So, in other words, monks, ignoring their subclass abilities entirely, can deal damage adequately, tank adequately, control a target mediocrely (and that's ignoring the control provided by punching someone in the face repeatedly, even without stunning), and jump between those roles on a round-to-round basis, and that's bad?
Yes. That's how people complaining about Monks think.
When you look at "complaints" about Monks, it becomes clear that most people complaining about the class want it to have better defenses and better damage output than all other martials, and to be able to effectively control several enemies every turn - all with minimal or nonexistent resource limitation.
A perfect example of this is the OneD&D playtests, where low-level Monks do the same damage on their Flurry of Blows as Fighters do on an Action Surge, and can do so more times per short rests than Fighters can Action Surge...and this still wasn't good enough for Monk "critics", who think the class should get an on-demand full restore to their entire short-rest resource pool from 2nd level.
(Ironically, the OneD&D playtest massively nerfs Monks because every other martial gains new control and damage-boosting features that have zero resource and action cost, but the Monk gains nothing of the sort, meaning that they need to blow through their resources in order to match what other martials can do on every single attack, every single turn. In fact, many Monk subclasses have control and damage-boosting features stripped from them, even as other classes and subclasses gain more and improved features. Because apparently the only thing the Monk needs is to be able to run away from enemies...)
I wont use the word "hate" I haven't seen any videos saying to hate the monk. What I have seen is videos saying to avoid playing the monk because monks are weak which is what I think you are referring to.
When 5e first came out it was the ranger that regarded as the weakest class. I am not sure is this video by Treantmonk was the first "Monks Suck" but it was certainly posted at a time when that was not perceived wisdom. In summary what he says is that without using resources Monks are well behind the curve for damage, control, and defence they might be able to get up to average damage (at least to level 10) if they use all their ki of flurry of blows but they will then really suck at defence and control, if they use all their ki on patient defence thier damage and control become next to nothing, if they use all their ki on control like stunning strike they probably still have less control than any spell caster and they are puttting themselves in harms way with little defence to cope with that.
So, in other words, monks, ignoring their subclass abilities entirely, can deal damage adequately, tank adequately, control a target mediocrely (and that's ignoring the control provided by punching someone in the face repeatedly, even without stunning), and jump between those roles on a round-to-round basis, and that's bad?
Monks don't deal adequate damage, especially not at higher levels. They don't "tank" at all. A class that has to fight at melee range but doesn't get any armor, shields, and a d8 hit die is going to go down very quickly if focused on. Also what control comes from punching someone in the face repeatedly? From a mechanical standpoint, that is no different from any other melee attack. And stunning strike is far too swingy (broken when it works, a waste of ki when it doesn't), hence it being nerfed in the latest One DnD playtest. And that is the only form of control a monk can even apply reliably. The reason subclass abilities aren't factored in is because they all vary greatly in design and balance, but even then Treantmonk has done a subclass ranking for monks in the past. Every subclass outside of Way of Mercy is held back by the base class and is lacking in power to compensate for the class's flaws.
Of the three pillars of D&D (Combat, Roleplay, Exploration), Monks shine brightest in Exploration, even outperforming Rangers quite often. They can trivialize a lot of environmental hazards with their ability to move incredibly fast and run up/across walls and across liquids. They perform decently well in Combat and probably better than any other martial in Roleplay bar Paladins.
Most optimizers are looking only at combat, which is going to put the Monk behind, but if you consider all three, the Monk is a well rounded class.
I've never really considered Monks shining brightest at exploration. In the games I have played exploration is done by the party as a whole so I have only used the abilty to move incredibly fast to chase after creatures trying to run away. A monk can run up a wall and drop a rope down so the rest of the party can climb up but that is usually possible using a grappling hook as well. Sometimes when exploring stealth is important and you might have one PC a little in front of the others, and a monk can do that but usually not as well as a rogue or ranger as they have access to expertise and more skill proficiencies. Rangers also have access to pass without trace that makes the whole party better at stealth, and goodberry so there are no problems finding food or water. The rangers extra skill proficiency is often used for survival which also makes improves their exploration skills. Rogues have proficiency in thieves tools and often expertise which also makes them useful in exploration. Overall I would put a monk ahad of Fighters, Barbs, Paladins for exploration but well behind Rangers and monks so pretty much in the middle among the martial classes. This only considers martials much of what monks can do can be replicated by a spell caster using a spell
I also wouldn't agree with you that the monk is only behind Paladins for roleplay. The monk is MAD, Dex, Con and Wis are so critical that when using point buy (which most of my games do) you almost have to put 8 into Int, Cha and Str, you also don't get extra skill proficiencies to it is hard to get proficiency in a roleplay skill. A rogue only really needs Dex, they wont want to dump Con entirely (especially if melee) but it is quite common for a rogue to have a charisma of 14 or even 16. (My half elf Swashbuckler started at 8/16/14/10/14/14), with two extra skill proficiencies they can also get proficiency in persuasion and/or deception at level 6 they might even get expertise). Arcane tricksters can also use spells to help with roleplay. A high insight can help in roleplay but in my experience it is far less important than charisma based skills and often it is the character speaking on behalf of the party that needs to ascertain whether the NPC is hiding anything. Here again the extra skill proficiencies make rangers and rogues outshine monks. By level 6 my swashbuckler had expertise in Insight, (as well as Deception and proficiency in persuasion). Again monks are middle of the road among martials for roleplay considerably behind not only paladins but also rogues and proably a little behind rangers as well.
For exploration and roleplay most of the time the party is able to have one character lead. Only one character roles survival to track down an enemy or find the way to where they are going or persuade the NPC to tell them what the party wants to know etc. Being middle of the road means it rarely come up because the bard is talking to the NPC or the Ranger is tracking down the enemy.
The video I linked explains why Monks are well below other martial classes in combat (and spellcaster as well for that matter). They are also no better than middle of the road at exploration and roleplay which means they usually leave that to the best character in the party.
So, in other words, monks, ignoring their subclass abilities entirely, can deal damage adequately, tank adequately, control a target mediocrely (and that's ignoring the control provided by punching someone in the face repeatedly, even without stunning), and jump between those roles on a round-to-round basis, and that's bad?
Yes. That's how people complaining about Monks think.
When you look at "complaints" about Monks, it becomes clear that most people complaining about the class want it to have better defenses and better damage output than all other martials, and to be able to effectively control several enemies every turn - all with minimal or nonexistent resource limitation.
A perfect example of this is the OneD&D playtests, where low-level Monks do the same damage on their Flurry of Blows as Fighters do on an Action Surge, and can do so more times per short rests than Fighters can Action Surge...and this still wasn't good enough for Monk "critics", who think the class should get an on-demand full restore to their entire short-rest resource pool from 2nd level.
(Ironically, the OneD&D playtest massively nerfs Monks because every other martial gains new control and damage-boosting features that have zero resource and action cost, but the Monk gains nothing of the sort, meaning that they need to blow through their resources in order to match what other martials can do on every single attack, every single turn. In fact, many Monk subclasses have control and damage-boosting features stripped from them, even as other classes and subclasses gain more and improved features. Because apparently the only thing the Monk needs is to be able to run away from enemies...)
Claiming that people who you disagree with think a certain way just because you disagree with them doesn't help your point. Also you have to cite your sources, because I have not seen anyone claim they wished for the Monk to do more damage than other martials, only to be able to keep up with them. Also your statement about monks doing as much damage with flurry of blows as fighters do with action surge in One Dnd is a false equivalency. Action surge isn't a purely damage oriented ability, its value comes from being able to take any action as an extra one on your turn. The potential is limitless.
