Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Man pathfinder 2e is full of little things that really suck. A dwarf that doesn't think to put their charisma back to 10 can't even drink a healing potion at first level, since resonance is cha mod + level.
 
Man pathfinder 2e is full of little things that really suck. A dwarf that doesn't think to put their charisma back to 10 can't even drink a healing potion at first level, since resonance is cha mod + level.
Well, they can, but they have to roll for it. When your resonance is zero you basically have to roll a 50% chance for consumables to fail.

Resonance is one of their more experimental ideas, and we'll see how much they wind up walking it back after playtesting. "How often did you run out of Resonance?" is one of the survey questions.

If Resonance was replacing wealth-by-level so we could do away with looting, I'd be all for it. Throwing it on top of wealth-by-level is kind of a mess.
 
Well, they can, but they have to roll for it. When your resonance is zero you basically have to roll a 50% chance for consumables to fail.

Resonance is one of their more experimental ideas, and we'll see how much they wind up walking it back after playtesting. "How often did you run out of Resonance?" is one of the survey questions.

If Resonance was replacing wealth-by-level so we could do away with looting, I'd be all for it. Throwing it on top of wealth-by-level is kind of a mess.
Yeah. It should be minimum one with the ability to create a magic item by investing it into things (like imbuing the blade of your ancestors with it to let it grow with you).
 
Dwarves should also have an Ancestry feat - heck, several, a 1st-, 5th- and higher-level one - that increases their Resonance, to make up for their typically-lower Charisma.

And speaking of Resonance - it's a huge missed opportunit that it wasn't baked into the non-magical classes abilities? As in, why don't Fighters and Rogues get extra Resonance?
Of course, to make it interesting, you'd have to give them interesting things to spend that Resonance on. But I already proposed something like that - high weapon proficiency could unlock special magical abilities on weapons, and instead of fueling that with spell points, you could fuel that with resonance. Any martial class could use that, but Fighters have more of it. And while Rogues don't get high proficiency, they could get "Use Any Item", and thus just unlock it like that!

Extra Resonance for the Fighter - often the dedicated tank/meatshield - could also elegantly take care of the Healing-problem. As in, it doesn't matter if the person with the huge hitpoint pool takes the damage or someone else does, it all needs healing at the end, which is the true limited resource. But if the Fighter can just heal a lot easier - via easy access to healing potions or other items - then that's not an issue.
 
Clumsy just caps your Dex bonus to Reflex saves, it doesn't apply the ACP to it. So if your Dex isn't any higher than that the armor's max anyway, then Clumsy is meaningless.

It's still fucking obnoxious that the penalties for wearing heavy armor are even more brutal than in previous editions. Especially because the fighter only gets higher proficiency in heavy armor, but his Dex will probably outgrow it by 10th level. So if you don't want to suffer penalties, you miss out on the benefits of a class feature. And higher proficiency doesn't reduce the penalties at all.

Heavy armor sucked too much to be worth wearing in 3.X, and it continues to suck in PF2. Gygax didn't know what the fuck he was talking about when it came to medieval arms and armor, and people need to quit mindlessly regurgitating his mistakes.
Ummm.... the editions he worked on rulewise didn't have any "max dex bonus" or generalized penalties for heavy armor. You only had penalties if the weight of the armor was too high for your strength. In which case why are you a fighter anyway?

Hell, I remember back when they actually used to have a d&d chart on what all the various polearms looked like with descriptions of origin and function.
 
Last edited:
Ummm.... the editions he worked on rulewise didn't have any "max dex bonus" or generalized penalties for heavy armor. You only had penalties if the weight of the armor was too high for your strength. In which case why are you a fighter anyway?
You're telling me 3e invented the ACP out of thin air? Jeeze, the more I learn the more cancerous the new things in 3e seem.

@The Narrator , I finished my characters - a dual wielding dwarf fighter and a halfling sorcerer (white dragon).

