at level 17 you are supposed to be a god I think it should hit Harder. Think Luke cage level power he would hurt for more then a battle axe. my biggest contention is people want to forget monks in 3.5 they had 5 attacks more then any other martial that is their bag not the fighters. but somehow stunning strike became the main focus Wich is why I don't like it it . though I do find it hilarious that people think monk shouldn't dmg because of this but you never see them go after other controllers damage like the wizard. It is their right to disagree but I will continue to advocate for competitive dpr for a monk cause that's what I find fun .
You do realize that 3.5 had a completely different underlying scale for damage, right? So that's a rather apples to oranges metric for analyzing the internal relative 5e power scale. At 4th tier, Monks are making 3 d10+DEX attacks per round without using any resources, probably with a magic weapon bonus on the first two hits, and they have enough Ki to consistently use Flurry of Blows throughout several typical 3-5 round combats, with it completely refreshing on a Short Rest. That's going to come out well ahead of any cantrip besides an Eldritch Blast with the Invocation for adding CHA mod damage, which itself is considered to be a mildly OP setup and also balances out the Warlocks' very limited set of leveled spell casts. Wizards have better quick burst, but they are significantly squishier, their control is usually dependent on holding concentration, and lots of high CR enemies have a lot of condition immunities, spell resistance, and/or damage resistances. Plus Monks are also more defensively oriented than Fighters, having prof in all saving throws and the ability to reroll a save after advantage and disadvantage have been applied for a Ki, so if their attacks or damage die were scaled up to match a Fighter's, they'd be an objectively better pick in most instances.
I cited 3.5 cause comparatively they did better damage and the argument seems to be monks aren't a damage class so im pointing out instances where they were.
also a wizard can get heavy armor these days and they have access to the shield spell.
If your problem is stunning strike I personally hope it becomes optional because I'm guess this is why some people dont want them to have damage.
monks are also way more maad then fighters and fighters can use those extra asi to get profiency in most saving throws as well. while also being able to use their features in magic armor something a monk cant do.
I cited 3.5 cause comparatively they did better damage and the argument seems to be monks aren't a damage class so im pointing out instances where they were.
also a wizard can get heavy armor these days and they have access to the shield spell.
If your problem is stunning strike I personally hope it becomes optional because I'm guess this is why some people dont want them to have damage.
monks are also way more maad then fighters and fighters can use those extra asi to get profiency in most saving throws as well. while also being able to use their features in magic armor something a monk cant do.
Monks having been a high damage class in a previous edition still has little bearing on their comparative performance in this edition.
Wizards can technically get heavy armor, but it requires either one specific race that has since been shifted to legacy and had that option removed from the new iteration for that exact reason or a portmanteau of race, class, and feats to acquire. And none of this addresses their d6 hit die or lack of additional saving profs or- in most instances- lack of core damage mitigating features. Shield is an option, but it requires spell slots and is only useful for direct attacks, not saves. Monks, in contrast, can easily match low tier heavy armor AC with their starting scores, and at top tier can match plate armor with a shield. They also have Evasion to mitigate one of the biggest sources of saving throw damage.
I have no problem with Stunning Strike, but it is also a point for why they don't have Monks scale their number of attacks the same way a Fighter does; what would be the point of being a Fighter if a Monk can do as many attacks, and has the built in ability to do extra stuff like Stunning Strike as well? And, if you take a feature like Stunning Strike out, you're losing meaningful distinction between Monk and Fighter as separate core classes.
I do agree Monks are a bit more MAD than Fighters, but honestly I'm not sure it's quite to the degree one might think. They've got enough core defensive features that they don't require the same CON investment as a Fighter or Barbarian, so just using point buy without dumping I can set one up so that they'll have +3 to DEX and WIS from the start after racial ASI's and +1 CON. If I dump CHA for optimization, I can put CON at +2. That means out of the gate they'll have 16 AC, the equivalent of Chain Mail armor, and a boost to HP. Your typical Fighter is going to choose one between STR and DEX for one +3, and then +2 or +3 CON and then assign +1's to taste, maybe go for +2 in DEX if they want to use a ranged weapon as a fallback as opposed to thrown. Yes, technically if a Fighter wanted to they could dump 4 feats into Resilient to match them on saves, but that would take over half their ASI's for only 4 points of stat growth. Doable, but unless you're building a tier 4 character or rolled for stats and got very lucky, you're going to be sacrificing a significant to hit and damage bonus for that over a long period of time. Magic armor is a point, but there's not exactly a shortage of other magic items a Monk can utilize instead, so that's more a trade-off than a straight loss, and considering a lot of the best ones are heavy, it's not like Barbarians can use them either, so practically speaking it's more that a perk to being a Fighter is getting at all of the top tier magic armor options.
well Im glad at least your thinking about these things. I just hope we get more options and one might be ways to improve damage. to be fair got to wait to see what the warrior ua will have.
