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

[ECMO3]

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.

You can't calculate it that way because it is conditional based on two separate conditions both being true - you need to have a second enemy within 5 feet and you need to hit with your first attack. It is not that you can't always trigger it is that you rarely can trigger it.

For example, let's say you have a 60% chance of hitting:

When you swing your 1d12 Greataxe, it has a 60% chance to hit and a 5% chance to crit. So counting the accuracy that is 4.225 damage if/whenwhen you make your swing. However you only swing at all if you hit with your first attack and there is only a 60% chance of that happening so that drops the damage to 2.535 when there is someone standing next to you. This is already lower that a 1d8 martial die and not much above a 1d6 die. At best another enemy will be within 5 feet 50% of the time and when you consider that the 2.535 drops to 1.7675.

Conversely, going from a d6 to a d8 means you maybe do one or two extra damage on an attack.

2 damage on an one attack is more than cleave will net .... and you get 2-4 attacks.

But you're also forgetting that Cleave benefits from many things that improve the damage of your attacks. Barbarian Rage?

Using the 2024 rules you do not get GWM damage from Cleave because it is not made with the attack action.

That's a +2. Great Weapon Master? That's a +3. Divine Favor? That's a +1d4.

Divine Favor + Rage requires a multiclass and takes 2 turns to set up. After that it will be 4.5 damage when you hit with your cleave, which will be rare. Once you have it set up getting both of these bonuses will make your Cleave about the equivalent of a 1d8 martial arts die, still behind a 1d10 or 1d12.

That is if we are not counting Feats. If we add the nick feat now you are well behind even with this.

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.)

No class has access to Two Weapon Fighting at level 1 and by the time they get access to it a Monk can make 3 attacks a turn using ki.

• 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

Every other martial is using at best 1d6 weapons for their 4 attacks and they have to be in melee. A Monk is doing 1d8 and can make 2 of those attacks from range.

Further since we are considering feats; Monks can take the Weapon mastery feat for dagger and get a 4th attack every single round and 5 attacks 5 times a day when they spend ki. They do 1d8 on all those attacks at 5th level and additionally they can throw 3 daggers a round from range (attack, attack, nick) doing 1d8 on all of those attacks too while still having a 4th and with ki 5th attack in melee. Finally, even though they are not as reliant on melee, with their superior mobility Monks can get into melee easier.

• 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:

To start with, your math is wrong. Assuming a 20 Strength; a Paladin with Two Weapon Fighting feat and Dual Wielder feat making 4 attacks with 2 light weapons (attack, attack, nick, dual wielder). That does 4d6+4d8+15 or 23-71 (average 47) and they have to be in melee or you will do less than that (trading Scimitar mastery for Dagger mastery).

Second you keep comparing a build with feats to a build without feats.

An 11th level Weapon Master Monk using is doing 3 1d10 attacks as part of her attack action with daggers plus a bonus action unarmed strike or 4d10+15 or 19-55 (37 average). That is without using any ki and she can throw those daggers too without losing damage from her action and has much higher movement to get into melee.

If you are using Ki for flurry of blows she gets 6 attacks doing 6d10+25 or 31-85 (58 average).

So basically at 11th level if the Monk uses a Ki she on average does 11 points MORE than the Paladin and 10 points less if she doesn't use a ki. With 11 ki between short rests she is going to generally be able to use more than one ki per round of combat.

Finally, this is at 11th level, where there is a significant boost for the Paladin. Make the comparison at any level between 4 (when they both get the feat) and 10 and the Monk blows the Paladin out of the water. At 10th level for example and the monk does the same average - 37 with no ki or 58 with ki, while the Paladin is averaging 4d6+15 or 29, well below a Monk using the same action economy and no resource cost and half what a Monk can do by spending a Ki.

• 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 monk has a lot of other bonus action options and if we are considering feats the Monk's output drops by about 55%, not 60%.

The Monk also has a +20 Movement and can do that full 55% of output from range, while still having a bonus action.

• the Paladin still gets Vex, and still gets innate class options to give themselves even more extra damage on top of that.

Vex on 2 attacks a turn is not the equivalent of stunning strike.

• 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.

First off, the Monk is using weapons too and with a feat the Monk is making 3 weapon attacks a round and doing martial arts die damage with them plus any bonuses the weapons have. So it is only the one extra bonus action attack with a weapon the Paladin gets that this matters for and there are quite a few options to boost unarmed strikes too.

Give the Paladin a Viscous Short Sword and Scimitar and the Monk 2 Viscous Daggers and not anything to boost unarmed strike and the Monk is still outrunning the Paladin when using Flurry of Blows and outrunning the Paladin before level 11 even when not using Flurry of Blows ..... oh and now the monk has 2 viscous daggers she can throw too!

