You're twisting words here. I don't see anybody arguing that Monks should have higher HP than a Barbarian. And you've never provided a logical response to my question: How is it that a melee martial class that specializes in mind-body training has less hit points that a Ranger or a Fighter that focuses on ranged attacks?
I was exagerating to make a point, but I think you've still missed it; the Fighter and Ranger don't have Patient Defence, they don't have our built-in speed, most Rangers don't get Evasion (only Hunters do, and a lot later thanks Monks do), while fighters get Indomitable (somewhat similar benefit to Diamond Soul) it's not nearly as strong and so-on.
You can't just look at "defence" as only hitpoints and AC, because these aren't the only factors that matter. Against a ranged threat for example a Monk has more speed to either get into cover (better AC) or to close with the target to minimise their attacks, or Patient Defence (with Deflect Missiles) if they're still caught in the open. Having a few less HP or AC isn't the penalty it's made out to be when you can't be hit or negate any hits that you do sustain.
At early levels Monks have the same basic AC as other martials, and at worst one or two fewer HP per level, but they can put out more attacks, or become nigh on invincible for a few rounds against the types of low level enemies they'll be facing. The basic defence of the Monk is fine, and and with more Ki it scales further (can Patient Defence across more rounds without running low etc.), defence and earlier levels are not our problems.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You're twisting words here. I don't see anybody arguing that Monks should have higher HP than a Barbarian. And you've never provided a logical response to my question: How is it that a melee martial class that specializes in mind-body training has less hit points that a Ranger or a Fighter that focuses on ranged attacks?
I was exagerating to make a point, but I think you've still missed it; the Fighter and Ranger don't have Patient Defence, they don't have our built-in speed, most Rangers don't get Evasion (only Hunters do, and a lot later thanks Monks do), while fighters get Indomitable (somewhat similar benefit to Diamond Soul) it's not nearly as strong and so-on.
You can't just look at "defence" as only hitpoints and AC, because these aren't the only factors that matter. Against a ranged threat for example a Monk has more speed to either get into cover (better AC) or to close with the target to minimise their attacks, or Patient Defence (with Deflect Missiles) if they're still caught in the open. Having a few less HP or AC isn't the penalty it's made out to be when you can't be hit or negate any hits that you do sustain.
At early levels Monks have the same basic AC as other martials, and at worst one or two fewer HP per level, but they can put out more attacks, or become nigh on invincible for a few rounds against the types of low level enemies they'll be facing. The basic defence of the Monk is fine, and and with more Ki it scales further (can Patient Defence across more rounds without running low etc.), defence and earlier levels are not our problems.
Monks at low levels...no. More attacks at um... 1d4+DEX damage based on a very limited resource. Based off the same very limited pool they draw from for Step of Wind, Patient Defense, etc.. IOW, they rely on tankier party members to protect them until they get enough Ki to reliably do Patient Defense more without also frequently sacrificing damage output. (Exceptions being if they picked a species that grants unusually high AC without armor.)
Also, you're still evading my question from Post 205. (I guess this makes you a good Rogue.) Please justify why a base class that is a melee martial class for most intents and purposes, whose whole theme is about training mind and body has less HP than a Fighter or Ranger (of the same level) when those same range-focused PCs spend most of their careers 35+ feet away from what they're fighting.
Not comparing HP to Barbarians here. I am, however, going to compare resource use efficiency. The Barbarian can Rage for 1 minute (barring unconsiousness or not attacking a hostile). This boosts everything that non-multi-class Barbarians do. For Ki conservation purposes, it would make much more sense if Monks' Ki use efficiency went up to be somewhat comparable to the Barbarian' Rage. The UA Astral Self Monk had something like that. Honestly, base Monks really should just get to burn 2 Ki to be able to Flurry of Blows and free Disengage every round for a minute - unless knocked unconscious, made to suffer the Poison condition, or Charmed. If they got that, then having only a d8 HD might be reasonable. Having a small pool of Ki and extracting from that for a single use of most defense and offense power options of the Monk is the root the problem for the base Monk. If the base Monk got fixed, most of the subclasses would play a lot better.
Monks at low levels...no. More attacks at um... 1d4+DEX damage based on a very limited resource.
Monks get a bonus action attack for free (no Ki point cost) and they can use weapons. If you're going to criticise Monks please at least learn how they work first; they get two attacks with full modifiers before anyone else and the dice doesn't matter all that much (the bulk of your reliable damage comes from the modifier), when we get Ki we have the option of having three or four full attacks.
In my experience attacks often count for a lot more than damage, because your damage isn't worth squat if you miss. They also combo with anything that can boost per attack damage (an ally with attack boosting spells + a Monk is a great combo).
From level 1 we have good attacks/damage and defence, plus you should usually have a good mix of skill proficiencies (since we're DEX and WIS dependent, and these are good skills to have). From level 2 we can maximise defence, or put out even more attacks, and have solid speed (that can get even faster). At third we get sub-class bonuses, Deflect Missiles and so-on. Early levels, as with defence, are not a Monk's problem.
