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

[Chaosmancer]

Paladin can't disengage or dash. They are not as flexible as a monk.

Rogue can't dodge or flurry. They are not as flexible as a monk.

The issue isn't what Monks can do. It's how often they can do it.

Right, the issue is how often they can do it. That is why the paladin, with their three different resource pools in addition to their always on aura was used as an example of flexibility. Additionally, the rogue, who has abilities that are always on and cost no resources was used as a counter-point of flexibility in design.

Maybe, next time, read and understand the argument before you start going off about it.

 

[Clint_L]

Nobody would ever make a monk if they want to play the role of "ranged striker." They can read the class descriptions, and work out pretty quickly that the class they are looking for is "ranger." It has the word "range" right in it. Or perhaps a rogue or fighter. Or any caster, if they want to do it with magic (and add a bunch of other utility, too). They would read the class description for monk and see that this is a class 100% designed for close combat:

Her fists a blur as they deflect an incoming hail of arrows, a half-elf springs over a barricade and throws herself into the massed ranks of hobgoblins on the other side. She whirls among them, knocking their blows aside and sending them reeling, until at last she stands alone.

Taking a deep breath, a human covered in tattoos settles into a battle stance. As the first charging orcs reach him, he exhales and a blast of fire roars from his mouth, engulfing his foes.

Moving with the silence of the night, a black-clad halfling steps into a shadow beneath an arch and emerges from another inky shadow on a balcony a stone’s throw away. She slides her blade free of its cloth-wrapped scabbard and peers through the open window at the tyrant prince, so vulnerable in the grip of sleep.

Whatever their discipline, monks are united in their ability to magically harness the energy that flows in their bodies. Whether channeled as a striking display of combat prowess or a subtler focus of defensive ability and speed, this energy infuses all that a monk does.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I understand they aren't "designed" for ranged attacks. But they're still available to them and when I play monks, I'm more than willing to use whatever's at my disposal, like how I imagine martial artists.

And there's still compatibility. Dex focus, first and foremost, makes ranged weapons viable enough. Weapon masteries apply to them as well. Unarmored movement and deflect missile makes it so you can kite enemies and avoid their, usually already weaker, ranged attacks if they have any.


Wanting to use unarmed strikes doesn't make it the only possible option. High-level monks are highly incentivized to use unarmed strikes but while you're low-level (still learning how to channel your inner power), you might have to rely on weapons. Just like every 1st-level monk since they were created in D&D.

Its like if you saw a paladin skip his turn because the dragon is 30ft from the ground, despite them having javelins.

Maybe the ideal class fantasy of the paladin isn't throwing axes or javelins, but I feal like the ideal adventurer fantasy isn't to throw your hands up and say "dang, guess I should sit this one out" just because your second best weapon isn't your primary.

In fact, even back in AD&D, the monk relied on weapons until higher levels. So the idea that monks must be unarmed and must use their unarmed strikes, especially at lower levels is flawed.

I am not saying that monks should never use weapons.

However, I keep getting told that the ideal way to play a monk is to do two things.

1) Avoid melee by running in, striking weak non-melee targets and running out.
2) Avoid melee by using ranged weapons and kiting melee targets.

And this fundamentally destroys the concept of the monk. The monk's design, their archetype, and their fantasy is an unarmed martial artist. Not an archer, not a spellcaster, an unarmed martial artist who fights in melee. And yet, the advice paints a picture of a monk who, if placed in melee with a melee based opponent... loses. They aren't good enough as melee combatants to fight in melee against primarily melee combatants. Their only hope for victory is AVOIDING melee, the thing they are designed to engage in.

You are taking what you propose to be their second best option... and saying it is fundamentally their superior option in engagement, because their primary option leaves them too vulnerable.

This is a design problem, because their first choice is to avoid doing what they are designed (in theory) to do.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, we all know that monks are capable of using ranged weapons. Here’s a cookie.

Everyone but you seems to understand that they are not designed for it, and if you want to be a ranged specialist monk is one of the worst options in the game. Literally the only ability they have specifically relating to ranged attacks is defensive. Only paladin and barbarian would be more pointless for a ranged build.

So if your best option as monk is ranged attacks, then maybe ranger, rogue, fighter, etc. would be better, no?

Now can we get back to discussing actual issues with monks being able to execute the role for which they were intended?

So you say a class with naturally high dexterity and high movement speed should not use ranged weapons when appropriate?
Especially when they can also use step of the wind to never let the enemy into range?
Or dodge as a bonus action at times?

A Kensai even gets extra bonuses on those attacks.

That does not mean, that the monk should not get more melee capabilities for their main job. But not using ranged weapons on a monk seems like a big oversight by you.

 

[Asisreo]

However, I keep getting told that the ideal way to play a monk is to do two things.

1) Avoid melee by running in, striking weak non-melee targets and running out.
2) Avoid melee by using ranged weapons and kiting melee targets.

You still primarily fight in-melee but you do need to understand the context of the fight and adjust accordingly.

Regardless of the fantasy you want to buy into the monk, or even the intended fantasy, the truth is that their features funnel you into a playstyle where you're quick to engage with enemies that don't want to be in melee with you, and dispatch them quickly.

