D&D (2024) Playtest Packet 6: Monk reactions?

[Chaosmancer]

Ok. So then either you are safe to flurry of blows the wizard.
Or they spend their action to dash back to protect them.
*possibly needing to disengage from the fighter too.

Win-win.

Why do you keep assuming the enemy spellcaster is not only more than 30 ft away from any of their allies, but also within 40 to 50 ft of the monk, and that there are no enemies between the monk and the wizard?

Like, this is such a bizarre enemy set-up. If the Enemy wizard is 40 ft from their allies, and 40 ft from you... then aren't their allies on top of you, and therefore you can't get to the wizard without risking opportunity attacks? And if the enemy melee is 10 ft from you, and you have to go around them then that is going to take (rough map, count route) about 55ft of movement, meaning you have to dash and are only going to be hitting the wizard twice if we are talking 5th level. Which ain't gonna kill him. You can't flurry until next turn, and next turn you may be dealing with other issues.

And literally the only thing that needs to happen to potentially ruin this is for the enemy to stay within a single turns move of the wizard. Then if they need to protect the wizard, they can wheel and gank you pretty quickly.

And this all assumes there is a weak, gankable enemy wizard in the back row to begin with.

 

[mellored]

Why do you keep assuming the enemy spellcaster is not only more than 30 ft away from any of their allies, but also within 40 to 50 ft of the monk, and that there are no enemies between the monk and the wizard?

80' of the monk.
40' regular movement + 40' dash.

And if they start further than 80' away, they won't reach anyone that turn. So just shoot a few arrows for free damage.

Which ain't gonna kill him. You can't flurry until next turn, and next turn you may be dealing with other issues.

I don't expect to 1-shot a caster. Even with flurry.

But you can certainly force a lot of concentration checks.

And shadow monk can negate most of their spells that required line of sight.

And literally the only thing that needs to happen to potentially ruin this is for the enemy to stay within a single turns move of the wizard. Then if they need to protect the wizard, they can wheel and gank you pretty quickly.

Then your fighter gets a free opportunity attack.

Also, fireball is a 20' radius. So just the fact that you exsist keeps them in blast range.

And this all assumes there is a weak, gankable enemy wizard in the back row to begin with.

Want to assume an archer instead?
Or if they are all melee. Then you can just kite.

If you're just going to run at the first target you see and hit them... I recommend a Barbarian.

 

[Weiley31]

I would certainly love to combine the UA Solmanic Knight feats from the one Dragonlance UA+Weapon Mastery UA for martials in my 5E games.

Combat Maneuvers and Weapon Masteries seem like it would be a fun combination.

 

[Stalker0]

The more I think on it, here's where I am at:

Level1: add di points (1 per level+wisdom modifier) and step of the wind as their first ability.

Another option here is.

Let the monk take the disengage action as a bonus action at 1st level.

Introduce ki and step of the wind as normal at 2nd level (step of the wind now being the "upgrade" of your 1st level ability at the expense of 1 ki).

 

[Stalker0]

So this is the thing - I'm having trouble thinking of a niche for monk that other classes can't of better. Skirmisher? Rogue and some class builds do it better.

This is probably my greatest critique of the monk. At the end of the day, isn't the Rogue just better overall?

1) Rogues can dash for no cost, all day every day.
2) Rogues can minimize damage once per round.
3) Rogues can get a reasonable AC with just dex.
4) Give them a rapier reskinned as some brass knuckles and they are a fine martial artist that can get in serious "body blows" (aka sneak attack).
5) Rogues get expertise that lets them pick up athletics (if they want to be good grapplers) or acrobatics for that kung fu flavor.
6) Hell the current UA rogue can now do even more kung fu stuff, like tripping or disarming their opponent, or hitting a special "pressure point" aka the poisoned condition.

While I do think the low level monk has a niche....I would argue design wise the rogue is just a better designed class that can mimic almost all of the main martial arts stuff.

 

[Asisreo]

Unarmed Combatant.

That is what monk means in terms of fantasy. If you are just going to be running around shooting people, then you need a different class with abilities that don't focus on unarmed strikes. The monk has abilities that make for an excellent mobile sniper, it would be cool, but I'd rather make that a subclass than lose the unarmed combatant.

