D&D 5E Another monk thread! Fixing the Way of the 4 Elements

[Asisreo]

Do they get additional features other than spells? Because the monk ONLY gets new spells.

Picture a paladin subclass that gives the character thaumaturgy and extra 1st level spell known and an additional spell known at 6th, 11th and 17th leveI.
And that's it.
Would that be balanced? Would you take that choice for your character?

The difference is that the monk is a class with strong base class features. A base monk can survive as-is. A paladin is very light in base class features. They rely on their subclass features. Heck, they don't even have channel divinity until they have a subclass.

 

[Parmandur]

The difference is that the monk is a class with strong base class features. A base monk can survive as-is. A paladin is very light in base class features. They rely on their subclass features. Heck, they don't even have channel divinity until they have a subclass.

The real point of comparison is the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight: the Rogue and Fighter chassis are so Subclass centric that you can add 1/3 spellcasting by taking the entire Subclass budget. Monks, not so.

 

[Guy Icognito]

The difference is that the monk is a class with strong base class features. A base monk can survive as-is. A paladin is very light in base class features. They rely on their subclass features. Heck, they don't even have channel divinity until they have a subclass.

I’d agree I’d you said the ranger. That’d defined by its subclasses. The paladin owns with just its base class. Smite is devastating on its own.

And aren’t there like a half dozen threads here on how the monk sux and isn’t a strong base class?

 

[Guy Icognito]

Subclasses are designed around the Class chassis. All the Monk Subclasses basically just add Ki power options (Spells and spell like effects budgeted like Spells) and a few doodads. Comparing one Classes Subclass to another chassis is not like to like.

Quit deflecting and answer the question. Would you take a paladin or ranger class that just gave more spells and nothing else.
But we know the answer already...
The answer is “no”. You wouldn’t. It’d be dumb. Worse than the beast master. Because unlike every other subclass it’s not increasing the character’s power. It’s just adding more options that are in theory equal in power to the existing options.

It’s also just plain worse than the Way of Shadow, which also gets spells. The same number of new spells actually. But even if it never uses its ki for anything but flurry of blows the shadow monk still gets something else.

A subclass designed solely around giving more spells to a half-spellcaster should also give more spells.
Which leads to the simple fix I proposed earlier. It can use each spell once per day without using kipoints. This is less new spells per day than the eldritch knight. And still lacks the other powers the EK gets. But it sucks less.

 

[Parmandur]

Quit deflecting and answer the question. Would you take a paladin or ranger class that just gave more spells and nothing else.
But we know the answer already...
The answer is “no”. You wouldn’t. It’d be dumb. Worse than the beast master. Because unlike every other subclass it’s not increasing the character’s power. It’s just adding more options that are in theory equal in power to the existing options.

It’s also just plain worse than the Way of Shadow, which also gets spells. The same number of new spells actually. But even if it never uses its ki for anything but flurry of blows the shadow monk still gets something else.

A subclass designed solely around giving more spells to a half-spellcaster should also give more spells.
Which leads to the simple fix I proposed earlier. It can use each spell once per day without using kipoints. This is less new spells per day than the eldritch knight. And still lacks the other powers the EK gets. But it sucks less.

It's not deflection, you asked the wrong question. Different Classes have different Subclass designs: it makes zero sense to compare Paladin or Ranger Subclass design to Monk Subclass design in a 1 to 1 basis.

 

[Asisreo]

Quit deflecting and answer the question.

Your question is flawed because you're comparing two differently structured classes.

It's like asking if extra attack on a fighter at level 5 is the same weight as extra attack on a valor bard and therefore bad. If you strip the context to force your answer, you'll just get your answer.

The answer is “no”. You wouldn’t. It’d be dumb. Worse than the beast master. Because unlike every other subclass it’s not increasing the character’s power. It’s just adding more options that are in theory equal in power to the existing options.

Options are power. Versatility is extremely important. It doesn't matter if your GWM fighter does the best damage in melee if all enemies avoid melee and stay at range.

Would I still pick them? Probably. It'd be nerfed but I'd still be fine playing a paladin subclass without extra features since they rarely get extra features taking the subclass and the extra spells are definitely welcome to the paladin's chassis, which doesn't get many known spells as their base.

It’s also just plain worse than the Way of Shadow, which also gets spells. The same number of new spells actually. But even if it never uses its ki for anything but flurry of blows the shadow monk still gets something else.

It isn't about gimme gimme stuff. It's about balance overall. The options given are powerful enough to justify the ki cost (apart from maybe burning hands and stone skin) and they recover on a short rest. You don't lose anything by picking the class and adjudicating your spells wisely keeps the your Ki points conserved for times when they're needed.

 

[Guy Icognito]

Subclasses are designed around the Class chassis. All the Monk Subclasses basically just add Ki power options (Spells and spell like effects budgeted like Spells) and a few doodads. Comparing one Classes Subclass to another chassis is not like to like.

Wrong.

Only one of the four Way of Shadows powers give a new use for ki. And one of the Open Hand Powers. Two of the four drunken master powers use ki. One of the sun soul powers. Two of the kensai. Two for long death.