It also scales with the fighter gaining more attacks as they level, and whereas Flurry is limited to unarmed strikes, Action surge can be used with any kind of weapon. So for a fighter this can mean 6-8 greatsword attacks on a turn at higher levels, which is great for nova damage. And you haven't even factored in fighting styles, which is strange considering how much it plays into the damage of a fighter and it is something monks don't get at all. Fighters also get weapon masteries, something monks don't get either. So overall this is a pretty bad example for you to use of people wanting monk to be broken.
And then you claim that monks have been nerfed because they have to spend their resources, but you also just complained about people asking for an ability that restores all of your ki once per long rest at level 2. So which is it? Do people want them to have too many resources or none at all? And saying they are nerfed is STILL false, because Monks have been given the ability to dash and disengage for free, which helps reduce ki/discipline costs all around.
Monks don't deal adequate damage, especially not at higher levels. They don't "tank" at all. A class that has to fight at melee range but doesn't get any armor, shields, and a d8 hit die is going to go down very quickly if focused on. Also what control comes from punching someone in the face repeatedly? From a mechanical standpoint, that is no different from any other melee attack. And stunning strike is far too swingy (broken when it works, a waste of ki when it doesn't), hence it being nerfed in the latest One DnD playtest. And that is the only form of control a monk can even apply reliably. The reason subclass abilities aren't factored in is because they all vary greatly in design and balance, but even then Treantmonk has done a subclass ranking for monks in the past. Every subclass outside of Way of Mercy is held back by the base class and is lacking in power to compensate for the class's flaws.
A Monk using Flurry of Blows at Level 11 does four d8+5 attacks per turn, for 24-52 damage. A Fighter at Level 11 using a d12 weapons gets three attacks for 18-51 damage per turn.
Also, let's look at Monk AC. An optimized Monk on point-buy/standard array starts with an AC of 16, on-par with any other martial with scale mail/+2 DEX or chain mail. Only martials who opt for a shield have higher AC, but that means compromising damage. Monks cap at 20 AC through Unarmored Defense; the only way another martial beats that is to have Half Plate with Medium Armor Master or Plate Mail, a +3 for either of them, bringing those characters to 21 AC. And those characters don't have Evasion, Diamond Soul, or any other Monk defensive features.
(In fact, it perfectly encapsulates Monk "complaints" in that there is an expectation that the Monk should have the damage output of an offensive-optimized martial...and also the durability of a defense-optimized martial. Simultaneously.)
And plenty of control comes from Monk subclass features, which the vast majority of "optimizers" completely ignore despite a Monk gaining much from its subclass features. Want a damage-optimized Monk? Astral Self or Mercy. Want control and utility? Shadows. Tankiness? Long Death. AoE damage? Ascendant Dragon. The reason subclass features aren't factored in is simply because "theorycrafters" are lazy and uncreative, and their "optimization" logic is often deeply flawed and shallow.
Monks don't deal adequate damage, especially not at higher levels. They don't "tank" at all. A class that has to fight at melee range but doesn't get any armor, shields, and a d8 hit die is going to go down very quickly if focused on. Also what control comes from punching someone in the face repeatedly? From a mechanical standpoint, that is no different from any other melee attack. And stunning strike is far too swingy (broken when it works, a waste of ki when it doesn't), hence it being nerfed in the latest One DnD playtest. And that is the only form of control a monk can even apply reliably. The reason subclass abilities aren't factored in is because they all vary greatly in design and balance, but even then Treantmonk has done a subclass ranking for monks in the past. Every subclass outside of Way of Mercy is held back by the base class and is lacking in power to compensate for the class's flaws.
A Monk using Flurry of Blows at Level 11 does four d8+5 attacks per turn, for 24-52 damage. A Fighter at Level 11 using a d12 weapons gets three attacks for 18-51 damage per turn.
Also, let's look at Monk AC. An optimized Monk on point-buy/standard array starts with an AC of 16, on-par with any other martial with scale mail/+2 DEX or chain mail. Only martials who opt for a shield have higher AC, but that means compromising damage. Monks cap at 20 AC through Unarmored Defense; the only way another martial beats that is to have Half Plate with Medium Armor Master or Plate Mail, a +3 for either of them, bringing those characters to 21 AC. And those characters don't have Evasion, Diamond Soul, or any other Monk defensive features.
(In fact, it perfectly encapsulates Monk "complaints" in that there is an expectation that the Monk should have the damage output of an offensive-optimized martial...and also the durability of a defense-optimized martial. Simultaneously.)
And plenty of control comes from Monk subclass features, which the vast majority of "optimizers" completely ignore despite a Monk gaining much from its subclass features. Want a damage-optimized Monk? Astral Self or Mercy. Want control and utility? Shadows. Tankiness? Long Death. AoE damage? Ascendant Dragon. The reason subclass features aren't factored in is simply because "theorycrafters" are lazy and uncreative, and their "optimization" logic is often deeply flawed and shallow.
Why does the monk get their ability modifier but the fighter doesn't? What about fighting styles? or feats? Damage isn't just based on number of attacks. Is this a battlemaster fighter? An open hand monk? The fighter's extra attacks are also limitless, a monk's flurry of blows is not. And you also aren't factoring in that, until very recently, Monks didn't have any magic items to benefit from to enhance their damage whereas Fighters can use any kind of weapon. It's so bad that One Dnd playtest 6 needed a disclaimer saying they would be incorporating magic items for unarmed combat.
Your argument for AC is also strange. Monks are on par with Armor for AC if they can optimize both Wisdom and Dexterity. Having to do this and also balance a high Constitution makes them MAD. This gets worse when you consider that other classes can benefit from magical armor with +1, +2, or +3 bonuses as well as other enchantments whereas a Monk cannot. Give a fighter +3 Plate Armor AND a +3 shield. Neither of these a monk can use. Bracers of defense are the closest a monk gets. And then there is the fact that all of these classes that do get armor also get a higher hit die. Paladin, Ranger, and Fighter get a d10. Barbarian gets a d12. Rogue gets a d8 like monk but also gets light armor and uncanny dodge and evasion. Paladin gets aura of protection and the ability to heal. etc. Every other martial gets abilities that can heal them or mitigate damage on top of having either better armor, hit dice, or both.
When 5e first came out it was the ranger that regarded as the weakest class. I am not sure is this video by Treantmonk was the first "Monks Suck" but it was certainly posted at a time when that was not perceived wisdom. In summary what he says is that without using resources Monks are well behind the curve for damage, control, and defence they might be able to get up to average damage (at least to level 10) if they use all their ki of flurry of blows but they will then really suck at defence and control, if they use all their ki on patient defence thier damage and control become next to nothing, if they use all their ki on control like stunning strike they probably still have less control than any spell caster and they are puttting themselves in harms way with little defence to cope with that.
So, in other words, monks, ignoring their subclass abilities entirely, can deal damage adequately, tank adequately, control a target mediocrely (and that's ignoring the control provided by punching someone in the face repeatedly, even without stunning), and jump between those roles on a round-to-round basis, and that's bad?
Monks don't deal adequate damage, especially not at higher levels. They don't "tank" at all. A class that has to fight at melee range but doesn't get any armor, shields, and a d8 hit die is going to go down very quickly if focused on.
You're arguing with the person I'm responding to here; they're the one saying monks could do this, but they have to burn all their ki.