Finally the Monk ability to change to do Force damage at will with 3-5 attacks a round, the Paladin is stuck with piercing, slashing and Radiant for all their attacks and keep in mind magic weapons no longer overcome resistance to BPS.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So let's actually acknowledge reality. A 2014 Monk has AC comparable to any other martial with a two-hander or two-weapon build—16 AC to start, 17 by level 5, 18 by level 9, etc. They have a unique defense against ranged attacks that no other martial possesses. They can Dodge as a bonus action. They get Evasion to significantly improve their ability to avoid damage from many Dex-save effects, which are often the bane of high-AC builds. That's all by level 7.

Indeed. Let's actually acknowledge reality. The monk's AC scaling the way you claim means that the monk is giving up attacks. And means that the fighter isn't getting magic armour (for a strength based fighter to only have an AC of 18 by level 9 would be exceptional in my experience). And the monk has the hit points of a rogue not a warrior.

But more to the point let's acknowledge reality in that the "unique defence against ranged attacks" is only really useful if the GM is throwing softballs at you. Ranged attackers get to pick their target and normally go for the casters to interrupt the spells. Further with only very rare exceptions ranged attacks are made by intelligent creatures; the monk is highly unlikely to use the ability more than once per fight and frequently never as there are lots of enemies it simply doesn't interact with. Let's also acknowledge that Dodging as a bonus action is something but costs a Ki point and thus gives up literally half your damage.

Meanwhile in terms of defensive tech the Barbarian gets Rage which mitigates a lot of damage. The fighter's second wind is vastly more reliable than the monk's arrow catching. The Rogue gets uncanny dodge. The Paladin gets Lay On Hands. And the Ranger at least gets self-healing and most rangers are archers.

Let's also acknowledge that with one or two honourable exceptions (Mercy and arguably Shadow, with Kensei providing the equivalent of a shield) the official 2014 monk subclasses provided very little defensive tech. Compare this to the fighter where some subclasses were admittedly bad (Arcane Archer, Banneret, Champion), but the good ones like the Battlemaster, the Knights (Echo, Eldritch, Rune), Psi Warrior, and Samurai all had inbuilt protection.

Let's also acknowledge that some groups and some adventures didn't have space for short rests. And that the monk was probably the most Multi-Attribute Dependent class in the game giving them less opportunity than anyone else to pick up the powerful feats.

What you're claiming isn't based on reality at all, but the people who wanted the Monk to be this invincible anime protagonist like Goku or Naruto. It's people who lived in a world where they wanted the class to have the offense of a two-hander/two-weapon build, but also get the defensive benefits of a sword-and-board class—at the same time.

What you're claiming is arrant nonsense I think based on your own desires for the monk to blow the curve in terms of the damage they do rather than be pretty good - which is what you are actively advocating for by saying the extra damage from their weapon mastery equivalent isn't enough. And yes I had fun playing a 2014 Shadow Monk for a campaign. Because I wanted to play a ninja and it was easily the best monk subclass at the time. I would rather they had put more power into the subclasses and ensured they all had better survival tricks than they used the simple solution.

And that's what 2024 gave the class. It didn't give the Monk new and engaging options, it didn't improve the Monk's action economy or give them any meaningful improvement in offense.

Because they didn't need that. It didn't turn them into imbalanced high skill floor people. Instead it fixed their issue that gave a negative play experience.

It didn't even improve their subclasses because almost all of them were massively dumbed down.

Yes it did. The Warrior of Elements works. The Shadow Monk is more a ninja than it was before. Mercy was almost unchanged. And Open Hand was slightly buffed but "dumbed down" in the sense that what it does is clearer and it has a better level 11 ability. If "made clear to understand" is what you mean by "dumbed down" then you just like other people to suffer.

All the Monk got was a cheat.

Oooh. Magic! Like it or not it deals with an actual issue with the monk and makes them fun to play for a lot of people. You are not the only audience.

And there's no point in responding further, because you genuinely do believe that people who make use of a class's features, who actually acknowledge their existence, are just being babied by their DM

No. I genuinely believe you are "being babied by your DM" to use your term. Because you consistently post things that are in line with someone who has been "babied by your DM" by ignoring the weaknesses to the features. You aren't all people, just one specific person with unusual takes that are completely in line with a DM who metagames in your favour.

—because any real DM would obviously metagame against the Monk player.

So "watching someone catch an arrow and shooting someone else next time as an in character decision" is metagaming. On the contrary if you are getting a lot of mileage out of catching arrows it's because your DM is metagaming in your favour by having the bad guys play to your strengths.

(But of course this doesn't extend to metagaming against any other PC—why would a ranged attacker target the guy with a shield with ranged attacks, he'd have better AC!

Smart ranged attackers generally don't. It's what makes them dangerous. They get to pick their targets. Which means that they get to attack the back line.

