I think monks are great! They’re the only class that can still do 99% off what they normally can do when they’re butt naked and in an anti magic zone. Tell me what other class can do that? You keep playing your monk and enjoy it.
One simple fix for monk kipoints at low levels is adding the wisdom mod to the total equation of how many kipoints you have. Its not much difference on high levels but biiiig diferrnce at low levels Is like the main down of the monks: so few kipoints at low levels, use that fix, is like 3 point per short rest, there, fixed
@@reloadpsi What a joke. You really would give monks an A for CC because of stunning strike? At most, a monk can stun 3 things in a round unless its all perfectly set up for him. And then he would be out of ki... mean while, spellcasters can CC half the room with one spell... and then CC the other half next round.
@@dexasmoru8333 I have to agree with this. Recently my Cleric and the party Druid had a combat where we locked down the enemy in Spirit Guardians with no ability to move out. I cast Spirit Guardians, Druid cast Bed of Thorns. 25% move speed for all creatures, 2d4 damage per 5 feet of movement, and extra damage at the start of their turns. Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Sleep, Hold Monster, Hold Person, and many many many other spells are great for long term CC as opposed to the one turn of Stun from Stunning Strike.
With the Monk, I also think of a lot of the 'awesome moments' don't come from being effective, but from the 'coolness' of their abilities. Like you could have an awesome moment where a monk runs across water, up a wall and punches a guy 4 times dealing 35, damage. But then the fighter shoots twice with their bow and sharpshooter for 40 damage, and still has their movement and bonus action left. What's an awesome moment for the monk is often just what another class can achieve effortlessly.
Exactly. Really fun to play if you just like doing epic shit but that epic shit might not actually do much. I loved wall running into leaping unarmed attacks cuz that shit is so cool, but yeah i was doing the least damage
@@BraveCarnageno monk is good at dealing damage. Full stop. They max out at 42 dpr with a lower to hit than any other high level martial since they completely lack magical items. Mercy can do 5.5 more and astral can do 10.5 more with their 5th attack, but it’s still not comparing to any martial or even caster on the field. Even ranger is looking at around 46 dpr with a higher to hit from archery, higher damage from sharpshooter, spells, and the potential to have some amazing magical weapon options. Monks suck shit for damage without significant homebrew.
On the Monk, my friend had the best comment when his son was thinking about a Monk. He said that the Monk is like a keyboard player in a classic band structure. They add to what’s there, but they can’t replace any of the other core roles.
I can definitely see where that's coming from, but I do disagree. Monks imho make *phenomenal* scouts and exfiltrators. I think the only notable problem with monks - when comparing their strength to other classes - is that the players expect Monks to be Fighters, and complain about stuff like "low damage" while never utilizing features like: * the _increased speed_ (which you can't use if you just plop yourself into melee and stay there), * _deflect missiles_ (most DM's wont shoot into melee, they shoot at the targets keeping their distance), * or _slow fall_ (a level 4 monk can completely ignore a 30 ft drop with a reaction, and a very lucky monk can survive a 200ft drop taking no damage).
I’ve been in two games where the monk was the mvp until about level 5, at which point one player left the game and the other decided he wanted to play a wizard. I think there was one or two times where they were out of ki points, which I could see being problematic.
"Barbarian is the best class for detect and destroy traps in dungeons" Said the barbarian in my campaign, single handly stepped on 12 beartraps and triggered 7 poison dart and still make it alive
One problem though is what about traps with automatically resetting ammunition or repeatable magic effects? The Barbarian handling traps is only viable for one-time-use traps.
@@CrownlessStudios Yes, that's valid in many cases. I was particularly thinking of some I've come across such as the trapped chest that had a Wizard's tomes in it, protected with an acid spell trap that will repeat each time someone fails to pick the lock (or find and use the key).
@@ryadinstormblessed8308 How would a Barbarian deals with a repeating trap? They smash the trap mechanisms till they stop moving and thus can't repeat anymore. Example: Barbarian rushes through and smashes every repeating crossbow in the arrow trap hallway, then turns to the party as he's riddled with crossbow bolts and gives a thumbs up to the rogue. "Hah! Trap disarmed!"
I'll throw my argument for best two-person campaign: Paladin/Druid. It's unkillable, still get healing, and they do not overlap almost at all with scores/abilities/skills
There's a serious roleplaying dynamic there too. Most paladins are from urbanized societies, and they often represent organized religions or civic institutions. Druids are from very natural settings that are not nearly so regimented. So what circumstances are bringing these two people together? They may not be natural enemies, but their lifestyles are very different. A threat or opportunity that unites them would have to be substantial indeed.
@@doomkitty8386 Oath of the Ancients Paladin and you can have an elven forest guard or something to be from the same environment. But I would also prefer the more dynamical one.
@@lewanuva111 Oath of the Ancients is also not a very strong subclass, so I would have more fun playing a stronger Paladin even aside from the roleplaying aspect.
I think the argument for maybe a "C" in exploration that Fighters and Barbarians can enjoy is the fact that it's actually pretty common to need a "strong man". Push a boulder, move a statue, smash a something-or-other. Often a spell can solve the problem, but being absurdly strong doesn't cost a spell-slot, and most classes are dumping their Str scores.
But that’s more utility than exploration/infiltration. If your idea of infiltration is to kick the door down and kill anything that moves, barbarian is the S tier. Otherwise…..
@@thetowndrunk988 Replace "exploration" for "utility" for all I care, and my point still stands. Exploration doesn't *merely* mean sneaking around imo. So to me, a "move this massive object" problem could be an exploration or a utility problem, I don't think these categories are perfectly discreet to be perfectly honest with you. I think "utility" is sort of a catch-all category that - by design - bleeds into the other categories. Anyways, my point about high-str coming up *all the time* in my experience - as a utility for solving out-combat-problems, seems quite frequently understated in rankings like this.
@@thecognitiverambler8911 I don’t disagree that strength checks happen regularly, but there’s not much else these behemoths can do. The three main martial classes basically revolve around bashing skulls in. Look at Brian Shaw (4X World’s Strongest Man winner). Can you ever envision him picking the lock to a bank vault, then tip toeing in, or coming down outta the ceiling on a thin rope, swinging just above the pressure sensitive floor? I personally can’t. But hand all 6’8”, 420 pounds of him a giant maul, and tell him to bash some skulls in……I can certainly envision that. Sure, if someone rolls a giant rock over the back door entrance to their lair, I can ask him to heave it outta the way, but after that, I’d want him to hang back while the tiny, stealthy characters go in, so I don’t alert the entire dungeon with this giant trying to crawl down a hole……
@@thetowndrunk988 I'm not arguing Str classes shine outside of combat. I firmly agree with the community consensus around the "martial / caster divide" and I deem their profound lack of options in the other pillars of play (compared to other classes) - that being social and exploration - to be a big part of that problem. So no, I'm not making the argument that Barbarians are good at exploration or utility. I'm just making the point that feats of strength in my experience are very common, and most of the quintessentially "powerful" classes (minus paladin) dump str. I'm only making the case it deserves mention.
@@thecognitiverambler8911 I personally have issues with some of the game mechanics. One of the biggest ones, for me personally, is intimidation checks being charisma based. The idea that a giant, angry barbarian isn’t gonna be near as intimidating as an otherwise puny bard is absurd to me. Also, the game isn’t really designed for just pure brute force. The sneaky thief can pick the lock to the bank vault, but who says you can’t just drive a bulldozer through the daggum wall? There needs to be more rules for brute force to overcome certain puzzles, issues, etc.
Those classes combine well..both Dex- based..then Wis for the Monk abilities, AC ..the Sneak Attack dmg is helpful..as is Cunning Action.. Expertise in Stealth and Hide makes you a mobile ghost..😉
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 the problem with ki based abilities is that from lvl 1 to 5, you don't have enough ki points to use them to their full potential. From lvl 6 to 12, you have enough ki point and some abilities are good enough to make you feel really strong. After lvl 12 tho, your abilities will be outclassed by anything spellcasters or some martial subclasses can do. Meanwhile, you will be decent at damage and tanking, but not crazy strong either...
Fun fact: Gf just informed me that Every time these guys introduces themselves I apparently verbally (and subconsciously) ask “And who are you?” Just in time to hear “We are the Dungeon Dudes” Well done Kelly and Monty. You have wormed your way into my subconscious brain. 😅
One of the things that contributes to a Paladin being a good negotiator is that in *many* campaign worlds they occupy a space of authority in the society they are in, which gives them better fictional positioning for negotiating even if they don't have a lot of abilities that support the role.
Very true, and something that the rules don’t account for. A good DM will give more credence to a paladin based on that, assuming of course religion is a big part of that city/state/kingdom.
Agreed, when I played a Paladin we would get to a new city and I would check in with the local church, explain our holy quest and tell them what we needed (supplies, ect.), bless some people, and have them spread the word to be on the lookout for demons. Now that I'm running a game, whenever the Wizard or Barbarian in my group does something kind of shady in town or draws the attention of the city guard, the Paladin just goes "official church business, nothing to see here". While status isn't inherent in the class, I feel like Paladins and Clerics naturally have some kind of social standing if the town or whatever is even a little religious.
Yeah this comes down to your table a bit. In my opinion, a Paladin is going to hold more sway with guards, soldiers, clergy (assuming the respective faiths are on good terms), etc.; people that inherently see themselves as having more in common with a Paladin than the smooth talking bard. A bard is probably going to have more sway with merchants and nobles. It's situational, and more about how the party plays it than a real gameplay mechanic.
@@ganjanyc He’s really good too I just don’t like the speed he goes at, I understand the idea of shorts but I like the longer breakdowns. But DnDShorts’ content is great too
The thing with the Artificer is that the class by itself can be very difficult to rank because of how much it's subclasses influence it's playstyle. Armourers and Battlesmiths play differently fron Artillerists and Alchemists. I played an Alchemist and a Battlesmith and they might as well have been completely different classes from how different they felt in play.
Came here to comment the same thing. I was originally mad at their ratings because armorers are great front liners, alchemists can be great support, artillerists are great damage dealers, and battlesmiths have amazing utility/control/support abilities. These are all tied to the subclass so I understand that by their definition it fits squarely in the B to A rating but I feel like they give other classes who fill that "swiss army knife" role way more credit than the artificer.
@@DR-of6im The reason they do is because like a bard can do both at the same time. A bard can be the negotiator, support, utility, and infiltrator all at once, regardless of subclass or which way you wanna stack it. The artificer can be awesome at any ONE thing, but will lack elsewhere. I think it’s a cool class because it allows you to build it how you envision, rather than picking whatever class specializes in it. For example, if you wanna be a tank, you’d usually pick between B/F/P. You can instead go with an artificer, and be more flexible in how you set it up. The downfall is that it pulls away from other specializations.
In my opinion getting sick of the warlock spamming Eldredge blast every round is no different from getting sick of the fighter spamming the attack action with their weapon every round their the same
Kinda true but the difference imo is that as a Fighter I can pick up a longsword or a maul or a shortbow. A warlock only has Eldritch Blast as its optimal choice. I think if in 1D&D it's a class feature and a little more customisable than it is now with invos or something else, it'd be less examined like it is
@@Barrlounge The optimal picks for the fighter are longsword or a greatsword if they use strength and a longbow or hand crossbow if they use Dex. Anything else is suboptimal because less damage or less availability to magic items. So it really is the exact same as the warlock. Optimal choice is eldritch blast but you can use firebolt or ray of frost if you want. You also have your limited spells and basically every warlock has something else they can use like a chain familiar, weapon or subclass abilities.
Multiclass Fighter with Hexblade Warlock. Frontline infantry with deadly magical tricks.. Also makes the Ftr a good Investigator/ Negotiator/ character because Charisma is your primary Stat, instead of Strength.
I absolutely agree that whether a class has to “play by the rules” or can “break the rules with cheat codes” should be considered. However, I don’t think having to play by the rules is necessarily a bad thing, as it can go the other way for those cheat code using spellcasters. If you have a DM who uses much more strict readings and interpretations of what a spell can do, if they don’t let enemies be easily fooled by simple illusions or get mind controlled by charm spells, if they don’t generally favor the player when making these kinds of rulings or decisions, then you might end up getting more mileage out of more abilities that explicitly say “if you do this, then this happens.”
Honestly, if your GM just makes it clear that you can't cast a spell undetected unless you have the sorcerer powers and STICKS to it a lot of player nonsense is immediately shut down. Really, a lot of this "well, he has to play by the rules" argument is just: "yeah, but it doesn't feel cool when you have to constantly tell the players they can't actually use their Power right now, even if it is the best moment for it."
@@conradoccaminha Given the S V M components. Only V kind of stops stealth casting under normal conditions. If it's just S M, then stealth casting is fine, RAW.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 assuming stealth. Good luck persuading the kings guard that you didnt bewitch him after you started moving you hands weird in front of them King when you gave him an order and the King obeyed instantly
Monk as a class as a whole feels like its just unnecessarily heavily restricted from having any fun like the other classes, *_the Ki system is far too restrictive_* and it often feels like *_it just hampers and drags down_* most if not all of it's subclasses *_rather than promotes them or improves on each other_* - and because of how all of this works monks are just *_STARVING_* from having any or as many impactful and interesting features and active things to do as the other classes and their subclasses by comparison
idk how you format that way on YT but yeah basically monk doesn't get to use damage feats, casting, or sneak attack, and all of the utility and ribbons either dont exist or are barely usable until like level 7. Being strictly weak for the most played levels of the game hurts, bad. home rule add Wis mod to ki pool, easy
I agree. Add more ki points and base the stunning strike on level and wisdom modifier like before. I hate the ki point system tbh. The Monk class is one class that has suffered in D&D. Of all the classes it is probably the one that is most dependent on it's subclasses, as weak as they are, to be relevant in a campaign.
@@jameshill6872 Man i am reading this while having a oneshot and playing my first time in dnd as a level 1 monk doesnt help 😭 I just hope the dm will do some enemy encounters or some things to up my level because i am literally a fighter but worse ;-;
@@Owch- Highkey the reason to play monk (over other classes) in tier 1 play is the roleplay of being a deadly acrobat and any niche racial feature synergies you may have like tabaxi claws and doubled move speed or dragonborn breath weapon unless you roll hot as hell on stats, then monk is actually slightly OP compared to most classes until like level 4 Real talk tho, talk to your DM directly 1 to 1 about how you feel about how your character interacts with situations. If it feels pigeonholed, that should be fixable with creativity. Monk is dope, just numerically meh
Two critiques on this: 1) The issue with the Ranger, at least from people I talked with, was never about the damage; it was about *everything else.* So many of their exploration and tracking features were tied to Favored Terrain/Enemy that, most of the time, you just didn't have features. Being a half-caster who couldn't swap out spells as needed like the druid just made taking all those ranger-y spells that much harder to do. Plus some features were just outright useless RAW. 2) Monty's arguement of 'the rogue has to play by the rules' never really sat with me, mainly because Reliable Talent and Expertise explicitly make it so you *aren't* playing 'by the rules'. If I can't roll lower than a 25, short of using magic, what class is reasonably expected to beat me? Rouges *don't* play by the rules, magic just plays even less by the rules.
So many classes can get expertise and Reliable talent doesn’t kick on till tier 3 play. And because the Rangers damage isn’t tied to their limited spells those spells can ALL be used for other areas of play. That’s a huge deal. Most of the fuseless features which you are talking about, I think, don’t take into account the optional class rules from Tasha’s which the Dudes clearly consider just a part of the class now. To be fair to them I think most of the community agrees.
With Tasha's optional features, Rangers now have exploration features that actually work. Expertise, bonus exploration spells, invisibility, and the ability to heal exhaustion are all excellent abilities for a Ranger to have.
Yeah, the last time I wanted to make a ranger, I just made a Nature Domain Cleric split with a Scout Rogue. Only had one attack, but that attack was effective, and the spell selection was far better.
@@logancuster8035 >So many classes get expertise Not really tho? The only classes that naturally get Expertise besides Rogue are Bard and Ranger's Canny ability, and neither of them get as many Expertise choices as Rogue. Any other form of adding double proficiency is either tied to a feat, a subclass, or has extremely narrow applications.
As a DM for a two-man party of a bard and a Paladin, I agree wholeheartedly that those two are the ultimate two-person party. It’s like they can’t lose!
