice.

Sometimes the Class itself IS the failure (Like the 3.x Monk) but often it's the what both the players and the books give as to what the class is written as.

Quote from: Omega;842897Anyone else have ideas?

Flanking with a Rogue (A Monk isn't that good a Damage Dealer at that level yet) and engaging and disengaging as often as possible is the way to go with a Monk, you want to dart in and out of combat.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842929This is exactly it!  Most of the people I've anecdotally encountered, all they ever want out of a Monk is the ability to 'Kung Fu' people, and often, over the years, every single player I've encountered just want to punch people for justice in D&D.  And very rarely does it work out that way.  Simply because they focus on the Punching For Justice, and completely ignore and don't care about any of the other powers that the Monk comes with.  Except for maybe the boosted Speed, but that's only for getting into the combat so that they can Punch People For Justice.

Yeah, but I would say the error here is a design error.  It's not people's fault for wanting the monk to be what they envision the 'monk' archetype to be like.

So if you wanted to homebrew the monk into a punch guy, what would you change then?

Quote from: RPGPundit;843278Yeah, but I would say the error here is a design error.  It's not people's fault for wanting the monk to be what they envision the 'monk' archetype to be like.

That is my point:  The way the class is built and then described is misleading, unless you really get into the math, and very few people care enough to do so.  They claim to have other responsibilities, like kids and stuff, so what they're presented, they work with, and the monk doesn't work as described.

It's not as bad as the 3.x version, but it's still not as versatile as people want/expect.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;843283So if you wanted to homebrew the monk into a punch guy, what would you change then?

Make it into a 5e styled Feat.  Something the Fighter could pick up, because quite frankly, the Shaolin Monk really is a Fighter, but is equally skilled bare handed and lightly armoured as they are with swords, axes and other normal weapons.

But at the same time, if you want to be a Kung Fu Wizards, that feat is there for that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;843286Make it into a 5e styled Feat.  Something the Fighter could pick up, because quite frankly, the Shaolin Monk really is a Fighter, but is equally skilled bare handed and lightly armoured as they are with swords, axes and other normal weapons.

But at the same time, if you want to be a Kung Fu Wizards, that feat is there for that.

A fighter that takes some of Champion adds some Eldritch knight powers as Qi effects, removes armour and adds a sprikle of thief type ability at some level points.

This is similar to my dislike of the Barbarian as a class.

The Shaolin monk is a fighter. He trains every day to fight and he fights. He simply comes from a different culture to the Knight or the Sellsword or the Barbarian. All of these are just flavours of fighter.

You can expand this sideways and say why does a monk get a higher natural AC. The reason is because they have trained to fight unarmoured. Couldn't a gladiator or a swashbuckler have similar training?

Quote from: RPGPundit;843278Yeah, but I would say the error here is a design error.  It's not people's fault for wanting the monk to be what they envision the 'monk' archetype to be like.

Uh. No?

If the game presents a hard science fiction setting with tower ships and no anti-gravity or psi powers. And the player wants Star Wars. That is not the designs error. It is the player wanting something from a game that was not intended for that. Why not play the setting as is?

Same with the monk. It is more patterend on standard martial-arts movies instead of wuxia and mystic ones. If the player was expecting for some god unknown reason to be playing Avatar instead of Bruce Lee. Then that is their problem and they can either walk or, I dont know, maybe try playing the class as is?

Quote from: Omega;843309Uh. No?

If the game presents a hard science fiction setting with tower ships and no anti-gravity or psi powers. And the player wants Star Wars. That is not the designs error. It is the player wanting something from a game that was not intended for that. Why not play the setting as is?

Same with the monk. It is more patterend on standard martial-arts movies instead of wuxia and mystic ones. If the player was expecting for some god unknown reason to be playing Avatar instead of Bruce Lee. Then that is their problem and they can either walk or, I dont know, maybe try playing the class as is?

What a strange comment. If anything, the monk is (and always has been) more Wuxia than not - thus the list of relatively strange powers that every version of the monk has had. If anything, they're complaining that it's not ENOUGH Bruce Lee - the monk is not a particularly strong fighter. I suspect many of us would trade the weird power list for better combat ability...

Yeah what nharwell said. Not enough Bruce Lee is the perception.

A Fighter could work but by that logic you could have the Fighter step into the Barbarian's domain too. The class of Fighter limits the Fighter only to characters who specifically don't fight unarmored.

See, I don't get this.  5Th gives us the classic punch monk, elemental benders straight out of Avatar and goddam ninja.

All they all work pretty damn good.

I'm failing to see the issue.

Quote from: Batman;840821Your kidding right? The 4e Bard is awesome and a lot of fun to play

I played a 4e bard, core only.  I stand by my statement - they sucked.  They can't cast spells as well as a sorcerer. They can't buff as well as a cleric/druid. They can't deal raw damage as well as a fighter/barbarian. They can't deal extra (ie. sneak attack) damage like a rogue.  They don't do anything as well as someone else already does it, other than doing a bit of everything to a mediocre degree.

Quote from: Mistwell;843403I played a 4e bard, core only.  I stand by my statement - they sucked.  They can't cast spells as well as a sorcerer. They can't buff as well as a cleric/druid. They can't deal raw damage as well as a fighter/barbarian. They can't deal extra (ie. sneak attack) damage like a rogue.  They don't do anything as well as someone else already does it, other than doing a bit of everything to a mediocre degree.

Congratulations on figuring out that a Bard was never a master of all trades!  I know it sucks it was never like the Everquest MMO version, but hey, it lived up to it's Jack of All Trades moniker, didn't it?  Too bad it wasn't the powerhouse you expected or wanted!

And the Bard in general is another class that's badly designed, as the fluff and expectation never actually match up.

In fact, the Bard is NOT supposed to be the 'Jack of All Trades', it is in fact the Party Face, the one who talks to the locals, who announces them at the noble banquets, who negotiates for them.  The Bard is the talker of the party.  All the abilities, outside of the stuff it outright steals from other classes and manages them badly, are all Charisma based and often deal with dealing with people.

But like the Monk, people see one thing and latch onto and then complain when it doesn't actually match up.

The Bard DOES have the advantage of actually being useful, if you focus it the right way, like outside of Combat.  The Monk is more or less outclassed by every other Melee class due to it's lack of versatility.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;843339Yeah what nharwell said. Not enough Bruce Lee is the perception.

A Fighter could work but by that logic you could have the Fighter step into the Barbarian's domain too. The class of Fighter limits the Fighter only to characters who specifically don't fight unarmored.

Which falls back to the old problem that the barbarian and more or less the monk classes are classes for classes sake. Or pandering to players who just can not accept that the fighter class can be Conan AND Lancelot.

The barbarian and the monk could have and should have been folded into the figher class as paths like the Champion, Eldritch Knight, etc. It would not take that much effort to make a monk path for the fighter based off the Open Palm path.

But they didnt. So here we are. You can just drop classes and be perfectly fine.

Quote from: Omega;843531Which falls back to the old problem that the barbarian and more or less the monk classes are classes for classes sake. Or pandering to players who just can not accept that the fighter class can be Conan AND Lancelot.

The barbarian and the monk could have and should have been folded into the figher class as paths like the Champion, Eldritch Knight, etc. It would not take that much effort to make a monk path for the fighter based off the Open Palm path.

But they didnt. So here we are. You can just drop classes and be perfectly fine.

The problem with both the Monk and the Barbarian is how focused the class is, Barbarians are a little broader in concept, but they still suffer from being a narrow focus:  The Tribal Warrior with Anger Management Issues.  Meanwhile the Fighter has the advantage of being able to be a Tribal Warrior, a hulking Knight, a lithe Archer (without having to do the woodsman stuff), a Professional Soldier or a Combat Savant, among any other weapon wielding badass that you can think of.

