Patient Defense is viable if you're expecting to get mobbed or be the focus of a multiattacker during the next round and you can't run away. Really, the DM shouldn't metagame awareness of what you're doing too often, since from an outside perspective you're just attacking slightly less; there's no obvious element of you waving your arms around and chanting like it's a spell. And, even if they do, 1 Ki point to not get attacked is still a pretty good deal, if a bit anticlimactic.
Yes, Stunning Strike is a fairly one-trick move, but it's still one more trick than any other base martial class gets in terms of rider effects on direct attacks. A base fighter or barbarian literally does nothing but attack, with no class specific options to inflict a condition. And, relative to the sheer bulk of monsters out there, only a minority have CON save proficiency.
Tying into the point about Patient Defense, Monks aren't quite so MAD as you'd think. Their kit is for avoiding damage, not tanking it, so CON is a lower priority. I crunched the numbers on a different thread, and using point buy you can have your WIS and DEX open at 16 each after the typical +2/+1 Racial ASI and still have a +1 CON without dumping a stat, or you can dump INT or CHA and bump the CON to +2 if you're looking to optimize. Keep in mind, with the two 16's, they can open at the same AC as a heavy armor class.
Monks do not need a damage die tune up. d6's are viable for any other dual wielding build that doesn't want to drop a feat for an additional +3 damage on average, they're fine for Monks. It's slow to scale after the first jump, but then most weapon damage is pretty fixed by that point.
Yes, Stunning Strike is a fairly one-trick move, but it's still one more trick than any other base martial class gets in terms of rider effects on direct attacks. A base fighter or barbarian literally does nothing but attack, with no class specific options to inflict a condition. And, relative to the sheer bulk of monsters out there, only a minority have CON save proficiency.
Tying into the point about Patient Defense, Monks aren't quite so MAD as you'd think. Their kit is for avoiding damage, not tanking it, so CON is a lower priority. I crunched the numbers on a different thread, and using point buy you can have your WIS and DEX open at 16 each after the typical +2/+1 Racial ASI and still have a +1 CON without dumping a stat, or you can dump INT or CHA and bump the CON to +2 if you're looking to optimize. Keep in mind, with the two 16's, they can open at the same AC as a heavy armor class.
It doesn't matter if a Monster is technically proficient in CON saves if it has a a high CON and there are multiples of them in combat. If your argument is that Monk doesn't need a higher damage die for Unarmed Strikes, then what is the Monk's role? Surely it's not Exploration or Buffing your allies, since most Monks don't do those well. If you are crap at DPS at higher levels AND only have 1 big trick you can kinda sorta do well just occasoinally, that's not impressive for a melee combat-focused base class .
Re: MADness of Monk stats. Yes, they are MAD. Unlike Fighters or Rogues, they need to keep two stats high but only have the baseline # of ASIs with which to boost said stats. The difference is that as you progress, Monks don't get access to magic armor unless they want to lose out on several core Monk features. Pallys, Fighters, even Rangers can be rocking their magic Plate, (magic) Elven Chainmail, etc. and therefore have more room in their progression to take Feats while taking only a very small hit to overall survivability. Monks need to keep pumping up WIS and DEX. And unlike the Rogue, baseline Monks do not have effective ranged attacks. Unarmed Strikes do not work at range.
Yes, Stunning Strike is a fairly one-trick move, but it's still one more trick than any other base martial class gets in terms of rider effects on direct attacks. A base fighter or barbarian literally does nothing but attack, with no class specific options to inflict a condition. And, relative to the sheer bulk of monsters out there, only a minority have CON save proficiency.
I would disagree with this. Barbarians get Rage. Rangers, Paladins and Fighters get fighting styles. Paladins also get divine smite and rangers also get Favored Foe. All of those are class options that provide rider damage on an attack.
Monks do not need a damage die tune up. d6's are viable for any other dual wielding build that doesn't want to drop a feat for an additional +3 damage on average, they're fine for Monks. It's slow to scale after the first jump, but then most weapon damage is pretty fixed by that point.
I do agree Monks don't need a damage tune up and I agree Con is not a primary stat for them. IME the Monk Ki gives them a lot of flexibility in combat and the ability to fill multiple roles. While they are not the best at any martial combat role they can be farily good at all of them and usually great at one of them with a build tailored for that.
While many lament a shortage of ki, IME Monk's actually have an abundance of it. A Monk with 7 Ki should pretty much be able to use a Ki every single turn in battle. A Mon with 15 should be able to use over 2 ki every turn on average. The people I see complain about a shortage of Ki are those that multiattack, FOB and then try stunning strike on all 4 of those attacks blowing 5 ki in a turn.
Sometimes that might be the right play, but most of the times it is not. IME, most of the time Patent Defense is the best use of Ki as far as the base Monk goes. Not all the time but most of the time.
Stunning Strike can be powerful but it fails a lot and then a lot of enemies that you really want to stun have legendaries in addtion to good con saves.
IME FOB is the biggest waste of Ki I see. It is essentially 1 more low damage attack. The only time it usually makes sense is if there is an enemy that goes next and you have a good chance of downing him with that extra attack before his turn.
Yes, Stunning Strike is a fairly one-trick move, but it's still one more trick than any other base martial class gets in terms of rider effects on direct attacks. A base fighter or barbarian literally does nothing but attack, with no class specific options to inflict a condition. And, relative to the sheer bulk of monsters out there, only a minority have CON save proficiency.
Tying into the point about Patient Defense, Monks aren't quite so MAD as you'd think. Their kit is for avoiding damage, not tanking it, so CON is a lower priority. I crunched the numbers on a different thread, and using point buy you can have your WIS and DEX open at 16 each after the typical +2/+1 Racial ASI and still have a +1 CON without dumping a stat, or you can dump INT or CHA and bump the CON to +2 if you're looking to optimize. Keep in mind, with the two 16's, they can open at the same AC as a heavy armor class.
It doesn't matter if a Monster is technically proficient in CON saves if it has a a high CON and there are multiples of them in combat. If your argument is that Monk doesn't need a higher damage die for Unarmed Strikes, then what is the Monk's role? Surely it's not Exploration or Buffing your allies, since most Monks don't do those well. If you are crap at DPS at higher levels AND only have 1 big trick you can kinda sorta do well just occasoinally, that's not impressive for a melee combat-focused base class .
