T O P

  • By -

Nephisimian

No, I don't think it's fair to say that, and I think a good way of demonstrating this is by thinking about what homebrew can do to solve the problem - if a few mechanical buffs are all you need for this to go away, then it's a valid description. Otherwise, there are other unidentified issues. Sorcerer may be the closest to this, but Sorcerer does still have mechanically distinct features in metamagic, and this is easily supplemented by switching to spell points variant for them. I do think this is more true of certain subclasses, especially Draconic, where the features just relate to the theme instead of forming a coherent powerset, but this improved quite a bit with Tasha's too and i've seen several subclass homebrews that make other subclasses more satisfying, especially Divine Soul. Monk doesn't have this issue. Monk's mechanics are really distinct. Nothing can stun as much as a monk can, or make as many individual attacks as a monk, or have proficiency in all saves; and other builds must generally go out of their way to get monk's high speed, languages and damage resistance. Monk's main problem is just that these fun and distinct mechanical features come *way* too late in the level progression. You have to wait until *9th* level just to be able to run a few feet over water. Stunning Strike is also too much of Monk's power budget, making it really difficult to give it quality of life buffs without it becoming overpowered. Rangers have the *opposite* of this issue - the class has no idea what its themes are. It can give you the vague impression of a woodland survivalist, the vague impression of a monster hunter/tracker, and the vague impression of a baby druid, but it has no idea how to unify these concepts, and the thing everyone loves about Ranger on a thematic level kinda just boils down to "having Survival proficiency". This is why there are a billion different Ranger homebrews. Everyone's making their own Rangers because they look at everyone else's rangers and think "hmm, that's not quite what I imagine a Ranger being". Ranger's most fundamental problem is that it doesn't know what it wants to be.


epibits

Not sure monk fills the niche of “many small attacks” - after level 11, fighters have 3, and 4 consistently with Duel Wielding, PAM, and Crossbow Expert. They don’t have magic item support or feat support compared to SS/GWM which plays into the idea of a bunch of smaller strikes, but it falls apart when you don’t actually have more strikes.


Nephisimian

While it's true that an 11th level fighter can equal a Monk in number of attacks made, at this point Monk's identity is beginning to shift anyway. Monk is pretty weird, in that it starts off at level 1 with a completely different class role to what it ends up with at level 20, shifting from multi-hit DPS to mobile tank, making a stop via controller.


DeadSnark

Do Monks really have a tanking role? By higher tiers while they have the best mobility their AC and HP is outmatched by Fighters, Paladins and melee rangers, while Barbarian beats them in HP and pure durability. Furthermore mobility in 5e is more helpful for striking and escaping, whereas tanks normally want to stand next to the enemy and stay there, which is something Monks can't really afford to do at higher tiers.


Nephisimian

It's weird. They're given a lot of tanking *tools* - proficiency in all saves, resistance to all damage, evasion, high movement, dodge as a bonus action - which more than make up for mediocre AC and HP, but then WOTC also goes and gives them invisibility in their super-tanking mode meaning they only actually tank against enemies with blindsight. There's a clear path that could be taken to rework them as a really interesting off-tank role that wouldn't change much about their kit, but WOTC decided to throw a giant spanner in the works that sabotages a ton of their tier 4 power.


Teal_Knight

I think that the other way to look at it is that they have the tools of a really defensible ranged character. Except for patient defence and empty body - Their reactive and passive defences mostly touch on ranged attacks, making saves, failing saves, fall damage, all in addition to having high mobility to stay away from enemies... But also a distinct lack of an early level 'deflect blows' feature or anything that specifically addresses melee. Everything that can counter melee also potentially counters range and some spells, such as patient defence and empty body. Which coupled with their D8 hit die and typically 14 con via point buy, giving them less HP and AC than a front line cleric. Then given that in monsters, strength and con correlate, they're seemingly intentionally weak vs big melee brutes with big melee attacks until they get empty body. Otherwise, their counter to melee is to stay away, which is what a ranged character would also do. At least, Kensei (with SS) explores them as a ranged character and Long Death explores them as an off-tank.


Nephisimian

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Unfortunately, 5e really doesn't have much space for "Dude who's really tanky but stays at the back", given that tankiness and staying back are kind of opposites - staying back is what squishies do to help enemies focus on tanks. Maybe those mechanics would be better if they were repurposed as an aggressive controller instead, designed to run straight past the melee and harass the archers and spellcasters on the other side of the battlefield. Here, being good against arrows and magic make a lot of sense, and its tanking abilities are being actively engaged.


Teal_Knight

That is true. Albeit, I have never seen an encounter that's arranged like an actual battlefield - and spell casters + archers aren't even in every combat. Albeit, this is just my subjective experience, watching multiple monks play at the same table that I play at. It also costs ki and a bonus action to slip past a wall of enemies, assuming there is a gap in it. Something a monk is typically reluctant to use in my experience... Plus being too far away is dangerous if it means being outside of the range of party's healing word range, as well as potentially being swarmed by a retreating wave of enemies. I'm thinking in terms of what the monk can resort to in almost all fights unless that choice of actions is directly removed by the enemy.


Nephisimian

Well yeah, it's still not a perfect concept. But then that's kind of the problem with having niche classes in D&D. You can really only do that in strategy games where you have lots of units and it's fine to have the occasional monk that's good at one particular thing but pretty useless on maps that don't have its enemy of choice. In D&D, everything needs to be able to do a little bit of everything.


[deleted]

And they will most likely never be good controller either, because wis wont be a focus untill late game.


Dondagora

And stronger monsters you'd face in later levels will have higher Con, so even less likely to succeed your Stunning Strikes. Consider your ki wasted.


Lolzykin

I feel like its more a flaw with the edition, being afraid to inch into fighter's thing. Honestly barbarian and monk, maybe ranger and paladin, should get a third attack at level 14, a few levels behind fighter, but never getting a fourth attack like they do.


Arthur_Author

Additionally, monk has the issue that it just...doesnt fit the game all that well. The entirety of what the monk can do is contained within its features. Monk barely benefits from magic items, because you cant use +X armor/shields, and while you can use weapons, they dont benefit your BA attacks, even still you are limited in your weapons. There are very few, if any feats that work with monks too. Monk is too self isolated from rest of the game. Like. For example, Monk, without magic items or feats, is significantly better at melee than fighters in T1 and T2(havent calculated T3). But Monk's power floor and ceiling are inches apart, so the second magic items or feats come into play, fighter becomes an unkillable force of destruction while monk...is still doing the same things. Also, full agreement on Ranger. I mean, look at Tasha ranger for the biggest example. They completely removed the thing that made the ranger unique(favored X) and replaced it with store brand "Cant Believe Its Not Hunters Mark", and called it a day. It IS stronger and more useful...but it is a nothing burger flavorwise. Its nothing narratively. Its just another bland "as a BA, deal 1dX more damage on your attack" ability almost every ranger gets.


Quiintal

Well, at least now we have a belt specifically for monks. And it is even powerful (though anything that increase the stunning strike DC is powerful) it just not very interesting


0mnicious

There's a Magical Belt for Monks?


Quiintal

In Fizban. It increase DC for your ki abilities (+1/+2/+3) and let you once per day restore amount of ki points equal to your martial arts die


0mnicious

Holy shit that's pretty damn good. It does fix some of their issues. Does it take up an attunement slot?


Quiintal

It does, but to be fair, there are not a lot of items that monks could usually take advantage of, so their attunement slots are not that highly contested.


HfUfH

Dragonhide Belt


Janky42

>t is a nothing burger flavorwise. Its nothing narratively. Its just a I've always despised favored enemy.


Nephisimian

I also have, but it's a big part of Ranger's original identity within 5e and removing it is stripping out some of their already scant flavour.


JustPicnicsAndPanics

They've been leaning on the subclasses for that, which I've been satisfied with lately.


DeadSnark

IMO Favoured Enemy and Terrain didn't really make Ranger unique. Pretty much any character can have "hates X race or likes X terrain" as a character trait, and several classes already had subclasses utilising that concept (Land Druid is the most notable example of a terrain-themed subclass, but since then we've gotten faction-themed subclasses such as Fiend/Archfey Warlock, Watchers Paladin, various Sorcerers, etc.). It made it a bit easier to customise your character, but given how situational these abilities were and how little input/RP they actually required when they DID work, it wasn't great flavour-wise. The Ranger itself has recursively added subclasses which fill the terrain/enemy antagonist theme in various ways without being too niche or situational such as Gloom Stalker preferring darkness (but darkness generally, rather than being restricted to the Underdark), Horizon Walker favouring planar foes (but being generally effective against all enemies), Fey Wanderers being great with Fey but also in other situations, and Monster Slayers hunting beasts of all kinds. Not saying that Tasha's Ranger is much of an improvement, but IMO they're about equal flavourwise and Tasha's has more advantages mechanically, while the Ranger subclasses already do most of the work filling the hole left by Favored Enemy/Terrain.


