I don't get this. I always took the counterbalance of the extra versatility of the monk, ranger, paladin, and, to a lesser extent, the bard, were having 3 primary ability scores instead of 2. There's zero need to nerf them further.
I can only assume that WotC heard complaints about that one time that an enemy rolled a bunch of 1s to Save against Stunning Strike and "ruined the campaign" by DMs who don't know jack about encounter design and didn't notice Stunning Strike doing squat the rest of the time. There's a weirdly vocal group of people who think Monk is OP.
Seriously. I played a monk, and while Stunning Strike came in clutch sometimes, it was balanced by (a) depending on the opponent failing a save, and (b) using up ki, which will run out over a longer encounter.
Plus, as a DM, I never really had a problem with the players pulling off a huge upset like that. 5e is heroic fantasy, so let them be big damn heroes sometimes. They won't always be! (Though I do play up as though I'm shocked and frustrated, but that's just to play the heel and let them feel extra victorious. :P)
Honestly I support the weakening of stunning strike specifically. The monk shouldn't be crap with the exception of one ability that is so encounter breaking that many DMs are weakening it anyway.
The monk should have been buffed otherwise of course but the modifications to stunning strike are more or less required.
I'm so frustrated that 5e's design goal puts SO MUCH emphasis on balance, for encounters and between players, but is consistently so bad at it.
And look at half of the memes here and you'll see how bad they are at precise technical writing. Which is weird, because the M:tG folks are great at it, and they're right next door.
damn, someones got a grudge against monks at wotc. I remember my one foray into monk back when i played 5e was pretty miserable, now they're becoming worse?