High CON alone isn't going to do a ton for them. At +4 CON mod, a DC of 15 means the strike can go through half the time, and you can hit that DC fairly easily by tier 2. Also, in point of fact, Monks do have a few decent exploration features: Step of the Wind doubles jump distance, and Unarmored Movement lets you run up a wall at level 9. A Monk's role is skirmishing or attempting to break through a line to close with the enemy's back row. And they are not so awful at base damage as people make out. Of the hard martials, only Fighters significantly scale up after level 5, and at level 11 a Monk will be making 3 d8 weapon attacks a round without expending any Ki, the same number as a fighter and only ~5-6 points lower per round if the Fighter goes in for a d12 weapon. FOB at that stage closes the gap pretty effectively. Also, as of Tasha's, they have an ability to turn a miss into a hit via a straight increase to the final attack score, whereas Fighters can only get advantage or roll for a mod, which while it has a greater range also has the potential to fail regardless, whereas when you're directly adding numbers you should pretty much always know you'll be turning a miss into a hit.
Re: MADness of Monk stats. Yes, they are MAD. Unlike Fighters or Rogues, they need to keep two stats high but only have the baseline # of ASIs with which to boost said stats. The difference is that as you progress, Monks don't get access to magic armor unless they want to lose out on several core Monk features. Pallys, Fighters, even Rangers can be rocking their magic Plate, (magic) Elven Chainmail, etc. and therefore have more room in their progression to take Feats while taking only a very small hit to overall survivability. Monks need to keep pumping up WIS and DEX. And unlike the Rogue, baseline Monks do not have effective ranged attacks. Unarmed Strikes do not work at range.
Regarding magic armor, there's things like a Cloak of Protection or Bracers of Unarmored Defense for AC boosts. No, they don't get to play with the top tier magic armor, but that applies to about 3/4 of the classes in the game, so that's not so much a flaw of Monks as a feature of the handful of classes that do. A Monk who opens with 16 in DEX and WIS will have an AC of 16, and at level 8 that can be 18 before magic item mods, the same as plate armor. Monks also have Step of the Wind and Evasion; their survivability is more centered on not standing there and being hit rather than tanking. And, regarding ranged attacks, Monks can throw weapons and use their Martial Arts die for it, so they have the same ranged options as any STR class and eventually will pull slightly ahead. Not their strongest area, but Barbarians are probably going to perform even worse at it, so again more a matter of being able to effectively switch between melee and ranged itself being a feature of a few classes.
Monks are not meant to deal the same damage as other martial classes but that doesn't mean they are under powered. The signature features of a monk are stunning strike and diamond soul. Diamond soul makes thenm very resistant to spellcasters stunning strike makes them good at de-buffing enemies.
Some of the most powerful wizards do very little damage instead they control the battlefield by de-buffing the enemies (and buffing the players). If a monk does and average of 5 points per round less damage than a fighter but due to stunning strike means the rest of the party does and average of 10 points per more damage which is the more powerful character?
How useful deflect missiles is very much down to the DM. If the DM creates a world where everyone (or at least every combatant) has a class and studies the strength and weaknesses of all classes (and probably subclasses) then yes the enmy see a guy without armour who is obviously not a barb or spellcaster then they won't shoot arrows at him but if monks are rare and their skills little know an archer is likely to make his first shoat the unarmored guy and only change tacticts when he sees deflect missiles in action.
clearly alot of monks wanna do damage I see no problem with this especially if you funnel all your power to make it so .there is a weird gatekeeping feeling about not wanting to let monks play damage builds.
Hope this is okay to ask and doesn't derail the discussion. I'm a relatively new player and I'm in a campaign for the frist time with someone playing a monk, and even though I would like to, I don't fully understand the Monk class, what's awesome about playing a monk and how to play cooroprately/synerginitcally with a monk. I sort of get the impression that they are quick, versitle and can make a lot of attacks per turn (based on above information, have some resistance to magic/spells) , but I think I'm missing the essence and why they are cool and awesome: cool and awesome to have in the party and cool and awesome to play.
Can somone who really likes playing a monk help me out a little?
you can try to build for control overall they are sub optimal and need buffs but that doesn't mean you cant have fun. range damage ironically is alot easier to build for .
People have mentioned that monk damage is ****** because they pack so much utility? I disagree. and someone even said 5 damage less per turn? It's theoretically far more than 5 damage less. The problem with monk imo, is that their kit includes a lot of features that either simply don't stack high enough until major levels to be incredibly useful until if at all (unarmed movement, unarmored defense, martial die) and if you really want to capitalize on any of these things you need to sacrifice all the other options to do it. For example you can take the mobile feat and choose tabaxi to reach the kind of neck breaking speed that would allow you to run into a dragons cave, punch it in the face, and run out of his reach / sight before the end of your turn... but you've poured so many resources into achieving that you've sacrificed most options to bring your damage, defense, or other utilities up to par with other martial classes. you could play the shadow monk subclass and nab the skulker feat to play a rogue-like scout but you will never be able to capitalize on it like an actual rogue with things like lockpicking and disarming traps etc. you could pick the turtle race, nab some bracers of defense, and maybe an ioun stone and maybe even multiclass something that can throw out shield or shield of faith or whatever to achieve some pretty impressive unarmored defense, but you've sacrificed your options for those hit and run tactics and are taking up valuable attunement slots.
basically what I'm saying is they gave us tools but the means of using them are incomplete without needing to heavily invest in supportive feats or items, while still being MAD and heavily luck dependent, other classes don't really suffer all these stigmas at the same time, their utilities are self sufficient.
and since these utilities aren't great on their own without heavy investment, you have to choose: you can chose to hit hard like other classes, but you will never be as durable as them. you can choose to be fast as lightning, but what's the speed worth if you cant do anything with it. You can be just as sneaky as a rogue, but you'd just be jumping from the shadows to tickle your opponent or be lacking the proficiencies to effectively act as a scout, infiltrator, or agent of subterfuge. some builds can leave you pretty tanky, but all you can really do is stand there. meanwhile any other martial classes that seek to do these things can easily capitalize on them and hold their own without much support. a rogue can do rogue shit while dealing respectable damage, crippling opponents, and has his own means of self defense in uncanny dodge etc. a barbarian is arguably the best standard tank in the game and also deals some of the most consistent damage. A paladin does all these things and has maybe more utility than any martial class period.
meanwhile a monks ability to stun IS amazing, but in managing resources if a monk wants to use his best utility he will probably forego other ki features like flurry, and that's not what I personally really want..
well put. this has been my biggest issue . a rogue can be a full expert and do more average dmg then a monk and no one tells them they shouldn't have damage. versus an actual martial who is no skill monkey. the argument is always you have stunning strike yada yada rather then helping give good solutions and options. a paladin does boat loads of damage and some have quite strong other abilities and you don't hear the same arguments aimed at them. if someone doesn't like to play a damage monk they dont have to but they shouldn't try to kneecap others who just want the flavor they like.