The Monk is even worse in that it's hyperfocused into a Martial Arts Fighter from a Pseudo-Asian background, simply because in the real world there were no well known orders of ascetics that beat people up with their bare hands.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;843544The problem with both the Monk and the Barbarian is how focused the class is, Barbarians are a little broader in concept, but they still suffer from being a narrow focus:  The Tribal Warrior with Anger Management Issues.  Meanwhile the Fighter has the advantage of being able to be a Tribal Warrior, a hulking Knight, a lithe Archer (without having to do the woodsman stuff), a Professional Soldier or a Combat Savant, among any other weapon wielding badass that you can think of.

The Monk is even worse in that it's hyperfocused into a Martial Arts Fighter from a Pseudo-Asian background, simply because in the real world there were no well known orders of ascetics that beat people up with their bare hands.

Again though this is something that goes back to the origins of the hobby.
Some dude wants to play Aragorn so rather than say okay you are a fighter but you have a Human subrace called Dunedain that gives you some extra abilities they create a ranger class. later because Drizzt is a Ranger they let ranger get Dual wield for free so you can play Aragorn or Drizzt.
It's crazy :)

We need separate classes for Conan (Barbarian), Cane (Monk),  Percival (Paladin)  ... makes you wonder why there isn't a Maiar class, a Forest outlaw that was once a knight class and a child prodigy that will one day be a great Wizard class.

Quote from: Omega;843309Same with the monk. It is more patterend on standard martial-arts movies instead of wuxia and mystic ones. If the player was expecting for some god unknown reason to be playing Avatar instead of Bruce Lee

The problem is the Monk fails utterly at being Bruce Lee, or even anywhere in the general neighbourhood of Bruce Lee.

Quote from: Omega;843309Same with the monk. It is more patterend on standard martial-arts movies instead of wuxia and mystic ones.

Here's the thing, though:  What Martial Arts Movies are you talking about, because of late, Wuxia and Mystic Kung-Fu IS the 'Standard' movie style.  And yes, the Monk fails at that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;843926The problem is the Monk fails utterly at being Bruce Lee, or even anywhere in the general neighbourhood of Bruce Lee.

The problem is that no one really knows what to do with the Monk so it has three builds that are wildly varied.

I think the biggest problem with the monk is that, because of how armor rules work in D&D, it tends to be to easy to take the monk down in melee.

Quote from: RPGPundit;844142I think the biggest problem with the monk is that, because of how armor rules work in D&D, it tends to be to easy to take the monk down in melee.

That's exactly what I've been saying.  The class, if you know how to play it, is pretty mobile, the problem is none of the other classes rely on that much motion in combat, most of them get punished for moving away, save for the Rogue, and it gets a Disengage (among other non-Attack abilities) as a Bonus Action.

And because JUST one class is mobile, and the rest static, most people just accept it as if it's not, and get mulched pretty quickly.

The class is weak simply because it's hyper-focused, badly explained and relies on something that no other class in the system -so far- needs to.

The monk needs to either have a much better armor class (without needing to wear armor) or it needs to have much better hit points.  The former would let you do Bruce Lee style Kung Fu better, the latter would let you do Jackie Chan style kung-fu better.

Quote from: RPGPundit;844629The monk needs to either have a much better armor class (without needing to wear armor) or it needs to have much better hit points.  The former would let you do Bruce Lee style Kung Fu better, the latter would let you do Jackie Chan style kung-fu better.

What number would make you happy for Monk Bruce Lee's AC, and at what level?

Quote from: RPGPundit;844629The monk needs to either have a much better armor class (without needing to wear armor) or it needs to have much better hit points.  The former would let you do Bruce Lee style Kung Fu better, the latter would let you do Jackie Chan style kung-fu better.

er? The 5e Monk can start off right out the gate with an AC upwards of 18 or even 19 with an elf or other DEX bonus race. That equals or outstrips everyone elses starting ACs except for the Fighter and Paladin (and I think a dwarven Cleric?) who can start off with an AC of 18 via chain mail + shield. Only the Barbarian can exceed that due to being able to use a shield and still gain the unarmoured AC.

And they use a d8 for HP?

That's by Random Rolls method (4d6 drop lowest). That would be helpful to include in your commentary. Normally for AL we expect an AC of 16, but that tends to tie the class down to a few races, otherwise AC 15 is more expected.

Also, that AC is continuous, even while stripped naked and unconscious in bed. Unconscious condition merely grants Adv on attack rolls (auto-fail STR & DEX saves, but that's not related to AC). Surreal, but that monk flops around like a flapjack even asleep, which does conform to wushia tropes.

That said, the additional class advantages are tied to DEX and WIS so hard that it makes it challenging to construct a different style of monk. DEX affects AC, initiative, damage mod may be added to unarmed and monk weapons (simple non-heavy, non-two-handed, plus short sword), etc. WIS affects AC, ki "casting," perception, etc.

It can hang in melee momentarily better than a rogue with ki ability Dodge as a bonus action. Dodge is incredibly strong as it lasts until your next turn, and also grants Adv on DEX saves. Rogue only gets Dash, Disengage, Hide from Cunning Action. It takes later levels to build something; I recommend feats for tinkering (Mobility, Dual Wielder, Lucky, etc.).

But I'll admit it's hard to build something out of type for the class.

Even Even with the array you can hit a pair of 16s and have a 16 AC at start taking a Wood elf. By level 4 you can be up to a 17, an 18 at level 8, and so on.

Quote from: Omega;844821Even Even with the array you can hit a pair of 16s and have a 16 AC at start taking a Wood elf. By level 4 you can be up to a 17, an 18 at level 8, and so on.

And the Fighter will still be better at damage output, armour and hit points without having to worry about three stats, just two.

Even more so if you take in Feats and use the Variant Human.

Fists are not classified as Light, I'd like to point out.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I thought it was not much of an issue.

Doesn't the Martial Art feature grant an additional attack as a bonus action if you melee strike unarmed or use a monk weapon? That's straight up better than using the generic Two-Weapon Fighting as granted by the combat chapter. General TWF does not let you add your combat mod to damage normally, whereas there is no restriction in Martial Arts feature (and as clarified in the UA "errata" release).

Also Martial Arts grants a one-way to DEX "Finesse" property to unarmed and monk weapons. And you can supplant the unarmed or monk weapons' normal damage die with your Martial Arts damage die. The big things is you almost always can strike twice, multitask your defensive DEX mod as weapon damage to any unarmed/monk weapon — to both strikes — and have a baseline die size regardless of qualifying simple weaponry available. You regularly have an empty hand to mess with stuff, too.

Big challenge is many things compete for that bonus action slot.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844845And the Fighter will still be better at damage output, armour and hit points without having to worry about three stats, just two.

Even more so if you take in Feats and use the Variant Human.

Fists are not classified as Light, I'd like to point out.

Keep chirping. It doesnt get any less pedantic from you.

You really only need 2 stats. DEX and WIS. Long as you have your CON out of the negative you are good to go. Just like every other class.

Fists in the PHB are a typo and removed from the 2nd printing and onwards according to the errata.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850I don't have the book in front of me, but I thought it was not much of an issue.

Doesn't the Martial Art feature grant an additional attack as a bonus action if you melee strike unarmed or use a monk weapon? That's straight up better than using the generic Two-Weapon Fighting as granted by the combat chapter. General TWF does not let you add your combat mod to damage normally, whereas there is no restriction in Martial Arts feature (and as clarified in the UA "errata" release).

The Fighter Two Weapon Fighting does, meaning that you're doing a base +2 (using the array, and before Racial bonus) to both weapon attacks, which is likely to be 1D6 for short swords/scimitars.  If you go Variant Human and are allowed feats (and this is conditional, feats are not considered standard), that likely changes to 1d8+2 for both weapons before Racial Mods, assuming you take the Dual Wielder feat.

