All you stated there is that you didn't read my full post. I said the better question was what type of playstyle the player wanted to have would matter. If they want the hit and run playstyle, then the speed matters as would getting the Mobile Feat. At 10th level with the feat and the bonus +20, they'd have enough for the hit and run at "a full 30" in and out without dashing and the feat would provide the disengage. Likewise, if they are planning on getting into harrass casters and ranged attackers, the extra movement is vital to getting in and out while using as few rounds as possible to attack. Getting in to disrupt a casters concentration and then getting out with minimal damage requires speed so that extra actions aren't used for movement.
Again, its a thing you can do as a gish kind of strategy, but the game doesn't reward you for it. Even with mobile (which means sacrificing coveted ability score points) you would still be in walking distance of the enemy you just hit 99% of the time.
Even the spellcaster thing doesn't make much sense if you are looking for strategies that employ speed. It would be hard for a monk to break a spellcaster's concentration with their low damage attacks, and there wouldn't be much reason in using hit and run tactics against an enemy who wouldn't mind letting you leave melee range so they could take a step back and blast you with a fireball.
IF THAT ISN'T YOUR PLAYSTYLE, then movement won't be as important for you. If you want to use ranged attacks for that, then movement won't be as important for you. But IF THAT'S THE PLAYSTYLE THAT YOU ENVISION, then it will be crucial.
The OP's question isn't "can I make movement speed useful in specific situations for a off-meta playstyle" but "how important is speed to a monk?" And you answer that with "The rules don't have many outright rewards for using speed except in niche cases." So I don't get where our disagreement is coming from. Speed isn't that important to the monk or any other character, the end.
Speed isn't important to you or your playstyle. Because the game doesn't reward you for having speed doesn't mean that it won't reward another.
A monk, with their increased speed, can reach a spellcaster without bonus action or main action dash. That allows for the monk to make an action attack and a bonus action attack against the spellcaster. Depending on level and ki spent, that's between 2-4 attacks made. Even at a DC10 save, the monk only needs one of those saves to fail to succeed in breaking the concentration. While that's a 50% proposition on any given save, that's a 75% chance at 2 attacks, a 87.5% chance at 3 attacks, and a 93.75 chance at 4 attacks. Most spellcasters don't have a lot of HP, so an outright kill is possible with those attacks, especially with attack modifier being added to each bonus action attack. Once stunning strike comes online, that can do much to interrupt the spellcaster as well if outright killing isn't an option and the monk wants to bug out before the other enemies can surround her. If that issue isn't pressing, the monk can spend a round moving in and attacking and another moving out after attacking. It's still hit and run and placing more space between you and the enemies that you'd rather not square off against toe to toe. Even if that one of those enemies does get in range, limiting the number of attacks that enemy can do while still getting in some attacks is not a bad usage of speed. Sure you may only be able to move a little bit out of range if you bonus action disengage and still take several attacks when they close, but you can choose to bonus action dash instead take the OA instead of the multiattacks and clear ground.
Speed gives you options. You don't seem to value options, you value straight up performance. That's fine. HP, AC, and damage output serve you perfectly fine and movement is fluff. The characters that don't prioritize those options see more value in options. Speed can increase those options. Speed is important to those characters.
Therefore, I'll say it like this. You are not wrong per se. In fact, you can be 100% right for the players that prioritize the same things that you prioritize. That can even be inline with the meta playstyle. However, D&D isn't a video game where you have to adhere to the meta playstyle or you get booted out of the raid or whatever. Monks can also fill roles that other classes can't as easily because of their speed. I understand that those roles can be filled more efficiently by another class than by a monk, but the party may not have one of those classes.
By insisting that people adhere to a meta playstyle, always play an optimal way, and discounting everything else, you are insisting that people are playing it wrong even when it means that they are playing it right.
When I say that you don't get rewards for movement, I'm saying that something like Charger is about the only way that you get an outright bonus for movement. Clearly, you've been disenchanted with that. That's fine. However, those aren't the only rewards that are offered for movement. They may be the only ones that matter to you, but ones like the option to blitz a spellcaster quickly and get out before the enemy surrounds you are just as valid. Enabling your teammates can be just as rewarding for certain players as actually dealing damage and speed is a tool that helps the monk accomplish that. It's a different playstyle than you've described. It isn't better nor is it worse, but it fits different players better or worse.
That's why I asked the OP what are they planning on doing with their monk, because that matters more than DPR, HP, AC, ABC, XYZ, ETC. After all, fighter with a greatsword and 4 attacks may be able to out damage a monk, but if the player doesn't want to have a character with armor or using weapons, what does that matter?
Edit: As for ability points, you can easily fit Mobile into a build if that helps enable your build. Human variant can get it at 1, and sacrificing an ASI at 4 or 8 can still leave you with an 18 and a 16 in dex and wis. If you make it all of the way to 20, you'll still have enough to get both to 20. It's a question of what you prioritize. You clearly doubt value Mobile enough to have it be worth it. That's fine. Instead of telling everyone that likes that playstyle that they're doing it wrong, tell them that it's not worth it if they want a playstyle like you play. That leaves it open for others to chime in and tell them about the playstyles that do value the feat or speed, or something other than numbers.
Dude, I never insisted everyone always has to optimize everything. I even just told you my main character right now is a goofy off kilter thing. I don't know who you are having that conversation with.
Even insisting that you can min/max speed for as much utility as you can get out of it just makes that a hypocritical critique of the strawman min/maxing critique.
If someone is just asking "how important is speed to the monk" then laying out a small playbook for the niche occasions and tactics to try and make it useful doesn't answer that question. Especially if you are going to keep hedging and saying things like "the rules don't have many outright rewards for speed except in niche cases" while also suggesting they potentially throw their whole build out of whack for a speed feat.
Speed is something to play around with, it gives "options" as you say. But its not something you can squeeze much use out of, cause that just isn't how 5e rolls. It will very rarely be the thing that improves your monk's performance in any given situation.
Dude, I never insisted everyone always has to optimize everything. I even just told you my main character right now is a goofy off kilter thing. I don't know who you are having that conversation with.
Even insisting that you can min/max speed for as much utility as you can get out of it just makes that a hypocritical critique of the strawman min/maxing critique.
If someone is just asking "how important is speed to the monk" then laying out a small playbook for the niche occasions and tactics to try and make it useful doesn't answer that question. Especially if you are going to keep hedging and saying things like "the rules don't have many outright rewards for speed except in niche cases" while also suggesting they potentially throw their whole build out of whack for a speed feat.
Speed is something to play around with, it gives "options" as you say. But its not something you can squeeze much use out of, cause that just isn't how 5e rolls. It will very rarely be the thing that improves your monk's performance in any given situation.
So, as in all things, have fun with it.
Who said anything about min/maxing speed? That's certainly not where I'm coming from and not how I read the OP and that's probably the disconnect we're having. If that's what they're asking then I'd suggest not worrying about it that much. I was looking at it like, "Do I need to grab a race with higher speeds?" which has been answered as no by a few people (including myself saying that the difference between a halfling with 25 speed and a centaur with 40 speed wouldn't be a difference long run if the features of one fit the character better than the other) and is a feat like Mobile or Squat Nimbleness going to be a must have. The answer is no, unless the other parts of the feat add extra utility for you or it helps you fit your concept. The reason being that the monk takes care of its extra mobility on it's own.
That said, if you are thinking of taking a multiclass that will take from that built in speed, determine what specifically you are trying to accomplish with the monk to determine whether that loss will affect you. Most other classes that have built in speed usually have it gated behind 5 levels. This is the area where the choice is likely to make more of a difference. If there is no difference, then speed doesn't factor in. If there is a difference, then what are you trying to accomplish.
