To Devils advocate your devils advocate, it really isn’t always just your decision to take a short rest. It is just as DM dependent as initiative. You say you are taking a short rest, the DM says ok. 15 minutes in a patrol of enemies shows up. Roll initiative, sorry short rest not completed. Take a short rest, DM says ok. After completing the short rest, the ritual you were supposed to stop has been completed and an ancient evil has been released. You got your Ki back but your mission is now failed, etc.
Some tables allow short rests after every fight. Some only once per adventuring day. My DM allows them when appropriate. We might say we want to but he may ask if we are sure as the area doesn’t seem safe or a whole host of other things that could be detrimental.
I have no counter to argue against the ague for my argue that I forced myself to argue.
monk capstone is bad. Worse than sorcerer I. My opinion by slightly, but both are bad. And…. It’s not like the rest of monk is so stupendous that it makes sense. Sorcerer…. There’s a decent lot of stuff to where the weaker capstone doesn’t hit as hard. But Sorcerer cap is for a different thread.
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
I agree that each class is not the same and they do not have the same DPR, but each class has an advantage that other classes do not, it is still a team game. If the monk does not have a good DPR, does not have many skills, does not have magic, does not have many hit points, ... what does he have to offer a group to be chosen?
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.
As a class with only d8 hit points it is expected to have a practical way with no cost. Of course the monk can kill enemies earlier and thus disengage, but this involves risking no small amount by having only d8 hit points and an average AC. The monk is worse off than the rogue even having the same hit points, this is because to the rogue it changes absolutely nothing to fight close or ranged. Another thing in which the rogue excels is the optimization between action and bonus action. The rogue is designed to sacrifice his bonus action from the beginning and this does not result in any loss, at least until the rogue takes a feats to fight with two weapons. Whereas the monk having two attacks as an action and 1+1(FoB) as a bonus action makes it difficult to waste his ki points to disengage and that is why everyone prefers to take the "Mobile or Crusher" feats.
Features - Not sure which ones you are talking about
Tongue of the Sun and Moon,
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.
The problem with the monk is that he does not excel in any one role, and players wanting to excel in one are disappointed. By this I do not mean to impose a role in the monk but to make it excel somewhere to have a reason for being in a group that supports itself. Instead, the monk seems created to function in solitude making its powers almost unused. When you are introduced to the monk you are told that it is a master of martial arts and unarmed combat, but alla there is much smoke and no fire.
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.
Feats are much harder to take for MAD classes like the monk. While the fighter with only 2 important Ability Scores can have 7 ASI and the rogue the same as the fighter has 6 ASI, the monk has 3 important Ability Scores and can only have 5 ASI... Strange, it doesn't seem to me that the price is the same for everyone.
What you mean is that a fighter is much better as a martial arts master than a monk, , so the fact that they sell it as a martial arts master is a joke.
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.
Yes, unfortunately as I explained before, there is no practicality in these special actions with a waste of 2 attacks and 1 ki point, the price is too high. However any class can perform the special actions, just waste the action to perform disengage, dash and dodge.
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.
I never said that the monk's ki points are few, in fact in my opinion they are enough.
Instead, I find the idea of managing one's own resources instructive. Self-control is a fundamental concept for everyone's life and falls very well into the image of a monk. If people do not know how to cautiously and strategically manage their resources, they will have problems not only in the game but also in real life.
What I mean by "dependence on ki points" is that without ki points, the monk losing most of its abilities and thus losing its role in the group. The monk should unlock some of its ki features so that it no longer has to use its resources and these resources can be used for features from subclasses.
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.
Effectively, after 5 years they have managed to bring out some feats for the monk, although I must say with an embarrassing delay. To your list I would add Mobile, Crusher, Mage Slayer and Defensive Duelist. Unfortunately, as explained before the monk hardly has a chance to get a feat.
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.
For me, however, it is the opposite. The monk at the early levels at a good DPR, while the higher he goes the more this advantage is lost.
As far as feats are concerned, it seems clear to me what my opinion is in this regard.
Step of the Wind can fail if countered by the "Sentinel" feat. Spells even if the DC has been overcome the creature almost always takes half from the damage. Battle Master maneuvers even if the DC has been overcome the additional damage die remains.
20th level - Agree, but I have never played a 20th level Monk.
Neither do I, but doesn't it seem strange? If it was in the designer I would have simply written:
Every time you roll for initiative, you will always have at least 4 ki points.
It does not change much, but it is more practical this way.
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.