It's later levels when we (sort of) plateau; it's not that our offence becomes bad, as we have more Ki than ever to throw at it, but we don't gain a lot of new options. We become dependent on Stunning Strike to maximise damage, but that can burn Ki fast against higher CON targets so it doesn't scale all that usefully in practice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The condescension isn't required or, I'm sure, appreciated. Yes, it's true that the bulk of the unarmed attack damage at low levels comes from the Dexterity modifier -- but that's because the damage die is a d4. I've played my Monk from 1 to 7, and I'm really not impressed. Anybody can make a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting, and the only downside is that they can't use the big weapons -- which the Monk can't use either! Now yes, Flurry of Blows gets you a *third* attack, which is nice. But, and I can hardly believe we're treading this same ground for the hundredth time, you run out of ki so quickly that it hardly matters.
My most powerful moment as a Monk was the time I was fighting a monster that was single-mindedly pursuing our Wizard. I poured a Flurry of Stunning Strikes into it, knowing it wouldn't attack me back so I didn't need to Patient Defense. They all failed, but then I got an opportunity attack when it moved away to chase the Wizard, and then I finally landed a successful stun. And then I was basically out of juice for the remainder of the fight, and the monster didn't die -- didn't really even hurt it that badly -- but it was a good turn.
Seems like as a Monk you usually get one good turn each combat. The other turns are spent trying to sneak in hits without dying. And if you run out of ki, then it's basically just trying to stay out of danger, at the cost of making any meaningful contribution to the fight. I dunno, man, I just don't think it's very fun.
Yes, it's true that the bulk of the unarmed attack damage at low levels comes from the Dexterity modifier -- but that's because the damage die is a d4.
No, it's true of all non-magical weapons, and it's not a d4; Monks can use a quarterstaff or a spear for d8 damage on their main attack(s). So even compared to someone with a d12 weapon the damage difference is miniscule at worst.
Assuming 5th level for Extra Attack (less favourable to the Monk, especially as it's before a Martial Arts die increase) and +3 on the modifier (again less favourable to the Monk), two attacks with a d12 weapon is 19 (2 * 9.5) damage, versus two at d8 and one at d4 which is 22.5 (2 * 7.5 + 1 * 5.5).
With a +4 modifier it becomes 21 vs. 25.5 and so-on, and that's with no accounting for the damage difference due to missing entirely; while statistically the percentage difference is the same, in practice it means more likely to get at least one or at least two hits vs. only one or none at all. The Martial Arts die increases will also increase the damage, albeit too slowly (as I remarked on the first page), and with more Ki comes more Flurry of Blows and so-on.
Anybody can make a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting, and the only downside is that they can't use the big weapons
No it's not; without taking a fighting style specifically to support it (which means not taking one of the others) you also don't get to add your modifier to the damage. Without the Dual Wielder feat (even more added cost) you're looking at d6's for damage dice for an average damage (using the same example values as above) of about 16.5 without Two-weapon Fighting or 19.5 with it, requiring both hands occupied (a monk even with a quarterstaff or spear always has a hand free, and doesn't need to use them to make unarmed strikes anyway).
While certain combos can do better (great weapon fighting closes the gap or slightly takes the lead) it doesn't change the fact that a Monk's damage output is perfectly fine at lower levels. Compare that instead at level 4, with the same modifier, and your Monk still has d8 + d4 + 6 (14) damage for free, while your single greatsword attack with great weapon fighting (the most favourable combo) is 11.33 (average of 7 with re-rolls becomes 8.33, +3 for the modifier). Jump to the 5th level for Extra Attack and it's 22.66 to the Monks 22.5 as above, so basically the same damage; or is a difference of 0.16 suddenly terrible in D&D?
And the condescension often feels absolutely warranted; there are plenty of things to criticise or want improved about the way the 5th edition Monk is implemented, but nothing is served by making arguments that hold no actual weight. And it always seems to come from people who don't seem interested in actually comparing things properly; you can't just say "their damage is bad at low levels" just because other people say it too, because it simply isn't true. Just as someone shouldn't say their defence is bad without considering any of what a Monk's defensive abilities actually are.
We have damage output at early levels, and we have scaling, the difficulty for damage is the way that it scales later on, as at earlier levels it's just fine. Just as the defence is perfectly competitive. I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences playing Monks at low levels, but I've had the opposite experiences, and anecdotal evidence like that tell us nothing; did your DM give you opportunities to use your speed? Take advantage of cover? Did you take them? What other characters were you playing alongside? How do your group(s) normally play? Do you need to be dealing the most damage to be having fun? etc., it's way, way more complicated than "I had a bad time so it must be the class that's the problem". Yet that's 99% of what seems to get posted in this sub-forum.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Monks at low levels...no. More attacks at um... 1d4+DEX damage based on a very limited resource.