My thoughts on character creation:
  • It's pretty easy once you've made one or two characters
  • You don't start getting extra languages from intelligence until its at 14+ for some reason. Seems kinda silly since there's no other way to know an extra language at first level
  • You don't get to chose your signature skills, which makes your ability to chose what you're trained in pretty pointless (beyond extra skills.
  • Sorcerers get 5+int skill points and wizards get 2+int, meaning at first level the typical wizard only has 1 extra skill over the dumber sorcerer
  • Being trained in skill seems pretty pointless at level 1
  • You can have 0 resonance at level 1 without trying. If that's as major as I think it is, the game shoulde a warning about that
  • Races feel way too bland and racial feats don't do enough to make up for it. Halflings are short humans with 2 less health and different feats to choose from. Half-elves and half-orcs are humans with a special feat, which means you don't actually get a proper racial feat at level 1.
  • The way spellcasters choose an archtype at level 1 that decides a bunch of features is irritating. Especially since this decides your spell power
  • Speaking of powers, why the hell are they listed with spells?
  • The character sheet has no place to note my height, weight or appearance except on the spell page. So my fighter needs to include that so I can take notes.
  • No list of names for races.
  • I have no idea if lore is useful and the book doesn't give examples of lore skills if I want to train in more
  • The weapon selection is actually pretty cool. Still not sure if it was worth my dwarf taking weapon familiarity
  • Shields seem pretty easy to break? I don't know, this is a big argument on reddit
  • Despite this being the more crunchy game, I feel like my level 1 choices are way more meaningful in 5e instead of p2.
 
You're telling me 3e invented the ACP out of thin air? Jeeze, the more I learn the more cancerous the new things in 3e seem.

@The Narrator , I finished my characters - a dual wielding dwarf fighter and a halfling sorcerer (white dragon).

My thoughts on character creation:
  • It's pretty easy once you've made one or two characters
  • You don't start getting extra languages from intelligence until its at 14+ for some reason. Seems kinda silly since there's no other way to know an extra language at first level
  • You don't get to chose your signature skills, which makes your ability to chose what you're trained in pretty pointless (beyond extra skills.
  • Sorcerers get 5+int skill points and wizards get 2+int, meaning at first level the typical wizard only has 1 extra skill over the dumber sorcerer
  • Being trained in skill seems pretty pointless at level 1
  • You can have 0 resonance at level 1 without trying. If that's as major as I think it is, the game shoulde a warning about that
  • Races feel way too bland and racial feats don't do enough to make up for it. Halflings are short humans with 2 less health and different feats to choose from. Half-elves and half-orcs are humans with a special feat, which means you don't actually get a proper racial feat at level 1.
  • The way spellcasters choose an archtype at level 1 that decides a bunch of features is irritating. Especially since this decides your spell power
  • Speaking of powers, why the hell are they listed with spells?
  • The character sheet has no place to note my height, weight or appearance except on the spell page. So my fighter needs to include that so I can take notes.
  • No list of names for races.
  • I have no idea if lore is useful and the book doesn't give examples of lore skills if I want to train in more
  • The weapon selection is actually pretty cool. Still not sure if it was worth my dwarf taking weapon familiarity
  • Shields seem pretty easy to break? I don't know, this is a big argument on reddit
  • Despite this being the more crunchy game, I feel like my level 1 choices are way more meaningful in 5e instead of p2.
Like if you tried wearing plate with a strength of 8 you'd hit your encumberance limits, but that's different. Al Qadim as a setting penalized heavy armor, but it was a desert setting and penalized it due to the extra heat and how the weight would be worse in the sand. Those penalties only applied in the desert.
 
Only a thiefs abilitys and spellcasting had a downside for armor in AD&D
Spellcasting was all or nothing and thieves depended on highest the armor was.
 
Well, they can, but they have to roll for it. When your resonance is zero you basically have to roll a 50% chance for consumables to fail.

Resonance is one of their more experimental ideas, and we'll see how much they wind up walking it back after playtesting. "How often did you run out of Resonance?" is one of the survey questions.