And, regarding ranged attacks, Monks can throw weapons and use their Martial Arts die for it, so they have the same ranged options as any STR class and eventually will pull slightly ahead. Not their strongest area, but Barbarians are probably going to perform even worse at it, so again more a matter of being able to effectively switch between melee and ranged itself being a feature of a few classes.
I would say they are ahead at the start and pull further ahead. A shortbow is a Monk weapon and it does equal damage to the best thrown weapon with much better range. At higher levels the monk die moves them ahead of any thrown weapons.
High CON alone isn't going to do a ton for them. At +4 CON mod, a DC of 15 means the strike can go through half the time, and you can hit that DC fairly easily by tier 2. Also, in point of fact, Monks do have a few decent exploration features: Step of the Wind doubles jump distance, and Unarmored Movement lets you run up a wall at level 9. A Monk's role is skirmishing or attempting to break through a line to close with the enemy's back row. And they are not so awful at base damage as people make out. Of the hard martials, only Fighters significantly scale up after level 5, and at level 11 a Monk will be making 3 d8 weapon attacks a round without expending any Ki, the same number as a fighter and only ~5-6 points lower per round if the Fighter goes in for a d12 weapon. FOB at that stage closes the gap pretty effectively. Also, as of Tasha's, they have an ability to turn a miss into a hit via a straight increase to the final attack score, whereas Fighters can only get advantage or roll for a mod, which while it has a greater range also has the potential to fail regardless, whereas when you're directly adding numbers you should pretty much always know you'll be turning a miss into a hit.
Re: MADness of Monk stats. Yes, they are MAD. Unlike Fighters or Rogues, they need to keep two stats high but only have the baseline # of ASIs with which to boost said stats. The difference is that as you progress, Monks don't get access to magic armor unless they want to lose out on several core Monk features. Pallys, Fighters, even Rangers can be rocking their magic Plate, (magic) Elven Chainmail, etc. and therefore have more room in their progression to take Feats while taking only a very small hit to overall survivability. Monks need to keep pumping up WIS and DEX. And unlike the Rogue, baseline Monks do not have effective ranged attacks. Unarmed Strikes do not work at range.
Regarding magic armor, there's things like a Cloak of Protection or Bracers of Unarmored Defense for AC boosts. No, they don't get to play with the top tier magic armor, but that applies to about 3/4 of the classes in the game, so that's not so much a flaw of Monks as a feature of the handful of classes that do. A Monk who opens with 16 in DEX and WIS will have an AC of 16, and at level 8 that can be 18 before magic item mods, the same as plate armor. Monks also have Step of the Wind and Evasion; their survivability is more centered on not standing there and being hit rather than tanking. And, regarding ranged attacks, Monks can throw weapons and use their Martial Arts die for it, so they have the same ranged options as any STR class and eventually will pull slightly ahead. Not their strongest area, but Barbarians are probably going to perform even worse at it, so again more a matter of being able to effectively switch between melee and ranged itself being a feature of a few classes.
Right, so your argument is based on Monks being MAD so they have semi-decent AC. You do realize that needing to boost both WIS and DEX just to have decent AC is already MAD, correct? Step of Wind - uses Ki. Patient Defense - uses Ki.
Any Fighter or Rogue specializing for ranged combat will be much better than a non-MC Monk via a combination of Feats and either Extra Attack or Sneak Attack. Heck, even a baseline Ranger is a better ranged combatant than baseline Monk. The point is that Monks lose out on damage and debuff opportunities by not going melee. Yet they only have 1 trick in their bag when they do go melee and do significantly less damage in melee in comparison to melee-built Fighters and Paladins.
I mention Barb not b/c of ranged attacks, but Barbs have a very efficient resource called Rage. It has 1 minute duration and the only thing that usually stops Rage is a strong enemy spell targeting a weak saving throw. One whole minute for several key benefits, including increased survivability and increase to attack roll. Most Monk subclasses have to nickel and dime their Ki until they get near Tier 3 or 4, because too many **** subclass abilities depend on the same faulty "burst" logic to use of a limited resource as the Monk's base kit. THAT is the key problem. The fact that Monks are also MAD (and therefore less free to pick Feats), and are dependent on short rests to an unreasonable degree is also part of the design flaw.
Not doing as much damage as melee-focused Fighters and Paladins is not the biggest issue, on that I agree. But considering all the other sub-optimal abilities of Monks, the low damage die is the icing on the "Insult to Monks" Cake.
well put. this has been my biggest issue . a rogue can be a full expert and do more average dmg then a monk and no one tells them they shouldn't have damage. versus an actual martial who is no skill monkey. the argument is always you have stunning strike yada yada rather then helping give good solutions and options. a paladin does boat loads of damage and some have quite strong other abilities and you don't hear the same arguments aimed at them. if someone doesn't like to play a damage monk they dont have to but they shouldn't try to kneecap others who just want the flavor they like.
It is not correct to say a rogue will do more damage in melee than a Monk. A Rogue depends on sneak attack to beat a Monk and that is not automatic. It is usually available but not always available and even with sneak attack a Rogue is behind a Monk until 5th level, and that is without including the martial arts attack. If you count the bonus action attack the Rogue is behind the Monk in damage until level 11.
Sure if you compare damage when the a Rogue has advantage or when he has an ally threatening and does not have disadvantage and don't consider any use of ki then his damage on a single action is slightly higher once you get to 5th level and pulls away above that. But a Monk is much more survivable than a Rogue in melee with a better AC and abilities that make him more difficult to hit and will do WAY more damage when he has disadvantage or sneak attack is otherwise not available. That may not be most of the time but it will be some amount of the time.