With the incredible jumping distance, increase move speed and advantage in dex saves as well as being able to ignore being surprised barbarians are actually quite good at exploration and dungeon delving, triggering traps and revealing enemies
Love that y'all took another look at this. The only annoyance is why assume spellcasters choose the good spells but not assume artificer and warlock choose the good options as well. It's really easy to make a useless bard, just like it's really easy to make an explorer Artificer. It's all part of the build
I think because with warlock and artificer there is less wiggle room with invocations and infusions, you have too many options and not enough choices. With spellcasters you’d have to be more intentional about choosing bad spells because of how many choices you get. A bard has you be almost purposeful not to take charm person for example
You can change them literally every level though, and Artificer just makes magic items. You have to be purposeful NOT to pick something useful for Artificer.
@@nathanielleon4163 oh yeah I agree. But I think to be useful in exploration as an artificer you can only take certain infusions which immediately hamper your abilities in other areas if that makes sense
I'd say that for most of the full casters (especially wizards) the consideration of the spell list so heavily is because that is nearly the only choice you get to make as the character. Artificers get their infusions, with different numbers at different levels, each time providing different character variation. Same for warlocks, except with invocations. Wizards choose their subclass at level 2, the blade singer gets to pick a weapon to be proficient in, and then the next choice a wizard makes that isn't "what spell do I take?" is their 18th level Spell mastery feature. 90% of the entire class is their spell choice, and the character's use will be made or broken by that exclusively. A bard can pick crap for spells and still have a handful of useful class features. If a wizard picks crap spells they *might* have *2* features that are still going to be useful.
Rangers are perfectly middle-tier, which is definitely where I'd rate them as well. Probably a top 5 pick for a monoclass party without severely suffering in any category (Fey Wanderer Ranger is mandatory to get an A or B in negotiator).
Between gloomstalker, horizon walker, swarmkeeper, and fey wanderer an all ranger party can go anywhere and do anything. Add in the right feats and 1 to 3 level multiclass dips and ranger can fill any role.
Fey wanderer with druid warrior style using shillelagh and magic stone is OP, is a one stat character, you can use medium armor, a shield and you are up to go
I just wish they'd bring back Urban Ranger properly, though I fear I loved Urban Rangers specifically due to the customization that was possible in 3.5.
I am happy to see Rangers getting some love. My first DND character was a lizardfolk Gloomstalker, and he might be the strongest character I've built so far. And since playing a Gloomstalker/Twilight Cleric and a Swarmkeeper, they've become one of, if not my favorite classes in the game.
Yeah, I played an OG Dwarven Hunter in my first 5e campaign and our group did MVP after sessions and he won it multiple times. Part of that, I humbly admit, is the skill of the player, but without the proper tools, you can't shine.
When I watch your older class tier videos and when I see you guys say something that you 180'd on later, it gives me a real sense of how much integrity you have. You don't stick to your bad takes if you find out that they are bad later. Thank you for making the videos that you do! Not only are "The Dungeon Dudes" an incredible inspiration for DMs and players alike, but you guys have an incredible integrity and an insparational moral compass that everyone should have!
WotC needs to give some love to the Monk in "One"/5.5. No class should be this bad. I think a few feats aimed at unarmed combat and some balance changes to their overall kit would go a long way from making them a middling choice to a decent one.
What specifically is lacking in the Monk class to you? I know the dudes always state monk is underwhelming compared to some others, and i see its generally an accepted statement. As a DM my PC monk at my table is always the one that makes me think that monk seems to be in a fine state. Of course outside of combat there isnt much there, but man does he shine in combat, as well as some of the monk features have been incredibly useful for traps/exploration. For clarification our campaign has been going for nearly 5 years now and they are level 14.
@@rj595 Really, what the Monk lacks is a feature that *they* excel at. The base class is decent, but honestly - they have no support. No feats geared at Unarmed combat. No -5/+10 feat. No spellcasting (for the subclasses that focus on it). I also played a Monk & had a blast, and there is fun to be had with the class! However, I do think they just need a little more. Maybe it's more damage for some subclasses, damage mitigation for others, spellcasting... personally, I would like to see more flavor, specific flavor, per subclass. I don't wanna write an essay, hahaha. But yeah - just tick them up a bit. Maybe give them Third Attack, as well - even if it's tied to a Monk-only feat taken at a specific level.
@@rj595 Like you said, the class is focused on combat and yet, they are awful at it. First, Martial Arts is just awful, the die scales far too slowly and you'll spend the vast majority of the game just using a monk weapon rather than going unarmed. There is also very little in the way of magic item support for unarmed playstyles. Then, without Flurry of Blows, you're just doing dual-wielding damage, which is generally inferior to virtually any other combat because bonus actions have many ways to be weaponized for much more effect and the hits in the Attack action are weaker than 2h attacks. Next, Flurry of Blows starts to make them decent but, because of the MA die scaling, it just doesn't keep up and the Ki cost makes it so that it needs to be used sparingly. Second, the Monk's defense is absolutely atrocious. They get their WIS bonus in place of being able to wear armor and cannot wield shields. This can work out decently if you forgo all feats and just take ASIs to maximize your DEX and WIS, but then you lose out on feats and it doesn't make the Monk incredible in any way, just decent. They simply need to get something more significant out of that much investment into their ability scores, and if you don't invest in them, then you come away below par. Because of this low AC and having low HP, Monks are a melee class which simply can't survive in melee combat. Rogues have a similar problem with melee, but not only do their class mechanics also work at range, but they have Cunning Action and can always move in and out of melee combat at will. Monks can potentially do so... but again it not only costs them some of their already very average damage by taking away their bonus action, but also costs Ki which means they'll lose out on more damage on other turns. By this point, you can probably guess the third major problem. Virtually everything the Monk does costs Ki so nearly every class feature, including subclass features, competes with every other class feature. Most classes have features which do not compete with each other. Every Ki point you spend that isn't spent on Flurry of Blows is less damage that you can deal from an already very meh damage output, when combat is the only thing they do. Getting Stunning Blows is nice, but because it's a CON save (generally the highest monsters will have) and WIS likely isn't your highest ability score, it's generally going to cost you multiple Ki points to land, which essentially turns the Monk into a one-trick pony to stun the big boss who just can't effectively contribute the rest of the time.
The thing I love with the barbarian is it seems like it was built just for new players to DnD, high damage and great tank, they can have fun in the combat whilst also not being forced to roleplay as much out of combat, giving them an opportunity to sit back and watch other more experience players talk amongst each other in character and get a feel for what DnD is truly about and taste the roleplay side of it.
So, I was curious and aggregated an average of both of your scores. I mostly wanted to know how the classes faired if you value versatility and being able to perform well at multiple fields. For sorting I changed D-S to 1-5. Bard 3.643 Druid 3.214 Wizard 3.143 Artificer 3.143 Sorcerer 3.000 Rogue 3.000 Paladin 2.929 Cleric 2.857 Warlock 2.857 Ranger 2.857 Fighter 2.000 Barbarian 1.857 Monk 1.714 I think this aggregated list is maybe a little more unfair on the monk, as effectively the list is sorted by who can excel at more roles within the party and the monk just doesn't excel at any, so comes in last. I'm not sure this is useful for anyone, I did it for myself as I value versatility and filling holes within a party more than just about anything else. The main thing that did surprise me was how high up Druid came on the list. While I've had fun as one in the past, I guess I just know I'd want to just make a Moon Druid and ask my DM if I can just flavour everything to be turning into a Warewolf and raging to bring those Werewolf the Apocalypse fantasies into D&D (Shifter Race and Beast Barbarian just doesn't cover the full Garou range, plus Druids get spells! Garou Mage! nothing can go wrong...)
Not having finished the video, I can say that there seems to need to be one more category. "Versatility." I know it's not a party role, but it would be a good indicator of the usefulness of a class when a class excels at being the "swiss army knife" or the "jack of all trades," or at least if the class is unimpressive as a whole but is amazing when you start picking your subclass.
Sounds cool on paper, but realistically it would just be *_the umpteenth S-tier for Bard and Rogue_* because being versatile/jack of all trades *_literally their whole thing_*
@@FalcnPWNCH Having finished the video I can say that there were several classes that got lower scores in most categories only to have the pair say "this isn't a bad class at all, it's just that the class has so many options that you really have to decide what YOU want from the class and then the class will deliver that." So even if Rogue and Bard are the best at being good at everything, a lot of other classes would have at least gotten A's there that they didn't get anywhere else. This also helps people recognize that those classes aren't bad based on their other scores. I'm willing to bet that a number of new players watched this video and decided they only want to play the classes that got lots of A's and S's and not the ones with C's and D's, while having a Versatility category might have helped push the point that even a "bad class" can be great if you get the options you want for that class going.
It would be usefull if you soloRPG with one character. In every other situation it is. Bob come here and fix this. Selena you can do this. Everything the generalist can do, some one else do better. So how many people play RPG pure solo? But if there are those… Yeah, then vertisality or jack of all trades badge would be usefull!
@@haukikannel I disagree. On one hand, it's true that certain classes will always be better than others at each individual type of roll, but that doesn't mean that a generalist is only useful if you play alone. For one, you can safely assume most parties will be between 3 to 5 players, it's just too hard to balance things otherwise. 6 player parties exist, and I'm sure more experienced DMs can handle 7 or 8 if the situation calls for it, but I don't see the average home game exceeding 5 often enough to call it normal. That being said, there's no rules against people fulfilling the same roles or using the same classes. Party balance and dynamics are up to the players. If you have a party of 3 and two players want to be the Barbarian and the Monk, it might be useful for a more tactical player to choose something like a Rogue or a Bard, classes that excel at almost everything, just to cover the gaps. Or if you're new to the game and want to feel useful in most situations (as opposed to someone who wants to play the one-turn wonder Fighter), being a generalist means you can step up anytime nobody else does. Your DM gives you a more realistic survival scenario but the rest of the party chose specialists that are not good at survival (no Druids, no Rangers), well you may not be a specialist at Survival but your Wizard has a few spells that might get you out alive. A class's ability to adapt to situations that aren't typically for that class is particularly useful to newer players and players that aren't ready to take wild risks. Sure, an older player on their 7th campaign with a backup character already written would have no problem sending their Barbarian in to negotiate the peaceful surrender of the enemy in an unwinnable war, but a rookie who is attached to their first character might like to find out that their Warlock is better than just an Eldritch Blast machine, and that a high charisma score alone goes a long way towards most of the rolls that Barbarian is about to fumble. Again, there's fun in failure, and the risk is worth the reward when playing against your stereotypes, but not everyone is going to want to play that way. For most parties, having one skill junky player to cover all of their weaknesses is going to be a godsend.
Real talk: The monk is your buddy who has your back through thick and thin! Can follow a Wizard running across lakes (using Ray of frost or similar) Can jump across the chasm with the Barbarian Help the Rouge with 2 man tasks Spar with the Fighter and run disruption Beat up whoever threw a tomatoe at the Bard Catch that guy who outran the Paladin No idea how the Monk is particularly helpful for the Warlock, Ranger, & Druid though.
Any issue the Barbarian has can *selectively* be fixed by plannting to take one level in rogue and synergizing your background skills with it. You get one new skill from the rogue class, expertise in two skills, and on top of that a Sneak Attack any turn your reckless attack gives you advantage. You get a small bonus to damage and even with a -8 Charisma or a 10 intelligence you can take investigation or even persuasion as a skill and the scaling proficirnxy bonus completely nullifies the negative allowing you to do more than just smash things. You'll be the most persuasive Barbarian on one side of the world. Case and point here is despite the drawbacks in areas that fighters and barbarians have, if you're selective about how you play you can build to fix things you desire or want to do as one of those characters. You give up your capstone ability, but depending on your campaign and how often death occurs you may never see level 20. I've never had a level 20 character before because our encounters have very deadly enemies in them. I can survive 90% of the time, but you get my musings. Play what you like, and plan ahead.
Both you guys look like you've been working out! Been watching your videos for years and I'm proud seeing how far you two have come along on youtube, ttg, and dnd. Awesome ambassadors for a game I love to play and share with others.
@@jamesmerkel1932 Going great! We’re doing a Spelljammer campaign I went with a Rock Gnome Artificer with the Battle Smith subclass. I took the shipwright background to be the tinkerer who pilots and knows the ins and outs of the spelljammer ships. I’ve only played about five sessions, but having so much fun.
I really like the fact that each class is given a niche where they can shine while they're in their element. It helps to make sure each player feels useful. Well maybe not the monk 😆.
I gave the monk in my campaign the ability to use the range ki blasts with each hand. I was like wtf whats the point being able to use it with only one hand??? That feels so stupid
@@transientanus Over the course of the last 2 years I have played well over 100 sessions as a Monk with many different builds, subclasses, revisions, etc. It is bar none the worst class in 5e.
Barbarian: There are definitely ways to use them for exploration and the like. In an all-Barbarian one-shot, I played a Storm Herald since it was going to be taking place along the sea. The swim speed and ability to breathe underwater were very much game changers under those circumstances. But thinking back on the other 3 characters, I don't know if we really managed to do anything in the other pillars of play that didn't involve smashing the problem to tiny bits! On the Paladin and Divine Sense: I don't know if I've actually played it the "right way" in either campaign I'm in. In one, the DM will just tell us where the undead and fiends and the like are when I use it - very useful while exploring a haunted mansion full of undead, fiends, demons... In the other, the DM uses that, but he will also use it similar to the old "Detect Evil" by letting it serve as a "lie detector" to show if there are any evil-aligned creatures in range (though he doesn't actually specify which ones the paladin is sensing the evil from). Conclusion: I definitely agree about using this as a guide in planning encounters. I'm actually planning to include a moment in the campaign I'm DMing with hordes of undead, just to give the Cleric the opportunity to wipe them all out with Destroy Undead!
i have to say, i really enjoy how specific the criteria are for the various rankings, i find that it makes it easy to understand how and why you guys made your choices
The artificer definitely doesn't deserve a d in negotiator they shouldn't be in the same tier as barbarian I mean one of the biggest gimmicks behind it is the magic item seller 2 I gotta disagree with the d in explorer for cleric as well spell options for clerics are pretty diverse I haven't looked at it in while but I remember it having alot more options than what I expected I would bet you could find some exploration stuff in that you could as any cleric no matter the subclass at any long rest 3 why the heck does the sorcerer have a b in support isn't that category about heeling and buffing the party all I can think for that is haste and that's it
Yea I feel the same, my guess is becouse of how the characters naturally form they can't do so easily without giving up another aspect of the character. Granted that shouldn't be considered when taken from an objective standpoint.
Clerics can also prepare whatever they need on the day, giving them even greater flexibility. On top of Divine Intervention sometimes providing a hail mary save to solve a puzzle or pass an obstacle. C for sure at least, not D
As to 3: It also includes debuffing enemies, and I believe that they lumped Battlefield Control spells under the "Support" pillar too. So spells like Hypnotic Pattern, Wall of Fire, Wall of Stone, Prismatic Wall, Synaptic Static, Sickening Radiance, etc. all fall into "Support". Also, the Sorcerer is the best class in the game at casting the best Support spell ever printed, Silvery Barbs. Only a Sorcerer (among single classed characters) can cast this spell more than 4 times in a single combat!
The reason why a lot of those situations come to mind is because while yes, situationally people CAN prepare options and stuff like that in clerics to help with exploration, in the 22+ years i've ran, participated, and played with hundreds of different groups, nine times out of ten people don't ever prepare spells to help with exploration more than perhaps a teleportation effect. It isn't that the Cleric CAN'T do it, but more tha unless you force the majority of the playerbase to, most players WON'T do it. Exception to the rule doesn't automatically mean because I do something a ranking is wrong. I can count on one hand the number of clerics in two decades i've seen reliably and consistently prepare anything to help with exploration.
Even on my hexblade, I took EB. I didn't take any invocations for it, since I wanted to be a melee build, but I took it so that I would have a ranged option.
