D&D 5E (2024) How 2024 design interacts with class features and resources (poorly)

[Li Shenron]

Wizard: Changing Wizards so that they get extra spells of their chosen school sounds like a decent feature...until you realize that several schools don't even have spell options at certain higher levels (unless you're using 2014 content), so those schools are inherently disadvantaged by this change.

If this is true, then it's definitely lousy game design. You don't offer a feature which the core game cannot adequately cover. IIRC 3rd edition made a similar mistake with the Wizard, and the designers tried to justify it by "you'll get more spells in splatbooks eventually" which is anyway a low blow (as in "we give this to you but you won't use it until you pay more"), especially because it was very close to be fulfilled, had they just added a couple more spells to the lacking school.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If this is true, then it's definitely lousy game design. You don't offer a feature which the core game cannot adequately cover.

No 7th level Divination or 8th level Illusion - although you don't have to take that spell level. Still very sloppy of WotC

 

[Distracted DM]

But how do you handle the once per turn restriction?

Bonus action prevents stacking too many things.

IIRC @mearls had ideas for this, since (IIRC) he considers the bonus action a bad patch-job for how they wanted to make things work- personally I dislike the bonus action because it helps feed into the "maximizing action economy" mindset, where if you're not doing something with your BA you're leaving money on the table; and over the years all the 1pp and 3pp designs filled that space.
I run almost all A5E, where your action and bonus action are frequently used, and even your reaction might get used during your turn to activate certain martial maneuvers etc. I love A5E and I guess the complexity is what's intended, but it really does bog stuff down or feel clunky here and there. It isn't built like PF2e with its 3 actions, but it starts to feel like it.

 

[rabirin]

The increase in Monk dice is way better than Cleave at pretty much all levels after 5. Cleave is not that good in play, at low level the damage is significant but your character is only getting 1 attack, which misses a lot and missing on that attack means you can't even try to Cleave. And then if you hit, there needs to be another enemy within reach to TRY to roll another attack.

...

At high levels the problem with Cleave is it is low damage because you are not adding strength.

Nick is better, but I would say the 1d8 is probably about equal to nick at level 5. At higher levels though the 1d10 and 1d12 martial arts die is better than nick. What really works well on a Monk is the Weapon Master feat (or a level of Ranger or Rogue) grab nick and either Vex or Slow and go in with a dagger and a hand axe or club.

So let's compare Cleave damage-wise to the Martial Arts die increase. Cleave is either an extra 1d10 or 1d12 at base, against a second creature. You can't always trigger it, but it's still a whole extra attack for free. You're sacrificing nothing to be able to make this extra attack.

Conversely, going from a d6 to a d8 means you maybe do one or two extra damage on an attack...or zero extra damage, rolling a 7 or 8 isn't guaranteed. But here's where your logic falls apart: at level 5, Monks could always make a d8 attack. They always had access to quarterstaffs and spears which do d8 versatile damage. So the increase in Martial Arts die only affects your bonus unarmed strike or Flurry of Blows, meaning that the actual impact is only 0-2 extra damage (or 0-4 with FoB).

But you're also forgetting that Cleave benefits from many things that improve the damage of your attacks. Barbarian Rage? That's a +2. Great Weapon Master? That's a +3. Divine Favor? That's a +1d4. The list goes on. Any one of those things is worth more than the Martial Arts die increase, from one hit alone. Every character with Weapon Mastery can take feats to give them more cost-free damage on every turn, and most characters with Weapon Mastery have class features and/or spells to give them extra damage. Monks have neither of those options.

Also, to put Nick (and Cleave to a degree as well) into context when it comes to 2024 Monks:

• At level 1, the Monk can use their action plus their bonus action to make two attacks per turn. At level 1, every martial with Weapon Mastery can do the exact same thing without using their bonus action. Most of them get access to Two-Weapon Fighting and/or other options to give them more extra damage as well, meaning a Monk that does 1d8/1d6 with no resource and using both actions pales in comparison to 1d6/1d6 with only the Attack action. (Especially when those other martials can have ways to boost their damage with their freed-up BA.)
• At level 5, the Monk can make four attacks a turn five times per short rest (provided they don't use any of their other resource-consuming features), for 1d8 per attack. Every other martial with Extra Attack can take the Dual Wielder feat and attack four times every turn with no resource expenditure. And sure, it's 1d6 instead of 1d8...except those other martials can have options to increase this further, such as spells or class features.
• At level 11, a Monk making five d10 attacks per turn deals 30-75 damage per turn. A Dual Wielder Paladin at the same level deals four d6+d8 attacks per turn for a total of 28-76 damage. This is the same damage output, but:
  • the Paladin isn't reliant on any resource to do so, whereas the Monk's damage output drops by 40% when they can't use Flurry of Blows;
  • the Paladin only draws 25% of their damage output from their bonus action, whereas if the Monk uses any other BA, their damage output drops by 60%—meaning that the Paladin's Attack action is roughly twice as strong as the Monk's;
  • the Paladin still gets Vex, and still gets innate class options to give themselves even more extra damage on top of that.
• This is all ignoring magic weapons, which make the gulf even wider between Monks and weapon-focused martials using feats and Weapon Mastery—to the point where with one Vicious Weapon, almost every other martial consistently outdamages the Monk even with their own Vicious Weapon.