A monk is limited to 1D8+2 (Great Club) and 1d4 (before Racial Mods), not entirely sure that you can add a damage bonus to a Bonus action.  Assuming yes, that's 1d8/1d4+2.  Still behind the Fighter, and the Monk still has three stats to worry about, the Fighter has two.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850Also Martial Arts grants a one-way to DEX "Finesse" property to unarmed and monk weapons. And you can supplant the unarmed or monk weapons' normal damage die with your Martial Arts damage die. The big things is you almost always can strike twice, multitask your defensive DEX mod as weapon damage to any unarmed/monk weapon — to both strikes — and have a baseline die size regardless of qualifying simple weaponry available. You regularly have an empty hand to mess with stuff, too.

Not if you have a Greatclub you don't.  And given that a Monk starts off with a 1D4 on their unarmed attack and doesn't hit 1D8 until level 11, the Two Weapon Fighting Fighter still pulls ahead in terms of efficiency.

Remember you can only take ONE bonus action.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850Big challenge is many things compete for that bonus action slot.

Not really, damage wins over anything else in a fight, which is usually where that comes up.

The issue is that the monk is not a dedicated fighter, instead going for something that doesn't work in the basic paradigm.

Quote from: Omega;844859Keep chirping. It doesnt get any less pedantic from you.

You really only need 2 stats. DEX and WIS. Long as you have your CON out of the negative you are good to go. Just like every other class.

Fists in the PHB are a typo and removed from the 2nd printing and onwards according to the errata.

Because 1D8+2 per level is so much better than !d10+2, and given that the array works out to 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, Assuming a +2 to Dex or Wisdom, means more often than not, you're going with a +1 to Hit Point calculation, which again, is so much better than a D10+2 base.  Unless you're willing to sacrifice Dex or Wis to get a +2 Con.

Unarmed still doesn't count as light, meaning you cannot dual wield your own fists (Isn't that silly?)

Isn't Greatclub explicitly not a monk weapon? Martial Arts first paragraph qualifies what's allowed and it includes unarmed strikes and monk weapons, defined as all simple weapons that are not two-handed or heavy. Greatclub is two-handed. (Given writers' RAI about thrown weapons working with Rogue's Sneak Attack I am assuming the same condition applies to Quarterstaves and Spears when used versatily two-handed, and only then.)

Here's the explanation from Sage Advice Compedium as to why general TWF provided by the Combat chapter does not apply to other methods of bonus action attacks:

Polearm Master
Can I add my Strength modifier to the damage of the bonus attack that Polearm Master gives me? Yep! If you have the feat and use the Attack action to attack with a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can also strike with the weapon’s opposite end as a bonus action. For that bonus attack, you add your ability modifier to the attack roll, as you do whenever you attack with that weapon, and if you hit, you add the same ability modifier to the damage roll, which is normal for weapon damage rolls (PH, 196).
A specific rule, such as the rule for two-weapon fighting (PH, 195), might break the general rule by telling you not to add your ability modifier to the damage. Polearm Master doesn’t do that.
(Sages Advice Compendium, ver 1.01. July, 2015. p. 4.)

And similarly Monk class feature Martial Arts is written in the same way as Polearm Master. It says nothing specific about not allowing the combat mod used for attack to be used for damage. Which therefore means you can, as explained above.

As for damage, no, the monk won't be the same as a kitted out fighter (this is a good thing!). However they will never be caught exposed with lesser AC or poorer weaponry. They get to turn all qualifying simple weaponry (monk weapons), or unarmed strikes, into their base Martial Arts die.

Stripped naked they remain a threat, starting with baseline 1d4+3/1d4+3 at Lv 1 (assuming DEX 16, I mean, why wouldn"t you?). However they'd likely be sporting 1d6+3/1d6+3 from a handaxe or shortsword. When Martial Arts reaches 1d6 damage point, around lvl 5? IIRC, weapon choices are just haggling out P/B/S for the damage type against the target.

You really have one main stat to worry about, DEX, but who doesn't? WIS is huge depending on where you choose your archetype and party focus. If you are exploration focused you can get away with quite a bit on circumstantial defenses, like Darkness, Stealth/Hide, ki Dashing/Jumping, cover, Deflect Arrows, etc. Yet WIS is still so important for Perc and AC...

Allow Monks to get damge resistance on hits by burning ki points?

Basically a conditional HP increase and reflects martial art techniciques like Iron Shirt.

Or let HPs be skill to roll with and absorb damage and let monks use Dex bonus for HPs instead of Con.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844845Fists are not classified as Light, I'd like to point out.

Completely irrelevant.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850I don't have the book in front of me, but I thought it was not much of an issue.

Doesn't the Martial Art feature grant an additional attack as a bonus action if you melee strike unarmed or use a monk weapon? That's straight up better than using the generic Two-Weapon Fighting as granted by the combat chapter. General TWF does not let you add your combat mod to damage normally, whereas there is no restriction in Martial Arts feature (and as clarified in the UA "errata" release).

You're correct.  However, the Two Weapon Fighting style available Fighters and Rangers (and probably somebody else, too) reverse that and let you add the ability modifier to the damage of the off hand weapons,

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850Also Martial Arts grants a one-way to DEX "Finesse" property to unarmed and monk weapons. And you can supplant the unarmed or monk weapons' normal damage die with your Martial Arts damage die. The big things is you almost always can strike twice, multitask your defensive DEX mod as weapon damage to any unarmed/monk weapon — to both strikes — and have a baseline die size regardless of qualifying simple weaponry available. You regularly have an empty hand to mess with stuff, too.

Correct again, as usual. Technically it's not adding a finesse property to those weapons, but it has essentially the same net effect.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844850Big challenge is many things compete for that bonus action slot.

I can personally attest to the bonus action pressure you mention.  It's actually reassuring that there are interesting situational options to consider.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844861A monk is limited to 1D8+2 (Great Club) and 1d4 (before Racial Mods), not entirely sure that you can add a damage bonus to a Bonus action.  Assuming yes, that's 1d8/1d4+2.  Still behind the Fighter, and the Monk still has three stats to worry about, the Fighter has two.

• The Great Club is not a monk weapon.
• Monk attacks granted by Martial Arts / Flurry of Blows do get the ability bonus to damage.

Being incorrect on these two fundamentals of the monk class leads me to believe that you either have no real world experience of how the monk plays, or you or the person(s) you were playing with having being playing it incorrectly.  If it's the former, your theorycrafting should be labeled as such.  If it's the latter, your analysis is lacking quality.

First you claimed the monk was bad because it wasn't a stand-up fighter.  

Then when someone suggested it should be played with more mobility in mind, you dogged it because it couldn't keep up with the rogue in the AC department because the monk didn't get magic armor.  I debunked that thoroughly up-thread.

Then the monk was bad because the rogue had things they could do out of combat but the monk was useless out of combat.  You've failed to support this at all.  A single counter-example is unlimited 60' teleports in dim light.  If you can't find an out of combat use for that, then you're brain dead.

Then the monk was bad because it tricked people into thinking it was a stand-up fighter rather than a mobility class, and they were therefore tricked into playing it in a way that was bad, therefore the class is bad. That doesn't even deserve a counter point.

Now you're back to saying the monk is bad because the fighter is a better fighter.  Certainly the fighter is a better fighter than the monk.  File that under "D" for "Duh." Except this time you're harping on metrics for DPR, AC, and HP, and using a particular fighting style selection and bringing feats into it.  We all know that feats are optional. It seems that you are focused on AL play,  and we know that AL allows them.  I'd grant that feat support seems better for weapon users than monks.  In particular Dual Wielder seems very strong, compared to say Mobility.