Ranger: With all subclasses other than Fey Wanderer, i agree that they are bad negotiators. But with Fey Wanderer, they are allowed to add their wisdom modifier to their charisma modifier for ability checks (but not saving throws). The net result is, that they end up with an charisma modifier that is either on par, or sometimes even better than that of charisma based classes. So just based on the modifier alone (and the charm person spell they get for free), they deserve at least a B rating in negotiation. Which probably makes the Fey Wanderer the best all-around subclass for ranger.
and if minmaxed with a few levels in rogue role a minimum of like 32 on rolls with no magic items which idc what magic your using if you ever have to roll above 35 the dms saying screw you specifically
@@Lich-x2g I wouldnt rate the overall ranger higher. But that subclass boosts the rangers social capabilities so much, its almost criminal to not mention it. I personally would have just added a B within brackets. So ranger gets D for social, [B] if fey wanderer. Multiclass? Easy [S], you pass every social check by default, unless you roll a 1. Just to give an example, a lvl3 Fey Wanderer can have +6 on all social skill checks, while also having +7 on Perception. Thats very high for a lvl3 character, with just a +2 proficency bonus.
One aspect that has been overlooked is the ability of rogues and monks especially to operate in places/enviroments where magic doesn't work or is dangerous to use/wild. Yes this is somewhat niche, but it's something that does crop up now and then. They also can get things done, like mobility and unlocking quietly, even casting spells that don't make a loud noise like knock, do require at minimum, hushed speech, a stealthy monk can run up a wall silently, a rogue can open a door silently (potentially). They can also do these things without spending resources, or in the case of the monk, 1 Ki maybe, if a major fight is in the wind, using even a 2nd level spell is not nothing if it can be avoided. Lastly, I think that stunning strike as a significant battlefield control ability was rather ignored. A caster using hold person, that's their entire action, and if the target makes the save, not only is it depressing for the caster, their turn did nothing and they spent a long rest resource. A monk might have a slightly lower DC on their stun, but they can attempt multiple in a single turn, and do damage, and maybe do something else (eg Open Hand effects from Flurry), so even if they try 2, 3 or even 4 stuns and they all fail to stick, they will have done somedamage and maybe knocked an enemy over, or they may have been lucky and stunned 2 enemies, done damage and knocked them over. My 5th level Wizard recently cast Slow at a mini boss, it made it's save, next round, honestly, with not having expected combat and so limited combat spells, and the boss had a nasty multi attack, I went for slow again, and again it didn't stick. The boss moved out of line of sight and the combat ended before I got to attempt anything else. I'd used both my 3rd level slots, and had zero effect in the entire combat. Yeah, suck it up, that can happen, my point is a monk could have kept up much better, attempted more stuns, done some damage, and not have burnt through long rest resources. Is moving a monk from D to C for battlefield control a pretty minor 'upgrade', sure..is it even a cut and dried argument, no, but it's at least worth a thought imho. (The boss escaped with a high speed and a disengage, had the slow hit, we'd probably have killed it instead. Is the wizard a supreme controler, yes, but, they are a very hit or miss class, if the target makes it's save, you've not only wasted your action, but a valuable resource too and done exactly nothing else. The one other aspect of the wizard that is always forgotten, is the cost. Buying new spells, ink, paper is a giant gold suck that no other class faces in the same way, getting those 'unusual spells' costs you (cos I have to assume your taking conventionally useful spells (like Counterspell and Slow) as your free level spells. A Monk needs, bracers of defence, after that any other magic item is kinda gravy, a +1 dex melee weapon and +1 studded armour, and most rogues are fine, and it's not like wizards don't need/want magic items as well, on top of their book keeping costs. I LOVE wizards, I've always lent towards Int based casters, but I think the action economy of rogues and monks is an aspect you forgot, the cost of wizard learning, the resource use, and the non casters ability to operate in places magic can't. (Sorry, as ever I ended up rambling)
The Barbarian, I find, does at least reach C for infiltration, for a very significant reason, Ambushing, which would be taking tanking and damage dealing in a infiltrating situation. They dont need heavy armor for good AC, so they don't have to sacrifice their tanking ability to be average at Stealth, and can still provide support for the primary infiltrators if a fight breaks out. So basically, Barbarian doesn't have to worry about the opportunity cost of investing in infiltration unlike paladins and fighters.
Fighters and paladins don't need heavy armor either. They can just go dex light armor build, which often tends to perform better for fighter, and reasonably well for paladin
In fact, since barbarians class features are restricted to strength unlike fighters and paladins, they are more forced into the strength build, making them worse at stealth
@@stevenyoung9738 I'm not talking about the situations where any of the three classes having dex as the primary Stat. I'm talking about for typical versions of all three classes maximize Str first, then Con. Paladins then put it into Cha, and fighters have a lot of freedom where to put their 3rd Stat, but probably not in dex since they won't get the ac bonus. Since barbs have the most hp and resist damage in a rage, they gain more from an increase in AC, do they for sure aren't going to trash dex. Even in the situation where all classes do have dex as their main stat, Barb will still be able to have better AC, and since Barb has better hp and resist damage, each AC point is more valuable, and all a Barb actually has that forced it into Str is a +2 damage for str melee attacks and maybe some subclass abilities, but because damage/tank is the one good thing a Barb specializes in, they can still afford to have high Str and Dex at the same time, while fighter and Paladin typically have to choose one or the other, which is the opportunity cost. And they've mentioned how being good in a skill isn't enough to get out of D. Rogues and Barbarians specialize in Ambushing, since Barbs have reckless and feral instinct to help finish off fights quickly. And for non ambushing situations they never have to worry about disadv on Stealth, so they will never be the anchor, while Paladins and fighters have to go out of their way to avoid heavy armor, which is a conscious choice to lead them away from the frontline roll.
@@Cappy-Bara idk why you think a fighter typically maxs str, but yes in a party with no one else that has a positive modifier the one person will out perform them, what a shock.. Reckless attack is also str only BTW and rage damage scales. Barbarian does not scale well with a dex build compared to paladin and fighter because they get fighting styles to help, barbarian doesnt. How can a barbarian afford to have high dex and str compared to fighter that get more ASIs? Paladin sure, but fighter? If you want to talk about burst damage paladin has smite which is sneak attack but more front loaded and resource based, its more flexible than rage when you're just silencing one or two dudes, they also scale with dex better and some paladins get spells like pass without trace and other buff spells, most which barbs can't find an equivalent buff without multiclassing or racial features, which is not really a part of the class is it. The D doesn't mean its impossible, it just means they don't get anything significant to help with it. Barbs do not get anything to help with their stealth, you bring up advantage on initiative like that's some HUGE game changer and that's just not true. Also, you keep talking about how barbarians can invest into dex and str and that's just not true. If you're doing point buy your dex is probably sitting at a +2 for your entire career. If you're rolling, any class can be good if you get six 18s believe it or not. You really need to read what the classes do or stop ignoring features to support your point.
I found a really good use for Paladin ability of detecting creatures of specific types in nearby area. At the very start of the campaign me and other players were kidnapped by someone unknown and I decided to use this ability to check whether our kidnapper (Presumable the bbeg) employs undead or fiends. DM ruled that I detect a bunch of shapeshifters of some kind, and since then I've been using it all the time to check if the npc's we're talking to aren't planning on stabbing us and taking our skins.
I like it when you have to go to any large gathering and just always check out to see if any fiends or celestials have disguised themselves in the crowd.
You're meant to use Paladin's Divine Sense primarily for intrigue situations. Something I unfortunately learned when I happened to put an invisible undead enemy in the same room as a group of nobles... one of whom was secretly a rakshasa that was supposed to be revealed later in the campaign. Suddenly the plot by the Lords of Dust to take control of stormreach got really really derailed.
Thanks for the great discussion! Congratulations Dr. Monty! P. S. There are typos or swapped labels in several rows throughout the video for who ranked what.
i feel like one of the problems with the monk as it stands now is that they haven't actually... mechanicalized the things that make the fantasy appealing. Especially things like insane feats of agility and bending the laws of physics a little bit, at least not until higher levels when water and wall running comes online. I think of all the times a monk I was DMing for tried to pull off some long sequence of acrobatics in combat that made my head spin, or how often marisha ray asked matt if she could "do some dope monk shit" in C2 of critical role, and I see players who are trying to do something very cool and fitting for their class with zero actual support from the rules. Instead it's up to the DM to bend the rules for them based on an assumption of how their class's fantasy should work.
I have a Way of Mercy monk, and they're so much fun to play. They're a legitimately useful healer in combat, being able to quickly raise fallen allies.
To me the "magic" of the rogue is that they don't have any, but theyre still awesome. They can keep up with the magic just by being themselves. Like even in the fantasy of rogueish characters, (think of Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, Batman) they're normal guys doing extraordinary things. My favorite example is Han Solo: in a universe full of space wizards, magic swords, and giant aliens, he follows the hero's journey, saves the princess, contends with the greatest evil ever known, and comes out on top... by being a normal dude who by wits and skill managed to live to be one of the greatest heroes in reality.
I like how at 46:38 the graphic said Kelly a second time because they gave the exact same rankings. Edit: the warlock ranking after that just had the title of "W" lol
In my opinion, the monk is so blah in 5e. Is the fact that they are afraid it will be like the 3.5 monk. Which I absolutely loved and was very powerful.
I love Rogue. I am biased though and I agree with them being able to go all day. I will say that with the right campaign Rogues are just so fun. A changeling rogue with glamour studded leather is just so amazingly fun.
In a homebrew Pathfinder campaign, I was playing a Lich Arcanist which is a hybrid of Sorc and wizard, and I totally understand the idea that you have a perfect solution to any problem. Towards the end of the campaign I was able to start learning spells from other class lists as if they were wizard spells. I chose the Cleric, Psychic, and Druid lists and I had access to almost every spell in the game. I was immortal in like 12 ways.
53:13 I recently experienced how useful the wizard is. Our low-level party’s airship about to get attacked by two green dragons that were flying side by side. Me: “I cast Web on their wings to stick the dragons together ” DM: “The dragons’ wings entangle and stick together, and they fall hundreds of feet out of the sky… I guess combat’s over before it starts”.
That's a really smart way to do a ton of fall damage to the dragons, but it probably shouldn't have been an insta-win for the encounter. According to the falling rules in Xanathar's, the dragons would take a max of 20d6 bludgeoning damage from the fall. After hitting the ground, they should then be able to do strength checks until their free and then they can fly back up to the airship to resume the fight.
Guessing your DM is a "rule of cool" person. Because that would not of worked at my table. You're telling us 2 dragons were flying close enough to each other that they could get hit by a 20 ft cube of web. Then they both failed their dex saving throws vs a low level wizard's save DC. And then failed several strength saving throws that would of been needed for them to plummet to the ground without breaking free, presuming you're high enough in the air for fall damage to MAYBE kill them, and only if they are very young dragons at that. Not to mention I'm not sure that's how web works to begin with, because if the webs aren’t anchored between two solid masses (such as walls or trees) or layered across a floor, wall, or ceiling, the conjured web collapses on itself, and the spell ends at the start of your next turn.
Yeah, when you get into unusual solutions like this, it really comes down to the table and choosing between Rule of Cool vs Rule of Logic. As a DM, sometimes a player's idea is so cool and fun and creative that I'll just let it happen. But in addition to the previous person's comment about actual fall damage, there are a few other considerations: 1. The idea that dragons would fly closely enough for their wings to get stuck together is already a stretch. 2.Then there's the fact that these 2 huge creatures that each likely weigh well over a ton could be so effectively stuck together by a web. Their separate momentum and trajectory would easily pull them apart hard enough to destroy the web. Remember that all it takes is a moderate Str check to break out. Almost no creature is strong enough to exert an equivalent amount of force to what would be generated by those 2 huge bodies flying in slightly different trajectories.
@@doodlecrazydc He said they were flying side-by-side, so on the distance, that seems obviously a yes for it to work. He doesn't say how low level, but the dragons were likely young at most. They're already CR 8 so fighting two is very dangerous for any party that might be considered low level, so probably not higher tier dragons than that. They only have a +4 DEX save and having a 14 DC is very likely, so that would mean the dragons have a 55% chance of success. That's nearly a 1 in 4 chance for both to fail, not at all unbelievable and you might want to take a peek at Xanathar's for falling speed because before they even start their STR saving throws because it's very quick. Then the fall doesn't have to kill them. The fall and resulting turns breaking free from the web simply allow the party time to get far enough away that the dragons aren't going to catch up or are no longer willing to pursue that far. Finally, it doesn't matter if web collapses because the entire benefit is on the first turn. You have to stop thinking of everything in purely mechanical terms because the game has much more flexibility than that and still be well within the rules.
@@doodlecrazydc You're correct, he is a rule of cool DM. Yes, the dragons were side-by-side and within range of Web. I explicitly asked how close together they were before I cast the spell as to avoid wasting my spell slot. Yes, they failed their saves. DM even showed the table what he rolled. Falling is instant in combat. DM had to double check. So the dragons didn't have time to roll saves. Because it was creative and cool, the DM just said they died.... but then had me roll for Investigation. My character then remembered that Green dragon scales are worth a lot of money, so I panicked at seeing all that money literally fall out of the sky
Wizard is also my favorite class in the game. They can learn all the spells so they aren’t limited in their magic. For every single rank that they received below a tier, there’s a spell for that. The way wizards can interact with magic in the world is just S tier. It also helps if you have a DM that allows you to find spells and do cool stuff with downtime. When you think of magic in D&D you think of the wizard. All the other spellcasters are variations on coming close to what a true master of magic looks like. For arcane casters anyway.
I think that Orym of the Ashari shows that the fighter can be more than a D in many of the roles. :D Each time I watch the Critical Role I am surprised how cleverly this character is built.
A hasted monk who just used step of the wind with the jump spell from the wizard jumping up to the dragon and stunning striking it is one of the most badass things you can do.
That purple dragon knight comment, Monty's transition into monk, then Kelly's reaction... Oh the FEELS! What an unexpected roller coaster of emotions. Moments like that, maybe as much as your generally good advice, is what I watch for.
In defense of the ranger also, we have 2 in our current campaign. Having two rangers launching arrows every round (plus all their abilities; looking at you Hunter's Mark) wear any enemy that's been encountered, down. Plus nothing makes your party feel quite as safe as being in a ranger's favorite terrain while traveling. I love my rangers.
It kinda seems to me like the Monk has wandered in from a completely different game. In, say, Exalted or Five Rings, they'd be really awesome, because "doing sick stunts" is one of the core pillars of those games, but not as much for D&D.
@@ClockworkOuroborous Actually, 2nd edition is the one version of the game that *didn't* offer the monk. It was removed after 1st along with the assassin, but brought back in 3rd edition.
I would say that the problem with the monk is that they are very specialised in a role that does not match any of the goven ones. Monks do battlefield control and that's what they excell at. They sprint around the battlefield, pushing enemies into melee range, stunnimg the strongest foes or just deal the killing blow to a lot of smaller enemies.
In terms of Cleric being a support no matter the build it's crazy that the Light Cleric which gets FIREBALL also has a great support ability with Warding Flare
The base ability of the fighter to be so versatile is what means they fill those roles. They can naturally fill most rolls at B level because they get so many damn feats and ASI's. I think because they don't have spellcasting that people don't consider them for anything other than hitting things, but they are so versatile.
Eldritch Knight + Feats + Illusion Spells: "You will know this devil's power." The Party of 6 Fighter Subclasses: Exists The DM: "God... Spare my campaign from the Eldritch Knight, the Echo Knight, the Samurai, the Rune Knight, the Cavalier, and the Battle Master."
I'm sorry I missed this episode upon release. Good to hear of you guys' success. You provide a great avenue for DnD nerds like me and your info is always solid. Looking forward to that Drakkenheim book. Kudos, DD!
My Ascendant Dragon Monk is actually holding up quite well in contributing to the party's combat prowess. Not the greatest front liner necessarily. And maybe not the highest damage of all. But versatile and mobile enough to get where he needs to be and do reliable damage where it's needed. I do agree though that Monks in general have significant limitations.
i think someone with a bow and sharpshooter would better fulfill the “reliable damage where it’s needed” role than having a guy running back and forth to the enemies so they can punch them. although, pack tactics made a video about monks taking gunner and sharpshooter to be the best musketeer in the game. for most people, dedicated weapon, ki-fueled attack, and focused aim all look like cute little treats to alleviate the problems of the monk, but you can reliably get what amounts to crossbow expert sharpshooter damage with a d12 damage die by combining them correctly. you have to multiclass to pick up the slack after level 5 (cause monks really just don’t get many features after that) but things look really good when you just decide to take the best early level features from the fighter, rogue, and ranger instead of letting high level monk features disappoint you.
Part of what makes Monk suffer even in combat where martials are specialized to shine is that the encounter design of most encounters doesn't reward their mobility like they do a paladin's durability or a fighter's offensive prowess. Like, yeah, you can punch a guy 60 feet away. But half the encounters in the game will stand in one place and melee, and the other half will fly or teleport or what have you.