If you want to min/max speed then you're just doing it for gimmicks and therefore you are likely going to value it highly and will want to look at something like Aarakocra, Centaur, Wood Elf, or Tabaxi plus pick up Mobile, look into getting Longstrider, maybe a couple of other spells and some magic items like the Boots of Speed or similar items. This is certainly where the reward is lacking and I better understand why you're emphasizing that more now.
But that's more a function of what you're trying to do and still gets answered by asking what they are trying to do. It doesn't matter if it's niche if they are trying to play niche. Speed will matter to some of those things and not others. If speed didn't matter to the class, then they wouldn't have built it in, but I'll agree that with pretty much everyone that has said you don't need to min/max it (unless that's exactly what you're trying to do), but what else are you doing with it?
I'll agree to disagree that grabbing mobile feat is crippling your build. Doing it for no reason than to grab it would be, but:
Mobile
You are exceptionally speedy and agile. You gain the following benefits:
Your speed increases by 10 feet.
When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
That's a nice package for the player that wants to use it, especially one that can make as many attacks as a monk. It's well worth an ASI to enable your playstyle and increase options, especially for a monk that may not be taking too many other feats. Putting your damage where you want it can be more rewarding than just doing more damage, especially if the net damage for the party increases because of it.
edit: made a spelling correction and added the statement at the end of the min max paragraph.
I know Kronzypants willsay it is niche but I have an open hand monk that has reached level 17 with varying combats. I would reckon about 1/4 combats have been if tight spaces where the extra movement has been of little help. 1/2 have been cases where the extra mobilty had been of use in one or two turns (for example killing an enemy with my first attack and then moving to an enemy 50 foot away, and the remaining quarter of combats I have used the extra mobility almost every turn. Of course his your campaign might be a huge dungeon crawl where no room is more than 30ft square and mobility is niche.
On more than one occassion I have had a combat in a relatively large area where you waste movement just to find another enemy. For example a village has been attacked by the BBEG's mod, there are enemies and innocents all over the map but it is night so you can only see your darkvision / light source range and you can not see around corners. Every round some innocents are killed (or worse) and while a fighter might move 30ft after killing a bad guy with their first attack, look round the next house and see nothing the monk might get past the next house (using step of the wind) a further 50ft away behind which another bad guy has take cover, the monk can hit him with his second attack and call out his location to his fighter friend the bad guys location (not that the fighter would be able to attackhim next turn as he has total cover and is 50 ft away. Dynamic lighting can make manouverablity more useful in suituations like this (unless you are very good at avoiding meta gaming if the player knows where the nearest enemy is they will probably head that way with dynamic lighting you can easily trave 3 times that distance.
Sure it is situational everything is situational, spellcasting is only of use outside an anti-magic field a longward is uselss if you are attacking an ochre jelly but over an adventuring career they are useful often enough to prove their worth unless it is a very oddly run campaign with all cambats being very similar. I would put mobility in the same category. over the course of a career mobility is very important to a monk.
Most of the time, speed is pretty useless, but every once in a while you end up against a slow enemy in open terrain and can just bully them. The key is not getting caught up in the aesthetic and carry a decent ranged weapon like a shortbow. Even if the enemy has ranged attacks, they aren't likely to be stronger than their melee attacks and you can deflect one hit per turn.
You have it backwards in the case of speed; its only situationally useful if you DM goes out of the way to make it meaningful.
All combat abilities are situationally useful if you want to think in those terms as a DM has to present you with combat opportunities, or you have to go out of your way to provoke fights just to get some in a campaign that's otherwise light on combat. Every ability is situational if your DM doesn't give you opportunities to use it.
This is also speaks more to your experience of your DMs than to the value of movement; a DM shouldn't be "going out of their way" to make combat varied and interesting. Combats that are intended to be challenging absolutely should use tricky layouts where distance is an extra challenge, with mixed enemy groups where different players will want to prioritise different enemy types and so-on. If every combat you play is a melee scrum, that's on your DM; encourage them to make full use of the toolset to make your encounters more interesting.
Having had lazy DMs is not proof that all DMs will be lazy.
If anything it's a cantrip that isn't versatile at all; if you take it thinking you might use it then you probably never will, but if you take it having thought about how exactly you intend to use and how it suits your built, then it can be extremely useful.
That perfectly describes the "versatility" of greater movement speed.
Except that it doesn't; True Strike is something you choose to build into your strategy, fast movement for a Monk is something they have in their toolbox and can use when it makes sense to. I'm starting to think your hatred for versatility is that you don't know what the word means.
You keep claiming this, indeed your arguments always seem to hinge upon it, and yet you never bother to back it up.
At 5th level a Monk with a spear puts out two attacks of D8+DEX/STR, and as a simple bonus action can add a third D6+DEX/STR attack. A Barbarian or Fighter with a two-handed weapon will do two 1d12+STR or 2d6+STR, while a Fighter with one-handed weapon may do two 1d8+STR+2. Assuming all attacks hit and a +3 in the relevant score, that's an average of 21.5 for the Monk, 19-21 for the two-handed fighters and 19 for the Fighter. Factoring in chance to hit is trickier since the Monk's attacks aren't all the same, but in general more weaker attacks is usually better, as it's better to do any amount of damage than it is to miss entirely.
Yes, that's baseline damage, as adding a comparison of all abilities and sub-classes becomes exponentially more complex, and there's the issue of what levels are "past level 5" as Monks gain more and more Ki which means more Flurry of Blows (fourth attack from level 5) and increasing martial arts die, which also means their weapon attacks are improved (or they can drop the weapon if non-magical), as well as factoring in the ability to remove enemy turns entirely or inflict other effects.
And again, you ignore that dealing damage isn't all Monks do, yet you insist on dismissing everything else that they can do. Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune. Stunning Strike's DC goes up as long as you increase with your proficiency bonus and your Wisdom (which a Monk should be trying to maximise, as it also increases their AC up towards 20 over time), and the more attacks you make, the more chances you get to inflict it, unlike comparable spells that get one per turn. The benefit of robbing an enemy of a full turn and giving yourself and your allies advantage against it should never be underestimated.
Even with mobile (which means sacrificing coveted ability score points) you would still be in walking distance of the enemy you just hit 99% of the time.
You don't need to rush in and get out of range in a single turn for a hit & run strategy; if you run in, deal a load of attacks, and then in the next turn deal your attacks again before darting out, then you're still halving the amount of attacks the enemy can do in return, while keeping them locked down part of the time so they don't just go after an ally instead (as well as getting the opportunity attacks if they try to). That said, with the Mobile feat they absolutely can dart in, attack and dart out again beyond an enemy's range if they want to, by using Step of the Wind, one more ability in a Monk's arsenal.
Even the spellcaster thing doesn't make much sense if you are looking for strategies that employ speed. It would be hard for a monk to break a spellcaster's concentration with their low damage attacks
The worst thing for concentration is quantity of checks rather than one big check, especially as casters often have tricks for avoiding the big ones; some of these, like Shield also work against a Monk's attacks, but every time they use it they lose a spell slot to do-so, while others such as Counterspell don't work on fists (even magical ones).
And do you want to know anyother thing that interrupts concentration? Being Incapacitated, which is something a little ability called Stunning Strike inflicts. If you really need that spell to end, then there's nothing quite like up to four concentration saves plus up to four stunning strike saves to do it, especially as the latter will also rob them of a turn and give everyone advantage against them. A caster might be able to pass one or two checks quite happily per turn, eight is another matter.
