#JerricoRambling

[jerricocreates]

DnD Players Don't Fear the Dark

In the 5th Edition, Rules as Written, the Darkvision feature allows a creature to see 60 feet into darkness (variations on the distance exist). Where those without would see pitch black, a creature with darkvision sees a grayscale night vision. With one final rule, anything viewed through darkvision is considered lightly obscured, meaning they have disadvantage on perception checks requiring sight which lowers their passive perception by 5.

In most every game I've played in and watched online, that last rule is ignored, darkvision's only numerical penalty is discarded. Even my own games? Why? Should it be? Over the decade or so I've played, I have noticed two metagame trends in every campaign that lasts more than a few months:

The goal of players, whether consciously or not, is to climb the ladder so that every player has some kind of darkvision and some kind of flight. (Don't even get me started on the flying problem.)

DMs use light levels as an obstacle less and less.

This may not be the case for your group, every group is different, but this is something I've noticed in many groups over years of play as the meta of DnD is hacked apart. As much as I do not care for the 2024 edition of DnD, I looked into it to see if there was anything interesting mechanically to borrow from and I noticed that the darkvision stayed mostly the same. Theoretically, I can see two possibilities. Either, they copied it exactly without putting much thought into most people ignoring it, or they felt like the rule that people are ignoring is still genuinely the best ruling for the game they are making. While I'm not a fan of a lot of the changes in 2024e, but I do think changes needed to be made for 5e, I have to pause to think about why this is one that stayed the same.

For some perspective, I first learned DnD 3.5 edition from a roommate in college. That edition had two visions: Low-Light Vision and Darkvision. In this version of the rules low-light ignores the penalty from dim light, and darkvision ignores both dim light and darkness. As far as I can find, 3.5 Darkvision functions the same way people play 5e Darkvision, but having two different levels meant that Darkvision itself was less common. Moving on to 5e, they appear to have given Darkvision to every race that had low-light vision, but altered Darkvision with a penalty so it wouldn't be the end-all-be-all. It didn't really work.

I personally have modded low-light back into 5e and run it like 3.5. It has its benefits, there are fewer races that feel like they ignore darkness, players seem to find it interesting, and the lighting features in Roll20 make different vision types really easy to set up. However, I have to wonder if it has exacerbated this innate push to get everyone to darkvision.

DnD players don't fear darkness. Darkness is an inconvenience to be avoided. The only thing making darkness scary is the DM describing it in a creepy way. Darkness is about as effective at making you afraid in DnD as it is Kingdom Hearts. If your party goes into a cave, but the party is full of Tieflings, they all shout, "I have Darkvision," seconds after the DM has said the word "Darkness." If there's a human or two in the group, they get to stumble around in the dark, desperately cling to the elf, or be the torch bearer who the enemies strike first. As soon as they find a sizable town and have enough money, the Halfling in the group is going to permanently have an attunement slot devoted to being on par with the rest of the team.

So what is a DM to do? Should Darkvision be removed entirely? That feels like a bit of a cop out for underdark races. Perhaps darkvision should be penalized further? But in what way would that feel organic? Do you make magic items like Darkvision Goggles or Truesight Lenses impossible to buy? Now your just being stingy. Is 60ft too long a distance for anyone but an archer? Grasping at straws at this point.

Whenever I've got a fresh campaign under my belt, I want to try making different vision goggles hard to acquire, but replace them with easy to acquire potions that do the same thing temporarily. But the longer I tirade, the more I wonder if I'm overreacting to the effect, even if it is still a problem. I saw a video analyzing the original pokemon games from before it became a huge franchise (I don't remember which one, I'm sorry.) There was a suggestion that, while your starter was designed to carry you through the game, early pokemon like Caterpie, Weedle, Pidgey, and Rattata where never designed to be competitively viable. The thought was that their entire lines were designed to teach you early game mechanics about fighting, catching, and evolution, and then you would move on to other, more interesting, pokemon later. You might be able to say the same for darkness as a threat in DnD. It was only ever meant to be a threat for early game, then you move on to other, more interesting, mechanics as you level up.

