D&D 5E Are monks very samey?

[Sacrosanct]

You can't have an elemental monk using those special abilities too much though, otherwise they start to outdo the sorcerers and wizards. A monk out of ki is still very effective with core abilities. A wizard or sorcerer out of spells isn't nearly as much. Only cantrips. The monk gets better AC, more HP, more movement, more attacks, etc, even when out of ki, than a wizard or sorcerer. Those special abilities are meant to be limited in use. And in my experience so far, it's really only an issue at low levels. A 10th level monk has 10 ki, which is a lot in between short rests.

 

[Minigiant]

The made the ki costs for Elemental Monks way too high. One ability and you're practically done until a short rest at low level. Even at high level you can't do very much before you're out. Doesn't make for a very fun class archetype.

The ki costs for all 3 monk orders are fine and fair.

The issue is ki management. The monk lacks the ki to use it often. So if the subclass is heavy on ki use, the adventure is low on rests, or the enemies are big to the point you need ki to off them, the monk stinks.

You can't have an elemental monk using those special abilities too much though, otherwise they start to outdo the sorcerers and wizards. A monk out of ki is still very effective with core abilities. A wizard or sorcerer out of spells isn't nearly as much. Only cantrips. The monk gets better AC, more HP, more movement, more attacks, etc, even when out of ki, than a wizard or sorcerer. Those special abilities are meant to be limited in use. And in my experience so far, it's really only an issue at low levels. A 10th level monk has 10 ki, which is a lot in between short rests.

A monk isn't outdoing a caster. They top off at 6th level spells and get no boosts to them. A monk is always one or two levels of magic behind a full caster.

The issue is that throughout the most played part of the game: low levels: monks have to heavily ration ki or develop tactics which doesn't use it often. Monks are given a cool feature then told not to use it for 6-9 levels.

I see a missed oppoturnity in a ki feat. Give a monk more ki to use features and let classes like fighters and rogue to snag a bit of it to make ki warriors. Although it might feel like atax so its understandable.

 

[Sunseeker]

You can't have an elemental monk using those special abilities too much though, otherwise they start to outdo the sorcerers and wizards.

A Four Elements monk never outdoes a caster. The pure limitation on the spells they can use, the fact that they can't target anyone but themselves with their utility spells, and the number and power of their spells is pretty heavily limited by ki.

Monks have a very long way to go before they'll even be on par with a spellcaster.

Also: getting high defenses on a caster is not particularly hard. Cantrips will also usually do close to the same damage as three unarmed strikes per round.

I see a missed oppoturnity in a ki feat. Give a monk more ki to use features and let classes like fighters and rogue to snag a bit of it to make ki warriors. Although it might feel like atax so its understandable.

I was surprised there wasn't like a +1/4th ki feat, but there also isn't one for Sorcery points. I suspect the math is extremely tight on the issue.

 

[Minigiant]

I was surprised there wasn't like a +1/4th ki feat, but there also isn't one for Sorcery points. I suspect the math is extremely tight on the issue.

I believe it is the new standard of feats that did it.

1 ki per 3 levels levels is fine. But ki does nothing alone and it's not enough for a feat alone. And you can't simply grant ki features as monks already get all the general ones, giving nonmonks FOB is overpowered, and subclass ki abilities distort flavor so much.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A monk isn't outdoing a caster. They top off at 6th level spells and get no boosts to them.

The issue is that throughout the most played part of the game: low levels:.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. One of reasons for your position that monks don't outdo casters is because they cap out at 6th levels and then follow that up by admitting that most of the game never even gets that far. Doesn't seem like a very strong argument if by your own admission it hardly ever comes up.

And I didn't say that monks outdo casters now. I was replying to the statements earlier that ki needs to be boosted up because they run out too fast. And if that happens, they can outdo casters. If your monk is slinging around burning hands and walls of fire just as often as a caster and still has better AC, HP, and attacks than a wizard or sorcerer, then it becomes a problem.

