D&D (2024) Does WotC view the Monk class as overtuned from their perspective?

[grimmgoose]

I feel like we've kind of been suckered into debating the obvious: monk has problems. And there's no real point in arguing about it, because WotC are working on a new approach to the class. It's more interesting to focus on what will happen with the class - it and moon druid remain the two class/subclass options that we will see significant change on.

Has WOTC mentioned a "new approach" to the monk?

I assumed a new approach would be taken with Playtest 6, but that was basically "monk, again - sorry, we're out of ideas!"

I'm assuming the "new" monk will have maybe more Ki Points, but other than that some abilities will simply not require Ki Points.

edit: sorry, "Discipline" points.

 

[Mephista]

Edit: I also generally find it more useful to compare monks to rangers, as both are melee classes that depend more on mobility and unarmored defence. If you compare a barbarian to a monk at level 1, the damage output is very similar, but the barbarian's survivability is much higher.

Curious minds inquiring. How do you feel about using Rogue as well? Or is it just Ranger?

 

[Kinematics]

Has WOTC mentioned a "new approach" to the monk?

Jeremy said they're going back to the drawing board, but didn't give any details on how they might change the class. I assume there won't be huge changes to the framework, since he also said that the only subclass being reworked was the Warrior of the Hand. If the other subclasses aren't being reworked, then the framework that they sit on can't change very much.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Jeremy said they're going back to the drawing board, but didn't give any details on how they might change the class. I assume there won't be huge changes to the framework, since he also said that the only subclass being reworked was the Warrior of the Hand. If the other subclasses aren't being reworked, then the framework that they sit on can't change very much.

That's not accurate. In the most recent video where they discussed the Monk, Jeremy mentioned that they were looking at the Discipline Point system because it was being too restrictive so that they're looking into both decreasing DP costs and making some abilities DP-free to use, and went on to discuss abilities that had both limited uses and Discipline Point costs as something they're looking into fixing because one restriction on an ability is enough.

Likewise, the reason that he said that only Warrior of the Hand was being sent out for additional playtesting was that the other subclasses (Warrior of the Elements, Warrior of Shadows, Way of Mercy) polled very well and they didn't feel that further iteration was necessary. I would agree with that conclusion with regards to those subclasses, and would further add that most of the critiques of the Monk from Playtest 6 had to do with the core class as opposed to those subclasses, so it makes sense to focus on that as opposed to the subclasses.

 

[Kinematics]

That's not accurate. In the most recent video where they discussed the Monk, Jeremy mentioned that they were looking at the Discipline Point system because it was being too restrictive so that they're looking into both decreasing DP costs and making some abilities DP-free to use, and went on to discuss abilities that had both limited uses and Discipline Point costs as something they're looking into fixing because one restriction on an ability is enough.

Likewise, the reason that he said that only Warrior of the Hand was being sent out for additional playtesting was that the other subclasses (Warrior of the Elements, Warrior of Shadows, Way of Mercy) polled very well and they didn't feel that further iteration was necessary. I would agree with that conclusion with regards to those subclasses, and would further add that most of the critiques of the Monk from Playtest 6 had to do with the core class as opposed to those subclasses, so it makes sense to focus on that as opposed to the subclasses.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. They aren't taking a "new approach" to monk (as in the quote I replied to), only adjusting how the current system works — the framework that the other subclasses sit on, which they aren't changing. If they were making significant changes to the base class framework, that would necessarily mean that the other subclasses would need another pass to make sure everything still fit together.

Changing DP costs, for example, isn't a "new approach" to the class. It's just a refinement. A new approach would be something like dropping DP and switching to a stance system. That wouldn't be compatible with the other subclasses as currently written, and everything would have to come back for another playtest.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. They aren't taking a "new approach" to monk (as in the quote I replied to), only adjusting how the current system works — the framework that the other subclasses sit on, which they aren't changing. If they were making significant changes to the base class framework, that would necessarily mean that the other subclasses would need another pass to make sure everything still fit together.

Changing DP costs, for example, isn't a "new approach" to the class. It's just a refinement. A new approach would be something like dropping DP and switching to a stance system. That wouldn't be compatible with the other subclasses as currently written, and everything would have to come back for another playtest.

How I interpreted his comments was that the sub-class features are fine aside from Hand, but the monk chassis isn't fine. So they are going to rework the entire chassis, and the sub-class it will be featured with will be the remodelled hand. I don't see why that would not be compatible with the other subclasses as currently written, and they will be play tested with the new chassis alongside the new version of Hand.

I thought he was pretty clear on that point: base monk chassis not working, new design incoming. Hand also not working, new design incoming.

 

[mellored]

Has WOTC mentioned a "new approach" to the monk?

No.

They said they where going though all the options to reduce DP cost. But they would still have DP as a resource.

So maybe make Stunning Strike a proficiency times per day instead of costing DP, or allow disengage as a bonus action without DP, ect...

But still have a limited DP pool.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. They aren't taking a "new approach" to monk (as in the quote I replied to), only adjusting how the current system works — the framework that the other subclasses sit on, which they aren't changing. If they were making significant changes to the base class framework, that would necessarily mean that the other subclasses would need another pass to make sure everything still fit together.

Changing DP costs, for example, isn't a "new approach" to the class. It's just a refinement. A new approach would be something like dropping DP and switching to a stance system. That wouldn't be compatible with the other subclasses as currently written, and everything would have to come back for another playtest.

I'm disagreeing with this part:

"Jeremy said they're going back to the drawing board, but didn't give any details on how they might change." Jeremy gave several details about how they might change the monk. (He also didn't say they were going back to the drawing board, btw.)

 

[Clint_L]

Okay, at this point we are a little bit arguing about definitions, so how about this: the next UA will present substantial changes to how all monks work, not just Hand, and this is intended to make all monks less reliant on a scarce resource than they currently are in 5e. How's that?

 

[Undrave]

Here's the thing about the Monk: if you take their Ki/Discipline points, and assume they are alloted as Spell points per the DMG Spell Points variant, then reverse them to Spell Slots after multiplying for 3 (assuming two Short Rests with Novas in between them, obviously)...then a Monk is a half-caster with the same Spell casting capacity as a Paladin, Ranger or Artificer. And this is supported by the design of the 2014 Way of the Four Elements Monk, and how the Ki budget matches their Spell Point value.

So, as far as the designers are concerned, Monks are half-casters who have the capacity to continually mini-Nova like a Warlock.

The thing is the non-caster half of the Half-Caster sucks without the caster half, unlike the Eldtrich Knight or Arcane Trickster or Ranger or Paladin. You NEED your Ki to keep up the damage, but you NEED your Ki to keep up your defences... basically wasting your slots just to get up to the level of a basic Fighter. It's a stupid design.

And Stunning Strike is too over valued. with it centralizing the Monk too much yet it comes way too late to feel core to the Monk.

I assumed a new approach would be taken with Playtest 6, but that was basically "monk, again - sorry, we're out of ideas!"

They've been out of ideas for the Monk since the start. They put all the old Monk features on a white board and instead of trying to filter them through the lens of a specific goal for the class, they just decided to figure out how to staple them on a 20 level frame with no real thought put into if it went somewhere or not.