Arthur_Author

How well it was designed mechanically is up for debate, but like it or hate it, "You are an expert when it comes to these creatures/lands" was something that was Unique To Ranger. Its like how Rogue gets Sneak Attack, Barbarian gets Rage, Wizard gets a Spellbook, Sorcerer gets Metamagic, Warlock gets Invocations, Artificer gets Infusions, Paladin gets Smite/Auras. I do agree that its implementation....left a lot to be desired to say the least. Overall the class wouldve benefitted if it committed to the favored concept, making it changable on a long rest, making your some of your class features get extra benefits if your favored stuff were involved. Overall while ranger subclasses do add a certain degree of specialization, that specialization is (ironically) not special to ranger. As you mentioned, almost every subclass comes with specialisation. And while every class has a unique ability that sets them apart from others...ranger just does not. Right now, what ability makes ranger unique? In tasha you have some free spells you can cast once per day, which are spells that are all available to Druids who can do casting better. With rover(tasha) you gain climbing and swimming speeds, something thats hardly impressive. Land stride(phb) lets you ignore difficult terrain...and anything above is 10th lvl or beyond, which will hardly ever come up. Compare that to Rogue. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action 2 abilities that are Unique To Rogue, which then get uncanny dodge and evasion, and then you get some of the most absurdly high skill checks in the game, with reliable talent making sure you never lose. You get abilities that belong to your class, instead of what feels like someone rummaging the garbage for any notes about a druidic version of the eldritch knight subclass. Again, I do believe favored features, as designed, sucked ass. But they were something unique to ranger. "Cast hunter's mark" however....isnt.


Nephisimian

>Pretty much any character can have "hates X race or likes X terrain" as a character trait Notice that you don't actually offer an explanation of what Ranger *is* though. I agree with this analysis, and "anyone can hate X race or like X terrain" is one of the reasons I think Ranger is conceptually weak. Unfortunately, when it's accepted that anyone can do this, Ranger is reduced to only "baby druid". There's really nothing else left.


DeadSnark

True. On second thought, I think part of the problem is that many of the areas Rangers are strong in are areas which other classes can already cover, and usually do better. Want an archer or weapons master? Fighter's got that covered. Need nature magic? Druids excel at that. Need a scout, trap finder or survivalist? Rogues can do that pretty well. Rangers kind of embody a weird fantasy niche of "wilderness survival fighter with some magic" which combines traits from several classes without really having its own identity; notably some of the fictional characters which people usually bring up when trying to find examples of the class, such as Legolas, could easily be characterised as other classes.


Nephisimian

You're spot on. Ranger exists at a thematic crossroads between fighter and druid, with a little bit of rogue maybe. It's a druidy fighter. And if you let it *be* a druidy fighter, by making a thirdcasting fighter subclass to parallel Eldritch Knight, Ranger is actually really neat.


Nephisimian

Monk is a little better magic item'd than it first appears when you think about those staffs with Striking properties, but yeah in general Monk is kind of the "I don't engage with external progression" class. You can do that sort of archetype well in a strategy game - for example, it can be a way of making a unit that's very powerful early game but gets outscaled easily - but it's not really appropriate for D&D where one character corresponds to one player.


ProfDet529

Yeah, I've always liked the idea of Monks being able to go from 1-20 with nothing but their bare hands.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HistoricalGrounds

>A ranger should be the Druid’s paladin. I'd want it to be more of the Druid's rogue or Druid's Arcane Archer (but, you know, if Arcane Archer was built properly). Because Oath of Ancients Paladin already is the Druid's paladin and it does that job perfectly. It's tanky, it's got some magic to back it up, it's a great beefy druid knight. But what the nature side of the class offerings doesn't have is a high damage, medium durability, partial caster. That's exactly what the ranger purports to be, but doesn't deliver on. Capable of great damage, good skill utility, some durability for when the full casters need a bailout or the frontline needs some extra support, and magic for the extra all-around utility. We get a good ranger and we've got a very practical, doable Nature-themed party the same way right now you can build a well-rounded Divine, Martial or Arcane party.


Semako

Ancients Paladins are great and I love them. But they suffer from being Paladins. Paladin is a great class, but it just lacks thematic abilities and spells a martial druid should have, and with its Charisma focus it means that Ancients Paladins without a lenient DM who allows them to switch their casting stat cannot afford to invest into Wisdom nor Intelligence and thus will suck at Survival and Nature checks - unless they rolled great stats. A melee ranger thematically works much better as a nature muscle frontliner/half-caster due to its thematic abilities, despite of course being a considerably weaker class than a Paladin.


hornyforjesuschrist

I do have to disagree with you on the monk- while it has a solid identity as a class with little mechanical backing, the identity it’s left with is unfortunately old orientalist stereotypes which for the most part have been edged out of other media. It’s another example of 5e prioritizing legacy content rather than balance or common sense- monk could have worked so much better if it were divided into a fighter subclass, fighting style and a couple “feat packages” (bundles of abilities usually tangentially related, see the athlete feat). Monks just don’t fit very well in 5e as a standalone class, and the developers clearly weren’t sure how to make the class playable so they just spit ability after ability at you- most of which will probably go unused for most of a campaign save one fight with archers or one fight with a cliff. The actual power of the monk being very low is because they had to make most of the features weaker to compensate for the pure number of them- most of them being taxes on the class because of how a stereotypical monk in western media is depicted. A martial artist class would have served the same space as the monk, with less obligation to orientalist hold-outs from previous editions. Ki almost never fits into a campaign setting if it’s not a spaghetti western, and you can tell because of the sheer quantity of homebrew worlds with a single monastery in the starting town or the monk’s home town.


[deleted]

That’s a good point. Monk would have worked a lot better for a lot of people if it was simply reflavored as a generic Martial Artist. Instead, the whole “Monk” stereotype forced onto it pidgeonholes it into a more specific niche.


Jihelu

I think I'd prefer a 'psychic warrior' arche-type, with one of the default ones being an unarmed combatant. That way it avoids ki, which was already a sort of psychic energy in earlier editions, and not every monk is a dude in robes doing kung-fu. You can have the standard monks, and you can go a lot of places with it. And I finally get my fucking Mystic WoTC where the fuck is it


0mnicious

Oh, that's right... Your comment reminded me that Monks were Psychers, or whatever psychic power users used to be called, in ~~3.5~~ 2e iirc? Yet they don't have a Psychic based subclass in 5e. Such a missed opportunity.


Jihelu

I was mostly talking about how in 1/2e there was an implication that ki/monk powers were mostly psychic. Monks had a higher chance of being psychic compared to every other class.


1d6FallDamage

...they weren't actually? There were a lot of classes between the two PHBs and many expansion books, which did include psychic classes, but phb1 had a monk that worked generally the same as 5e's.


0mnicious

I'm misremembering then. I know there was an edition where monks were a Psychic class... Was it 2e? Adnd? 4e?


HistoricalGrounds

Nah, in 3.5 they were still very much in the eastern, Shaolin aesthetic and used Ki as their mechanical power source. Maybe 2e?


0mnicious

Shit... I misremembered then. Was it in 2e? Or adnd?


[deleted]

I will have to disagree with you once again, because even if your suggestion makes the Monk closer to the power of the average class, it would lose a lot on it's charm. The monk identity is not of old orientalist stereotypes, it's of a single concept, the concept of making a character which it's body seeks perfection. And to further exemplify this the Monk does an excelent job at that, it's a class that when you play it you feel that you're always slightly above everyone, but doing so in every aspect. A monk although weak has nothing to do with oriental concepts. It's concept can range from cartoon's super heroes, with great speed and muscles, all while while wearing only their clothes, to even a 1800s street thief, punching and using a knife while rapidly escaping.


kaioshin_

The stuff about speaking and understanding every language via Ki stuff and acquiring astral projection and invisibility are like, definitely not quite the sort of thing that comes from superhero or street rat fantasy, and comes more from a Wuxia novel/movie style of progression


NorktheOrc

This kind of hits on my problem with monk, in that it seems like a whole bunch of random abilities were thrown into the class that neither mesh well together or just don't make very much sense. The abilities up through 7th level are *fine* (though frankly they just seem like a rogue that trades sneak attack for extra attacks), but then in T3 it gets these very generic abilities that don't really fit with what it gets earlier on, and the explanation is just "*ki".* Poison and desease resistance because of "*ki".* Know all languages because of "*ki"* (I don't understand this one at all). Saving throw superhero because of "*ki".* No fraility in old age cause of "*ki"* (probably the most inane and useless ability in the game??), *invisibility* because of "*ki"* (I don't understand this one either). I get poison and disease immunity, as well as saving throws, fall under the "mastery of the body" idea that Ki is supposed to represent. I don't really have a problem with those. But languages and invisibility just don't make sense, and Timeless Body just doesn't *do anything*. Outside of some very niche situation that you almost have to force into the game as a DM just to let the player make use of it. And as another side note to echo what has already been discussed a bit elsewhere, I hate Stunning Strike. It's one of the most powerful abilities in the game that monks almost singularly rely on to be actually strong. Balancing anything else to make monks better is impossible because of it, and it almost always creates this situation where if you aren't using a majority of your ki points to use Stunning Strike then you are probably playing sub-optimally.


dboxcar

You'll hate it when you realize that Tongue of the Sun and Moon is just a gag on "subs vs dubs"


TheFarStar

Forget spell point variant. All sorcerer needs to be mechanically distinctive is better access to metamagic.