"sure but other classes do, just play those classes." this right here is telling others what you think they should do rather then putting forth a good argument. I personally want more damage. why don't you want to play a fighter ?cause I want to play a monk. I really don't understand this gatekeeping attitude its kind of toxic honestly. people are to trying to advocate for flexibility and options . just like how the new cleric you can get a boost to the martial,caster and skills based on holy sect choice. from the way you explain it you love 5e monk thats fine. but doesn't add much thought to improve the monk in one dnd
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
I agree that each class is not the same and they do not have the same DPR, but each class has an advantage that other classes do not, it is still a team game. If the monk does not have a good DPR, does not have many skills, does not have magic, does not have many hit points, ... what does he have to offer a group to be chosen?
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.
As a class with only d8 hit points it is expected to have a practical way with no cost. Of course the monk can kill enemies earlier and thus disengage, but this involves risking no small amount by having only d8 hit points and an average AC. The monk is worse off than the rogue even having the same hit points, this is because to the rogue it changes absolutely nothing to fight close or ranged. Another thing in which the rogue excels is the optimization between action and bonus action. The rogue is designed to sacrifice his bonus action from the beginning and this does not result in any loss, at least until the rogue takes a feats to fight with two weapons. Whereas the monk having two attacks as an action and 1+1(FoB) as a bonus action makes it difficult to waste his ki points to disengage and that is why everyone prefers to take the "Mobile or Crusher" feats.
Features - Not sure which ones you are talking about
Tongue of the Sun and Moon,
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.
The problem with the monk is that he does not excel in any one role, and players wanting to excel in one are disappointed. By this I do not mean to impose a role in the monk but to make it excel somewhere to have a reason for being in a group that supports itself. Instead, the monk seems created to function in solitude making its powers almost unused. When you are introduced to the monk you are told that it is a master of martial arts and unarmed combat, but alla there is much smoke and no fire.
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.
Feats are much harder to take for MAD classes like the monk. While the fighter with only 2 important Ability Scores can have 7 ASI and the rogue the same as the fighter has 6 ASI, the monk has 3 important Ability Scores and can only have 5 ASI... Strange, it doesn't seem to me that the price is the same for everyone.
What you mean is that a fighter is much better as a martial arts master than a monk, , so the fact that they sell it as a martial arts master is a joke.
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.
Yes, unfortunately as I explained before, there is no practicality in these special actions with a waste of 2 attacks and 1 ki point, the price is too high. However any class can perform the special actions, just waste the action to perform disengage, dash and dodge.
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.
I never said that the monk's ki points are few, in fact in my opinion they are enough.
Instead, I find the idea of managing one's own resources instructive. Self-control is a fundamental concept for everyone's life and falls very well into the image of a monk. If people do not know how to cautiously and strategically manage their resources, they will have problems not only in the game but also in real life.
What I mean by "dependence on ki points" is that without ki points, the monk losing most of its abilities and thus losing its role in the group. The monk should unlock some of its ki features so that it no longer has to use its resources and these resources can be used for features from subclasses.
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.
Effectively, after 5 years they have managed to bring out some feats for the monk, although I must say with an embarrassing delay. To your list I would add Mobile, Crusher, Mage Slayer and Defensive Duelist. Unfortunately, as explained before the monk hardly has a chance to get a feat.
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.
For me, however, it is the opposite. The monk at the early levels at a good DPR, while the higher he goes the more this advantage is lost.
As far as feats are concerned, it seems clear to me what my opinion is in this regard.
Step of the Wind can fail if countered by the "Sentinel" feat. Spells even if the DC has been overcome the creature almost always takes half from the damage. Battle Master maneuvers even if the DC has been overcome the additional damage die remains.
20th level - Agree, but I have never played a 20th level Monk.
Neither do I, but doesn't it seem strange? If it was in the designer I would have simply written:
Every time you roll for initiative, you will always have at least 4 ki points.
It does not change much, but it is more practical this way.
also thanks Aanx for putting forth possible solutions and ideas . this is the kind of energy that is good . clearly many people agree the monk needs work and your at east putting thoughtful possibilities into the mix
To Devils advocate your devils advocate, it really isn’t always just your decision to take a short rest. It is just as DM dependent as initiative. You say you are taking a short rest, the DM says ok. 15 minutes in a patrol of enemies shows up. Roll initiative, sorry short rest not completed. Take a short rest, DM says ok. After completing the short rest, the ritual you were supposed to stop has been completed and an ancient evil has been released. You got your Ki back but your mission is now failed, etc.
