D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Parmandur]

But we never got to test the long rest recharge monk.

The Monk, really, should have been in UA 5, but was delayed. I think itbis no coincidence that WotC wanted to test a Long Rest Warlock before they put a Monk out there, since they currently share a workflow. So they waited foe Warlock results, then pit out a refined Short Rest Mo k. Short Rest Warlock is probably back in the next playtest packet.

 

[Remathilis]

The Monk, really, should have been in UA 5, but was delayed. I think itbis no coincidence that WotC wanted to test a Long Rest Warlock before they put a Monk out there, since they currently share a workflow. So they waited foe Warlock results, then pit out a refined Short Rest Mo k. Short Rest Warlock is probably back in the next playtest packet.

There wasn't enough turnaround time to use warlock results to shape monk. The packet was being finalized while the UA 5 results were coming in. I agree they intended the monk to be in packet 5, but I don't know what held it up. Maybe they couldn't get the class to work the way they wanted and just opted for the superficial changes over 2014. Maybe they had already decided to switch gears while packet 5 was being worked on, but it wasn't feasible to change the mages and warriors, so they released it knowing many of those changes were already being walked back (like Subclass levels or epic boons). We won't know.

That being said, I share your conclusion that unless the spellcasting warlock really Sparked Joy on those surverys, its toast. Which is a damn shame as it was an acceptable fix for the big problems with warlock casting. But at this stage, I'm jaded enough to think that paladin Smite Spells and Rogue Cunning Action also have very slim chances of making it.

 

[Parmandur]

There wasn't enough turnaround time to use warlock results to shape monk. The packet was being finalized while the UA 5 results were coming in. I agree they intended the monk to be in packet 5, but I don't know what held it up. Maybe they couldn't get the class to work the way they wanted and just opted for the superficial changes over 2014. Maybe they had already decided to switch gears while packet 5 was being worked on, but it wasn't feasible to change the mages and warriors, so they released it knowing many of those changes were already being walked back (like Subclass levels or epic boons). We won't know.

That being said, I share your conclusion that unless the spellcasting warlock really Sparked Joy on those surverys, its toast. Which is a damn shame as it was an acceptable fix for the big problems with warlock casting. But at this stage, I'm jaded enough to think that paladin Smite Spells and Rogue Cunning Action also have very slim chances of making it.

There wasn't enough time to retool from scratch, bit they could have been mulling multiple versions of the Monk, say Long Rest and Ahort Rest versions. They had a week between the end of the survey and the drop of the new document, which was plenty of time to make a quick audible between two different plays if they were built and ready to swap out.

 

[Azzy]

Alright. Done.

Now when's the next playtest packet?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The monk now does not have to compete with paladins going nova. (Divine smite with highest slots twice per turn and on opportunity attacks).. How is that factual untrue?

It isn't factually untrue. It is just irrelevant, because no one is quoting nova paladin damage. They also don't need to compete against HE11BL4D3's homebrew Demon Hunter class, which is something else we are not demonstrating.

Yes, things would be worse if Paladin's ALSO could still nova, but that doesn't make what we have better.

The monk does not have to compete with great weapon masters.

I've done this math a handful of times now. New GWM feat-users do better damage than old GWM feat users, unless you assume the old feat-user has constant advantage. So, actually, this is likely to be WORSE for Monks on average, since most people didn't use the feat only when they had advantage, and now GWM users will hit more often

 

[Chaosmancer]

While I really appreciate treantmonks opinion, especially the level headness in this playtest, his analysis are on a different optimization level than most groups play at.

That does not mean I don't agree with him that each and every feature needs an upgrade.

So what? Just because most groups may or may not build intentionally for damage, doesn't mean that his analysis is in anyway wrong. This feels like saying it doesn't matter if you have bad tapwater, because most people drink coca-cola anyways. It doesn't remove or lessen the problem in any way.

 

[Clint_L]

He specifically discusses the effect of subclass, and of shadow in particular. So you’re not even watching it yet feel qualified to offer a critique.

Not at the linked part. I saw him discussing it. At that particular scene he has marks for berserker barbarian, champion fighter, but just monk in his graph... So not my fault...

So please, don't tell me I did not watch it at all.

You...literally just stated that you did not watch it all. And your comments show that you did not watch it all. The entire segment addressing monks is only a few minutes long. Is it too much to ask you to watch all of it if you are going to offer opinions on it?

 

[Clint_L]

It isn't factually untrue. It is just irrelevant, because no one is quoting nova paladin damage. They also don't need to compete against HE11BL4D3's homebrew Demon Hunter class, which is something else we are not demonstrating.

Yes, things would be worse if Paladin's ALSO could still nova, but that doesn't make what we have better.

Yes, and paladins got a bunch of other buffs to balance losing some (not all) of their nova ability. Like, they can now do lay on hands as a bonus action, which is incredible. And they have been widely considered a top tier class, if not the top class, since 2014. As the video on paladins shows, they are still doing very good damage, much higher than monks, while offering fantastic utility that strengthens the entire party.

I've done this math a handful of times now. New GWM feat-users do better damage than old GWM feat users, unless you assume the old feat-user has constant advantage. So, actually, this is likely to be WORSE for Monks on average, since most people didn't use the feat only when they had advantage, and now GWM users will hit more often

Correct. The change to GWM is basically a slight nerf to barbarians, necessary because being able to have at will advantage along with GWM is extremely powerful, probably broken. A mild nerf here is fine; even with it they are way at the top of the DPR charts. But most other classes do better with the new version of GWM and it is still going to be a very popular feat. I still expect most barbarians to choose it.

But you can still use the 2014 version if you prefer it.

 

[Charlaquin]

That being said, I share your conclusion that unless the spellcasting warlock really Sparked Joy on those surverys, its toast. Which is a damn shame as it was an acceptable fix for the big problems with warlock casting.

No, it most certainly was not!

But at this stage, I'm jaded enough to think that paladin Smite Spells and Rogue Cunning Action also have very slim chances of making it.

Smite spells I could see not making it past the post because it is a slight nerf and people tend not to like nerfs. Cunning Strike I will be astounded if it doesn’t make it in. It’s a big buff, and buffs always do well. It’s also expanding tactical options for a martial class in a similar manner to weapon masteries, which we know were extremely well-received.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So what? Just because most groups may or may not build intentionally for damage, doesn't mean that his analysis is in anyway wrong. This feels like saying it doesn't matter if you have bad tapwater, because most people drink coca-cola anyways. It doesn't remove or lessen the problem in any way.

And I did not say he is wrong in general...
It is just, that looking at the bigger picture, and using less optimized builds, the difference is not that big.

Paladin nova was something where monks had problems to compete with, especially when starved for short rests.
Advantage with GWM was not too hard to achieve for optimizers. Just look at this forum.
I agree that for non optimized white room analysis, the new GWM is better on average.
But both changes reduce the big damage spikes from lets say: avenging paladin (who has an easy way to get advantage) which made monks feel very useless compared to.