D&D (2024) Fireball is a C Tier Spell

[Zardnaar]

Agreed. A good majority of my mob encounters include terrain too. Which will make these spells even more situational (alot of ambushing, creepy wall-hugging types) The best use has been when our Champion uses the '24 alertness background feat to "whistle" at/ trade initiative with our caster in a very wide open encounter... but even then, our mounted opponents will do stuff like group 3 and 3 with cover for archers.. not really as effective as cracked up to be

One of the players has alert and knows how to use it.

Setting cleric up vs other options though.

 

[ECMO3]

used 60% hit chance

At 17th level your chance to hit is going to be closer to 80-90%

Regardless it scales either way. 6.5 DPR is 19% boost to the at will damage you do as a Monk (not counting magic bonuses). So if you are scaling with 60% chance to hit that 4 extra damage increases DPR from 21 to 25. That is not insignificant.

if you are point buying you start with dex&wis at 17&16, if you want 20/20 that leaves you with grand total of ONE feat to take.
and weapon mastery is really on the bottom if my list to take that has a dex or wis ASI attached.

Well it is on the top of my list and mathematically I think it is the ideal one to take, even in a low magic campaign.

It is the one feat I would take, and I think it is better than any others.

Also if you are starting with a 17/16 you can't have a 20/20 until level 16 regardless. So you only have that 20-20 for 4 levels total, assuming you survive that long and the campaign continues that long. This means in terms of the overall campaign, the impact of getting to the 20-20 milestone is relatively minor. Meaningful at high level, but meaningless for most of the campaign.
Meanwhile you have to live with your 4th level choice for 17 levels and can use the benefits of it for 17 levels. What you choose at 4th level has a bigger impact on the game overall than the choices made at any other levels.

If you don't take a dex feat with your 17 Dex Monk at level 4 your character will be worse from level 4-7, regardless of what you do or do not do at levels after that. If you are playing an 18th level 1-shot it is a completely different situation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

fighter gets new feature at every level except 5,11,17 and 20, when just more uses of old features are gained, 16 out 20 levels are something new

And yet it doesn't feel like that, in actual play. I cannot tell you why people don't feel like they're advancing, but they don't! I have my theories, of course, but they aren't based on statistical evidence.

bounded accuracy means that no matter how powerful you are, if you are unprepared, lots of low level opponents can take you out.
that to me is better than being immune, it makes the world more real.

"Realism" is another dragon to chase--and necessarily at odds with the explicit description of the game as being about "heroic characters" per the 2014 cover. Relevant quotes from said 2014 book (emphasis added):

"The Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It's about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.
[...]
Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers' action. Players roll dice to resolve whether their attacks hit or miss or whether their adventurers can scale a cliff, roll away from the strike of a magical lightning bolt, or pull off some other dangerous task. Anything is possible, but the dice make some outcomes more probable than others."

And...

"There's no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game--at least, not in the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on."

This is a fantasy. It is a story; the book itself says so, repeatedly. "Realism" is but one style among many in which stories can be told, and it is NOT the objective best or most important style, especially when telling a fantasy.

i would rather have 5 attacks for 10 damage vs 200HP opponent than 1 attack for 10 damage vs 40HP opponent.

The point was to have 2 attacks for ~40 HP vs a 150 HP opponent (so the attack is, in fact, actually more powerful) than to cut back all of the numbers like that. Fewer and BIGGER attacks. Which I was quite clear about.

more attacks means that one fluke roll will not break the balance.
and with more attacks, if you fight mooks, you can spread them out.

That's what you offer more diverse choices for, like having a cleave attack that doesn't hit very hard, but is very accurate and hits multiple targets, or deals a small amount of unavoidable damage just from its brutal force, or having a "twin" attack where you get to attack two targets normally, or whatever. Doesn't have to be super complicated; I recognize that it's good to have a spectrum of both level-of-engagement and level-of-complexity, which are not the same thing. (E.g., a character with many different resources to track and features to use can be complex, but each individual thing can be perfectly straightforward in actual use, while another character can have only a small set of options, but each of those options is dense with alternatives and choices to be made. Sort of the Wizard-vs-Sorcerer concept: sorcerers are higher-engagement but lower-complexity, Wizards are lower-engagement but higher-complexity.)

funny, I have seen the opposite, people love to make as much attack rolls as possible, even better if it is with advantage.