Some tables allow short rests after every fight. Some only once per adventuring day. My DM allows them when appropriate. We might say we want to but he may ask if we are sure as the area doesn’t seem safe or a whole host of other things that could be detrimental.
Basically I’m saying it’s not a given.
This is true but the game is designed around 2 fights per short rest and most tables go less than that far more often than more than that especially in an outdoors campaign where you can go days without fighting.
Regardless though these kinds of mechanical differences are going to slant the game towards certain classes and away from others. While a Monk suffers some in games with no short rests other classes like Cleric and Druid as well as the battlemaster subclass suffer just as much and Warlocks suffer the most. Go the other way where you short rest every single fight minimum and sometimes in the middle of a fight with a Rope Trick and Monks and Warlocks are probably the two most powerful classes.
I agree that each class is not the same and they do not have the same DPR, but each class has an advantage that other classes do not, it is still a team game. If the monk does not have a good DPR, does not have many skills, does not have magic, does not have many hit points, ... what does he have to offer a group to be chosen?
The ability to melee MUCH better than your Sorcerer, hide MUCH better than your paladin, do MUCH more damage than your cleric and move MUCH better than everyone.
A Monk can do just about everything and do most of those roles well except be a caster, not the best but well.
More to the point, Monks are not by far ever the weakest character in a party. A Wizard or Sorcerer that focuses on Charms and Fear is one of the best controllers in the game in most situations, but there are corner cases where he will flat suck.
Unless you rolled terrible abilities, a Monk will almost never suck even with just base skills and that is a strength in itself.
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.
As a class with only d8 hit points it is expected to have a practical way with no cost. Of course the monk can kill enemies earlier and thus disengage, but this involves risking no small amount by having only d8 hit points and an average AC. The monk is worse off than the rogue even having the same hit points, this is because to the rogue it changes absolutely nothing to fight close or ranged. Another thing in which the rogue excels is the optimization between action and bonus action. The rogue is designed to sacrifice his bonus action from the beginning and this does not result in any loss, at least until the rogue takes a feats to fight with two weapons. Whereas the monk having two attacks as an action and 1+1(FoB) as a bonus action makes it difficult to waste his ki points to disengage and that is why everyone prefers to take the "Mobile or Crusher" feats.
I disagree. Why should he be able to disengage with no cost? What basis is there for saying that.
Also what you are implying here is that free cunning action is better than having the ability to disengage, dodge, dash (with a faster speed), make 2 attacks or try to stun an opponent using 1 ki. I don't think that is true and I think a Rogue with the Monk Ki bonus action toolkit instead of cunning action would be far more powerful than a RAW Rogue.
Compared to a rogue a Monk has the choice to do any of that stuff with a bonus action and 1 ki and he can also make a good damage attack with no ki.
I have never got crusher as a Monk nor have I seen another player get crusher as a Monk, I'm not saying it is bad but since it does not boost dex or Wisdom I don't think it is great either. I also have never gotten Mobile (although I have played with others that did) and Mobile is a complete waste on a Monk, why would you get a feat to do something you can already do? So not "everyone" gets those feats. The Lucky feat in particular will outrun Mobile by a country mile.
As far as feats go, the most common feat I get on a Monk is Fey Touched.
Features - Not sure which ones you are talking about
Tongue of the Sun and Moon,
yes I agree that is an awful feature.
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.
The problem with the monk is that he does not excel in any one role, and players wanting to excel in one are disappointed. By this I do not mean to impose a role in the monk but to make it excel somewhere to have a reason for being in a group that supports itself. Instead, the monk seems created to function in solitude making its powers almost unused. When you are introduced to the monk you are told that it is a master of martial arts and unarmed combat, but alla there is much smoke and no fire.
The Monk excels in every role except spell casting. Players wanting to be the best possible in one single role should not play a Monk and will be disappointed.
A Monk's mechanics lead it to be good at melee, good at scouting, good at ranged attacks and above average at most of the exploration and some of the social pillars (due to Wisdom) all at the same time assuming average or better rolls on your abilities. Few builds can match that. A Cleric, Wizard or Ranger can do that with a purpose built character but no other martials will match that.
What you mean is that a fighter is much better as a martial arts master than a monk, , so the fact that they sell it as a martial arts master is a joke.
I don't sell the Monk as being the best at Martial arts (until high level). The fighter is simply better if built for it, that is fact.
The Monk will still be good at martial arts though and compared to the fighter who took the unarmed combat style the Monk will be a lot better at ranged combat, scouting and will eventually surpass the fighter at martial arts to boot.
