D&D (2024) Playtest Packet 6: Monk reactions?

[Chaosmancer]

We should definitely be comparing rogue and monk. Not fighter and monk.

And honestly, as of this playtest, rogue got so much more that I would agree.

Maybe rogue/ shadow monk 3 to get movable darkness.

But, the Rogue is an expert, a skill class. Monks are Warriors. Monks are supposed to excel in combat, rogues are supposed to mix combat and non-combat ability.

 

[Justice and Rule]

An unarmed combatant like...using a quarterstaff? Or nunchuks? Or kunai and ninja stars?

Monks can be an effective unarmed combatant, but they don't have to be all the time. Same as how a fighter can be an effective melee fighter, but can pull out a longbow when fighting a flying dragon.

Its just kinda...silly to have this supposed master of martial arts refuse to shoot someone, even when they're decent at it, just because they're supposed to be the punchy-kicky guy.

It's not about refusing to shoot people, it's about their class being the exact opposite: their features are meant to get in to close range and fight it out. Flurry of Blows is their iconic feature, and their big benefit from Martial Arts is not only to be able to fight unarmed well, but to also get a free bonus action attack with nothing in their hand. Heck, the Crossbow is arguably the worst weapon for their class because their features are about getting more than one attack, which you simply can't do with a Crossbow. Even if you could translate it to ranged weapons, that one in particular would nullify the benefits.

The point here is that, again, the class isn't working the way it should. If the best tactic for the Martial Arts master is to play guerilla warfare with a crossbow, then that is a design failure.

 

[mellored]

Okay, I mentioned the dashing as that takes your bonus action. Now why is the enemy wizard more than 30 ft away from any and all allies?

Are the enemies just standing next to the wizard? Or did they move up?

The Monk's identity in combat comes from

It comes from the flexibility they have.

So... what do you do on turn one?

where are the enemies?
And what kind are they?
Did you scout ahead?

You need to give me more specifics about the battle field before i can tell you my turn one.

Look, if you get your ideal scenario, it isn't a bad plan, but you are laying this thing out and assuming a lot of things are already in place.

Ideal scenario is you scout ahead. Spot melee only enemies. And kite them all with a bow.

So run into a melee enemy, attack them, run out and get an opportunity attack?

That is one of the many thing you could do.

Dealing damage and taking none in return is worth a ki point. Certainly be broken if you could do it every turn.

Or do you spend ki to disengage limiting the number of times you can do that, and the amount of damage you can do?

Depends on where the enemies are.
Are they chasing you, or did they go after your allies?

Also, to kite, you need to be further than 30 ft away. Either the enemy has to oblige you by running towards you like robots, ignore you and focus on your allies, or you need a base of 65 ft of movement which you frankly cannot depend on getting.

At level 2, you can go 80' and still attack a few times per short rest.

Also. You can always dash as a regular action.

dash for 2 turns. Move and shoot the 3rd
That's 80+80+40 = 200'
Enemies can move 180' in the same 3 turns.

Takes a while, but no ki needed.

Also rogues can gank the backline too.

Yes. Both are skirmishers.

Did you want the monk to be yet another fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger? Just attack nearest enemy and roll dice till one of you drops?

Much rather have a 2nd rogue.

So, your "monk identity" is a poor copy of the rogue's identity, with less support and more danger.

Sorcerer is just a poor copy of a wizard.
Ranger is just a poor copy of a fighter/druid.
... I could go on.

 

[mellored]

But, the Rogue is an expert, a skill class. Monks are Warriors. Monks are supposed to excel in combat, rogues are supposed to mix combat and non-combat ability.

They do excel in combat.

Specifically Maneuver warfare

 

[Gammadoodler]

We should definitely be comparing rogue and monk. Not fighter and monk.

And honestly, as of this playtest, rogue got so much more that I would agree.

Maybe rogue/ shadow monk 3 to get movable darkness.

This really is the most notable bit. The 5e rogue didn't have a ton of access to combat tricks beyond grappling (and that required a fairly niche rogue build to succeed).

They were skirmish spike damage dealers. Pure strikers.

Where the 5e monk has historically been a flex damage/disabler with an increasing focus on disabling over the course of leveling.

With the new packet, the rogue didn't lose any of their resourceless spike damage capabilities, didnt lose any of their resourceless skirmishing and sustain abilities and got a ton of functionally resourceless disabling tools, which let them choose live between damage and inflicting conditions.

Meanwhile the monk lost a lot of its potence in the combat tricks department with the change to stunning strike, and hasn't gotten significantly better at either doing or taking damage.

The subclasses are less dysfunctional now, which is nice, but it seems like the got so caught up in those details that they missed how the class as a whole is supposed to fit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree, 1st level fighters can match or exceed Monk AC. 16 AC is the monk max. That is a dual-wielding or Great Weapon Fighter, unless they take Defensive, then it is 17.

A shield fighter has between 18 and 19 AC at level 1.

In fact, 16 AC is true of any class who can get medium armor, but can't use a shield. So at 1st level the following classes can match the monk's maximum AC which cannot improve until level 4.

Artificer (Can use shield to get to 18)
Barbarian (Can use shield to get to 18)
Cleric (Can use shield to get to 18)
Druid (Can use shield to get to 18)
Fighter (Can use shield to get to 18)
Paladin (Can use shield to get to 18)
Ranger (Can use shield to get to 18)
Warlock

Meaning the Monk is better than a level 1

Bard
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

... Assuming the bard, warlock, or wizard do no combine mage armor with shield.

And at 3rd level it wouldn't be hard for certain subclasses like the Valor Bard, Draconic Sorcerer, or Bladesinger wizard to match or exceed the monk, who can't increase their AC until 4th level.

But Monks absolutely have better AC than Rogues... barring the exceptions like the Swashbucklers new ability and magical armor...


Why do we think Monk AC is reasonable again?

I would not complain if monks AC was 12+wis+dex.

 

[Horwath]

I would not complain if monks AC was 12+wis+dex.

I would rather see it at 12+dex
at 5th level 13+dex
at 11th level 14+dex
at 17th level 15+dex

 

[Stalker0]

I would rather see it at 12+dex
at 5th level 13+dex
at 11th level 14+dex
at 17th level 15+dex

I'm a fan of 11 + dex + prof mod myself. Makes the monk less MAD.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would rather see it at 12+dex
at 5th level 13+dex
at 11th level 14+dex
at 17th level 15+dex

That would be a nerf...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm a fan of 11 + dex + prof mod myself. Makes the monk less MAD.

What about 10 + (half) wis + dex + (half) prof bonus?