D&D 5E Short Rest Classes: Is the "Short Rest Problem" a "Monk Problem"

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Monk is the 'hoard Ki, then hope a boss fails to save vs Stunning Fist' class. I really hate that's where they went with it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Kind of? If I had to briefly nutshell the class in a single word, it would be "skirmisher." Which is definitely similar to your midliner description.

The problem is that it's a skirmisher in a game which is designed to not really need skirmishers (hence the complete lack of other ones), and it's a soloist in a serious team game. It doesn't need so many weird self-sufficient bollocks things, which make the basic chassis too heavy and mean that all the subclasses are extremely lightweight. It's interestingly but badly designed as a 5E class. Whereas your most hated class is superbly designed as a 5E class, just perhaps slightly overstuffed.

 

[Maxperson]

People will say "BUT THEY MIGHT NOVAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" and it's like, what, like all the other Long Rest classes can? Oh well too bad so sad? I mean, right now, if the Full Casters do nova, they immediately start begging for a Long Rest, and usually they get it, unless there's time pressure. If there's time pressure you shouldn't have nova'd!

The warlock is my only real nova concern. 6 spells(maybe less) are probably all that will be cast in a given fight. There's a difference between a wizard going nova with 1 9th, 1 8th, 2 7th and 2 6th level spells, and the warlock lobbing 6 9th level spells.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The warlock is my only real nova concern. 6 spells(maybe less) are probably all that will be cast in a given fight. There's a difference between a wizard going nova with 1 9th, 1 8th, 2 7th and 2 6th level spells, and the warlock lobbing 6 9th level spells.

Yeah and the difference is the Warlock can't do that lol.

You're confusing Mystic Arcanum and Pact Magic.

The Warlock in your example can lob 1 (one) 9th level spell, and 5 6th level spells in those six rounds. So the Wizard is way ahead.

EDIT or if I'm misreading Mystic Arcanum (never seen a Warlock above 12), 1 9th, 1 8th, 1 7th, and 3 6th level spells. Wizard still way ahead.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah and the difference is the Warlock can't do that lol.

You're confusing Mystic Arcanum and Pact Magic.

The Warlock in your example can lob 1 (one) 9th level spell, and 5 6th level spells in those six rounds. So the Wizard is way ahead.

EDIT or if I'm misreading Mystic Arcanum (never seen a Warlock above 12), 1 9th, 1 8th, 1 7th, and 3 6th level spells. Wizard still way ahead.

I've never seen one above 10th(my current game), so I just assumed it kept going up.

Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: Reading Mystic Arcanum, the warlock would be able to cast 1 9th, 1 8th, 1 7th, 1 6th and 2 5th.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean... how many players play their class to anywhere near its full effectiveness on a routine basis? 0.5%? 1%? Something like that lol.

But that's the other thing. It's this weird dichotomy- people either argue about the monk because they aren't playing it correctly* and therefore claim it doesn't work right, or they are like the majority of D&D players and are just having a good time.

For the second group of players, which is the vast majority, the frustrating thing about Monks is that they are so resource limited; it's hard to play a Four Elements Monk when you're constantly starved of ki and aren't getting short rests.

That's why subclasses like Way of the Long Death and Kensei end up being popular- because their main abilities don't require ki. It's a major design bottleneck in the class. The idea works, but having everything key off of ki ... ahem ... that becomes a major problem for a class when there aren't short rests.


*Literally, shortly after I posted, another person was like, "All they do is spam stunning strike." That's not something that most people that play monks actually do.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

*Literally, shortly after I posted, another person was like, "All they do is spam stunning strike." That's not something that most people that play monks actually do.

I mean, I have two games with Monks in right now. Both of them use Stunning Strike A LOT. Like, do they "spam it" by my normal definition of spam, i.e. use it every possible opportunity? No. Do they use it every possible sane opportunity when there's some kind of high-HD or otherwise threatening monster, especially a boss-type monster? Oh hell yeah.