If you don't have actual play experience with the class, and give no weight to things like mobility, stunning, or suppression of reactions, I consider your opinion to be pretty poorly informed.  Having actually played the class, I find all of your criticisms either misinformed or not terribly impactful.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844866Isn't Greatclub explicitly not a monk weapon? Martial Arts first paragraph qualifies what's allowed and it includes unarmed strikes and monk weapons, defined as all simple weapons that are not two-handed or heavy. Greatclub is two-handed. (Given writers' RAI about thrown weapons working with Rogue's Sneak Attack I am assuming the same condition applies to Quarterstaves and Spears when used versatily two-handed, and only then.)

The Greatclub is a Simple Weapon, and all Monks get Simple Weapon proficiency, so unless there's a new errata saying that it's not a simple weapon, or that the Monk doesn't have access to it, despite it being on the list, I was giving the example monk access to a higher damage weapon.  However, if that is the case that it's not, then that lowers it to 1d6+2 (before racial mods) and 1d4+2 (because I am giving the benefit of the doubt, despite lack of evidence.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;844866Here's the explanation from Sage Advice Compedium as to why general TWF provided by the Combat chapter does not apply to other methods of bonus action attacks:

Polearm Master
Can I add my Strength modifier to the damage of the bonus attack that Polearm Master gives me? Yep! If you have the feat and use the Attack action to attack with a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can also strike with the weapon’s opposite end as a bonus action. For that bonus attack, you add your ability modifier to the attack roll, as you do whenever you attack with that weapon, and if you hit, you add the same ability modifier to the damage roll, which is normal for weapon damage rolls (PH, 196).
A specific rule, such as the rule for two-weapon fighting (PH, 195), might break the general rule by telling you not to add your ability modifier to the damage. Polearm Master doesn’t do that.
(Sages Advice Compendium, ver 1.01. July, 2015. p. 4.)

And similarly Monk class feature Martial Arts is written in the same way as Polearm Master. It says nothing specific about not allowing the combat mod used for attack to be used for damage. Which therefore means you can, as explained above.

Just being written 'the same way' does not mean it is the same.  Like I said, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt here, an I AM including it, despite, like I said, no evidence saying that it does add a stat bonus.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844866As for damage, no, the monk won't be the same as a kitted out fighter (this is a good thing!). However they will never be caught exposed with lesser AC or poorer weaponry. They get to turn all qualifying simple weaponry (monk weapons), or unarmed strikes, into their base Martial Arts die.

Which won't be until level 11, assuming people do not allow the Greatclub, which is the only weapon that does 1D8 on the Simple Weapon List.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844866Stripped naked they remain a threat, starting with baseline 1d4+3/1d4+3 at Lv 1 (assuming DEX 16, I mean, why wouldn"t you?). However they'd likely be sporting 1d6+3/1d6+3 from a handaxe or shortsword. When Martial Arts reaches 1d6 damage point, around lvl 5? IIRC, weapon choices are just haggling out P/B/S for the damage type against the target.

The only thing a Fighter would have issues with, when caught naked is the AC.  They could easily get armed relatively quickly, because adventurers (see the Do you PC's wear armour in town thread) tend to keep their main tools of battle within reach, even if they're not wearing them.

Of course, the biggest thing is whether or not the DM uses the Feat rules (which I do, simply because the Fighter will have obscene stats relatively quickly otherwise.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;844866You really have one main stat to worry about, DEX, but who doesn't? WIS is huge depending on where you choose your archetype and party focus. If you are exploration focused you can get away with quite a bit on circumstantial defenses, like Darkness, Stealth/Hide, ki Dashing/Jumping, cover, Deflect Arrows, etc. Yet WIS is still so important for Perc and AC...

You have three.  A decent Con is ALWAYS what people want, at least anecdotally.  Every Encounters/Adventure League I've ever been too, from novice to expert, Constitution is the main secondary stat that's chosen, because it lets you live longer.  AC is a binary hit/miss option, and sometimes the dice are not in your favour, where as hit points always work.  I've noticed that people prefer sure things when they can get them.

A monk has to split their attention between Wisdom (for defense) and Dex (for both attack and defense) because as people pointed it's a highly mobile class, in a combat system that punishes people for moving about.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921

• The Great Club is not a monk weapon.
• Monk attacks granted by Martial Arts / Flurry of Blows do get the ability bonus to damage.

It doesn't say this.  It says that Monks can use all Simple Weapons and Shorts Sword, and there's no mention of a Greatclub section explicitly saying that a Monk cannot use it.

However, if you want to gimp them even further than they are, go right head.  Me?  I want to give this class every edge I can.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Being incorrect on these two fundamentals of the monk class leads me to believe that you either have no real world experience of how the monk plays, or you or the person(s) you were playing with having being playing it incorrectly.

Because you tend to be snarky and dismissive of anyone not agreeing with you, I'm tempted to ignore everything you say on this because you are once again making gross assumptions with no evidence to back it up.

However I'm going to answer you anyway, and treat your points as serious, because it's the polite thing to do.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921First you claimed the monk was bad because it wasn't a stand-up fighter.  

Then when someone suggested it should be played with more mobility in mind, you dogged it because it couldn't keep up with the rogue in the AC department because the monk didn't get magic armor.  I debunked that thoroughly up-thread.

I'll repeat myself. The Monk is a mobile based class in a system that mostly punishes mobility in a fight.  And worse, unlike the Rogue, it forces players to spend a limited resource to be mobile, or to choose to attack more.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Then the monk was bad because the rogue had things they could do out of combat but the monk was useless out of combat.  You've failed to support this at all.  A single counter-example is unlimited 60' teleports in dim light.  If you can't find an out of combat use for that, then you're brain dead.

At that point, you are competing with another class, and they can teleport further.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Then the monk was bad because it tricked people into thinking it was a stand-up fighter rather than a mobility class,

In a game system that punishes moving around.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Now you're back to saying the monk is bad because the fighter is a better fighter.

I'm also saying that the Rogue, the Paladin, the Barbarian and the Ranger are better Fighters than the Monk is, but I was just using the Fighter as an example.

The problem with the Monk is that it brings nothing to either the Combat or Exploratory section of the game that any other class can and better, because it doesn't do anything exceptional.  It's fluff and flavour, and although a lot of people are OK with this, most of the people I've talked to find it frustrating because it's designed for something that goes against the paradigm of D&D.

D&D is a game about specialists, and the Monk is clearly lacking in anything that makes it stand out other than flavour, and frankly, can be detrimental to players who want their time to shine (which I try to give to every player.)

The Monk has always been the first to die, or go down, because the Ki Point mechanic is a highly restrictive mechanic/resource.

If you've gotten the Monk to zip around the battlefield without being punished, more power to you, but the base game doesn't work that way, and two years of anecdotal evidence, as well as an in depth analysis and testing of the actual class tells me: that it still sucks.  Not as badly as it did in 3.x Monk, but it's still up there.

If I wanted to fix it (I'd honestly rather ignore it exists) I'd give a D10 Hit Die, and remove the silly KI point resource, and make it able to use it's Level 2 power once per round as a Bonus Action.


In then end, I've written my piece on the Monk.  I'm done, until magic is involved, I'm sorry to say that it's a class I pity anyone taking, but at the same time, I'm not going to stop anyone, unless it doesn't fit the campaign, as always.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844929The Greatclub is a Simple Weapon, and all Monks get Simple Weapon proficiency, so unless there's a new errata saying that it's not a simple weapon, or that the Monk doesn't have access to it, despite it being on the list, I was giving the example monk access to a higher damage weapon.  However, if that is the case that it's not, then that lowers it to 1d6+2 (before racial mods) and 1d4+2 (because I am giving the benefit of the doubt, despite lack of evidence.)

