D&D (2024) Does WotC view the Monk class as overtuned from their perspective?

[Horwath]

I think actually it was clarified that GWM only works on weapon damage dice, not bonus damage, making it even worse, lol. The Style isn't useless, but it would have been a lot better if it worked like 4e's Brutal (just take rolls of 1 and 2 off the die entirely).

or just add +3 +4 if 1Handed style is +2, or maybe +1d6 so it works on crits.

 

[mellored]

I think actually it was clarified that GWM only works on weapon damage dice, not bonus damage, making it even worse, lol. The Style isn't useless, but it would have been a lot better if it worked like 4e's Brutal (just take rolls of 1 and 2 off the die entirely).

Soo..

Turn 1d12 (6.5) into 1d10+2 (7.5)?
Or maybe 1d8+4 (8.5)?

 

[James Gasik]

Soo..

Turn 1d12 (6.5) into 1d10+2 (7.5)?
Or maybe 1d8+4 (8.5)?

The way 4e did it was, Brutal was a weapon trait, and you re-rolled any damage die of that value or less. So the Mordenkrad was a 2d6 maul with Brutal 1, so it's damage range was 4-12 instead of 2-12, and the Craghammer was a 1d10 hammer with Brutal 2, so it's damage range ended up being 3-10 instead of 1-10.

If Greatweapon Style gave "Brutal 2", ie, you always reroll results of 1-2, you'd have a damage range of 6-12 instead of 2-12. This wouldn't increase maximum damage, but your damage would become a very consistent 9 average which I would be quite happy with.

The reason the style is the way it is seems very likely to speed up play instead of continuous rolling, naturally, but since there may be times when a 2 becomes a 1, causing your fighting style to actually hinder you for using it....yeah. No bueno.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

well, we should.

Weapons are clearly superior to punch and kicks. As they SHOULD be.

flurry of blows should be a complement to weapons combat, adding extra unarmed strikes, not replacing unarmed with weapon attacks in Attack action. Sure you can do it, but you are going to get penalized for it.

That is why I like the kensai subclass the best.
Finally one monk realized that sharpened steel is better than bones with some skin over them at causing harm and decided to double down on that fact.
Might not be the mechanically the best subclass, but it is most realistic one.

This is a fantasy game. The fantasy of the martial arts class is beating people up with martial arts.
If the right way to use the monk its to primarily use weapons, the monk needs to be reworked.

Realism can check itself at the door.

 

[mellored]

If Greatweapon Style gave "Brutal 2", ie, you always reroll results of 1-2, you'd have a damage range of 6-12 instead of 2-12

2d4+4 also gives a range of 6-12
And with less rolling.

 

[SteveC]

This is a fantasy game. The fantasy of the martial arts class is beating people up with martial arts.
If the right way to use the monk its to primarily use weapons, the monk needs to be reworked.

Realism can check itself at the door.

Exactly this. At tier 3 and 4, the only classes that would be able to face level appropriate challenges would be spell casters. I think that would honestly make some people happy, but the game isn't designed around that. And monks have supernatural power behind those strikes too so they certainly can be explained to hit harder than a real world master can.

 

[James Gasik]

2d4+4 also gives a range of 6-12
And with less rolling.

Yeah, you'd just have to have a handy chart for players to figure out the damage conversion (I know, I know, it's just math, but in my Sunday game, the Ranger generally forgets what he should be rolling for his weapon damage at least once a combat, and it's literally just d6+Dex...).

 

[Clint_L]

The fighter with shield/defense isn't as useful a scenario to me. The monk is a DPS glass cannon at these low levels (especially if you are using FoB instead of PD), we know this... so you aren't comparing classes as much as your comparing whether a glass cannon style is better than a tank style. We should be looking more at the DPS fighter (aka GWF) than the sword/board fighter who is more of a tank.

I still think the fighter is ahead, but to me that is more an apples to apples comparison.

Fair enough - my point is that you can make a fighter who is great at defence and still solid at offence, or a fighter who is great at offence and still solid at defence. Monks really suffer from being extremely flimsy as a frontline class, and their DPR continually falls off as they level up (not gonna debate that; see Treantmonk and others' detailed analyses).