If Resonance was replacing wealth-by-level so we could do away with looting, I'd be all for it. Throwing it on top of wealth-by-level is kind of a mess.
What's resonance? Haven't gotten the book yet
 
Yeah. It should be minimum one with the ability to create a magic item by investing it into things (like imbuing the blade of your ancestors with it to let it grow with you).
I'm thinking something like Earthdawn, where you could bond with up to your level in magic items (or people... party members giving each other bonuses was hella powerful) and what powers you could unlock on each item depended on level. PF2E already gives each item a level at which its appropriate for PCs to have and limits your number of items based on level (Resonance), so if they just took it a little bit further we could finally be rid of obligatory looting.

You're telling me 3e invented the ACP out of thin air?
No, ACP was descended from a 2E rule that applied penalties to rogue skills based on what armor you wore. It didn't matter to anyone else because non-rogues didn't get skills.

He's right that armor didn't have Max Dex in 2E, but you had to have a pretty high Dex to get a bonus to AC in the first place (I think it was +1 at Dex 15 or something like that), so it wasn't likely to matter.

I can put up with Max Dex as a necessary evil to put a cap on AC for balance purposes, but the other penalties on medium and heavy armor are excessive. Because of the speed penalties alone I've literally never worn anything but light armor in 16 years of playing the game. The PF1E fighter got to reduce the ACP and ignore the speed penalties as he went up in level. The PF2E fighter does not, which I feel is a big step backwards.




What's resonance? Haven't gotten the book yet
It's a rule they're experimenting with to limit magic item usage. Resonance = Level + CHA. Continuous use items like bracers of armor cost one point to have active all day. Use-per-day items cost one point to activate. Consumables cost a point to use. When you're out of Resonance, you can try to activate another item, but you have to roll a 50% chance of failure.

It's an interesting idea, but not very well implemented, IMHO.
 
I'm thinking something like Earthdawn, where you could bond with up to your level in magic items (or people... party members giving each other bonuses was hella powerful) and what powers you could unlock on each item depended on level. PF2E already gives each item a level at which its appropriate for PCs to have and limits your number of items based on level (Resonance), so if they just took it a little bit further we could finally be rid of obligatory looting.


No, ACP was descended from a 2E rule that applied penalties to rogue skills based on what armor you wore. It didn't matter to anyone else because non-rogues didn't get skills.

He's right that armor didn't have Max Dex in 2E, but you had to have a pretty high Dex to get a bonus to AC in the first place (I think it was +1 at Dex 15 or something like that), so it wasn't likely to matter.

I can put up with Max Dex as a necessary evil to put a cap on AC for balance purposes, but the other penalties on medium and heavy armor are excessive. Because of the speed penalties alone I've literally never worn anything but light armor in 16 years of playing the game. The PF1E fighter got to reduce the ACP and ignore the speed penalties as he went up in level. The PF2E fighter does not, which I feel is a big step backwards.





It's a rule they're experimenting with to limit magic item usage. Resonance = Level + CHA. Continuous use items like bracers of armor cost one point to have active all day. Use-per-day items cost one point to activate. Consumables cost a point to use. When you're out of Resonance, you can try to activate another item, but you have to roll a 50% chance of failure.

It's an interesting idea, but not very well implemented, IMHO.
I do like the concept. I've always felt that martial classes should have been better at using magic items to balance against their lack of spells.
 
I do like the concept. I've always felt that martial classes should have been better at using magic items to balance against their lack of spells.
Unfortunately, martials don't get any more than anyone else. It's Level + Charisma mod and the only class that gets extra is the alchemist (because they have to use it to create alchemical items on the fly).
 
Unfortunately, martials don't get any more than anyone else. It's Level + Charisma mod and the only class that gets extra is the alchemist (because they have to use it to create alchemical items on the fly).
Well that's dumb. They should. Maybe tie it into constitution instead? Have it represent the bodies ability to handle the strain of all that magic?
 
Well that's dumb. They should. Maybe tie it into constitution instead? Have it represent the bodies ability to handle the strain of all that magic?
Eh... I think Charisma makes sense on both a game balance level (it's the least useful stat if you're not a bard/paladin/sorcerer) and in-universe ("inherent" magic has always been Charisma based).