But they're not wrong. Four attacks per round gets you perfectly reasonable damage, at least until you hit high levels. Three per round is adequate. Two attacks per round plus bonus action dodging backed by a decent AC is pretty reasonable tanking.
Also what control comes from punching someone in the face repeatedly? From a mechanical standpoint, that is no different from any other melee attack.
You are correct; it's not. It's exactly the same. It puts an immediate threat on the target in need of controlling, disadvantages their ranged attacks, and also wrecks concentration abilities.
The monk's a lot better at getting there to make it happen than other martial classes, and they have stunning strike to play with as well. Casters and ranged attackers are usually not high on the constitution saves.
Are they amazing on the control? No, but they can do it.
The reason subclass abilities aren't factored in is because they all vary greatly in design and balance,
Sure, but even without them, the monk's an ok flex combatant. The subclass is really how monks specialize.
I'm currently playing a four elements monk, built for extra positioning control (and damage), and, except for the first round, when the gloomstalker ranger gets his burst damage, I'm probably the most effective combatant in the party, (There are arguments to be made about the full casters, and they'll pull away as we level further), and that's with the current, real, weaknesses of the class and subclass. But this is normal play, where nobody's building to optimize.
So, in other words, monks, ignoring their subclass abilities entirely, can deal damage adequately, tank adequately, control a target mediocrely (and that's ignoring the control provided by punching someone in the face repeatedly, even without stunning), and jump between those roles on a round-to-round basis, and that's bad?
Yes. That's how people complaining about Monks think.
When you look at "complaints" about Monks, it becomes clear that most people complaining about the class want it to have better defenses and better damage output than all other martials, and to be able to effectively control several enemies every turn - all with minimal or nonexistent resource limitation.
A perfect example of this is the OneD&D playtests, where low-level Monks do the same damage on their Flurry of Blows as Fighters do on an Action Surge, and can do so more times per short rests than Fighters can Action Surge...and this still wasn't good enough for Monk "critics", who think the class should get an on-demand full restore to their entire short-rest resource pool from 2nd level.
(Ironically, the OneD&D playtest massively nerfs Monks because every other martial gains new control and damage-boosting features that have zero resource and action cost, but the Monk gains nothing of the sort, meaning that they need to blow through their resources in order to match what other martials can do on every single attack, every single turn. In fact, many Monk subclasses have control and damage-boosting features stripped from them, even as other classes and subclasses gain more and improved features. Because apparently the only thing the Monk needs is to be able to run away from enemies...)
So let me get this straight.
Monks simultaneously, at low levels, do fighter Action Surge damage but more often in One D&D and One D&D massively nerfs them because martials got control and damage boosting features?
Monks suffer because they don't benefit as much or at all from the magical items that would typically aid a martial in doing damage or surviving, do not have access to the Great Weapon Master feat, only get minimum utility from Pole Arm Master feat, Sharpshooter is feasible with short bows and guns but is often seen as conflicting with the class aesthetic, have a lower hit die than martials that are expected to stay in melee combat, have to expend a very limited resource to disengage as a bonus while also being the class that has the largest reliance on their bonus action to do damage, and have to split their stats heavily between three core ability scores in order to survive and do damage.
In games that are very resource light they can excel because they don't need weapons and armor, and in games where there is a surplus of stats they can do well as it eases the limitations that being MAD imposes. Games that play without feats can also narrow the playing field with other martials, but in those games casters absolutely dominate. They are competitive with damage at early levels, but fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack, and start falling behind in AC as soon as any upgrades start going out.
Monks are fun, but they need circumstances to lean heavily in their favor to be good.
Monks suffer because they don't benefit as much or at all from the magical items that would typically aid a martial in doing damage or surviving,
Please explain how magical items don't help a Monk vs any other character? A +3 shortsword still increases your chance to hit and cause damage. Magical rings/cloaks of protections still add their pluses to AC. What are we missing?
do not have access to the Great Weapon Master feat, only get minimum utility from Pole Arm Master feat, Sharpshooter is feasible with short bows and guns but is often seen as conflicting with the class aesthetic,
Do they really need it though? A -5 to hit just to get 10pts of damage is a large gamble for any character early on. Besides damage dealing isn't a Monk's function, never was.
have a lower hit die than martials that are expected to stay in melee combat
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
, have to expend a very limited resource to disengage as a bonus while also being the class that has the largest reliance on their bonus action to do damage, and have to split their stats heavily between three core ability scores in order to survive and do damage.
Well the point system is a WoTC product and was never part of the original TSR product. For whatever reason no one complained about them having a point system, which they should have. They only complained about certain subclasses being point hungry or not enough points at the beginning. The surveys are over, so come May everyone will be stuck with the point system. I am not sure what you mean by they have to depend on their stats to survive? As far as I know, they only depend on their Dex and Wis to for their AC. Which is not a big deal since they get ability score improvements like every character, and magic items of protections as well. They can always improve their hit points by taking the "Tough" feat wich gives them a +2 on their hit points every level. Voila their average hit points jumps to 10 and now they are equal to a Ranger and Fighter, not including their Con modifier.
In games that are very resource light they can excel because they don't need weapons and armor, and in games where there is a surplus of stats they can do well as it eases the limitations that being MAD imposes. Games that play without feats can also narrow the playing field with other martials, but in those games casters absolutely dominate. They are competitive with damage at early levels, but fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack, and start falling behind in AC as soon as any upgrades start going out.
Monks are fun, but they need circumstances to lean heavily in their favor to be good.
Well I don't know any games that don't allow feats, but I guess that would be a personal decision to decide to play in that DM's adventure. I certainly wouldn't. Regarding about the damage and how they fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack. It goes back to what I said about Monks basically being fighting Clerics, not warriors. They were never considered to be soldiers or warriors. Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever. While others can do better damage, the Monk can stun, knock them prone, deflect their attacks evade their fireballs etc. In the case of the Shadow Monk, they can go invisible, teleport in dim lit and shaded areas, cast silence on spell casters or darkness on opponents. Most of these actions give them the surprise condition and the can always teleport away.
So in conclusion, the Monk isn't like the other martial classes because it never was a true martial class. It was always considered part of the Cleric class, or like a fighting priest. It's not a soldier so damage is not it's main characteristic. It never has been.
"Please explain how magical items don't help a Monk vs any other character? A +3 shortsword still increases your chance to hit and cause damage. Magical rings/cloaks of protections still add their pluses to AC. What are we missing?"
A +3 shortsword can help a monks main action attacks but they do not help the bonus action attacks. Other classes can benefit from magical rings and cloaks as well as magical armor bracers of defence are not the equivalent of magical armor because the use up a precious attunemt slot as does an eldrtitch claw tatoo if a monk wants their unarmed attacks t have a bonus (and that is capped at +1)
Do they really need it though? A -5 to hit just to get 10pts of damage is a large gamble for any character early on.
At low levels +10 damage is likely to double the damage so if you need a natural 11 to hit you break even, at low levels that is the case more often than not (and when it isn't you don''t use it) on top of that players will be looking at ways to increase their to hit (archery fighting style gives a +2 but monks don't get it) or get advantage to give GWM / sharpshooter a big increase to average damage. If monks don't need it, the same would be true of other classes and optimisers the world over have done the maths these feats are the must haves.
Besides damage dealing isn't a Monk's function, never was.