Monks get a bonus action attack for free (no Ki point cost) and they can use weapons. If you're going to criticise Monks please at least learn how they work first; they get two attacks with full modifiers before anyone else and the dice doesn't matter all that much (the bulk of your reliable damage comes from the modifier), when we get Ki we have the option of having three or four full attacks.
In my experience attacks often count for a lot more than damage, because your damage isn't worth squat if you miss. They also combo with anything that can boost per attack damage (an ally with attack boosting spells + a Monk is a great combo).
From level 1 we have good attacks/damage and defence, plus you should usually have a good mix of skill proficiencies (since we're DEX and WIS dependent, and these are good skills to have). From level 2 we can maximise defence, or put out even more attacks, and have solid speed (that can get even faster). At third we get sub-class bonuses, Deflect Missiles and so-on. Early levels, as with defence, are not a Monk's problem.
One bonus attack at 1d4+modifier really isn't great, you know that right? And the squishiness of the class is sadly a large part of the problem because you can't do ANY attacks once you're unconscious, which happens a lot at low levels. Either that, or spend most of your actions on Dodge, or spend Ki on Patient Defense. The base Monk only gets crappy ranged options, unlike the Rogue and Ranger.
Keep in mind that Deflect Missiles requires spending your Reaction. IOW, you can, at most, deflect 1 missile. If you're in a Kobold den and five Kobolds are all firing at you with 1 Kobold or Kobold ally nearby for Pack tactics advantage, you're in big trouble.
As ever, you continue to evade my questions about why you think it's appropriate for Monks to only have d8 HP instead of d10 HP compared to ranged Rangers and ranged Fighters.
@Haravikk - Thank you for all the math, but truly it didn't address what I said, so you could probably stand to allocate your effort better in the future.
I mentioned my experience because I wrongfully assumed the sense of superiority I was picking up from your post, was coming from the idea that the only people who disagreed with you were dealing in pure theory, not having themselves played a Monk to any significant degree. Thought I'd disabuse you of that notion. My mistake. It seems I was incorrect in the cause, but not the effect -- if it takes so much energy for you to be respectful, consider not posting until such a time as you have the energy to spare. The thread will not suffer for the lack of venom.
The monk at low levels is definitely one of the classes that does more damage. The problem is when the monk don't have a feat like "mobile" or "crusher" it will be forced to waste ki powers and bonus actions, leading to the uselessness of the character. The monk lacks stability right from the start. I must say that I don't mind that the monk has a d8 hit points, after all his speed should be exploited. Unfortunately, unlike the rogue, the monk doesn't have an effective system to disengage from the enemy without suffering opportunity attacks. And if you think that "Step of the Wind" is a good solution.... I reply that your way of playing is not efficient. "Step of the Wind" is a good solution only in case you are surrounded by a checkmate of enemies, where wasting ki and a bonus action is really necessary. This is the same for "Patient Defense", these two skills from my point of view are used only if really necessary and if used too much are a waste and make the game boring. The monk with his speed should attack and then run for cover. The monk is king when it comes to exploiting the terrain because of his speed. So, I repeat, the monk at low levels does not have a problem with defense, armor, hit points and especially attack damage! The only problem is the strategic mechanics of the game, that is, how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks), and that is why every time I make a monk I am almost forced to make it of human race variant and this only to take a feat to correct this class.
The attack damage problem only arises from 11th level on. From that point on the monk has no way to improve his destructive power. The rogue has a very simple system that grows steadily and combines well with the critical attack. The other classes can resolve thanks to feats and magical powers... Unfortunately, the monk concentrates on defense and does not improve his attack. The only "almost" improvement is Empty body that give greater invisibility for 1 minute without concetration. Great, but useless for boosting damage. If someone tells me that it ameliorates the possibility of critical attack, Well, yes, but useless because the monk does not gain much damage from the critical as opposed to the Rogue and the Barbarian and some Warrior subclasses . So at higher levels the monk has more ki power, but it has no way to use them to strengthen the attack power.
Reassuming:
Low levels: The problem is in the strategic mechanics of the game, that is how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks).
High levels: Lack of a way to improve destructive attack power.
How is he even evading that question? Just because you don't like what he has to say about it doesn't mean he's evading it lol
Also a bonus attack that includes +modifier IS great.
Not answering directly. That, to me, is evasion. I've answered all of Haravvik's points about Monk survivability at low levels and they refuse to deal with my question directly.
A bonus attack with modifier is okay. The attack is only 1d4 until mid-tier. It's not the worst, but compared to Rogue with Sneak Attack and advantage, it's maybe 1 point more damage or so. Like I said, it doesn't matter much if you get a bonus action attack if you're unconscious. At lower tier there are too many things competing for the few Ki you have for you to both stay alive AND do regular action damage + bonus action damage. Main exception to this is for subclasses (like Kensei) or species-based builds that get you better AC from the start (like Tortle). IOW, unless you have a dedicated (and effective) tank in your party to soak most of the hits, the Monk is overall ineffective at low levels due to a combination of low hit points, low Ki, and lack of Rogue-like defenses, like a free BA disengage.
