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

[Guest 6801328]

Oh come off it Elfcrusher. Flying is not a game-winning absurdity that will break all fights. It is as simple to counter as "Your enemies possess some variety of ranged weapon". Or if you wanna be -really- spicy, give someone a bola or a net.

Huh? Maybe you totally misunderstood my intent, there. I wasn't claiming that flying is as ridiculous as a lightsaber. I was just making the point that if you know something won't be in the game, it's not "poor encounter design" to assume as much. I don't know what he does and does not include in the game, so I picked something extreme.

So here's another example: we use the optional flanking rule in the DMG. Because of that, we (whoever happens to be DMing) designs fights, especially boss fights, so that it won't be easy to just flank the heck out of the boss and win the fight. Now, if somebody does NOT use that rule and said, "Yeah, that would make my boss fights way too easy," does that mean they need to design better encounters? Of course not.

As an aside, I have to admit I'm perplexed why my table's playstyle seems to push some peoples' buttons so hard.

We happen to play a lot of encounters where there's difficult terrain, or impassable terrain, or maybe impassable terrain that could (maybe) be jumped over, with a range of consequences if you fail. (But huge flanking potential if you succeed!) If everybody can just fly over that stuff, a fun and interesting part of the challenge is gone.

Another way to play is to not use terrain challenges like that, and instead restrict the challenge largely to the contest of abilities between two opposing groups. So you can have people flying around, threatened by ballista-launched nets and enemy sorcerers mounted on giant bats and what have you. My flying counters your melee attack, but your Hold Person counters my flying. Etc. That's cool, too. Aesthetically it's not my cup of tea, but it's a perfectly valid way to play.

Why do people get so bent out of shape because some people like a lower-magic game?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Simple, you go along with the party as planned. After another encounter or two, the warlock will say "Maybe we should short rest now." And wizard says "yeah, could use the extra spellslots." And the fighter says "that's cool. I could use another second wind and action surge." And the barbarian goes "lol, I don't understand but I guess I can get extra hit dice." If they never take a short rest yet go through more than 3 encounters, the encounters weren't really taxing enough and the party would be fine regardless of the amount of Ki Points you expend.

Just remember, every Ki Point you don't expend before the next short rest is a wasted Ki Point that could've gone into an encounter.

This situation arose in my last game. We really could have used a short...my fighter had used both 2nd Wind and Action Surge...and one player insisted on scouting ahead "just a little farther" and triggered the final boss fight. Very nearly a TPK (but loads of fun).

 

[Mecheon]

Simple, you go along with the party as planned. After another encounter or two, the warlock will say "Maybe we should short rest now." And wizard says "yeah, could use the extra spellslots." And the fighter says "that's cool. I could use another second wind and action surge." And the barbarian goes "lol, I don't understand but I guess I can get extra hit dice." If they never take a short rest yet go through more than 3 encounters, the encounters weren't really taxing enough and the party would be fine regardless of the amount of Ki Points you expend.

Just remember, every Ki Point you don't expend before the next short rest is a wasted Ki Point that could've gone into an encounter.

And all of those fights between the two are the balance for the four elements monk and why they're regarded as underpowered. Every other class can keep on trucking, but Four Elements is incredibly resource starved. They're not useless by any means and still powerful in the right areas, but their chances to shine aren't going to be as many. They're not stock BM ranger for sure, but they're absolutely the weakest monk choice

Why do people get so bent out of shape because some people like a lower-magic game?

I'm fine with lower magic, its just there has been so many words spent of flying being this extraordinarily powerful game-breaking tool when its ultimately just a tool. Sure, its got uses and makes some stuff easy, but D&D's a party game. Single player being able to fly gives them a niche, but by no means invalidates overall challenges.

 

[Asisreo]

And all of those fights between the two are the balance for the four elements monk and why they're regarded as underpowered. Every other class can keep on trucking, but Four Elements is incredibly resource starved. They're not useless by any means and still powerful in the right areas, but their chances to shine aren't going to be as many. They're not stock BM ranger for sure, but they're absolutely the weakest monk choice

Every other class still has high incentive to short rest, with some exceptions. Of course 4-Ele monks aren't going to be top form without Ki points, but they still have the core of their monks abilities.

Again, you're heavily encouraged to use-it-or-lose-it for Ki points, so the inverse becomes a problem. A monk with leftover Ki is worse than a monk that used all of it, because the monk that used the Ki used it meaningfully.

Maybe you're a glass-half-empty sorta guy who sees missing resources as bad. But I'm glass-half-full and see excess resources as wasteful. I always find it wasteful when my warlock short rests with all of their spellslots left, because they could've used it tp affect the previous combats more.

By 11th level, you can fly twice per short rest and three times by level 12. I think framing it like that helps with the idea that these resources can be spent more haphazardly than you think.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And all of those fights between the two are the balance for the four elements monk and why they're regarded as underpowered. Every other class can keep on trucking, but Four Elements is incredibly resource starved. They're not useless by any means and still powerful in the right areas, but their chances to shine aren't going to be as many. They're not stock BM ranger for sure, but they're absolutely the weakest monk choice


I'm fine with lower magic, its just there has been so many words spent of flying being this extraordinarily powerful game-breaking tool when its ultimately just a tool. Sure, its got uses and makes some stuff easy, but D&D's a party game. Single player being able to fly gives them a niche, but by no means invalidates overall challenges.