If you're fighting a bugbear and two goblins, the fighter/paladin/barbarian would focus the bugbear and force them to either take strong opportunity attacks and possibly outright die, or engage with the tank as they're supposed to. The monk, on the other hand, bothers the goblins by forcing them into melee when they prefer to be in range.

And I think its a nice fantasy to be the guy chasing down and dismantling 3-5 mooks in a fight while the rest focus down "The Big Guy".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, and if the Monk goes to get the enemy caster in the back, he gets surrounded and dies. That's the issue.

Seems unlikely.

I don't want them to be just another tank, but their much-promised mobility... doesn't often really lead to much, does it, especially when it starts with them having to burn Ki just to Disengage.

Um…yes, it does. All the time. My experience playing and running for monks is that the mobility is definitive and makes Monks kick ass.

Rogues Disengage for free, though.

Bonus action isn’t free.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you say a class with naturally high dexterity and high movement speed should not use ranged weapons when appropriate?
Especially when they can also use step of the wind to never let the enemy into range?
Or dodge as a bonus action at times?

A Kensai even gets extra bonuses on those attacks.

That does not mean, that the monk should not get more melee capabilities for their main job. But not using ranged weapons on a monk seems like a big oversight by you.

When that class is specifically designed to be a melee warrior? When their class identity is fully-tied to making melee attacks? When the idea of "when appropriate" seems to be "whenever I would otherwise be forced into melee"?

Yeah, I say that is a problem and a sign of something that shouldn't happen.

The monk is supposed to be a melee combatant, not a ranged combatant.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You still primarily fight in-melee but you do need to understand the context of the fight and adjust accordingly.

Regardless of the fantasy you want to buy into the monk, or even the intended fantasy, the truth is that their features funnel you into a playstyle where you're quick to engage with enemies that don't want to be in melee with you, and dispatch them quickly.

The fact that you are talking about the intended fantasy being at odds with the reality of their features? That thing? That's the thing we've been talking about as a bad thing. If the reality at the table is the make is better off not entering into melee with a melee combatant, then the reality for the designers is they messed up.

If you're fighting a bugbear and two goblins, the fighter/paladin/barbarian would focus the bugbear and force them to either take strong opportunity attacks and possibly outright die, or engage with the tank as they're supposed to. The monk, on the other hand, bothers the goblins by forcing them into melee when they prefer to be in range.

And I think its a nice fantasy to be the guy chasing down and dismantling 3-5 mooks in a fight while the rest focus down "The Big Guy".

Fundamentally, any warrior class should be able to chase down the mooks and dismantle them. Monks don't blow the other classes out of the water with their damage. They have better mobility than some, sure, but a Barbarian can easily reach 45 to ft of movement too.

The bad part of the design is that the Barbarian or the Fighter or the Paladin just needs a movement solution, something many of them have. They can switch between running down the mooks or focusing on the big guy. The Monk CAN'T. Fundamentally, they lack the ability to consistently fight in melee with the big guy. Yes, you can decide to play an archer instead of a monk, but there are better chassises to use to build an archer than a monk base class.

And frankly, I think the answer is just a little bit of a change. Just a few small things will fix the monk, and it won't even ruin this idea of them being the kite instead of the wall.

level 1:

• Give them a d10 HD
• Give them + 5 ft of movement.
• Give them Fancy Footwork

Level 2:
- Change the ki to be lv+wisdom mod


And that really solves their low-level problems. They are still mobile, kiting, warriors who don't stay in melee, but now they don't need to spend ki every turn to retreat after getting in melee. If they are in melee, the d10 HD gives them just a bit more survivability. It doesn't seem like a lot, but since your typical monk is going to have a +1 con that raises them from 9 hp to 11 hp. Two hp isn't much, but it means they can survive being hit twice by a goblin, where before they couldn't.

And then you increase the Ki, so they can use their abilities a little more often. With the Fancy Footwork ability (which most monks spend their level 4 feat to get because it is so vital) they don't need ki to disengage, unless they are dealing with a large number of foes, and they can flurry, disengage, and move.

They still need a damage boost at level 11, but I'm serious, I think those small changes at levels 1 and 2 flip the switch and make all the difference in allowing the monk to stay mobile and not get bogged down in combat, use their abilities more often, and feel better able to survive on the frontline if it becomes necessary for them.

 

[Stalker0]

Monks don't blow the other classes out of the water with their damage.

Well at levels 1-4 they kind of do. They do a good bit more damage than Fighters, Rogues, and barbarians.... and that's before you include flurry.

They can't take a hit, but they certainly dish it out (see my previous posts where I ran through all the numbers).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When that class is specifically designed to be a melee warrior? When their class identity is fully-tied to making melee attacks? When the idea of "when appropriate" seems to be "whenever I would otherwise be forced into melee"?

Yeah, I say that is a problem and a sign of something that shouldn't happen.

The monk is supposed to be a melee combatant, not a ranged combatant.

Yes. But they can use ranged weapons well. Not using them is not using the full potential.