It doesn't say this.  It says that Monks can use all Simple Weapons and Shorts Sword, and there's no mention of a Greatclub section explicitly saying that a Monk cannot use it.

Monks have proficiency with all simple weapons and short swords, however the benefits that come from the Monk's Martial Arts class feature only apply to short swords and simple weapons without the two-handed or heavy property.  If you are giving the monk credit for their Dex bonus on a simple weapon without the finesse property or with the two-handed or heavy property, you are doing it incorrectly.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844929Because you tend to be snarky and dismissive of anyone not agreeing with you, I'm tempted to ignore everything you say on this because you are once again making gross assumptions with no evidence to back it up.

I have indeed become snarky and dismissive of you over the course of this thread. I didn't start out that way, to which my detailed posts attempting to address your concern over the lack of scaling magic armor should attest.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844929

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Then when someone suggested it should be played with more mobility in mind, you dogged it because it couldn't keep up with the rogue in the AC department because the monk didn't get magic armor.  I debunked that thoroughly up-thread.

I'll repeat myself. The Monk is a mobile based class in a system that mostly punishes mobility in a fight.  And worse, unlike the Rogue, it forces players to spend a limited resource to be mobile, or to choose to attack more.

Let me repeat you for you:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961Also, the Rogue has a scaling AC bonus (in the form of magical armour it can wear), so it actually has some survivability.

You can pretend you didn't claim it, and you can pretend I didn't debunk it, but it's right there in the thread.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844929

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844921Then the monk was bad because the rogue had things they could do out of combat but the monk was useless out of combat.  You've failed to support this at all.  A single counter-example is unlimited 60' teleports in dim light.  If you can't find an out of combat use for that, then you're brain dead.

At that point, you are competing with another class, and they can teleport further.

No, you set the bar with comparing them with the Rogue. You don't get to make a claim  that the out-of-combat utility of the Rogue is great and the the Monk's is non-existent, and then when a clear counter-example is given say that we're now shifting the goalposts to "competing" with a third class.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844929In then end, I've written my piece on the Monk.  I'm done, until magic is involved, I'm sorry to say that it's a class I pity anyone taking, but at the same time, I'm not going to stop anyone, unless it doesn't fit the campaign, as always.

This is the sort of thing that I'd expect to hear from a charop snob.  It breaks my little heart into pieces.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844944This is the sort of thing that I'd expect to hear from a charop snob.  It breaks my little heart into pieces.

I don't character optimize, because I don't have the math skills for it.  But at the same time, why is it so wrong for wanting players to feel like the contribute to the party?  The Monk, in my experience, frustrates players.

This is another reason it's bad design.

Players want to feel like they're contributing, and almost every other class they it feels to them that they are.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844944Monks have proficiency with all simple weapons and short swords, however the benefits that come from the Monk's Martial Arts class feature only apply to short swords and simple weapons without the two-handed or heavy property. If you are giving the monk credit for their Dex bonus on a simple weapon without the finesse property or with the two-handed or heavy property, you are doing it incorrectly.

Honest question, no snark, or sarcasm intended where does it say this?  I'm not finding anything in the core book, or the errata, saying that Heavy or Two Handed weapons cannot be used with 'finesse', not to mention that I'd assume that Class Powers would say otherwise.

In fact, under the properties of Two Handed and Heavy, there's no mention of it needing a certain stat.  Two handed states you just need two hands, even then, the book lists the Quarterstaff (a Two Handed weapon) in Martial Arts example.  Heavy simply says that Small Characters get disadvantage using them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844958I don't character optimize, because I don't have the math skills for it.  But at the same time, why is it so wrong for wanting players to feel like the contribute to the party?  The Monk, in my experience, frustrates players.

This is another reason it's bad design.

Players want to feel like they're contributing, and almost every other class they it feels to them that they are.

Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel like you contribute to the party. My experience is contrary to yours, though.  I, and the other folks I know who have played monks, or are playing monks, have not felt frustrated by it.

I think it's worth highlighting that I'm going by my first-hand experience playing a monk (only up to 6th), and playing at the same table with other monks.  The only theorycrafting I've been up to is the AC projection.

One man's "bad design" is another man's "good design," I guess.  If you feel D&D is a really only game of specialists, then I can see where you are coming from, however much I personally disagree with that assessment/taste.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844958Honest question, no snark, or sarcasm intended where does it say this?  I'm not finding anything in the core book, or the errata, saying that Heavy or Two Handed weapons cannot be used with 'finesse', not to mention that I'd assume that Class Powers would say otherwise.

In fact, under the properties of Two Handed and Heavy, there's no mention of it needing a certain stat.  Two handed states you just need two hands, even then, the book lists the Quarterstaff (a Two Handed weapon) in Martial Arts example.  Heavy simply says that Small Characters get disadvantage using them.

It's monk specific, and is on the PHB, page 78, under Martial Arts. Pardon any typos as I transcribe the intro section.

QuoteAt 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844960It's monk specific, and is on the PHB, page 78, under Martial Arts. Pardon any typos as I transcribe the intro section.

Aha.  Thank you.  I guess I'm blind.  Which lowers the potential damage down to 1D6+2/1d4+2 (before racials) at first level.  Ouch.  Unless you're allowed to two hand Versatile weapons, which is what the Quarterstaff falls under, then it's back up to 1D8+2 (Before racial bonuses)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844961Aha.  Thank you.  I guess I'm blind.  Which lowers the potential damage down to 1D6+2/1d4+2 (before racials) at first level.  Ouch.  Unless you're allowed to two hand Versatile weapons, which is what the Quarterstaff falls under, then it's back up to 1D8+2 (Before racial bonuses)

A monk can two-hand Versatile weapons for the bigger damage die, which brings the quarterstaff and spear to the top.  I happen to be a spear man, myself.

 This is one of those cases where a "plain language" reading of the rules seems to conflict with the technical reading, and could have used some clarification.  I think the same thing happens with the question about the damage bonus for the additional unarmed attack.  It does by RAW, but it sure seems funny when you've tried to drill it into your head that the default bonus action two weapon attack doesn't get it.

I recall reading a tweet clarification from Jeremey Crawford that the monk two-handed use of versatile weapons was intentional, or approved, or whatever.  The whole "Sage Advice" is official/not-official/sample interpretation  thing is ... kind of not helpful, in my opinion.   I wish they would position it as "official, but do your on thing if you want."  I also wish they'd make some attempt at consistency. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

In some ways the monk does TWF better than the fighter out-of-the-box (i.e. before advance chargen) because they start off with only needing a great DEX. Fighters often need to spend a Fighting Style and/or Dual Wielder feat and/or gp on better weaponry to really outpace the baseline damage of the monk. Imprisoned, stripped naked, and thrown into prison (and when does that ever happen on adventures? :rolleyes:), all other things being equal, a lv 1 monk unarmed is 1d4+3/1d4+3, versus a lv 1 fighter unarmed at 1+? (dependent upon STR value). And since Light weapon property caps at 1d6 damage, which is a damage die value easily available within simple weaponry and shortsword, it takes the optional feat system for other class chargen to break past that monk threshold.

The monk plays well to a highly civilized society where the tools of war are tightly controlled. However they get outpaced by a proper disciple of war, a fighter, when both are all kitted out. This is a very good design space because it focuses monk combat prowess within a narrow band of solid baseline proficiency with a visible glass ceiling. It retains the design space of both by giving nod to contextual limiters.

What it grants instead is lateral proficiency into the other spheres of play, most notably exploration. It's rather tragic that everything has been reduced into white room arena theorycrafting, but the monk has some really amazing non-combat toys. Like Rogue>Thieves and their Second Story Work, the monk has some cool stuff.