I suppose you could give non-caster classes a larger base Resonance, but I'd rather they gave them more skills first so they could compete in terms of versatility.
 
Eh... I think Charisma makes sense on both a game balance level (it's the least useful stat if you're not a bard/paladin/sorcerer) and in-universe ("inherent" magic has always been Charisma based).

I suppose you could give non-caster classes a larger base Resonance, but I'd rather they gave them more skills first so they could compete in terms of versatility.
Honestly, I feel that more magic items is how they get more versatility. A high climb skill is nice, up until the wizard gets fly and then its completely outclassed, etc.

Have the fighters be decked out like an old god. Boots of flight, belt to double your strength, hammers that shoot lightning, bracers that let you phase etc.

Basically if they have magic items they can trade out they get a smaller pool of magic which they can cast more often.
 
Looks pretty cool. I figured you'd go for an axe for your offhand, but I can definitely see the advantages of the clan dagger's Parry and Versatile Blugeoning abilities.

Couple of corrections, tho. Untrained proficiency is level - 2, so your untrained skills should have a -1 modifier instead of 0. Finesse weapons like your sorcerer's dragon claws can use Dex for attack, but they still use Strength for damage. And as far as I know, ranged touch attack spells still use Dex like other ranged attacks (if you've spotted a rule that says otherwise, please let me know). Also, you forgot to add a bonus to your halfling's Intimidation skill for being trained.


I have no idea if lore is useful and the book doesn't give examples of lore skills if I want to train in more
Lore is kind of a catch-all miscellaneous category for whatever you might want your character to be good at that the existing skills don't cover, kind of like Profession in the previous edition. Each of the Backgrounds has a different Lore attached, some of which seem more useful than others. You can also roll Lore during downtime to try and find work and make money in that particular field, which again, seems more practical with some than with others.

(Every Lore example I can find: <insert deity here> Lore, Circus Lore, Animal Lore, Smithing Lore, Underworld Lore, Entertainment Lore, Farming Lore, Gladiatorial Lore, Hunting Lore, Labor Lore, Mercantile Lore, Nobility Lore, <insert terrain here> Lore, Sailing Lore, Academia Lore, Scouting Lore, Warfare Lore, Military Lore (aren't those the same thing?), Vampire Lore, Planar Lore, Ancient Osirion Lore, Esoteric Order Lore, Criminal Lore (how is that different from Underworld?), Dominion of the Black Lore, Pathfinder Society Lore.)

So yeah, just pick something that you think will be fun.



The way spellcasters choose an archtype at level 1 that decides a bunch of features is irritating. Especially since this decides your spell power
That's not new for this edition. Clerics have gotten to choose domains which grant them new powers and spells since 3E, and PF1 let wizards do the same with their choice of Arcane School (previously all it gave them was +1 to spell DCs with that school of magic in exchange for being terrible at two others) and sorcerers with their choice of bloodline. Letting sorcerer bloodline also decide your spell list instead of always being arcane is new, tho. (Not a lot of bloodlines to choose from in the Playtest, compared to the PF1 core book.)


Sorcerers get 5+int skill points and wizards get 2+int, meaning at first level the typical wizard only has 1 extra skill over the dumber sorcerer
Sorcerers have always gotten more skills than wizards (not accounting for Int). Less magical versatility, more mundane versatility. Less time spent studying ancient tomes, more time getting hands on.

What pisses me off is that they have more skills than fighters, monks and barbarians, who have no magic and are all about the hands-on experience, and the same as rangers, which is supposed to be a skill-monkey class in its own right.

Despite this being the more crunchy game, I feel like my level 1 choices are way more meaningful in 5e instead of p2.
One of my big disappointments with it is that the character options feel really constrained, making every member of a class stay within their basic little archetype niche and limiting access to combat feats to certain classes. PF1 gave a lot more freedom of choice in character creation.