A solid majority of monk subclass features either use no ki or add bonuses to existing ki power like flurry of blows. And a full half work with zero ki remaining.

Four elements just adds a utility cantrip and new uses for ki. That’s it. It’s a lateral increase to power. It gives you the ability to cast fireball once or make eight attacks with flurry of blows. Which is comparable on paper, but when two or three other subclasses make flurry better. Eight open hand or drunken master flurry attacks are significantly better.

Four elements is garbage.

 

[Guy Icognito]

Your question is flawed because you're comparing two differently structured classes.

It's like asking if extra attack on a fighter at level 5 is the same weight as extra attack on a valor bard and therefore bad. If you strip the context to force your answer, you'll just get your answer.


Options are power. Versatility is extremely important. It doesn't matter if your GWM fighter does the best damage in melee if all enemies avoid melee and stay at range.

Would I still pick them? Probably. It'd be nerfed but I'd still be fine playing a paladin subclass without extra features since they rarely get extra features taking the subclass and the extra spells are definitely welcome to the paladin's chassis, which doesn't get many known spells as their base.
It isn't about gimme gimme stuff. It's about balance overall. The options given are powerful enough to justify the ki cost (apart from maybe burning hands and stone skin) and they recover on a short rest. You don't lose anything by picking the class and adjudicating your spells wisely keeps the your Ki points conserved for times when they're needed.

So you WOULD pick a ranger subclass that just gives you druidcraft and four Druid spells from a very limit list?

Options are power. Getting blight as your fifteenth level class power is balanced then, right?

 

[Asisreo]

So you WOULD pick a ranger subclass that just gives you druidcraft and four Druid spells from a very limit list?

Options are power. Getting blight as your fifteenth level class power is balanced then, right?

Sure.

But I'm sure you've noticed another flaw coming up with your blight example. That's that the Ranger doesn't have room to gain a 5th-level spell from the subclass feature at 17th level because it doesn't align with the subclass. The nearest subclass feature you can gain is from 15th level, before you can even cast a 5th-level spell. Thus, it seems underwhelming.

But let's not distract from the fact that your whole comparison is dishonest. Or at least incorrect. An elemonk can switch out spells as well as gain their new one every new discipline level. That can't be replicated on any chassis you try to put it on.

If you can give the Ranger roughly 6 interchangeable spells that gives an effect unreplicable to other spells that the Ranger has access to, sure, I'd be fine with that. It would be weaker because the Ranger chassis doesn't support this model, but I'm looking for fun first anyways. And it sounds like fun.

Anyways, off of your tangent, the monk (which is the topic of this thread), specifically the elemonk, is fine as-is.

 

[Guy Icognito]

But I'm sure you've noticed another flaw coming up with your blight example. That's that the Ranger doesn't have room to gain a 5th-level spell from the subclass feature at 17th level because it doesn't align with the subclass. The nearest subclass feature you can gain is from 15th level, before you can even cast a 5th-level spell. Thus, it seems underwhelming.

Try reading. I said 15th level.
And blight is a 4th level spell. Getting it at 15th level works just fine.

Better than monks who get the ability to cast a level 4 spell at level 17. Which is what the 4 elements monk gets. When the ranger gets their level 5 spells the monk can cast wall of fire. Their new power is one that the wizard has been able to do for ten levels

But let's not distract from the fact that your whole comparison is dishonest. Or at least incorrect. An elemonk can switch out spells as well as gain their new one every new discipline level. That can't be replicated on any chassis you try to put it on.

Sure ya can. Just have said spellcasting ranger get to pick from a small list of druid spells. Four spells, each of level one to four. Replace when you level up. Effortless.

If you can give the Ranger roughly 6 interchangeable spells that gives an effect unreplicable to other spells that the Ranger has access to, sure, I'd be fine with that. It would be weaker because the Ranger chassis doesn't support this model, but I'm looking for fun first anyways. And it sounds like fun.

It supports that model as well as the monk.
Subclass levels at 3, 7, 11 and 15 instead of 3, 6, 11 and 17. Both are effectively half casters.

It would be EXACTLY THE SAME to present a ranger subclass that gave it new spells,

Level 3 ranger. Gain druidcraft and pick one of faerie fire, entangle, purify food and drink or thunderwave
Level 7 ranger, pick one from the above or enhance ability, flaming sphere, hold person or moonbeam
Level 11 ranger, pick one from the above or from call lightning, dispel magic, meld into stone or sleet storm
Level 15 ranger, pick one from the above or blight, control water, hallucinatory terrain or wall of fire

Bam. Magic ranger done. Add 2-3 paragraphs of flavours and that's the subclass. Which I'm told will be balanced because it gives more options AND you claim it sound like fun. I expect a report of you playing one shortly. Feel free to write it up and add it on the GM's guild.

Anyways, off of your tangent, the monk (which is the topic of this thread), specifically the elemonk, is fine as-is.

How many 4 element monks have you played?
How many monks?