The other thing is a Rogue is very limited on weapons he can use for sneak attack and that has a big affect on damage once you start needing magic to bypass resistances. A Monk has magic fists at level 6 which give him a floor regardless of the weapons you find, while the Rogue is going to have to have to make do with whatever magic finesse weapon you find and if you don't find one you are going to take a huge hit on damage. Often a Rogue is using a dagger for his magic weapon. When we played Dragonlance last month we did the whole campaign and did not find a single magic finesse weapon. We found a crapload of magic longswords and even a dragonlance but our Paladin needed to keep magic weapon prepared so he could cast it on the Rogue's non-magic Rapier (which cut into his smites significantly). That campaign went to level 12.
I find when people do these DPR calcualtions they often fail to consider how much those fall off if the campaign does not provide a magic version of the exact weapon you need. In play a character that can use any weapon effectively is going to average more damage than a character that does slightly higher damage on paper but needs specific weapons to make it work.
well put. this has been my biggest issue . a rogue can be a full expert and do more average dmg then a monk and no one tells them they shouldn't have damage. versus an actual martial who is no skill monkey. the argument is always you have stunning strike yada yada rather then helping give good solutions and options. a paladin does boat loads of damage and some have quite strong other abilities and you don't hear the same arguments aimed at them. if someone doesn't like to play a damage monk they dont have to but they shouldn't try to kneecap others who just want the flavor they like.
It is not correct to say a rogue will do more damage in melee than a Monk. A Rogue depends on sneak attack to beat a Monk and that is not automatic. It is usually available but not always available and even with sneak attack a Rogue is behind a Monk until 5th level, and that is without including the martial arts attack. If you count the bonus action attack the Rogue is behind the Monk in damage until level 11.
Sure if you compare damage when the a Rogue has advantage or when he has an ally threatening and does not have disadvantage and don't consider any use of ki then his damage on a single action is slightly higher once you get to 5th level and pulls away above that. But a Monk is much more survivable than a Rogue in melee with a better AC and abilities that make him more difficult to hit and will do WAY more damage when he has disadvantage or sneak attack is otherwise not available. That may not be most of the time but it will be some amount of the time.
The other thing is a Rogue is very limited on weapons he can use for sneak attack and that has a big affect on damage once you start needing magic to bypass resistances. A Monk has magic fists at level 6 which give him a floor regardless of the weapons you find, while the Rogue is going to have to have to make do with whatever magic finesse weapon you find and if you don't find one you are going to take a huge hit on damage. Often a Rogue is using a dagger for his magic weapon. When we played Dragonlance last month we did the whole campaign and did not find a single magic finesse weapon. We found a crapload of magic longswords and even a dragonlance but our Paladin needed to keep magic weapon prepared so he could cast it on the Rogue's non-magic Rapier (which cut into his smites significantly). That campaign went to level 12.
I find when people do these DPR calcualtions they often fail to consider how much those fall off if the campaign does not provide a magic version of the exact weapon you need. In play a character that can use any weapon effectively is going to average more damage than a character that does slightly higher damage on paper but needs specific weapons to make it work.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
even if this is true that is not a reason to not help with scaling. People should be able to feel useful throughout gameplay.
Regarding rogues, the counterbalance to their high scaling Sneak Attack is that it's all or nothing: a rogue will at most be making two attacks a turn, often only one unless they sacrifice 3d6 of sneak attack damage for an Extra Attack multiclass. Against a high AC target, or an enemy with access to an AC boosting reaction, they can easily whiff about half the time, markedly reducing their average DPR for a given encounter. Monks, on the other hand, go for a high volume of attack rolls, reducing their burst but making it so one bad roll doesn't blow their entire attack action. The Steady Aim feature from Tasha's does somewhat tip the scales for Rogues, but using it also makes them a sitting duck for a round, so there's a risk/reward element to that.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
even if this is true that is not a reason to not help with scaling. People should be able to feel useful throughout gameplay.
I don't think that has anything to do with scaling, I think that has to do with the players. The Monks we have had in our campaign have felt useful with the current scaling.
Personally, I prefer playing a Monk to a Bard or a Barbarian and feel more useful as a Monk than as either of those classes.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
even if this is true that is not a reason to not help with scaling. People should be able to feel useful throughout gameplay.
I don't think that has anything to do with scaling, I think that has to do with the players. The Monks we have had in our campaign have felt useful with the current scaling.
Personally, I prefer playing a Monk to a Bard or a Barbarian and feel more useful as a Monk than as either of those classes.
you are definitely entitled to how you feel personally I'm glad you can have fun with how monks are for yourself.
However the facts are there and no matter what you do to optimize you cant compete in damage,
even something like blade singer who can easily do more damage then a monk has great control and doesn't easily burn off resources.
its a subclass of wizard that is arguably much better then a monk with what it can do while still being a full caster.
most people then respond oh but a monk has mobility. well if he picks up ,mobile and chooses tabaxi and with proper spell usage he can move even farther .
he can have easily more then enough mobility and doesn't have the crippling non scaling damage a monk has , this to me is a problem. ya I dont have a problem if people don't want to play optimized builds however people need to better optimize so that they can see proper weaknesses other wise people are talking with out full perspective. also I would like the monk to be able to fulfill more peoples flavor of a monk . to me a monk is a master of martial arts who deals out deadly blows think Tien in dbz(not super they did him dirty in super).some others may prefer to skirmish , I have no problem with that ,I Just want more mechanical options so that it meets my idea of what a monk is more .3.5 had its issues but definitely had the feel of the kind of monk I would like for one dnd. and yes I know the common arguments but I still think the monk should do comparable damage to the Fighter especially if focused on pure unarmed damage that is kind of the theme.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
even if this is true that is not a reason to not help with scaling. People should be able to feel useful throughout gameplay.
I don't think that has anything to do with scaling, I think that has to do with the players. The Monks we have had in our campaign have felt useful with the current scaling.
Personally, I prefer playing a Monk to a Bard or a Barbarian and feel more useful as a Monk than as either of those classes.
I am glad you like the monk, and indeed it is a class that is more dreamy. Unfortunately for players who notice the disparities, it is obvious that something is wrong.
The various powers of the monk are very situational, and only a good GM can bring it out properly. Unfortunately, it is not easy to be a good GM who, before starting an adventure, studies the abilities of each character and how to offer them a moment where they can shine in a way that entertains the whole group.
The monk was designed for an adventure where there is a shortage of magic items and its adaptive ability could thus be highlighted. But as I explained, most of its abilities are situational and the monk is probably not used in the way the creator originally envisioned.