What is a monks function? They need to use patient defence to be acceptable at tanking but that reduces their damage even further behind a barbarian, fighter or paladin tank and what do they do when the run out of ki? Spell casters are far better at control, stunning strike is great when it comes off but most of the time they fail as most monsters have high con.
Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid
Monks have nothing to equate to the power of being a full caster. In fact if you gave monks the slots of a full caster and access to the cleric spell list (but no access to other cleric features) I am not convinced they would be as overpowered as a twilight cleric.
Please explain how magical items don't help a Monk vs any other character? A +3 shortsword still increases your chance to hit and cause damage. Magical rings/cloaks of protections still add their pluses to AC. What are we missing?
Sure. you are approaching this with a very adversarial tone, but I'll go ahead and answer your questions. A "+3 Shortsword" will only benefit the attacks made with the attack action and won't benefit anything done for Fury of Blows or their bonus action Unarmed Attack. A "Cloak of Protection" and "Ring of Protection" will help as much as any other martial but Monks are the only martial that cannot benefit at all from any armor benefits including +1,+2, and +3 armors and shields which unlike the previous items, do not require attunement.
Do they really need it though? A -5 to hit just to get 10pts of damage is a large gamble for any character early on. Besides damage dealing isn't a Monk's function, never was.
There are 10 years of gameplay, math, and theory crafting on why these features are powerful for martials. They might not need it if there are suitable features to make up for it. I, and many others, believe they lack these features.
You say that dealing damage isn't what a Monk does. The most common argument is Battlefield Control, but the one ability they have to do this, they don't get until Tier 2 of play and targets Constitution, one of the strongest saves in the game. You actually say it is survivability, which is not supported by actual gameplay; Their ASIs are forced mostly into Dexterity and Wisdom because of how their AC works and how important Stunning Strike is to stay relevant at all, so they don't have the luxury of taking good defensive feats like other martials might after maxing Dexterity or Strength. The strongest defensive features they get for their core class features is Diamond Soul, which does not come online until the late stages of Tier 3 play and Empty Body which they won't see until Tier 4 of play.
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
Historically, maybe, but a Monk mechanically has more features in common with a Fighter or Barbarian than they do a Cleric or Druid. Mechanically, what features make it appropriate for them to have a lower hit die?
Well the point system is a WoTC product and was never part of the original TSR product. For whatever reason no one complained about them having a point system, which they should have. They only complained about certain subclasses being point hungry or not enough points at the beginning. The surveys are over, so come May everyone will be stuck with the point system. I am not sure what you mean by they have to depend on their stats to survive? As far as I know, they only depend on their Dex and Wis to for their AC. Which is not a big deal since they get ability score improvements like every character, and magic items of protections as well. They can always improve their hit points by taking the "Tough" feat wich gives them a +2 on their hit points every level. Voila their average hit points jumps to 10 and now they are equal to a Ranger and Fighter, not including their Con modifier.
We're talking about 5e Monks. The rant about historical\OneD&D design has nothing to do with my post.
There is a concept known as being Multi-Ability Dependent (MAD), which is relying on three or more Ability Scores to be efficient. Monks are the poster child of this concept. They have to rely on three stats to be efficient: Dexterity and Wisdom for their AC, Attacks, and Ki Save DC and Constitution to survive hits because they are a melee Martial.
Of the three other Martials, Barbarians are the next closest to being MAD they have to rely on Strength and Constitution to survive and optimally get Dexterity up to 14 to get the most out of medium armor. However, Barbarians also have the highest Hit Die in the game and gain resistance to physical damage while raging which aids significantly in their survivability.
As for the other two martials: Fighters only need Dexterity or Strength and Constitution, and Rogues only need Dexterity and Constitution. Both of these classes also get Additional ASI.
Half-Casters like Artificer, Paladin, and Rangers can also be MAD depending on how they are built, but depending on the direction of their build typically have a more Lax requirement for their Physical or Mental Stat and spell casting as a whole adds an extra layer of complexity and utility to the classes that make up for these restrictions, that Monks just doesn't have.
You suggest that Monks take an ASI to get tough to get the same defenses as other Martials; However, that's the problem. In order to be as resilient as other martials they have to spend an ASI which they have less of than two of the other martials, and are more restricted than all three.
Well I don't know any games that don't allow feats, but I guess that would be a personal decision to decide to play in that DM's adventure. I certainly wouldn't. Regarding about the damage and how they fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack. It goes back to what I said about Monks basically being fighting Clerics, not warriors. They were never considered to be soldiers or warriors. Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever. While others can do better damage, the Monk can stun, knock them prone, deflect their attacks evade their fireballs etc. In the case of the Shadow Monk, they can go invisible, teleport in dim lit and shaded areas, cast silence on spell casters or darkness on opponents. Most of these actions give them the surprise condition and the can always teleport away.
So in conclusion, the Monk isn't like the other martial classes because it never was a true martial class. It was always considered part of the Cleric class, or like a fighting priest. It's not a soldier so damage is not it's main characteristic. It never has been.
I think the "or whatever" when you are describing what their role is sums this up perfectly. They do get things that other martials don't, but WotC didn't give them the package of necessary features to fully define or support that role well. You have also asserted thrice that Monk is a branch off of Cleric and have supported it naught. Even WotC pinned them as Warriors when they were trying to divide the classes for One D&D.
Also per the PHB, feats are an optional rule; though I agree, few games run without them. I was trying to list all the conditions that would give Monks an advantage.
Edit: I don't think Monks are so far gone that they are beyond repair, but in general do fall behind other classes. In my games to help keep them relevant I give them the following features, and I think this brings them to about where they need to be:
Heroic Stat Arrays (Choose One): --This is for all Characters, not just Monks, but a higher starting array helps MAD classes significantly. (Total: 73) [18,14,13,10,10,8] (Total: 74) [16,15,15,10,10,8] (Total: 74) [14,14,14,12,10,10] + Feat
Monks: Monks gain additional Ki Points equal to their Wisdom modifier. Monks gain an extra unarmed strike for their Flurry of Blows at level 5.
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
.
Now, I'm not sure about pre-AD&D 1e, but I dug out my AD&D 1e PHB and monks were not a subclass of clerics. They actually were after the sections on Clerics (with Druids as Sub-class of Cleric), Fighters (with Paladin and Ranger as sub-classes of Fighter), Magic-Users (with Illusionists as sub-class of Magic-Users) and Thieves (with Assassins as sub-class of Thief). Monks came after those (out of alphabetical order even: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief, Monk).
On page 18 of my PHB under Character Classes (descriptions, Functions, Levels) it reads:
"Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class). Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. Druids are a sub-class of cleric who operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes. Paladins are fighters who are lawful good (see ALIGNMENT). At higher levels they gain limited clerical powers as well. Rangers are another sub-class of Fighter. They are quite powerful in combat, and at upper levels gain druidic and magic spell usage of a limited sort. Magic-Users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature. They use magic almost exclusively to solve problems posed by the game. Illusionists are a sub-class of magic-users, and they are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. Assassins, a sub-class of thief, are quite killers of evil nature. Monks are aesthetic disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands. It is up to you to select what class you desire your character to be. Selection must be modified by abilities generated and possibly by the race of your character."
So even Gygax's descriptions do not say they are a subclass of Cleric. I believe 2e didn't have monks, but I didn't play 2e.
Regarding about the damage and how they fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack. It goes back to what I said about Monks basically being fighting Clerics, not warriors. They were never considered to be soldiers or warriors. Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever.
So lets look at the 1e Monk and it's features.