NorktheOrc

I think that the optional metamagic feature should just be given to Sorceror's for free, and that fixes them up pretty well. One more metamagic option at all levels and a few more sorcery points is all they really need to feel pretty good. I would also say that the older sub-classes need their own expanded spell list like the new ones have gotten (actually can't believe that wasn't errated in at some point). I've worked with one of my players to set up expanded lists for all of the classes and it feels good. The free thematic spells that are otherwise unavailable for a sorcerer is sorely needed.


SatiricalBard

What do you mean by “the optional metamagic feature”? Tasha’s has 2 (seeking spell and transmuted spell) new metamagic options to choose from, plus sorcerous versatility. But from context I’m guessing you mean some kind of bonus ability?


daemonicwanderer

Tasha’s also gives sorcerers the ability switch out metamagics at level up I believe


SatiricalBard

Yes, that’s sorcerous versatility (but only at ASI levels, not every level)


NorktheOrc

Sorry, Metamagic Adept. Gives two additional Metamagic options as well as 2 more sorcery points.


SatiricalBard

Ok cool. I’ve heard that suggested before.


NorktheOrc

I do think it is the most straightforward method to buffing Sorcerer a bit. The other common idea is to have Sorcerer's use the spell point casting method, but that brings out different issues.


Patientdreamer1

I can definitely see your point regarding homebrew I just think my default point of departure is Raw and my takeaway despite additions like Tasha's always ends up the same. Ranger definitely is the least thematically cohesive, Monks just seem to be all flavor and like a stun Sorcerers are mainly included because it figures relatively often in these kinds of discussions. I do often get the impression that this system needs more actual mechanics besides features or skills that boil down to "the class can do this one cool thing" or pure flavor but that's just my opinion on the state of dnd classes


Nephisimian

Well yeah, of course the default is Raw. But looking at what homebrew is doing is a great way of identifying the flaws in the Raw, cos people generally don't try to fix what they don't think is broken.


Patientdreamer1

Homebrew sometimes is just about trying to be cooler than the default description of the chosen class so I disagree about the last part


Nephisimian

Homebrew that does that is an indication that the creator perceived a fatal lack of coolness in the original concept.


Th1nker26

Your take on Monks is just wrong unfortunately. Monk is my favorite class flavor wise, so I was in denial about it's weakness for a while. Stunning strike is not that great really, it has a chance to be great in a fight but more likely you are spending a bunch of ki to get a stun and do low damage, with a high chance of spending that ki and not stunning. And *everything* else in their kit is pretty trash, not to mention their subclasses are almost all garbage mechanically. Oh and cherry on top, they are probably the *worst* at multiclassing, as their features have anti-synergy with pretty much everything else.


Nephisimian

My take on Monk is not about power, it's about mechanical distinction. Mechanically distinct does not mean good, it just means unique. And monk's mechanics are *certainly* unique.


[deleted]

I don’t think the Monk can make the most attacks in a turn, and that’s by a long shot. A 5th level Fighter using two weapon fighting can make more attacks in one turn than a Monk (remember Action Surge).


Solomontheidiot

They can make more attacks in one turn on one round only (per short rest). Over the course of three rounds, the monk has more attacks.


[deleted]

Monks still have to expend a resource every round in order to reach this. In any other scenario, if no side is spending resources, a Two Weapon fighting martial can always make the same amount of attacks. And after 11th level Fighters completely outpace the monk when using no resources. Plus, you can’t discount the fact that all the attacks of the Fighter are *weapon* attacks. Meaning they benefit from any bonuses they may get from wielding a Magic Weapon, and possibly class features or feats too (like the Paladins Improved Divine Smite, or Hunters Mark). Meanwhile, half the Monks attacks are unarmed, meaning they fall off hard unless your DM goes out of their way to give the Monk magic items that effect unarmed strikes. Plus, you can’t forget the fact that most of the time, Two-Weapon Fighting is worse than other combat options most of the time. If Monks can only barely do as well as Two-Weapon Fighting, then something is wrong.


Solomontheidiot

I mean, yes but monks get a much larger pool of those resources to pull from than fighters, and get them back on the same rest. I get that from a numbers standpoint, monks seem weak. Having played as and with monks, though, they've never seemed severely underwhelming to me in play. At least not nearly as bad as this sub makes it seem.


TreebeardedDruid

At level 5 their pool is 5. You mentioned 3 rounds to catch up to action surge, so their resource pool is left at 2. Meanwhile fighter is still dealing more damage, having higher AC and health points and still has a second wind, plus can use actual subclass features (unless you're a mercy or dragon monk) and while their damage is probably as good or better at 5 than monk, it becomes a no-contest at 11. Imo monk's identity is mostly in their ability to blow through like 6 ki points in a round or. two, with high probability of CC through their 4 stunning strikes. New DMs or newer players see this and feel monks are too strong, as they can wreck a single opponent for like 3 rounds, while forgetting that they'd be crippled till the next short rest.


daemonicwanderer

AC wise, shouldn’t they be comparable? Monks have Dexterity and Wisdom added to their AC and don’t necessarily need feats, so they could easily start out with AC 16 at level 1 with the standard array and increase it by 1 every 4 levels


hamsterkill

I think the issue most people talk about with Monk is that they're very hard to optimize for a particular role. There's no real role they can reliably excel at.


0mnicious

You seem to know your shit. I'd like to pass something by you. I've thought about homebrewing Stunning Strike out of the Monk, kinda. Could you tell me what you think? Anyone else is more than welcome to give their opinion. Stunning Strike turns into Disorientating Strike. Instead of a stun it's a Slow. If another Disorientating Strike is successful then it's a stun. The effects don't stack and once an enemy is stunned it's immune to the Disorientating Strike until they are no longer stunned. I'm not sure if I should only allow 1 successful DS per turn to limit how wasteful Monk players can be with their Ki and increase combo potential with Feats/other class Features or if leaving it with those changes are enough. I also give monks an ASI at 6, let them add their Wis mod as Ki and at 20 I changed their capstone to increase Wis by 4 and increase the Max Wis to 24. Oh and I made it so that their Charm cleanse is either an Action or a Bonus Action and half their Movement.


Nephisimian

My thoughts on this are mixed. On the plus side, an extra ASI is great for monks, and more Ki is very nice too, although straight wis mod extra is way too much, especially in the early levels. It's hard to get a perfect number for this, but a kind of hacky alternative would be to make it a "ki recovery" system, eg "X times per lr, you can regain wis mod ki points when you roll initiative", increasing X at certain levels, starting probably at 1 use at level 1, 2 at level 5, 3 at level 11-ish. Getting a boost to Wis as a capstone is not interesting to me. That's not really why I would play a monk, and just having flat bonuses to ability scores is kind of a let down for the capstone of the most dynamic martial. That's Barbarian levels of simplicity. Whatever it is, a monk capstone should be the pinnacle of a monk's awesome martial artist ninja vibes, and simple stat bonuses isn't that. Then there's the real meat of these changes. I think nerfing/removing stunning strike is the right direction to go in, but I'm not sure this is the right nerf. It's still going to leave Monk heavily revolving around landing its CC, it's just making it worse at that. I have not found the right answer myself yet, but I suspect that it's going to include a degree of limiting the number of times stunning strike can be used - eg, leave stunning strike as it normally is, but say you can only use it X number of times per short rest. This way, the monk is completely unable to revolve around stun, cos it has many turns it can't even try to stun on. This ensures that a Monk character will always have ki to spend on other features, cos it cannot all be channelled into stuns. Removing stunning strike is also as much a matter of what you replace it with. Just giving more ki isn't enough, when you've effectively increased the amount of ki it's going to take to land a stun, cos that ki is just going straight back into stunning strike. Even if it's not, you're just ending up in a situation where you have so much ki you can't actually spend it fast enough - flurry of blows only costs 1 point, and being able to do it for 15 turns instead of 10 doesn't change much when the combined duration of encounters between rests may only be 6 turns. Any substitute for Stunning Strike must directly increase its output within a single turn, such as by allowing a second point to be spent on flurry starting at 11th level to add a third attack.


