D&D 5E 4-Element monks are the only monk archetype that excels against flying enemies

[Flamestrike]

Yeah, my bazookas and lightsabers comment seems to have taken on a life of its own.

All I was saying is that if you know the players don't have something, it's not poor design if your encounters would be trivialized by that something.

Again, if flight is trivialising encounters, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And then we get the actual problems with the Four Elements monk, its limited resources. To pull of this combo of "Fly into the enemy backline and stunning strike", you've just burnt up 5 ki points. Lowest level you can pull this off is 11, at which point you've used just under half of your daily resources for that stunt.

No, you've just used under one eighth of your daily resources.
That is considerably different from half.

The paladin who misty-stepped through the enemy line and hit the caster with blinding smite is in a similar situation.

If a wizard burns just under half of their spells in a single round of combat, or a fighter does the same then yes, that seems powerful at the time, but they're aching the moment the next combat starts

Even after they burn most of their ki, a 4 elements monk is still a Monk.
i.e. a martial character with decent base damage and incredible resistance and mobility. 4 elements monks aren't primary spellcasters like warlocks or wizards. They're half-casters like Rangers and Paladins, and their capabilities and resources should be compared against that of those classes.

Still a large expenditure of resources. You bank on there being a chance to have a short rest before the next battle, but what if there isn't? What if the rest of your party are concerned with a time limit and do not give you the opportunity to do so?

What if you're a warlock in that situation?
What if you're any other caster and you bank on there being a chance to long rest before the next battle, but what if there isn't? What if the rest of your party are concerned with a time limit and do not give you the opportunity to do so?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Again, if flight is trivialising encounters, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry, but that's just dumb.

Would you say the same thing about a level 1 encounter? Let's say you put some goblins with bows behind some barricades that give them cover, and there are caltrops spread on the ground in front of them.

Normally you'd have to advance across the caltrops, deciding whether to do so slowly and carefully, or go quickly and trust your Dex save, then either hop over the barricades, or try to fight them from the other side.

With flight you just fly over the caltrops, fly over the barricades, and kill the goblins. Trivial.

So....is that encounter "doing it wrong"?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

With flight you just fly over the caltrops, fly over the barricades, and kill the goblins. Trivial.

1 1st level monk vs. 4 goblins in melee while the rest of the party takes a couple rounds to catch up with the battle. Sounds dangerous for the monk to me, and that's assuming the goblins just brawl and don't disengage, scatter, and fill the monk full of arrows or run and snipe from the shadows.

Hanging yourself out to dry and using some resources to try to short cut an encounter with a few goblins isn't breaking the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

1 1st level monk vs. 4 goblins in melee while the rest of the party takes a couple rounds to catch up with the battle. Sounds dangerous for the monk to me, and that's assuming the goblins just brawl and don't disengage, scatter, and fill the monk full of arrows or run and snipe from the shadows.

Hanging yourself out to dry and using some resources to try to short cut an encounter with a few goblins isn't breaking the game.

Well, first of all, I wasn't specifically talking about the 4E monk. This was in response to a fork in the thread about flight in general. I was imagining that an unknown number, perhaps even all, of the party could fly. But imagine it's two goblins, if that helps you.

Secondly, can you seriously not conceive of a 1st level encounter, or puzzle, or challenge, that wouldn't be trivialized by flight, even if just one character could do it?

Thirdly, I don't recall using the phrase "breaking the game". I thought I made my position clear that I think it's more interesting to have to make decisions involving terrain, instead of just flying over it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well, first of all, I wasn't specifically talking about the 4E monk. This was in response to a fork in the thread about flight in general. I was imagining that an unknown number, perhaps even all, of the party could fly. But imagine it's two goblins, if that helps you.

Secondly, can you seriously not conceive of a 1st level encounter, or puzzle, or challenge, that wouldn't be trivialized by flight, even if just one character could do it?

Thirdly, I don't recall using the phrase "breaking the game". I thought I made my position clear that I think it's more interesting to have to make decisions involving terrain, instead of just flying over it.

You specified 1st level....a part of the game where its almost impossible to have a character be able to fly at-will, and even short term "flight" is rare. Any "mobility" enhancements are usually short term and are limited in use and i've never once seen an all-flying 1st level party in my entire gaming career, so why would I suppose the entire party would be flying in a 1st level proposed encounter?

Two goblins vs. 4 lvl 1 characters is an Easy encounter. You could maybe bump it up to Moderate if you considered the caltrops and barricades to be a big advantage for the goblins...but that's not enough to make this a serious test of the character abilities.

The PCs could have used Charm Person, Command, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud, Jump, Sanctuary, Silent Image, and the everpresent Hiding in Shadows to get 1 or more characters up to melee with the goblins with little difficulty. Those are all 1st level spells, fairly common, and with a reasonable expectation of success. It isn't like flight is so much better than any of those choices in this encounter (in fact hiding and sneaking is the best choice because its "free").

The point is...if the encounter drained some resources...then it did its job. It doesn't matter if it used some Ki points from a monk, some spells from the wizard, or some HP from the fighter. Its just some amount of attrition for the adventuring day.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You specified 1st level....a part of the game where its almost impossible to have a character be able to fly at-will, and even short term "flight" is rare. Any "mobility" enhancements are usually short term and are limited in use and i've never once seen an all-flying 1st level party in my entire gaming career, so why would I suppose the entire party would be flying in a 1st level proposed encounter?

Two goblins vs. 4 lvl 1 characters is an Easy encounter. You could maybe bump it up to Moderate if you considered the caltrops and barricades to be a big advantage for the goblins...but that's not enough to make this a serious test of the character abilities.

The PCs could have used Charm Person, Command, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud, Jump, Sanctuary, Silent Image, and the everpresent Hiding in Shadows to get 1 or more characters up to melee with the goblins with little difficulty. Those are all 1st level spells, fairly common, and with a reasonable expectation of success. It isn't like flight is so much better than any of those choices in this encounter (in fact hiding and sneaking is the best choice because its "free").

The point is...if the encounter drained some resources...then it did its job. It doesn't matter if it used some Ki points from a monk, some spells from the wizard, or some HP from the fighter. Its just some amount of attrition for the adventuring day.

Ok, this conversation keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Ignoring this specific example, are you agreeing with @Flamestrike that if an encounter would be trivialized by flight, even though you don't have flight in your game, it's bad encounter design?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually, let's revisit what he wrote:

Again, if flight is trivialising encounters, you're doing it wrong.

Note that he's not using the subjunctive case. He's not saying, "If flight would...". He wrote "If flight is..."

As in, "If your players trivialized your encounter by flying, you did it wrong." Gratuitously arrogant/aggressive language aside, if this in fact what he meant, then I'm not arguing with him, because it has nothing to do with anything I was saying.

 

[Dausuul]

There is no monk archetype that "excels" against flying enemies. Water Whip has some nice tactical uses, but the range cripples it; if you can draw the flying creature within 30 feet of you, you can probably draw it into melee range, too. A flying spellcaster or archer, or a dragon using strafing tactics, is never going to get that close of its own free will.

In any case, combat against long-range flying foes is a rare enough scenario that it's silly to build your character around it. It makes much more sense to pick a subclass that performs well in the majority of combats, and carry a shortbow for when you can't get into melee range.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In any case, combat against long-range flying foes is a rare enough scenario that it's silly to build your character around it. It makes much more sense to pick a subclass that performs well in the majority of combats, and carry a shortbow for when you can't get into melee range.

And it makes the most sense to play whatever you think is fun, since basically every class and subclass in 5e is perfectly viable.