Another thing that I still can't get my head around is the creators' choice to make + or - balanced classes, but without taking into account magic items and feats. Feats are the main factor of imbalance in this version of DnD. Some too strong and some so weak that no one looks at them. But what is most infuriating is that they are designed only to be useful for certain classes.
Another thing that has never been clear to me is the fighter and unarmed style. The monk was created as a master of unarmed combat and at 1st level has d4 as unarmed damage, while the fighter (weapon master) comes with this unarmed style and can do d8 unarmed damage. This style of the fighter makes me question who is really the master of martial arts.
The monk actually has several design problems:
Lacks a practical and inexpensive disengagement system that allows it to make the most of his speed.
Some features come so late that they are practically useless at that level.
The monk lacks it own role in the group. Its position has always remained ambiguous and unclear.
Lacks flexibility in its choice of martial arts style. A martial arts master should have more combat maneuvers.
The monk is undecided whether to concentrate its attacks in the action or in the bonus action, thus making it difficult to sacrifice bonus action.
Monk features seem to have no direction of progress and even though there are many they do not seem to combine and is very dependent on ki points.
The monk needs more Ability Scores and a range of feats designed for monks to choose from.
Monk damage does not scale as it should, and some features, even if they use ki points, can fail without producing results.
The monk feature at 20th level is a bit disappointing, especially since it is specified that it must be at 0 ki to be activated.
Lacks a practical and inexpensive disengagement system that allows it to make the most of his speed.
Some features come so late that they are practically useless at that level.
The monk lacks it own role in the group. Its position has always remained ambiguous and unclear.
Lacks flexibility in its choice of martial arts style. A martial arts master should have more combat maneuvers.
The monk is undecided whether to concentrate its attacks in the action or in the bonus action, thus making it difficult to sacrifice bonus action.
Monk features seem to have no direction of progress and even though there are many they do not seem to combine and is very dependent on ki points.
The monk needs more Ability Scores and a range of feats designed for monks to choose from.
Monk damage does not scale as it should, and some features, even if they use ki points, can fail without producing results.
The monk feature at 20th level is a bit disappointing, especially since it is specified that it must be at 0 ki to be activated.
There are disparities in every class and I would not argue that a Monk is a powerful class, but I don't think relative balance is even a good design goal. People should play a class because they want to play that class and I think perfect balance (like we had in 4e) would detract from the game. If it is important that you play a more powerful class then choose a more powerful class, but being less powerful is not a
Regarding your comments:
Disengage - A Monk can disengage by using a Ki, which at 6th level means he should be able to do that just about every single turn in combat (albeit by giving up other options). While talking about this though we are also ignoring that often there is no need to disengage either because threatening enemies either died or used their reaction for something else and the inability to disengage does not normally mean a lack of mobility. A Monk can use his full speed without disengaging.
Features - Not sure which ones you are talking about
Role - The player defines the role for his character. The mechanics of a Monk offer many available roles. There is no stereotype for a Monk, but then I don't think those stereotypes are a good thing anyway. The Cleric for example has an expectation that it fills "the healer role", but I find that kind of thinking detracts from the game and actually makes it less fun. So I think this is actually a benefit to the Monk, not a detractor.
Martial Arts Style - To start with I will agree with what you here from a mechanics POV, but I will say feats are available for this (albeit expensive) and other classes are as well. But TBH if you want this I think you should just a different class - specifically Battlemaster Fighter with unarmed combat - is simply a better option for this style of play. I think this criticism is like saying Monks don't have good control spells .... sure but other classes do, just play those classes.
Bonus action attacks - I don't see this as a problem. It adds flexibility. I can disengage, I can dodge, I can attack, I can use FOB, I can use Ki fueled attack .... these are all options. This criticism to me feels like you are saying Monks are too flexible in what they can do with a bonus action. Having more viable options which you can choose is better than being locked into one thing IME.
Ki - At tier2+ Monks have a lot of Ki to spend. Based on extensive play I disagree with the idea that Monks have a shortage of ki at level 5+ unless you have abnormally long adventuring days or are blowing 2-3 ki every single turn. If you go nova with your ki you will run out, but you are pushing a nova attack on an enemy too when you do that. I am not saying you never run out, but you usually have ki available and are certainly not going through it as fast as Battlemasters or Paladins are blowing through their maneuvers or spell slots and you are getting comparable effects with more options.
Feats/ASIs - I don't think Monks need to get more ASIs, I do agree more feats are a good option and I would agree most feats do not compliment Monks well. There are a few good ones though - Fey Touched with Hex or Shadow Touched with Cause Fear or False Life and a Wisdom boost is a nice Monk feat at 4th level with an odd wisdom. Gift of the Gem Dragon is also a nice pick up with an odd Wisdom. Gift of the Metallic Dragon is good if you are going to play a front line dodger type guy but you give up an ASI for that. Fighting Initiate and unarmed fighting style is great at 1st or 4th level and almost seems purpose-built for a Monk. Those are the only ones I can think of that are really good for a Monk though.
Damage/Ki - I think Monk damage is ok at low level and great at high level. You can also boost unarmed strike damage with a feat if you want, and then either use the optional rules trade that feat in at high level when it is no longer useful or if you don't use those rules just pick a different fighting style when you reach 12th level. Some ki features will fail and the possibility of failure should be considered before use. Others like Step of the Wind and Patient Defense never fail though. The same can be said of battlemaster maneuvers or spells or really anything - some have a chance of failure. My Wizard can spend his third level slot on Hypnotic Pattern and have a chance of failure or spend it on Lemund's Tiny Hut with no chance of failure. That does not make a Wizard weak or mean he shoudl never use a save spell.
20th level - Agree, but I have never played a 20th level Monk.
The only problem I have had with the 5e Monks, is that for levels 7-13 their survivability does not scale the same as all other classes. What I am saying specifically, is that Monks, compared to all the other classes, get less things that help them survive for what they do during this stretch, than other classes do.
This factors in many things. "to hit" of enemies, level of magics faced, their Hit Dice, Monks' *typical* role puts them in fray of things, and its not really until they get their proficiency in all saves that their survivability catches back up to the other classes.
That said: I agree that the 20th level monk capstone is bad. However it is just a Martial version of the level 20 sorcerer capstone. And, I will further... argue slightly. better than the sorcerer one, which requires a short rest vs "rolling for initiative" and 4 sorcery points is arguably less helpful than 4 Ki points on level 20 characters.