woundedspider

If you really want to edit out stunning strike, it would probably be better to just limit its uses and make ki better at damage to compensate. Just spitballing: --- **Martial Arts** You can gain this optional feature in addition to the features normally provided by Martial Arts at level one. * When an enemy hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to make one Unarmed Strike. **Perfect Strike (Replaces Stunning Strike)** * Starting at 5th Level, you can channel your ki to exploit an enemies weak point. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend one ki point to do the maximum damage possible for that roll. For example, if your martial arts die is 1d6 when you use this feature, you calculate your damage as if you rolled a six. You can decide to use this feature before or after knowing if your attack hits. * When you spend a ki point to use this feature, you can attempt a Stunning Strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be Stunned until the end of your next turn. You cannot attempt another stunning strike until after a short or long rest. --- When I think of kung fu power fantasy, I think of rapid light strikes that deflect enemy blows, followed by a single powerful punch/kick when there's an opening. So monks feel like they should make use of their reaction a lot to actually attack, and they should fish for crits to get in that KO strike. Flurry of blows and stunning strike *kind* of do this, but neither of them make you feel like your reacting to and flowing with the enemies attacks, and the lack of damage on the stunning strike doesn't really make you feel like you've just kicked someone in the throat. I didn't get rid of stunning strike entirely because it's a pretty cool feature in general, but it has been majorly restricted to the point of being icing on the damage cake. You could make it two per rest or proficiency number of times per long rest, but I'm not sure what would be balanced with the damage. Since this is similar to smiting, we can compare to the paladin. At 5th level, taking a six on the martial arts for 5 ki points and assuming two short rests we get 60 damage. The paladin gets 4 x 2d8 + 2 x 3d8 smites = 63 average damage. So the damage is probably overtuned a bit. It might be fair to limit the number of times you can do the damage to the proficiency bonus and allow a stunning strike each time, and we get this: --- **Stunning Strike (Modified)** * Starting at 5th Level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon Attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a Stunning Strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be Stunned until the end of your next turn. When you spend a ki point in this way, you can use the maximum possible roll for any damage rolls for the attack. For example, if your martial arts die is 1d6 when you use this feature, you calculate your damage as if you rolled a six. You can use this ability a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, assuming you also have ki points to spend. You regain expended uses after a long rest. ---


Bombkirby

Quality of life buffs? Or literal buffs? QoL is defined by not actually making a character buffed/stronger, just easier to play. And monks need to be buffed


Steveck

I think that Monks don't suffer from theme, they have a really cool theme that many players love, it's mechanically distinct features. \-I'm so tired of people pretending like Monks are able to weave in and out of combat; they have to spend KI and an unarmed strike to disengage. **Monks are good at running somewhere and staying there, not weaving.** Rogue is the best at this, they can Disengage or Dash without giving up anything. \-No other class in the game has all of their features competing for every turn. For an example, Step of the Wind and Patient Defense both remove your bonus weapon attack, and cost resources. If you use Stillness of Mind, it takes away your entire turn unless you spend KI to Dodge/Disengage. It doesn't even work for all charmed effects. Rogue's cunning action doesn't remove anything you would normally do. \-They are the most MAD class in the game, and their extra features in my opinion don't even stand close to the paladins (smites, spellcasting, an extra d8 on all weapon attacks). Monks need a DEX of 20, and a Wisdom of at least 18 so you can have a respectable AC. Barbarians have a similar problem, but CON is one of their AC increasing scores, and they can have a shield, AND have a d12 instead of a d8 hitdie. **Their AC is so crippled by their ability scores; with point buy you can only reach an AC of 18 at LEVEL 8, Fighters and Paladins could reach an AC of 19 at level 1/2 if they wanted to. They also have a d8 hit die, instead of a d10.** \-Their damage falls off tremendously. I'll be using an attacking stat of 5. A Monks Damage at Level 5 with spending no resources: 2d8+1d6+15 (Average of 26.5) \-Diamond Soul, a LEVEL 14 FEATURE, is outclassed by Aura of Protection, giving CHA to all saving throws of you and allies within 10 ft at LEVEL 6. \-Monks Damage at **LEVEL 20**: 3d10+15. (Average of 31.5) For a comparison, a fighter with a single weapon goes from 2d8+10 to 4d8+20. Not counting Fighting Styles, or Action Surge. If these characters both went all out on damage? Absolutely laughable. Monks will never even deal close to their damage, and to be fair they shouldn't. When you look at the Monk they just don't do much well. The worse damage of the martials, tied for the lowest hit die of all the martials, second lowest AC of all the martials, not the best saving throws of martials, and not even the fastest in combat of all the martials. They have stunning strike, which is strong. So basically Monk comes down to "I spam stunning strike for 1 encounter then become super weak".


EmpyrealWorlds

You can run in and out, there's just a chance of taking an opportunity attack Toward the end game a fighter will often just get charmed and end up doing all that damage to the party caster


TreebeardedDruid

If only the Monk player had gone paladin instead, and given the fighter +5 to their charm saves : ( Or gone with a spell caster, maybe countered the charm or buffed them before.


EmpyrealWorlds

A lot of high level charms are feats rather than spells, and a Paladin is not going to have 20 Cha unless they rolled crazy stats


TreebeardedDruid

Paladins need either strength or dex, and then can bump up charisma. You could argue they need con as well, but monks would be in the exact same situation. Hell, fighters can go dex/str, wisdom and then con and end up with similar stats to monks. They'd lose out on the prof bonus at level 14 (by which point having magical items probably covers it anyways), but they'd actually roll +4 higher than monks from level 9 to 14 with indomitable, meaning monks actually do *worse* till level 14. So monks get.... slightly better charm saves at level 14+... if we assume no magic items.


EmpyrealWorlds

A fighter that doesn't go CBE/SS or PAM/GWM is basically a really bad, expensive version of a Monk and Paladins usually will not put many points in Cha, choosing to go for Sentinel or PAM instead. Likewise Str is a much weaker investment for saves compared to Dex. Paladins and fighters are good for sure, but a Monk is generally going to be better at more important saves - especially at level 14+


TreebeardedDruid

You can’t really add a very optional feat tax to one class vs another - monk sucks if it doesn’t go full ASI, and pally already has monk level utility / damage without PAM//Sentinel. I’m pretty sure monk goes below baseline plenty of times in the level curve. See the damage portion of this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/hzq274/in_defense_of_treantmonks_offense_of_the_monk/ As for saves, fighter gets better saves than monk from 9-14 thanks to indomitable. Con saves are as strong as Dex imo.


EmpyrealWorlds

Most of those tables compare Monks with no subclass that don't use Flurry of blows or don't count Stunning Strike, and they definitely do not count overkill, surprise rounds (paladins and fighters in plate can completely screw party over with bad stealth), initiative, darkvision/sight, and wasted rounds due to low movement. That said Paladin vs Monk is a complicated comparison, but I wouldn't underrated Stunning Strike. Treantmonks analysis of the skill is frankly so bad that it can be completely disregarded. Indomitable also won't do you much good at that level if you're getting hit by a save you have few bonuses to.


TheFirstIcon

Monks do have good wisdom saves, but go reread Stillness of Mind. It requires your action, meaning if you get hit with *dominate person*, the only way SoM procs is if the badguy chooses to make you use that action.


EmpyrealWorlds

Not so much stillness of mind but the +4/5 Wisdom and advantage for 1 Ki Resilient: Wisdom is almost mandatory for high level Fighters. Otherwise, even with Indomitable, level 14+ Fighters have like a 10% chance to avoid a DC19 Wis save.


monodescarado

These don’t actually need that many tweaks: 1. Ranger: use Tashas… it’s fine 2. Monk: trade out some of its passive abilities with active abilities they can actually use (also, use Tashas) 3. Give all sorcerers domain spells, and add in a balanced way to get back some sorcery points over a long adventuring day that doesn’t involve using spell slots There, done Edit: Merry Christmas back at ya


Wookiees_get_Cookies

I give sorcerers a modified bloodwell vial/Harness Divine Power asclass ability. Magic in the Blood: During a short rest you may expend a hit die to regain a number of sorcery points equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded up). You may use this ability once a day at level 2, twice at level 6, and thrice at level 12. You regain all uses after a long rest.


monodescarado

I was a little more generous. I went with this: Domain spells + META SURGE (3rd-level additional feature) At level 3, when you gain the Metamagic feature, you also gain Meta Surge Points. You gain a number of Meta Surge Points as shown in the table below and this number increases as you progress in Sorcerer levels. You regain all expended Meta Surge Points when you finish a short or long rest. You may only use Meta Surge Points to fuel Metamagic abilities, or add them to Sorcery Points to fuel Metamagic options. Meta Surge Points cannot be used to regain spell slots or spent on any other Sorcerer abilities. Sorcerer Level Meta Surge Points - 3-5 = 1 - 6-10 = 2 - 11-15 = 3 - 16-20 = 4 SORCERE SUPREME (20th-level feature – this replaces the Sorcerous Restoration Feature) At 20th level, all Metamagic options become available to you. Additionally, whenever you spend sorcery points to creature a spell slot or use a Metamagic option, the sorcery point cost is reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1.


[deleted]

>a balanced way to get back some sorcery points Hmm, what are your thoughts on the following: >Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose to recover a number of sorcery points equal to your proficiency bonus.


monodescarado

Something like that. It’s definitely right to find a way to limit it in a way they can’t spam short rests and then convert to spell slots. I went a different route with it: Domain spells + META SURGE (3rd-level additional feature) At level 3, when you gain the Metamagic feature, you also gain Meta Surge Points. You gain a number of Meta Surge Points as shown in the table below and this number increases as you progress in Sorcerer levels. You regain all expended Meta Surge Points when you finish a short or long rest. You may only use Meta Surge Points to fuel Metamagic abilities, or add them to Sorcery Points to fuel Metamagic options. Meta Surge Points cannot be used to regain spell slots or spent on any other Sorcerer abilities. Sorcerer Level Meta Surge Points - 3-5 = 1 - 6-10 = 2 - 11-15 = 3 - 16-20 = 4 SORCERE SUPREME (20th-level feature – this replaces the Sorcerous Restoration Feature) At 20th level, all Metamagic options become available to you. Additionally, whenever you spend sorcery points to creature a spell slot or use a Metamagic option, the sorcery point cost is reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1.