Do I think Darkvision is a problem? Yes. Do I think it needs fixing? Yes, something needs done. Do I know exactly how? No, not entirely. Should I be too terribly worried about it? No, not really. But most importantly, Can darkness be an interesting mechanic to play with in DnD? Absolutely. Do not hide from dabbling with sight just because it might be difficult to track. Make them fear the dark. Make them think something is lurking behind them, just outside the edges of their vision. Give them an Amnesia-like experience where the only place they feel safety is huddled around a tiny lantern whose flame barely clings to life. Make them rue the day they thought a measly 60ft of darkvision would save them from the recesses of the darkest void.

*Insert Gruntilda's laugh here.*

[jerricocreates]

Looking around, I'm seeing a few places that say the 5e Monk is kind of weak. Having played one for over a year now, I can say that without a homebrew subclass and magic items, I would not be having as much fun. In general, I think a class can be a bit underpowered and be offset by magic items. That said, what is the Monk's problem and how does one fix it? Can it be fixed? Importantly, can it be fixed with a few small tweaks, or does it need some massive overhaul? More contentious than you might think.

In general, I'm seeing problems pointed at HP, AC, Ki, Damage Output, Stunning Strike, and even some levied at its selling point, bonus action economy. A big factor I've seen debated is what a Monk's role in the party even is. Some classes have multiple roles based on build, can the Monk? Determining that will shape how the changes are made. Let's think about that for a moment.

So, last I read, in whatever the new DnD rules are called now, they are sectioning off classes into some variation of damage, expert, mage, etc. I recall Bard, Rogue, and Ranger were all supposed to be skill experts of some sort, which means Monk is probably going to be lumped in with Fighter and Barbarian. There's a solid chance they've already changed that and are doing something completely different, but if they haven't, I think they are making a mistake. Lumping the classes together like that assumes that they can all fill the same role and will always fill that role. Yes, a Wizard and a Sorcerer can both be a party mage, but there's so many different builds for those two that they can both serve different purposes on a team.

Tangent aside, I've seen people struggling with the Monk's role in 5e. Most will agree the Monk is a damaging class. The Monk is meant to get in and deal damage on the front line. Is it a Frontliner? The Monk doesn't deal enough damage to stand up with the likes of a Fighter with a greataxe. Is it a Tank? The Monk doesn't have the AC and health pool to stand up as long as the Barbarian or Paladin (who can also wield a greataxe). I've seen a few ideas posited:

The Monk is a Skirmisher. Like a specialized surgical tool, a Monk gets into the thick of the fight, deals consist damage on a critical point, keeps up fleeing targets, and getting out when things get tough.

The Monk is Field Control. Monk is designed to get into the fight fast, move between enemies, put pressure on certain areas, and stun them in place so that everyone else can eliminate threats.

The Monk is the Problem Solver. This is my personal suggestion, but you ever see a team of any kind where there's a guy that just doesn't quite fit, but gets the stuff done that the others can't. While the rest of the team is on the front line, the Monk can get past and open the gate, take out the archer, signal for backup, etc. The Monk gets stuff done that makes sure the team can win.

These roles all rely on the Monk's speed, stunning strike, and ability to disengage. What's interesting is that it's not mutually exclusive. The Monk could do any of these roles depending on the party that they are in. If you're team has an archer, there's a solid chance you don't need a skirmisher. If your wizard already has field control covered, your Monk can focus on solving problems. That's without even getting into subclasses.

Now I'd like to lay out all of the problems I've seen people say they have with the Monk and whether I think they would be worthwhile or not.

Ability Scores: I think this is the most important issue that I'm not certain how to solve. I've seen people say that the Monk by itself is MAD (Multiple Ability Dependant). No matter what your Monk does, it is very reliant on both Dex and Wis for AC, damage, and saving throws. This is a problem for multiclassing, but also in general for a Monk with weak stats. I've seen it posted as a martial artist with a Str dump is strange, but it's mechanically justified. Also, this causes problems for

Armor Class: A Monk has unarmed defense using Dex and Wis. These two stats being high usually gives a Monk decent AC, but the Monk has 0 options for an alternatives. Most Monk abilities, for some reason, require being unaunarmed. A Barbarian's unarmored defense scales with Con which makes their amazing health even better and they can use a shield, but if they decide to wear regular armor, they only lose out on a 10ft speed boost. I'd recommend removing this aspect. This coincides with

Hit Points: A Monk has a d8 hit die. I've seen people recommend increasing it to a d10 to incentivize staying in the fight longer. I'm inclined to agree considering the Monk can't invest much in Con to bump their HP up.