I didn't say people don't like making attacks. I said that they don't feel that a dozen small attacks is AS MUCH GROWTH as three incredibly meaty, powerful attacks.

I've seen this very specific phenomenon in action. Multiple Fighters who felt like they weren't doing enough damage compared to a Barbarian or Paladin, who could push out HUGE numbers with (far) fewer attacks.

Consistency is mathematically wonderful. It is not necessarily psychologically wonderful. We must design games, at least in part, based on the psychology of real players. It's one of the reasons why I so severely dislike 5e's "just start at 3rd level if you aren't new" philosophy, because I've literally only had like two 5e DMs ever who actually followed that advice. IME, after searching for months and months, almost all (easily 90%+) 5e games start specifically at 1st level no matter what. Every single actual friend I have who has started a 5e game has chosen to start it at level 1, despite my attempts (when I have been one of the players) to persuade them that the game is more stable and reliable at 3rd level. (Note, "more", this is relative and 1st-level 5e is VERY MUCH NOT "stable and reliable.")

as for criticals, I agree 100% with you, 5E crits suck completely.
either double ALL damage, or max normal with extra roll of dice on top.

I think the latter, while slightly more complex than the former, is the better choice. Because you are correct, players like rolling dice. But they like having the numbers be OBVIOUSLY BIG more than they like rolling many many dice, because average results feel disappointing rather than typical, even though regression to the mean indicates that if you roll 10 dice, you are VERY likely to get a result close to 10 times the average of a single die (e.g. 10d6 has mean 35, SD 5.4, so ~95% of results will be between 25 and 45 inclusive.) It's a quirk of human psychology. Average feels inadequate. (This is one of the various explanations of the Dunning-Kruger effect, or at least explaining part of why it happens.)

 

[mellored]

Not sure what this means, you can move after the first attack to make your nick attack.

Without provoking an OA?
Maybe for a shadow monk.

You can't do that on the Monk Standard Array and as I said earlier I think an extra 3.5 DPR with the feat is WAY better than an extra 4 hps. At 20th level an extra 6.5 DPR, even if you have no other damage bonuses, is still better than an extra 20hps.

Also +1 to saves.
Which is nice for shadow monks to not lose concentration.

3.5 DPR at 4th level is nominally a 23% boost in at will damage, 6.5 is still a 19% boost at 17th level, and that assumes no other bonuses on your attack. A +1 Con is not competitive with that on a character designed primarily for attacking in combat.

Not sure how you got those numbers.
(1d6+4) * 3 (or more) = 22.5
+1d6 = 26
= 1.15. Or 15% more damage.
And that's without flurry.

Again not saying it's a bad feat.

And then as a character you are substantially weaker from level 4-11 compared to someone who took mastery and a Dex ASI. You have the same AC, worse damage and worse attack.

Fair
16 Dex, 17 Wis
+1 Wis Inspiration Leader at 4.
+2 Dex at 8
+2 Dex at 12
+2 Wis at 16
Now your stun DC is higher and your party has more HP from

Or Grappler. Which IMO is the best overall monk feat. It gives an 'extra' attack that auto-hits on stunned enemies, advantage on your attacks, and more speed.

At level 12+ it is probably a push depending on how many short rests you get.

Your entire party benefits from inspiring leader. If your fighter is up for 1 extra round, your party delt more damage. Or your druid spends one less slot on cure wounds and one extra on spiked growth, and your deal more damage.

It's obviously less good if your alone, or other people generate THP.

 

[mellored]

Sometimes, but not usually. The key to a fight is limiting an enemies actions. The enemey will get a certain number of actions to kill you. You take away actions by killing them, but you also take them away through options like Stun.