All of this is another example of 2024 changes that don't take the rest of the game into perspective. And yes, you can take the feat (or more likely, a one-level dip) to pick up Weapon Mastery so that you now have access to the feature every other martial gets for free, permanently giving you much more versatility and more cost-free damage output than anyone else in the same class. That's not good design (and as I mentioned earlier, it's another instance of the problem of being able to stack too many bonus attacks breaking balance).

Incidentally, regarding the mention of A5E: that has the exact problem in that changes to two-weapon fighting makes Monks Adepts completely useless, because that "revision" lets you make two extra attacks with your BA with two-weapon fighting while an Adept has to expend a resource every turn to do so.

 

[CreamCloud0]

IIRC @mearls had ideas for this, since (IIRC) he considers the bonus action a bad patch-job for how they wanted to make things work- personally I dislike the bonus action because it helps feed into the "maximizing action economy" mindset, where if you're not doing something with your BA you're leaving money on the table; and over the years all the 1pp and 3pp designs filled that space.
I run almost all A5E, where your action and bonus action are frequently used, and even your reaction might get used during your turn to activate certain martial maneuvers etc. I love A5E and I guess the complexity is what's intended, but it really does bog stuff down or feel clunky here and there. It isn't built like PF2e with its 3 actions, but it starts to feel like it.

if you're quoting mearls here and i think you are, you might want to make it slightly more clear for people who haven't heard his opinion on BA before that you are quoting and that's not just your own thoughts, unless those are your thoughts.

 

[rabirin]

From a number of posts I've seen from people before on this message board, anything that isn't "optimal" is therefore wrongbadfun or your playing the game wrong or using the wrong weapons for PCs.

It's not about "optimization" at all, it's simply a matter of remaining relevant.

Keep in mind that two-hander and two-weapon builds already outdamage sword-and-board builds in 2014 5e—which is reasonable, that's the point of the shield being a trade-off for defense. But if enemies get 33% stronger, two-hander and two-weapon builds become 33% stronger, and sword-and-board builds don't get 33% stronger...then sword-and-board builds are significantly weaker in the new scheme of things. You're contributing less to defeating enemies. You're taking more attacks to defeat enemies, which can easily result in taking more attacks and overriding the intended benefit of using a shield in the first place.

If another build can do nearly twice as much damage as you do and have just as good AC in melee (if not better), then sword-and-board builds feel much worse as a result.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But you're also forgetting that Cleave benefits from many things that improve the damage of your attacks. Barbarian Rage? That's a +2. Great Weapon Master? That's a +3. Divine Favor? That's a +1d4.

So that's a barbarian ability, a strength based ability (that is unlikely to be picked by a monk), and a paladin ability. Right. Gotcha. Meanwhile on a monk that already gets lots of attacks more powerful attacks are good even if on a barbarian that only gets a few powerful attacks extra attacks would be better. Out of context cherry picking while paying no attention to the wider context doesn't help.

Also, to put Nick (and Cleave to a degree as well) into context when it comes to 2024 Monks:

• At level 1, the Monk can use their action plus their bonus action to make two attacks per turn. At level 1, every martial with Weapon Mastery can do the exact same thing without using their bonus action.

I mean sure - if we consider the quality of the attack to be irrelevant. You need both the weapon mastery and the two weapon fighting style to be equivalent to what the monk does. Which ... only the fighter can get, and fighters are not a good choice for two weapon fighting.