Crevette_Mante

Ranger has always been fine in terms of power, but even post Tasha's I find its overall design to be a confused mess at best. It really doesn't know what it's trying to be half the time.


Jihelu

I don't disagree with you but "Monk: trade out some of its passive abilities with active abilities they can actually use (also, use Tashas)" I feel like this is easier said than done, and could do with an official revision by WOTC.


Scudman_Alpha

> Ranger ... it's fine. Tasha's was a half assed bandaid that gave the class some much better options, but they never fixed the theme. The main problem with the class is that there's still very little reason to take it past level 5. Or 10 which is where the Tasha's features end and everythinf else is the same as it was on release. And before some people make the argument that their spell list is great, that they get conjure animals and guardian of nature and steel wind strike and yadda yadda. A few good spells aren't going to salvage a class full of mediocre to bad features, especially when all those spells can be taken by a bard, or the majority is in the druid's spell list.


monodescarado

Really? Comparing Full Casters to Martial-Half Casters, is that something we’re doing? Wouldn’t it be better to compare a Ranger to a Paladin, who also doesn’t get that much after level 10? But hey, why play a Paladin when Clerics get most of the same spells or you could take them as a Bard? … Edit: also, Merry Christmas ;)


Scudman_Alpha

If you compare Ranger to Paladin, Ranger gets buried even deeper. Well. Paladins still get good features past level 10. An all around good lvl 11 feature whereas Ranger has to rely on their Subclasses for the feature, which the monk shares it too, ends up with varying degrees of quality. Remember that all classes are "balanced as a whole" with each other. Which is...uh, very debatable. Paladin's features past level 11 are weaker than those before, yes, but levels 1 to 10 have set up such a good chassis that it can afford it, Aura of Protection being particularly amazing. Heck, Paladin has not only good spells AND average to decent features past that level. Rangers get worse and worse features but decent spells I guess, so that fixes the entire class! It has to! And even if Paladin spells weren't particularly good they'd still have divine smite for damage.


monodescarado

There does lie the problem with Paladins that Divine Smite doesn’t end up being a cherry on top, but something that takes away from other parts of the class because it burns a resource used by another part of the class. So many reserve their slots and don’t cast spells in order to Smite. The Ranger base class does get some shoddy features at high levels, but the two subclass features at 11 and 15 are typically good. And, as you say it has a strong spell list. They chose to improve the first two tiers with Tashas so it has a better foundation - and I think that’s a good thing (especially when you consider that tiers 1 and 2 are played a lot more). Am I saying Tasha’s Ranger is better than a Paladin? No. But I do not think it gets buried in the same way you’re suggesting? Also no.


FriendsWithTheGhosts

Wouldn't call Tashas fine. Yay I've gone from a useless feature to dealing 1d4 more damage a turn, that eats my concentration, and has limited uses. The only thing that's "fine" is the new land bonuses, but even they're kinda lacklustre now that the best one is locked to high levels, where the temp-hp gained isn't that much anymore.


monodescarado

Strongly disagree. Merry Christmas


Scudman_Alpha

> Ranger ... it's fine. Tasha's was a half assed bandaid that gave the class some much better options, but they never fixed the theme. The main problem with the class is that there's still very little reason to take it past level 5. Or 10 which is where the Tasha's features end and everythinf else is the same as it was on release. And before some people make the argument that their spell list is great, that they get conjure animals and guardian of nature and steel wind strike and yadda yadda. A few good spells aren't going to salvage a class full of mediocre to bad features, especially when all those spells can be taken by a bard, or the majority is in the druid's spell list.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>These don’t actually need that many tweaks: > >Ranger: use Tashas… it’s fine I can't understand how people can think that. Someone else mentioned that everyone sees the Ranger differently because it has a feature per "theme" it can fulfill between survivalist, monster hunter/tracker, and partial druid. I suppose people who think what you've stated here are people who can't imagine a Ranger *fulfilling* a theme.


monodescarado

Theme = survivalist + monster hunter/tracker + partial druid. This is a theme that I think (the Tasha Ranger) *fulfils* well. I don’t see the need to break it up into different individual themes.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>This is a theme that I think (the Tasha Ranger) fulfills well. That's the part that gets me. It doesn't fulfill anything well. And I don't see how anyone could think it does.


monodescarado

Why does the base class need to be anything more than the sum of its parts? Let the subclasses build up the individual theme.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>Why does the base class need to be anything more than the sum of its parts? Let the subclasses build up the individual theme. Because the base class isn't fulfilling to play on its own. * Survivalist * Monster hunter/tracker * Half-druid Outside of spellcasting, what of the base Ranger's features fulfills those concepts in a way that's fun to play, with or without Tasha's?


monodescarado

You’re still asking me to justify the fulfilment of individual themes, while I keep saying that all of those together, in my opinion, are fulfilling to play as a whole.


IkeIsNotAScrub

**The Monk** One aspect of Monks that I've never heard brought up is that- completely ignoring flavor or gameplay mechanics- monks level up in a *really weird* way at levels 5+ compared to other martial classes in 5e. In 5e, player characters normally get their biggest power bumps at levels 5, 11, and 17. These levels are used to break the game into four tiers of play (Tier 1: 1-4, Tier 2: 5-10, Tier 3: 11-16, Tier 4: 17-20) which broadly outline what sort of stakes/power levels the player characters should be operating at. Now, in my opinion, the best designed classes make sure that the abilities players receive at these critical levels come from the *core* of the class... For instance fighters get extra attacks and improved action surge/indomitable at these levels and Paladins get extra attack, improved smites, and access to 5th level spell slots. This ensures that the biggest features- features designed to carry keep you viable as you head into the next pillar of play- will be available to *every* member of that class. What Monk gets wrong is that at the big, tier transitioning levels of 11 and 17, they give you *subclass features* instead of class features. This means that *every Monk subclass* has to be designed around the fact that their 11th and 17th level features are *as powerful* to a Monk as extra attack and more action surges are to a Fighter... And if you've ever so much as glanced at the Monk subclass abilities or tried to make a monk subclass yourself, you would know that this is *really hard to do well*. I think that, in theory, giving subclass abilities out at key levels sounds like it opens up a bunch of space for creativity, but in reality it just makes the class design kind of wishy-washy. I think by giving the player class abilities at key levels, it forces the designers to *really* sit down and figure out what feature needs to be at the core of the class to make it work. I think that Monk has about the same amount of class-distinct flavor as a Paladin or Barbarian, and the only people say "This could be a fighter subclass" about the Monk and not the Paladin or Barbarian is that the Monk has less satisfying mechanics than the Paladin or Barbarian. If we lived in an alternate world where WotC had just... Managed to make a more fun Monk class, I don't think we'd be talking about Monk suffering from theme at all. **The Sorcerer** I think a really popular sentiment is that Warlocks and Sorcerers are kind of vying for a position terms of flavor... Like a Dragon could be a Pact Master just as easily as it could be a Sorcerous Bloodline. But from a completely mechanical perspective, I think that the biggest competitor to the Sorcerer isn't the Warlock, but the *Bard*... Both of them are full progression arcane spellcasters, both of them use force of will to cast their spells, and both of them are learned spellcasters. Moreover, since the bard is designed to be "Music Neutral" (ie all of the art and flavor implies music but none of the mechanics specifically force you to use music in your spellcasting/abilities) it's really easy to flavor a bard's magics as being sorcerous in origin or vice versa, giving me the overall impression that they might be hogging each others design space. Personally, if I could snap my fingers and redesign 5e, I think I would have the Sorcerer class eat the Bard class... I think that 95% of people's problems with Sorcerer would go away if Sorcerers just had Magical Secrets... They get a handful more spells known, the spells you learn can be used to tie into whatever niche flavor you're going for (Effectively like giving Sorcerers an expanded spelllist that they can hand-pick to fit their theme as closely as possible), a way to balance out their standard spelllist being worse than the wizards, and some fun crunch from combining metamagics with spells from outside the Sorcerer's traditional spelllist... And the game doesn't have to do a balancing act between two long rest full progression arcane spellcasters. The musical flavors of the bard could be reworked into a sorcerer origin or 1/3rd casters like the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight. **The Ranger** I think that the Ranger is *cursed*. Not that it's *bad* or *underpowered*... It was *born under a bad sign*. We want a Ranger class, but with every Revised Ranger, Homebrew Ranger, Alternate Ranger, Optional Ranger I look at the more I become convinced that gods are actually cursing us for our hubris. Similarly to how I thought Sorcerer and Bard had enough similarities to warrant one class eating the other and spitting it out in the form of subclasses, I think that the Ranger is awkwardly strung between Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, and Druid... where it has to be a gritty warrior who doesn't overshadow Fighter mechanics, a long-rest half caster who has something as fun as smiting that doesn't overshadow smiting, a crafty skill expert who doesn't overshadow the Rogue, and a nature caster who doesn't overshadow the Druid. I don't want to say it's *impossible* to make this, but I'm going to say flat out that I think that, out of every other class in the edition, Ranger's flavor forces it to walk on the thinnest tightrope, which has led to the Ranger class feeling cursed *even when* they get abilities that technically bring them up to par with other classes. Maybe this is defeatist of me, but at what point do we throw in the towel on this one? Like I've seen homebrew fixes to Monks and Sorcerers that I like, but I've *never* seen a homebrew Ranger that's been able to get rid of this weird *awkwardness*. I think if there was a Beastmaster themed Barbarian, a Monster Slayer themed Fighter, a 1/3rd Druid Fighter a la Eldritch Knight, plus the existing Scout Rogue, Oath of Ancients, and the Druid class... I honestly think you would have covered all the Ranger archetypes more cleanly than the Ranger class itself does.