Why would the ranged attacker target the Wizard, they'll obviously cast Shield!

Now that's who the ranged attacker should be attacking. However after they've cast Shield for that round the sensible target may chage ... or it might not because the wizard is still low hp.

Heck, it doesn't even extend to the idea of a DM running a 2024 game metagaming against the Monk PC by focusing save-based spells on them instead of attack rolls.)

And now you just show you are bad at metagaming.

 

[rabirin]

You can't calculate it that way because it is conditional based on two separate conditions both being true - you need to have a second enemy within 5 feet and you need to hit with your first attack. It is not that you can't always trigger it is that you rarely can trigger it.

For example, let's say you have a 60% chance of hitting:

When you swing your 1d12 Greataxe, it has a 60% chance to hit and a 5% chance to crit. So counting the accuracy that is 4.225 damage if/whenwhen you make your swing. However you only swing at all if you hit with your first attack and there is only a 60% chance of that happening so that drops the damage to 2.535 when there is someone standing next to you. This is already lower that a 1d8 martial die and not much above a 1d6 die. At best another enemy will be within 5 feet 50% of the time and when you consider that the 2.535 drops to 1.7675.

Yet at the same time you're treating it as a given that the increase in Martial Arts die means a Monk will always be rolling a higher number than they could previously. You are making the argument that a small increase in maximum damage (which means an attack might still do the same damage anyway) is somehow more important than effects that will always result in an increase in damage.

And of course, arguments that rely on putting a random number and asserting that as your chance to hit with an attack, completely disregarding how everything in the game has different AC values. (And ignoring that the same logic applies to the chance of the Monk's attacks hitting!)

So "watching someone catch an arrow and shooting someone else next time as an in character decision" is metagaming. On the contrary if you are getting a lot of mileage out of catching arrows it's because your DM is metagaming in your favour by having the bad guys play to your strengths.

They'll shoot at the casters even if said casters block every arrow with Shield or throw up other defensive spells. They'll shoot at the Fighters whose shield gives them the extra AC to block the arrow. They'll shoot at the Barbarian who is barely phased by the arrow. They'll shoot at the Rogue who dodges out of taking full damage. But it is specifically the Monk whom they will refrain from making ranged attacks against, and only the Monk. It is only the Monk whose defensive feature the enemies (read: the DM) will actively play against.

I honestly feel sorry for you if that is genuinely your experience with DMs.

That's without getting into the idea that the Monk's Unarmored Defense somehow takes away from their attacks, or that limited-use 1d10+level healing is more powerful than 1d10+Dex+level damage reduction that can be triggered every round. Neither of those things need to be elaborated on.

 

[saviirkad]

And now you just show you are bad at metagaming.

I think a lot of the internet is, to be honest. Most of what I hear about as metagaming feels more like people just not putting in the effort to explain their own character's perspectives and knowledge, and assuming any and all overlap of player knowledge with character knowledge to be voided. When people become too aware of metagaming and cautious of falling into it. We have children songs about plagues from centuries ago that were sung in my 90s childhood, you telling me you can't imagind similar child play rhymes about how trolls really don't like fire? Fine, my character has no idea to use the torch, I guess.

I also think that other things I would consider to be metagaming are often considered so part and parcel to optimized play to such a degree that it's blown past without awareness. How you describe the way a DM should be playing ranged attackers really feels more like this sort of metagaming. The intrinsic, not even noticed kind, and worse making it sound like the DM has to metagame in order to not be a pushover.

 

[ECMO3]

Yet at the same time you're treating it as a given that the increase in Martial Arts die means a Monk will always be rolling a higher number than they could previously.

No I am speaking in averages. A d6 with a 60% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit does 2.27 damage. A D8 does 2.925. There are no other conditions to get that hit. When you scale it across 4 attacks that is an extra 2.6 points of damage, more than you are going to get out of Cleave generally.

You are making the argument that a small increase in maximum damage (which means an attack might still do the same damage anyway) is somehow more important than effects that will always result in an increase in damage.

No I am not. I am arguing that going from a d6 to a d8 will result in a larger increase in damage vs the baseline than Cleave will and it will.

And of course, arguments that rely on putting a random number and asserting that as your chance to hit with an attack, completely disregarding how everything in the game has different AC values. (And ignoring that the same logic applies to the chance of the Monk's attacks hitting!)

Sure it is, but you have to meet two separate conditions before you even can roll a Cleave attack. You have to put a percentage on it to compare it or else you are not comparing the same thing. If you have a problem with the conditions or percentages I use then tell me what we should use and why.

Having a great Cleave that averages 6.5 damage on a hit or 10.5 damage on a hit with both Divine Favor and Rage is hardly very powerful when you only hit with it 20% of your rounds considering accuracy and the conditions required to make it work.