How is he even evading that question? Just because you don't like what he has to say about it doesn't mean he's evading it lol
Also a bonus attack that includes +modifier IS great.
Not answering directly. That, to me, is evasion. I've answered all of Haravvik's points about Monk survivability at low levels and they refuse to deal with my question directly.
A bonus attack with modifier is okay. The attack is only 1d4 until mid-tier. It's not the worst, but compared to Rogue with Sneak Attack and advantage, it's maybe 1 point more damage or so. Like I said, it doesn't matter much if you get a bonus action attack if you're unconscious. At lower tier there are too many things competing for the few Ki you have for you to both stay alive AND do regular action damage + bonus action damage. Main exception to this is for subclasses (like Kensei) or species-based builds that get you better AC from the start (like Tortle). IOW, unless you have a dedicated (and effective) tank in your party to soak most of the hits, the Monk is overall ineffective at low levels due to a combination of low hit points, low Ki, and lack of Rogue-like defenses, like a free BA disengage.
In my opinion, the way you use the monk in the game is the same as they use for the Barbarian. You use your speed to be the first to confront the enemy and stay in the middle of the battle. Maybe you should make a hill dwarf with the talent "Tough" and the subclass "long death" and 2 levels from "Cleric: Twilight Domain". You could take the "Durable" talent which is a perfect match for "Twilight Sanctuary". After all these steps you would be qualified to play a monk as if he were a barbarian. But at the end of the day, a monk will never be a Barbarian, or a Fighter, or a Ranger, or even a Rogue.
From my point of view the monk is designed as a combatant to attack and run away, stun and let the barbarian or rogue finish the job. The monk doesn't excel at hit points or even attack damage, but he excels at blitz attacks that support the group and to stay alive he has to run and hide when it's the enemy's turn.
Mobility is the thing I hear a lot about but due to their lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC, and attacks of opportunity given to every creature I don't think it's particularly good to always be running out of battle.
Maybe it is but I've never seen that tactic work unless you are open hand and remove reactions or get the mobile feat.
Otherwise you are just getting hit too much mostly likely.
Mobility is the thing I hear a lot about but due to their lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC, and attacks of opportunity given to every creature I don't think it's particularly good to always be running out of battle.
Maybe it is but I've never seen that tactic work unless you are open hand and remove reactions or get the mobile feat.
Otherwise you are just getting hit too much mostly likely.
The monk at low levels is definitely one of the classes that does more damage. The problem is when the monk don't have a feat like "mobile" or "crusher" it will be forced to waste ki powers and bonus actions, leading to the uselessness of the character. The monk lacks stability right from the start. I must say that I don't mind that the monk has a d8 hit points, after all his speed should be exploited. Unfortunately, unlike the rogue, the monk doesn't have an effective system to disengage from the enemy without suffering opportunity attacks. And if you think that "Step of the Wind" is a good solution.... I reply that your way of playing is not efficient. "Step of the Wind" is a good solution only in case you are surrounded by a checkmate of enemies, where wasting ki and a bonus action is really necessary. This is the same for "Patient Defense", these two skills from my point of view are used only if really necessary and if used too much are a waste and make the game boring. The monk with his speed should attack and then run for cover. The monk is king when it comes to exploiting the terrain because of his speed. So, I repeat, the monk at low levels does not have a problem with defense, armor, hit points and especially attack damage! The only problem is the strategic mechanics of the game, that is, how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks), and that is why every time I make a monk I am almost forced to make it of human race variant and this only to take a feat to correct this class.
The attack damage problem only arises from 11th level on. From that point on the monk has no way to improve his destructive power. The rogue has a very simple system that grows steadily and combines well with the critical attack. The other classes can resolve thanks to feats and magical powers... Unfortunately, the monk concentrates on defense and does not improve his attack. The only "almost" improvement is Empty body that give greater invisibility for 1 minute without concetration. Great, but useless for boosting damage. If someone tells me that it ameliorates the possibility of critical attack, Well, yes, but useless because the monk does not gain much damage from the critical as opposed to the Rogue and the Barbarian and some Warrior subclasses . So at higher levels the monk has more ki power, but it has no way to use them to strengthen the attack power.
Reassuming:
Low levels: The problem is in the strategic mechanics of the game, that is how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks).
High levels: Lack of a way to improve destructive attack power.
Mobility is the thing I hear a lot about but due to their lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC, and attacks of opportunity given to every creature I don't think it's particularly good to always be running out of battle.
Mobility is both an offensive and defensive benefit; being able to close with a ranged enemy faster means fewer attacks that can hit you (less damage taken), it can mean making better use of cover (higher AC, less damage taken), it can mean getting to an ally who's under attack (less party damage taken), it can mean attacking an enemy while they're still surprised (made easier by Monks usually being either okay or good at stealth) and so-on. Some of this assumes that your DM runs combats with a good amount of variety in layout/battlefield etc., which sadly I don't feel like the core books encourage enough, but it's clearly a part of how Monks are intended to be played.