You are correct that they never had high hit die, starting at 2d4 at 1st level and gaining 1d4 hit points each level after that until 17th level (their cap).
Their AC started at 10 and went to -3 (basically equivalent in 5e to AC 10-23).
They started with 1 attack per round, got their 2nd attack at level 9 (with 5/4 at level 4 and 3/2 attacks at level 6. iirc that's 5 attacks per 4 rounds and 3 attacks per 2 rounds) a 3rd attack at 14th level (with 5/2 attacks levels 11-13) and a 4th attack at 16th level.
Damage went from 1-3 damage (roll d6 with 1 or 2 as 1 damage, 3 or 4 as 2 damage, and 5 or 6 as 3 damage) all the way up to 8d4 damage per attack at 17th level.
starting at 3rd level one feature per level starting with Speak with Animals like a Druid
4th: Masking their mind from ESP
5th: Immune to disease. Not effected by Haste or Slow spells.
6th: Feign Death
7th: Heal for 1d4+1 which goes up by 1 additional hit point healed for each level after 7th. Once per day.
8th: Speak with Plants like a Druid.
9th 50% resistance to Beguiling, Charms, Hypnosis, and Suggestion spells. Goes up 5% for each level above 9th. If resistance fails, saving throw still applies.
10th: Telepathic and mind blast attacks (see Mind Flayer) and treat Int score as 18 for this ability.
So they do have some defensive abilities. And some utility. But I don't know if that's enough to say they weren't meant for damage. No, they are not fighters. But they are martials, nonetheless.
And as Kamehapa mentioned, the "Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever" comment does kind of show that, other than combat (or even in combat), monks seem a little thin on what exactly their role is in the party.
have a lower hit die than martials that are expected to stay in melee combat
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
As has been mentioned above, they have been their own class since AD&D. While it's possible they were a Cleric subclass before, any Monk that was a subclass of Cleric would be such a complete break from the current conception as to be irrelevant. A Monk that's a caster is a completely different class, even if it has the same name. The current Monk is not a caster, and, if you remove its melee combat features, has not a lot else, which really supports the argument that it's supposed to be a melee class.
That may not suit your personal aesthetic about what Monks should be, but it's what Monks are.
, have to expend a very limited resource to disengage as a bonus while also being the class that has the largest reliance on their bonus action to do damage, and have to split their stats heavily between three core ability scores in order to survive and do damage.
Well the point system is a WoTC product and was never part of the original TSR product.
Lots of things in 5e weren't in the TSR versions. But the class with points to power their abilities is the one under discussion.
The TSR versions are not some amazing design that WotC are supposed to aspire to. It was, in a lot of ways, a really badly-designed system. Sensible Armor Class wasn't in TSR. Coherent mechanics weren't in TSR. Etc.
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
.
Now, I'm not sure about pre-AD&D 1e, but I dug out my AD&D 1e PHB and monks were not a subclass of clerics. They actually were after the sections on Clerics (with Druids as Sub-class of Cleric), Fighters (with Paladin and Ranger as sub-classes of Fighter), Magic-Users (with Illusionists as sub-class of Magic-Users) and Thieves (with Assassins as sub-class of Thief). Monks came after those (out of alphabetical order even: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief, Monk).
That's because I am referring to the White Box, also called Original D&D. The White Box preceded AD&D. Sometime during 1e it was decided to move the Monk to a brand new rule book called, "Oriental Adventures" and placed the world in a more Asian flavor. Other classes like the Ninja and Samurai were added in the book.
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
.
Now, I'm not sure about pre-AD&D 1e, but I dug out my AD&D 1e PHB and monks were not a subclass of clerics. They actually were after the sections on Clerics (with Druids as Sub-class of Cleric), Fighters (with Paladin and Ranger as sub-classes of Fighter), Magic-Users (with Illusionists as sub-class of Magic-Users) and Thieves (with Assassins as sub-class of Thief). Monks came after those (out of alphabetical order even: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief, Monk).
That's because I am referring to the White Box, also called Original D&D. The White Box preceded AD&D. Sometime during 1e it was decided to move the Monk to a brand new rule book called, "Oriental Adventures" and placed the world in a more Asian flavor. Other classes like the Ninja and Samurai were added in the book.
Got it. I didn’t start until AD&D so was unfamiliar with that. I also have the Oriental Adventures book and liked some of the things they did there as well. It just seems a bit odd to reference a 1974 version of monk, that was revised in AD&D in 1978, as how monks were supposed to be when it has nearly 50 years of it not being that. Edit: as far as its relationship to clerics
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
.
Now, I'm not sure about pre-AD&D 1e, but I dug out my AD&D 1e PHB and monks were not a subclass of clerics. They actually were after the sections on Clerics (with Druids as Sub-class of Cleric), Fighters (with Paladin and Ranger as sub-classes of Fighter), Magic-Users (with Illusionists as sub-class of Magic-Users) and Thieves (with Assassins as sub-class of Thief). Monks came after those (out of alphabetical order even: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief, Monk).
That's because I am referring to the White Box, also called Original D&D. The White Box preceded AD&D.
Which makes it even less relevant.
Were those white box monks casters? If not, they aren't in any meaningful way a subclass of cleric, as much as "we're lazy and will just use the cleric experience point table".
1. In the mid levels around 5- or so Monk is a pretty weak class overall. By the end of the game they are probably the most powerful class that is not a full caster and very early they are pretty powerful too, but in this middle tier when most characters take a big increase in power the Monk doesn't. Their power grows more gradually and incrimentally and few games are played into the levels where Monks start to dominate.
2. Most players make excessive use of Flurry of Blows. FOB is generally a very weak ability, using both a limited resource and having a high opportunity cost. It is generally the least effective way to use ki (competes with step of the wind as worst), but is by far the most common. As a result players get a few weak attacks for their ki and then they are out. At high levels they have enough ki that they rarely run out, but until they get there players are wasting ki on FOB and thereby their Monk is weaker in play because she is stunning less often, is easier to hit and is using ki-related subclass abilities less.
As for AC the main complaint is what you described. To get the best AC you need to use most of your ASI’s (Ability Score Improvements) on DEX/WIS leaving little to no room for feats
As far as static AC I agree, but Monk AC is top tier if you use patient defense. The thing is players don't use that much, instead using FOB for their ki.
Ki is simply a resource that monks use for their primary combat abilities (Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, Stunning Strike) to let monks do cool things but with a limiting mechanic. Much like Sorcerer’s Sorcery Points or Battle Master’s Superiority Dice. But those points can run out fast if you spam them.
This is less true at high levels where you generally have enough ki to use one or more every round.
Base class of Monk relies too much on "Just Right conditions" to work well compared to other martials:
Some of the "Just Right conditions" I am referring to:
* At low levels, somebody to draw aggro and tank damage. For a mostly melee class, Monks are flimsy, what with mediocre AC and d8 HD but no spells and being ineffective at range.
* Very lucky stat generation rolls or "Heroic Array" at the start.
* Variant Human or some way to get Mobile feat right off that bat.
* Playing at very high levels AND the DM does not hand out magic items that mostly benefit the other martial classes more.
* DM refrains from targeting the Monk with spells and effects that focus on CHA, STR, or INT saves.
* DM restricts access to feats with the word "Master" in them, such Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Master.
If it was just one or two of the above, that might be fine. However, the fact that the base Monk needs quite a few of the above to apply to not get KO'd constantly or to feel left behind by other martials is a bad sign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes. That's how people complaining about Monks think.