Lv20 Illusionist (kind of) Eldritch Knight + Feats Before Initiative is rolled: "Bury the light deep within!!!... ... ... Oh, sorry. I forgot to turn off my Minor Illusion." Round 1: "4th lv Major Image: Judgement Cut End... Action Surge... Major Image: Judgement Cut Animator + Bonus Action: Greater War Magic + Eldritch Strike... Action Surge's Teleport + Bonus Action: Summon Bonded Weapon..." Opportunity Attack: "Warcaster: Booming Blade + Eldritch Strike (or ES for short)" Round 2: "Green Flame with Adv + Booming Blade + ES + Action Surge + Green Flame Blade with Adv + Booming Blade + ES + Bonus Action: Lesser War Magic + Booming Blade + ES (redundant for this turn with ES)." Opportunity Attack: "Warcaster: Banish!" Right before Banish ends: "At Will (Eldritch Initiate), Silent Image: Sin Devil Trigger... ... ... Now I'm motivated." The Monk's turn: "I'll stun the Bandit Leader into submission."
6:40 this is why y'all are my favorite DnD content creators on RUclips. You really seem to listen to the community, and you strive to make sure everyone knows that your viewpoints don't invalidate anyone else's.
I once DMed for a group that had a tempest cleric and a stars druid that were siblings... Sometimes they felt really similar, but both of them were incredibly strong characters that complimented each other... Especially once we got to high levels I did not feel bad about throwing dozens of monsters at them, there was so much crowd control and so much AOE damage in that group. Also regarding divine sense, I have a paladin player who has used it to great effect, and it's been clutch a couple of times where they figured out that the advisor to the duke was actually a vampire or the shopkeeper was a rakshasa, but still, even with him using it judiciously it's 9 times out of 10 a "yeah, no s--- this is desecrated ground. What gave it away, the pentagrams, the human sacrifices or the five demons we just killed?"
If you treat an S as 5, and a D as 1, here are the average scores for each class across the board and divided into their absolute potential: 1st - Bard - 3.5 2nd - Druid - 3.21 3rd - Wizard - 3.14 4th - Artificer - 3.07 5th - Sorcerer - 3 6th - Rogue, Paladin - 2.92 8th - Warlock, Ranger, Cleric - 2.85 11th - Fighter - 2 12th - Barbarian - 1.85 13th - Monk - 1.71 The bard once again proving just how versatile it is, and the monk once again proving just how lacklustre its base mechanics and abilities are compared to most other classes
I mean, from all the vieeos and lists they did, only on like 2 the bard didnt get an A or an S. Bards are broken on a good way, even if theres memes about bards of 3.5 edition being horny, 5e bards are the superior class of the game
Thanks for making this. This just fed into my reasoning why i banned bards for my experienced players and advised my new players to stay away from monks. Dnd is much more enjoyable when everybody is on a similar overall powerlevel and can fulfill a niche.
I'm surprised how far down I had look for this! I totally agree that the Bard, Druid, and Wizard are the overall best classes in the game when you consider all pillars of gameplay. Although past there the list is a little shaky for me.
@@faselfasel2864 I definitely would disagree on that. You want your experienced players playing a bard (especially when you’re playing with newer players) because then you can rely on them to help assist the party. The reason the bard is strong isn’t because of how dangerous they are but because of how much they strengthen their party and make everyone else better. Also monk is a good class for beginner as a basic starter and then once they feel comfortable with how the game is played. Then they can branch out. Like they said. The monk will still get cool moments and have fun
@@antuanlemon484 You can disagree, but my experience has shown me that an experienced and creative bard player can completely steal the show from anybody else, not just in combat, but also in social situations and even exploration. Their ability to be skill monkeys can take a lot away from other classes and if you are a new player going for monk, not only will you get disappointed about the lack of items for you, but also how limited and underwhelming you are in contrast to other classes. There is just no single relevant thing in the game that you exclusively can do better than anyone else.
I was happy to see the overall Ranger ratings. I'm a first time player and playing a wood elf ranger for my first go. I wanted the nature-y, strong loner, bow sniper kind of razzmatazz. After I picked ranger and started researching it seemed what I usually found people were saying about the ranger was not great. We've played about 5 times now and I'm loving my ranger while exploring the ins and outs of D&D. I think I would like to try a Druid next.
I'm currently running a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, and am genuinely struggling with what class to level up in next. The only reason I'm considering Paladin is to be more tanky and because the Oath would be important from an RP perspective. Because MAN, it is nice having actual spell slots. 😅
I think could makes sense add a new parameter called something like: "Adaptability" that shows how much of all other roles the characters can do at the same time, and probably on that we will find something more interesting even on monk class.
There's a big difference in the adaptability between a spells-known caster and a preparation spellcaster, for example. Building a Bard for anything comes at the cost of other spells. An Artificer can just change their spells, summon a different minion, change their armor, use/make a different potion, and so on.
Exactly what I was thinking. That path is absolutely one of the best, if your DM lets you do stuff "off screen" having a beast barbarian perform as a scout works really well when you consider their immense mobilti.
I think giving the monk a d12 hit dice would help a lot... think of martial arts characters in movies (or MMA fighters in real life) who are able to absorb so many attacks. Also, a disarming strike as a Bonus Action would be a cool option as well.
you know, that makes a lot of sense. every martial artist i can think of that people invoke when talking about monks gets the absolute shit kicked out of them and stays standing. martial arts stars like bruce lee, jackie chan, fighting game characters like ken, ryu, anime characters like goku and rock lee, they all emphasize getting beat up and dishing it back.
2d6 + Dex Mod instead of 1d12 + Dex Mod (for dice reasons) on Monk's Unarmed Strikes. Unlike the Fighter's Unarmed Combat Style 1d8 + Str Mod. And Disarming a creature is an optional rule. So an extra option as a BA will be useful for Monks.
Maybe a con bonus to higher levels of monk. That would more consistently add got points to your monk. And fits Style wise. A con and Rex bonus makes sense for a player monk. Constantly training to be faster and stronger.
Great video. This exercise was a lot of fun to listen to. I don't disagree to any degree that would wildly swing any of these assessments, but I had a good chuckle when you went over the barbarian and how bad the class is at negotiating and support. My players are nearing the end of their current big campaign milestone and have been together for a few years. Since my campaign is actually never ending, I get players and characters who come and go. When this happens, I allow for a single player to play multiple characters when the table is a little light. One of the players took over a barbarian from a previous mission as he's friends with that player's main character. When the group expanded, I suggested we drop him back to NPC status until they get to the BBEG, when each player will run multiple characters in a massive multi-session war. The player agreed and said, "You do his voice better anyhow, so just have him act as a companion." So the barbarian is actually their guide and delivers lore (like a bard or learned mage). helps them find clues (as an investigator), and often acts as a liaison to other NPCs (as their negotiator). The takeaway for any player should be that they can build and play any type of character they want and have a lot of fun with it. It doesn't matter if the class is primarily focused on combat skills, they can still be well rounded and bring a lot of other value as long as a player is creative and wants to take on the challenge. It's part of what makes RPGs so much fun.
The monk is like a playmaker in hockey. Going to rack up a lot of assists, and score an occasional goal, but not nearly as much as the goal scorer. It's the support of damage dealing. I personally love that role. Stunning Strike is so powerful. But also a DM's worst nightmare.
Divine Sense can be useful for ruling out problems. In those "is the door trapped" scenarios when the party gets trapped in analysis paralysis, it can help narrow down what to try, and it doesn't deplete a very valuable resource
45:03 This is because of the massive difference between the number of encounters the game was designed for you to have each day, vs the number that most dungeon masters provide. In the DMG I think it suggests around 4-6, maybe even 6-8. But like Monty says, most DMs allow a long rest after about 2.
Druids are very hard to gauge in this manner because their subclass massively changes their role in the party. Moon and Spore Druids are significantly more durable, Stars and Wildfire deal way more damage, while Dreams and Land have better healing and/or utility. Then of course you have Shepherd Druids, who can snap the game's balance clean in half at Tier 2 if the GM isn't ready for it.
Divine Sense is usefull. You need it to: 1) know if that NPC is a devil/fey/undead in disguise (and only one spell and one magic item is going to save against that detection); 2) know where is an enemy of that type on battlefield, because that type of supernatural cratures often has an invisibility; 3) know if there is an ambush, because not every cemetry or graveyard filled with undead, and if you have some doubts you can solve that thought; 4) also knowing the enemy's type will help your with simple understanding like damage resistances (like you know, fiends - fire, feys - charms, undead - necrotic res, radiant vuln usualy). It is really usefull feature if you know how to use it properly... And the campaign and surrounding area are for it. Like every other feature
I feel sorry for the monk. For a class that focuses on mental, physical and spiritual health and shaping their own body as a weapon, It's really unforgiving to limit their hit dice with a d8, it doesn't make any sense. Badly designed, hope it gets better in One DnD.
First! But also seriously thank you dudes for this AMAZING series. It’s been food for discussion and amazing advice for classes I didn’t look twice at that I’m now happily playing.
Perhaps there could also be, and you both kind of mentioned this for each class, a "cool" or "interesting" factor for each class and special shoutouts for especially interesting subclasses. An example would be yes Scribes wizard is interesting because of how you can pull off some shenanigans with game mechanics, but Bladesinger people often find more easily lends itself to RP because of just how interesting of an archetype they represent. So maybe the "interesting" or "cool" factor would be judged by how easily the class (or a specific subclass) lends itself to roleplaying. If I had to rank the classes by both what you've said in the video and my own opinions, I think the rankings would look something like this: Artificer - B Barbarian - A Bard - A Cleric - C Druid - B Fighter - C (special note for Rune Knight, B) Monk - B Paladin - A Ranger - S Rogue - B Sorcerer - A Warlock - A Wizard - D (special note for Bladesinger, A)
I really think that people sleep hard from the spell list from ranger and how know what the party weakness is and how to remediate that. bcs I dont think he needs more damage and pick damage and self buff spells are a pitfall, but have always things like detect magic, PWT and goodberry, beyond other utility spells are priceless. even high level you can have things like revivify and conjure beast. I guess the only problem is the half caster and slow magic advance...
Honestly I have played A LOT of paladins and I haven't used divine sense super often. However just last week I was running Rime of the Frostmaiden and in particular the party was in Termalaine investigating the mines. The party got in a fight with the grell and that resulted in the paladin jumping down to the bucket across the chasm on the third layer. He noticed the skull with the glowing crystal in it and dropped a divine sense, which obviously didn't let him know anything about the crystal, because it was just a psi crystal sticking out of a very dead mind flayer skull, but it did pick up the ghost inside Trex, the leader of the kobolds in that mine who had come out to observe the very loud fight. The party may not have learned about the ghost otherwise.
Perhaps monk should’ve gotten a better score in support because of stunning strike? A stunned enemy can change a fight, and with 4 attacks a lv 5 monk can burn all their ki to to stun a crucial enemy. It’s not the best strategy but credit where it’s due. Even my monk where I didn’t care about my wisdom with a 13 save has had clutch moments stunning enemies to save the party, they can’t attack easy to hit and drop concentration on spells. I do think it’s silly that a fighter can be a better boxer then a monk (they get d8s at lv 1) but at least they have good mobility. And I think that mobility plays well with the stunning potential of the monk. So you aren’t dps you aren’t a tank but you help in all those rolls like you said.
Other caster's get so many control spells though. Grease, web, hypnotic pattern, banishment, wall of force, synaptic static, forcecage, sleet storm, plant growth, spike growth(is that what it's called?), repelling blast on warlock is at will, spirit guardians halves movement speed, dominate person/monster, hold person/monster, command, hideous laughter, mind whip, sometimes darkness. I'm sure there are a couple others as well. Most of those target better saves, multiple creatures, last longer, inflict similar or worse effects, or are lower level. Caster's have a lot more resources to use compared to monks as well. Stunning strike will only get worse, caster's will only get more options as they level.
@@ppleberrynd true but I’m not saying monk is a secret S tier I’m saying stunning a target for a round that can’t be dispelled is pretty good. And you can increase your odds of landing it with silvery barbs, lucky, etc (or 2 levels in divination wizard but no multiclassing for now). I mainly say it should be a support feature because 1) monk damage sucks ass so the paladin and barbarian get more out of it and 2) the spell casters get to auto fail dex and str saves and 3) suppose the first hit stuns a target, so then you move on down the line, up to 4 stuns a round as ki permits, not a true aoe but still potent. Honestly though I mainly bring it up because stunning strike is the only truly good feature monks have, everything else is eaither situational or underpowered.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
As a monk main, I've never been so offended by something I totally agree with.
I think monks are great! They’re the only class that can still do 99% off what they normally can do when they’re butt naked and in an anti magic zone. Tell me what other class can do that? You keep playing your monk and enjoy it.
One simple fix for monk kipoints at low levels is adding the wisdom mod to the total equation of how many kipoints you have. Its not much difference on high levels but biiiig diferrnce at low levels
Is like the main down of the monks: so few kipoints at low levels, use that fix, is like 3 point per short rest, there, fixed
Monk is incredible at crowd control. They weren't assessing that, but I think it would've gotten an A from at least one of them.
@@reloadpsi What a joke. You really would give monks an A for CC because of stunning strike? At most, a monk can stun 3 things in a round unless its all perfectly set up for him. And then he would be out of ki... mean while, spellcasters can CC half the room with one spell... and then CC the other half next round.
@@dexasmoru8333 I have to agree with this. Recently my Cleric and the party Druid had a combat where we locked down the enemy in Spirit Guardians with no ability to move out. I cast Spirit Guardians, Druid cast Bed of Thorns. 25% move speed for all creatures, 2d4 damage per 5 feet of movement, and extra damage at the start of their turns.
Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Sleep, Hold Monster, Hold Person, and many many many other spells are great for long term CC as opposed to the one turn of Stun from Stunning Strike.
With the Monk, I also think of a lot of the 'awesome moments' don't come from being effective, but from the 'coolness' of their abilities. Like you could have an awesome moment where a monk runs across water, up a wall and punches a guy 4 times dealing 35, damage. But then the fighter shoots twice with their bow and sharpshooter for 40 damage, and still has their movement and bonus action left. What's an awesome moment for the monk is often just what another class can achieve effortlessly.
Exactly. Really fun to play if you just like doing epic shit but that epic shit might not actually do much. I loved wall running into leaping unarmed attacks cuz that shit is so cool, but yeah i was doing the least damage
This is inspiring me to make a halfling monk as a way to comedically write off the lack of stopping power.
U guys are choosing the wrong monk dps strats. Give a look at tasha subclasses for dps.
*Monk:* "Haha! Look I am running on water!"
*Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer (Water Walk):* "You were saying?"
@@BraveCarnageno monk is good at dealing damage. Full stop. They max out at 42 dpr with a lower to hit than any other high level martial since they completely lack magical items. Mercy can do 5.5 more and astral can do 10.5 more with their 5th attack, but it’s still not comparing to any martial or even caster on the field. Even ranger is looking at around 46 dpr with a higher to hit from archery, higher damage from sharpshooter, spells, and the potential to have some amazing magical weapon options. Monks suck shit for damage without significant homebrew.
Congrats to Monty for his PhD! The Dungeon Dude becomes the Dungeon Doctor.
I might not be there in the video yet, but what’s his phD in?
What is the PhD in?
Dungeon Doctor or Doctor Dude?
What’s it in? He strikes me as a STEM guy
@@pointynoodle I looked it up. Theatre. I’m not sure you could have been further off lol
On the Monk, my friend had the best comment when his son was thinking about a Monk. He said that the Monk is like a keyboard player in a classic band structure. They add to what’s there, but they can’t replace any of the other core roles.
Inciteful
I can definitely see where that's coming from, but I do disagree. Monks imho make *phenomenal* scouts and exfiltrators.
I think the only notable problem with monks - when comparing their strength to other classes - is that the players expect Monks to be Fighters, and complain about stuff like "low damage" while never utilizing features like:
* the _increased speed_ (which you can't use if you just plop yourself into melee and stay there),
* _deflect missiles_ (most DM's wont shoot into melee, they shoot at the targets keeping their distance),
* or _slow fall_ (a level 4 monk can completely ignore a 30 ft drop with a reaction, and a very lucky monk can survive a 200ft drop taking no damage).