If you want to play a tier 1 and tier 2 martial arts master and you are not playing with multiclasses you should play a fighter.
Why would you pick a Monk if you wanted to be the best at something another class is the best at? I mean the name of the class is "fighter" .... they should be the best at "fighting".
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.
Yes, unfortunately as I explained before, there is no practicality in these special actions with a waste of 2 attacks and 1 ki point, the price is too high. However any class can perform the special actions, just waste the action to perform disengage, dash and dodge.
It is not 2 attacks and 1 ki. It is either 2 attacks or 1 attack and 1 ki. You can only make 1 attack with martial arts, so if you are comparing it to 2 attacks that means you have already "spent" the ki. You burn the ki and have the choice of making 2 attacks or doing something useful ... or you don;t burn the ki and make 1 attack
And if you are using ki a lot for FOB that is your biggeest problem. Using Ki on FOB is usually a waste. Using Ki to dodge or for focused aim is generally far better. I am not saying you should never use FOB but if you are using it more than once or twice a day that is why your Monks seem weak.
What I mean by "dependence on ki points" is that without ki points, the monk losing most of its abilities and thus losing its role in the group. The monk should unlock some of its ki features so that it no longer has to use its resources and these resources can be used for features from subclasses.
That is true for every class with resources. I would argue that a Monk with no ki is better than a full caster (or for that matter a Paladin) with no spell slots.
Effectively, after 5 years they have managed to bring out some feats for the monk, although I must say with an embarrassing delay. To your list I would add Mobile, Crusher, Mage Slayer and Defensive Duelist. Unfortunately, as explained before the monk hardly has a chance to get a feat.
I am not generally a fan of crusher because it boosts Constitution which is not nearly as effective as boosting dex or Wisdom. If you rolled stats and have an odd con then sure.
Mobile I think is just completely awful on a Monk, I mean really awful.
I have never played Mage Slayer but I can see the draw. Defensive Duelist is good, but I think Gem Dragon or Mettalic Dragon are better for reaction, Gem Dragon because it boosts Wisdom. Although DD could be killer if you use patient defense a lot.
Step of the Wind can fail if countered by the "Sentinel" feat. Spells even if the DC has been overcome the creature almost always takes half from the damage. Battle Master maneuvers even if the DC has been overcome the additional damage die remains.
Sure but patient defense before you run away makes sentinel irrelevant and gives him disadvvantage on his turn too. Agree on the battlemaster die but they are getting a lot fewer uses.
Fighting two enemies with Sentinel and a Monk has a huge advantage in that he can use PD to start his turn and then attack one of the guys, when the other guy attacks the Monk it is with disadvantage and then it is with disadvantage on his turn as well.
Monk definitely needs work to objectively say they are fine is mind boggling. I mean ya if you just like the theme and don't want them to improve ok but at least put forth some positive ideas imo.
Monk definitely needs work to objectively say they are fine is mind boggling. I mean ya if you just like the theme and don't want them to improve ok but at least put forth some positive ideas imo.
I couldn't care less about the theme I don't really care about any classes theme. The mechanics are fine IMO.
Monk definitely needs work to objectively say they are fine is mind boggling. I mean ya if you just like the theme and don't want them to improve ok but at least put forth some positive ideas imo.
I couldn't care less about the theme I don't really care about any classes theme. The mechanics are fine IMO.
" I don't really care about any classes theme". This at least makes the most sense with what you have said. I think some people do however and would like to improve the class and add more flexibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To Devils advocate your devils advocate, it really isn’t always just your decision to take a short rest. It is just as DM dependent as initiative. You say you are taking a short rest, the DM says ok. 15 minutes in a patrol of enemies shows up. Roll initiative, sorry short rest not completed. Take a short rest, DM says ok. After completing the short rest, the ritual you were supposed to stop has been completed and an ancient evil has been released. You got your Ki back but your mission is now failed, etc.
Some tables allow short rests after every fight. Some only once per adventuring day. My DM allows them when appropriate. We might say we want to but he may ask if we are sure as the area doesn’t seem safe or a whole host of other things that could be detrimental.
Basically I’m saying it’s not a given.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Valid.
I have no counter to argue against the ague for my argue that I forced myself to argue.
monk capstone is bad. Worse than sorcerer I. My opinion by slightly, but both are bad. And…. It’s not like the rest of monk is so stupendous that it makes sense. Sorcerer…. There’s a decent lot of stuff to where the weaker capstone doesn’t hit as hard. But Sorcerer cap is for a different thread.