When you look at "complaints" about Monks, it becomes clear that most people complaining about the class want it to have better defenses and better damage output than all other martials, and to be able to effectively control several enemies every turn - all with minimal or nonexistent resource limitation.
A perfect example of this is the OneD&D playtests, where low-level Monks do the same damage on their Flurry of Blows as Fighters do on an Action Surge, and can do so more times per short rests than Fighters can Action Surge...and this still wasn't good enough for Monk "critics", who think the class should get an on-demand full restore to their entire short-rest resource pool from 2nd level.
(Ironically, the OneD&D playtest massively nerfs Monks because every other martial gains new control and damage-boosting features that have zero resource and action cost, but the Monk gains nothing of the sort, meaning that they need to blow through their resources in order to match what other martials can do on every single attack, every single turn. In fact, many Monk subclasses have control and damage-boosting features stripped from them, even as other classes and subclasses gain more and improved features. Because apparently the only thing the Monk needs is to be able to run away from enemies...)
Monks don't deal adequate damage, especially not at higher levels. They don't "tank" at all. A class that has to fight at melee range but doesn't get any armor, shields, and a d8 hit die is going to go down very quickly if focused on. Also what control comes from punching someone in the face repeatedly? From a mechanical standpoint, that is no different from any other melee attack. And stunning strike is far too swingy (broken when it works, a waste of ki when it doesn't), hence it being nerfed in the latest One DnD playtest. And that is the only form of control a monk can even apply reliably. The reason subclass abilities aren't factored in is because they all vary greatly in design and balance, but even then Treantmonk has done a subclass ranking for monks in the past. Every subclass outside of Way of Mercy is held back by the base class and is lacking in power to compensate for the class's flaws.
I've never really considered Monks shining brightest at exploration. In the games I have played exploration is done by the party as a whole so I have only used the abilty to move incredibly fast to chase after creatures trying to run away. A monk can run up a wall and drop a rope down so the rest of the party can climb up but that is usually possible using a grappling hook as well. Sometimes when exploring stealth is important and you might have one PC a little in front of the others, and a monk can do that but usually not as well as a rogue or ranger as they have access to expertise and more skill proficiencies. Rangers also have access to pass without trace that makes the whole party better at stealth, and goodberry so there are no problems finding food or water. The rangers extra skill proficiency is often used for survival which also makes improves their exploration skills. Rogues have proficiency in thieves tools and often expertise which also makes them useful in exploration. Overall I would put a monk ahad of Fighters, Barbs, Paladins for exploration but well behind Rangers and monks so pretty much in the middle among the martial classes. This only considers martials much of what monks can do can be replicated by a spell caster using a spell
I also wouldn't agree with you that the monk is only behind Paladins for roleplay. The monk is MAD, Dex, Con and Wis are so critical that when using point buy (which most of my games do) you almost have to put 8 into Int, Cha and Str, you also don't get extra skill proficiencies to it is hard to get proficiency in a roleplay skill. A rogue only really needs Dex, they wont want to dump Con entirely (especially if melee) but it is quite common for a rogue to have a charisma of 14 or even 16. (My half elf Swashbuckler started at 8/16/14/10/14/14), with two extra skill proficiencies they can also get proficiency in persuasion and/or deception at level 6 they might even get expertise). Arcane tricksters can also use spells to help with roleplay. A high insight can help in roleplay but in my experience it is far less important than charisma based skills and often it is the character speaking on behalf of the party that needs to ascertain whether the NPC is hiding anything. Here again the extra skill proficiencies make rangers and rogues outshine monks. By level 6 my swashbuckler had expertise in Insight, (as well as Deception and proficiency in persuasion). Again monks are middle of the road among martials for roleplay considerably behind not only paladins but also rogues and proably a little behind rangers as well.
For exploration and roleplay most of the time the party is able to have one character lead. Only one character roles survival to track down an enemy or find the way to where they are going or persuade the NPC to tell them what the party wants to know etc. Being middle of the road means it rarely come up because the bard is talking to the NPC or the Ranger is tracking down the enemy.
The video I linked explains why Monks are well below other martial classes in combat (and spellcaster as well for that matter). They are also no better than middle of the road at exploration and roleplay which means they usually leave that to the best character in the party.
Claiming that people who you disagree with think a certain way just because you disagree with them doesn't help your point. Also you have to cite your sources, because I have not seen anyone claim they wished for the Monk to do more damage than other martials, only to be able to keep up with them. Also your statement about monks doing as much damage with flurry of blows as fighters do with action surge in One Dnd is a false equivalency. Action surge isn't a purely damage oriented ability, its value comes from being able to take any action as an extra one on your turn. The potential is limitless.
It also scales with the fighter gaining more attacks as they level, and whereas Flurry is limited to unarmed strikes, Action surge can be used with any kind of weapon. So for a fighter this can mean 6-8 greatsword attacks on a turn at higher levels, which is great for nova damage. And you haven't even factored in fighting styles, which is strange considering how much it plays into the damage of a fighter and it is something monks don't get at all. Fighters also get weapon masteries, something monks don't get either. So overall this is a pretty bad example for you to use of people wanting monk to be broken.
And then you claim that monks have been nerfed because they have to spend their resources, but you also just complained about people asking for an ability that restores all of your ki once per long rest at level 2. So which is it? Do people want them to have too many resources or none at all? And saying they are nerfed is STILL false, because Monks have been given the ability to dash and disengage for free, which helps reduce ki/discipline costs all around.
A Monk using Flurry of Blows at Level 11 does four d8+5 attacks per turn, for 24-52 damage. A Fighter at Level 11 using a d12 weapons gets three attacks for 18-51 damage per turn.
Also, let's look at Monk AC. An optimized Monk on point-buy/standard array starts with an AC of 16, on-par with any other martial with scale mail/+2 DEX or chain mail. Only martials who opt for a shield have higher AC, but that means compromising damage. Monks cap at 20 AC through Unarmored Defense; the only way another martial beats that is to have Half Plate with Medium Armor Master or Plate Mail, a +3 for either of them, bringing those characters to 21 AC. And those characters don't have Evasion, Diamond Soul, or any other Monk defensive features.
(In fact, it perfectly encapsulates Monk "complaints" in that there is an expectation that the Monk should have the damage output of an offensive-optimized martial...and also the durability of a defense-optimized martial. Simultaneously.)
And plenty of control comes from Monk subclass features, which the vast majority of "optimizers" completely ignore despite a Monk gaining much from its subclass features. Want a damage-optimized Monk? Astral Self or Mercy. Want control and utility? Shadows. Tankiness? Long Death. AoE damage? Ascendant Dragon. The reason subclass features aren't factored in is simply because "theorycrafters" are lazy and uncreative, and their "optimization" logic is often deeply flawed and shallow.
Why does the monk get their ability modifier but the fighter doesn't? What about fighting styles? or feats? Damage isn't just based on number of attacks. Is this a battlemaster fighter? An open hand monk? The fighter's extra attacks are also limitless, a monk's flurry of blows is not. And you also aren't factoring in that, until very recently, Monks didn't have any magic items to benefit from to enhance their damage whereas Fighters can use any kind of weapon. It's so bad that One Dnd playtest 6 needed a disclaimer saying they would be incorporating magic items for unarmed combat.
