Search results

The main reason I think it's not too high is 5e's design. Fights against solo enemies tend to be really really easy in 5e, and most monsters have multi attack so this will be really good against one attack and useless against the rest, so it will end up being completelly fine.

yup. But I think that's the point. Is deflect attacks strong in ideal situations? YES. Does the monk need help in those specific situations? absolutelly. Does that mean deflect attacks is too strong and should be nerfed? no! It's the main reason monks will survive at tables, we like or...

Deflect attacks is an essential piece that helps solve one of the two main problems with the class.... monks die a lot because they are squishy.

Why are we saying deflect attacks is too strong? Monks are a class with low AC and a bad hit die for a melee fighter. Giving them a way to reduce damage once a turn is a good way to keep them viable in melee, and it is a flavourful design that plays different from other classes tanking options...

to be fair... this point is only really valid at level 5, after that, all the monks attacks do force damage.

And, if we really look at this discussion, "looking like a commoner on level 1" is a really weird metric to see if a class is good or bad.

sure, but "I don't like it" is not a sinonym for unnecessary. If some people find use for it, and find it a better way of using the information on the book, it's, by definition, not unnecessary. edit = I'm just wrong here. I made the same mistake as Yaarel in using unnecessary and waste of...

and the tag is none of that. It's something you don't like, but us finding uses for it kind of proves that it is none of those things.

or dash, or disengage....

magic weapons exist for exactly that reaon, and I would not loose another part of the class to put in a feature that incentivises the class to do the opposite of what that class is most know for. Those would also interfere with the classes power budget and change a lot of other features. But...

no, it was mathematically worse than the PHB monk, they really flubbed that one

And if you really want to play a monk with masteries, there are two viable options, a mastery feat or just playing the warrior of the hand subclass, that has features that work very similarlly to the masteries... and that is not even considering multiclasses.

I would much rather have deflecting attacks than weapon materies. Weapon masteries serve to give a class utility options and tactical choices. The monk always had those, so adding masteries, without creating unarmed masteries would be, as crawford said, "a hat on a hat" and a clunky secondary...

I prefer 2d4 because it avoids the dreaded 1 in the healing die. I think it's okay to scale the mass spells by one die because it will be affecting multiple people, so it scales exponentially (I don't know if that is the right word to use).

About subclasses making the subclass tags wrong, I disagree with that too. The subclasses don't get new spell lists, they just open up another classes spell list to them. You don't need an EK tag on the spell, the eldritch knight just has to remember that when they read "wizard" on the spell...

I actually disagree with this. Mastery did little to nothing good for the monk before. It made for a weird tug of war, where you had to choose between doing higher damage with your unnarmed strike or having the utility of the mastery. Unless you make a mastery for unnarmed strikes, or do...

no, what I'm saying is that if that space would not be used for other things, if it would stay blank, then it's objectivelly not a waste of space.

the last UA monk was the worst monk they've made for 5e...

Well, it's objectivelly not a waste of space because that space was not used for anything before...

two attacks per turn, better scores, better unarmed damage... But what I don't really get is the "now" part of your statement, what did the monk have before that it doesn't now that separated it from the comonner?