For example, though it is likely rarely discussed, being able to use Ki to Dash as a bonus action then jump double length +DEX mod is great! Given that base long jump is 10' starting run to get full STR value feet, half STR value without starting run, you can see some fun here. A monk with STR 10 and DEX 16, a pretty standard build, can Ki long jump 23' — all while using that as their bonus action Dash movement! Wushia parkour or combat kiting hijinks are built in by lvl 2, which very much retains kung-fu tropes.

I just wish, like I do for the Rogue, that so many class features don't key off of predominant stat values. DEX has more than enough love baseline. Class features do not need to keep keying off it as that tightens de facto build restrictions. I personally wouldn't mind spitballing alternate rewrites of such features, a la my efforts to supplant Sneak Attack and others.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844961Aha.  Thank you.  I guess I'm blind.  Which lowers the potential damage down to 1D6+2/1d4+2 (before racials) at first level.  Ouch.  Unless you're allowed to two hand Versatile weapons, which is what the Quarterstaff falls under, then it's back up to 1D8+2 (Before racial bonuses)

Again, book is not in front of me, but I am pretty sure that Martial Arts allows you to use the same melee monk weapon again for its Martial Arts granted bonus action. Which would be pre-racial (:p) 1d6+2/1d6+2. Compared to spear used versatily for pre-racial 1d8+2, and thus two-handed and thus likely against monk weapon RAI writing, the former is better because you have two tries to hit, and more chances to crit. And you also have a hand free to mess with the combat state, like grapple or shove someone as an opportunity attack with your reaction.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844971Again, book is not in front of me, but I am pretty sure that Martial Arts allows you to use the same melee monk weapon again for its Martial Arts granted bonus action. Which would be pre-racial (:p) 1d6+2/1d6+2. Compared to spear used versatily for pre-racial 1d8+2, and thus two-handed and thus likely against monk weapon RAI writing, the former is better because you have two tries to hit, and more chances to crit. And you also have a hand free to mess with the combat state, like grapple or shove someone as an opportunity attack with your reaction.

I thought we were post-racial already?!

The additional strike from Martial Arts has to be unarmed, which puts us at 1d8+2 (main attack with versatile quarterstaff or spear) and 1d4+2 for the bonus action unarmed strike.

QuoteWhen you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.

The aforementioned tweet regarding two-handed use of a versatile weapon, for what that's worth, is here (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/510452657241079808).

Well, there ya go! Thanks! Geau wushia spearmen!

Quote from: Natty Bodak;844683What number would make you happy for Monk Bruce Lee's AC, and at what level?

Tough question. Of course, a 1st-level monk shouldn't be Bruce Lee any more than a first level fighter should be Conan or something like that. But in every edition prior to 5e at least, the Monk had to deal with having a very poor AC by level 2 or 3 compared to fighters.  After the first couple of adventures, undoubtedly, a low-level fighter will have full plate mail and shield, whereas a monk is stuck unarmored with no real compensation other than "wait until MANY levels later when you'll finally catch up".  All because in D&D "dodging" is meaningless.

Quote from: Omega;844782er? The 5e Monk can start off right out the gate with an AC upwards of 18 or even 19 with an elf or other DEX bonus race. That equals or outstrips everyone elses starting ACs except for the Fighter and Paladin (and I think a dwarven Cleric?) who can start off with an AC of 18 via chain mail + shield. Only the Barbarian can exceed that due to being able to use a shield and still gain the unarmoured AC.

And they use a d8 for HP?

I was actually think of old-school monks.

Quote from: RPGPundit;845440Tough question. Of course, a 1st-level monk shouldn't be Bruce Lee any more than a first level fighter should be Conan or something like that. But in every edition prior to 5e at least, the Monk had to deal with having a very poor AC by level 2 or 3 compared to fighters.  After the first couple of adventures, undoubtedly, a low-level fighter will have full plate mail and shield, whereas a monk is stuck unarmored with no real compensation other than "wait until MANY levels later when you'll finally catch up".  All because in D&D "dodging" is meaningless.

Um, in 4e the Monk had pretty decent AC and could acquire a solid AC 16 (post-racial) or 17 with a Dex of 20 at 1st level without feats. Many took Unarmored Agility, bumping it up to AC 18/19 which is only 1 off from a Paladin in full-plate and shield.

Perhaps old-school implies 3.5 and before..

Quote from: Batman;845458Um, in 4e the Monk had pretty decent AC and could acquire a solid AC 16 (post-racial) or 17 with a Dex of 20 at 1st level without feats. Many took Unarmored Agility, bumping it up to AC 18/19 which is only 1 off from a Paladin in full-plate and shield.

Perhaps old-school implies 3.5 and before..

in AD&D by 3rd level the Monk probably had an AC of 7 if they were lucky enough to have 16 dex.
They had, on average 10 HP they fought on the Thief combat table (+2 attack per 4 levels)

Compare this to the typical fighter who would have AC of 2 and 16 HP (Assuming no Con bonus) and +2 attack per 2 levels (with a +1 bump at 1st level)

The monk had limited ranged combat (no bows) and no spells. So basically they were limited to throwing weapons and moving about.

No so much a glass cannon as a glass waterpistol.....

Once weapons specialisation came in with UA monks were even weaker relatively speaking. If you wanted to play Bruce Lee you were much better off with a figther double specialised with Nunchuks dual weilding and just have AC 10 + dex bonus.
If you could play OA you could pick a martial arts style and double spec in that to get some decent AC and unarmed attack bonuses.

Quote from: jibbajibba;845478in AD&D by 3rd level the Monk probably had an AC of 7 if they were lucky enough to have 16 dex.
They had, on average 10 HP they fought on the Thief combat table (+2 attack per 4 levels)

Compare this to the typical fighter who would have AC of 2 and 16 HP (Assuming no Con bonus) and +2 attack per 2 levels (with a +1 bump at 1st level)

The monk had limited ranged combat (no bows) and no spells. So basically they were limited to throwing weapons and moving about.

No so much a glass cannon as a glass waterpistol.....

Once weapons specialisation came in with UA monks were even weaker relatively speaking. If you wanted to play Bruce Lee you were much better off with a figther double specialised with Nunchuks dual weilding and just have AC 10 + dex bonus.
If you could play OA you could pick a martial arts style and double spec in that to get some decent AC and unarmed attack bonuses.

Ugh, that's rough. I'm really happy I got out of that system when I did.

Quote from: Batman;845458Um, in 4e the Monk had pretty decent AC and could acquire a solid AC 16 (post-racial) or 17 with a Dex of 20 at 1st level without feats. Many took Unarmored Agility, bumping it up to AC 18/19 which is only 1 off from a Paladin in full-plate and shield.

Perhaps old-school implies 3.5 and before..

4e doesn't count.  Its a non-edition as far as D&D is concerned. It has been punished with damnatio memoria.

Quote from: RPGPundit;8454874e doesn't count.  Its a non-edition as far as D&D is concerned. It has been punished with damnatio memoria.

Lol, wut? *goes and checks books* yep the books specifically has the title Dungeons and Dragons on it. So, like I said, Monks from 3e/3,5 and prior had to deal with sub-par AC.

Quote from: Batman;845512Lol, wut? *goes and checks books* yep the books specifically has the title Dungeons and Dragons on it. So, like I said, Monks from 3e/3,5 and prior had to deal with sub-par AC.

It might say D&D, but it wasn't D&D.

Quote from: Batman;845512Lol, wut? *goes and checks books* yep the books specifically has the title Dungeons and Dragons on it. So, like I said, Monks from 3e/3,5 and prior had to deal with sub-par AC.