• Most of them get access to Two-Weapon Fighting and/or other options to give them more extra damage as well, meaning a Monk that does 1d8/1d6 with no resource and using both actions pales in comparison to 1d6/1d6 with only the Attack action. (Especially when those other martials can have ways to boost their damage with their freed-up BA.)
• At level 5, the Monk can make four attacks a turn five times per short rest (provided they don't use any of their other resource-consuming features), for 1d8 per attack. Every other martial with Extra Attack can take the Dual Wielder feat and attack four times every turn with no resource expenditure. And sure, it's 1d6 instead of 1d8...except those other martials can have options to increase this further, such as spells or class features.

I mean sure. When you're throwing in a feat, a fighting style, and a weapon mastery and ignore other monk features and not giving the monk a feat you can keep up.

• At level 11, a Monk making five d10 attacks per turn deals 30-75 damage per turn. A Dual Wielder Paladin at the same level deals four d6+d8 attacks per turn for a total of 28-76 damage. This is the same damage output, but:
  • the Paladin isn't reliant on any resource to do so, whereas the Monk's damage output drops by 40% when they can't use Flurry of Blows;
  • the Paladin only draws 25% of their damage output from their bonus action, whereas if the Monk uses any other BA, their damage output drops by 60%—meaning that the Paladin's Attack action is roughly twice as strong as the Monk's;
  • the Paladin still gets Vex, and still gets innate class options to give themselves even more extra damage on top of that.

And getting to the fight is a thing - and a thing the monk is good at while the paladin still waddles around at 30'

• This is all ignoring magic weapons, which make the gulf even wider between Monks and weapon-focused martials using feats and Weapon Mastery—to the point where with one Vicious Weapon, almost every other martial consistently outdamages the Monk even with their own Vicious Weapon.

Now if you are complaining about D&D 5e balance and how it intersects with magic items I'm right there with you. This is a legacy problem from 2014 and the 2024 rules are not to blame. About all you can do here is not blame 2024 for fixing an explicit bad design decision because it's a balance patch not a new game.

All of this is another example of 2024 changes that don't take the rest of the game into perspective.

Nope. This is an example of 2024 changes that fixed much but not all of the problems in 2014. In 2014 the Monk was overwhelmingly the weakest class in the game. The 2024 monk is very similar but competitive and as far as I can tell you've cherry picked and not done a deep dive analysis unlike e.g. Treantmonk (who I don't always trust but at least does the math). But not making changes that made the classes unrecognisable while normalising the damage without munchkin levels of optimisation was done and done successfully.

And yes, you can take the feat (or more likely, a one-level dip) to pick up Weapon Mastery so that you now have access to the feature every other martial gets for free, permanently giving you much more versatility and more cost-free damage output than anyone else in the same class. That's not good design

It would not be good design if there was no opportunity cost. If the monk got nothing by levelling up as a monk. If on the other hand that level missing hurts (and it frequently does) as well as gives you a benefit then it's good design because options are good.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's not about "optimization" at all, it's simply a matter of remaining relevant.

Keep in mind that two-hander and two-weapon builds already outdamage sword-and-board builds in 2014 5e—which is reasonable, that's the point of the shield being a trade-off for defense. But if enemies get 33% stronger, two-hander and two-weapon builds become 33% stronger, and sword-and-board builds don't get 33% stronger...then sword-and-board builds are significantly weaker in the new scheme of things. You're contributing less to defeating enemies. You're taking more attacks to defeat enemies, which can easily result in taking more attacks and overriding the intended benefit of using a shield in the first place.

Keep in mind that the assumptions are bad here:

• Two weapon builds were notoriously bad in 2014. Nick didn't exist and Dual Wielder was awful. Yes, they probably did get a third stronger; they needed it because they barely outdamaged sword & board and didn't outdamage spear + shield + PAM with duelist style
• Two handed fighting did not get a third stronger. Indeed the initial complaints were that damage on the strongest builds had been nerfed due to the Great Weapon Master changes. Instead it was around break even - but weaker builds were buffed.
• When enemies hit harder the ability to not get hit by their attacks (as provided by shields) is more important. Shields are for people who want to tank.
• Even in a vacuum Sword & Board got stronger with weapon masteries and a buffed Shield Master feat
• Vex works with Sword & Board but not GWM - and if you're strength based there's PAM.

 

[mearls]

if you're quoting mearls here and i think you are, you might want to make it slightly more clear for people who haven't heard his opinion on BA before that you are quoting and that's not just your own thoughts, unless those are your thoughts.

Those are very close to my thoughts! To expand a bit:

Players naturally want to fill each available action with damage output. Burning through an encounter faster is strictly a better way to play. However, the game (both 5e and 5.5) is not designed for that. It could be, but in its current incarnation there's no design around the action economy.