I've already pointed out why we don't actually have a "lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC"; our AC is competitive with zero investment, and comes on top of other defensive features (speed, Deflect Missiles, Diamond Soul, Evasion, Patient Defence etc.), our HP is the same as an Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue or Warlock, basically most characters, and again with our other defensive features it can (and should) go further than someone who just stands in place taking hits like a practice dummy, and our damage output is fine; it would be nice if it was more bursty at higher levels, but we can do plenty of damage.
Attacks of opportunity are also not the obstacle you make them out to be; firstly you need to actually be in a situation in which where you are is not where you want to be (if that's happening all the time then something else is very wrong), and it only costs 1 Ki to either dodge them (which also protects you against non-reaction attacks as well) or fully disengage when you need to, so it's hardly a major problem even when you are "stuck" in a fight. While doing either of these as a bonus action will reduce damage, we can still deliver damage, and unless where you want to be is very close we're one of the few classes that can actually disengage and still do something useful (i.e- actually get to that other target you would rather be fighting).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Attacks of opportunity are also not the obstacle you make them out to be; firstly you need to actually be in a situation in which where you are is not where you want to be (if that's happening all the time then something else is very wrong), and it only costs 1 Ki to either dodge them (which also protects you against non-reaction attacks as well) or fully disengage when you need to, so it's hardly a major problem even when you are "stuck" in a fight. While doing either of these as a bonus action will reduce damage, we can still deliver damage, and unless where you want to be is very close we're one of the few classes that can actually disengage and still do something useful (i.e- actually get to that other target you would rather be fighting).
A system that requires sacrificing 1 ki power plus a bonus action for every attack it makes is such a waste it's stupid. If the system is designed in this way, then the monk doesn't need such speed and really needs to have the d10 hit points. I honestly hardly ever use the Patient Defense and Step of the Wind powers. I'm probably more "attack is the best defense" and to avoid enemy attacks distance is always a good defense, as the monk is strong against archers and magical attacks that require a dexterity saving throw (at high levels on any type of saving throw). Your enemy and even your ally can provide good cover if there is no natural cover in the combat terrain.
If you compare monk disengagement to rogue disengagement, it's like comparing poop to gold. The rogue doesn't lose any power, plus he doesn't need his bonus diction to do damage, since he only needs one attack to make his sneak attack, so his "Cunning Action" ability fits perfectly with the rogue's game system. Unfortunately this is not true for the monk, it is useless to say how rare is the ki power at low levels and how important is the bonus action for the monk to do damage, these skills are a trap rather than a lifeline.
Attacks of opportunity are also not the obstacle you make them out to be; firstly you need to actually be in a situation in which where you are is not where you want to be (if that's happening all the time then something else is very wrong), and it only costs 1 Ki to either dodge them (which also protects you against non-reaction attacks as well) or fully disengage when you need to, so it's hardly a major problem even when you are "stuck" in a fight. While doing either of these as a bonus action will reduce damage, we can still deliver damage, and unless where you want to be is very close we're one of the few classes that can actually disengage and still do something useful (i.e- actually get to that other target you would rather be fighting).
A system that requires sacrificing 1 ki power plus a bonus action for every attack it makes is such a waste it's stupid.
Monks dont need to spend 1 ki and a bonus action every time they make an attack. I have no clue where you got that idea or how it relates back to Haravikk's quoted comment.
As for Dodging/Disengaging, as Haravikk pointed out it shouldnt be something you need to do every turn. Even if it is, you still have the opportunity to make two attacks using your action compared to the single beefy attack by a rogue.
Mobility is the thing I hear a lot about but due to their lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC, and attacks of opportunity given to every creature I don't think it's particularly good to always be running out of battle.
Mobility is both an offensive and defensive benefit; being able to close with a ranged enemy faster means fewer attacks that can hit you (less damage taken), it can mean making better use of cover (higher AC, less damage taken), it can mean getting to an ally who's under attack (less party damage taken), it can mean attacking an enemy while they're still surprised (made easier by Monks usually being either okay or good at stealth) and so-on. Some of this sadly assumes that your DM runs combats with a good amount of variety in layout/battlefield etc., which sadly I don't feel like the core books encourage enough, but it's clearly a part of how Monks are intended to be played.
I've already pointed out why we don't actually have a "lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC"; our AC is competitive with zero investment, and comes on top of other defensive features (speed, Deflect Missiles, Diamond Soul, Evasion, Patient Defence etc.), our HP is the same as an Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue or Warlock, basically most characters, and again with our other defensive features it can (and should) go further than someone who just stands in place taking hits like a practice dummy, and our damage output is fine; it would be nice if it was more bursty at higher levels, but we can do plenty of damage.