It's only game-breaking if you (the DM) have it in the game but don't plan for it.

I don't limit flying because it's game breaking, or because I can't design encounters that allow it. It's because, like magic items, too much of it, too easily acquired, is a flavor of fantasy I don't like.

 

[Mecheon]

By 11th level, you can fly twice per short rest and three times by level 12. I think framing it like that helps with the idea that these resources can be spent more haphazardly than you think.

And at the same level, a wizard can make six people fly overall. They've been able to throw a monk at the enemy backline since level 5 even.

Four Elements isn't useless and it can do things, but it is overall the weakest monk. A few neat tricks does not do enough to alleviate its resource starvation

I don't limit flying because it's game breaking, or because I can't design encounters that allow it. It's because, like magic items, too much of it, too easily acquired, is a flavor of fantasy I don't like.

Fair enough. My flavor of fantasy prefers it, so. All sorts in the world

 

[Guest 6801328]

In other news:

Beastmaster is the only Ranger archetype that can give a non-swashbuckler melee rogue Sneak Attack when there's no other melee in the party and shoot a bow at the same time.

So I guess that proves that Beastmaster is the best Ranger subclass after all.

Next up: 3 contrived edge cases that make Arcane Archer the best Fighter ever!

 

[Asisreo]

And at the same level, a wizard can make six people fly overall. They've been able to throw a monk at the enemy backline since level 5 even.

Four Elements isn't useless and it can do things, but it is overall the weakest monk. A few neat tricks does not do enough to alleviate its resource starvation


Fair enough. My flavor of fantasy prefers it, so. All sorts in the world

Again, a wizard doesn't have evasion, unarmored defense, stunning strike and dex proficiencies. Comparing classes isn't very productive.

Weakest by what metric? They certainly have the highest possible nova damage output. They are certainly the best taking down flying enemies. They're certainly the best in terms of versatility.

Or is it weakest by metric of looking at someone's blog about Ki expense and agreeing with them?

Have you played a 4-Ele monk? Compared it to other subclasses? Or have you just been skimming through each of their features and reading online forums and going "Yeah, I guess that means their weak. Oh well..."

 

[Asisreo]

In other news:

Beastmaster is the only Ranger archetype that can give a non-swashbuckler melee rogue Sneak Attack when there's no other melee in the party and shoot a bow at the same time.

So I guess that proves that Beastmaster is the best Ranger subclass after all.

Next up: 3 contrived edge cases that make Arcane Archer the best Fighter ever!

That's true, isn't it? A BM ranger can give a rogue sneak attack without exchanging an action. They can also keep up with the damage output of most other characters. They have a bonus to damage and attack rolls up to +6, and AC that can go up to 24 with barding.

A beastmaster's companion also gets +6 to skills they're proficient in. Like Stealth and Perception. Don't they also get magical damage and the ability to share spells?

Oh wait, the damage is bad. And the beast might die. If a class doesn't have high damage, they're trash tier. It's why PHB rangers are so bad, right? It's why hunter's mark is so essential. My question is: if you wanted a high damage dealer, why not choose a rogue?

That's because Rangers aren't a damage class. They're an exploration class and, I guarantee you, the best one there is. The BM Ranger gives a very large boost to the exploration side of D&D while staying competitive damage-wise.

But D&D no longer is Dungeons and Dragons. Now it's D-talking-with-NPC's & D-fighting. No more traveling in highly dangerous wilderness, they are all now nice mountain trails that might get difficult if you forget your trailmix.

That's my largest criticism with GM's playstyles. Nobody ever explores because nobody prepares exploration, so classes that excel with exactly that like BM Rangers and Land Druids are seen as either weak or trivializing something that the DM forgot to make a fun challenge anyways.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

That's true, isn't it? A BM ranger can give a rogue sneak attack without exchanging an action. They can also keep up with the damage output of most other characters. They have a bonus to damage and attack rolls up to +6, and AC that can go up to 24 with barding.

A beastmaster's companion also gets +6 to skills they're proficient in. Like Stealth and Perception. Don't they also get magical damage and the ability to share spells?

Oh wait, the damage is bad. And the beast might die. If a class doesn't have high damage, they're trash tier. It's why PHB rangers are so bad, right? It's why hunter's mark is so essential. My question is: if you wanted a high damage dealer, why not choose a rogue?

That's because Rangers aren't a damage class. They're an exploration class and, I guarantee you, the best one there is. The BM Ranger gives a very large boost to the exploration side of D&D while staying competitive damage-wise.

But D&D no longer is Dungeons and Dragons. Now it's D-talking-with-NPC's & D-fighting. No more traveling in highly dangerous wilderness, they are all now nice mountain trails that might get difficult if you forget your trailmix.

That's my largest criticism with GM's playstyles. Nobody ever explores because nobody prepares exploration, so classes that excel with exactly that like BM Rangers and Land Druids are seen as either weak or trivializing something that the DM forgot to make a fun challenge anyways.

While I agree with you, how many of your players have chosen the Outlander background to basically solve half of the problem with exploration?