A lot of your other complaints are ones I'm hearing quite a bit and agree with. They've already said that they're probably going to change how signature skills work because they were so poorly received.



Honestly, I feel that more magic items is how they get more versatility. A high climb skill is nice, up until the wizard gets fly and then its completely outclassed, etc.

Have the fighters be decked out like an old god. Boots of flight, belt to double your strength, hammers that shoot lightning, bracers that let you phase etc.

Basically if they have magic items they can trade out they get a smaller pool of magic which they can cast more often.
Huh. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but I guess that's one way to do it.

Personally, I'd rather move away from item dependence and let the martials just be able to do awesome wuxia shit, which is what we thought PF2's Legendary skills were going to be like.
 
Looks pretty cool. I figured you'd go for an axe for your offhand, but I can definitely see the advantages of the clan dagger's Parry and Versatile Blugeoning abilities.

Couple of corrections, tho. Untrained proficiency is level - 2, so your untrained skills should have a -1 modifier instead of 0. Finesse weapons like your sorcerer's dragon claws can use Dex for attack, but they still use Strength for damage. And as far as I know, ranged touch attack spells still use Dex like other ranged attacks (if you've spotted a rule that says otherwise, please let me know). Also, you forgot to add a bonus to your halfling's Intimidation skill for being trained.



Lore is kind of a catch-all miscellaneous category for whatever you might want your character to be good at that the existing skills don't cover, kind of like Profession in the previous edition. Each of the Backgrounds has a different Lore attached, some of which seem more useful than others. You can also roll Lore during downtime to try and find work and make money in that particular field, which again, seems more practical with some than with others.

(Every Lore example I can find: <insert deity here> Lore, Circus Lore, Animal Lore, Smithing Lore, Underworld Lore, Entertainment Lore, Farming Lore, Gladiatorial Lore, Hunting Lore, Labor Lore, Mercantile Lore, Nobility Lore, <insert terrain here> Lore, Sailing Lore, Academia Lore, Scouting Lore, Warfare Lore, Military Lore (aren't those the same thing?), Vampire Lore, Planar Lore, Ancient Osirion Lore, Esoteric Order Lore, Criminal Lore (how is that different from Underworld?), Dominion of the Black Lore, Pathfinder Society Lore.)

So yeah, just pick something that you think will be fun.




That's not new for this edition. Clerics have gotten to choose domains which grant them new powers and spells since 3E, and PF1 let wizards do the same with their choice of Arcane School (previously all it gave them was +1 to spell DCs with that school of magic in exchange for being terrible at two others) and sorcerers with their choice of bloodline. Letting sorcerer bloodline also decide your spell list instead of always being arcane is new, tho. (Not a lot of bloodlines to choose from in the Playtest, compared to the PF1 core book.)



Sorcerers have always gotten more skills than wizards (not accounting for Int). Less magical versatility, more mundane versatility. Less time spent studying ancient tomes, more time getting hands on.

What pisses me off is that they have more skills than fighters, monks and barbarians, who have no magic and are all about the hands-on experience, and the same as rangers, which is supposed to be a skill-monkey class in its own right.


One of my big disappointments with it is that the character options feel really constrained, making every member of a class stay within their basic little archetype niche and limiting access to combat feats to certain classes. PF1 gave a lot more freedom of choice in character creation.

A lot of your other complaints are ones I'm hearing quite a bit and agree with. They've already said that they're probably going to change how signature skills work because they were so poorly received.




Huh. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but I guess that's one way to do it.

Personally, I'd rather move away from item dependence and let the martials just be able to do awesome wuxia shit, which is what we thought PF2's Legendary skills were going to be like.
Fair, but I kind of like that dependence. It gives dnd a unique approach that other setting don't use.