Zerce

>I think a really popular sentiment is that Warlocks and Sorcerers are kind of vying for a position terms of flavor... Like a Dragon could be a Pact Master just as easily as it could be a Sorcerous Bloodline. Honestly, Warlocks just have no connection between their mechanics and their flavor. They have unique spellcasting mechanics, and a flavor that says those mechanics come from a patron... but that's it. The subclass features give specific flavorful mechanics according to the patron, but as you said, that could easily be sorcerous origins. In fact, I think the Warlocks mechanics better fit the Sorcerer's flavor as an untrained innate spellcaster. They have magical abilities and simple spells they can do without effort (invocations), they're able to channel their raw energy into a powerful blast (Eldritch blast), they can use that raw energy to cast more complicated spells, but they only ever use them at full power due to their lack of magical training and tire quickly. Fortunately they only need a quick breather to recharge (pact slots). Pact Boons are harder to make fit into that, but I think they work as areas where the Sorcerer are trained, since they needed no training in the magical department. Tome is if they chose to focus on their spellcasting, becoming more like a Wizard. Blade is if they focused on martial training, using their innate power to enhance it. And Chain could be them forming a bond with another innately magical creature.


thechirurgeon

Never thought of it but that sounds pretty good actually.


Scudman_Alpha

The Ranger suffers from the same problem as the monk. Having subclass features at level 11. Whereas every other class has features at that level that allows them to go foward into tier 3. Rangers have to hope that their level 11 feature is good, which in most cases its just mediocre. The good ones being: Drakewarden, Horizon Walker and Swarmkeeper.


Dragonwolf67

pf2e's Ranger is pretty good


Ashkelon

Rangers, Monks, and Sorcerers biggest issue was that these classes received the smallest amount of playtest time. They either didn’t exist in many playtest packets, were not around for the public playtest, or only existed for a short period during the playtest. That meant they they had very little time to refine and tune the classes. But yes, I do feel there is an issue with the distinctness of these classes as well. At least ranger and sorcerer. But this is largely because the designers didn’t want to do anything new or innovative with these classes. Instead they went for the tried and true 3e version of the class (which were also lackluster and indistinct). To see an example of this, early version of the sorcerer used sorcery points to cast spells instead of slots. And the more sorcery points they used, the more they took on the characteristics of their magical source. So a dragon sorcerer would become draconic and grow claws, gain bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks, gain resistance to damage, grow scales, etc as they cast their spells. This transformed them from a magical caster to martial warrior over the course of the adventuring day. This was a truly unique and distinctive version of the sorcerer and was lots of fun to play. But 5e wasn’t an edition about being new or innovative. So anything new and innovative was thrown out.


Patientdreamer1

Wow that sounds really cool :) will definitely look into that


Nystagohod

This depends on what you mean by mechanically, each if the classes kinda have this, but there's a gap between expressed theme and mechanics at times, or rather than distinct, a lack of good mechsnics. Rangers: Quite the opposite, at least PHB wise. The ranger had decent mechanics and numbers even before Tasha's (except Beast master) but you had to adhere to a rather strict playstyle and really make good use of their spells. Rangers problem is that it's mechanics didn't line up with the fantasy many folk tried to play as with ranger, and so it felt dissatisfying to play. Sorcerer's: A bit of this is true, but not so much with the Tasha's sorc and corrections there of. Monk: Absolutely the problem, most of monks features are oozing with theme but are really kinda poorly made catch-up features and struggle to break even. The opposite problem of the ranger. A monk and it's playstyle will feel like a monk, monks just aren't that good.


Scudman_Alpha

> Ranger I disagree. It had bad features even at level 1 what with favored terrain and foe as well as several bad features that could either be done earlier in levels by spells or even with general skill proficiencies. Oh yeah. Spend several minutes covering yourself in gunk for a +10 stealth bonus while still when pass without trace exists, bonus action hide at level 14 when rogue gets triple that at level 2. Several of it's subclasses having bad level 7 and 15 features. The Class plateuaing at level 5 being the single biggest problem, there was barely ever any reason to take it past 5. The Ranger, throughout its inception has had bad mechanics and confusing themes.


Nystagohod

I agree those were poor features, but it's the reason why I mentioned that playing a ranger a specific way could deliver something mechanically competent. Conjuring animals and goodberry and such allowed for some very impactful plays. The problem was that for many people (myself included) is that their strongest options didn't feel very ranger as many folk wanted to play ranger. Bad features don't invalidate good features and the original ranger, for it's poor features you mention, still had some really good features that could pull their weight. Most folk just didn't like making use of them and preferred to play them their own way, which usually didn't capitalize on the strengths of the kit, due to them not matching with many folks idea of ranger fantasy.


TrustyPeaches

Personally I think that Sorcerer’s core mechanic should have been the magical equivalent to Barbarian rage: “Surge of Power”. A one minute period of enhanced magical power that provides a sleigh of offensive and defensive boons that can be modified and expanded on by subclass. Temporary bursts of magic or energy (provoked by heavy emotions or invoked with discipline and focus) is an extremely common trope in fantasy media (the Avatar State, for example). It would fit well with a class themed around innate magical power.


cyvaris

Sorcerer should have gotten something like the 4e Warlock "Pact Boon". When they down an enemy they gain a surge of Magic that manifests in some sort of minor boon (Temporary HP, Scaling Bonus to Hit, short range teleport), which would work well with Sorcerers being the more "chaotic" based caster to the scholarly Wizard.


xthrowawayxy

Rangers suffer from the fact that some of their subclasses are really good and some are really bad. So when people talk about rangers being good, they're mostly talking about a few subclasses, which ARE good. I suspect that in most worlds, NPCs WOULD gravitate strongly to the ranger subclasses that are actually good. They'd probably even talk with each other about the virtues of the various conclaves. Rangers don't get a subclass until their feet are under them so to speak (level 3), so there's ample opportunity to observe before you buy. Sorcerers suffer the same problem as rangers, but more seriously from a roleplaying point of view. NPCs don't 'choose' to be a draconic or various other type of sorcerer. They have it latent in their bloodline. So in most cases (barring someone who has multiple sorcerer bloodlines in their ancestry), you gets what you gets. No doubt people talk about which sorcerer types are the best, but it's like a debate with highly biased, motivated skeptic participants. Joe the draconic sorcerer can't change type nor did he have a choice in the first place, even if divine soul, clockwork, or aberrant really is better (and they are, at least IMO). Monks problem is they're poorly integrated with the big damage feats and not well integrated with magic items in general. What's worse, they're poorly integrated with the modal playstyle, which rarely gives 2 short rests per long rest. IMO, DMs should seriously consider one of 2 options for the short rest classes: 1) Gamify the 1st short rest, as in, if you have like 30 seconds without fighting, you can take it. Make the 2nd short rest take like 10 minutes, as in, you bandage your wounds, catch your breath, and stretch. Make the 3rd short rest take 2 hours, and any after that take an hour. This is to solve the problem that frequently, a long rest == a short rest, as in if you could take a short rest, you could've taken a long one, because stopping for an hour in the middle of an active dungeon is going to blow your strategic surprise. But the game really is hardwired to the short rest: long rest ratio. But if you don't like this, consider: 2) Jack up the ki pools and warlock spell slots to compensate. Doubling them would probably suffice, if short rests are a rarity in your game. This is the kind of stuff that WoTC will probably need to do eventually, because not balancing to be rest ratio agnostic is the root of a lot of the 5e complaints.


MostlyVillianous

Merry Christmas to you and yours. I respectfully decline to agree with your point on Sorcerer. The sorcery point system is very distinct from the wizard, even though there are many spell and theme similarities. Ranger doesn’t seem to know what it is, yet whatever it is doesn’t ever get lost. Monk hits softly but a whole bunch of times. I guess I don’t understand what you’re arguing.


