How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
I think what they are saying is if you get by the tanks you will not do significant damage enough to make the mobility worth while and of you choose to go full defense (Dodge BA) it's even worse.
If you do go all out on damage you are now trapped by yourself with lower health and AC compared to the Eldritch Knight that can misty step, still have all it's damage output, and have better AC.
Mobility is only worth it if you have something worth while to do with it.
For me I say that you do have something worth while... Stunning strike.... But you are less likely to get it to work if you don't spam it and you burn a shit ton of ki if you want to make sure it works and do spam it.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
A Monk doesn't have to rest like a Tabaxi, spend it's bonus action like a Rogue, and can move faster than an Aaracockra.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Now you aren't making a simple comparison of class vs. class. If we're going to throw in other stuff, then we can consider a Way of Shadows Monk V Human who spent his extra feat on Devil's Sight. Try to hit that from 150ft away with a Longbow.
if you have to look for that one corner case
You mean that corner case where it isn't a one-against-one combat on flat, open ground?
It's obvious that we have two wildly different viewpoints. We can keep going back and forth like a pair of kids or get down to brass tacks.
Give me three situations, battlefield descriptions, specific ranges, whatever. You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells. I'll build something that can do the same job as well or better with the same parameters. Fair?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
Okay...we seem to have a miscommunication here. In previous posts, you talked about how 'complex' the battlefield was and how the Monk's role was to be 'the bomber'. The idea is that you present a battlefield and some goal you need your monk to achieve. You know...sort of like proving the point you've been trying to make?
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
What the hell is this? If my DM had us naked and alone to figure this stuff out I would be giving them a funny look for one and then two.... Monk will not be doing much in this situation either so I'm not sure what the heck you expect.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
I don't see where they specified fighter.
That's fair. But, your alternative requires two additional characters.
A lot of “maths are on my side” with no maths backing it up.
It was nice of treatmonk to pay us a visit though.
PS monks can cast fly too. Paired with water whip and fireball is amazing to witness.
If you're referring to me I'd say that most of my posts have been about the maths.
If someone really likes the Monk class and subclasses, more power to them. However, you're going to have to work long and hard to convince me that I can't do more than half of what can do as well if not better with another character. The stuff that the Monk DOES do well, I don't think is worth all the stuff it doesn't. Sure...if you want the guy who can fight naked with a piece of string for a weapon then the Monk will likely do really well. Personally, I don't see circumstances like that so I don't feel as though I'm missing out.
At least you’ve shifted your goal posts slightly. It’s now gone from “it’s awful at everything” to now being “it has a niche”. I can make a Wizard that does everything, but better. But that’s not really the objective of the post and further diverges from the discussion. It’s attempting to draw attention to a perceived weakness with in the community.
A monk is more than just mobility and stunning/flurry blows. And reducing it to that is why people fail to understand it. Or how to use subclasses. Does it have some short comings? Absolutely. But nothing as drastic as your posts say it is. It just needs some tweaking.
A lot of “maths are on my side” with no maths backing it up.
It was nice of treatmonk to pay us a visit though.
PS monks can cast fly too. Paired with water whip and fireball is amazing to witness.
Certainly. At 11th level you can spend 10 ki to fly, cast one fireball, and use water whip, leaving you with one ki for the rest of the fight.
Meanwhile an 11th level Wizard can expend one third level spell slot to fly, and another third level to cast fireball. Granted there doesn't seem to be a Wizard equivalent of water whip, but the following turn the Wizard will still have four first, three second, one third, three fourth, two fifth, and one sixth level spell slots remaining, plus cantrips (doing 3d8 or 3d10 damage) if they ever run out of spell slots.
If the Monk had twice as much ki per level as it does it might be a decent class but as it stands it just burns up its resources too quickly.