I feel like Monk and Ranger are the two worst classes. They are certainly my least favorite.
I’ve been in two games where the monk was the mvp until about level 5, at which point one player left the game and the other decided he wanted to play a wizard. I think there was one or two times where they were out of ki points, which I could see being problematic.
@@VotePaineJefferson barbarian's also pretty bad
"Barbarian is the best class for detect and destroy traps in dungeons"
Said the barbarian in my campaign, single handly stepped on 12 beartraps and triggered 7 poison dart and still make it alive
One problem though is what about traps with automatically resetting ammunition or repeatable magic effects?
The Barbarian handling traps is only viable for one-time-use traps.
Our barbarian one time licked a mimic and killed it on like level 2 or 3.
@@ryadinstormblessed8308 not if your party is paying attention to how they're triggered and avoids the trigger.
@@CrownlessStudios Yes, that's valid in many cases. I was particularly thinking of some I've come across such as the trapped chest that had a Wizard's tomes in it, protected with an acid spell trap that will repeat each time someone fails to pick the lock (or find and use the key).
@@ryadinstormblessed8308 How would a Barbarian deals with a repeating trap? They smash the trap mechanisms till they stop moving and thus can't repeat anymore.
Example: Barbarian rushes through and smashes every repeating crossbow in the arrow trap hallway, then turns to the party as he's riddled with crossbow bolts and gives a thumbs up to the rogue. "Hah! Trap disarmed!"
I'll throw my argument for best two-person campaign: Paladin/Druid. It's unkillable, still get healing, and they do not overlap almost at all with scores/abilities/skills
There's a serious roleplaying dynamic there too. Most paladins are from urbanized societies, and they often represent organized religions or civic institutions. Druids are from very natural settings that are not nearly so regimented. So what circumstances are bringing these two people together? They may not be natural enemies, but their lifestyles are very different. A threat or opportunity that unites them would have to be substantial indeed.
@@doomkitty8386 Oath of the Ancients Paladin and you can have an elven forest guard or something to be from the same environment. But I would also prefer the more dynamical one.
@@lewanuva111 Oath of the Ancients is also not a very strong subclass, so I would have more fun playing a stronger Paladin even aside from the roleplaying aspect.
Druid runs the city: "If I keep people happy & prosperous in town, they'll leave my forests alone."
@@Reepicheep-1 that's a great roleplaying angle too.
I think the argument for maybe a "C" in exploration that Fighters and Barbarians can enjoy is the fact that it's actually pretty common to need a "strong man". Push a boulder, move a statue, smash a something-or-other. Often a spell can solve the problem, but being absurdly strong doesn't cost a spell-slot, and most classes are dumping their Str scores.
But that’s more utility than exploration/infiltration. If your idea of infiltration is to kick the door down and kill anything that moves, barbarian is the S tier. Otherwise…..
@@thetowndrunk988 Replace "exploration" for "utility" for all I care, and my point still stands. Exploration doesn't *merely* mean sneaking around imo. So to me, a "move this massive object" problem could be an exploration or a utility problem, I don't think these categories are perfectly discreet to be perfectly honest with you. I think "utility" is sort of a catch-all category that - by design - bleeds into the other categories. Anyways, my point about high-str coming up *all the time* in my experience - as a utility for solving out-combat-problems, seems quite frequently understated in rankings like this.
@@thecognitiverambler8911 I don’t disagree that strength checks happen regularly, but there’s not much else these behemoths can do. The three main martial classes basically revolve around bashing skulls in. Look at Brian Shaw (4X World’s Strongest Man winner). Can you ever envision him picking the lock to a bank vault, then tip toeing in, or coming down outta the ceiling on a thin rope, swinging just above the pressure sensitive floor? I personally can’t. But hand all 6’8”, 420 pounds of him a giant maul, and tell him to bash some skulls in……I can certainly envision that. Sure, if someone rolls a giant rock over the back door entrance to their lair, I can ask him to heave it outta the way, but after that, I’d want him to hang back while the tiny, stealthy characters go in, so I don’t alert the entire dungeon with this giant trying to crawl down a hole……
@@thetowndrunk988 I'm not arguing Str classes shine outside of combat. I firmly agree with the community consensus around the "martial / caster divide" and I deem their profound lack of options in the other pillars of play (compared to other classes) - that being social and exploration - to be a big part of that problem. So no, I'm not making the argument that Barbarians are good at exploration or utility. I'm just making the point that feats of strength in my experience are very common, and most of the quintessentially "powerful" classes (minus paladin) dump str. I'm only making the case it deserves mention.
@@thecognitiverambler8911 I personally have issues with some of the game mechanics. One of the biggest ones, for me personally, is intimidation checks being charisma based. The idea that a giant, angry barbarian isn’t gonna be near as intimidating as an otherwise puny bard is absurd to me. Also, the game isn’t really designed for just pure brute force. The sneaky thief can pick the lock to the bank vault, but who says you can’t just drive a bulldozer through the daggum wall? There needs to be more rules for brute force to overcome certain puzzles, issues, etc.
The problem with the Monk is that they gave a lot of cool Monk abilities to the Rogue and then gave the Monk worse versions of the abilities
Those classes combine well..both Dex- based..then Wis for the Monk abilities, AC ..the Sneak Attack dmg is helpful..as is Cunning Action.. Expertise in Stealth and Hide makes you a mobile ghost..😉
@@aaronhumphrey2009 or just go pure rogue and you will probably do better.
Then you have Ki for Monks. From what I hear. It's not a great resource system.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 the problem with ki based abilities is that from lvl 1 to 5, you don't have enough ki points to use them to their full potential. From lvl 6 to 12, you have enough ki point and some abilities are good enough to make you feel really strong. After lvl 12 tho, your abilities will be outclassed by anything spellcasters or some martial subclasses can do. Meanwhile, you will be decent at damage and tanking, but not crazy strong either...
Them: "Every class is good at something"
Me: "Except for Monk"
Fun fact: Gf just informed me that Every time these guys introduces themselves I apparently verbally (and subconsciously) ask “And who are you?” Just in time to hear “We are the Dungeon Dudes”
Well done Kelly and Monty. You have wormed your way into my subconscious brain. 😅
sneed
@@Rabbitthateats go back to 4chan
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy wtf does sneed mean
And everybody clapped.
@@stevenyoung9738 ruclips.net/video/QUvIznF5vkM/видео.html
One of the things that contributes to a Paladin being a good negotiator is that in *many* campaign worlds they occupy a space of authority in the society they are in, which gives them better fictional positioning for negotiating even if they don't have a lot of abilities that support the role.
Very true, and something that the rules don’t account for. A good DM will give more credence to a paladin based on that, assuming of course religion is a big part of that city/state/kingdom.
Agreed, when I played a Paladin we would get to a new city and I would check in with the local church, explain our holy quest and tell them what we needed (supplies, ect.), bless some people, and have them spread the word to be on the lookout for demons.
Now that I'm running a game, whenever the Wizard or Barbarian in my group does something kind of shady in town or draws the attention of the city guard, the Paladin just goes "official church business, nothing to see here".
While status isn't inherent in the class, I feel like Paladins and Clerics naturally have some kind of social standing if the town or whatever is even a little religious.
Yeah this comes down to your table a bit. In my opinion, a Paladin is going to hold more sway with guards, soldiers, clergy (assuming the respective faiths are on good terms), etc.; people that inherently see themselves as having more in common with a Paladin than the smooth talking bard. A bard is probably going to have more sway with merchants and nobles. It's situational, and more about how the party plays it than a real gameplay mechanic.
I still say with confidence after three years of watching that you two are the most informative source of DnD discussion on youtube
the best!
I second this…. Hands down the best 👍🏼
For real! The Dudes, Runesmith and PackTactics are my favorite channels for DnD info, so informative
@@PumaPants248 I’ve been really digging DND Shorts lately
@@ganjanyc He’s really good too I just don’t like the speed he goes at, I understand the idea of shorts but I like the longer breakdowns. But DnDShorts’ content is great too
The thing with the Artificer is that the class by itself can be very difficult to rank because of how much it's subclasses influence it's playstyle. Armourers and Battlesmiths play differently fron Artillerists and Alchemists. I played an Alchemist and a Battlesmith and they might as well have been completely different classes from how different they felt in play.
Came here to comment the same thing. I was originally mad at their ratings because armorers are great front liners, alchemists can be great support, artillerists are great damage dealers, and battlesmiths have amazing utility/control/support abilities. These are all tied to the subclass so I understand that by their definition it fits squarely in the B to A rating but I feel like they give other classes who fill that "swiss army knife" role way more credit than the artificer.
@@DR-of6im The reason they do is because like a bard can do both at the same time. A bard can be the negotiator, support, utility, and infiltrator all at once, regardless of subclass or which way you wanna stack it. The artificer can be awesome at any ONE thing, but will lack elsewhere. I think it’s a cool class because it allows you to build it how you envision, rather than picking whatever class specializes in it. For example, if you wanna be a tank, you’d usually pick between B/F/P. You can instead go with an artificer, and be more flexible in how you set it up. The downfall is that it pulls away from other specializations.
It really is the definition of B”s across the board almost impossible to accurately rank
In my opinion getting sick of the warlock spamming Eldredge blast every round is no different from getting sick of the fighter spamming the attack action with their weapon every round their the same
Kinda true but the difference imo is that as a Fighter I can pick up a longsword or a maul or a shortbow. A warlock only has Eldritch Blast as its optimal choice. I think if in 1D&D it's a class feature and a little more customisable than it is now with invos or something else, it'd be less examined like it is
@@Barrlounge The optimal picks for the fighter are longsword or a greatsword if they use strength and a longbow or hand crossbow if they use Dex. Anything else is suboptimal because less damage or less availability to magic items.
So it really is the exact same as the warlock. Optimal choice is eldritch blast but you can use firebolt or ray of frost if you want. You also have your limited spells and basically every warlock has something else they can use like a chain familiar, weapon or subclass abilities.
Multiclass Fighter with Hexblade Warlock. Frontline infantry with deadly magical tricks..
Also makes the Ftr a good Investigator/ Negotiator/ character because Charisma is your primary Stat, instead of Strength.
Would be cool if you could change it from force to an elemental damage type
@@kingduckie9135 Greatsword is not optimal for fighters because it cannot be used with Polearm Master. But your overall point is still valid.
I absolutely agree that whether a class has to “play by the rules” or can “break the rules with cheat codes” should be considered. However, I don’t think having to play by the rules is necessarily a bad thing, as it can go the other way for those cheat code using spellcasters. If you have a DM who uses much more strict readings and interpretations of what a spell can do, if they don’t let enemies be easily fooled by simple illusions or get mind controlled by charm spells, if they don’t generally favor the player when making these kinds of rulings or decisions, then you might end up getting more mileage out of more abilities that explicitly say “if you do this, then this happens.”
Honestly, if your GM just makes it clear that you can't cast a spell undetected unless you have the sorcerer powers and STICKS to it a lot of player nonsense is immediately shut down. Really, a lot of this "well, he has to play by the rules" argument is just: "yeah, but it doesn't feel cool when you have to constantly tell the players they can't actually use their Power right now, even if it is the best moment for it."
@@conradoccaminha
Given the S V M components. Only V kind of stops stealth casting under normal conditions. If it's just S M, then stealth casting is fine, RAW.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 assuming stealth. Good luck persuading the kings guard that you didnt bewitch him after you started moving you hands weird in front of them King when you gave him an order and the King obeyed instantly
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 unless your enemy is completely blind..... no
@@conradoccaminha
Just don't do it in front of the King or pick up Warcaster.
Monk as a class as a whole feels like its just unnecessarily heavily restricted from having any fun like the other classes, *_the Ki system is far too restrictive_* and it often feels like *_it just hampers and drags down_* most if not all of it's subclasses *_rather than promotes them or improves on each other_* - and because of how all of this works monks are just *_STARVING_* from having any or as many impactful and interesting features and active things to do as the other classes and their subclasses by comparison
idk how you format that way on YT but yeah basically
monk doesn't get to use damage feats, casting, or sneak attack, and all of the utility and ribbons either dont exist or are barely usable until like level 7. Being strictly weak for the most played levels of the game hurts, bad.
home rule add Wis mod to ki pool, easy
I agree. Add more ki points and base the stunning strike on level and wisdom modifier like before. I hate the ki point system tbh. The Monk class is one class that has suffered in D&D. Of all the classes it is probably the one that is most dependent on it's subclasses, as weak as they are, to be relevant in a campaign.
Monks crit with unarmed attacks 18-20 an unarmed crit refunds a ki point
@@jameshill6872 Man i am reading this while having a oneshot and playing my first time in dnd as a level 1 monk doesnt help 😭 I just hope the dm will do some enemy encounters or some things to up my level because i am literally a fighter but worse ;-;
@@Owch- Highkey the reason to play monk (over other classes) in tier 1 play is the roleplay of being a deadly acrobat and any niche racial feature synergies you may have like tabaxi claws and doubled move speed or dragonborn breath weapon unless you roll hot as hell on stats, then monk is actually slightly OP compared to most classes until like level 4
Real talk tho, talk to your DM directly 1 to 1 about how you feel about how your character interacts with situations. If it feels pigeonholed, that should be fixable with creativity. Monk is dope, just numerically meh
Two critiques on this:
1) The issue with the Ranger, at least from people I talked with, was never about the damage; it was about *everything else.* So many of their exploration and tracking features were tied to Favored Terrain/Enemy that, most of the time, you just didn't have features. Being a half-caster who couldn't swap out spells as needed like the druid just made taking all those ranger-y spells that much harder to do. Plus some features were just outright useless RAW.
2) Monty's arguement of 'the rogue has to play by the rules' never really sat with me, mainly because Reliable Talent and Expertise explicitly make it so you *aren't* playing 'by the rules'. If I can't roll lower than a 25, short of using magic, what class is reasonably expected to beat me? Rouges *don't* play by the rules, magic just plays even less by the rules.
So many classes can get expertise and Reliable talent doesn’t kick on till tier 3 play.
And because the Rangers damage isn’t tied to their limited spells those spells can ALL be used for other areas of play. That’s a huge deal.
Most of the fuseless features which you are talking about, I think, don’t take into account the optional class rules from Tasha’s which the Dudes clearly consider just a part of the class now. To be fair to them I think most of the community agrees.
With Tasha's optional features, Rangers now have exploration features that actually work. Expertise, bonus exploration spells, invisibility, and the ability to heal exhaustion are all excellent abilities for a Ranger to have.
Yeah, the last time I wanted to make a ranger, I just made a Nature Domain Cleric split with a Scout Rogue. Only had one attack, but that attack was effective, and the spell selection was far better.
@@logancuster8035
>So many classes get expertise
Not really tho? The only classes that naturally get Expertise besides Rogue are Bard and Ranger's Canny ability, and neither of them get as many Expertise choices as Rogue. Any other form of adding double proficiency is either tied to a feat, a subclass, or has extremely narrow applications.
@@normal6483 And that's why a lot of the Ranger hate died down after Tasha's released and shifted over to Monk.
As a DM for a two-man party of a bard and a Paladin, I agree wholeheartedly that those two are the ultimate two-person party. It’s like they can’t lose!
If that's the case. The Biggest Question for me is, How are they gonna handle encounters with Exhausted Spell Slots? Add a Fighter. The End
@@simounobrien9096 both classes are already fighter lite another fighter would help but its not needed
With the incredible jumping distance, increase move speed and advantage in dex saves as well as being able to ignore being surprised barbarians are actually quite good at exploration and dungeon delving, triggering traps and revealing enemies
Love that y'all took another look at this. The only annoyance is why assume spellcasters choose the good spells but not assume artificer and warlock choose the good options as well. It's really easy to make a useless bard, just like it's really easy to make an explorer Artificer. It's all part of the build
I think because with warlock and artificer there is less wiggle room with invocations and infusions, you have too many options and not enough choices. With spellcasters you’d have to be more intentional about choosing bad spells because of how many choices you get. A bard has you be almost purposeful not to take charm person for example
You can change them literally every level though, and Artificer just makes magic items. You have to be purposeful NOT to pick something useful for Artificer.
@@nathanielleon4163 oh yeah I agree. But I think to be useful in exploration as an artificer you can only take certain infusions which immediately hamper your abilities in other areas if that makes sense
The good Artificer and Warlock invocations and infusions still don't punch anywhere close to good spellcasting choices.