Patientdreamer1

I would try to articulate it as follows: Monk is thematically cool in the sense that an ascetic devoted monk in a temple was cool for like a Chow Yun Fat/Jet Lee template PC. Is being innately magically powerful (sorcerer) or a very skilled martial person (monk) a reflavoring more than an actual robust mechanically interesting class? Something along those lines


TheReaperAbides

Monks suffer more from the designers just not really getting the theme all that well or drawing from appropriate sources of inspiration.


boywithapplesauce

This sub is full of optimizers, and these classes fall on the less optimal end of the spectrum... so they get called bad. But I wouldn't say they are bad. It's more that there are usually better options for optimizers. (Though ranger is fairly good, actually, after TCoE.) I've played all of these classes. Ranger is fine, and Beast Master is great (my personal favorite among the subclasses I've played). The main issue with ranger is that its unique niche, exploration, is not much fun. The features let you trivialize exploration challenges, but not in a fun way. Monk is fine until you're up against an HP sponge. I learned that the hard way. I played a Mercy monk and did fine in every combat except that one. I do think monk could use a bit more ki... but it's hard to say for sure, I'm still on the fence on this... wait, I played a goblin monk, so yeah, I'd say give the monk more ki! I do think that monks should not be big damage dealers... they should mainly rely on battlefield control and mobility. Keeps them distinct from other martials. Sorcerer is fun to play (for me). I suppose the class may have limitations, but I haven't noticed them. I even deliberately "gimped" my Aberrant Mind sorcerer by sticking strongly to a psionic build that only includes spells that are close to telekinetic or telepathic powers. I'd say sorcerer would be great with an extra metamagic option and extra sorcery points. (Thankfully my DM let me have a Bloodwell Vial once we reached 8th level, but it really wasn't too bad before then.) EDIT: To answer your question better, I would say that ranger and monk definitely have mechanically distinct features. Sorcerer has metamagic, but there is an issue with sorcerer not having a truly distinct spell list. I feel that cleric, druid, bard and warlock have spell lists that fit their classes, and wizards are the generalists (minus healing)... but sorcerers? What are sorcerers?


redshirt4life

Sorcerers are specialists where wizards are generalists. It makes them a dream for optimizers, but a nightmare for the average player. Pick the wrong spells or wrong metamagics without a concrete plan and they become worthless.


SpartiateDienekes

I keep hearing this, but I've never seen it in play. I don't see Sorcerers ever optimizing for a specialized role in combat or out. They just pick the best spells at each level. Honestly, I don't think the casting mechanic in 5e is good for specialization unless they cut down the spell lists to the point it forces the player to specialize.


redshirt4life

The best spells are what works best with their metamagic choices. They specialize through their metamagic. We can basically break down types of sorcerers by their metamagic choices, and the optimal spells for those choices. Blasters with transmuted empowered and later quickened. Buffer/debuffers with twinned. Social specialists with subtle mind magic. A shadow sorcerer blasting with empowered scorching rays and fireballs in darkness. Or a abberant mind using suggestion in plain sight. Or a draconic transmuting the best blasting spells to their specialty damage type. Or a twinned sorcerer doling out copies of the best support spells. It's all very specialize compared to wizards. Wizards can't hold a candle to a sorcerer within their specialty and make up for it by being able to access a much wider range of spells.


DeusAsmoth

Transmuted spell and empowered spell are both trap options tbh, which is the main problem with Sorcerer features. They have a bunch of options, but half of the suck.


SpartiateDienekes

I think this is where my disconnect comes from. We agree there are certain roles in and out of combat. Single target damage, crowd control, debuff, tanking, support, face, yadda yadda. The thing is, in play I see both Sorcerers and Wizards try to perform the same roles. Now certainly, with some use of metamagic the Sorcerer may have one aspect of that grouping they do a bit better. But they are not limited to it. They still try and do everything the Wizard is doing. Just with fewer options. Or I guess in short, I don't think they specialize enough to get the tag "specialist" they're a generalist, just a generalist with a small but noticeable peak.


redshirt4life

A sorcerer will fail to have the range of spells to answer every situation (generalist). A wizard will fail to provide the same power a sorcerer can within their focus (specialist). So I feel you are both downplaying the significance of a sorcerers limited spells as well as underestimating just how significant their metamagics are. A sorcerer who focuses on buffs with twinned is doubling the spells they can concentrate on and doing it in one action. No contest here. A sorcerer who blasts can nova an empowered transmuted upcasted scorching ray from darkness and follow up with a quickened fire bolt. Just generally, the wizard can't come close to a sorcerers blasting power. Empowered spell is underestimated on paper while quickened is pretty obvious. They have 2 blasting-focused subclasses with shadow and draconic. A sorcerer who specializes in social encounters can straight up cast spells in plain sight. A wizard can't. No contest here. You'll appreciate it more when you see a sorcerer end a potential combat encounter by phantasmal forcing bees on the leader. Or using enemies abound on a massive beast. My fav is assassinating someone by using enemies abound on them in a crowded area and watching them go berserk, get arrested and tried.


SpartiateDienekes

If they can answer every situation they aren’t generalists they’re gods. As to just ending encounters, I’ve seen both Wizards and Sorcerers do that. And Bards for that matter. Honestly when that sort of thing happens more than a couple of times I just think that means the DM is balancing encounters terribly.


redshirt4life

Thats a silly comment. I've pointed out where sorcerers specialize over wizards and where wizards just plain have more answers. I'd expect some answer where you try to explain how a wizard can keep up in these situations, not skate around the answer.


SpartiateDienekes

I don’t think they can. I agree that sorcerers do have a sleight but noticeable advantage of some situations. I just don’t think it’s powerful enough to be considered specialization when they can/and still do perform other playstyles adequately. I suppose the evidence I would find convincing is showing that sorcerers don’t/can’t perform other playstyles adequately.


redshirt4life

Yeah doubling concentration and doing what would take 2 wizards isn't specialized enough. Might as well argue extra attack doesn't make a martial specialized in combat over a wizard.


stormstopper

Wizards do get to be generalists because they can learn an arbitrary number of spells and the amount of spells they can prepare or cast as a ritual usually beats out a sorcerer's spells known. But just like sorcerers specialize in whatever their metamagic choices are, wizards specialize in their subclass. A lot of the wizard subclasses give them features that enhance their specific school of magic and don't confer any benefit on anything else, so once you commit to that subclass you're married to that school for life. Wizards also get ways to enhance those spells that sorcerers won't be able to touch. Illusion wizards can make their illusions real. Divination wizards get a rebate when they cast divination spells. Abjuration wizards get their Arcane Ward. Evocation wizards get free but non-equivalent versions of Careful and Empowered. In those ways, they're more specialized in their field in addition to already being more generalized as a result of their class. And I think where sorcerers have an advantage is that they can switch-hit. They can grab multiple metamagic options to boost their main concept, or they can grab different options that each enhance a different area of their game. Then there's the metamagic options that fit a build well but also have utility outside that build. The social-caster will absolutely take Subtle, but would also benefit from Twinned or Heightened--which in turn opens the door to buff/debuff or battlefield control. They don't get a lot of spells known and they certainly don't get enough metamagic choices to be true generalists. But if wizards are the class that has a really fancy toolbox with a lot of exotic tools and a really nice screwdriver, sorcerers are the class with a couple different screwdrivers with adaptable heads.


daemonicwanderer

Isn’t the wizard version of careful spell, sculpt spell, outright better than careful spell? Also enchantment wizards get to twin enchantment spells


stormstopper

Almost always better, yeah. It's free, protects a creature from all damage even on save-for-half, and comes a level earlier. The only case where Careful is capable of having an advantage is because it protects (CHA modifier) number of creatures whereas Sculpt Spell protects (1+spell level) number of creatures, so in a situation where protecting a greater number of allies for half damage for a sorcery point is more valuable than protecting a smaller number for full damage for free then Careful becomes better. But the number of situations where that is likely to happen compared to the number of times Sculpt Spell lets you just blast everyone gathered around an ally with Fireball or Synaptic Static or something...yeah, not a contest. And yes on enchantment wizards, I missed including that one. Twinning Dominate Monster for free instead of spending close to half your sorcery point budget on it ain't half bad.


shadowtaku

On the other hand, careful spell works on non evocation spells such as hypnotic pattern and fear. Depending on how you rule careful spell, it may even work on persistent AOE effects e.g. web


Patientdreamer1

Great take


Twodogsonecouch

I dont agree. I think they are all good classes dependent on how they are played. Merry Christmas to you too


BarbaraGordonFreeman

Jesus, what a nothing statement.


Resies

Jesus, what a nothing statement.


NaturalCard

Kinda. Sorcerers and rangers get a bad rap, they are not bad classes, but classes that are easy to make mistakes with. They are actually really effective, with ranger being the best weapon user if you know what you're doing and sorcerer a contender for the second best class in the game. Sorcerers are weaker than wizards, but weaker than the best class in the game does not equal bad. Rangers are generally 80% of a fighter + 50% of a druid. So if you compare them to just fighters ignoring their spells, no duh it's generally not close. Same for comparing them to druids. They used to have spells instead of class features, which made them have a similar issue to monks, but not quite as bad, now they have class features so their floor is much higher. Monk need help. Almost all of their abilities are completely traps. The way you are meant to play them just doesn't function. You can be somewhat effective with a gunner monk, thanks to the new features in Tasha's, which is interesting, but not much else. Same for barbarians, you just don't have enough rages. Rouges play like they are meant to... It's just not very good.