(Also, for whoever kept saying it earlier, Monk cannot use a shield)
This really doesn't seem like much worth arguing about. A run-of-the-mill dexterity based fighter can start the game doing D8+3 damage at 150 feet with a longbow, and D8+3 damage in melee with a rapier and shield (while still being AC16 with the shield and leather armour). The monk with 16 dexterity and wisdom can equal that AC, and also do D8+3 with his monk weapon spear, but without the range, and the monk has to be a bit more careful levelling up, where the fighter can just grab whatever they want. Especially given their extra ASIs. Monk as a class really need some extra ASIs to keep up with the game. Rogue gets one, fighter gets two, why not monk?
I wasn't the one who brought up how Way of the Four Elements Monk could expend (nearly) all its ki for three glorious turns of casting fly, fireball, and water whip.
I play Warlocks (specifically Hexblades) so I'm used to operating with an extremely limited resource (spell slots) but I can still choose not to use them and still be effective. Either with agonizing blast boosted eldritch blast, or being able to summon +1 magical weapons from level 3. The existence of the double-bladed scimitar allows me to weaponize my bonus attack in the same way that Monks do, so at level 5 with thirsting blade I can average 27 magical weapon damage a round without expending resources. Assuming Monks have their dexterity at 18 thanks to an ASI or half feat at level 4 and are using a D10 weapon like a longsword or warhammer (thanks to a racial proficiency or Kensei) they also average 27 damage, but nonmagical at that point. A Paladin or Fighter that's reached this point and taken polearm master at level 4 with a glaive, they won't have been able to boost their strength beyond 16 or 17 (obviously variant human excepted) and that will make their average damage 23 at level five, again non-magical.
In terms of AC, I use mage armor on my Warlock so his AC is 16 without magic armour. The monk has 18 dex and started with 16 wisdom, so is AC17, and it's likely both the Fighter and Paladin have found 200 gold for splint plate at level 5 for AC17, or AC18 with the defensive fighting style, which is probably the best choice for a polearm fighter. In terms of HP, I tend to assume that 14 constitution is a normal starting level, but then I typically have two 16s in my primary stats. At level 5 with D8 HP and using averages the Warlock and the Monk would have 38HP and the D10 Paladin and Fighter would have 45.
I am going to go out there and say that in terms of damage and durability the Monk is okay in comparison to a Fighter or Paladin, as long as nobody is expending any resources. Divine Smite (2 shots at 3D8 and 4 shots at 2D8 do create a large damage spike) or Battlemaster Maneuvers (4D8s at level 5). Monk can expend one of their five ki points to add an average of 8 damage to their attack each round with flurry of blows.
And the Hexblade casts Spirit Shroud to add up to 3D8 radiant (or necrotic or cold) damage to its attacks (1D8 per hit) per round for a minute (ten rounds). The Paladin can add up to 14D8 and the Hexblade, potentially, can add 30D8. But then the Hexblade is really a primary caster that plays in melee.
So, having run some numbers, I'm going to say that the Monk is not too bad. The big numbers for Fighter and Paladin start to arrive when they're able to stack Great Weapon Master and Pole Arm Master for potentially an extra 30 damage a round. Monks can't do that because they can't count weapons with the heavy or two-handed property as their Monk weapons (except Kensei using longbows). Their AC is stat dependent, not equipment dependent (magic items excepted) so they are bound to spending most of their ASIs on stat improvements. That's okay because there aren't that many feats that benefit them anyway. Maybe sharpshooter on a Kensei? Like I mentioned earlier, giving Monk an extra ASI, and twice as much ki, would probably go a long way to bringing the base class in line with the others.
If the argument is going to switch from "Monks are terrible" to "Wizards dominate the game at high levels," then I'm inclined to agree.
I had a 2nd level warlock who at least tied the monk... Actually the 10 min oof BA dash would be 100 rounds so easy more than what a 2nd monk could do.
Once you get higher level fly would take over and avoid all issues.... You can fly 1ft off the ground and avoid just about anything.
Need to climb a wall? Spider Climb!
Need to stun a target? How about the whole room? Hypnotic Pattern!