I'd say that for most of the full casters (especially wizards) the consideration of the spell list so heavily is because that is nearly the only choice you get to make as the character. Artificers get their infusions, with different numbers at different levels, each time providing different character variation. Same for warlocks, except with invocations. Wizards choose their subclass at level 2, the blade singer gets to pick a weapon to be proficient in, and then the next choice a wizard makes that isn't "what spell do I take?" is their 18th level Spell mastery feature. 90% of the entire class is their spell choice, and the character's use will be made or broken by that exclusively. A bard can pick crap for spells and still have a handful of useful class features. If a wizard picks crap spells they *might* have *2* features that are still going to be useful.
Barbarian and Fighter are perfect examples of the gulf of a divide between martials and spell casters in 5E.
Rangers are perfectly middle-tier, which is definitely where I'd rate them as well. Probably a top 5 pick for a monoclass party without severely suffering in any category (Fey Wanderer Ranger is mandatory to get an A or B in negotiator).
In my party's current campaign our Ranger is a godsend. DM is using all the travel rules, including seasonal rules. 2x the water need in summer.
Between gloomstalker, horizon walker, swarmkeeper, and fey wanderer an all ranger party can go anywhere and do anything. Add in the right feats and 1 to 3 level multiclass dips and ranger can fill any role.
I live as a ranger player, and current group i am the leader as a ranger.
Fey wanderer with druid warrior style using shillelagh and magic stone is OP, is a one stat character, you can use medium armor, a shield and you are up to go
I just wish they'd bring back Urban Ranger properly, though I fear I loved Urban Rangers specifically due to the customization that was possible in 3.5.
I am happy to see Rangers getting some love. My first DND character was a lizardfolk Gloomstalker, and he might be the strongest character I've built so far. And since playing a Gloomstalker/Twilight Cleric and a Swarmkeeper, they've become one of, if not my favorite classes in the game.
Yeah, I played an OG Dwarven Hunter in my first 5e campaign and our group did MVP after sessions and he won it multiple times. Part of that, I humbly admit, is the skill of the player, but without the proper tools, you can't shine.
When I watch your older class tier videos and when I see you guys say something that you 180'd on later, it gives me a real sense of how much integrity you have. You don't stick to your bad takes if you find out that they are bad later.
Thank you for making the videos that you do! Not only are "The Dungeon Dudes" an incredible inspiration for DMs and players alike, but you guys have an incredible integrity and an insparational moral compass that everyone should have!
WotC needs to give some love to the Monk in "One"/5.5. No class should be this bad. I think a few feats aimed at unarmed combat and some balance changes to their overall kit would go a long way from making them a middling choice to a decent one.
What specifically is lacking in the Monk class to you? I know the dudes always state monk is underwhelming compared to some others, and i see its generally an accepted statement. As a DM my PC monk at my table is always the one that makes me think that monk seems to be in a fine state. Of course outside of combat there isnt much there, but man does he shine in combat, as well as some of the monk features have been incredibly useful for traps/exploration. For clarification our campaign has been going for nearly 5 years now and they are level 14.
A good feat for versatile weapons would help too.
@@rj595 Really, what the Monk lacks is a feature that *they* excel at. The base class is decent, but honestly - they have no support. No feats geared at Unarmed combat. No -5/+10 feat. No spellcasting (for the subclasses that focus on it).
I also played a Monk & had a blast, and there is fun to be had with the class! However, I do think they just need a little more. Maybe it's more damage for some subclasses, damage mitigation for others, spellcasting... personally, I would like to see more flavor, specific flavor, per subclass.
I don't wanna write an essay, hahaha. But yeah - just tick them up a bit. Maybe give them Third Attack, as well - even if it's tied to a Monk-only feat taken at a specific level.
@@rj595 Like you said, the class is focused on combat and yet, they are awful at it. First, Martial Arts is just awful, the die scales far too slowly and you'll spend the vast majority of the game just using a monk weapon rather than going unarmed. There is also very little in the way of magic item support for unarmed playstyles. Then, without Flurry of Blows, you're just doing dual-wielding damage, which is generally inferior to virtually any other combat because bonus actions have many ways to be weaponized for much more effect and the hits in the Attack action are weaker than 2h attacks. Next, Flurry of Blows starts to make them decent but, because of the MA die scaling, it just doesn't keep up and the Ki cost makes it so that it needs to be used sparingly.
Second, the Monk's defense is absolutely atrocious. They get their WIS bonus in place of being able to wear armor and cannot wield shields. This can work out decently if you forgo all feats and just take ASIs to maximize your DEX and WIS, but then you lose out on feats and it doesn't make the Monk incredible in any way, just decent. They simply need to get something more significant out of that much investment into their ability scores, and if you don't invest in them, then you come away below par. Because of this low AC and having low HP, Monks are a melee class which simply can't survive in melee combat. Rogues have a similar problem with melee, but not only do their class mechanics also work at range, but they have Cunning Action and can always move in and out of melee combat at will. Monks can potentially do so... but again it not only costs them some of their already very average damage by taking away their bonus action, but also costs Ki which means they'll lose out on more damage on other turns.
By this point, you can probably guess the third major problem. Virtually everything the Monk does costs Ki so nearly every class feature, including subclass features, competes with every other class feature. Most classes have features which do not compete with each other. Every Ki point you spend that isn't spent on Flurry of Blows is less damage that you can deal from an already very meh damage output, when combat is the only thing they do. Getting Stunning Blows is nice, but because it's a CON save (generally the highest monsters will have) and WIS likely isn't your highest ability score, it's generally going to cost you multiple Ki points to land, which essentially turns the Monk into a one-trick pony to stun the big boss who just can't effectively contribute the rest of the time.
@@escobarisanoctopus You're wrong. You clearly just don't know how to play them. Monks are amazing unless the player is just super into eating glue.
The thing I love with the barbarian is it seems like it was built just for new players to DnD, high damage and great tank, they can have fun in the combat whilst also not being forced to roleplay as much out of combat, giving them an opportunity to sit back and watch other more experience players talk amongst each other in character and get a feel for what DnD is truly about and taste the roleplay side of it.
So, I was curious and aggregated an average of both of your scores. I mostly wanted to know how the classes faired if you value versatility and being able to perform well at multiple fields. For sorting I changed D-S to 1-5.
Bard 3.643
Druid 3.214
Wizard 3.143
Artificer 3.143
Sorcerer 3.000
Rogue 3.000
Paladin 2.929
Cleric 2.857
Warlock 2.857
Ranger 2.857
Fighter 2.000
Barbarian 1.857
Monk 1.714
I think this aggregated list is maybe a little more unfair on the monk, as effectively the list is sorted by who can excel at more roles within the party and the monk just doesn't excel at any, so comes in last.
I'm not sure this is useful for anyone, I did it for myself as I value versatility and filling holes within a party more than just about anything else. The main thing that did surprise me was how high up Druid came on the list. While I've had fun as one in the past, I guess I just know I'd want to just make a Moon Druid and ask my DM if I can just flavour everything to be turning into a Warewolf and raging to bring those Werewolf the Apocalypse fantasies into D&D (Shifter Race and Beast Barbarian just doesn't cover the full Garou range, plus Druids get spells! Garou Mage! nothing can go wrong...)
Not having finished the video, I can say that there seems to need to be one more category. "Versatility." I know it's not a party role, but it would be a good indicator of the usefulness of a class when a class excels at being the "swiss army knife" or the "jack of all trades," or at least if the class is unimpressive as a whole but is amazing when you start picking your subclass.
That would really be a different dimension of each rating, "how much you have to sacrifice to be this ranking".
Sounds cool on paper, but realistically it would just be *_the umpteenth S-tier for Bard and Rogue_* because being versatile/jack of all trades *_literally their whole thing_*
@@FalcnPWNCH Having finished the video I can say that there were several classes that got lower scores in most categories only to have the pair say "this isn't a bad class at all, it's just that the class has so many options that you really have to decide what YOU want from the class and then the class will deliver that." So even if Rogue and Bard are the best at being good at everything, a lot of other classes would have at least gotten A's there that they didn't get anywhere else. This also helps people recognize that those classes aren't bad based on their other scores. I'm willing to bet that a number of new players watched this video and decided they only want to play the classes that got lots of A's and S's and not the ones with C's and D's, while having a Versatility category might have helped push the point that even a "bad class" can be great if you get the options you want for that class going.
It would be usefull if you soloRPG with one character. In every other situation it is. Bob come here and fix this. Selena you can do this. Everything the generalist can do, some one else do better.
So how many people play RPG pure solo?
But if there are those… Yeah, then vertisality or jack of all trades badge would be usefull!
@@haukikannel I disagree. On one hand, it's true that certain classes will always be better than others at each individual type of roll, but that doesn't mean that a generalist is only useful if you play alone. For one, you can safely assume most parties will be between 3 to 5 players, it's just too hard to balance things otherwise. 6 player parties exist, and I'm sure more experienced DMs can handle 7 or 8 if the situation calls for it, but I don't see the average home game exceeding 5 often enough to call it normal. That being said, there's no rules against people fulfilling the same roles or using the same classes. Party balance and dynamics are up to the players. If you have a party of 3 and two players want to be the Barbarian and the Monk, it might be useful for a more tactical player to choose something like a Rogue or a Bard, classes that excel at almost everything, just to cover the gaps. Or if you're new to the game and want to feel useful in most situations (as opposed to someone who wants to play the one-turn wonder Fighter), being a generalist means you can step up anytime nobody else does. Your DM gives you a more realistic survival scenario but the rest of the party chose specialists that are not good at survival (no Druids, no Rangers), well you may not be a specialist at Survival but your Wizard has a few spells that might get you out alive. A class's ability to adapt to situations that aren't typically for that class is particularly useful to newer players and players that aren't ready to take wild risks. Sure, an older player on their 7th campaign with a backup character already written would have no problem sending their Barbarian in to negotiate the peaceful surrender of the enemy in an unwinnable war, but a rookie who is attached to their first character might like to find out that their Warlock is better than just an Eldritch Blast machine, and that a high charisma score alone goes a long way towards most of the rolls that Barbarian is about to fumble. Again, there's fun in failure, and the risk is worth the reward when playing against your stereotypes, but not everyone is going to want to play that way. For most parties, having one skill junky player to cover all of their weaknesses is going to be a godsend.
Real talk:
The monk is your buddy who has your back through thick and thin!
Can follow a Wizard running across lakes (using Ray of frost or similar)
Can jump across the chasm with the Barbarian
Help the Rouge with 2 man tasks
Spar with the Fighter and run disruption
Beat up whoever threw a tomatoe at the Bard
Catch that guy who outran the Paladin
No idea how the Monk is particularly helpful for the Warlock, Ranger, & Druid though.
the monk could scratch behind the ears of a wild shaped bear druid?
Love this xD
Monks are one of my favorite classes. And I think it could come a long way by gaining ki points equal to its wisdom mod.
*Rogue
This is some real "On your left" vibes from Captain America outpacing Falcon
@@pointynoodle Try again. No typos here!
Every time one of these comes out its a treat, looking forward to the retrospective
Any issue the Barbarian has can *selectively* be fixed by plannting to take one level in rogue and synergizing your background skills with it.
You get one new skill from the rogue class, expertise in two skills, and on top of that a Sneak Attack any turn your reckless attack gives you advantage.
You get a small bonus to damage and even with a -8 Charisma or a 10 intelligence you can take investigation or even persuasion as a skill and the scaling proficirnxy bonus completely nullifies the negative allowing you to do more than just smash things.
You'll be the most persuasive Barbarian on one side of the world.
Case and point here is despite the drawbacks in areas that fighters and barbarians have, if you're selective about how you play you can build to fix things you desire or want to do as one of those characters. You give up your capstone ability, but depending on your campaign and how often death occurs you may never see level 20. I've never had a level 20 character before because our encounters have very deadly enemies in them. I can survive 90% of the time, but you get my musings.
Play what you like, and plan ahead.
Dungeon Dudes! I think you guys need to make a “Variant” Monk Base Class that improves the class and fixes the flaws of the Core Class.
These guys are so awesome - the way they build off of eachother so well even when disagreeing is impressive and even inspiring
Seeing all the ranking side by side is really nice, this whole series was really well done
Both you guys look like you've been working out! Been watching your videos for years and I'm proud seeing how far you two have come along on youtube, ttg, and dnd. Awesome ambassadors for a game I love to play and share with others.
The thing I noticed the most from the final table: You have to try really hard to be bad at damage.
And that Monty forgot to give an S ranking for the Explorer role
I’m about to play my first D&D campaign ever and really have fallen in love with this channel for useful information. Keep it up, fellas!
Just out of curiosity, how's the campaign going? What class/subclass did you choose?
@@jamesmerkel1932 Going great! We’re doing a Spelljammer campaign I went with a Rock Gnome Artificer with the Battle Smith subclass. I took the shipwright background to be the tinkerer who pilots and knows the ins and outs of the spelljammer ships. I’ve only played about five sessions, but having so much fun.
I really like the fact that each class is given a niche where they can shine while they're in their element. It helps to make sure each player feels useful. Well maybe not the monk 😆.
Monk is in need of a retool just as badly as phb ranger was.
I gave the monk in my campaign the ability to use the range ki blasts with each hand. I was like wtf whats the point being able to use it with only one hand??? That feels so stupid
@@Frankieboy1123 its really needs a deep one. The ki mechanics, stunning strike and the subclasses
Seriously? Monks are insanely strong. Have you ever actually played one?
@@transientanus Over the course of the last 2 years I have played well over 100 sessions as a Monk with many different builds, subclasses, revisions, etc. It is bar none the worst class in 5e.
Barbarian: There are definitely ways to use them for exploration and the like. In an all-Barbarian one-shot, I played a Storm Herald since it was going to be taking place along the sea. The swim speed and ability to breathe underwater were very much game changers under those circumstances. But thinking back on the other 3 characters, I don't know if we really managed to do anything in the other pillars of play that didn't involve smashing the problem to tiny bits!
On the Paladin and Divine Sense: I don't know if I've actually played it the "right way" in either campaign I'm in. In one, the DM will just tell us where the undead and fiends and the like are when I use it - very useful while exploring a haunted mansion full of undead, fiends, demons... In the other, the DM uses that, but he will also use it similar to the old "Detect Evil" by letting it serve as a "lie detector" to show if there are any evil-aligned creatures in range (though he doesn't actually specify which ones the paladin is sensing the evil from).
Conclusion: I definitely agree about using this as a guide in planning encounters. I'm actually planning to include a moment in the campaign I'm DMing with hordes of undead, just to give the Cleric the opportunity to wipe them all out with Destroy Undead!
You can do that with any race that gets a swim speed and ability to breathe underwater, so not really a point in the Barbarian's favor.
@@Awoken0 True. And it's very subclass-dependent. But it does show that there are options.
i have to say, i really enjoy how specific the criteria are for the various rankings, i find that it makes it easy to understand how and why you guys made your choices
The artificer definitely doesn't deserve a d in negotiator they shouldn't be in the same tier as barbarian I mean one of the biggest gimmicks behind it is the magic item seller
2 I gotta disagree with the d in explorer for cleric as well spell options for clerics are pretty diverse I haven't looked at it in while but I remember it having alot more options than what I expected I would bet you could find some exploration stuff in that you could as any cleric no matter the subclass at any long rest
3 why the heck does the sorcerer have a b in support isn't that category about heeling and buffing the party all I can think for that is haste and that's it
Yea I feel the same, my guess is becouse of how the characters naturally form they can't do so easily without giving up another aspect of the character. Granted that shouldn't be considered when taken from an objective standpoint.
Clerics can also prepare whatever they need on the day, giving them even greater flexibility. On top of Divine Intervention sometimes providing a hail mary save to solve a puzzle or pass an obstacle. C for sure at least, not D
As to 3: It also includes debuffing enemies, and I believe that they lumped Battlefield Control spells under the "Support" pillar too. So spells like Hypnotic Pattern, Wall of Fire, Wall of Stone, Prismatic Wall, Synaptic Static, Sickening Radiance, etc. all fall into "Support". Also, the Sorcerer is the best class in the game at casting the best Support spell ever printed, Silvery Barbs. Only a Sorcerer (among single classed characters) can cast this spell more than 4 times in a single combat!
@@orestes0883 No, they put Control under Utility.