What does that mean? If 5e were built around it, we'd see a much clearer, coordinated, and purposeful use of each action type. Instead, the action types are used more based on vibes or whim. That is the root of 5e and 5.5's serious problems with slow play. Players struggle to mesh their available actions with what's on their character sheet, and they spend time trying to find an outlet for a bonus action or reaction.

For instance, the design might assign each action type to a specific, core activity a class uses. For instance, for the fighter:

• Action: Offense
• Bonus Action: Control
• Reaction: Defense (say, within melee range)

So in this set up, you might have a basic attack action, maneuvers that are bonus actions, and buffs to defense that sit in reactions. A maneuver might be a trip, a charge, a push, an option that lets the fighter draw aggro, and so on. The core loop the fighter player learns is: attack, pick control effect. When it's not your turn, pay attention when you or someone in your melee range that you want to protect is attacked. That speeds things up and gives the player a distinct character to play.

You still have a lot of variety for design, but the structure is something a player can master. You could even repeat that structure for different classes, but vary the options based on flavor. A class like the cleric or druid might have a different structure (maybe the cleric's bonus actions are healing and buffs, and the action is either offense or control). The paladin might choose a smite or mundane attack as an action, assert an aura as a bonus action (in this world, auras provide healing), and use a reaction to rebuke an enemy.

Non-combat stuff can sit outside this. Since non-combat has parallel processing (we all scan our character sheets at the same time to see if we have a way to get across this chasm) it doesn't need as much structure.

You can then also vary the formula as needed (maybe a later paladin subclass or build uses more spells, so they get a casting option that displaces smite).

In my own design, I have dropped bonus actions and reactions as a core element. Instead, classes that need those structures get mechanics that let them act as needed. For instance, the monk gets a pool of action points each turn. They can spend them on strikes, defenses, movement, and so on, to capture the feel of a mobile, flexible warrior.

All IMO and based on my experience, of course.

 

[rabirin]

So that's a barbarian ability, a strength based ability (that is unlikely to be picked by a monk), and a paladin ability. Right. Gotcha. Meanwhile on a monk that already gets lots of attacks more powerful attacks are good even if on a barbarian that only gets a few powerful attacks extra attacks would be better. Out of context cherry picking while paying no attention to the wider context doesn't help.

How is it "cherry picking" to point out that the Monk's purported big-deal damage increase, something that's on par with other martials getting Weapon Mastery, is barely consequential (when it actually does give them more damage) and everyone else has far stronger and far more consistent means of boosting their damage beyond Weapon Mastery? You're just tossing out buzzwords here.

In 2014 the Monk was overwhelmingly the weakest class in the game.

Two weapon builds were notoriously bad in 2014.

And here's all the problems in a nutshell. There's the people who actually play the game, where Monks are strong party members who combine high mobility with versatility, having damage and control options in addition to subclass features. Then there's the people who pretend movement speed and mobility options never matter at all, who pretend Patient Defense and Deflect Missiles literally do not exist at all, that every other martial is a hyper-optimized GWM/PAM build, that every single use of Stunning Strike is doomed to fail (but also in the same fantasy enemies will never succeed on saving throws against spells) but also players will do nothing but waste ki on Stunning Strike which repeatedly fails.

You have the people who run two-weapon builds and have strong characters because it takes advantage of its strengths—a consistent bonus-action extra attack, which benefits from damage boosts on attacks, on a setup that's compatible with Dexterity or Strength and which requires no feat investment but still has feat options to strengthen it. And then you have the people who complain that it's absolutely useless because you can do more damage with a build that requires several feats combined to outperform two-weapon fighting with no feats.

Heck, one of the most consistent problems with 2024 design is that instead of actually acknowledging how the game actually plays or what people who enjoy certain options like about them, 2024 consistently panders to the latter people in the above examples, overcompensating for such people's complaints and wildly unbalancing the game.

Players naturally want to fill each available action with damage output.

This genuinely might be one of the worst takes and generalizations I've ever seen about the game, ever.

If the only players you acknowledge are the ones obsessed with white-room optimization where hypothetical damage numbers are the only thing in play—where nothing else, not a single other factor can ever possibly impact the game—then this might be true. But the vast majority of players value versatility, and very very few of them only care about having damage options for their bonus action and reaction.

Heck, with the way this dismisses a huge number of popular and often-used character options, from class features to feats to spells, that have nothing to do with damage output seriously makes me doubt the insights of someone who'd make such a claim.