Now- to devil's advocate my above statement. Short rests you can just decide to take basically. Initiative is only declared by the DM. Initiative does not mean 100% there will be combat, but it does mean, the DM has to call for initiative, and its not fun that your character's abilities are in the hands of "not you"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, to address a few points I saw come up:
It doesn't matter if a Monster is technically proficient in CON saves if it has a a high CON and there are multiples of them in combat. If your argument is that Monk doesn't need a higher damage die for Unarmed Strikes, then what is the Monk's role? Surely it's not Exploration or Buffing your allies, since most Monks don't do those well. If you are crap at DPS at higher levels AND only have 1 big trick you can kinda sorta do well just occasoinally, that's not impressive for a melee combat-focused base class .
Re: MADness of Monk stats. Yes, they are MAD. Unlike Fighters or Rogues, they need to keep two stats high but only have the baseline # of ASIs with which to boost said stats. The difference is that as you progress, Monks don't get access to magic armor unless they want to lose out on several core Monk features. Pallys, Fighters, even Rangers can be rocking their magic Plate, (magic) Elven Chainmail, etc. and therefore have more room in their progression to take Feats while taking only a very small hit to overall survivability. Monks need to keep pumping up WIS and DEX. And unlike the Rogue, baseline Monks do not have effective ranged attacks. Unarmed Strikes do not work at range.
I would disagree with this. Barbarians get Rage. Rangers, Paladins and Fighters get fighting styles. Paladins also get divine smite and rangers also get Favored Foe. All of those are class options that provide rider damage on an attack.
I do agree Monks don't need a damage tune up and I agree Con is not a primary stat for them. IME the Monk Ki gives them a lot of flexibility in combat and the ability to fill multiple roles. While they are not the best at any martial combat role they can be farily good at all of them and usually great at one of them with a build tailored for that.
While many lament a shortage of ki, IME Monk's actually have an abundance of it. A Monk with 7 Ki should pretty much be able to use a Ki every single turn in battle. A Mon with 15 should be able to use over 2 ki every turn on average. The people I see complain about a shortage of Ki are those that multiattack, FOB and then try stunning strike on all 4 of those attacks blowing 5 ki in a turn.
Sometimes that might be the right play, but most of the times it is not. IME, most of the time Patent Defense is the best use of Ki as far as the base Monk goes. Not all the time but most of the time.
Stunning Strike can be powerful but it fails a lot and then a lot of enemies that you really want to stun have legendaries in addtion to good con saves.
IME FOB is the biggest waste of Ki I see. It is essentially 1 more low damage attack. The only time it usually makes sense is if there is an enemy that goes next and you have a good chance of downing him with that extra attack before his turn.
High CON alone isn't going to do a ton for them. At +4 CON mod, a DC of 15 means the strike can go through half the time, and you can hit that DC fairly easily by tier 2. Also, in point of fact, Monks do have a few decent exploration features: Step of the Wind doubles jump distance, and Unarmored Movement lets you run up a wall at level 9. A Monk's role is skirmishing or attempting to break through a line to close with the enemy's back row. And they are not so awful at base damage as people make out. Of the hard martials, only Fighters significantly scale up after level 5, and at level 11 a Monk will be making 3 d8 weapon attacks a round without expending any Ki, the same number as a fighter and only ~5-6 points lower per round if the Fighter goes in for a d12 weapon. FOB at that stage closes the gap pretty effectively. Also, as of Tasha's, they have an ability to turn a miss into a hit via a straight increase to the final attack score, whereas Fighters can only get advantage or roll for a mod, which while it has a greater range also has the potential to fail regardless, whereas when you're directly adding numbers you should pretty much always know you'll be turning a miss into a hit.
Regarding magic armor, there's things like a Cloak of Protection or Bracers of Unarmored Defense for AC boosts. No, they don't get to play with the top tier magic armor, but that applies to about 3/4 of the classes in the game, so that's not so much a flaw of Monks as a feature of the handful of classes that do. A Monk who opens with 16 in DEX and WIS will have an AC of 16, and at level 8 that can be 18 before magic item mods, the same as plate armor. Monks also have Step of the Wind and Evasion; their survivability is more centered on not standing there and being hit rather than tanking. And, regarding ranged attacks, Monks can throw weapons and use their Martial Arts die for it, so they have the same ranged options as any STR class and eventually will pull slightly ahead. Not their strongest area, but Barbarians are probably going to perform even worse at it, so again more a matter of being able to effectively switch between melee and ranged itself being a feature of a few classes.
clearly alot of monks wanna do damage I see no problem with this especially if you funnel all your power to make it so .there is a weird gatekeeping feeling about not wanting to let monks play damage builds.
you can try to build for control overall they are sub optimal and need buffs but that doesn't mean you cant have fun. range damage ironically is alot easier to build for .
well put. this has been my biggest issue . a rogue can be a full expert and do more average dmg then a monk and no one tells them they shouldn't have damage. versus an actual martial who is no skill monkey. the argument is always you have stunning strike yada yada rather then helping give good solutions and options. a paladin does boat loads of damage and some have quite strong other abilities and you don't hear the same arguments aimed at them. if someone doesn't like to play a damage monk they dont have to but they shouldn't try to kneecap others who just want the flavor they like.
I would say they are ahead at the start and pull further ahead. A shortbow is a Monk weapon and it does equal damage to the best thrown weapon with much better range. At higher levels the monk die moves them ahead of any thrown weapons.
Right, so your argument is based on Monks being MAD so they have semi-decent AC. You do realize that needing to boost both WIS and DEX just to have decent AC is already MAD, correct? Step of Wind - uses Ki. Patient Defense - uses Ki.
Any Fighter or Rogue specializing for ranged combat will be much better than a non-MC Monk via a combination of Feats and either Extra Attack or Sneak Attack. Heck, even a baseline Ranger is a better ranged combatant than baseline Monk. The point is that Monks lose out on damage and debuff opportunities by not going melee. Yet they only have 1 trick in their bag when they do go melee and do significantly less damage in melee in comparison to melee-built Fighters and Paladins.
I mention Barb not b/c of ranged attacks, but Barbs have a very efficient resource called Rage. It has 1 minute duration and the only thing that usually stops Rage is a strong enemy spell targeting a weak saving throw. One whole minute for several key benefits, including increased survivability and increase to attack roll. Most Monk subclasses have to nickel and dime their Ki until they get near Tier 3 or 4, because too many **** subclass abilities depend on the same faulty "burst" logic to use of a limited resource as the Monk's base kit. THAT is the key problem. The fact that Monks are also MAD (and therefore less free to pick Feats), and are dependent on short rests to an unreasonable degree is also part of the design flaw.