The reason why a lot of those situations come to mind is because while yes, situationally people CAN prepare options and stuff like that in clerics to help with exploration, in the 22+ years i've ran, participated, and played with hundreds of different groups, nine times out of ten people don't ever prepare spells to help with exploration more than perhaps a teleportation effect. It isn't that the Cleric CAN'T do it, but more tha unless you force the majority of the playerbase to, most players WON'T do it. Exception to the rule doesn't automatically mean because I do something a ranking is wrong. I can count on one hand the number of clerics in two decades i've seen reliably and consistently prepare anything to help with exploration.
Even on my hexblade, I took EB. I didn't take any invocations for it, since I wanted to be a melee build, but I took it so that I would have a ranged option.
Very well stated at 27:29, Monty. This was an excellent way to explain the issue with the fighter's design.
Ranger: With all subclasses other than Fey Wanderer, i agree that they are bad negotiators. But with Fey Wanderer, they are allowed to add their wisdom modifier to their charisma modifier for ability checks (but not saving throws). The net result is, that they end up with an charisma modifier that is either on par, or sometimes even better than that of charisma based classes. So just based on the modifier alone (and the charm person spell they get for free), they deserve at least a B rating in negotiation. Which probably makes the Fey Wanderer the best all-around subclass for ranger.
Id say C, one subclass isnt enough for B
and if minmaxed with a few levels in rogue role a minimum of like 32 on rolls with no magic items which idc what magic your using if you ever have to roll above 35 the dms saying screw you specifically
Mhm, someone pointed out that one subclass isn't enough for a B, but they definitely deserve a C or more for negotiation, cause it can be built into
@@Lich-x2g I wouldnt rate the overall ranger higher. But that subclass boosts the rangers social capabilities so much, its almost criminal to not mention it. I personally would have just added a B within brackets. So ranger gets D for social, [B] if fey wanderer. Multiclass? Easy [S], you pass every social check by default, unless you roll a 1.
Just to give an example, a lvl3 Fey Wanderer can have +6 on all social skill checks, while also having +7 on Perception. Thats very high for a lvl3 character, with just a +2 proficency bonus.
@@bosmun1 I'm kinda interested in that mimaxed configuration. How many levels in Ranger and Rogue are required to get said ability scores?
One aspect that has been overlooked is the ability of rogues and monks especially to operate in places/enviroments where magic doesn't work or is dangerous to use/wild. Yes this is somewhat niche, but it's something that does crop up now and then. They also can get things done, like mobility and unlocking quietly, even casting spells that don't make a loud noise like knock, do require at minimum, hushed speech, a stealthy monk can run up a wall silently, a rogue can open a door silently (potentially). They can also do these things without spending resources, or in the case of the monk, 1 Ki maybe, if a major fight is in the wind, using even a 2nd level spell is not nothing if it can be avoided. Lastly, I think that stunning strike as a significant battlefield control ability was rather ignored. A caster using hold person, that's their entire action, and if the target makes the save, not only is it depressing for the caster, their turn did nothing and they spent a long rest resource. A monk might have a slightly lower DC on their stun, but they can attempt multiple in a single turn, and do damage, and maybe do something else (eg Open Hand effects from Flurry), so even if they try 2, 3 or even 4 stuns and they all fail to stick, they will have done somedamage and maybe knocked an enemy over, or they may have been lucky and stunned 2 enemies, done damage and knocked them over. My 5th level Wizard recently cast Slow at a mini boss, it made it's save, next round, honestly, with not having expected combat and so limited combat spells, and the boss had a nasty multi attack, I went for slow again, and again it didn't stick. The boss moved out of line of sight and the combat ended before I got to attempt anything else. I'd used both my 3rd level slots, and had zero effect in the entire combat. Yeah, suck it up, that can happen, my point is a monk could have kept up much better, attempted more stuns, done some damage, and not have burnt through long rest resources. Is moving a monk from D to C for battlefield control a pretty minor 'upgrade', sure..is it even a cut and dried argument, no, but it's at least worth a thought imho. (The boss escaped with a high speed and a disengage, had the slow hit, we'd probably have killed it instead. Is the wizard a supreme controler, yes, but, they are a very hit or miss class, if the target makes it's save, you've not only wasted your action, but a valuable resource too and done exactly nothing else. The one other aspect of the wizard that is always forgotten, is the cost. Buying new spells, ink, paper is a giant gold suck that no other class faces in the same way, getting those 'unusual spells' costs you (cos I have to assume your taking conventionally useful spells (like Counterspell and Slow) as your free level spells. A Monk needs, bracers of defence, after that any other magic item is kinda gravy, a +1 dex melee weapon and +1 studded armour, and most rogues are fine, and it's not like wizards don't need/want magic items as well, on top of their book keeping costs. I LOVE wizards, I've always lent towards Int based casters, but I think the action economy of rogues and monks is an aspect you forgot, the cost of wizard learning, the resource use, and the non casters ability to operate in places magic can't. (Sorry, as ever I ended up rambling)
The Barbarian, I find, does at least reach C for infiltration, for a very significant reason, Ambushing, which would be taking tanking and damage dealing in a infiltrating situation.
They dont need heavy armor for good AC, so they don't have to sacrifice their tanking ability to be average at Stealth, and can still provide support for the primary infiltrators if a fight breaks out.
So basically, Barbarian doesn't have to worry about the opportunity cost of investing in infiltration unlike paladins and fighters.
Yeah. Totem and Beast allow for Infiltration. If something has two subclasses that can be decent at something that deserves a C.
Fighters and paladins don't need heavy armor either. They can just go dex light armor build, which often tends to perform better for fighter, and reasonably well for paladin
In fact, since barbarians class features are restricted to strength unlike fighters and paladins, they are more forced into the strength build, making them worse at stealth
@@stevenyoung9738 I'm not talking about the situations where any of the three classes having dex as the primary Stat. I'm talking about for typical versions of all three classes maximize Str first, then Con. Paladins then put it into Cha, and fighters have a lot of freedom where to put their 3rd Stat, but probably not in dex since they won't get the ac bonus. Since barbs have the most hp and resist damage in a rage, they gain more from an increase in AC, do they for sure aren't going to trash dex.
Even in the situation where all classes do have dex as their main stat, Barb will still be able to have better AC, and since Barb has better hp and resist damage, each AC point is more valuable, and all a Barb actually has that forced it into Str is a +2 damage for str melee attacks and maybe some subclass abilities, but because damage/tank is the one good thing a Barb specializes in, they can still afford to have high Str and Dex at the same time, while fighter and Paladin typically have to choose one or the other, which is the opportunity cost.
And they've mentioned how being good in a skill isn't enough to get out of D. Rogues and Barbarians specialize in Ambushing, since Barbs have reckless and feral instinct to help finish off fights quickly. And for non ambushing situations they never have to worry about disadv on Stealth, so they will never be the anchor, while Paladins and fighters have to go out of their way to avoid heavy armor, which is a conscious choice to lead them away from the frontline roll.
@@Cappy-Bara idk why you think a fighter typically maxs str, but yes in a party with no one else that has a positive modifier the one person will out perform them, what a shock..
Reckless attack is also str only BTW and rage damage scales. Barbarian does not scale well with a dex build compared to paladin and fighter because they get fighting styles to help, barbarian doesnt.
How can a barbarian afford to have high dex and str compared to fighter that get more ASIs? Paladin sure, but fighter?
If you want to talk about burst damage paladin has smite which is sneak attack but more front loaded and resource based, its more flexible than rage when you're just silencing one or two dudes, they also scale with dex better and some paladins get spells like pass without trace and other buff spells, most which barbs can't find an equivalent buff without multiclassing or racial features, which is not really a part of the class is it.
The D doesn't mean its impossible, it just means they don't get anything significant to help with it. Barbs do not get anything to help with their stealth, you bring up advantage on initiative like that's some HUGE game changer and that's just not true.
Also, you keep talking about how barbarians can invest into dex and str and that's just not true. If you're doing point buy your dex is probably sitting at a +2 for your entire career. If you're rolling, any class can be good if you get six 18s believe it or not.
You really need to read what the classes do or stop ignoring features to support your point.
I found a really good use for Paladin ability of detecting creatures of specific types in nearby area. At the very start of the campaign me and other players were kidnapped by someone unknown and I decided to use this ability to check whether our kidnapper (Presumable the bbeg) employs undead or fiends. DM ruled that I detect a bunch of shapeshifters of some kind, and since then I've been using it all the time to check if the npc's we're talking to aren't planning on stabbing us and taking our skins.
I like it when you have to go to any large gathering and just always check out to see if any fiends or celestials have disguised themselves in the crowd.
You're meant to use Paladin's Divine Sense primarily for intrigue situations. Something I unfortunately learned when I happened to put an invisible undead enemy in the same room as a group of nobles... one of whom was secretly a rakshasa that was supposed to be revealed later in the campaign. Suddenly the plot by the Lords of Dust to take control of stormreach got really really derailed.
Thanks for the great discussion! Congratulations Dr. Monty!
P. S. There are typos or swapped labels in several rows throughout the video for who ranked what.
i feel like one of the problems with the monk as it stands now is that they haven't actually... mechanicalized the things that make the fantasy appealing. Especially things like insane feats of agility and bending the laws of physics a little bit, at least not until higher levels when water and wall running comes online. I think of all the times a monk I was DMing for tried to pull off some long sequence of acrobatics in combat that made my head spin, or how often marisha ray asked matt if she could "do some dope monk shit" in C2 of critical role, and I see players who are trying to do something very cool and fitting for their class with zero actual support from the rules. Instead it's up to the DM to bend the rules for them based on an assumption of how their class's fantasy should work.
I have a Way of Mercy monk, and they're so much fun to play. They're a legitimately useful healer in combat, being able to quickly raise fallen allies.
To me the "magic" of the rogue is that they don't have any, but theyre still awesome. They can keep up with the magic just by being themselves. Like even in the fantasy of rogueish characters, (think of Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, Batman) they're normal guys doing extraordinary things.
My favorite example is Han Solo: in a universe full of space wizards, magic swords, and giant aliens, he follows the hero's journey, saves the princess, contends with the greatest evil ever known, and comes out on top... by being a normal dude who by wits and skill managed to live to be one of the greatest heroes in reality.
I like how at 46:38 the graphic said Kelly a second time because they gave the exact same rankings.
Edit: the warlock ranking after that just had the title of "W" lol
For Paladins, I've actually seen Divine Sense work best in those more "negotiator" moments, particularly with creatures in disguise.
In my opinion, the monk is so blah in 5e. Is the fact that they are afraid it will be like the 3.5 monk. Which I absolutely loved and was very powerful.
I love Rogue. I am biased though and I agree with them being able to go all day. I will say that with the right campaign Rogues are just so fun. A changeling rogue with glamour studded leather is just so amazingly fun.
My favorite thing. I tend to be very subtle with it, but just having the option always on feels great.
Yeah, changing is awesome when you can play with it. I have yet to really be able to use my abilities due to the campaign.
@@adaelion3772 ever been tied up or chained? Just slim your wrists!
In a homebrew Pathfinder campaign, I was playing a Lich Arcanist which is a hybrid of Sorc and wizard, and I totally understand the idea that you have a perfect solution to any problem. Towards the end of the campaign I was able to start learning spells from other class lists as if they were wizard spells. I chose the Cleric, Psychic, and Druid lists and I had access to almost every spell in the game. I was immortal in like 12 ways.
53:13 I recently experienced how useful the wizard is. Our low-level party’s airship about to get attacked by two green dragons that were flying side by side.
Me: “I cast Web on their wings to stick the dragons together ”
DM: “The dragons’ wings entangle and stick together, and they fall hundreds of feet out of the sky… I guess combat’s over before it starts”.
That's a really smart way to do a ton of fall damage to the dragons, but it probably shouldn't have been an insta-win for the encounter. According to the falling rules in Xanathar's, the dragons would take a max of 20d6 bludgeoning damage from the fall. After hitting the ground, they should then be able to do strength checks until their free and then they can fly back up to the airship to resume the fight.
Guessing your DM is a "rule of cool" person. Because that would not of worked at my table.
You're telling us 2 dragons were flying close enough to each other that they could get hit by a 20 ft cube of web.
Then they both failed their dex saving throws vs a low level wizard's save DC. And then failed several strength saving throws that would of been needed for them to plummet to the ground without breaking free, presuming you're high enough in the air for fall damage to MAYBE kill them, and only if they are very young dragons at that.
Not to mention I'm not sure that's how web works to begin with, because if the webs aren’t anchored between two solid masses (such as walls or trees) or layered across a floor, wall, or ceiling, the conjured web collapses on itself, and the spell ends at the start of your next turn.
Yeah, when you get into unusual solutions like this, it really comes down to the table and choosing between Rule of Cool vs Rule of Logic. As a DM, sometimes a player's idea is so cool and fun and creative that I'll just let it happen.
But in addition to the previous person's comment about actual fall damage, there are a few other considerations:
1. The idea that dragons would fly closely enough for their wings to get stuck together is already a stretch.
2.Then there's the fact that these 2 huge creatures that each likely weigh well over a ton could be so effectively stuck together by a web. Their separate momentum and trajectory would easily pull them apart hard enough to destroy the web. Remember that all it takes is a moderate Str check to break out. Almost no creature is strong enough to exert an equivalent amount of force to what would be generated by those 2 huge bodies flying in slightly different trajectories.
@@doodlecrazydc He said they were flying side-by-side, so on the distance, that seems obviously a yes for it to work. He doesn't say how low level, but the dragons were likely young at most. They're already CR 8 so fighting two is very dangerous for any party that might be considered low level, so probably not higher tier dragons than that. They only have a +4 DEX save and having a 14 DC is very likely, so that would mean the dragons have a 55% chance of success. That's nearly a 1 in 4 chance for both to fail, not at all unbelievable and you might want to take a peek at Xanathar's for falling speed because before they even start their STR saving throws because it's very quick. Then the fall doesn't have to kill them. The fall and resulting turns breaking free from the web simply allow the party time to get far enough away that the dragons aren't going to catch up or are no longer willing to pursue that far. Finally, it doesn't matter if web collapses because the entire benefit is on the first turn. You have to stop thinking of everything in purely mechanical terms because the game has much more flexibility than that and still be well within the rules.
@@doodlecrazydc You're correct, he is a rule of cool DM. Yes, the dragons were side-by-side and within range of Web. I explicitly asked how close together they were before I cast the spell as to avoid wasting my spell slot.
Yes, they failed their saves. DM even showed the table what he rolled. Falling is instant in combat. DM had to double check. So the dragons didn't have time to roll saves. Because it was creative and cool, the DM just said they died.... but then had me roll for Investigation. My character then remembered that Green dragon scales are worth a lot of money, so I panicked at seeing all that money literally fall out of the sky
Wizard is also my favorite class in the game. They can learn all the spells so they aren’t limited in their magic. For every single rank that they received below a tier, there’s a spell for that.
The way wizards can interact with magic in the world is just S tier. It also helps if you have a DM that allows you to find spells and do cool stuff with downtime.
When you think of magic in D&D you think of the wizard. All the other spellcasters are variations on coming close to what a true master of magic looks like. For arcane casters anyway.
I think that Orym of the Ashari shows that the fighter can be more than a D in many of the roles. :D Each time I watch the Critical Role I am surprised how cleverly this character is built.
Been watching a ton of your older content before finding this one. Man Kelly, you're lookin' SHARP!
A hasted monk who just used step of the wind with the jump spell from the wizard jumping up to the dragon and stunning striking it is one of the most badass things you can do.
That purple dragon knight comment, Monty's transition into monk, then Kelly's reaction... Oh the FEELS! What an unexpected roller coaster of emotions. Moments like that, maybe as much as your generally good advice, is what I watch for.
Totem and wild magic come to mind for barbarian that have support, utility, or exploration benefits.
Ok, y'all need a follow up video with recommended builds for this Paladin and Bard two player game.
In defense of the ranger also, we have 2 in our current campaign. Having two rangers launching arrows every round (plus all their abilities; looking at you Hunter's Mark) wear any enemy that's been encountered, down. Plus nothing makes your party feel quite as safe as being in a ranger's favorite terrain while traveling. I love my rangers.
Great series of videos, and congratulations on your achievement Dr. Martin
It kinda seems to me like the Monk has wandered in from a completely different game. In, say, Exalted or Five Rings, they'd be really awesome, because "doing sick stunts" is one of the core pillars of those games, but not as much for D&D.