Ki is limited for a reason. This reminds me of the whole "why isn't there a warlord class" discussion from a few months ago. People wanted a warlord that was pretty much both the abilities of a paladin and battlemaster. Do something like that and you end up with a class that overshadows every other class. So if you boost ki but don't take away all these other areas where a monk is better, you end up with an OP class.

I get the impression that some people want a class that dabbles into other class abilities to be as good as those other classes in those abilities. And that way lies imbalance. You can't have a class that does everything as good as everyone else.

 

[bganon]

IMO the Ki cap is appropriate, but I think it's maybe more about how the class feels than strict balance. You could give Four Elements Monks a few extra Ki points and I don't think they'd really outclass true casters - but monks can already spam burning hands pretty freely starting around level 12. Yeah, it's a 1st-level spell, so no big deal, but move that even earlier in the progression and the Monk starts feeling more blasty than the Sorcerer. I'd rather improve the Wo4E monk by granting more options similar to Fangs of the Fire Snake, a cheaper Fist of Unbroken Air, more longer-duration buffs, etc.

Some would argue this is more of a failing of the Sorcerer than a Monk issue (I'd really love to see something like the 4E Elementalist sometime).

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

My point with mentioning monk's 6 levels of spells is the progression. At the level the monk gets one 1st level spell, a full caster gets 2nd level spells. And that's the closest they ever get. Even with doubled ki, the monk is behind on power and uses.

My complete point of that post is that ki becomes like sorcery point as you don't have many of them to use until you get to the point where most campaigns end. But unlike sorcerery point, ki isn't as huge as a metamagicked top spell. Or more accurate, its like Action Surge for most games. And then you are back you relying on non-ki features.

 

[kerbarian]

The ki costs for all 3 monk orders are fine and fair.

The issue is ki management. The monk lacks the ki to use it often. So if the subclass is heavy on ki use, the adventure is low on rests, or the enemies are big to the point you need ki to off them, the monk stinks.

Yes, monks have the same problem as warlocks in that they're heavily dependent on short rests, and many (most?) campaigns have fewer short rests than the designer-expected one per two encounters. It puts a big strain on ki and makes ki-intensive powers less attractive.

I think the problem with costing the four-elements powers is that they have to be expensive enough that if you spend all your ki on spells you still won't compete with a caster. But making them that expensive means that using them sparingly still takes away enough ki to dramatically reduce your martial capability. IMO the ideal would be to not increase the ability of a four-elements monk as a pure blaster but to allow them to cast a few spells and still have more ki available for other uses.

For example, add the feature (at 6th?) "Perfect Attunement. Whenever you have spent at least one minute without using an elemental discipline, the ki cost of your elemental disciplines is reduced by 1. The Elemental Attunement discipline does not disrupt your Perfect Attunement."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

However, monks are also very flexible in their weapon choices. You can fight with a quarterstaff, unarmed, or with twin short swords, and it's mechanically the same (after a few levels). So you can get some visual distinctiveness there without having to build around it.

I think that makes the characters feel more similar than they should look.

I also primarily consider physical description as the main way to make characters distinct, so 5E is already way ahead of other editions, since your monk might use short swords or nunchaku or anything. Knowing that the difference between nunchaku and fist is entirely cosmetic, though, takes a lot of punch out of it. It doesn't feel like I'm using a weapon, so my mental image marks the weapon as un-important and something-to-be-ignored.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that makes the characters feel more similar than they should look.

I also primarily consider physical description as the main way to make characters distinct, so 5E is already way ahead of other editions, since your monk might use short swords or nunchaku or anything. Knowing that the difference between nunchaku and fist is entirely cosmetic, though, takes a lot of punch out of it. It doesn't feel like I'm using a weapon, so my mental image marks the weapon as un-important and something-to-be-ignored.

Blunt damage vs piercing/slashing sometimes matters, e.g. against skeletons and rakshasa. The monk can choose an appropriate weapon.