This is why a Monk's range of abilities is absolutely critical to any and all considerations of mobility, as their mobility is both one of those abilities, as well as a means of delivering the others more easily. There's no use saying a Fighter can just dash to get to a caster, especially when a Monk can also Dash for even more speed and still attack afterwards if they want, as the Fighter also needs to be able to do what they need to within time. If you want a caster disrupted in a single turn rather than in maybe two or three, then it's not comparable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Another use of the monks high mobility in a situation You would not expect it.
DM 'As you come to the corner of the passageway two hulking meat shields stand side by side 15ft away blocking your path a20ft behind them is the BBEG, a high level wizard"
Monk "How high is the ceiling "
DM "20 ft
Monk "I run diagonally up the wall keeping out of melee range of the meat shields when I am past them I jump down next to the wizard and start stunning strikes.
All combat abilities are situationally useful if you want to think in those terms as a DM has to present you with combat opportunities,
We've gone over this before; the game is designed with the assumption of a certain amount of combat encounters per session. And while 5e focuses on things like bounded accuracy, damage, AC, and control, there is no baked in assumption about the size of battle maps because its not really something the system rewards. A giant battlefield where characters have to move for turns to engage just makes combat slower, while things like choosing to go prone and using cover wouldn't even make it especially challenging for melee characters to close range.
And if your characters are in crazy large battlefield situations like that, horses are a relatively cheap way to make the whole party faster than monks, as well as spells that can increase speed.
For this one scenario of needing to close range on a large battlefield, the monk's speed is nice but not unique, not the only or best answer, and is therefore not important even in that niche scenario.
Having had lazy DMs is not proof that all DMs will be lazy
Having had jerk DMs who decided to make to make your melee characters dash around an empty map long enough to make the monk's bonus speed look good is not proof that all DM's make pretentiously bad maps, let alone do so often.
Except that it doesn't; True Strike is something you choose to build into your strategy, fast movement for a Monk is something they have in their toolbox and can use when it makes sense to. I'm starting to think your hatred for versatility is that you don't know what the word means.
Do you own a toolbox? I've had some old wood chisels from my sister's days in art college for about a decade. I used one once as a subpar paint can opener. Does that make it a versatile part of my toolbox, for having one occasional use for me where it probably wasn't even the best or only option? More, does that make it "important," as the OP is asking about the monk's speed?
Im all for having more toys in the toy box, and speed is best thought of as a toy; 99% of the time its just flashy and fun, not the thing that will get them out of trouble in a pinch.
You keep claiming this, indeed your arguments always seem to hinge upon it, and yet you never bother to back it up
Actually I posted a whole video where the math is spelled out, and you dismissed it, probably without watching.
It uses a warlock with eldritch blast, hex, and agonizing blast as a baseline example for damage over the levels of the game. All classes and subclasses are capable of beating that baseline easily, and many can even get close to something like 150% of that and more without feats or multiclassing.
Monks can only beat that baseline until level 5 (like any martial character with the duel wielding fighting style). They can get slightly back above it until level 11 if they are always using flurry of blows, but that isn't an option. There are times they'll need/want to use patient defense, step of the wind, or other abilities, or where they will run out of ki points between short rests. They won't always use their free 3rd attack, since it still competes for their bonus action.
As you point out, monks are on better footing with sword and board melee characters, but those characters get to choose to sacrifice damage of AC, and still have access to the class abilities like hunter's mark, colossus slayer, battlemaster maneuvers, reckless attack, smite, rage damage, improved crit ranges, etc. that give their classes a higher lower end of damage averages.
The martial arts die do increase, but they do too slowly too change the outcome.
And again, you ignore that dealing damage isn't all Monks do
If versatility is their point, any character with spell casting is automatically better at that angle. And the things that monks can do are all about filling in gaps between themselves and other melee characters.
Flurry of blows to be less deficient in average damage
Patient defense to catch up to the defense of other melee characters who have higher AC, HP, and other damage reducing abilities
Step of the wind to flee troublesome melee like a rogue can do for free
Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
We've kind of devolved into the whole frenzy argument in reverse here: wide ranging utility vs more focused utility. And if that is the idea behind how the monks are supposed to work, then its not a bad concept. But the problem with Monks is that they start off with so much less utility than other melee characters to throw around in the first place. So much so that the difference is in the realm of a barbarian who could frenzy all the time vs other barbarians, except that monks are the non-24/7 frenzied barbarian.
. That said, with the Mobile feat they absolutely can dart in, attack and dart out again beyond an enemy's range if they want to, by using Step of the Wind, one more ability in a Monk's arsenal.
Again, its a thing that they can do, but its a trade off that makes them less useful in the end. If they aren't using flurry of blows, the are dismally behind in damage. If they use step of the wind to make mobile worthwhile for a janky tactic, then why waste an ability score improvement needed to help their attacks land and hurt, their ac be closer to the average melee fighters, or make their stunning strikes work slightly more often? Again, its giving options at the cost of doing any one thing especially well compared to other classes.
The worst thing for concentration is quantity of checks rather than one big check
Quantity of attacks helps to give more chances to break concentration, but they are still generally going to be 50% chances per hit. Im also constantly told that the monk should be using things other than flurry of blows all the time, especially in this situation because they can jump into the midst of enemies to attack the spellcaster with the use of patient defense or step of the wind.
And do you want to know anyother thing that interrupts concentration? Being Incapacitated, which is something a little ability called Stunning Strike inflicts.
... but it doesn't. You linked it, its an 8 word long sentence, but you still got it wrong.
his is why a Monk's range of abilities is absolutely critical to any and all considerations of mobility, as their mobility is both one of those abilities, as well as a means of delivering the others more easily. There's no use saying a Fighter can just dash to get to a caster, especially when a Monk can also Dash for even more speed and still attack afterwards if they want, as the Fighter also needs to be able to do what they need to within time. If you want a caster disrupted in a single turn rather than in maybe two or three, then it's not comparable.
Yet this is still all just a replacement for ranged weapons and spells. You know what has basically a 100% chance of breaking a spell caster's concentration? A fireball. Or hex and an eldritch blast. Or a rogue stealthing behind a rock and firing off any weapon. Bow wielding fighters and rangers also have a decent chance at breaking concentration.
You've been holding up this one, single scenario as proof of the utility of the Monk's speed, but its just one possible solution to the scenarios problem, and not even clearly the best the option available for that given scenario, unless you want to move the goalposts to assume everything else a party can expect to have access to is off the table, making it an even more fringe example.
And if we all we can say is that this use of speed is "an option for those rare cases" and not "a good option even in those rare cases," then the answer to the question "is a monk's speed important" is still clearly "no."
Another use of the monks high mobility in a situation You would not expect it.
DM 'As you come to the corner of the passageway two hulking meat shields stand side by side 15ft away blocking your path a20ft behind them is the BBEG, a high level wizard"
Monk "How high is the ceiling "
DM "20 ft
Monk "I run diagonally up the wall keeping out of melee range of the meat shields when I am past them I jump down next to the wizard and start stunning strikes.
That would be cool, but it would be up to the GM to allow it. RAW, the monk can run "along" walls at level 9, but do not explicitly gain the ability to run up walls. Movement rules even infer the GM ought to still require an athletics check for it and treat wall running as difficult terrain, although that is up to the DM to decide if it applies.
A real jerk of a DM could let your monk run along the wall at 5ft up, make you roll to see if you even do that without falling prone, and still have the meat shields a chance hammer you, only to end several squares short of your goal.