My major thing is that monks usually solve a problem that either never existed or is just bested by magic.
This is a core issue for martial classes in general but the monk suffers more because they are just good at a lot but not great at one thing....
In an all martial group I could see the monk shine ... But I've never been in one because magic is just too fun for a group to turn down
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
I think what they are saying is if you get by the tanks you will not do significant damage enough to make the mobility worth while and of you choose to go full defense (Dodge BA) it's even worse.
If you do go all out on damage you are now trapped by yourself with lower health and AC compared to the Eldritch Knight that can misty step, still have all it's damage output, and have better AC.
Mobility is only worth it if you have something worth while to do with it.
For me I say that you do have something worth while... Stunning strike.... But you are less likely to get it to work if you don't spam it and you burn a shit ton of ki if you want to make sure it works and do spam it.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
It's obvious that we have two wildly different viewpoints. We can keep going back and forth like a pair of kids or get down to brass tacks.
Give me three situations, battlefield descriptions, specific ranges, whatever. You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells. I'll build something that can do the same job as well or better with the same parameters. Fair?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Okay...we seem to have a miscommunication here. In previous posts, you talked about how 'complex' the battlefield was and how the Monk's role was to be 'the bomber'. The idea is that you present a battlefield and some goal you need your monk to achieve. You know...sort of like proving the point you've been trying to make?
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
I don't see where they specified fighter.
What the hell is this? If my DM had us naked and alone to figure this stuff out I would be giving them a funny look for one and then two.... Monk will not be doing much in this situation either so I'm not sure what the heck you expect.
We playing DnD with one person now?
I specified that the scenario was for a 2nd lvl character. Fly is a 3rd level spell and would not be available to a 2nd level character.
Fine then I cast Expeditious Retreat....Dash as a BA for 10 mins.
If I'm a wood half elf warlock I'm clocking in at 70ft a turn.
A lot of “maths are on my side” with no maths backing it up.
It was nice of treatmonk to pay us a visit though.
PS monks can cast fly too. Paired with water whip and fireball is amazing to witness.
If you're referring to me I'd say that most of my posts have been about the maths.
If someone really likes the Monk class and subclasses, more power to them. However, you're going to have to work long and hard to convince me that I can't do more than half of what can do as well if not better with another character. The stuff that the Monk DOES do well, I don't think is worth all the stuff it doesn't. Sure...if you want the guy who can fight naked with a piece of string for a weapon then the Monk will likely do really well. Personally, I don't see circumstances like that so I don't feel as though I'm missing out.
At least you’ve shifted your goal posts slightly. It’s now gone from “it’s awful at everything” to now being “it has a niche”. I can make a Wizard that does everything, but better. But that’s not really the objective of the post and further diverges from the discussion. It’s attempting to draw attention to a perceived weakness with in the community.
A monk is more than just mobility and stunning/flurry blows. And reducing it to that is why people fail to understand it. Or how to use subclasses. Does it have some short comings? Absolutely. But nothing as drastic as your posts say it is. It just needs some tweaking.
Certainly. At 11th level you can spend 10 ki to fly, cast one fireball, and use water whip, leaving you with one ki for the rest of the fight.
Meanwhile an 11th level Wizard can expend one third level spell slot to fly, and another third level to cast fireball. Granted there doesn't seem to be a Wizard equivalent of water whip, but the following turn the Wizard will still have four first, three second, one third, three fourth, two fifth, and one sixth level spell slots remaining, plus cantrips (doing 3d8 or 3d10 damage) if they ever run out of spell slots.
If the Monk had twice as much ki per level as it does it might be a decent class but as it stands it just burns up its resources too quickly.
(Also, for whoever kept saying it earlier, Monk cannot use a shield)
This really doesn't seem like much worth arguing about. A run-of-the-mill dexterity based fighter can start the game doing D8+3 damage at 150 feet with a longbow, and D8+3 damage in melee with a rapier and shield (while still being AC16 with the shield and leather armour). The monk with 16 dexterity and wisdom can equal that AC, and also do D8+3 with his monk weapon spear, but without the range, and the monk has to be a bit more careful levelling up, where the fighter can just grab whatever they want. Especially given their extra ASIs. Monk as a class really need some extra ASIs to keep up with the game. Rogue gets one, fighter gets two, why not monk?
