D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Undrave]

What is a Bard, anyway, other than a grab-bag of abilities, designed to annoy other players?

My beef with bard is that I simply don't have a name for an iconic "bard" in my fantasy.

Considering MY iconic "Bard" I should technically be agree with Snarf... and yet...

 

[Undrave]

Do your DMs literally give you no casters to fight? Seriously?

Stunning strike is good. And your subclass should offer you something else (4 elements sucks). The monk of shadow among other things can bring a silence down on a wizard or a darkness down on everyone. The Open Palm have options that aren't stunning strike.

The big issue I have with monks is that they lack anything active between level 7 and level 10. It's all cute passive abilities which means that the only thing you feel you're gaining are Ki points.

We fought two spellcasters: One had friggin' Greater Invisibility and ran away before I could find him and the other I did drop a Silence on him and kept him out of the fight for a while because of difficult terrain. That second one was technically an ally who got mind controlled by an Aboleth.

the whole "Monks are good at locking down Caster " spiel feels like a happy accident of design, and not a specific purpose they were built for.

The Monk feels more like a pile of legacy feature than a class created with a specific goal in mind.

 

[LadyElect]

And so it goes. Poo-tee-weet. What is a Bard, anyway, other than a grab-bag of abilities, designed to annoy other players?

Bah, I see my loves colliding.

 

[Bolares]

Then they don't do anything.

That's not my experience at all. Stunning strike was always key o our group's strategy

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bah, I see my loves colliding.

Are they?

The telling of beautiful untrue things is the proper aim of any good internet comment.

 

[LadyElect]

Are they?

The telling of beautiful untrue things is the proper aim of any good internet comment.

Ah, but as we are separately warned: We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ah, but as we are separately warned: We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.

Having seen the undue earnest seriousness of too many discussions about D&D, I live in constant terror of not being misunderstood.

 

[Undrave]

That's not my experience at all. Stunning strike was always key o our group's strategy

I have busted rolled stats and I still find my Stunning Strike failing to do anything most of the time.

Half the time the target is not worth spending a stunning strike on them when I can fall them in one or two turns, and the other half of the time the enemy has Legendary Resistance and all I'm doing is getting myself stuck next to a dragon just so I can spend their resistance.... IF they fail their saving throw.

The one time we were fighting against a few 'Elites' type enemies, they were Fighter types with strong CON...

I think I got maybe 1 stun off so far.

 

[Charlaquin]

Monks have like 1 optimal play line, and that comes online at level 5 with Stunning Strike, and they have 1 optimal stat spread that doesn't leave them dead the moment someone attacks them.

I mean, having only one optimal stat spread and one optimal play line is a non-caster problem in general, not a monk problem specifically.

Playing a Monk is a frustrating exercise in precise Ki management and precise stat line. It's really really easy to mess up and have your Monk's effectiveness drop to 0 until the next short rest recharges your Ki. And even if you land all your attacks, it still feels like you're not doing a lot of damage.

I’ve never had trouble managing my Ki as a monk. You can afford to spend about half your level of them (rounded down) per encounter, unless your DM is stingy with short rests.

When I play a Monk, it feels like I'm walking a tight rope. I feel like I have to work hard just to reach the same end point everybody does with no effort, it's just really frustrating.

That’d be the problem of feel I was alluding to. Monks keep up just fine on paper, but it often feels like they take too much micromanagement for not enough payoff.

As a Way of Shadow Monk I got mobility for DAYS and stealth that will make any Rogue jealous... but I feel like that's all I got and it doesn't serve any sort of purpose beyond itself. It's great to spy on people and that's about it.

I dunno, I feel like they’re highly mobile and deal heavy damage to individual targets. But I recognize they feel off to many.

As for Bards, it's really frustrating that they only have Vicious Mockery as a damaging cantrip in the PHB.

Yeah, I low-key hate Vicious Mockery. It’s really good but it feels underwhelming to use, it’s conceptually silly, and it’s very limiting as the only core damaging cantrip for Bards.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have busted rolled stats and I still find my Stunning Strike failing to do anything most of the time.

Half the time the target is not worth spending a stunning strike on them when I can fall them in one or two turns,

These are the times to use Flurry of Blows

and the other half of the time the enemy has Legendary Resistance and all I'm doing is getting myself stuck next to a dragon just so I can spend their resistance.... IF they fail their saving throw.

Burning legendary resistance uses is a pretty good use of Ki. Alternatively you could have the wizard throw low-level debuff spells at it to use them up and then start throwing stunning strikes.

The one time we were fighting against a few 'Elites' type enemies, they were Fighter types with strong CON...

That’s rough. It could be that your DM’s encounter building tendencies make monks a worse choice than they might otherwise be.