All combat abilities are situationally useful if you want to think in those terms as a DM has to present you with combat opportunities,
We've gone over this before; the game is designed with the assumption of a certain amount of combat encounters per session. And while 5e focuses on things like bounded accuracy, damage, AC, and control, there is no baked in assumption about the size of battle maps because its not really something the system rewards. A giant battlefield where characters have to move for turns to engage just makes combat slower, while things like choosing to go prone and using cover wouldn't even make it especially challenging for melee characters to close range.
And if your characters are in crazy large battlefield situations like that, horses are a relatively cheap way to make the whole party faster than monks, as well as spells that can increase speed.
For this one scenario of needing to close range on a large battlefield, the monk's speed is nice but not unique, not the only or best answer, and is therefore not important even in that niche scenario.
Having had lazy DMs is not proof that all DMs will be lazy
Having had jerk DMs who decided to make to make your melee characters dash around an empty map long enough to make the monk's bonus speed look good is not proof that all DM's make pretentiously bad maps, let alone do so often.
Except that it doesn't; True Strike is something you choose to build into your strategy, fast movement for a Monk is something they have in their toolbox and can use when it makes sense to. I'm starting to think your hatred for versatility is that you don't know what the word means.
Do you own a toolbox? I've had some old wood chisels from my sister's days in art college for about a decade. I used one once as a subpar paint can opener. Does that make it a versatile part of my toolbox, for having one occasional use for me where it probably wasn't even the best or only option? More, does that make it "important," as the OP is asking about the monk's speed?
Im all for having more toys in the toy box, and speed is best thought of as a toy; 99% of the time its just flashy and fun, not the thing that will get them out of trouble in a pinch.
You keep claiming this, indeed your arguments always seem to hinge upon it, and yet you never bother to back it up
Actually I posted a whole video where the math is spelled out, and you dismissed it, probably without watching.
It uses a warlock with eldritch blast, hex, and agonizing blast as a baseline example for damage over the levels of the game. All classes and subclasses are capable of beating that baseline easily, and many can even get close to something like 150% of that and more without feats or multiclassing.
Monks can only beat that baseline until level 5 (like any martial character with the duel wielding fighting style). They can get slightly back above it until level 11 if they are always using flurry of blows, but that isn't an option. There are times they'll need/want to use patient defense, step of the wind, or other abilities, or where they will run out of ki points between short rests. They won't always use their free 3rd attack, since it still competes for their bonus action.
As you point out, monks are on better footing with sword and board melee characters, but those characters get to choose to sacrifice damage of AC, and still have access to the class abilities like hunter's mark, colossus slayer, battlemaster maneuvers, reckless attack, smite, rage damage, improved crit ranges, etc. that give their classes a higher lower end of damage averages.
The martial arts die do increase, but they do too slowly too change the outcome.
And again, you ignore that dealing damage isn't all Monks do
If versatility is their point, any character with spell casting is automatically better at that angle. And the things that monks can do are all about filling in gaps between themselves and other melee characters.
Flurry of blows to be less deficient in average damage
Patient defense to catch up to the defense of other melee characters who have higher AC, HP, and other damage reducing abilities
Step of the wind to flee troublesome melee like a rogue can do for free
Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
We've kind of devolved into the whole frenzy argument in reverse here: wide ranging utility vs more focused utility. And if that is the idea behind how the monks are supposed to work, then its not a bad concept. But the problem with Monks is that they start off with so much less utility than other melee characters to throw around in the first place. So much so that the difference is in the realm of a barbarian who could frenzy all the time vs other barbarians, except that monks are the non-24/7 frenzied barbarian.
. That said, with the Mobile feat they absolutely can dart in, attack and dart out again beyond an enemy's range if they want to, by using Step of the Wind, one more ability in a Monk's arsenal.
Again, its a thing that they can do, but its a trade off that makes them less useful in the end. If they aren't using flurry of blows, the are dismally behind in damage. If they use step of the wind to make mobile worthwhile for a janky tactic, then why waste an ability score improvement needed to help their attacks land and hurt, their ac be closer to the average melee fighters, or make their stunning strikes work slightly more often? Again, its giving options at the cost of doing any one thing especially well compared to other classes.
The worst thing for concentration is quantity of checks rather than one big check
Quantity of attacks helps to give more chances to break concentration, but they are still generally going to be 50% chances per hit. Im also constantly told that the monk should be using things other than flurry of blows all the time, especially in this situation because they can jump into the midst of enemies to attack the spellcaster with the use of patient defense or step of the wind.
And do you want to know anyother thing that interrupts concentration? Being Incapacitated, which is something a little ability called Stunning Strike inflicts.
... but it doesn't. You linked it, its an 8 word long sentence, but you still got it wrong.
his is why a Monk's range of abilities is absolutely critical to any and all considerations of mobility, as their mobility is both one of those abilities, as well as a means of delivering the others more easily. There's no use saying a Fighter can just dash to get to a caster, especially when a Monk can also Dash for even more speed and still attack afterwards if they want, as the Fighter also needs to be able to do what they need to within time. If you want a caster disrupted in a single turn rather than in maybe two or three, then it's not comparable.
Yet this is still all just a replacement for ranged weapons and spells. You know what has basically a 100% chance of breaking a spell caster's concentration? A fireball. Or hex and an eldritch blast. Or a rogue stealthing behind a rock and firing off any weapon. Bow wielding fighters and rangers also have a decent chance at breaking concentration.
You've been holding up this one, single scenario as proof of the utility of the Monk's speed, but its just one possible solution to the scenarios problem, and not even clearly the best the option available for that given scenario, unless you want to move the goalposts to assume everything else a party can expect to have access to is off the table, making it an even more fringe example.
And if we all we can say is that this use of speed is "an option for those rare cases" and not "a good option even in those rare cases," then the answer to the question "is a monk's speed important" is still clearly "no."
Shall we just call it what it is? Everything that you've laid out says that if you're playing a monk, then you're doing it wrong. You say that they don't have good damage because they have to use flurry to keep up. Their movement, which is one thing that they most certainly do better than any class, isn't worthwhile because other classes can sometimes match or exceed what they do with that movement with a ranged weapon. Both you and Lunali have said to just suck it up and take a ranged weapon (darts or a shortbow respectively) despite having little support for using either (not even the barbarian's attack or lose rage mechanism). The movement bonus for moving along walls is suddenly restricted to 5 ft up the wall and must have an athletics check just to stick on the wall while moving despite nothing in the feature suggesting that (mind you that no other class can move along walls, thus this is certainly a case of specific beats general). The fact that the rogue gets to disengage or dash discounts the utility of the step of the wind feature, the fact that the monk can bonus action dodge (patient defense) is discounted because the monk might have to choose between doing that and any number of other things. Yet, all of this flexibility is discounted because spellcasters can do flexible stuff too (with a resource that usually regenerates on a long rest and not a short rest).
Sure, the monk is a "jack of no trades and master of none." How many classes is the monk able to fill in for? Fighter and multiple attacks, check. Ranged attacker, check. Stealth attacker check. Skill monkey.... hmmm not so much there, but dexterity and wisdom do have a large chunk of the skills and a couple of knowledge checks are on their list so not as bad as first suspected. The monk can control the battlefield, but it's usually only 1 enemy at a time, so spellcaster gets the edge there.
Of course, movement enables most of these niches that the monk can fill, but because it's niches that the monk is filling to round off a party, it's discounted.
Therefore, if you are playing a monk, you are doing it wrong so just pick one thing (but certainly not movement) to specialize in and go do that so you can be so much better at that thing and we'll just ignore the weaknesses that our party has or fill in those weaknesses with other players that we'll get from somewhere.
But sure, niches are situational and playing a class that has a playstyle available to fill in the niches because of its movement and versatility means that the DM has to include niches and the DM is a jerk for doing that.