Attacks of opportunity are also not the obstacle you make them out to be; firstly you need to actually be in a situation in which where you are is not where you want to be (if that's happening all the time then something else is very wrong), and it only costs 1 Ki to either dodge them (which also protects you against non-reaction attacks as well) or fully disengage when you need to, so it's hardly a major problem even when you are "stuck" in a fight. While doing either of these as a bonus action will reduce damage, we can still deliver damage, and unless where you want to be is very close we're one of the few classes that can actually disengage and still do something useful (i.e- actually get to that other target you would rather be fighting).
So if you're not in a situation where hit and run is valued and this is more the "default" state I'm not sure why the mobility is any good Imo.... especially if you are low on ki.
My major issue with monk is that ki is so important for your identity but you have a limited pool of it that literally every other ability also relies on.
What is a 0 ki monk supposed to do with that mobility other then get some mediocre damage in? That's more the point
Rogue, barbarian, and fighter get things like sneak attack, reckless, and extra ASI/feats that provide resourceless ways of doing more.
Monk has the BA attack sure but it's not very impressive compared to those features imo
The mobility is just like any other monk feature... Highly dependent on ki to be useful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was exagerating to make a point, but I think you've still missed it; the Fighter and Ranger don't have Patient Defence, they don't have our built-in speed, most Rangers don't get Evasion (only Hunters do, and a lot later thanks Monks do), while fighters get Indomitable (somewhat similar benefit to Diamond Soul) it's not nearly as strong and so-on.
You can't just look at "defence" as only hitpoints and AC, because these aren't the only factors that matter. Against a ranged threat for example a Monk has more speed to either get into cover (better AC) or to close with the target to minimise their attacks, or Patient Defence (with Deflect Missiles) if they're still caught in the open. Having a few less HP or AC isn't the penalty it's made out to be when you can't be hit or negate any hits that you do sustain.
At early levels Monks have the same basic AC as other martials, and at worst one or two fewer HP per level, but they can put out more attacks, or become nigh on invincible for a few rounds against the types of low level enemies they'll be facing. The basic defence of the Monk is fine, and and with more Ki it scales further (can Patient Defence across more rounds without running low etc.), defence and earlier levels are not our problems.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Monks at low levels...no. More attacks at um... 1d4+DEX damage based on a very limited resource. Based off the same very limited pool they draw from for Step of Wind, Patient Defense, etc.. IOW, they rely on tankier party members to protect them until they get enough Ki to reliably do Patient Defense more without also frequently sacrificing damage output. (Exceptions being if they picked a species that grants unusually high AC without armor.)
Also, you're still evading my question from Post 205. (I guess this makes you a good Rogue.) Please justify why a base class that is a melee martial class for most intents and purposes, whose whole theme is about training mind and body has less HP than a Fighter or Ranger (of the same level) when those same range-focused PCs spend most of their careers 35+ feet away from what they're fighting.
Not comparing HP to Barbarians here. I am, however, going to compare resource use efficiency. The Barbarian can Rage for 1 minute (barring unconsiousness or not attacking a hostile). This boosts everything that non-multi-class Barbarians do. For Ki conservation purposes, it would make much more sense if Monks' Ki use efficiency went up to be somewhat comparable to the Barbarian' Rage. The UA Astral Self Monk had something like that. Honestly, base Monks really should just get to burn 2 Ki to be able to Flurry of Blows and free Disengage every round for a minute - unless knocked unconscious, made to suffer the Poison condition, or Charmed. If they got that, then having only a d8 HD might be reasonable. Having a small pool of Ki and extracting from that for a single use of most defense and offense power options of the Monk is the root the problem for the base Monk. If the base Monk got fixed, most of the subclasses would play a lot better.
Monks get a bonus action attack for free (no Ki point cost) and they can use weapons. If you're going to criticise Monks please at least learn how they work first; they get two attacks with full modifiers before anyone else and the dice doesn't matter all that much (the bulk of your reliable damage comes from the modifier), when we get Ki we have the option of having three or four full attacks.
In my experience attacks often count for a lot more than damage, because your damage isn't worth squat if you miss. They also combo with anything that can boost per attack damage (an ally with attack boosting spells + a Monk is a great combo).
From level 1 we have good attacks/damage and defence, plus you should usually have a good mix of skill proficiencies (since we're DEX and WIS dependent, and these are good skills to have). From level 2 we can maximise defence, or put out even more attacks, and have solid speed (that can get even faster). At third we get sub-class bonuses, Deflect Missiles and so-on. Early levels, as with defence, are not a Monk's problem.
It's later levels when we (sort of) plateau; it's not that our offence becomes bad, as we have more Ki than ever to throw at it, but we don't gain a lot of new options. We become dependent on Stunning Strike to maximise damage, but that can burn Ki fast against higher CON targets so it doesn't scale all that usefully in practice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The condescension isn't required or, I'm sure, appreciated. Yes, it's true that the bulk of the unarmed attack damage at low levels comes from the Dexterity modifier -- but that's because the damage die is a d4. I've played my Monk from 1 to 7, and I'm really not impressed. Anybody can make a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting, and the only downside is that they can't use the big weapons -- which the Monk can't use either! Now yes, Flurry of Blows gets you a *third* attack, which is nice. But, and I can hardly believe we're treading this same ground for the hundredth time, you run out of ki so quickly that it hardly matters.
