D&D (2024) Which subclasses “should” have been in 2024

[Not a Decepticon]

They target other martials. If a bard with punch is a problem, a wizard with swords should be as well.

The thing is, other martials are stronger than the Monk so it's not problem i cannot ignore the way it is with dance bard.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Necromancer and swashbuckler for sure though swashbuckler needed a major overhaul in my opinion.

Yes Swashbuckler over Assassin easily

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The thing is, other martials are stronger than the Monk so it's not problem i cannot ignore the way it is with dance bard.

Not anymore, Monks got a massive buff.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Not anymore, Monks got a massive buff.

So did Fighters and Barbarians, so nothing changes. The gap may be smaller, but it still exists. At best Ranger slid back into being worse than Monk again, that's it.

 

[WanderingMystic]

So did Fighters and Barbarians, so nothing changes. The gap may be smaller, but it still exists. At best Ranger slid back into being worse than Monk again, that's it.

I would say that monks are now better than rogues and barbarians as well as rangers as far as damage output is concerned. The rogue has more skills, but is defensively is worse due to a lack of damage mitigation. The barbarian has better damage mitigation at early levels but the monk is better at higher levels.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I would say that monks are now better than rogues and barbarians as well as rangers as far as damage output is concerned. The rogue has more skills, but is defensively is worse due to a lack of damage mitigation. The barbarian has better damage mitigation at early levels but the monk is better at higher levels.

Is Monk actually better at higher levels? Doesn't seem to be getting anything over Barbarian imo. Do people even play higher levels?

 

[Remathilis]

I would say that monks are now better than rogues and barbarians as well as rangers as far as damage output is concerned. The rogue has more skills, but is defensively is worse due to a lack of damage mitigation. The barbarian has better damage mitigation at early levels but the monk is better at higher levels.

Rogue's uncanny stage dodge says "hi"

 

[WanderingMystic]

Rogue's uncanny stage dodge says "hi"

I don't know how I forgot that.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Is Monk actually better at higher levels? Doesn't seem to be getting anything over Barbarian imo. Do people even play higher levels?

The five attacks at lvl 11 is huge since you are adding your dex to each attack as well as anything you might get from your magical item which they said there will be several unarmed magical items.

While the barbarian and the rogue can hit harder in one stroke the monks flurry is just so powerful.

Monks ability to defect attacks and eventually any attack is great damage mitigation. It is not as good as the boards resistance but the monk can eventually deflect any kind of damage which the barbarian can't.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

The five attacks at lvl 11 is huge since you are adding your dex to each attack as well as anything you might get from your magical item which they said there will be several unarmed magical items.

While the barbarian and the rogue can hit harder in one stroke the monks flurry is just so powerful.

Monks ability to defect attacks and eventually any attack is great damage mitigation. It is not as good as the boards resistance but the monk can eventually deflect any kind of damage which the barbarian can't.

Most games won't reach level 11, so this is just new equivalent of "you have to take unarmed fighitng style at level 1 through martial initiate, and exchange it at lv 11" advice that makes no sense in 90% of the games.

Also, in my experience it's generally better to be able to deal lot of damage on a hit that make several attacks and potentially miss all but one of them, making laughable damage. And deflect attack is still weak and interacts weirdly with the class, since it just arbitrairly uses d10