D&D General March Madness 2024 - Round 2 - Martials

[Mind of tempest]

What is wrong with the monk??? I've played a couple and seen at least half-a-dozen others played and no ones ever had any complaints.

Seriously, I think the only complaint I've even read about is the lack of ki points. IMO that is because people think they should be able to spend a ki point every round, as where I feel ki should be used for the special moments where they will have more impact.

So, out of curiousity, what do you think are the monk's failings as written??

Because if you aren't spending ki points you're basically a weak fighter with low HP and AC. A monk without ki is like a caster without spells...except at least they always have cantrips. On top of that, the monk is not very well kitted out to perform their supposed role of light skirmisher - a rogue does it much more effectively. There's a reason monk is at the bottom of almost every tier ranking for 5e.

I'm currently playing a monk using the revised rules from the UA. It's a night vs. day improvement because you have more ki, and more stuff that you can do without ki. It actually plays like an awesome martial artist from the movies.

past clint_L points it also badly imitates the ideas that it is supposed to embody as well it was derived from the destroyer which was not a practical description of karate not the mythical martial artist of east asian stories.

we have much better data now and better examples to copy or translations on how they are supposed to work.
could dig some up if desired.

 

[ezo]

it also badly imitates the ideas that it is supposed to embody as well it was derived from the destroyer which was not a practical description of karate not the mythical martial artist of east asian stories.

Huh? (bolded)

Such as? (second bolded)

we have much better data now and better examples to copy or translations on how they are supposed to work.
could dig some up if desired.

Like what?

 

[Mind of tempest]

The Destroyer (novel series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

do you want me to get you myths or the new pop culture supernatural martial arts?

well, we have first-hand translated books and east Asia has gotten on to make its own native-themed fantasy.
my sister bought some do you want me to get the glossary for you or links to a massive archive of narrative connections?

 

[CleverNickName]

Regarding rangers, and in my humble opinion:

5E Ranger > 3.X Ranger > Pathfinder Ranger >> All other versions

 

[CleverNickName]

And I guess while I'm at it, here are my personal preferences on the rest, based purely on how much fun I've had playing them all.

3.X Fighter > Pathfinder Fighter > 5E Fighter > All other versions

Pathfinder Paladin > 3.X Paladin > 5E Paladin > All other versions

3.X Rogue variant (feats instead of sneak attack) > 5E Rogue > 3.x Rogue (default) > All other versions

3.X Barbarian > Pathfinder Barbarian > All other versions > 5E Barbarian

5E Monk > Pathfinder Monk > 3.X Monk > BECM Monk ("Mystic") > All other versions

Never played a Swordmage or a Warlord.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Regarding rangers, and in my humble opinion:

5E Ranger > 3.X Ranger > Pathfinder Ranger >> All other versions

I'll disagree with you there. 1e's Ranger = Fighter/Druid/Mage, in a package that worked, is still something I miss. Then again, I also still miss 1e multiclassing is some sense, though I really like how 3.x handled it a LOT better.

For me, 1e Ranger > 3.5 Scout (non-magical Ranger variant) > PF2 Ranger > 5e Ranger > all others. Honestly, "Holy Wilderness King" is admittedly a strange blend, but it does a great job of modelling the kind of "the king is the land" roles a lot of "pre-urban" societies have.

 

[Corinnguard]

Regarding rangers, and in my humble opinion:

5E Ranger > 3.X Ranger > Pathfinder Ranger >> All other versions

You've got me wondering where the Level Up Ranger fits into this particular grading scale. I bet it's between the 5e and 3e Rangers.

 

[CleverNickName]

You've got me wondering where the Level Up Ranger fits into this particular grading scale. I bet it's between the 5e and 3e Rangers.

I'll have to get back to you on that. I've never played a Level-Up 5E ranger.

 

[Clint_L]

Nope. Not at all. It just depends on your monk's STR and the weight of the person they are carrying. A STR 14 PC could carry over 200 lbs without impact on movement by default in 5E.

Ah yes, all those monks with strength builds.

I think you wrote that backwards?