They go waaaaaay back in the game. Back to AD&D in the late 70s, up through 2nd ed.
@@ClockworkOuroborous That's not their point.
@@ClockworkOuroborous Actually, 2nd edition is the one version of the game that *didn't* offer the monk. It was removed after 1st along with the assassin, but brought back in 3rd edition.
I would say that the problem with the monk is that they are very specialised in a role that does not match any of the goven ones. Monks do battlefield control and that's what they excell at. They sprint around the battlefield, pushing enemies into melee range, stunnimg the strongest foes or just deal the killing blow to a lot of smaller enemies.
@@XMaster340 base class and suboptimized, definitely. consider the Pack Tactics videos on optimized monk
In terms of Cleric being a support no matter the build it's crazy that the Light Cleric which gets FIREBALL also has a great support ability with Warding Flare
The base ability of the fighter to be so versatile is what means they fill those roles. They can naturally fill most rolls at B level because they get so many damn feats and ASI's. I think because they don't have spellcasting that people don't consider them for anything other than hitting things, but they are so versatile.
Eldritch Knight + Feats + Illusion Spells: "You will know this devil's power."
The Party of 6 Fighter Subclasses: Exists
The DM: "God... Spare my campaign from the Eldritch Knight, the Echo Knight, the Samurai, the Rune Knight, the Cavalier, and the Battle Master."
I'm sorry I missed this episode upon release. Good to hear of you guys' success. You provide a great avenue for DnD nerds like me and your info is always solid. Looking forward to that Drakkenheim book. Kudos, DD!
My Ascendant Dragon Monk is actually holding up quite well in contributing to the party's combat prowess. Not the greatest front liner necessarily. And maybe not the highest damage of all. But versatile and mobile enough to get where he needs to be and do reliable damage where it's needed.
I do agree though that Monks in general have significant limitations.
i think someone with a bow and sharpshooter would better fulfill the “reliable damage where it’s needed” role than having a guy running back and forth to the enemies so they can punch them.
although, pack tactics made a video about monks taking gunner and sharpshooter to be the best musketeer in the game. for most people, dedicated weapon, ki-fueled attack, and focused aim all look like cute little treats to alleviate the problems of the monk, but you can reliably get what amounts to crossbow expert sharpshooter damage with a d12 damage die by combining them correctly. you have to multiclass to pick up the slack after level 5 (cause monks really just don’t get many features after that) but things look really good when you just decide to take the best early level features from the fighter, rogue, and ranger instead of letting high level monk features disappoint you.
Wow - you both are looking especially good this week, guys!
Thanks so much!
Part of what makes Monk suffer even in combat where martials are specialized to shine is that the encounter design of most encounters doesn't reward their mobility like they do a paladin's durability or a fighter's offensive prowess.
Like, yeah, you can punch a guy 60 feet away. But half the encounters in the game will stand in one place and melee, and the other half will fly or teleport or what have you.
Lv20 Illusionist (kind of) Eldritch Knight + Feats
Before Initiative is rolled: "Bury the light deep within!!!... ... ... Oh, sorry. I forgot to turn off my Minor Illusion."
Round 1: "4th lv Major Image: Judgement Cut End... Action Surge... Major Image: Judgement Cut Animator + Bonus Action: Greater War Magic + Eldritch Strike... Action Surge's Teleport + Bonus Action: Summon Bonded Weapon..."
Opportunity Attack: "Warcaster: Booming Blade + Eldritch Strike (or ES for short)"
Round 2: "Green Flame with Adv + Booming Blade + ES + Action Surge + Green Flame Blade with Adv + Booming Blade + ES + Bonus Action: Lesser War Magic + Booming Blade + ES (redundant for this turn with ES)."
Opportunity Attack: "Warcaster: Banish!"
Right before Banish ends: "At Will (Eldritch Initiate), Silent Image: Sin Devil Trigger... ... ... Now I'm motivated."
The Monk's turn: "I'll stun the Bandit Leader into submission."
6:40 this is why y'all are my favorite DnD content creators on RUclips. You really seem to listen to the community, and you strive to make sure everyone knows that your viewpoints don't invalidate anyone else's.
I once DMed for a group that had a tempest cleric and a stars druid that were siblings... Sometimes they felt really similar, but both of them were incredibly strong characters that complimented each other... Especially once we got to high levels I did not feel bad about throwing dozens of monsters at them, there was so much crowd control and so much AOE damage in that group.
Also regarding divine sense, I have a paladin player who has used it to great effect, and it's been clutch a couple of times where they figured out that the advisor to the duke was actually a vampire or the shopkeeper was a rakshasa, but still, even with him using it judiciously it's 9 times out of 10 a "yeah, no s--- this is desecrated ground. What gave it away, the pentagrams, the human sacrifices or the five demons we just killed?"
Congratulations Dr. Martin! 👏🏻 🎉
If you treat an S as 5, and a D as 1, here are the average scores for each class across the board and divided into their absolute potential:
1st - Bard - 3.5
2nd - Druid - 3.21
3rd - Wizard - 3.14
4th - Artificer - 3.07
5th - Sorcerer - 3
6th - Rogue, Paladin - 2.92
8th - Warlock, Ranger, Cleric - 2.85
11th - Fighter - 2
12th - Barbarian - 1.85
13th - Monk - 1.71
The bard once again proving just how versatile it is, and the monk once again proving just how lacklustre its base mechanics and abilities are compared to most other classes
I mean, from all the vieeos and lists they did, only on like 2 the bard didnt get an A or an S. Bards are broken on a good way, even if theres memes about bards of 3.5 edition being horny, 5e bards are the superior class of the game
Thanks for making this. This just fed into my reasoning why i banned bards for my experienced players and advised my new players to stay away from monks. Dnd is much more enjoyable when everybody is on a similar overall powerlevel and can fulfill a niche.
I'm surprised how far down I had look for this! I totally agree that the Bard, Druid, and Wizard are the overall best classes in the game when you consider all pillars of gameplay. Although past there the list is a little shaky for me.
@@faselfasel2864 I definitely would disagree on that. You want your experienced players playing a bard (especially when you’re playing with newer players) because then you can rely on them to help assist the party. The reason the bard is strong isn’t because of how dangerous they are but because of how much they strengthen their party and make everyone else better. Also monk is a good class for beginner as a basic starter and then once they feel comfortable with how the game is played. Then they can branch out. Like they said. The monk will still get cool moments and have fun
@@antuanlemon484 You can disagree, but my experience has shown me that an experienced and creative bard player can completely steal the show from anybody else, not just in combat, but also in social situations and even exploration. Their ability to be skill monkeys can take a lot away from other classes and if you are a new player going for monk, not only will you get disappointed about the lack of items for you, but also how limited and underwhelming you are in contrast to other classes. There is just no single relevant thing in the game that you exclusively can do better than anyone else.
I was happy to see the overall Ranger ratings. I'm a first time player and playing a wood elf ranger for my first go. I wanted the nature-y, strong loner, bow sniper kind of razzmatazz. After I picked ranger and started researching it seemed what I usually found people were saying about the ranger was not great. We've played about 5 times now and I'm loving my ranger while exploring the ins and outs of D&D. I think I would like to try a Druid next.
I'm currently running a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, and am genuinely struggling with what class to level up in next. The only reason I'm considering Paladin is to be more tanky and because the Oath would be important from an RP perspective. Because MAN, it is nice having actual spell slots. 😅
Great video! One of my favorite series on this channel. Tuned in every video!
I think could makes sense add a new parameter called something like: "Adaptability" that shows how much of all other roles the characters can do at the same time, and probably on that we will find something more interesting even on monk class.
There's a big difference in the adaptability between a spells-known caster and a preparation spellcaster, for example. Building a Bard for anything comes at the cost of other spells.
An Artificer can just change their spells, summon a different minion, change their armor, use/make a different potion, and so on.
A fantastic video, thanks for the effort in putting this detailed exploration together.
Path of the Beast Barb gets some cool movement abilities that are useful for exploring various environments
Exactly what I was thinking.
That path is absolutely one of the best, if your DM lets you do stuff "off screen" having a beast barbarian perform as a scout works really well when you consider their immense mobilti.
i love this channel so much, always makes my day when you upload
I think giving the monk a d12 hit dice would help a lot... think of martial arts characters in movies (or MMA fighters in real life) who are able to absorb so many attacks. Also, a disarming strike as a Bonus Action would be a cool option as well.
I was thinking to just add Con to their Unarmored Defense.
you know, that makes a lot of sense. every martial artist i can think of that people invoke when talking about monks gets the absolute shit kicked out of them and stays standing. martial arts stars like bruce lee, jackie chan, fighting game characters like ken, ryu, anime characters like goku and rock lee, they all emphasize getting beat up and dishing it back.
2d6 + Dex Mod instead of 1d12 + Dex Mod (for dice reasons) on Monk's Unarmed Strikes. Unlike the Fighter's Unarmed Combat Style 1d8 + Str Mod.
And Disarming a creature is an optional rule. So an extra option as a BA will be useful for Monks.
Maybe a con bonus to higher levels of monk. That would more consistently add got points to your monk. And fits Style wise. A con and Rex bonus makes sense for a player monk. Constantly training to be faster and stronger.
Great video. This exercise was a lot of fun to listen to. I don't disagree to any degree that would wildly swing any of these assessments, but I had a good chuckle when you went over the barbarian and how bad the class is at negotiating and support. My players are nearing the end of their current big campaign milestone and have been together for a few years. Since my campaign is actually never ending, I get players and characters who come and go. When this happens, I allow for a single player to play multiple characters when the table is a little light. One of the players took over a barbarian from a previous mission as he's friends with that player's main character. When the group expanded, I suggested we drop him back to NPC status until they get to the BBEG, when each player will run multiple characters in a massive multi-session war. The player agreed and said, "You do his voice better anyhow, so just have him act as a companion." So the barbarian is actually their guide and delivers lore (like a bard or learned mage). helps them find clues (as an investigator), and often acts as a liaison to other NPCs (as their negotiator). The takeaway for any player should be that they can build and play any type of character they want and have a lot of fun with it. It doesn't matter if the class is primarily focused on combat skills, they can still be well rounded and bring a lot of other value as long as a player is creative and wants to take on the challenge. It's part of what makes RPGs so much fun.
The monk is like a playmaker in hockey. Going to rack up a lot of assists, and score an occasional goal, but not nearly as much as the goal scorer. It's the support of damage dealing. I personally love that role. Stunning Strike is so powerful. But also a DM's worst nightmare.
Divine Sense can be useful for ruling out problems. In those "is the door trapped" scenarios when the party gets trapped in analysis paralysis, it can help narrow down what to try, and it doesn't deplete a very valuable resource
45:03 This is because of the massive difference between the number of encounters the game was designed for you to have each day, vs the number that most dungeon masters provide. In the DMG I think it suggests around 4-6, maybe even 6-8. But like Monty says, most DMs allow a long rest after about 2.
I think it's because so many combat encounters rarely makes sense from a story perspective. A few a day is plenty for thee narrative.
Yeah I think it's a flaw in the design, not the dungeon masters running the game.
maybe this will lead into a build overview series of which subclass is geared toward what party role per class?
Druids are very hard to gauge in this manner because their subclass massively changes their role in the party. Moon and Spore Druids are significantly more durable, Stars and Wildfire deal way more damage, while Dreams and Land have better healing and/or utility. Then of course you have Shepherd Druids, who can snap the game's balance clean in half at Tier 2 if the GM isn't ready for it.
ya tell a shepard druid they are c in dmg lol
@@Staff7 The ratings don't take subclasses into account, but yes, shepherd druid is amazeballs.
Divine Sense is usefull. You need it to: 1) know if that NPC is a devil/fey/undead in disguise (and only one spell and one magic item is going to save against that detection); 2) know where is an enemy of that type on battlefield, because that type of supernatural cratures often has an invisibility; 3) know if there is an ambush, because not every cemetry or graveyard filled with undead, and if you have some doubts you can solve that thought; 4) also knowing the enemy's type will help your with simple understanding like damage resistances (like you know, fiends - fire, feys - charms, undead - necrotic res, radiant vuln usualy).
It is really usefull feature if you know how to use it properly... And the campaign and surrounding area are for it. Like every other feature
I feel sorry for the monk. For a class that focuses on mental, physical and spiritual health and shaping their own body as a weapon, It's really unforgiving to limit their hit dice with a d8, it doesn't make any sense.
Badly designed, hope it gets better in One DnD.
To me it consistently feels like WotC is afraid of overtuning the monk, and subsequently they undertune it too hard.
I love you guys! Your content helped my friend group to start with DnD. Greetings from Germany.
First!
But also seriously thank you dudes for this AMAZING series. It’s been food for discussion and amazing advice for classes I didn’t look twice at that I’m now happily playing.
Glad you enjoy it!
Perhaps there could also be, and you both kind of mentioned this for each class, a "cool" or "interesting" factor for each class and special shoutouts for especially interesting subclasses. An example would be yes Scribes wizard is interesting because of how you can pull off some shenanigans with game mechanics, but Bladesinger people often find more easily lends itself to RP because of just how interesting of an archetype they represent. So maybe the "interesting" or "cool" factor would be judged by how easily the class (or a specific subclass) lends itself to roleplaying. If I had to rank the classes by both what you've said in the video and my own opinions, I think the rankings would look something like this:
Artificer - B
Barbarian - A
Bard - A
Cleric - C
Druid - B
Fighter - C (special note for Rune Knight, B)
Monk - B
Paladin - A
Ranger - S
Rogue - B
Sorcerer - A
Warlock - A
Wizard - D (special note for Bladesinger, A)
I really think that people sleep hard from the spell list from ranger and how know what the party weakness is and how to remediate that. bcs I dont think he needs more damage and pick damage and self buff spells are a pitfall, but have always things like detect magic, PWT and goodberry, beyond other utility spells are priceless. even high level you can have things like revivify and conjure beast. I guess the only problem is the half caster and slow magic advance...
Honestly I have played A LOT of paladins and I haven't used divine sense super often. However just last week I was running Rime of the Frostmaiden and in particular the party was in Termalaine investigating the mines. The party got in a fight with the grell and that resulted in the paladin jumping down to the bucket across the chasm on the third layer. He noticed the skull with the glowing crystal in it and dropped a divine sense, which obviously didn't let him know anything about the crystal, because it was just a psi crystal sticking out of a very dead mind flayer skull, but it did pick up the ghost inside Trex, the leader of the kobolds in that mine who had come out to observe the very loud fight. The party may not have learned about the ghost otherwise.
I'd really like to see y'all rank your own class, the Apothecary, in all these roles!
Perhaps monk should’ve gotten a better score in support because of stunning strike? A stunned enemy can change a fight, and with 4 attacks a lv 5 monk can burn all their ki to to stun a crucial enemy. It’s not the best strategy but credit where it’s due. Even my monk where I didn’t care about my wisdom with a 13 save has had clutch moments stunning enemies to save the party, they can’t attack easy to hit and drop concentration on spells. I do think it’s silly that a fighter can be a better boxer then a monk (they get d8s at lv 1) but at least they have good mobility. And I think that mobility plays well with the stunning potential of the monk. So you aren’t dps you aren’t a tank but you help in all those rolls like you said.
Other caster's get so many control spells though. Grease, web, hypnotic pattern, banishment, wall of force, synaptic static, forcecage, sleet storm, plant growth, spike growth(is that what it's called?), repelling blast on warlock is at will, spirit guardians halves movement speed, dominate person/monster, hold person/monster, command, hideous laughter, mind whip, sometimes darkness. I'm sure there are a couple others as well. Most of those target better saves, multiple creatures, last longer, inflict similar or worse effects, or are lower level. Caster's have a lot more resources to use compared to monks as well. Stunning strike will only get worse, caster's will only get more options as they level.
@@ppleberrynd true but I’m not saying monk is a secret S tier I’m saying stunning a target for a round that can’t be dispelled is pretty good. And you can increase your odds of landing it with silvery barbs, lucky, etc (or 2 levels in divination wizard but no multiclassing for now). I mainly say it should be a support feature because 1) monk damage sucks ass so the paladin and barbarian get more out of it and 2) the spell casters get to auto fail dex and str saves and 3) suppose the first hit stuns a target, so then you move on down the line, up to 4 stuns a round as ki permits, not a true aoe but still potent.
Honestly though I mainly bring it up because stunning strike is the only truly good feature monks have, everything else is eaither situational or underpowered.