Have I missed anything about why Monks are terrible and the reasons why movement isn't important to them because someone else can do it better without movement, even though the party might not have someone with that class?
Since you brought up the berserker thread, why is it so bad to have a super specialist like a berserker and a very versatile class like the monk? Because you don't like their mechanics?
Anyway, I'm done with discussing things with Kronzypantz. To the OP, if you've read this thread this far, decide whether you want to play a monk like every other melee class. If so, movement is barely needed especially if you're willing to throw darts for 1d4+strength/dexterity modifier with a 20/60 range (same damage as martial arts until 5th level and capping at 2 per round at 5th, barring a multiclass) or a shortbow to shoot for 1d6+dexterity with a 80/320 range (better damage than martial arts die until 5th, same until 11th). Both are limited by ammunition or number held, which may or may not be a problem based on how your DM handles recovering ammunition and weight. Neither will activate your unarmed strikes bonus action. Neither will get a boost from anything within the class for damage and you'll have to resort to going to a feat or a multiclass to get anything better.
If you want to try the things that the rest of us were talking about, then movement will be much more important, but not enough to specifically min/max it for the sake of min/maxing it. Getting Mobile Feat can open more options if it fits the playstyle you are thinking of, but it's less necessary to get than something like Sharpshooter would be for a ranged monk that wasn't using something like Sun Soul or Kensei (which isn't what the others were advocating, they were suggesting using the ranged weapons to supplement your movement, which is a valid option particularly if you can't get somewhere with your movement or don't want to engage in melee with the targets that your movement can reach. Monk is about options and those options shouldn't be discounted unless they don't fit your character concept at all.) Don't feel like you have to do either playstyle, choose the one that seems the most fun for you and have fun with it!
Sure, the monk is a "jack of no trades and master of none." How many classes is the monk able to fill in for? Fighter and multiple attacks, check. Ranged attacker, check. Stealth attacker check. Skill monkey.... hmmm not so much there, but dexterity and wisdom do have a large chunk of the skills and a couple of knowledge checks are on their list so not as bad as first suspected. The monk can control the battlefield, but it's usually only 1 enemy at a time, so spellcaster gets the edge there.
So they are in the lower half of possible substitutes for any given role, and that is what makes them good? Again, they're fun, but fighting to be the 5th or 6th best option to fill any given role specifically doesn't make them well balanced or versatile.
Really... how is a monk not versatile? Other classes may be able to be as versatile until they are built, but monks have versatile built into them. You can specialize a monk and still be more versatile than most any other class while playing and not just as a "Well, a spellcaster can be versatile, but once you select your spells your locked in until you gain a level to change those out or gain new options (or long rest to change spells if it's a prepared caster)." As I said before, movement speed is a key factor to being able to accomplish this and movement options overall increase that functionality. It is literally the thing that the base monk does better than any other base class. So, if you want to continue to say that movement is not an important aspect of the monk, go right on ahead and do it. If you're saying it because the movement is baked in and you don't have to min/max it, then I can understand that, but qualify it as such. The closest that I've seen on that spectrum from you is that anything above 30 ft just doesn't really matter except in niche cases and then discount that because they hardly ever come up. Again, if you choose not to play a monk to take advantage of one of your greatest assets, you can. Just like you can only ever make 1 or 2 attacks with a fighter, never or rarely cast a spell with a wizard, never or rarely rage as a barbarian, and on down the list. But don't try to say that making attacks isn't important to a fighter, or rage isn't important to a barbarian or spellcasting important to a wizard just because you choose to play them that way. And don't say that it's because the rules don't reward you for doing it just because they don't reward you for playing the way that you want to play.
Versatile compared to what? Any given melee class is as or more versatile in terms of ranged combat, tanking, and melee combat. The only real exception are rogues, but they specialize in damage and stealth as their trade off, although an arcane trickster can still be pretty versatile with their extra ASI's and spells.
If the monk sacrifices its versatility as a melee combatant to also have control, its a poor trade, given that they are automatically worse at it than every spellcaster, battlemaster fighters, Paladins, and rangers at the very least.
So Monks are the 6th most versatile melee combatant, tied with Barbarian in terms of ranged attacks, but worse at everything else. Which makes them versatile only in that they are better at a given role than just being short a party member, not in that they are capable of filling multiple roles better than other classes.
Their speed has occasional uses. But sticking rockets on a mechanical turd doesn't make it a swiss army knife. Running around and being the least versatile class isn't suddenly fantastic compared to walking around and being the least versatile class. As a class they are all flavor, and can be fun, but it doesn't put them on equal footing with other classes in terms of the game side of things.
And Im not saying I hate monks. I love their theme and flavor, I just think Wizards did the class wrong by not letting them do more bad *ss things when they could definitely get away with it and still not be at all broken compared to other classes.
Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
Not sure where you get 79 from the only 79s on that spreadsheet are All monsters immune to paralyzed and monsters in MToF immune to poisoned. The Immune to stunfigures are 9 in MM, 2 in VGtM and 9 in MToF making a total of 19.
I am not sure what video you are referring to but take my monk as an example, He started with 16 Dex 16 Wis so at level 1-3 his DC was 13, this has a 30% success rate on monsters with a Con of +7 (and a 20% chance with monsters of +9),if a DM is throwing monsters with +7 (or +9) Con at level 1-3 characters we is wanting to guarantee a TPK. A serious challenge for a a group of level three could be anything from a high con Red Dragon Wyrmling (+5 con so 40% chanceof the stun succeeding) to a low con banshee (+0 con so 65% chance of stun succeeding) and the +5 to con saves in the CR range are rare. a 20-30% chance of success against CR3-4 monsters would require a -3 Wis modifier!!!
At middling levels (9-11) my monk has +4 wis and a DC of 16 but pretty well any monk should have at least +2.+2 Wis and +4 proficiency gives a DC 14. 20-30% chance of success implies you are fighting monsters with +8 to +10 Con Save, the party might fight the occassional monster with a Con in that range (e.g. Roc) but +4-+7 would be the normal
Monsters above CR 20 have a con save in the 10-16 range if we go to the top of that range and it is only really at that point that the 20-30% right be reasonable. With +5 Wis and an Ioun stone of Mastery my monk has a 20DC so I would only have a 15% change of success against an Ancient red dragon and a 45% chance against a Lich or a Tarrasque, but because I can do multiple attempts in a turn by burniong extra ki I can increase the odds a success (25% chance to stun becomes 44% with two hits and 58% with 3)
The other thing with stun is it is such a big de-buff, i9f forces the monster to use a legendary resistance (it it has one) or take a completre battering from the party for the next round.
Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
Not sure where you get 79 from the only 79s on that spreadsheet are All monsters immune to paralyzed and monsters in MToF immune to poisoned. The Immune to stunfigures are 9 in MM, 2 in VGtM and 9 in MToF making a total of 19.
I am not sure what video you are referring to but take my monk as an example, He started with 16 Dex 16 Wis so at level 1-3 his DC was 13, this has a 30% success rate on monsters with a Con of +7 (and a 20% chance with monsters of +9),if a DM is throwing monsters with +7 (or +9) Con at level 1-3 characters we is wanting to guarantee a TPK. A serious challenge for a a group of level three could be anything from a high con Red Dragon Wyrmling (+5 con so 40% chanceof the stun succeeding) to a low con banshee (+0 con so 65% chance of stun succeeding) and the +5 to con saves in the CR range are rare. a 20-30% chance of success against CR3-4 monsters would require a -3 Wis modifier!!!