I feel like we've kind of been suckered into debating the obvious: monk has problems. And there's no real point in arguing about it, because WotC are working on a new approach to the class. It's more interesting to focus on what will happen with the class - it and moon druid remain the two class/subclass options that we will see significant change on.

Edit: I also generally find it more useful to compare monks to rangers, as both are melee classes that depend more on mobility and unarmored defence. If you compare a barbarian to a monk at level 1, the damage output is very similar, but the barbarian's survivability is much higher. By level 5, the barbarian is pulling ahead on damage (WAY ahead for the updated berserker barbarian), especially if they take the great weapon fighting feat, while maintaining their advantage in survivability. If you take stunning strike away from the monk (spoiler alert: the most recent version of the monk nerfs stunning strike) what do you have?

Conversely, if you compare to rogues to again see them falling behind on damage, comparable on survivability in melee, but rogues always have the option of hitting hard with ranged attacks so can pick and choose when to be in melee, and monks have much less out of combat utility.

 

[Clint_L]

To my point about the general perception of monks, I thought it would be interesting to ask Chat-GPT, given that it crafts its responses from parsing a vast array of feedback:

Question: "what character class is generally considered the weakest in D&D5e?"

In Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (D&D 5e), there isn't a universally agreed-upon "weakest" character class because a lot depends on the specific campaign, the player's creativity, and how the Dungeon Master runs the game. However, some players and experts have varying opinions on which classes might be considered weaker in certain situations or under certain assumptions.

It's important to note that D&D 5e is designed to be relatively well-balanced, and every class has its strengths and weaknesses. What might be considered weak in one campaign or group could be incredibly powerful in another. Balance can also be affected by the choice of subclasses and feats, so character optimization can make a significant difference.

That said, if you're looking for classes that some players consider less versatile or weaker in certain aspects, the Monk and Beast Master Ranger are sometimes mentioned. Monks can have relatively low damage output compared to other melee classes, and Beast Master Rangers have had a reputation for being underpowered in terms of combat effectiveness, although there have been attempts to address this with optional rules and subclasses in later sourcebooks.

Ultimately, the perceived strength or weakness of a class can vary greatly based on individual playstyle, campaign setting, and house rules. It's often more important to choose a class that fits your preferred playstyle and character concept rather than worrying too much about perceived power levels. D&D is a role-playing game, and the fun and enjoyment of the players and the story should take precedence over class balance concerns.

 

[Gorck]

To my point about the general perception of monks, I thought it would be interesting to ask Chat-GPT, given that it crafts its responses from parsing a vast array of feedback:

Question: "what character class is generally considered the weakest in D&D5e?"

In Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (D&D 5e), there isn't a universally agreed-upon "weakest" character class because a lot depends on the specific campaign, the player's creativity, and how the Dungeon Master runs the game. However, some players and experts have varying opinions on which classes might be considered weaker in certain situations or under certain assumptions.

It's important to note that D&D 5e is designed to be relatively well-balanced, and every class has its strengths and weaknesses. What might be considered weak in one campaign or group could be incredibly powerful in another. Balance can also be affected by the choice of subclasses and feats, so character optimization can make a significant difference.

That said, if you're looking for classes that some players consider less versatile or weaker in certain aspects, the Monk and Beast Master Ranger are sometimes mentioned. Monks can have relatively low damage output compared to other melee classes, and Beast Master Rangers have had a reputation for being underpowered in terms of combat effectiveness, although there have been attempts to address this with optional rules and subclasses in later sourcebooks.

Ultimately, the perceived strength or weakness of a class can vary greatly based on individual playstyle, campaign setting, and house rules. It's often more important to choose a class that fits your preferred playstyle and character concept rather than worrying too much about perceived power levels. D&D is a role-playing game, and the fun and enjoyment of the players and the story should take precedence over class balance concerns.

Way to go, Clint! You’ve just rendered us all obsolete. We no longer need to have back and forth discussions on the forums; we just need to type the OPs into Chat GPT and let the AI do it for us.