And 5E is designed around there not being skirmishers, and you can see this because Monks can't do anything really mean to people they isolate, or people they manage to trickily get to, except, well, spam Stunning Strike. Which brings us full circle. They can use their Skirmishing abilities to get to a really annoying guy and then Stun him until the fight is over (usually only 3-4 rounds and the Monk probably took one to get there). Or if there is no "really annoying guy" who needs to be got to, which is like, most fights in my experience (and WotC's official encounters in adventures mirror this), then the Monk can y'know, Stun whoever is most dangerous.

Their DPR is too low for them to go around on "cleanup duty" (actually a noble and often-fun role despite the name) like you might have in an MMO/CRPG where there are skirmisher types (I'm not saying other classes are much better btw, DPR-wise, at soloing people - 5E isn't designed for it - so instead you lock them down. With Stunning Strike).

5E is much kinder than 3E and even 4E (in part due to range) than to ranged attackers. There's no firing-into-melee, no mandatory Point-Blank-Shot Feat chain, there doesn't seem to be much of a "ranged tax" and indeed Tasha's only improved the situation further. Which is cool, but again means skirmisher isn't really "a thing", because does a Monk do more damage or better lockdown (without Stunning Strike) than other ranged classes? No, I'd say. They do equal or less damage and don't actually lockdown as well as a lot. But if they use Stunning Strike, well...

So anyway I've never seen a Monk who COULD use Stunning Strike, who didn't use it "on the reg". I've also never seen one who used 100% of their ki for it sure, but I'd say it is a pretty damn dominant bit of the design of their class.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So anyway I've never seen a Monk who COULD use Stunning Strike, who didn't use it "on the reg". I've also never seen one who used 100% of their ki for it sure, but I'd say it is a pretty damn dominant bit of the design of their class.

Respectfully, maybe you need to get some more creative players.

But sure, if that's your experience ... that's cool. I would suggest actually playing a monk yourself for a while and seeing how it works for you instead of telling me (who just explained that this is not how it works for me when I play monks) that I have to play it that way. Good?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Respectfully, you need to get a better class of players. At least some more creative ones.

Firstly, that's rude, not respectful, you can't make a direct insult respectful by saying "respectfully" lol. Just sayin...

And secondly, no I don't. My players are plenty creative, but they're also pragmatic, and they know what works. I've seen players who aren't pragmatic - there are couple, just none playing Monks, and whilst they do try some interesting things, it often doesn't work very well.

But sure, if that's your experience ... that's cool. I would suggest actually playing a monk yourself for a while and seeing how it works for you instead of telling me (who just explained that this is not how it works when I play monks) that I have to play it that way. Good?

I didn't say you had to play it that way.

I said it's highly effective to play it that way, and I don't believe you're disagreeing. Stunning Strike is a truly incredible tool. It's probably the single most powerful tool Monks have. If you're not using it, you're definitely not playing a Monk to it's "full effectiveness" as you put it.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps your Monk is effective with you playing it in a different way because of your DM and their choices in encounter design? Rather than solely patting yourself on the back for your "creativity" and implied "better-class"-ness (lol jeez dude come on, even I wouldn't say something like that, and I can be pretty pleased with myself!), perhaps consider that they design encounters in a way that actually creates room for a skirmisher to do clever things and for them to actually work? Which is not easy to do, and requires some intentionality (or a natural proclivity, I guess).

I will never play a Monk as long as the Shaolin bollocks is in the core chassis though. It's one of those things, like zombies, that I'm profoundly "over". So I might play one in Morrus' Advanced 5E ruleset, where I understand they turned them into Adepts and removed that, but that probably has other changes too.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I will never play a Monk as long as the Shaolin bollocks is in the core chassis though. It's one of those things, like zombies, that I'm profoundly "over". So I might play one in Morrus' Advanced 5E ruleset, where I understand they turned them into Adepts and removed that

Actually... Adept is the same full kungfu monk, they just made feather fall optional. I was a bit surprised at that missed opportunity.