At middling levels (9-11) my monk has +4 wis and a DC of 16 but pretty well any monk should have at least +2.+2 Wis and +4 proficiency gives a DC 14. 20-30% chance of success implies you are fighting monsters with +8 to +10 Con Save, the party might fight the occassional monster with a Con in that range (e.g. Roc) but +4-+7 would be the normal
Monsters above CR 20 have a con save in the 10-16 range if we go to the top of that range and it is only really at that point that the 20-30% right be reasonable. With +5 Wis and an Ioun stone of Mastery my monk has a 20DC so I would only have a 15% change of success against an Ancient red dragon and a 45% chance against a Lich or a Tarrasque, but because I can do multiple attempts in a turn by burniong extra ki I can increase the odds a success (25% chance to stun becomes 44% with two hits and 58% with 3)
The other thing with stun is it is such a big de-buff, i9f forces the monster to use a legendary resistance (it it has one) or take a completre battering from the party for the next round.
Never mind the fact that you can choose to not stunning strike the big creatures but focus on stunning the archers, casters, or other dangerous creatures to limit the amount of danger that they present and allow your heavy hitters to go to town on the big creatures. Of course, that's not the only option that you have, you can join your buddies beating up on the big bad. If your tank goes down for a turn or is busy with the main target, you can off tank the creature harassing your caster buddy on the fly without wasting a turn pulling out a shield while continuing to do damage.
We've gone over this before; the game is designed with the assumption of a certain amount of combat encounters per session.
No it isn't; there is a recommendation of how many combat encounters there should be at most in an adventuring day (assuming you want your players to be able to survive it). This is neither a guideline nor a requirement on how much combat there should be in any given adventuring day. It is possible (indeed recommended) to spend entire adventuring days without any combat at all, you can even play a campaign with little or no combat if a group wants to.
D&D is not "combat, combat and more combat", it's a toolset that lets you play a whole bunch of things, and works best when you play with a mixture of the capabilities. If your DM never gives you interesting combat setups, then you're playing D&D with a chunk of the rules missing; it's time to start accepting that your campaign might be the reason why you can't understand that movement has a purpose in D&D, you're just refusing to see it.
And if your characters are in crazy large battlefield situations like that, horses are a relatively cheap way to make the whole party faster than monks, as well as spells that can increase speed.
Not only does riding a horse make you a larger target, eliminate the use of cover, and enable you to be knocked prone more easily, we're not talking about "crazy large" battlefield situations, we're talking about battlefields larger than a 30'x30' room, i.e- such that a character with average movement cannot simply cross it in a single turn whenever they want.
It's this kind of constant hyperbole and introducing of ridiculously stacked situations just so that your flimsy arguments don't fall apart that is why I accuse you of trolling; you seem incapable of participating in discussion in good faith.
Monks can only beat that baseline until level 5 (like any martial character with the duel wielding fighting style).
Well done for missing the point like always; the point is that they remain close to the baseline at all times, they never have "dismal" damage as you constantly claim; even when a Fighter finally gets their second extra attack (and is the only martial class to do so) the Monk isn't far behind if damage dealing is what you want to do. But as I and others have tried, clearly in vain, unlike Fighters dealing damage isn't the sole focus of the Monk, it's just one of many things they can do when they want to.
A little extra raw damage might be fine over a long haul, but it is nothing compared to a round where the enemy can't attack at all and everyone in the party has advantage against it. Doing a bit more damage is great, but if your goal is to interrupt casting or to take an enemy out of the fight for a round, then a Flurry of Blows and/or a few Stunning Strikes is better.
Monk abilities don't make Monks on par with other classes, they make them better in various ways, because of how they combine with their other abilities (which many of the sub-classes then build upon further). This is why I'm convinced you've never even tried to play as a Monk, or if you have, you've found either too difficult to grasp, or played badly on purpose. If your position is based upon ignorance, you will be wrong every single time.
If versatility is their point, any character with spell casting is automatically better at that angle. And the things that monks can do are all about filling in gaps between themselves and other melee characters.
Spellcasters also have finite (long rest) resources and generally less health and armour. Also if you can find anywhere that I've said that Monks are the most versatile class in the game, please do, otherwise please stop inventing arguments that I'm not making. You also seem to determined to compare to classes that are clearly not what a player wants to be if they want to go a Monk; the best class in D&D hands down is whichever one helps you build the character you want to play as; if a player wants to go a caster then they won't consider a Monk at all, likewise if a party already has enough casters the player will be looking at something else.
Again, its a thing that they can do, but its a trade off that makes them less useful in the end.
Firstly, your argument was that they can't hit and run, except they clearly can. Second, if the aim is to take less damage then doing this succeeds tremendously, as you can reduce damage you take by 50%, while still doing full normal attacks, or full Flurry of Blows depending upon how you've built the character, and how and when (or if) you use Step of the Wind.
Third, your definition of useful is completely flawed; you clearly only care about damage and nothing else, but single character damage pales in comparison to what you can do for the party, whether that's taking out ranged threats, opening up an enemy for others and so-on. Monks can do do these things and still do solid damage of their own if they want to.
Again, versatility, that thing you don't seem able to understand; which speaks volumes about you, but says nothing against the Monk.
Quantity of attacks helps to give more chances to break concentration, but they are still generally going to be 50% chances per hit.
And? If you've got four of them then that's better than a Fighter's chances, and that's (once again) ignoring Stunning Strikes which you can also do on top, meaning you may not need to pour extra attacks into it at all and can do even more than just break their concentration.
Im also constantly told that the monk should be using things other than flurry of blows all the time, especially in this situation because they can jump into the midst of enemies to attack the spellcaster with the use of patient defense or step of the wind.
No, you're being told that Monks have abilities other than Flurry of Blows, and most of the time Patient Defence is probably better, but that doesn't mean they should never use Flurry of Blows. This seems to the big sticking point with you; you appear to think that for a class to have any value it must have one "best" option that you can spam over and over again until it wins; if that's how you play then your games must be extremely dull.
If the spellcaster is the greatest threat to your party, and you're the only one that can reach it, then high movement, Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike are the most valuable abilities in the game at that moment. Yes it means you might be vulnerable to some counter attacks (though that's assuming the caster is surrounded by bodyguards), but if it means interrupting a spell that's worse than (possibly) taking some hits, then that's the trade off that you make.
That's what versatility is; the ability to what will benefit the party most in a given situation. Extra damage is worthless if a caster is the biggest threat on the field and all you can do is take out a regular enemy or two a little bit faster.
And do you want to know anyother thing that interrupts concentration? Being Incapacitated, which is something a little ability called Stunning Strike inflicts.
... but it doesn't. You linked it, its an 8 word long sentence, but you still got it wrong.
My apologies; I appear to have mistakenly assumed you knew how Concentration worked since you're the one who seems to know everything about why Monks are bad at breaking it. It ends when you're incapacitated, that clear things up for you?
Yet this is still all just a replacement for ranged weapons and spells. You know what has basically a 100% chance of breaking a spell caster's concentration? A fireball. Or hex and an eldritch blast.
Or a rogue stealthing behind a rock and firing off any weapon. Bow wielding fighters and rangers also have a decent chance at breaking concentration.
Everything ranged requires line of sight, and can be limited by cover, as well as made even harder with Shield, Absorb Elements and other spells. Meanwhile spells can be ended entirely with Counterspell. If you're going to raise things that you believe to be "100%" options, try taking the two seconds required to properly consider them.
This is the key problem you seem to have with the concept of versatility; if every battle you play is in an empty room where everything has a "100%" solution then your games must be insanely boring. And feel free to point out where I've said that Monks are the best for stopping casters, or that no other class can do it. Go on, I'll wait, though it's going to be a long time as all I've done is point out why Monks are good at it; it's not the only thing they can do, nor is it the only thing they're good at.