I think increasing the value of Martial Arts dice would be an incomplete solution.
The problem of imbalance in the game is due to the fact that the classes were created without taking any account of magic items and feats. The fighter has a strong advantage in this regard because of its benefits concerning its many feats and being a class that fits most of them. While the monk even if he had access to feats there is not a lot of choice, not to mention magic items, to the point that they had to create a special feature for unarmed fighters (Ki-Empowered Strikes)/natural weapons (Primal Strikes), so that if the game uses random items these are not completely forgotten (for what it takes). So these benefit the classes more than others.
I think damage is only a small part of the monk design problem. I can create a list of his problems.
Its difficulty in sacrificing bonus action due to the existence of flurry of blows.
The inefficient organization of the attacks of the main action and the bonus action.
The movement blocked by the lack of an efficient way for disengagement.
The lack of fighting techniques similar to real martial arts techniques (the only one being Stunning Strike). Only with the fighter's "Superior Technique" and "Unarmed Fighting" fighting styles does he turn out to be a better martial arts master than the monk.
Feats hardly compatible with his characteristics.
Inexistent direction and development of his skills.
Definition of his role in a group confusing and inefficient.
No adequate damage growth similar to paladin's Improved Divine Smite.
The excessive cost in ki points of his features.
Features that come far too late.
Almost non-existent items that enhance unarmed attacks.
Its many features with limitations.
Many features useless or definitely not much usable and very situational.
Probably mine is an exaggeration, but what I want to make clear is that it is not only the martial arts dice that is the probelma. Although it would solve a small part of the problem, there are also other ways to boost the damage value without having to increase the die.
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
I would disagree. The fighter also focuses their training on light, medium, and heavy armor usage. As well as a shield. And focuses their training on all simple weapons and martial weapons. So every fighter is just as adept with a dagger, a trident, a rapier, a whip, a halberd, a maul, a club etc. as they are with longsword or battle axe, with unarmed fighting piled on top with the fighting style. Now if they had to give up Armor training or martial weapon training in order to use the unarmed fighting style then I might agree with you.
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
I would disagree. The fighter also focuses their training on light, medium, and heavy armor usage. As well as a shield. And focuses their training on all simple weapons and martial weapons. So every fighter is just as adept with a dagger, a trident, a rapier, a whip, a halberd, a maul, a club etc. as they are with longsword or battle axe, with unarmed fighting piled on top with the fighting style. Now if they had to give up Armor training or martial weapon training in order to use the unarmed fighting style then I might agree with you.
Literally all of that is fighting stuff.
Fighter = Fighting stuff.
Monk = Fighting and mobility and weird mystical stuff.
Fighter should be better at fighting. It is all they do...
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
I would disagree. The fighter also focuses their training on light, medium, and heavy armor usage. As well as a shield. And focuses their training on all simple weapons and martial weapons. So every fighter is just as adept with a dagger, a trident, a rapier, a whip, a halberd, a maul, a club etc. as they are with longsword or battle axe, with unarmed fighting piled on top with the fighting style. Now if they had to give up Armor training or martial weapon training in order to use the unarmed fighting style then I might agree with you.
Literally all of that is fighting stuff.
Fighter = Fighting stuff.
Monk = Fighting and mobility and weird mystical stuff.
Fighter should be better at fighting. It is all they do...
And I would argue that although that is fighting stuff, fighters are more generalists where monks are more specialists, when it comes to unarmed fighting.
I do agree, in general fighters should be the best at fighting with weapons.
I think its important to remember that monks are known as the weakest class in the game for a reason . they could use some healthy buffs , the fighter is fine .
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
I would disagree. The fighter also focuses their training on light, medium, and heavy armor usage. As well as a shield. And focuses their training on all simple weapons and martial weapons. So every fighter is just as adept with a dagger, a trident, a rapier, a whip, a halberd, a maul, a club etc. as they are with longsword or battle axe, with unarmed fighting piled on top with the fighting style. Now if they had to give up Armor training or martial weapon training in order to use the unarmed fighting style then I might agree with you.
Literally all of that is fighting stuff.