Your argument for AC is also strange. Monks are on par with Armor for AC if they can optimize both Wisdom and Dexterity. Having to do this and also balance a high Constitution makes them MAD. This gets worse when you consider that other classes can benefit from magical armor with +1, +2, or +3 bonuses as well as other enchantments whereas a Monk cannot. Give a fighter +3 Plate Armor AND a +3 shield. Neither of these a monk can use. Bracers of defense are the closest a monk gets. And then there is the fact that all of these classes that do get armor also get a higher hit die. Paladin, Ranger, and Fighter get a d10. Barbarian gets a d12. Rogue gets a d8 like monk but also gets light armor and uncanny dodge and evasion. Paladin gets aura of protection and the ability to heal. etc. Every other martial gets abilities that can heal them or mitigate damage on top of having either better armor, hit dice, or both.
You're arguing with the person I'm responding to here; they're the one saying monks could do this, but they have to burn all their ki.
But they're not wrong. Four attacks per round gets you perfectly reasonable damage, at least until you hit high levels. Three per round is adequate. Two attacks per round plus bonus action dodging backed by a decent AC is pretty reasonable tanking.
You are correct; it's not. It's exactly the same. It puts an immediate threat on the target in need of controlling, disadvantages their ranged attacks, and also wrecks concentration abilities.
The monk's a lot better at getting there to make it happen than other martial classes, and they have stunning strike to play with as well. Casters and ranged attackers are usually not high on the constitution saves.
Are they amazing on the control? No, but they can do it.
Sure, but even without them, the monk's an ok flex combatant. The subclass is really how monks specialize.
I'm currently playing a four elements monk, built for extra positioning control (and damage), and, except for the first round, when the gloomstalker ranger gets his burst damage, I'm probably the most effective combatant in the party, (There are arguments to be made about the full casters, and they'll pull away as we level further), and that's with the current, real, weaknesses of the class and subclass. But this is normal play, where nobody's building to optimize.
So let me get this straight.
Monks simultaneously, at low levels, do fighter Action Surge damage but more often in One D&D and One D&D massively nerfs them because martials got control and damage boosting features?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Monks suffer because they don't benefit as much or at all from the magical items that would typically aid a martial in doing damage or surviving, do not have access to the Great Weapon Master feat, only get minimum utility from Pole Arm Master feat, Sharpshooter is feasible with short bows and guns but is often seen as conflicting with the class aesthetic, have a lower hit die than martials that are expected to stay in melee combat, have to expend a very limited resource to disengage as a bonus while also being the class that has the largest reliance on their bonus action to do damage, and have to split their stats heavily between three core ability scores in order to survive and do damage.
In games that are very resource light they can excel because they don't need weapons and armor, and in games where there is a surplus of stats they can do well as it eases the limitations that being MAD imposes. Games that play without feats can also narrow the playing field with other martials, but in those games casters absolutely dominate. They are competitive with damage at early levels, but fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack, and start falling behind in AC as soon as any upgrades start going out.
Monks are fun, but they need circumstances to lean heavily in their favor to be good.
Please explain how magical items don't help a Monk vs any other character? A +3 shortsword still increases your chance to hit and cause damage. Magical rings/cloaks of protections still add their pluses to AC. What are we missing?
Do they really need it though? A -5 to hit just to get 10pts of damage is a large gamble for any character early on. Besides damage dealing isn't a Monk's function, never was.
Monks have a lower hit die because they are not Fighters and never have been. Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid. In fact, as I have stated before, they were originally a subclass of the Cleric. A Monk is a Cleric, a Priest etc who is trained in Martial Arts. He is not a soldier or a warrior.
Well the point system is a WoTC product and was never part of the original TSR product. For whatever reason no one complained about them having a point system, which they should have. They only complained about certain subclasses being point hungry or not enough points at the beginning. The surveys are over, so come May everyone will be stuck with the point system. I am not sure what you mean by they have to depend on their stats to survive? As far as I know, they only depend on their Dex and Wis to for their AC. Which is not a big deal since they get ability score improvements like every character, and magic items of protections as well. They can always improve their hit points by taking the "Tough" feat wich gives them a +2 on their hit points every level. Voila their average hit points jumps to 10 and now they are equal to a Ranger and Fighter, not including their Con modifier.
Well I don't know any games that don't allow feats, but I guess that would be a personal decision to decide to play in that DM's adventure. I certainly wouldn't. Regarding about the damage and how they fall off after level 5 when other classes get their extra attack. It goes back to what I said about Monks basically being fighting Clerics, not warriors. They were never considered to be soldiers or warriors. Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever. While others can do better damage, the Monk can stun, knock them prone, deflect their attacks evade their fireballs etc. In the case of the Shadow Monk, they can go invisible, teleport in dim lit and shaded areas, cast silence on spell casters or darkness on opponents. Most of these actions give them the surprise condition and the can always teleport away.
So in conclusion, the Monk isn't like the other martial classes because it never was a true martial class. It was always considered part of the Cleric class, or like a fighting priest. It's not a soldier so damage is not it's main characteristic. It never has been.
"Please explain how magical items don't help a Monk vs any other character? A +3 shortsword still increases your chance to hit and cause damage. Magical rings/cloaks of protections still add their pluses to AC. What are we missing?"
A +3 shortsword can help a monks main action attacks but they do not help the bonus action attacks. Other classes can benefit from magical rings and cloaks as well as magical armor bracers of defence are not the equivalent of magical armor because the use up a precious attunemt slot as does an eldrtitch claw tatoo if a monk wants their unarmed attacks t have a bonus (and that is capped at +1)
Do they really need it though? A -5 to hit just to get 10pts of damage is a large gamble for any character early on.
At low levels +10 damage is likely to double the damage so if you need a natural 11 to hit you break even, at low levels that is the case more often than not (and when it isn't you don''t use it) on top of that players will be looking at ways to increase their to hit (archery fighting style gives a +2 but monks don't get it) or get advantage to give GWM / sharpshooter a big increase to average damage. If monks don't need it, the same would be true of other classes and optimisers the world over have done the maths these feats are the must haves.
Besides damage dealing isn't a Monk's function, never was.
What is a monks function? They need to use patient defence to be acceptable at tanking but that reduces their damage even further behind a barbarian, fighter or paladin tank and what do they do when the run out of ki? Spell casters are far better at control, stunning strike is great when it comes off but most of the time they fail as most monsters have high con.
Monks are more like a fighting Cleric or Druid
Monks have nothing to equate to the power of being a full caster. In fact if you gave monks the slots of a full caster and access to the cleric spell list (but no access to other cleric features) I am not convinced they would be as overpowered as a twilight cleric.
'
Sure. you are approaching this with a very adversarial tone, but I'll go ahead and answer your questions. A "+3 Shortsword" will only benefit the attacks made with the attack action and won't benefit anything done for Fury of Blows or their bonus action Unarmed Attack. A "Cloak of Protection" and "Ring of Protection" will help as much as any other martial but Monks are the only martial that cannot benefit at all from any armor benefits including +1,+2, and +3 armors and shields which unlike the previous items, do not require attunement.
There are 10 years of gameplay, math, and theory crafting on why these features are powerful for martials. They might not need it if there are suitable features to make up for it. I, and many others, believe they lack these features.
You say that dealing damage isn't what a Monk does. The most common argument is Battlefield Control, but the one ability they have to do this, they don't get until Tier 2 of play and targets Constitution, one of the strongest saves in the game. You actually say it is survivability, which is not supported by actual gameplay; Their ASIs are forced mostly into Dexterity and Wisdom because of how their AC works and how important Stunning Strike is to stay relevant at all, so they don't have the luxury of taking good defensive feats like other martials might after maxing Dexterity or Strength. The strongest defensive features they get for their core class features is Diamond Soul, which does not come online until the late stages of Tier 3 play and Empty Body which they won't see until Tier 4 of play.