My most powerful moment as a Monk was the time I was fighting a monster that was single-mindedly pursuing our Wizard. I poured a Flurry of Stunning Strikes into it, knowing it wouldn't attack me back so I didn't need to Patient Defense. They all failed, but then I got an opportunity attack when it moved away to chase the Wizard, and then I finally landed a successful stun. And then I was basically out of juice for the remainder of the fight, and the monster didn't die -- didn't really even hurt it that badly -- but it was a good turn.
Seems like as a Monk you usually get one good turn each combat. The other turns are spent trying to sneak in hits without dying. And if you run out of ki, then it's basically just trying to stay out of danger, at the cost of making any meaningful contribution to the fight. I dunno, man, I just don't think it's very fun.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
One bonus attack at 1d4+modifier really isn't great, you know that right? And the squishiness of the class is sadly a large part of the problem because you can't do ANY attacks once you're unconscious, which happens a lot at low levels. Either that, or spend most of your actions on Dodge, or spend Ki on Patient Defense. The base Monk only gets crappy ranged options, unlike the Rogue and Ranger.
Keep in mind that Deflect Missiles requires spending your Reaction. IOW, you can, at most, deflect 1 missile. If you're in a Kobold den and five Kobolds are all firing at you with 1 Kobold or Kobold ally nearby for Pack tactics advantage, you're in big trouble.
As ever, you continue to evade my questions about why you think it's appropriate for Monks to only have d8 HP instead of d10 HP compared to ranged Rangers and ranged Fighters.
@Haravikk - Thank you for all the math, but truly it didn't address what I said, so you could probably stand to allocate your effort better in the future.
I mentioned my experience because I wrongfully assumed the sense of superiority I was picking up from your post, was coming from the idea that the only people who disagreed with you were dealing in pure theory, not having themselves played a Monk to any significant degree. Thought I'd disabuse you of that notion. My mistake. It seems I was incorrect in the cause, but not the effect -- if it takes so much energy for you to be respectful, consider not posting until such a time as you have the energy to spare. The thread will not suffer for the lack of venom.
The monk at low levels is definitely one of the classes that does more damage. The problem is when the monk don't have a feat like "mobile" or "crusher" it will be forced to waste ki powers and bonus actions, leading to the uselessness of the character. The monk lacks stability right from the start. I must say that I don't mind that the monk has a d8 hit points, after all his speed should be exploited. Unfortunately, unlike the rogue, the monk doesn't have an effective system to disengage from the enemy without suffering opportunity attacks. And if you think that "Step of the Wind" is a good solution.... I reply that your way of playing is not efficient. "Step of the Wind" is a good solution only in case you are surrounded by a checkmate of enemies, where wasting ki and a bonus action is really necessary. This is the same for "Patient Defense", these two skills from my point of view are used only if really necessary and if used too much are a waste and make the game boring. The monk with his speed should attack and then run for cover. The monk is king when it comes to exploiting the terrain because of his speed. So, I repeat, the monk at low levels does not have a problem with defense, armor, hit points and especially attack damage! The only problem is the strategic mechanics of the game, that is, how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks), and that is why every time I make a monk I am almost forced to make it of human race variant and this only to take a feat to correct this class.
The attack damage problem only arises from 11th level on. From that point on the monk has no way to improve his destructive power. The rogue has a very simple system that grows steadily and combines well with the critical attack. The other classes can resolve thanks to feats and magical powers... Unfortunately, the monk concentrates on defense and does not improve his attack. The only "almost" improvement is Empty body that give greater invisibility for 1 minute without concetration. Great, but useless for boosting damage. If someone tells me that it ameliorates the possibility of critical attack, Well, yes, but useless because the monk does not gain much damage from the critical as opposed to the Rogue and the Barbarian and some Warrior subclasses . So at higher levels the monk has more ki power, but it has no way to use them to strengthen the attack power.
Reassuming:
Low levels:
The problem is in the strategic mechanics of the game, that is how to disengage from the enemy without too many penalties (ki, bonus action, opportunity attacks).
High levels:
Lack of a way to improve destructive attack power.
Not answering directly. That, to me, is evasion. I've answered all of Haravvik's points about Monk survivability at low levels and they refuse to deal with my question directly.
A bonus attack with modifier is okay. The attack is only 1d4 until mid-tier. It's not the worst, but compared to Rogue with Sneak Attack and advantage, it's maybe 1 point more damage or so. Like I said, it doesn't matter much if you get a bonus action attack if you're unconscious. At lower tier there are too many things competing for the few Ki you have for you to both stay alive AND do regular action damage + bonus action damage. Main exception to this is for subclasses (like Kensei) or species-based builds that get you better AC from the start (like Tortle). IOW, unless you have a dedicated (and effective) tank in your party to soak most of the hits, the Monk is overall ineffective at low levels due to a combination of low hit points, low Ki, and lack of Rogue-like defenses, like a free BA disengage.