Fighter = Fighting stuff.
Monk = Fighting and mobility and weird mystical stuff.
Fighter should be better at fighting. It is all they do...
And I would argue that although that is fighting stuff, fighters are more generalists where monks are more specialists, when it comes to unarmed fighting.
I do agree, in general fighters should be the best at fighting with weapons.
ya I would be fine if they do competitive dmg with fighters when using their fist . even for monk magic weapons are better then your fist when at max level. Buff the hands or make knuckle dusters that can be used with flurry.
this is where your wrong ,a fighter can also a tank and is much better then the monk at it . It makes no sense the fighter can do so much more dmg then the monk . they should be brought in line to do similar damage. with fighter only marginally ahead.
this is where your wrong ,a fighter can also a tank and is much better then the monk at it . It makes no sense the fighter can do so much more dmg then the monk . they should be brought in line to do similar damage. with fighter only marginally ahead.
Fighters are better tanks, but Monks are better at skirmishing and have more baked-in out of combat options. Plus it takes level 11 for a Fighter to start making the gap particularly noticeable by damage die. And by that point Ki has scaled far better than any core Fighter feature. And, as I already crunched the numbers, they're maybe one damage die behind Fighters in straight attacks, which FoB accounts for. And FoB or other Ki attack features scale a lot better than most Fighter options like Action Surge as the players level.
TLDR: they already do similar damage to a Fighter, and can actually pull ahead depending on the exact setup.
this is where your wrong ,a fighter can also a tank and is much better then the monk at it . It makes no sense the fighter can do so much more dmg then the monk . they should be brought in line to do similar damage. with fighter only marginally ahead.
Fighters are better tanks, but Monks are better at skirmishing and have more baked-in out of combat options. Plus it takes level 11 for a Fighter to start making the gap particularly noticeable by damage die. And by that point Ki has scaled far better than any core Fighter feature. And, as I already crunched the numbers, they're maybe one damage die behind Fighters in straight attacks, which FoB accounts for. And FoB or other Ki attack features scale a lot better than most Fighter options like Action Surge as the players level.
TLDR: they already do similar damage to a Fighter, and can actually pull ahead depending on the exact setup.
this is where your wrong ,a fighter can also a tank and is much better then the monk at it . It makes no sense the fighter can do so much more dmg then the monk . they should be brought in line to do similar damage. with fighter only marginally ahead.
Fighters are better tanks, but Monks are better at skirmishing and have more baked-in out of combat options. Plus it takes level 11 for a Fighter to start making the gap particularly noticeable by damage die. And by that point Ki has scaled far better than any core Fighter feature. And, as I already crunched the numbers, they're maybe one damage die behind Fighters in straight attacks, which FoB accounts for. And FoB or other Ki attack features scale a lot better than most Fighter options like Action Surge as the players level.
TLDR: they already do similar damage to a Fighter, and can actually pull ahead depending on the exact setup.
only if you ban feats in your game.
It's less a matter of feats in general and more a matter of GWM/PAM specifically, there, and those are widely regarded as rather OP feats that every "optimized" STR weapon build snaps up. And Monks can get good mileage out of a feat like Crusher for damage as well, considering the volume of attacks they can make, or Sentinel to give them more frontline control.
It’s not peak, but Monks have enough volume of attack rolls to play the odds there, and the knockback effect is a useful disengage option to conserve Ki
The unarmored, lightly armed monk should excel at speed rather than force, in my view. That translates to more attacks rather than more damage per attack. So, I would rather see more attacks added to the Flurry than scale up the damage dice. I agree with folks here who referenced earlier versions of the monk that had more attacks per round than the fighter. They should: an unarmored martial artist should significantly outmaneuver a heavily armored fighter wielding heavy weapons in terms of the number of hits they can deliver, while I would expect the fighter to deal significantly more damage per hit.
The unarmored, lightly armed monk should excel at speed rather than force, in my view. That translates to more attacks rather than more damage per attack. So, I would rather see more attacks added to the Flurry than scale up the damage dice. I agree with folks here who referenced earlier versions of the monk that had more attacks per round than the fighter. They should: an unarmored martial artist should significantly outmaneuver a heavily armored fighter wielding heavy weapons in terms of the number of hits they can deliver, while I would expect the fighter to deal significantly more damage per hit.