You know, versatility, that concept you either can't, or refuse, to grasp. And the silliest part is that you're arguing in their favour without realising it.
One minute you're attacking the Monk for not disengaging for free like a Rogue, then for not doing quite as much damage as a Fighter, then for not having as many abilities as a caster has spells, or having to use Patient Defence to tank etc. etc., but all you're doing is highlighting the sheer range of capabilities they can switch between; it doesn't matter if Rogues can disengage "for free", Monks being able to do it is still valuable, and it's on top of a bunch of other abilities that Rogue do not have.
If you assume a party of five players, with a Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard and Bard/Cleric, the Monk's abilities mean they can infiltrate or flank alongside the Rogue, fight and/or tank with the warrior, rush to a caster's aid or neutralise enemy casters, and that's on top of their own tricks and unique abilities, which makes them a perfect complement to most parties. Hell, you can build a party of all Monks (ideally of different sub-classes) and be able to cope with just about any situation that can be thrown at you; it's a very versatile class, it also multi-classes extremely well (as that all Monk party would lack a little on healing, but you can always have one or more party member multi-class as their choice of Cleric).
You've been holding up this one, single scenario as proof of the utility of the Monk's speed
No I haven't, I've listed plenty of others which you've ignored, but I guess we're at the inevitable stage of all "discussions" with you where I have to remind you that if you want to argue an issue then you actually have to read what other people say, otherwise you're only arguing with yourself.
As always, you're wrong on this issue because you seem incapable of understanding that D&D isn't a game where there's only one solution to everything and a class has to be "best" at one thing to have any value. If you'd like to understand why you're wrong on this, go back and actually read mine and Jhfffan's posts, though we all know you won't (as you've demonstrated you haven't read or thought about them the first time either).
This is why I accused you of trolling; maybe that's genuinely not your goal, but when you argue points while refusing to listen to anyone else's the end result is the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
Not sure where you get 79 from the only 79s on that spreadsheet are All monsters immune to paralyzed and monsters in MToF immune to poisoned. The Immune to stunfigures are 9 in MM, 2 in VGtM and 9 in MToF making a total of 19.
I am not sure what video you are referring to but take my monk as an example, He started with 16 Dex 16 Wis so at level 1-3 his DC was 13, this has a 30% success rate on monsters with a Con of +7 (and a 20% chance with monsters of +9),if a DM is throwing monsters with +7 (or +9) Con at level 1-3 characters we is wanting to guarantee a TPK. A serious challenge for a a group of level three could be anything from a high con Red Dragon Wyrmling (+5 con so 40% chanceof the stun succeeding) to a low con banshee (+0 con so 65% chance of stun succeeding) and the +5 to con saves in the CR range are rare. a 20-30% chance of success against CR3-4 monsters would require a -3 Wis modifier!!!
At middling levels (9-11) my monk has +4 wis and a DC of 16 but pretty well any monk should have at least +2.+2 Wis and +4 proficiency gives a DC 14. 20-30% chance of success implies you are fighting monsters with +8 to +10 Con Save, the party might fight the occassional monster with a Con in that range (e.g. Roc) but +4-+7 would be the normal
Monsters above CR 20 have a con save in the 10-16 range if we go to the top of that range and it is only really at that point that the 20-30% right be reasonable. With +5 Wis and an Ioun stone of Mastery my monk has a 20DC so I would only have a 15% change of success against an Ancient red dragon and a 45% chance against a Lich or a Tarrasque, but because I can do multiple attempts in a turn by burniong extra ki I can increase the odds a success (25% chance to stun becomes 44% with two hits and 58% with 3)
The other thing with stun is it is such a big de-buff, i9f forces the monster to use a legendary resistance (it it has one) or take a completre battering from the party for the next round.
Never mind the fact that you can choose to not stunning strike the big creatures but focus on stunning the archers, casters, or other dangerous creatures to limit the amount of danger that they present and allow your heavy hitters to go to town on the big creatures. Of course, that's not the only option that you have, you can join your buddies beating up on the big bad. If your tank goes down for a turn or is busy with the main target, you can off tank the creature harassing your caster buddy on the fly without wasting a turn pulling out a shield while continuing to do damage.
I mixed up stunned and paralyzed, I'll own that. The math on stunning strike's low success rate has to do with monster's average con save modifiers. By levels 8 and 9, that average is jumping from 4 to 9. That moves an optimized stunning strike save from hitting around 50% for 3 or 4 levels to about 25% for the rest of the game. And I can focus on the small fries, or burn through ki points to try and land a stunning strike on something bigger, but that is drawing a lot off of a limited resource for what is essentially a less effective "hold person/monster" spell.
Stunning strike is a fun ability, but its not really an equal trade-off for being less well rounded as a melee character.
The math on stunning strike's low success rate has to do with monster's average con save modifiers. By levels 8 and 9, that average is jumping from 4 to 9. That moves an optimized stunning strike save from hitting around 50% for 3 or 4 levels to about 25% for the rest of the game. And I can focus on the small fries, or burn through ki points to try and land a stunning strike on something bigger, but that is drawing a lot off of a limited resource for what is essentially a less effective "hold person/monster" spell.
What on earth are you comparing against? If you're assuming a level 10-ish Monk (DC 16-17) you'd need to be fighting CR 20+ type creatures to get the chance down to 25%, in which case sure, that should absolutely be difficult. But you're not going to find a Hold spell much more effective, as various monsters in that range can just as easily have high Wisdom saves instead or in addition, and you can only attempt the hold spell once per turn, wasting an entire turn if it fails.
Besides which, it doesn't need to be an either/or; if you've got a caster with a hold spell then use both, or whichever one is more likely to get through against each specific monster.
This is also assuming that all your fights are against big high level monsters, rather than several smaller ones, mixed groups of bandits/guards/whatever and so-on, and even if they are all against big monsters, stunning them for even a single round is an even bigger deal, so you should absolutely consider spending the Ki to do it if you need to (e.g- someone is in a bad way, or you just want to get in as much as damage from the whole party as possible). You're also suddenly switching to big high CON monsters, when a lot of the discussion was about stunning casters, who don't tend to have huge CON.
This is another case where you seem to be trying to stack the odds in favour of your arguments, because you know they don't work otherwise. If we go that route then anyone easily do the same, here's one; you're in a room filling with acid, the only exit is 80 feet away and you've got one round to escape before you die. Have fun with that.
Besides, no-one is saying that a Monk can stunning strike everything they encounter with 100% reliability. As always it is just one part of their versatility, one feature they can use when they want/need to, one of which is speed, you know, what the topic is about.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mixed up stunned and paralyzed, I'll own that. The math on stunning strike's low success rate has to do with monster's average con save modifiers. By levels 8 and 9, that average is jumping from 4 to 9. That moves an optimized stunning strike save from hitting around 50% for 3 or 4 levels to about 25% for the rest of the game. And I can focus on the small fries, or burn through ki points to try and land a stunning strike on something bigger, but that is drawing a lot off of a limited resource for what is essentially a less effective "hold person/monster" spell.
Haravikk suggested you would need to be fighting level CR20+ for stunning strike to have a 25% success rate and certainly if you play combats if level 8-9 characters playing CR20 monsters (probably played sub-optimally so you don't always TPK) that is correct but let me look into whether that is the case if you are fighting monsters that are intended for such parties.
You say the average con save has jumped to +9, such a monster would fail a DC15 25% of the time. A level 8 character has +3 proficiency and a level 9 character has +4 so this implies the Monk has +3 or +4 Wisdom which is reasonable at this level.