 

[Steady Vane]

The game doesnt exist for optimisation.

One of 3rd edition's problems that grew apparent as it and the 3.5 edition chugged along was that while the game doesn't exist for optimization, the power levels of classes do affect you.

It is mostly a question of scale and gap. 3.5 grew to be hated when a druid's pet was more effective than a literal Fighter character.

Do I think 5.5 is at that point? No. Do I think 5.5 is more genuinely unbalanced between options than 5e is? Yes.

All this talk of dual-wielding and sword-and-board paladins ignores that no one even brings up a paladin in 5.5 using polearm mastery ever. It's so obviously throwing it is not even mentioned, when the feat was quite powerful for the class in normal 5e.

So in a thread about bad, counter-working design in classes, Paladins got their knees shot out and I wanted to point it out. That is a bad thing, and why I call it pseudo-ivory tower. If two players pick random characters, you should not be completely overshadowed by your mate who also just chose what sounded cool. Makes the game unfun to play at the table, where it actually matters.

I didn't think that was a controversial opinion

 

[Sulicius]

Are we playing the same game? Paladin are still one of the most powerful classes in the game, with incredible durability, buffing and damage. Just because a weapon combination isn’t to your liking doesn’t mean they’re bad and that the game is unbalanced.

 

[rabirin]

One of 3rd edition's problems that grew apparent as it and the 3.5 edition chugged along was that while the game doesn't exist for optimization, the power levels of classes do affect you.

It is mostly a question of scale and gap. 3.5 grew to be hated when a druid's pet was more effective than a literal Fighter character.

Do I think 5.5 is at that point? No. Do I think 5.5 is more genuinely unbalanced between options than 5e is? Yes.

All this talk of dual-wielding and sword-and-board paladins ignores that no one even brings up a paladin in 5.5 using polearm mastery ever. It's so obviously throwing it is not even mentioned, when the feat was quite powerful for the class in normal 5e.

So in a thread about bad, counter-working design in classes, Paladins got their knees shot out and I wanted to point it out. That is a bad thing, and why I call it pseudo-ivory tower. If two players pick random characters, you should not be completely overshadowed by your mate who also just chose what sounded cool. Makes the game unfun to play at the table, where it actually matters.

I didn't think that was a controversial opinion

I'd hardly say that polearm Paladins got nerfed—they also get two extra attacks above the baseline thanks to Cleave, and all of their on-every-attack boosts works just as effectively with a polearm build as it does with a two-weapon build.

It's simply now in the same space that two-weapon builds were in in 2014: another option is a bit stronger so polearm Paladins are now obsolete and worthless.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do I think 5.5 is at that point? No. Do I think 5.5 is more genuinely unbalanced between options than 5e is? Yes.

All this talk of dual-wielding and sword-and-board paladins ignores that no one even brings up a paladin in 5.5 using polearm mastery ever. It's so obviously throwing it is not even mentioned, when the feat was quite powerful for the class in normal 5e.

I emphatically disagree - with the major exceptions of emanation lawnmowers and opportunity attack buffs. The 2024 naive floor (i.e. that which would be likely to be picked by a newbie, not Int 8 wizards) got way higher while the ceiling remained almost unchanged.

For some specifics

• There aren't two subclasses that make you worse; berserker no longer gets you killed and beastmaster is no longer an escort mission
• Way of the Elements and Champion are no longer wastes of space
• Sorcerers are no longer basically inferior wizards
• Sorcerers are no longer crippled by lack of spells known
• The Warlock invocation list isn't 50% junk options; they threw out a couple of good ones (Book of Ancient Secrets RIP) and almost all the junk
• With Vex the rogue skill floor has massively lowered so rogues who don't get Sneak Attack and are sad pandas are rarer

So in a thread about bad, counter-working design in classes, Paladins got their knees shot out and I wanted to point it out.

Paladins did not get their knees shot out. Your average paladin is actively stronger in 2024 rules; they all have Weapon Masteries, Lay on Hands is now a bonus action so you can use it and attack, and Divine Favour is now concentration free.

Your average paladin got active buffs. By contrast the all-smite paladin no longer gets to destroy the action economy, and the single strongest paladin weapon combo (spear + shield) got pegged back to the point it is no longer head and shoulders above the rest. People aren't talking about it because it's balanced and doesn't overshadow all other choices.

That is a bad thing, and why I call it pseudo-ivory tower. If two players pick random characters, you should not be completely overshadowed by your mate who also just chose what sounded cool. Makes the game unfun to play at the table, where it actually matters.

And this is something 2024 does way better than 2014

I didn't think that was a controversial opinion

It isn't. What's controversial is that you seem to be equating above the curve stuff getting nerfed while overshadowed options are buffed with worse not better balance.

 

[S'mon]

Certainly sounds bad. Glad I stuck with 2014.