The unarmored, lightly armed monk should excel at speed rather than force, in my view. That translates to more attacks rather than more damage per attack. So, I would rather see more attacks added to the Flurry than scale up the damage dice. I agree with folks here who referenced earlier versions of the monk that had more attacks per round than the fighter. They should: an unarmored martial artist should significantly outmaneuver a heavily armored fighter wielding heavy weapons in terms of the number of hits they can deliver, while I would expect the fighter to deal significantly more damage per hit.
ya I agree in general with your thoughts on this however, I think the martials die still needs to scale a little better because it needs to substitute magic weapons. the unarmed attacks should be stronger for the monk cause often magic weapons are just too good and many monk features don't work with your weapon . I think at level 20 your fist as a monk should be on par with a magical weapon and reward people for not multiclassing .As it is, your monk will be stronger as a multiclass.
You do realize that 3.5 had a completely different underlying scale for damage, right? So that's a rather apples to oranges metric for analyzing the internal relative 5e power scale. At 4th tier, Monks are making 3 d10+DEX attacks per round without using any resources, probably with a magic weapon bonus on the first two hits, and they have enough Ki to consistently use Flurry of Blows throughout several typical 3-5 round combats, with it completely refreshing on a Short Rest. That's going to come out well ahead of any cantrip besides an Eldritch Blast with the Invocation for adding CHA mod damage, which itself is considered to be a mildly OP setup and also balances out the Warlocks' very limited set of leveled spell casts. Wizards have better quick burst, but they are significantly squishier, their control is usually dependent on holding concentration, and lots of high CR enemies have a lot of condition immunities, spell resistance, and/or damage resistances. Plus Monks are also more defensively oriented than Fighters, having prof in all saving throws and the ability to reroll a save after advantage and disadvantage have been applied for a Ki, so if their attacks or damage die were scaled up to match a Fighter's, they'd be an objectively better pick in most instances.
I cited 3.5 cause comparatively they did better damage and the argument seems to be monks aren't a damage class so im pointing out instances where they were.
also a wizard can get heavy armor these days and they have access to the shield spell.
If your problem is stunning strike I personally hope it becomes optional because I'm guess this is why some people dont want them to have damage.
monks are also way more maad then fighters and fighters can use those extra asi to get profiency in most saving throws as well. while also being able to use their features in magic armor something a monk cant do.
Monks having been a high damage class in a previous edition still has little bearing on their comparative performance in this edition.
Wizards can technically get heavy armor, but it requires either one specific race that has since been shifted to legacy and had that option removed from the new iteration for that exact reason or a portmanteau of race, class, and feats to acquire. And none of this addresses their d6 hit die or lack of additional saving profs or- in most instances- lack of core damage mitigating features. Shield is an option, but it requires spell slots and is only useful for direct attacks, not saves. Monks, in contrast, can easily match low tier heavy armor AC with their starting scores, and at top tier can match plate armor with a shield. They also have Evasion to mitigate one of the biggest sources of saving throw damage.
I have no problem with Stunning Strike, but it is also a point for why they don't have Monks scale their number of attacks the same way a Fighter does; what would be the point of being a Fighter if a Monk can do as many attacks, and has the built in ability to do extra stuff like Stunning Strike as well? And, if you take a feature like Stunning Strike out, you're losing meaningful distinction between Monk and Fighter as separate core classes.
I do agree Monks are a bit more MAD than Fighters, but honestly I'm not sure it's quite to the degree one might think. They've got enough core defensive features that they don't require the same CON investment as a Fighter or Barbarian, so just using point buy without dumping I can set one up so that they'll have +3 to DEX and WIS from the start after racial ASI's and +1 CON. If I dump CHA for optimization, I can put CON at +2. That means out of the gate they'll have 16 AC, the equivalent of Chain Mail armor, and a boost to HP. Your typical Fighter is going to choose one between STR and DEX for one +3, and then +2 or +3 CON and then assign +1's to taste, maybe go for +2 in DEX if they want to use a ranged weapon as a fallback as opposed to thrown. Yes, technically if a Fighter wanted to they could dump 4 feats into Resilient to match them on saves, but that would take over half their ASI's for only 4 points of stat growth. Doable, but unless you're building a tier 4 character or rolled for stats and got very lucky, you're going to be sacrificing a significant to hit and damage bonus for that over a long period of time. Magic armor is a point, but there's not exactly a shortage of other magic items a Monk can utilize instead, so that's more a trade-off than a straight loss, and considering a lot of the best ones are heavy, it's not like Barbarians can use them either, so practically speaking it's more that a perk to being a Fighter is getting at all of the top tier magic armor options.
well Im glad at least your thinking about these things. I just hope we get more options and one might be ways to improve damage. to be fair got to wait to see what the warrior ua will have.
