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

[UngeheuerLich]

5e is designed more like 2e than 4e. And is moving more to 2e.

So strong things in 2e might be overvalued.

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have a source?
Asking out of curiosity.

 

[Minigiant]

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have a source?
Asking out of curiosity.

Look at the monk, what do you see

1) Enforced role, clear power source, AEDU structure, damage and AC expectations, planned flavor to crunch pipeline, clear narrative link to the world.

Or

1) a smattering of class features unlinked to each other but linked to a single choice reference, many of them niche and applicable only to a certain style of play and the remaining 2-3 features carrying the entire power budget that it makes the class hard to reflavor without houserules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Look at the monk, what do you see

1) Enforced role, clear power source, AEDU structure, damage and AC expectations, planned flavor to crunch pipeline, clear narrative link to the world.

Or

1) a smattering of class features unlinked to each other but linked to a single choice reference, many of them niche and applicable only to a certain style of play and the remaining 2-3 features carrying the entire power budget that it makes the class hard to reflavor without houserules.

That is an opinion, based on an observation of a single point of data... not a source.

That does not mean I disagree*. I just wanted to know if there is an actual source that supports your claim.

*Thinking of it, I do disagree a bit. The monk proved to be as very useful skirmisher, obener and finisher atlower to mid level. So...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

5e is designed more like 2e than 4e. And is moving more to 2e.

So strong things in 2e might be overvalued.

Gonna need to back this up with more than “classes aren’t AEDU”, friendo.

 

[Minigiant]

Gonna need to back this up with more than “classes aren’t AEDU”, friendo.

That is an opinion, based on an observation of a single point of data... not a source.

That does not mean I disagree*. I just wanted to know if there is an actual source that supports your claim.

*Thinking of it, I do disagree a bit. The monk proved to be as very useful skirmisher, obener and finisher atlower to mid level. So...

I listed a lot:
Class roles
Power sources
Benchmarks for attack AC damage, skills
Multiple sources for skeletons

But there are more missing:
Skill challenges
Monster roles
Unified race structure
Inherent slots for customization

I mean is is a thread about an assumed damage benchmark that is not in the DMG but in a PC at the WOTC offices.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I listed a lot:
Class roles
Power sources
Benchmarks for attack AC damage, skills
Multiple sources for skeletons

But there are more missing:
Skill challenges
Monster roles
Unified race structure
Inherent slots for customization

I mean is is a thread about an assumed damage benchmark that is not in the DMG but in a PC at the WOTC offices.

The game also has short rests, HD as a resource, is full of translated 4e abilities, every character has regular decisions points when building and leveling up (some more than others, like in 4e Essentials), unified accuracy assumptions, ritual casting, is balanced by damage averages and is fairly well balanced (more like essentials than like 2e, for sure), and it’s become more like 4e with supplements like Xanathar’s Guide and in this ongoing playtest.

5e is absolutely an evolution from 4e. The designers have even acknowledged it, on twitter and possibly in a video several years ago.

 

[Minigiant]

The game also has short rests, HD as a resource, is full of translated 4e abilities, every character has regular decisions points when building and leveling up (some more than others, like in 4e Essentials), unified accuracy assumptions, ritual casting, is balanced by damage averages and is fairly well balanced (more like essentials than like 2e, for sure), and it’s become more like 4e with supplements like Xanathar’s Guide and in this ongoing playtest.

5e is absolutely an evolution from 4e. The designers have even acknowledged it, on twitter and possibly in a video several years ago.

I didn't say 5e doesn't have any 4e in it. I said The designers put more 2e in 5e than 4e. The injection of 4e aspects late is proof of their original absence.

But this is all getting away from my point

my point was that they value things that were more important in the old days highly. Getting jumped in your sleep In no armor. Not getting the magic weapon that you wanted in a treasure hoard. Not being the slowest person when chase. Not needing to eat or drink. Having the ability to do more than damage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I listed a lot:
Class roles
Power sources
Benchmarks for attack AC damage, skills
Multiple sources for skeletons

But there are more missing:
Skill challenges
Monster roles
Unified race structure
Inherent slots for customization

I mean is is a thread about an assumed damage benchmark that is not in the DMG but in a PC at the WOTC offices.

How is that 2e? That could also be 3e.

What you listed was: the monk class.

So that is still an opinion based on observation. I was asking for a source that design was based on 2e design.

As I said: I also see a lot of 2e inspirations. But I see 3e inspirations and 4e inspirations too.

I specifically asked for a source for your assumption that design/balance is based on 2e. But as I guessed. There is none.

Still, I agree that tgere is a lot of 2e design in 5e. I like that. I disagree that the revision goes more towards 2e.

Actually the first few playtests suggested more 4e:

• more conditions
• clearer organization
• unified subclass structure
• spells fulfilling the roles of 4e powers (which is still present in the ranger and paladin design)
• damage on a miss

Sadly many people do rejecet anything that resembles 4e design.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't say 5e doesn't have any 4e in it. I said The designers put more 2e in 5e than 4e.

Which I disagreed with, why are we recapping the discussion?

The injection of 4e aspects late is proof of their original absence.

This is laughably false. Adding even more 4e elements proves the opposite, if anything. It shows that 5e is built from the same mindset as 4e and adding additional 4eisms is trivially easy as a result.

But this is all getting away from my point

my point was that they value things that were more important in the old days highly. Getting jumped in your sleep In no armor. Not getting the magic weapon that you wanted in a treasure hoard. Not being the slowest person when chase. Not needing to eat or drink.

I think trying to frame this in terms of “the old days” or other editions is a mistake from the jump. They value things that a lot of people see and feel like it’s really cool highly.

Having the ability to do more than damage.

This is very valuable in every version of the game.

 

[Mistwell]

Nope. Stun is valued as equivalent to a certain amount of damage, which is almost certainly more than a level 1 spell or a use of flurry of blows.

How much DPR they dish out isn’t especially relevant if their big gun isn’t damage.

The monk is only significantly underpowered in games with no short rests, and in analysis by people who value DPR and nova damage totals above anything else.

I’m not sure I buy that most players even see the monk as a weak class.

OK Doctorbadwolf. You want to thin the monk isn't underpowered and that people don't think it's underpowered after a decade of people you telling you differently, I am not going to convince you in this thread either.