Honestly it's an idea over been toying around in my head for awhile. Basically the idea would be that interfacing with magical items and weapons is actually a very difficult skill, and a major part of combat training. A normal person can't simply pick up a fire sword and activate its abilities because they don't have the training to do so. This trr raining goes behind merely saying a magic word, it's a manipulation of the warriors natural aura/soul/whatever which bonds it with the weapon on a metaphysical level. This allows the weapon to channel/empower the aura to perform specific effects. Normal users are limited to simply the preprogrammed abilities, but masters have been known to eke out additional abilities or even change them entirely. (And taking some direction from pact magic, attuning to an item takes about 10 min, so you can only change your load out of combat.)

Wizards and other spellcastung classes cannot bond with many items as their auras are to defined/chaotic whatever from their own training. A sorcer's aura isn't constant enough, a cleric has to small of an aura, wizards are already shaping their auras into spells, etc
 
So, I haven't been paying much attention to the PF2ed stuff. I've heard some of the bad, but what's some of the good? I assume there's some improvements.

And does caster/martial disparity look smaller?
 
So, I haven't been paying much attention to the PF2ed stuff. I've heard some of the bad, but what's some of the good? I assume there's some improvements.

And does caster/martial disparity look smaller?
If anything Resonance makes it worse. Because that even limits potion use. And fighter lost their "armor doesn't slow me down".

The only thing done to address the imbalance was the same "upcasting" bullshit as 5th, so that playing casters is less fun because you'll have to use those higher level slots for fireball instead pf something cool but less practical.
 
Last edited:
Fair, but I kind of like that dependence. It gives dnd a unique approach that other setting don't use.

Honestly it's an idea over been toying around in my head for awhile. Basically the idea would be that interfacing with magical items and weapons is actually a very difficult skill, and a major part of combat training. A normal person can't simply pick up a fire sword and activate its abilities because they don't have the training to do so. This trr raining goes behind merely saying a magic word, it's a manipulation of the warriors natural aura/soul/whatever which bonds it with the weapon on a metaphysical level. This allows the weapon to channel/empower the aura to perform specific effects. Normal users are limited to simply the preprogrammed abilities, but masters have been known to eke out additional abilities or even change them entirely. (And taking some direction from pact magic, attuning to an item takes about 10 min, so you can only change your load out of combat.)

Wizards and other spellcastung classes cannot bond with many items as their auras are to defined/chaotic whatever from their own training. A sorcer's aura isn't constant enough, a cleric has to small of an aura, wizards are already shaping their auras into spells, etc
Well, it's an interesting idea. Wouldn't mind seeing a game or setting built around that concept.

Ever played any Earthdawn or Shadowrun? In that setting (they're in the same universe, but in different eras) magic users don't just include spellcasters, but also adepts who channel their magic to enhance their own physical abilities and skills and to do supernatural things and magic items have to be bound to be used.



So, I haven't been paying much attention to the PF2ed stuff. I've heard some of the bad, but what's some of the good? I assume there's some improvements.

And does caster/martial disparity look smaller?
Save or lose spells got a pretty good nerf. For most of them you have to crit fail (fail by 10 or more) the save to be completely taken out, failing means a hefty debuff, success means a brief and minor debuff, and critical success (succeed by 10 or more) means no effect.

Casters have less spells-per-day overall, but unlimited-use cantrips are more powerful and scale with level so they can always make a decent attack.

All saving throws scale at the same rate as spell DCs, so you don't wind up with bad (1/3 level) saves that have no chance against a caster of equal level.

Everything scaling at the same rate means that you can roll Intimidation vs. Will instead of making up some weird DC like 10 + level + Wisdom.

No more fucking rolling for hit points. That was always a terrible idea. Taking max was a house rule in my games for a decade, and I'm glad its official now.

Level to AC, fucking finally. I've been wanting that since the first time I played D&D. Finally your defense is based at least somewhat on your fighting skill instead of just on magic items.

Magic weapons add a die of damage for each +1, so martial weapon damage will increase sixfold over the course of 20 levels instead of staying largely static while casters are dealing more damage. Although I'd rather characters did more damage because of their fighting skill instead of their magic weapon.


If anything Resonance makes it worse. Because that even limits potion use.
It also limits wand and scroll use, which restricts caster versatility a lot more. I'm not a fan of how Resonance is designed, but it's hurting everyone pretty equally.