I think increasing the value of Martial Arts dice would be an incomplete solution.
The problem of imbalance in the game is due to the fact that the classes were created without taking any account of magic items and feats. The fighter has a strong advantage in this regard because of its benefits concerning its many feats and being a class that fits most of them.
While the monk even if he had access to feats there is not a lot of choice, not to mention magic items, to the point that they had to create a special feature for unarmed fighters (Ki-Empowered Strikes)/natural weapons (Primal Strikes), so that if the game uses random items these are not completely forgotten (for what it takes). So these benefit the classes more than others.
I think damage is only a small part of the monk design problem. I can create a list of his problems.
Probably mine is an exaggeration, but what I want to make clear is that it is not only the martial arts dice that is the probelma. Although it would solve a small part of the problem, there are also other ways to boost the damage value without having to increase the die.
It makes sense that a fighter who builds to be a martial artist is better at it than the monk. Thats what he does, fight. Its in the name.
Any style of fighting he chooses he should be the best at.
Monks get all kinds of other abilities, as from just hitting hard. The focus on fixes them should be there, not on their damage die. Which is already fine.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I would disagree. The fighter also focuses their training on light, medium, and heavy armor usage. As well as a shield. And focuses their training on all simple weapons and martial weapons. So every fighter is just as adept with a dagger, a trident, a rapier, a whip, a halberd, a maul, a club etc. as they are with longsword or battle axe, with unarmed fighting piled on top with the fighting style. Now if they had to give up Armor training or martial weapon training in order to use the unarmed fighting style then I might agree with you.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Literally all of that is fighting stuff.
Fighter = Fighting stuff.
Monk = Fighting and mobility and weird mystical stuff.
Fighter should be better at fighting. It is all they do...
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And I would argue that although that is fighting stuff, fighters are more generalists where monks are more specialists, when it comes to unarmed fighting.
I do agree, in general fighters should be the best at fighting with weapons.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think its important to remember that monks are known as the weakest class in the game for a reason . they could use some healthy buffs , the fighter is fine .
ya I would be fine if they do competitive dmg with fighters when using their fist . even for monk magic weapons are better then your fist when at max level. Buff the hands or make knuckle dusters that can be used with flurry.
this is where your wrong ,a fighter can also a tank and is much better then the monk at it . It makes no sense the fighter can do so much more dmg then the monk . they should be brought in line to do similar damage. with fighter only marginally ahead.
Fighters are better tanks, but Monks are better at skirmishing and have more baked-in out of combat options. Plus it takes level 11 for a Fighter to start making the gap particularly noticeable by damage die. And by that point Ki has scaled far better than any core Fighter feature. And, as I already crunched the numbers, they're maybe one damage die behind Fighters in straight attacks, which FoB accounts for. And FoB or other Ki attack features scale a lot better than most Fighter options like Action Surge as the players level.
TLDR: they already do similar damage to a Fighter, and can actually pull ahead depending on the exact setup.
only if you ban feats in your game.
It's less a matter of feats in general and more a matter of GWM/PAM specifically, there, and those are widely regarded as rather OP feats that every "optimized" STR weapon build snaps up. And Monks can get good mileage out of a feat like Crusher for damage as well, considering the volume of attacks they can make, or Sentinel to give them more frontline control.
Crusher is not the greatest for damage since it relies on a critical hit to grant advantage it does have utility, but ya.
It’s not peak, but Monks have enough volume of attack rolls to play the odds there, and the knockback effect is a useful disengage option to conserve Ki
And GWM took a hit in 1D&D so the gap between fighters and monks has narrowed.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The unarmored, lightly armed monk should excel at speed rather than force, in my view. That translates to more attacks rather than more damage per attack. So, I would rather see more attacks added to the Flurry than scale up the damage dice. I agree with folks here who referenced earlier versions of the monk that had more attacks per round than the fighter. They should: an unarmored martial artist should significantly outmaneuver a heavily armored fighter wielding heavy weapons in terms of the number of hits they can deliver, while I would expect the fighter to deal significantly more damage per hit.
ya I agree in general with your thoughts on this however, I think the martials die still needs to scale a little better because it needs to substitute magic weapons. the unarmed attacks should be stronger for the monk cause often magic weapons are just too good and many monk features don't work with your weapon . I think at level 20 your fist as a monk should be on par with a magical weapon and reward people for not multiclassing .As it is, your monk will be stronger as a multiclass.