Blank
I agree that each class is not the same and they do not have the same DPR, but each class has an advantage that other classes do not, it is still a team game. If the monk does not have a good DPR, does not have many skills, does not have magic, does not have many hit points, ... what does he have to offer a group to be chosen?
As a class with only d8 hit points it is expected to have a practical way with no cost. Of course the monk can kill enemies earlier and thus disengage, but this involves risking no small amount by having only d8 hit points and an average AC. The monk is worse off than the rogue even having the same hit points, this is because to the rogue it changes absolutely nothing to fight close or ranged. Another thing in which the rogue excels is the optimization between action and bonus action. The rogue is designed to sacrifice his bonus action from the beginning and this does not result in any loss, at least until the rogue takes a feats to fight with two weapons. Whereas the monk having two attacks as an action and 1+1(FoB) as a bonus action makes it difficult to waste his ki points to disengage and that is why everyone prefers to take the "Mobile or Crusher" feats.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon,
The problem with the monk is that he does not excel in any one role, and players wanting to excel in one are disappointed. By this I do not mean to impose a role in the monk but to make it excel somewhere to have a reason for being in a group that supports itself. Instead, the monk seems created to function in solitude making its powers almost unused. When you are introduced to the monk you are told that it is a master of martial arts and unarmed combat, but alla there is much smoke and no fire.
Feats are much harder to take for MAD classes like the monk. While the fighter with only 2 important Ability Scores can have 7 ASI and the rogue the same as the fighter has 6 ASI, the monk has 3 important Ability Scores and can only have 5 ASI... Strange, it doesn't seem to me that the price is the same for everyone.
What you mean is that a fighter is much better as a martial arts master than a monk, , so the fact that they sell it as a martial arts master is a joke.
Yes, unfortunately as I explained before, there is no practicality in these special actions with a waste of 2 attacks and 1 ki point, the price is too high.
However any class can perform the special actions, just waste the action to perform disengage, dash and dodge.
I never said that the monk's ki points are few, in fact in my opinion they are enough.
Instead, I find the idea of managing one's own resources instructive. Self-control is a fundamental concept for everyone's life and falls very well into the image of a monk. If people do not know how to cautiously and strategically manage their resources, they will have problems not only in the game but also in real life.
What I mean by "dependence on ki points" is that without ki points, the monk losing most of its abilities and thus losing its role in the group. The monk should unlock some of its ki features so that it no longer has to use its resources and these resources can be used for features from subclasses.
Effectively, after 5 years they have managed to bring out some feats for the monk, although I must say with an embarrassing delay. To your list I would add Mobile, Crusher, Mage Slayer and Defensive Duelist. Unfortunately, as explained before the monk hardly has a chance to get a feat.
For me, however, it is the opposite. The monk at the early levels at a good DPR, while the higher he goes the more this advantage is lost.
As far as feats are concerned, it seems clear to me what my opinion is in this regard.
Step of the Wind can fail if countered by the "Sentinel" feat. Spells even if the DC has been overcome the creature almost always takes half from the damage. Battle Master maneuvers even if the DC has been overcome the additional damage die remains.
Neither do I, but doesn't it seem strange? If it was in the designer I would have simply written:
Every time you roll for initiative, you will always have at least 4 ki points.
It does not change much, but it is more practical this way.
"sure but other classes do, just play those classes." this right here is telling others what you think they should do rather then putting forth a good argument. I personally want more damage. why don't you want to play a fighter ?cause I want to play a monk. I really don't understand this gatekeeping attitude its kind of toxic honestly. people are to trying to advocate for flexibility and options . just like how the new cleric you can get a boost to the martial,caster and skills based on holy sect choice. from the way you explain it you love 5e monk thats fine. but doesn't add much thought to improve the monk in one dnd
also thanks Aanx for putting forth possible solutions and ideas . this is the kind of energy that is good . clearly many people agree the monk needs work and your at east putting thoughtful possibilities into the mix
This is true but the game is designed around 2 fights per short rest and most tables go less than that far more often than more than that especially in an outdoors campaign where you can go days without fighting.
Regardless though these kinds of mechanical differences are going to slant the game towards certain classes and away from others. While a Monk suffers some in games with no short rests other classes like Cleric and Druid as well as the battlemaster subclass suffer just as much and Warlocks suffer the most. Go the other way where you short rest every single fight minimum and sometimes in the middle of a fight with a Rope Trick and Monks and Warlocks are probably the two most powerful classes.