The skills, however, are a huge problem for caster/martial disparity, because we've got casters with even more skills than they had before (clerics, sorcerers, bards) and martials with even less (barbarians, monks, rangers). It's an astoundingly tone-deaf choice on their part. And the master and legendary skill feats that were supposed to let martials close the gap have been mostly underwhelming.
 
Well, it's an interesting idea. Wouldn't mind seeing a game or setting built around that concept.

Ever played any Earthdawn or Shadowrun? In that setting (they're in the same universe, but in different eras) magic users don't just include spellcasters, but also adepts who channel their magic to enhance their own physical abilities and skills and to do supernatural things and magic items have to be bound to be used.
Can't day I've had the honor of playing those.

The basic idea came about when I noticed all the party's loot was being spent on equipping the figh with ers anyway, so j figured I might as well make it part of the game. With liberal inspiration taken from incarnum and pact magic
 
In 5e how good or bad is a Way of Shadow Monk? I was considering making a Monk as my Dm's starting our campaign over and letting everyone make a new character and thought it looked fun.
 
In 5e how good or bad is a Way of Shadow Monk? I was considering making a Monk as my Dm's starting our campaign over and letting everyone make a new character and thought it looked fun.
I've never actually played one and neither has anyone in my usual group, but I haven't seen any hugely glaring issues from my (admittedly brief) overviews.

Like Rogues (Assassins especially) your ability to leverage the Shadow's best strengths is going to be set/defined/limited by party composition and how your groupmates play. Depends how willing and able they are to hang back to not draw attention and/or sneak with you.

The only real bad Monk Way is Four Elements, anyway.
 
In 5e how good or bad is a Way of Shadow Monk? I was considering making a Monk as my Dm's starting our campaign over and letting everyone make a new character and thought it looked fun.
Shadow Monks are really solid (pun intended).
All the spells you get at third level are really good. Darkness can be a game-changer both in combat, and for stealth. The same goes for Silence. Pass without Trace turns you (and your whole group) really sneaky. And Darkvision is nice to have if someone needs it.
Shadow Step is bonus-action teleportation, and it doesn't even cost you anything! First of all, you can create the conditions for that on your own - just cast Darkness! Second, it's one of the strongest mobility tools in the game and means you can basically attack whoever you want. Sure, if there's absolutely no shadows around it becomes pretty bad but that shouldn't happen too often.
Cloak of Shadows isn't good in combat - you can already get advantage via Shadow Step after all. But it means you can out-sneak basically everyone because you got nearly-at-will Invisibility (just find some shadow, then avoid bright light).
Opportunist is a free attack. What else do you want?

So really, nothing about the Shadow Monk is bad. The only negative thing that I can say about it is it's dependency on the Illumination rules - which boil down to "it's either bright light, dim light, or darkness" so you really just have to avoid light sources - but you can just cast darkness if you need to, and most dungeons should have dim light around. But even if there is none around - you're still a Monk, with all the assosciated goodies!

What your role in the group will be is to get behind enemy lines and take out the more vulnerable enemies. Compared to other monks, you have an easier time with that since you don't need to spend Ki to Dash and can teleport instead (in most conditions anyway). You are also really great at scouting ahead - you have high Dexterity, can cast Silence, can get +10 to Stealth, can teleport past guards, and can eventually just become invisible.

What you might want to consider is multiclassing into Rogue, and possibly Warlock.
A one-level Rogue dip will give you one extra skill (or two, if you start as a Rogue) and Thieves Tools, as well as 1D6 Sneak Attack and Expertise. If you get Expertise on Stealth, you're basically guaranteed to outclass everyone at it forever. And it fits perfectly with the Ninja-flavor you're getting anyway.
The Warlock-dip is mostly attractive for the Devils Sight Invocation, which is basically the only way to see through your own magical Darkness. You also get some spells and Cantrips which is always good. Of course, this requires 13 Charisma and might not fit with your flavor.
 
Back
Top