Not doing as much damage as melee-focused Fighters and Paladins is not the biggest issue, on that I agree. But considering all the other sub-optimal abilities of Monks, the low damage die is the icing on the "Insult to Monks" Cake.
It is not correct to say a rogue will do more damage in melee than a Monk. A Rogue depends on sneak attack to beat a Monk and that is not automatic. It is usually available but not always available and even with sneak attack a Rogue is behind a Monk until 5th level, and that is without including the martial arts attack. If you count the bonus action attack the Rogue is behind the Monk in damage until level 11.
Sure if you compare damage when the a Rogue has advantage or when he has an ally threatening and does not have disadvantage and don't consider any use of ki then his damage on a single action is slightly higher once you get to 5th level and pulls away above that. But a Monk is much more survivable than a Rogue in melee with a better AC and abilities that make him more difficult to hit and will do WAY more damage when he has disadvantage or sneak attack is otherwise not available. That may not be most of the time but it will be some amount of the time.
The other thing is a Rogue is very limited on weapons he can use for sneak attack and that has a big affect on damage once you start needing magic to bypass resistances. A Monk has magic fists at level 6 which give him a floor regardless of the weapons you find, while the Rogue is going to have to have to make do with whatever magic finesse weapon you find and if you don't find one you are going to take a huge hit on damage. Often a Rogue is using a dagger for his magic weapon. When we played Dragonlance last month we did the whole campaign and did not find a single magic finesse weapon. We found a crapload of magic longswords and even a dragonlance but our Paladin needed to keep magic weapon prepared so he could cast it on the Rogue's non-magic Rapier (which cut into his smites significantly). That campaign went to level 12.
I find when people do these DPR calcualtions they often fail to consider how much those fall off if the campaign does not provide a magic version of the exact weapon you need. In play a character that can use any weapon effectively is going to average more damage than a character that does slightly higher damage on paper but needs specific weapons to make it work.
I actually find the opposite is true people focus to much on early game numbers and not what happens at mid to high level ,you admit as much at level 11. I would rather scale better even if they had to nerf early power .
I would estimate 90% of play is before level 11 which makes focusing on effectiveness at high levels a bit counterproductive.
Also keep in mind that assumes the Rogue gets sneak attack. Without that he is way behind at every level. Something as simple as dodge or invisibility will kill sneak attack. Ironically winning initiative will often kill sneak attack for a Rogue unless he is an assassin. While those kinds of things do not happen every battle, they do happen occaisionaly, enough that there will be turns a Rogue can't sneak attack.
In most adventuring days a Rogue is going to have one or two or three turns where he can't sneak attack and at high level those "empty" turns are a crap ton of damage to make up. One missed sneak attack at level 11 for example is 21 hp of damage lost. It is going to take a Rogue 5 rounds to get back on par with a Monk who uses martial arts and uses no ki at all ..... and at 11th level a Monk can use a ki every single turn of combat.
There is also "smaller bites" to consider. Most of the time concentration of fire is the most effective way to play and high number of attacks is a big benefit there. A Rogue has to take big bites where enemies, even high hit point enemies, can be at low hps when a Rogues turn comes around. Aside from limiting the target options to those that qualify for sneak attack, it often puts the Rogue in a quandry - if the Rogue does 30DPR with sneak attack and the big boss is near death when the Rogues turn comes around, the Rogue has the option of concentrating fire and "losing" 20+ points of damage or hitting one of the henchmen and giving the enemy another action. That assumes both options even qualify for sneak attack.
Someone doing nearly the same damage with multiple attacks is going to do better in this situation for 2 reasons - first 1 hit can kill the wounded baddy and the guy with 2 attacks is going to get 2 opportunities to land that one hit. Second if he kills him on the 1st attack he can use the second attack to try and damage someone else. He does not "lose" that damage. A Rogue with the same gross damage is either not going to kill him at all if he misses or will lose the "extra" damage if he hits.
even if this is true that is not a reason to not help with scaling. People should be able to feel useful throughout gameplay.
Regarding rogues, the counterbalance to their high scaling Sneak Attack is that it's all or nothing: a rogue will at most be making two attacks a turn, often only one unless they sacrifice 3d6 of sneak attack damage for an Extra Attack multiclass. Against a high AC target, or an enemy with access to an AC boosting reaction, they can easily whiff about half the time, markedly reducing their average DPR for a given encounter. Monks, on the other hand, go for a high volume of attack rolls, reducing their burst but making it so one bad roll doesn't blow their entire attack action. The Steady Aim feature from Tasha's does somewhat tip the scales for Rogues, but using it also makes them a sitting duck for a round, so there's a risk/reward element to that.
Ya they need a damage buff , they will probably get one in one dnd , if they also make the subclasses better monk will be in a good place
I don't think that has anything to do with scaling, I think that has to do with the players. The Monks we have had in our campaign have felt useful with the current scaling.
Personally, I prefer playing a Monk to a Bard or a Barbarian and feel more useful as a Monk than as either of those classes.
you are definitely entitled to how you feel personally I'm glad you can have fun with how monks are for yourself.
However the facts are there and no matter what you do to optimize you cant compete in damage,
even something like blade singer who can easily do more damage then a monk has great control and doesn't easily burn off resources.
its a subclass of wizard that is arguably much better then a monk with what it can do while still being a full caster.
most people then respond oh but a monk has mobility. well if he picks up ,mobile and chooses tabaxi and with proper spell usage he can move even farther .
he can have easily more then enough mobility and doesn't have the crippling non scaling damage a monk has , this to me is a problem. ya I dont have a problem if people don't want to play optimized builds however people need to better optimize so that they can see proper weaknesses other wise people are talking with out full perspective. also I would like the monk to be able to fulfill more peoples flavor of a monk . to me a monk is a master of martial arts who deals out deadly blows think Tien in dbz(not super they did him dirty in super).some others may prefer to skirmish , I have no problem with that ,I Just want more mechanical options so that it meets my idea of what a monk is more .3.5 had its issues but definitely had the feel of the kind of monk I would like for one dnd. and yes I know the common arguments but I still think the monk should do comparable damage to the Fighter especially if focused on pure unarmed damage that is kind of the theme.