You get the extra unarmed strike by using your bonus action in 5E when you attack. I'm guessing the new material lets you get the additional attack as an unarmed strike without using your bonus action??

Yes and no. I misstated, but what I meant is that currently the bonus attack is tied to the attack action. The UA severs them, which is a huge improvement. So, for example, you can use your action to dodge and your bonus action for flurry of blows.

While you might shrug at ki-empowered strikes, the fact remains that the way 5E was designed, monks are the only class IIRC which can deal magical damage without using a spell slot. (I'm sure I am forgetting something, but off-hand I can't think of anything...).

Moon druids. But, again, so what? What is the actual advantage? They get the privilege of being able to still fight at their baseline level, while other martial classes are using magic weapons. Like, it's better than just being told "now you can't even hit a lot of higher level opponents so leave them to the fighter," I guess.

For you, perhaps, and I know for some others who've complained about the lack of ki (which I've already acknowledged), which is also why I've suggested bonus ki equal to your Wisdom modifier. That alone makes a significant difference.

Frankly, complaining about ki would be the same as complaining that barbarians have such limited rages (which refresh on a LONG rest), or second wind and action surge are only ONCE each between short rests at most levels, etc. Yet you rarely ever hear players complain about those.

Because fighters and barbarians are well balanced with significantly better DPR scaling and survivability than monks. Which is not news.

All the other stuff I already mentioned. Faster movement, bonus unarmed strike every round, the ability to fight without weapons or needing armor (two things that severely hamper every other martial!), moving over water and up walls, etc.

Situational things, in other words, and monks don't currently have the tools to do much with them.

Not at all. I just said those are three very simple house-rules which could help those who find the monk class lacking. I'm perfectly happy with them as is, and so are most players I know of. The only issue repeatedly brought up is ki, which again I've acknowledge from the beginning.

And like I said before, in your other thread everything you did in your awesome scenario was already allowed RAW, without any houserules. The only possible issue might be the carrying the barbarian, put that depends on your monk's STR, barbarian's weight, etc.

You don't know what you're talking about. Play the UA and then come tell me that monks aren't drastically improved. There's a reason it scored over 90% approval. But maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[ezo]

Ah yes, all those monks with strength builds.

If you want to be able to move at full speed and possibly carry someone, yes.

Yes and no. I misstated, but what I meant is that currently the bonus attack is tied to the attack action. The UA severs them, which is a huge improvement. So, for example, you can use your action to dodge and your bonus action for flurry of blows.

Ahh... that makes more sense. And is fine if it was a single unarmed strike, but Flurry of Blows? No, too much.

Moon druids.

Ah-ha! I knew I was forgetting something! Thanks.

Which, while true, requires a use of their wild shape. Monk's ability doesn't cost anything. It's free, all the time. Without a weapon. Have you ever played in a game where the PCs didn't have their weapons? I have. Have the fought things with resistance to normal damage? I have.

Despite what you think, it is a very good feature.

Because fighters and barbarians are well balanced with significantly better DPR scaling and survivability than monks. Which is not news.

Without action surge or rage? I think not. Perhaps fighters when they (finally) get Extra Attack (2) and (3).

Situational things, in other words, and monks don't currently have the tools to do much with them.

Wrong again. Rogues have Cunning Action to Dash, great. Monks get movement for free, no bonus action required. If you have a DM who uses environmental features in combat, moving along walls and even over water is great. Even if such things are situational, they're there. And I haven't even touched on all the features monks get at higher levels.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I certainly do. I've played several monks and very happily done so. Contributed to combats, exploration, etc. in ways other PCs can't do. Ki limitation is a factor, certainly (acknowledged repeatedly), but not nearly to any point where it decreased my enjoyment of the class.

Play the UA and then come tell me that monks aren't drastically improved. There's a reason it scored over 90% approval.

Improved is an opinion. Over 90%, sure! Why not? It would be like making $60,000 a year, which is more than enough for you to have a great life, but getting a $5,000 raise. Who wouldn't like that, even if unnecessary?

Otherwise, it is simply a case of...

MORE POWER!!! MORE OFTEN! Makes a happy gamer.

Tasha's... all over again.

But maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Most likely. It is usually the case.