They're meant to be an unarmed combat master. If I wanted "elusive skirimisher", that's literally the job of the Rogue, who doesn't have to pay any points to just Bonus Action Disengage/Dash/Hide. In fact, they could actually do what you are saying the Monk could do even better, since they don't aren't going to run out of the resource that allows them to Dash.

An unarmed combatant like...using a quarterstaff? Or nunchuks? Or kunai and ninja stars?

Monks can be an effective unarmed combatant, but they don't have to be all the time. Same as how a fighter can be an effective melee fighter, but can pull out a longbow when fighting a flying dragon.

Its just kinda...silly to have this supposed master of martial arts refuse to shoot someone, even when they're decent at it, just because they're supposed to be the punchy-kicky guy.

 

[mellored]

This is probably my greatest critique of the monk. At the end of the day, isn't the Rogue just better overall?

We should definitely be comparing rogue and monk. Not fighter and monk.

And honestly, as of this playtest, rogue got so much more that I would agree.

Maybe rogue/ shadow monk 3 to get movable darkness.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't really have any opinions on the new monk in this packet for one very simple reason. I think for the first time in decades monk might be the first base class I ban outright at my table if this version remains short rest recovery.

 

[Chaosmancer]

80' of the monk.
40' regular movement + 40' dash.

And if they start further than 80' away, they won't reach anyone that turn. So just shoot a few arrows for free damage.

Okay, I mentioned the dashing as that takes your bonus action. Now why is the enemy wizard more than 30 ft away from any and all allies?

I don't expect to 1-shot a caster. Even with flurry.

But you can certainly force a lot of concentration checks.

And shadow monk can negate most of their spells that required line of sight.

I don't think "the shadow monk can..." is a good appeal to a base class identity.

And, you are only forcing two concentration checks, and only if the enemy caster HAS a concentration spell up. What if they don't? Then you have rushed back behind enemy lines to just attack a target that you don't expect to take out.

Then your fighter gets a free opportunity attack.

So, I want to make sure I'm getting the full picture.

The Monk's identity in combat comes from

A) There being a mage in the enemy group
B) That mage being a decent distance away
C) The enemy units being already engaged with your allies.

So... what do you do on turn one? Dodge and wait for the fighter who may or may not exist to engage with the enemies so you can run behind the front line to attack a caster that may or may not exist? Look, if you get your ideal scenario, it isn't a bad plan, but you are laying this thing out and assuming a lot of things are already in place.

Also, fireball is a 20' radius. So just the fact that you exsist keeps them in blast range.

No? They can hit you and not themselves pretty easily.

Want to assume an archer instead?
Or if they are all melee. Then you can just kite.

If you're just going to run at the first target you see and hit them... I recommend a Barbarian.

So run into a melee enemy, attack them, run out and get an opportunity attack? Or do you spend ki to disengage limiting the number of times you can do that, and the amount of damage you can do? Also, to kite, you need to be further than 30 ft away. Either the enemy has to oblige you by running towards you like robots, ignore you and focus on your allies, or you need a base of 65 ft of movement which you frankly cannot depend on getting.

Or, you decide to forgo using your monk abilities, and become a running archer.... which is something you could do as a rogue.

Also rogues can gank the backline too. A rogue who is in the same position as the monk you described, 40 ft from a caster or archer and 40 from the enemy melee, can use a light crossbow with Steady Aim and get their sneak attack, dealing as much or more damage, staying completely safe, and now getting additional options to harm and debilitate their foes.

So, your "monk identity" is a poor copy of the rogue's identity, with less support and more danger.

 

[Chaosmancer]

An unarmed combatant like...using a quarterstaff? Or nunchuks? Or kunai and ninja stars?

Monks can be an effective unarmed combatant, but they don't have to be all the time. Same as how a fighter can be an effective melee fighter, but can pull out a longbow when fighting a flying dragon.

Its just kinda...silly to have this supposed master of martial arts refuse to shoot someone, even when they're decent at it, just because they're supposed to be the punchy-kicky guy.

It isn't about refusing to shoot people. We are talking class identity. Name a single class ability that indicates a monk should shoot people.

The get bonuses for being in melee. They get bonuses for using melee. They get special abilities to use melee attacks when they move.

So, if you end up saying "well, the monk's best strategy is to ignore their abilities and class fantasy and just be a mobile archery unit"... then that is a failure of the class design. It would be like saying the Fighter's go to strategy is to use the medicine skill in combat. Yes, it is something they can do, but it really isn't what the class fantasy or design indicate you should be doing.