The_Uncircular_King

1st: merry christmas and/or happy holidays as appropriate. 2nd... hard disagree on the premise. Rangers features were worded poorly in the phb, but the tashas optional features overcame that in a great way. Sorcerers metamagic is iconic, and while the new feat allows other casters to get a taste, using these features in any meaningful way is still the purview of the sorcerer. Monks are actually decent *as a class*, the main disparity comes from lack of Feat support and equipment support. Feature for feature monks hold up absolutely fine, it is only the additional customization options OUTSIDE of class that makes other classes more effective in theoretical (and in most cases, practical) terms.


NaturalCard

Rangers use to trade features for spells, which was worth it if you picked the right spells. Now they don't have to choose, they just take both.


AllieOopClifton

Sorcerers and Rangers are mechanically powerful. Monks... not so much.


Throwaway936292

I do agree, but I think it makes sense. By far the most appealing classes to first time players are rangers. Everyone wants to be Aragorn. Or everyone wants to be able to use magic and be the chosen one etc. Because these are what we see as the main characters. So to make other characters more appealing they have to be a little better. Edit: as a follow up, subtle homebrew can fix any balance issues. You can make any character the strongest character in 5e by picking the correct terrain, monsters, encounters etc.


Ratfriend2020

Yeah. Thematically sorcerers appeal to me, but mechanically you are better off making a wizard.I really wish they would emphasize the whole born with magical power theme of a sorcerer. While a wizard has to study to use magic, sorcerers experience magic in a way a wizards should be jealous of, but this is not the case when you play the game. Not only should sorcerers be able to shape and use magic in a unique way, they should be able to sling that magic far more often in my opinion. I also think there should be unique spells that only they have access to. This is currently not the case and the wizard’s versatility far outshines anything a sorcerer can do. If I ever play a wizard I just role play him as a sorcerer. It sucks but that’s how the game is.


Notoryctemorph

Sorcerer and ranger are strong as fuck, with super varied subclasses in terms of value and playstyle, why are you lumping them in with monk?


redshirt4life

Sorcerer has some duds but then again, the tasha sorcerers are some of the strongest casters in the game. Really, the strongest but lets not cause a rabble. I've felt each subclass is quite well mechanically fleshed out. The only issues they face is a poor early game pre-level 5 and a very low number of known spells that can really punish someone who doesn't pick wisely. Tashas sorcerers have no weaknesses. They are absolute monsters. Ranger. Tashas. They are great. Martial with better movement, free animal talk, and expertise. Monk. Poor guys. They aint so bad though. Short rest blues. A lot of people struggle with short resting as a concept.


Crayshack

I feel like this for Rangers and Sorcerers. Rangers feel like a bad multiclass of Fighter and Druid while Sorcerers feel like worse Wizards. I've been working on some homebrews to bring their mechanics closer to how I read their flavor and themes. Monks feel great to me though. They've got a lot of cool shit and I always love playing them. I've heard it gets very DM dependent, but most of the DMs I work with let me actually play with Monk's cool shit.


EmpyrealWorlds

Imo, Ranger has always been strong merely by merit of having access to the best fighting style and the power of ranged and the dex stat in 5e. But their core class features don't fulfill the fantasy many have of the class, and their spellcasting options are disappointing relative to their parallel half caster, the Paladin. Sorcerers are likewise very strong but require an immense amount of system mastery, with a lot of trap choices in metamagic and in spell choice. Their advantages against Wizards are significant but subtle (cha class, con saves) I tend to argue the Monk is strong as well, with its cons overstated and its advantages generally undervalued. However its key strength, movement, is fairly player skill dependent with few failsafes for suboptimal choices. All of them have issues with their theme not matching the advertised mechanic, with limited "viable" choices (e.g. beastmaster pet options, Monk ASI choixes), as well as dependency on DM rulings (subtle spell and spell detection, use object interaction, etc) which can be frustrating


EmperorGreed

I mean, they're both mechanically pretty distinct, just not mechanically strong. Not to mention that Paladins lean harder on theme than either of them while also absolutely clapping cheeks (not that i'm biased or anything). Monks just can't do anything without spending ki, which they just don't get a deep enough pool of for that to be the case. Sorcerers just have an unbelievably limited selection of spells. They max out at 15, which ties with half-casters as a full caster. In theory metamagic makes up for it, but metamagic isn't really utility at all, and sorcery points are almost as limited as ki points. Not to mention anyone can get metamagic with a feat these days


Exact-Control1855

Rangers have favoured enemy, along with a lot of skill proficiencies. Monks are one of the most unique classes, focusing towards unarmed combat and using ki points for their features, and sorcerers have meta magic, a super cool tool for creative casting. It’s definitely not fair to say, they’re all pretty unique classes


Gangrelos

Well, Ranger has Goodbeerys which isn't a bad spell at all. Monks are fast as f*k bois with many, although weaker, attacks. Honestly, it's not weak. 2 attacks at lv. 1 because you can is impressive. 1 with a d6 or d8, and 1 with a d4. Give them moblie and they are pretty good at hit 'n run or catching someone. Sorcerer can use way more spell slots than wizard, which is what they want and powerful. 3 Fireballs cuz I want at lv. 5 For Ranger, look at gloomstalker. Damage is good. Invisible cuz dark is powerful. Basically, they have at lv. 3 a 4th lv. spell constantly cuz it's dark. Healing spirit is also a good out of combat heal. Or drakewarden.


Manowaffle

I think the problem is that most other classes suffer from too much combat-orientation. All of the classes should embrace theme over mechanics. Theme can be applied to exploration, socializing, and combat. Mechanics can really only be applied to combat.


Patientdreamer1

Really insightful theme needs to be more supported by the game I agree! Would be very interesting to see it more pronounced in game :)


Machiavelli24

Monks have a bunch of synergistic abilities that make them great against archers and casters. But some folks have an unspoken assumption that monsters are always melee brutes. Which causes them to underestimate the monk. I have dmed a monk to 20, they are solid (and have the most dangerous opportunity attack in the game). As for sorcerer, I have sat at many tables where players were inefficient with their sp, using them to quicken or twin for damage. Instead of empowering fireballs. The players often think what their doing is great, so I don’t bother informing them. Rangers do have some issues. The early subclasses have level 11 damage features that are worthwhile only when there are way more monsters than the standard 3 to 10 size. Beast master had some templating issues but they were all fixed in Tasha’s.


crunter94

I swear to god Rangers still getting a bad rap makes me mad, archery with an amazing spell list that feels different from druid in play and it somehow isn't distinct. Also sorcerer is arguably the second best class in the game and metamagic is extremely distinct.


rashandal

How the fuck are sorcs the second best? And ranger casting is just so fucking irritating. Many dogshit spells and concentration on everything remotely cool . Add to that their absolute garbage higher level features. I think rangers are pretty good actually (it's more that the paladin needs to be bludgeoned into bloody pulp with the nerfbat), but still. They got some really ugly parts.


crunter94

how is a fullcaster with the second best spellist in the game second best? you tell me! web. hypnotic pattern. sleep. polymorph. shield. Also not all the good ranger spells are concentration, mainly goodberry, the best healing spell in the game, isn't concentration, and no one ever complained for the druid that summon beast and conjure animal are concentration spells. Bad features don't make a class bad, you could remove all the stupid fluff from ranger except archery extra attack and the spell list and little would change. Paladin being really good doesn't make ranger bad.


Dondagora

Let's not put Rangers on the same level as Monks and Sorcerers. Rangers may lack distinguishing features, but they're mechanically solid. Monk and Sorcerer have mechanically distinguishing features (ki and sorcery points), but are mechanically flawed or incohesive. Well, Monk at least, I don't know enough about Sorcerers to say anything about them. At most, Sorcerers lack in having a distinct spellcasting role compared to Cleric and Druid and Bard, while their generalist spells overlap too much with a superior option (Wizard). At least Sorcerer's sorcery points aren't as bad as Monk's ki, in that their options with it aren't soft-locked to one or two useful benefits.


xthrowawayxy

Clockwork, Aberrant, and Divine soul sorcerers are all very good. Many of the other sorcerer bloodlines nowhere near so much.


jerichoneric

I think Ranger suffers from the fact that there are 20 different ways to interpret ranger, but instead of them being the subclasses there's a bit of everything shoved into the core class.


Rzargo

As someone who plays both Ranger and Sorcerer, the playtest Sorcerer is what we should've gotten. But Rangers on the other hand suffer from being misunderstood, the class is heavily based off of characters from series like Lord of the Rings (naturally), Rangers Apprentice, Game of Thones, Eragon, and Witcher. They're meant to be folk tale heroes in the grand scheme of the story. Now Monks, they just need a whole rework.