Ki Points: I'll be honest, I had to beg my DM for an item to restore a bit of Ki mid-battle. I've seen comments that say early Monks don't have enough ki and late Monks don't have enough. Sorcery points are also per level, but Sorcerers have a different use case for their points and they interact with spell slots. In general, I think Monks need more Ki early game and a method of restoring Ki mid-battle that can't be abused. I've seen suggestions for a meditation feature that restores ki. A cool suggestion I've seen on reddit was that defensive abilities should restore ki while offensive ones spend ki. That would make for an interesting balance during the battle. However, I know a smart player is going to spam defend outside of battle to restore their points the first second they get.

Damage Output: A Monk's damage comes in the form of repeated small attacks. To put it into perspective, a basic 10th level Monk in 1 turn (Action and Bonus Action) can deal 4 unarmed strike that deal 1d6+Dex. Each strike has a chance to crit and can be stunning on a hit. Any other melee character at that level can deal 2 hits with upwards of 1d12+Str, but every single melee class has additional ways of dealing more damage (rage, divine smite), plus magic items. There are very few official magic items for Monk damage, but homebrew exists for a reason. It's in this way that I'd lump Monks in with Rogues, but even Rogues have sneak attack which would be 5d6 at 10th level and it doesn't even need to use a bonus action. While Monk was never meant to be a Frontliner, it's worth considering that the Monk's methods of dealing damage is a bit low compared to others. I've seen suggestions of spending ki for more damage and I've seen suggestions that instead of scaling the die (d4, d6, d8, d10) it should scale the number of die (1d6, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6). I'm not certain on the best method.

Stunning Strike: Stunned is a potent condition in a player's hands. The ability to lock down an opponent is the Monk's bread and butter, but it's in a shaky territory. Let's do some 10th level perspective again. A Monk spends its action, bonus action, and 1 Ki point to strike 4 times. On a hit, they can spend 1 Ki to try and stun. The dream is to run in and stun four guys at once, costing you 5 ki, half your max at this point. Since the DC is based on Wis, and it's a Con save, you've actually got a very small chance of stunning a lot of stronger monsters who have very good Con. Even all attacks hit, if the dice don't like you that day, you run in and spend half your ki trying to stun one guy. I've seen suggestions that it should be free a number of times

Bonus Actions: Alright, hear me out. Monks have so many bonus action options. Most classes would kill for more bonus actions. My issues with Monk bonus actions are that they cost too much ki or aren't sustainable. In general I'd wager most Monks spend at least 1 Ki per round, but stunning brings that up to 2. It gets real expensive. There's a chance that giving Monks more ki doesn't actually solve the problem of overspending. Giving Monks some free options that are free might solve this problem. My second problem is actually with the Rogue's Cunning Action. In a lot of ways, the Monk and Rogue share a similar space on the board. Perspective time again. A 5th level Monk with a base 30ft speed can spend can spend 1 Ki point, action, and bonus action to move 120ft in a round. Meanwhile, a 5th level Rogue can potentially move up to 90ft in a round without any resources. Speed is one of the Monks main selling points, but if the Rogue gets a speed boost, the Monk will run out of Ki and will catch up. I'm not saying this is a massive concern, but it is worth considering when changes are made.

This is just a cool thing I wanted to add, but Reddit user HelicopterMean1070 had a cool idea I wanted to write in this ramble for future thought. They suggested that Stunning Strike should be replaced with a Pressure Point Strike that targets certain ability scores. So, a Str save causes the opponent to deal half damage, a Dex save reduces the opponents speed, and the Con save deals the normal stun. I couldn't find it again, but in another thread, I found a suggestion that Monks should be magic diffusers, so having a "strike" ability that is anti-magic would be cool too.

With everything said, despite the number of flaws I've stated, the Monk is so tied up in itself that a couple big changes would probably balance it out. A solid Ki restoration system would probably solve the lack of ki and make its point economy more bearable. Removing the Monk's inability to function in armor might give more AC options, take the pressure off the two ability scores it requires, and make it a more favorable multiclass option. Lastly, increasing the Monk's damage output and giving it more options for dispatching problems may make it better at its job. The foundation is there, and it's a really interesting class, it just needs a boost to stand along side its peers again.