4e is has not been considered D&D by a lot of players, to the point of running screaming to Paizo's Pathfinder and at the time, claiming it was the 'Second Coming!' (Yes, there really was people who claimed that.  No, I didn't agree with it.  Kind of ironic, given that there are a lot of ideas in PFRPG that are clearly cribbed from 4e of late.)  And the developers of 5e decided to make the current edition 'compatible with all editions and clones', and yet, there's very little you can take from, or to, 4e.  Pretty much means that even WoTC no longer considers 4e to actually be an Edition.  In fact, the only place you see the term D&D Fifth Edition or 5e, is on the Internet.  None of the books refer to itself as the Fifth Edition.

Quote from: RPGPundit;845961It might say D&D, but it wasn't D&D.

Sure it was, despite that you don't like it. I think AD&D is absolute trash and a completely unplayable game but as much as I hate it, it says the name on the cover.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;8459694e is has not been considered D&D by a lot of players, to the point of running screaming to Paizo's Pathfinder and at the time, claiming it was the 'Second Coming!' (Yes, there really was people who claimed that.  No, I didn't agree with it.  Kind of ironic, given that there are a lot of ideas in PFRPG that are clearly cribbed from 4e of late.)  And the developers of 5e decided to make the current edition 'compatible with all editions and clones', and yet, there's very little you can take from, or to, 4e.  Pretty much means that even WoTC no longer considers 4e to actually be an Edition.  In fact, the only place you see the term D&D Fifth Edition or 5e, is on the Internet.  None of the books refer to itself as the Fifth Edition.

Sure WotC considers 4e an edition. I mean, a lot of the surveys talks about previous edition options like what classes and races to bring to 5e and there's always options from 4e in there like the Warden, Vyrloka, Invoker, etc. Not only that but its quite easy to convert stuff from 4e to 5e or take feats straight from 4e into 5e.

Quote from: Batman;845987Sure it was, despite that you don't like it. I think AD&D is absolute trash and a completely unplayable game but as much as I hate it, it says the name on the cover.

It's an edition they're hoping quietly goes away.

Quote from: Batman;845987Sure WotC considers 4e an edition. I mean, a lot of the surveys talks about previous edition options like what classes and races to bring to 5e and there's always options from 4e in there like the Warden, Vyrloka, Invoker, etc.

I've not looked at many of the surveys, but of those I've looked at, not one of them has anything to do with 4e.  Are there any? (Honest question, like I said, I've missed many a survey.)

Quote from: Batman;845987Not only that but its quite easy to convert stuff from 4e to 5e or take feats straight from 4e into 5e.

So why haven't they?  Even as Unearthed Arcana articles.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846036It's an edition they're hoping quietly goes away.

Yep, just like each edition that has come before for the past 15 years they want their current one to be what EVERYONE plays. Still doesn't take away from comparisons of 4e, 3e, 2e, etc.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846036I've not looked at many of the surveys, but of those I've looked at, not one of them has anything to do with 4e.  Are there any? (Honest question, like I said, I've missed many a survey.)

The last one was about campaign settings to bring into 5e and 4e's Nentir Vale was one of them. One before that was about previous classes re-imaged into 5e and the Warden and I believe Invoker was also included. Those 2, off the top of my head, both held 4e options. Not only that but they kept ALL the flavor from 4e for the Warlock and you can thank 4e for healing Hit Die and pretty much all of the Battle master fighter and supplemental rules like Marking in the DMG. For a system trying to cut 4e away they sure internalized a lot of core assumptions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846036So why haven't they?  Even as Unearthed Arcana articles.

Looking at the past UA articles they have converted just one previous class (Favored Soul) into a Sorcerer sub-class. In one year. They also attempted an Artificer but that went back to the drawing board. They also came up with a spell-less Ranger which, when you look at it sideways, could be a 4e attempt since they didn't have magic in 4e.

Quote from: Batman;846057Yep, just like each edition that has come before for the past 15 years they want their current one to be what EVERYONE plays. Still doesn't take away from comparisons of 4e, 3e, 2e, etc.

Actually no.  As WoTC has rereleased in either physical or PDF form, I believe Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 1e, 3e and I THINK maybe even 2e (at least I heard rumours that they were), but I haven't seen anything come out.

Quote from: Batman;846057The last one was about campaign settings to bring into 5e and 4e's Nentir Vale was one of them. One before that was about previous classes re-imaged into 5e and the Warden and I believe Invoker was also included. Those 2, off the top of my head, both held 4e options. Not only that but they kept ALL the flavor from 4e for the Warlock and you can thank 4e for healing Hit Die and pretty much all of the Battle master fighter and supplemental rules like Marking in the DMG. For a system trying to cut 4e away they sure internalized a lot of core assumptions.

Actually the Artificer was a late, late, late 3e class, and really freakin' popular too.  I'll grant you the Warlock however, they did change the class a lot from it's 3e incarnation, now that they got a better handle on what they wanted.

As for settings, well, we know how well that survey turned out.  The only thing that they kept race-wise from 4e was the Dragonborn and the Tiefling fluff.

Quote from: Batman;846057Looking at the past UA articles they have converted just one previous class (Favored Soul) into a Sorcerer sub-class. In one year. They also attempted an Artificer but that went back to the drawing board. They also came up with a spell-less Ranger which, when you look at it sideways, could be a 4e attempt since they didn't have magic in 4e.

I don't know about the Ranger, there were a lot of people back in my 2e days that wanted a spell-less Ranger, so it might be a 4e thing, or it might just be a skipped step in it's potential evolution as a class.  I dunno about that one, because I have no evidence either way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846076Actually no.  As WoTC has rereleased in either physical or PDF form, I believe Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 1e, 3e and I THINK maybe even 2e (at least I heard rumours that they were), but I haven't seen anything come out.

Mostly because a lot of 4e stuff is still in stores or is easily available where as 3e isn't and definitely not pre-3E. I have 2 half-price book stores where I live and it's pretty easy to get your hands on 3e and 4e material, a little bit harder for diverse AD&D 2e stuff and practically nothing prior to that. Perhaps that has something to do with it?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846076Actually the Artificer was a late, late, late 3e class, and really freakin' popular too.  I'll grant you the Warlock however, they did change the class a lot from it's 3e incarnation, now that they got a better handle on what they wanted.

Yeah the Artificer was first released in the Eberron setting for revised 3rd and later updated to 4e. I do feel, however, that 4e gave it a better treatment than it got with 3E with way more support and possibly one of the reasons why it went back to the drawing board after it's UA debut? From what I read, it didn't do well as a Wizard's tradition and it probably needs it's own class.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846076As for settings, well, we know how well that survey turned out.  The only thing that they kept race-wise from 4e was the Dragonborn and the Tiefling fluff.

Truly though, what else was left? I mean Halflings, Humans, Elves (non-eladrin type), Dwarves, Gnomes, Half-orcs, etc. all exist in 4e, 3e, and prior so they pretty much covered the bases 4e should've with the PHB. 5e did, though, produce a solid Drow option which hasn't seen PHB-like status since 4E adopted it as a player option in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. In 3e it was in the Monster Manual and had TONS of things that made it nearly unplayable right out of the gate.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846076I don't know about the Ranger, there were a lot of people back in my 2e days that wanted a spell-less Ranger, so it might be a 4e thing, or it might just be a skipped step in it's potential evolution as a class.  I dunno about that one, because I have no evidence either way.

Perhaps its a combination of many desires from across the spectrum? I know the spell-less Ranger was an option in the v3.5 supplement Complete Warrior but it was vastly inferior to the spell version and if you wanted to play a Ranger with spells in 4E you played a Seeker or hybrid/MC Ranger|Seeker (which was a LOT of fun, let me tell you!).

Quote from: Batman;846168Mostly because a lot of 4e stuff is still in stores or is easily available where as 3e isn't and definitely not pre-3E. I have 2 half-price book stores where I live and it's pretty easy to get your hands on 3e and 4e material, a little bit harder for diverse AD&D 2e stuff and practically nothing prior to that. Perhaps that has something to do with it?