Historically, maybe, but a Monk mechanically has more features in common with a Fighter or Barbarian than they do a Cleric or Druid. Mechanically, what features make it appropriate for them to have a lower hit die?
We're talking about 5e Monks. The rant about historical\OneD&D design has nothing to do with my post.
There is a concept known as being Multi-Ability Dependent (MAD), which is relying on three or more Ability Scores to be efficient. Monks are the poster child of this concept. They have to rely on three stats to be efficient: Dexterity and Wisdom for their AC, Attacks, and Ki Save DC and Constitution to survive hits because they are a melee Martial.
Of the three other Martials, Barbarians are the next closest to being MAD they have to rely on Strength and Constitution to survive and optimally get Dexterity up to 14 to get the most out of medium armor. However, Barbarians also have the highest Hit Die in the game and gain resistance to physical damage while raging which aids significantly in their survivability.
As for the other two martials: Fighters only need Dexterity or Strength and Constitution, and Rogues only need Dexterity and Constitution. Both of these classes also get Additional ASI.
Half-Casters like Artificer, Paladin, and Rangers can also be MAD depending on how they are built, but depending on the direction of their build typically have a more Lax requirement for their Physical or Mental Stat and spell casting as a whole adds an extra layer of complexity and utility to the classes that make up for these restrictions, that Monks just doesn't have.
You suggest that Monks take an ASI to get tough to get the same defenses as other Martials; However, that's the problem. In order to be as resilient as other martials they have to spend an ASI which they have less of than two of the other martials, and are more restricted than all three.
I think the "or whatever" when you are describing what their role is sums this up perfectly. They do get things that other martials don't, but WotC didn't give them the package of necessary features to fully define or support that role well. You have also asserted thrice that Monk is a branch off of Cleric and have supported it naught. Even WotC pinned them as Warriors when they were trying to divide the classes for One D&D.
Also per the PHB, feats are an optional rule; though I agree, few games run without them. I was trying to list all the conditions that would give Monks an advantage.
Edit:
I don't think Monks are so far gone that they are beyond repair, but in general do fall behind other classes. In my games to help keep them relevant I give them the following features, and I think this brings them to about where they need to be:
Now, I'm not sure about pre-AD&D 1e, but I dug out my AD&D 1e PHB and monks were not a subclass of clerics. They actually were after the sections on Clerics (with Druids as Sub-class of Cleric), Fighters (with Paladin and Ranger as sub-classes of Fighter), Magic-Users (with Illusionists as sub-class of Magic-Users) and Thieves (with Assassins as sub-class of Thief). Monks came after those (out of alphabetical order even: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief, Monk).
On page 18 of my PHB under Character Classes (descriptions, Functions, Levels) it reads:
"Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class). Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. Druids are a sub-class of cleric who operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes. Paladins are fighters who are lawful good (see ALIGNMENT). At higher levels they gain limited clerical powers as well. Rangers are another sub-class of Fighter. They are quite powerful in combat, and at upper levels gain druidic and magic spell usage of a limited sort. Magic-Users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature. They use magic almost exclusively to solve problems posed by the game. Illusionists are a sub-class of magic-users, and they are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. Assassins, a sub-class of thief, are quite killers of evil nature. Monks are aesthetic disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands. It is up to you to select what class you desire your character to be. Selection must be modified by abilities generated and possibly by the race of your character."
So even Gygax's descriptions do not say they are a subclass of Cleric. I believe 2e didn't have monks, but I didn't play 2e.
So lets look at the 1e Monk and it's features.
So they do have some defensive abilities. And some utility. But I don't know if that's enough to say they weren't meant for damage. No, they are not fighters. But they are martials, nonetheless.
And as Kamehapa mentioned, the "Their primary purpose has always been defense and the sanctity of life or whatever" comment does kind of show that, other than combat (or even in combat), monks seem a little thin on what exactly their role is in the party.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As has been mentioned above, they have been their own class since AD&D. While it's possible they were a Cleric subclass before, any Monk that was a subclass of Cleric would be such a complete break from the current conception as to be irrelevant. A Monk that's a caster is a completely different class, even if it has the same name. The current Monk is not a caster, and, if you remove its melee combat features, has not a lot else, which really supports the argument that it's supposed to be a melee class.
That may not suit your personal aesthetic about what Monks should be, but it's what Monks are.
Lots of things in 5e weren't in the TSR versions. But the class with points to power their abilities is the one under discussion.
The TSR versions are not some amazing design that WotC are supposed to aspire to. It was, in a lot of ways, a really badly-designed system. Sensible Armor Class wasn't in TSR. Coherent mechanics weren't in TSR. Etc.
That's because I am referring to the White Box, also called Original D&D. The White Box preceded AD&D. Sometime during 1e it was decided to move the Monk to a brand new rule book called, "Oriental Adventures" and placed the world in a more Asian flavor. Other classes like the Ninja and Samurai were added in the book.
Got it. I didn’t start until AD&D so was unfamiliar with that. I also have the Oriental Adventures book and liked some of the things they did there as well.
It just seems a bit odd to reference a 1974 version of monk, that was revised in AD&D in 1978, as how monks were supposed to be when it has nearly 50 years of it not being that. Edit: as far as its relationship to clerics
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Which makes it even less relevant.
Were those white box monks casters? If not, they aren't in any meaningful way a subclass of cleric, as much as "we're lazy and will just use the cleric experience point table".
There are a few reasons for the hate:
1. In the mid levels around 5- or so Monk is a pretty weak class overall. By the end of the game they are probably the most powerful class that is not a full caster and very early they are pretty powerful too, but in this middle tier when most characters take a big increase in power the Monk doesn't. Their power grows more gradually and incrimentally and few games are played into the levels where Monks start to dominate.
2. Most players make excessive use of Flurry of Blows. FOB is generally a very weak ability, using both a limited resource and having a high opportunity cost. It is generally the least effective way to use ki (competes with step of the wind as worst), but is by far the most common. As a result players get a few weak attacks for their ki and then they are out. At high levels they have enough ki that they rarely run out, but until they get there players are wasting ki on FOB and thereby their Monk is weaker in play because she is stunning less often, is easier to hit and is using ki-related subclass abilities less.
As far as static AC I agree, but Monk AC is top tier if you use patient defense. The thing is players don't use that much, instead using FOB for their ki.
This is less true at high levels where you generally have enough ki to use one or more every round.
Base class of Monk relies too much on "Just Right conditions" to work well compared to other martials:
Some of the "Just Right conditions" I am referring to:
* At low levels, somebody to draw aggro and tank damage. For a mostly melee class, Monks are flimsy, what with mediocre AC and d8 HD but no spells and being ineffective at range.
* Very lucky stat generation rolls or "Heroic Array" at the start.
* Variant Human or some way to get Mobile feat right off that bat.
* Playing at very high levels AND the DM does not hand out magic items that mostly benefit the other martial classes more.
* DM refrains from targeting the Monk with spells and effects that focus on CHA, STR, or INT saves.
* DM restricts access to feats with the word "Master" in them, such Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Master.
If it was just one or two of the above, that might be fine. However, the fact that the base Monk needs quite a few of the above to apply to not get KO'd constantly or to feel left behind by other martials is a bad sign.