Be aware I'm not actually advocating for the removal of short rest, but the reliance of monks and warlocks on frequent short rests to maintain their power budget with long rest classes. It's a documented issue that they are apparently aware of and have designed around in the past (Tasha's and later racial designs). All I'm asking for is a continuation of that kind of design work.
Agree and I encourage everyone to give constructive feedback on the things I like and don't. My comment stands however in that the monk is mechanically bad in 5e and in this play test the proposed fixes are so bad that they make me consider not getting the new PHB at all.
You at least save some money then.
No. This has been extensively tested. The monk falls even further behind than 2014, particularly because they don't benefit from mastery, which is a bigger damage buff than most folks realize. The only buff 2024 monk receives right now is +1 to damage on unarmed strikes.
Which is why I said that they need mastery on unarmed attacks...
The d6 is better at 1st because d4 is useless on anything but unarmed strikes. Decoupling the Martial arts die from weapons only makes sense if the intent is to encourage the use of Unarmed Strikes. Uncoupling Flurry of Blows from Stunning Strike though has the opposite effect and Nerfs both abilities. Giving the Monk only Simple Weapon Masteries and having no Masteries Unarmed specifically locks the monk out of feat choices and in the play test denies access to Masteries which other martials get. This is worse, not better for the monk, and the d6 doesn't get better until 8th level even though fighters at 1st can get d8 Unarmed Strikes with a fighting style that they get at 1st. The Fighter is already better unarmed than the monk 1st-4th and it's worse in this test.
I bow out here. I can read myself. I can do math myself. I did not challenge anything you wrote there.
Thank You friend. No criticism of your view is intended. Only of the theory put forth by others that the monk is somehow 'catching up'.