In my opinion, the way you use the monk in the game is the same as they use for the Barbarian. You use your speed to be the first to confront the enemy and stay in the middle of the battle. Maybe you should make a hill dwarf with the talent "Tough" and the subclass "long death" and 2 levels from "Cleric: Twilight Domain". You could take the "Durable" talent which is a perfect match for "Twilight Sanctuary". After all these steps you would be qualified to play a monk as if he were a barbarian. But at the end of the day, a monk will never be a Barbarian, or a Fighter, or a Ranger, or even a Rogue.
From my point of view the monk is designed as a combatant to attack and run away, stun and let the barbarian or rogue finish the job. The monk doesn't excel at hit points or even attack damage, but he excels at blitz attacks that support the group and to stay alive he has to run and hide when it's the enemy's turn.
Mobility is the thing I hear a lot about but due to their lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC, and attacks of opportunity given to every creature I don't think it's particularly good to always be running out of battle.
Maybe it is but I've never seen that tactic work unless you are open hand and remove reactions or get the mobile feat.
Otherwise you are just getting hit too much mostly likely.
That's why I wrote all this.
Mobility is both an offensive and defensive benefit; being able to close with a ranged enemy faster means fewer attacks that can hit you (less damage taken), it can mean making better use of cover (higher AC, less damage taken), it can mean getting to an ally who's under attack (less party damage taken), it can mean attacking an enemy while they're still surprised (made easier by Monks usually being either okay or good at stealth) and so-on. Some of this assumes that your DM runs combats with a good amount of variety in layout/battlefield etc., which sadly I don't feel like the core books encourage enough, but it's clearly a part of how Monks are intended to be played.
I've already pointed out why we don't actually have a "lack of damage, low HP, middle of the road AC"; our AC is competitive with zero investment, and comes on top of other defensive features (speed, Deflect Missiles, Diamond Soul, Evasion, Patient Defence etc.), our HP is the same as an Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue or Warlock, basically most characters, and again with our other defensive features it can (and should) go further than someone who just stands in place taking hits like a practice dummy, and our damage output is fine; it would be nice if it was more bursty at higher levels, but we can do plenty of damage.
Attacks of opportunity are also not the obstacle you make them out to be; firstly you need to actually be in a situation in which where you are is not where you want to be (if that's happening all the time then something else is very wrong), and it only costs 1 Ki to either dodge them (which also protects you against non-reaction attacks as well) or fully disengage when you need to, so it's hardly a major problem even when you are "stuck" in a fight. While doing either of these as a bonus action will reduce damage, we can still deliver damage, and unless where you want to be is very close we're one of the few classes that can actually disengage and still do something useful (i.e- actually get to that other target you would rather be fighting).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A system that requires sacrificing 1 ki power plus a bonus action for every attack it makes is such a waste it's stupid. If the system is designed in this way, then the monk doesn't need such speed and really needs to have the d10 hit points. I honestly hardly ever use the Patient Defense and Step of the Wind powers. I'm probably more "attack is the best defense" and to avoid enemy attacks distance is always a good defense, as the monk is strong against archers and magical attacks that require a dexterity saving throw (at high levels on any type of saving throw). Your enemy and even your ally can provide good cover if there is no natural cover in the combat terrain.
If you compare monk disengagement to rogue disengagement, it's like comparing poop to gold. The rogue doesn't lose any power, plus he doesn't need his bonus diction to do damage, since he only needs one attack to make his sneak attack, so his "Cunning Action" ability fits perfectly with the rogue's game system. Unfortunately this is not true for the monk, it is useless to say how rare is the ki power at low levels and how important is the bonus action for the monk to do damage, these skills are a trap rather than a lifeline.
Monks dont need to spend 1 ki and a bonus action every time they make an attack. I have no clue where you got that idea or how it relates back to Haravikk's quoted comment.
As for Dodging/Disengaging, as Haravikk pointed out it shouldnt be something you need to do every turn. Even if it is, you still have the opportunity to make two attacks using your action compared to the single beefy attack by a rogue.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
So if you're not in a situation where hit and run is valued and this is more the "default" state I'm not sure why the mobility is any good Imo.... especially if you are low on ki.
My major issue with monk is that ki is so important for your identity but you have a limited pool of it that literally every other ability also relies on.
What is a 0 ki monk supposed to do with that mobility other then get some mediocre damage in? That's more the point
Rogue, barbarian, and fighter get things like sneak attack, reckless, and extra ASI/feats that provide resourceless ways of doing more.
Monk has the BA attack sure but it's not very impressive compared to those features imo
The mobility is just like any other monk feature... Highly dependent on ki to be useful