I am glad you like the monk, and indeed it is a class that is more dreamy. Unfortunately for players who notice the disparities, it is obvious that something is wrong.
The various powers of the monk are very situational, and only a good GM can bring it out properly. Unfortunately, it is not easy to be a good GM who, before starting an adventure, studies the abilities of each character and how to offer them a moment where they can shine in a way that entertains the whole group.
The monk was designed for an adventure where there is a shortage of magic items and its adaptive ability could thus be highlighted. But as I explained, most of its abilities are situational and the monk is probably not used in the way the creator originally envisioned.
Another thing that I still can't get my head around is the creators' choice to make + or - balanced classes, but without taking into account magic items and feats. Feats are the main factor of imbalance in this version of DnD. Some too strong and some so weak that no one looks at them. But what is most infuriating is that they are designed only to be useful for certain classes.
Another thing that has never been clear to me is the fighter and unarmed style. The monk was created as a master of unarmed combat and at 1st level has d4 as unarmed damage, while the fighter (weapon master) comes with this unarmed style and can do d8 unarmed damage. This style of the fighter makes me question who is really the master of martial arts.
The monk actually has several design problems:
Lacks a practical and inexpensive disengagement system that allows it to make the most of his speed.
Some features come so late that they are practically useless at that level.
The monk lacks it own role in the group. Its position has always remained ambiguous and unclear.
Lacks flexibility in its choice of martial arts style. A martial arts master should have more combat maneuvers.
The monk is undecided whether to concentrate its attacks in the action or in the bonus action, thus making it difficult to sacrifice bonus action.
Monk features seem to have no direction of progress and even though there are many they do not seem to combine and is very dependent on ki points.
The monk needs more Ability Scores and a range of feats designed for monks to choose from.
Monk damage does not scale as it should, and some features, even if they use ki points, can fail without producing results.
The monk feature at 20th level is a bit disappointing, especially since it is specified that it must be at 0 ki to be activated.
There are disparities in every class and I would not argue that a Monk is a powerful class, but I don't think relative balance is even a good design goal. People should play a class because they want to play that class and I think perfect balance (like we had in 4e) would detract from the game. If it is important that you play a more powerful class then choose a more powerful class, but being less powerful is not a
Regarding your comments:
Disengage - A Monk can disengage by using a Ki, which at 6th level means he should be able to do that just about every single turn in combat (albeit by giving up other options). While talking about this though we are also ignoring that often there is no need to disengage either because threatening enemies either died or used their reaction for something else and the inability to disengage does not normally mean a lack of mobility. A Monk can use his full speed without disengaging.
Features - Not sure which ones you are talking about
Role - The player defines the role for his character. The mechanics of a Monk offer many available roles. There is no stereotype for a Monk, but then I don't think those stereotypes are a good thing anyway. The Cleric for example has an expectation that it fills "the healer role", but I find that kind of thinking detracts from the game and actually makes it less fun. So I think this is actually a benefit to the Monk, not a detractor.
Martial Arts Style - To start with I will agree with what you here from a mechanics POV, but I will say feats are available for this (albeit expensive) and other classes are as well. But TBH if you want this I think you should just a different class - specifically Battlemaster Fighter with unarmed combat - is simply a better option for this style of play. I think this criticism is like saying Monks don't have good control spells .... sure but other classes do, just play those classes.
Bonus action attacks - I don't see this as a problem. It adds flexibility. I can disengage, I can dodge, I can attack, I can use FOB, I can use Ki fueled attack .... these are all options. This criticism to me feels like you are saying Monks are too flexible in what they can do with a bonus action. Having more viable options which you can choose is better than being locked into one thing IME.
Ki - At tier2+ Monks have a lot of Ki to spend. Based on extensive play I disagree with the idea that Monks have a shortage of ki at level 5+ unless you have abnormally long adventuring days or are blowing 2-3 ki every single turn. If you go nova with your ki you will run out, but you are pushing a nova attack on an enemy too when you do that. I am not saying you never run out, but you usually have ki available and are certainly not going through it as fast as Battlemasters or Paladins are blowing through their maneuvers or spell slots and you are getting comparable effects with more options.
Feats/ASIs - I don't think Monks need to get more ASIs, I do agree more feats are a good option and I would agree most feats do not compliment Monks well. There are a few good ones though - Fey Touched with Hex or Shadow Touched with Cause Fear or False Life and a Wisdom boost is a nice Monk feat at 4th level with an odd wisdom. Gift of the Gem Dragon is also a nice pick up with an odd Wisdom. Gift of the Metallic Dragon is good if you are going to play a front line dodger type guy but you give up an ASI for that. Fighting Initiate and unarmed fighting style is great at 1st or 4th level and almost seems purpose-built for a Monk. Those are the only ones I can think of that are really good for a Monk though.
Damage/Ki - I think Monk damage is ok at low level and great at high level. You can also boost unarmed strike damage with a feat if you want, and then either use the optional rules trade that feat in at high level when it is no longer useful or if you don't use those rules just pick a different fighting style when you reach 12th level. Some ki features will fail and the possibility of failure should be considered before use. Others like Step of the Wind and Patient Defense never fail though. The same can be said of battlemaster maneuvers or spells or really anything - some have a chance of failure. My Wizard can spend his third level slot on Hypnotic Pattern and have a chance of failure or spend it on Lemund's Tiny Hut with no chance of failure. That does not make a Wizard weak or mean he shoudl never use a save spell.
20th level - Agree, but I have never played a 20th level Monk.
The only problem I have had with the 5e Monks, is that for levels 7-13 their survivability does not scale the same as all other classes. What I am saying specifically, is that Monks, compared to all the other classes, get less things that help them survive for what they do during this stretch, than other classes do.
This factors in many things. "to hit" of enemies, level of magics faced, their Hit Dice, Monks' *typical* role puts them in fray of things, and its not really until they get their proficiency in all saves that their survivability catches back up to the other classes.
That said: I agree that the 20th level monk capstone is bad. However it is just a Martial version of the level 20 sorcerer capstone. And, I will further... argue slightly. better than the sorcerer one, which requires a short rest vs "rolling for initiative" and 4 sorcery points is arguably less helpful than 4 Ki points on level 20 characters.
Now- to devil's advocate my above statement. Short rests you can just decide to take basically. Initiative is only declared by the DM. Initiative does not mean 100% there will be combat, but it does mean, the DM has to call for initiative, and its not fun that your character's abilities are in the hands of "not you"
Blank