4e stuff is still easy to acquire?  Really?  Hmm, OK.  I've got no evidence to support otherwise, except anecdotes, like all the game stores in my town nearly got rid of their stock almost immediately 5e came out.

A friend of mine was awfully disappointed.  Personally I preferred the boardgames, I found the system excelled there.

Quote from: Batman;846168Yeah the Artificer was first released in the Eberron setting for revised 3rd and later updated to 4e. I do feel, however, that 4e gave it a better treatment than it got with 3E with way more support and possibly one of the reasons why it went back to the drawing board after it's UA debut? From what I read, it didn't do well as a Wizard's tradition and it probably needs it's own class.

Honestly, I'll never understand the need to give every single niche it's own separate class.  But then again, I grew up reading S&S books, like the original REH Conan stuff, and those heroes are broad generalists, so my view is completely skewed there.

Quote from: Batman;846168Truly though, what else was left? I mean Halflings, Humans, Elves (non-eladrin type), Dwarves, Gnomes, Half-orcs, etc. all exist in 4e, 3e, and prior so they pretty much covered the bases 4e should've with the PHB. 5e did, though, produce a solid Drow option which hasn't seen PHB-like status since 4E adopted it as a player option in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. In 3e it was in the Monster Manual and had TONS of things that made it nearly unplayable right out of the gate.

Truthfully I was more surprised that the Dragonborn were considered important enough to import.  I knew tieflings would be, simply because everyone loved them since Planescape back in 2e.

Quote from: Batman;846168Perhaps its a combination of many desires from across the spectrum? I know the spell-less Ranger was an option in the v3.5 supplement Complete Warrior but it was vastly inferior to the spell version and if you wanted to play a Ranger with spells in 4E you played a Seeker or hybrid/MC Ranger|Seeker (which was a LOT of fun, let me tell you!).

I can see that, although the Ranger was a difficult class to find it's voice, especially in 3e.  At first it was Dual Wielding badassery, but people wanted archery to be viable, so in 3.5 they lowered the HP die and gave it an archer focus as a choice, which hurt the dual wielder camp, because it was restricted to light armour, but had a cleric's hit die.  Magic was it's only saving grace, to hear some talk.  No one ever played a Ranger in my games, so I couldn't say.

Then 4e comes along, and it's suddenly the damage baseline every other class is measured against, simply due to raw output.

4e will always be remembered as the low point of D&D (I hope! I can't conceive of WoTC or any other future owner of the franchise actually doing something less-D&D than that!).

Quote from: RPGPundit;8466734e will always be remembered as the low point of D&D (I hope! I can't conceive of WoTC or any other future owner of the franchise actually doing something less-D&D than that!).

No, it won't. People tend to remember actual fun a lot more than arbitrary discussions with an arbitrary collection of strangers, mostly due to a stronger personal investment. Logically, those who played 4th edition and enjoyed ot will have a significantly stronger positive memory of it than those who never interacted much with the system outside of online discussions. So, the majority will either remember it fondly or, more likely, not at all.
Then, in ten years or so, there will be nostalgic notions about how "brave" the design decisions of fourth edition were, and  how well the system worked in a very specific content.

Quote from: Beagle;846678No, it won't. People tend to remember actual fun a lot more than arbitrary discussions with an arbitrary collection of strangers, mostly due to a stronger personal investment. Logically, those who played 4th edition and enjoyed ot will have a significantly stronger positive memory of it than those who never interacted much with the system outside of online discussions. So, the majority will either remember it fondly or, more likely, not at all.
Then, in ten years or so, there will be nostalgic notions about how "brave" the design decisions of fourth edition were, and  how well the system worked in a very specific content.

Precisely

Quote from: Beagle;846678No, it won't. People tend to remember actual fun a lot more than arbitrary discussions with an arbitrary collection of strangers, mostly due to a stronger personal investment. Logically, those who played 4th edition and enjoyed ot will have a significantly stronger positive memory of it than those who never interacted much with the system outside of online discussions. So, the majority will either remember it fondly or, more likely, not at all.
Then, in ten years or so, there will be nostalgic notions about how "brave" the design decisions of fourth edition were, and  how well the system worked in a very specific content.

Which is exactly how the OSR movement works.

Quote from: RPGPundit;8466734e will always be remembered as the low point of D&D (I hope! I can't conceive of WoTC or any other future owner of the franchise actually doing something less-D&D than that!).

4e D&D Gamma World. Yes. They can go lower. Lots lower. D&D as a slapstick comedy. Or say they went Dragonlance and overfocused on linear path story-adventures. Or...

Dragon Strike...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ)

oog...

Never underestimate WOTCs ability to totally screw the pooch better than TSR ever did.

Quote from: Beagle;846678No, it won't. People tend to remember actual fun a lot more than arbitrary discussions with an arbitrary collection of strangers, mostly due to a stronger personal investment. Logically, those who played 4th edition and enjoyed ot will have a significantly stronger positive memory of it than those who never interacted much with the system outside of online discussions. So, the majority will either remember it fondly or, more likely, not at all.
Then, in ten years or so, there will be nostalgic notions about how "brave" the design decisions of fourth edition were, and  how well the system worked in a very specific content.

Perhaps, but people tend to remember negative experiences with even greater clarity and fervor, especially if it was unexpected. I may not remember all those average days of fun with coworkers and customers while working retail, but I keenly remember those embittered harpies who made customer service hell. Similarly those days at the beach blur into a happy nostalgia, but I surely remember that crab pinch, soft drink pull tab cut on my foot, and nasty sunburn.

Does it affect my future fun? Hell yes! I know what to avoid and warn others to stay clear away from in the future. I may not avoid D&D, but I definitely know what I like and don't like when I return to it.

Quote from: Beagle;846678No, it won't. People tend to remember actual fun a lot more than arbitrary discussions with an arbitrary collection of strangers, mostly due to a stronger personal investment. Logically, those who played 4th edition and enjoyed ot will have a significantly stronger positive memory of it than those who never interacted much with the system outside of online discussions. So, the majority will either remember it fondly or, more likely, not at all.
Then, in ten years or so, there will be nostalgic notions about how "brave" the design decisions of fourth edition were, and  how well the system worked in a very specific content.

Look, there were a LOT of people who had a decent amount of fun with 2e AD&D, and yet, it was STILL remembered badly by many of these people, people who actually had fun playing it, just because it was remembered as the edition that betrayed Gygax, bankrupted TSR and almost killed the hobby.

Whereas with 4e, unlike 2e, you had TWO-THIRDS of D&D gamers COMPLETELY ABANDON D&D because of it.  You seriously think those people, who QUIT THE FUCKING GAME because of 4e, will look back on it fondly?  They might look back fondly on Pathfinder, as "that RPG that got me through those totally shitty 4e D&D years when the game disgusted me, thank goodness it was around".  But 4e?  In comparison to 4e, Lorraine Williams will be remembered as a benevolent patron of the hobby.

There's a better chance I'll be remembered as mild mannered than of 4e being looked fondly upon by anyone other than the most die-hard of 4e-assholes.

And lots of people quit D&D during 2e AD&D (like me) and still there are people who generally still talk about & play it like there are people who talk/play 4e.

Which all irrelevant to the topic of the Monk in 5e. I, for one, have seen a low-level monk perform pretty well in 5e. Sure, they don't have the best AC but in a game where multi-attacks are very important, especially at low levels, he got us out of a few jams with flurry quite easily.

I think that 5e got the monk right in terms of flavor and effectiveness, at least when you compare it to pre-4e incarnation. 4e did a similar job, and effectively, but had a more magical bent than I think some really wanted. Not too mention it came out FAR too late in the editions cycle.