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

[Minigiant]

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

What you listed was: the monk class

Because like the OP stated as virtual damage.

Rating things as virtually equal but neither openly listing it nor having a quantifiable equation for them is not a part of modern gaming

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.

I didn't say older editions are bad. They are a different style with different priorities, ratings, and perspectives.

 

[Mistwell]

This is one of those things where, people look at numbers or chances, but a lot of people, espeically in casual circles feel this way about monk.

Like i feel their is just a huge disconnect from the general audience and enthusiasts about certain featurse even though the general audience reflect closer to how most people play 5e.

We have no data about "general audience" by definition other than "what classes people play" and I seem to recall monk is 1) not that popular, and 2) a class people often multiclass out of. But my recollection might be flawed.

 

[tetrasodium]

A few people downplayed monk UAD as being only worth about x or y, but all of those comparisons are dropping significant elements from the scales to make that comparison.

In d&d the gm has very little say over what the party does. To give themselves as something they can use as influence the gm needs to rely on tangible incentives for the PCs. Monk UAD & MA/Flurry/Stun/virtual immunity to ranged attackers/mobility combo strips that incentive toolbox entirely and through design makes an effort to give the player room to demand magic items in a style similar to 3.x magic item churn to replace the void of incentives. That's a huge boon that should not be ignored, especially when 5e is explicitly designed with the expectation of zero magic items.

 

[FallenRX]

especially when 5e is explicitly designed with the expectation of zero magic items.

Ive found this to be not true really, you can play it without magic items, but it is kept in mind you are getting them.
The math literally does not work unless you do or have a alternative

 

[shadowoflameth]

Unarmed defense is worth about as light armor proficiency, yeah you can get higher AC early on, but you cannot utilize special/magical armor. So call it a wash.

Unarmed strike(without later increase in power) is worth as a single martial weapon proficiency as it gives you Bonus action attack. without it, it would be in line with Druidic/thief cant/extra tool proficiency.
Like proficiency in Eberrons double bladed scimitar

so monk in total gets at 1st level:
light armor proficiency
single Martial weapon proficiency
2 skills
1 tool

add that with d8 HD, and it's horrible 1st level.

Mostly agree, but Unarmed Strike proficiency with a d4 is not as valuable as a martial weapon proficiency. That's why WotC has deliberately (and IMHO mistakenly) refused to make Unarmed Strike a Martial Melee Weapon. This would allow monks to use many more feats and Martial Maneuvers that require a weapon. Now, with Martial Masteries, the gap will be more if this isn't fixed. Being able to make an Unarmed strike on a bonus action is a marginal help but it is still not better than Two Weapon Fighting because you now have a demand on your Bonus Action from more than one ability and in 5e both use Ki. Remember that all Monk Weapons and indeed almost all weapons in the game already have a d4 or better.

I wouldn't call Unarmored defense a wash either because you can't use shields, and wearing light armor that gave the same AC would not require dependency on a second high ability score to match up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

you can’t possibly think that people here and who make YouTube CharOp videos represent any significant percentage of the player base.

You also misrepresent my statements when you restate them with key words missing. I said the monk is only significantly underpowered under certain circumstances and from certain very minority POVs. And I’m correct.

What the monk is, is frustrating to play for a lot of players, and not a great DPR-bot past low levels, which is unsatisfying for anyone who wants to be able to wreck face with their monk character without feats and MC. Feeling obligated to spend ki on stunning strike feels bad if that isn’t the type of monk you want to play. Going nova and then being behind everyone for the rest of the day because no one else needs a short rest sucks.

But unsatisfying and underpowered aren’t the same thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't say older editions are bad.

Who said you did?

They are a different style with different priorities, ratings, and perspectives.

Yes, they are. They’re also not all that big a part of 5e, IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

It depends what you value. 5e has always appeared to me to be an attempt to implement a 2e-like game with slightly more modern sensibilities on a near 4e engine and chassis (without the 4e DM tools). Which kinda makes it similar to 3.0's attempt to implement a 2e like game on a more modern chassis. (And, oddly enough, 5e casting bears more resemblance to 3.X psionics than it does to any other D&D magic system).

But then I maintain that 4e was a good implementation of at least one of the games 2e was reaching for - the larger than life action heroes with the grittiness 2e inherited from 1e dropped.

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.

I don't know about you but I see an enforced role including an extra damage mechanic even if they don't actually hold your hand and name the role, a short rest dependent class with several at will and long rest abilities (therefore an AEDU structure with some spackle over the top), use of bonus/minor/swift actions and disengages to allow for actual mobility and extra attacks, damage and AC expectations based on things like consistent extra attacks, damage dice going up and going up with some consistency and forced movement. It's a 4e class under the hood with decoration on top to make it look like a 1e class. And to be utterly explicit the monk's striker-style extra damage mechanic (the extra attack/flurry that starts right from low levels) is very much a 4e thing.

Of course they screwed up the damage expectations because whoever designed the 5e feats didn't quite grasp the concept of synergy (Great Weapon Master as a feat in isolation is pretty well balanced - the problem arises when you combine it with reckless attack or any other accuracy booster). And the monk gets shafted a second time over in D&Done because, being more MAD (Dex/Wis) the +2 ASI feat being a generally poorer option is a stealth relative nerf for monks. But not being done well doesn't mean they aren't there. Both early and late 4e had classes with significant math fails.

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

... you have looked at 4e powers? Because many of them, especially among utility powers, and especially for the monk get highly specific and situational.

and the remaining 2-3 features carrying the entire power budget that it makes the class hard to reflavor without houserules.

The 4e monk was psionic, and the way the PHB 3 was written spamming your most OP power based on points and short rest resources was how 4e psionic characters (other ironically than the monk) worked in practice. The only worthwhile class in the entire PHB3 was the monk.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

On top of this, I think WotC overvalues being able to operate without having to rely on equipment. We’ve seen it with species that grant natural weapon attacks as well. For whatever reason, they think that being able to do baseline-effective damage without a weapon or have middle-of-the-road AC without armor is inherently very valuable.

So much this. It's like all they do is run prison break scenarios. Same with the bladelock being able to conjure a weapon. Having equipment is the default assumption, being able to operate fully in th rare situations when it isnt is not a meaningful ability!

 

[FallenRX]

On top of this, I think WotC overvalues being able to operate without having to rely on equipment. We’ve seen it with species that grant natural weapon attacks as well. For whatever reason, they think that being able to do baseline-effective damage without a weapon or have middle-of-the-road AC without armor is inherently very valuable.

I dont think they value this at all personally.

I dont think this matters to them much, i feel if anything they value the movement speed more, since technically speaking you can use it to just kite enemies endlessly.