Except your not really stunning more.

As I said on enemies on a high AC that is better, but usually PCs hit their target making the advantage on attacks not that important.

They can swap to other weapons if they already have advantage. Like Push into a Cloud of Daggers

Not sure what this means, you can move after the first attack to make your nick attack.

And provoke an OA
Or waste your bonus action to avoid one.

You will likely hit much more than once a turn,

Agreed. Which is why Nick isn't really helping you stun.

You can't do that on the Monk Standard Array

Well I used point buy.

3.5 DPR at 4th level is nominally a 23% boost in at will damage, 6.5 is still a 19% boost at 17th level, and that assumes no other bonuses on your attack. A +1 Con is not competitive with that on a character designed primarily for attacking in combat.

No.
1d6+4 * 3 attacks
+ 1d6
= 15% more damage.
Less if you flurry.

And then as a character you are substantially weaker from level 4-11 compared to someone who took mastery and a Dex ASI. You have the same AC, worse damage and worse attack.

Fair. Probably should go
16 Dex, 17 Wis
The inspiring leader at level 4.
+2Dex
+2Dex
+2Wis

Get the THP sooner.

At level 12+ it is probably a push depending on how many short rests you get.

Inspiring leader helps your party.
If you keep the fighter alive an extra round, you delt more damage.
If the druid can use a slot on spiked growth instead of a cure wounds, you delt more damage.

IMO,
I would rate Grappler as A, as it gives an 'extra' attack, advantage, and speed.
Inspiring leader would be B. A dead party deals no damage.
Charger is B. Extra damage, extra speed.
Weapon Master as C. Extra damage.
Speedy is D. You can already out run everything.

I will add that Weapon Master is probably the safest option. A party of 4 melees won't be able to capitalize on Grappler, a party handing out THP might not stack with Inspiring Leader. But extra damage is never going to go to waste.

 

[Sulicius]

This is such a weird take to me. Fireball still turns the tide of battle in many encounters I have run, and that hasn't changed with the revision. A ton of damage still does what you want, and can clear minions easily. Sure it falls off in a couple levels, but that's fine.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is such a weird take to me. Fireball still turns the tide of battle in many encounters I have run, and that hasn't changed with the revision. A ton of damage still does what you want, and can clear minions easily. Sure it falls off in a couple levels, but that's fine.

What sort of enemies you use?

 

[Horwath]

IMO,
I would rate Grappler as A, as it gives an 'extra' attack, advantage, and speed.
Inspiring leader would be B. A dead party deals no damage.
Charger is B. Extra damage, extra speed.
Weapon Master as C. Extra damage.
Speedy is D. You can already out run everything.

I will add that Weapon Master is probably the safest option. A party of 4 melees won't be able to capitalize on Grappler, a party handing out THP might not stack with Inspiring Leader. But extra damage is never going to go to waste.

Speedy is not D, when you are good at something it's even better when you add to that strength, I would say C at least.
Charger is also good to combo with high speed, unless you are kensai monk from 2014 you are mediocre at ranged combat at best.
if your Con is 13 or 15, crusher is a good choice, Open hand+Charger+Crusher can send people flying with unarmed strike
Mage slayer also works great to prevent control, you do zero damage if incapacitated

 

[Sulicius]

What sort of enemies you use?

Depends on the campaign, but I love using a half dozen CR 1/8 to CR 1 to give encounters some more depth. Zombies, Toughs, Shadows, Kuo-Toa, Pirates, Acolytes, Grung, Swarms of Stirges and the list goes on.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends on the campaign, but I love using a half dozen CR 1/8 to CR 1 to give encounters some more depth. Zombies, Toughs, Shadows, Kuo-Toa, Pirates, Acolytes, Grung, Swarms of Stirges and the list goes on.

Gotcha. I generally stop using them after level 3ish.

I have used them but they just get annihilated.

Still isr them occasionally.