Is 11th a high level?
I wasn't the one who brought up how Way of the Four Elements Monk could expend (nearly) all its ki for three glorious turns of casting fly, fireball, and water whip.
I play Warlocks (specifically Hexblades) so I'm used to operating with an extremely limited resource (spell slots) but I can still choose not to use them and still be effective. Either with agonizing blast boosted eldritch blast, or being able to summon +1 magical weapons from level 3. The existence of the double-bladed scimitar allows me to weaponize my bonus attack in the same way that Monks do, so at level 5 with thirsting blade I can average 27 magical weapon damage a round without expending resources. Assuming Monks have their dexterity at 18 thanks to an ASI or half feat at level 4 and are using a D10 weapon like a longsword or warhammer (thanks to a racial proficiency or Kensei) they also average 27 damage, but nonmagical at that point. A Paladin or Fighter that's reached this point and taken polearm master at level 4 with a glaive, they won't have been able to boost their strength beyond 16 or 17 (obviously variant human excepted) and that will make their average damage 23 at level five, again non-magical.
In terms of AC, I use mage armor on my Warlock so his AC is 16 without magic armour. The monk has 18 dex and started with 16 wisdom, so is AC17, and it's likely both the Fighter and Paladin have found 200 gold for splint plate at level 5 for AC17, or AC18 with the defensive fighting style, which is probably the best choice for a polearm fighter. In terms of HP, I tend to assume that 14 constitution is a normal starting level, but then I typically have two 16s in my primary stats. At level 5 with D8 HP and using averages the Warlock and the Monk would have 38HP and the D10 Paladin and Fighter would have 45.
I am going to go out there and say that in terms of damage and durability the Monk is okay in comparison to a Fighter or Paladin, as long as nobody is expending any resources. Divine Smite (2 shots at 3D8 and 4 shots at 2D8 do create a large damage spike) or Battlemaster Maneuvers (4D8s at level 5). Monk can expend one of their five ki points to add an average of 8 damage to their attack each round with flurry of blows.
And the Hexblade casts Spirit Shroud to add up to 3D8 radiant (or necrotic or cold) damage to its attacks (1D8 per hit) per round for a minute (ten rounds). The Paladin can add up to 14D8 and the Hexblade, potentially, can add 30D8. But then the Hexblade is really a primary caster that plays in melee.
So, having run some numbers, I'm going to say that the Monk is not too bad. The big numbers for Fighter and Paladin start to arrive when they're able to stack Great Weapon Master and Pole Arm Master for potentially an extra 30 damage a round. Monks can't do that because they can't count weapons with the heavy or two-handed property as their Monk weapons (except Kensei using longbows). Their AC is stat dependent, not equipment dependent (magic items excepted) so they are bound to spending most of their ASIs on stat improvements. That's okay because there aren't that many feats that benefit them anyway. Maybe sharpshooter on a Kensei? Like I mentioned earlier, giving Monk an extra ASI, and twice as much ki, would probably go a long way to bringing the base class in line with the others.
I had a 2nd level warlock who at least tied the monk... Actually the 10 min oof BA dash would be 100 rounds so easy more than what a 2nd monk could do.
Once you get higher level fly would take over and avoid all issues.... You can fly 1ft off the ground and avoid just about anything.
Need to climb a wall? Spider Climb!
Need to stun a target? How about the whole room? Hypnotic Pattern!
My major thing is that monks usually solve a problem that either never existed or is just bested by magic.
This is a core issue for martial classes in general but the monk suffers more because they are just good at a lot but not great at one thing....
In an all martial group I could see the monk shine ... But I've never been in one because magic is just too fun for a group to turn down