The ability to melee MUCH better than your Sorcerer, hide MUCH better than your paladin, do MUCH more damage than your cleric and move MUCH better than everyone.
A Monk can do just about everything and do most of those roles well except be a caster, not the best but well.
More to the point, Monks are not by far ever the weakest character in a party. A Wizard or Sorcerer that focuses on Charms and Fear is one of the best controllers in the game in most situations, but there are corner cases where he will flat suck.
Unless you rolled terrible abilities, a Monk will almost never suck even with just base skills and that is a strength in itself.
I disagree. Why should he be able to disengage with no cost? What basis is there for saying that.
Also what you are implying here is that free cunning action is better than having the ability to disengage, dodge, dash (with a faster speed), make 2 attacks or try to stun an opponent using 1 ki. I don't think that is true and I think a Rogue with the Monk Ki bonus action toolkit instead of cunning action would be far more powerful than a RAW Rogue.
Compared to a rogue a Monk has the choice to do any of that stuff with a bonus action and 1 ki and he can also make a good damage attack with no ki.
I have never got crusher as a Monk nor have I seen another player get crusher as a Monk, I'm not saying it is bad but since it does not boost dex or Wisdom I don't think it is great either. I also have never gotten Mobile (although I have played with others that did) and Mobile is a complete waste on a Monk, why would you get a feat to do something you can already do? So not "everyone" gets those feats. The Lucky feat in particular will outrun Mobile by a country mile.
As far as feats go, the most common feat I get on a Monk is Fey Touched.
yes I agree that is an awful feature.
The Monk excels in every role except spell casting. Players wanting to be the best possible in one single role should not play a Monk and will be disappointed.
A Monk's mechanics lead it to be good at melee, good at scouting, good at ranged attacks and above average at most of the exploration and some of the social pillars (due to Wisdom) all at the same time assuming average or better rolls on your abilities. Few builds can match that. A Cleric, Wizard or Ranger can do that with a purpose built character but no other martials will match that.
I don't sell the Monk as being the best at Martial arts (until high level). The fighter is simply better if built for it, that is fact.
The Monk will still be good at martial arts though and compared to the fighter who took the unarmed combat style the Monk will be a lot better at ranged combat, scouting and will eventually surpass the fighter at martial arts to boot.
If you want to play a tier 1 and tier 2 martial arts master and you are not playing with multiclasses you should play a fighter.
Why would you pick a Monk if you wanted to be the best at something another class is the best at? I mean the name of the class is "fighter" .... they should be the best at "fighting".
It is not 2 attacks and 1 ki. It is either 2 attacks or 1 attack and 1 ki. You can only make 1 attack with martial arts, so if you are comparing it to 2 attacks that means you have already "spent" the ki. You burn the ki and have the choice of making 2 attacks or doing something useful ... or you don;t burn the ki and make 1 attack
And if you are using ki a lot for FOB that is your biggeest problem. Using Ki on FOB is usually a waste. Using Ki to dodge or for focused aim is generally far better. I am not saying you should never use FOB but if you are using it more than once or twice a day that is why your Monks seem weak.
That is true for every class with resources. I would argue that a Monk with no ki is better than a full caster (or for that matter a Paladin) with no spell slots.
I am not generally a fan of crusher because it boosts Constitution which is not nearly as effective as boosting dex or Wisdom. If you rolled stats and have an odd con then sure.
Mobile I think is just completely awful on a Monk, I mean really awful.
I have never played Mage Slayer but I can see the draw. Defensive Duelist is good, but I think Gem Dragon or Mettalic Dragon are better for reaction, Gem Dragon because it boosts Wisdom. Although DD could be killer if you use patient defense a lot.
Sure but patient defense before you run away makes sentinel irrelevant and gives him disadvvantage on his turn too. Agree on the battlemaster die but they are getting a lot fewer uses.
Fighting two enemies with Sentinel and a Monk has a huge advantage in that he can use PD to start his turn and then attack one of the guys, when the other guy attacks the Monk it is with disadvantage and then it is with disadvantage on his turn as well.
Monk definitely needs work to objectively say they are fine is mind boggling. I mean ya if you just like the theme and don't want them to improve ok but at least put forth some positive ideas imo.
I couldn't care less about the theme I don't really care about any classes theme. The mechanics are fine IMO.
" I don't really care about any classes theme". This at least makes the most sense with what you have said. I think some people do however and would like to improve the class and add more flexibility.