The next question is what con save does the "average" monster that a level 8 or 9 character face. I had a look at all the CR 8 and 9 monsters I might have miscounted but I belive their there are 90 of them, 8 of them have a Con save of +9 or more. So while they do exist it is only a small minority of the monsters you could possibly face. For comparison at the other end of the scale 9 CR 8-9 monsters have a con save +1 or less where a DC15 Con save will fail 65% of the time or more.
With regard to Hold person / Monster 24 CR8-9 monsters have magic resistance so for them the Wis save will be at advantage, and for non-humanoid enemies hold monster is a 5th level spell not available at level 8 and level 9 only have 1 5th level slot, it also uses up the spellcasters action so it is a much bigger resource cost than a single ki point.
I mixed up stunned and paralyzed, I'll own that. The math on stunning strike's low success rate has to do with monster's average con save modifiers. By levels 8 and 9, that average is jumping from 4 to 9. That moves an optimized stunning strike save from hitting around 50% for 3 or 4 levels to about 25% for the rest of the game. And I can focus on the small fries, or burn through ki points to try and land a stunning strike on something bigger, but that is drawing a lot off of a limited resource for what is essentially a less effective "hold person/monster" spell.
Haravikk suggested you would need to be fighting level CR20+ for stunning strike to have a 25% success rate and certainly if you play combats if level 8-9 characters playing CR20 monsters (probably played sub-optimally so you don't always TPK) that is correct but let me look into whether that is the case if you are fighting monsters that are intended for such parties.
You say the average con save has jumped to +9, such a monster would fail a DC15 25% of the time. A level 8 character has +3 proficiency and a level 9 character has +4 so this implies the Monk has +3 or +4 Wisdom which is reasonable at this level.
The next question is what con save does the "average" monster that a level 8 or 9 character face. I had a look at all the CR 8 and 9 monsters I might have miscounted but I belive their there are 90 of them, 8 of them have a Con save of +9 or more. So while they do exist it is only a small minority of the monsters you could possibly face. For comparison at the other end of the scale 9 CR 8-9 monsters have a con save +1 or less where a DC15 Con save will fail 65% of the time or more.
With regard to Hold person / Monster 24 CR8-9 monsters have magic resistance so for them the Wis save will be at advantage, and for non-humanoid enemies hold monster is a 5th level spell not available at level 8 and level 9 only have 1 5th level slot, it also uses up the spellcasters action so it is a much bigger resource cost than a single ki point.
For the number of CR 8/9 creatures, are you counting all the named NPC's from multiple sources? Because yes, if you're going to count them, it will make it look as though monsters have basically no con bonus.
But if you look at actual monsters from the monster manual we are talking about varying giants, fiends, and young adult dragons at those levels. Maybe that gets blown out of the water from other source books just breaking with the pattern of high con bonuses at those CRs, but a cursory glance hasn't revealed that to me. I don't have them all though, so I'll set that aside.
In regards to spellcaster control spells, they can upcast hold person/monster to target more than one creature with paralyzation, a stronger effect than stun that can last multiple rounds. They also just have several other options for control like fear, hypnotic patter, wall of force, plant growth, etc. And while their spell slots are limited, so is a monk's ki, which they need for everything.
Anyway we parse it, monk isn't a master of battlefield control, they are the 7th best option in that aspect, perhaps even lower if we include half-casters and certain martial subclasses. Stunning strike alone is not a balanced trade off for being subpar as a martial character. Would monks really go off the rails if they had a d10 hit dice, more ki points, stunning strikes that targeted wisdom, and martial arts die that increased in damage a bit faster? Hardly. They'd be better at doing all the things they are supposedly meant to do, while still not being stronger than other martial classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Speed isn't important to you or your playstyle. Because the game doesn't reward you for having speed doesn't mean that it won't reward another.
A monk, with their increased speed, can reach a spellcaster without bonus action or main action dash. That allows for the monk to make an action attack and a bonus action attack against the spellcaster. Depending on level and ki spent, that's between 2-4 attacks made. Even at a DC10 save, the monk only needs one of those saves to fail to succeed in breaking the concentration. While that's a 50% proposition on any given save, that's a 75% chance at 2 attacks, a 87.5% chance at 3 attacks, and a 93.75 chance at 4 attacks. Most spellcasters don't have a lot of HP, so an outright kill is possible with those attacks, especially with attack modifier being added to each bonus action attack. Once stunning strike comes online, that can do much to interrupt the spellcaster as well if outright killing isn't an option and the monk wants to bug out before the other enemies can surround her. If that issue isn't pressing, the monk can spend a round moving in and attacking and another moving out after attacking. It's still hit and run and placing more space between you and the enemies that you'd rather not square off against toe to toe. Even if that one of those enemies does get in range, limiting the number of attacks that enemy can do while still getting in some attacks is not a bad usage of speed. Sure you may only be able to move a little bit out of range if you bonus action disengage and still take several attacks when they close, but you can choose to bonus action dash instead take the OA instead of the multiattacks and clear ground.
Speed gives you options. You don't seem to value options, you value straight up performance. That's fine. HP, AC, and damage output serve you perfectly fine and movement is fluff. The characters that don't prioritize those options see more value in options. Speed can increase those options. Speed is important to those characters.
Therefore, I'll say it like this. You are not wrong per se. In fact, you can be 100% right for the players that prioritize the same things that you prioritize. That can even be inline with the meta playstyle. However, D&D isn't a video game where you have to adhere to the meta playstyle or you get booted out of the raid or whatever. Monks can also fill roles that other classes can't as easily because of their speed. I understand that those roles can be filled more efficiently by another class than by a monk, but the party may not have one of those classes.
By insisting that people adhere to a meta playstyle, always play an optimal way, and discounting everything else, you are insisting that people are playing it wrong even when it means that they are playing it right.
When I say that you don't get rewards for movement, I'm saying that something like Charger is about the only way that you get an outright bonus for movement. Clearly, you've been disenchanted with that. That's fine. However, those aren't the only rewards that are offered for movement. They may be the only ones that matter to you, but ones like the option to blitz a spellcaster quickly and get out before the enemy surrounds you are just as valid. Enabling your teammates can be just as rewarding for certain players as actually dealing damage and speed is a tool that helps the monk accomplish that. It's a different playstyle than you've described. It isn't better nor is it worse, but it fits different players better or worse.
That's why I asked the OP what are they planning on doing with their monk, because that matters more than DPR, HP, AC, ABC, XYZ, ETC. After all, fighter with a greatsword and 4 attacks may be able to out damage a monk, but if the player doesn't want to have a character with armor or using weapons, what does that matter?
Edit: As for ability points, you can easily fit Mobile into a build if that helps enable your build. Human variant can get it at 1, and sacrificing an ASI at 4 or 8 can still leave you with an 18 and a 16 in dex and wis. If you make it all of the way to 20, you'll still have enough to get both to 20. It's a question of what you prioritize. You clearly doubt value Mobile enough to have it be worth it. That's fine. Instead of telling everyone that likes that playstyle that they're doing it wrong, tell them that it's not worth it if they want a playstyle like you play. That leaves it open for others to chime in and tell them about the playstyles that do value the feat or speed, or something other than numbers.
Dude, I never insisted everyone always has to optimize everything. I even just told you my main character right now is a goofy off kilter thing. I don't know who you are having that conversation with.
Even insisting that you can min/max speed for as much utility as you can get out of it just makes that a hypocritical critique of the strawman min/maxing critique.
If someone is just asking "how important is speed to the monk" then laying out a small playbook for the niche occasions and tactics to try and make it useful doesn't answer that question. Especially if you are going to keep hedging and saying things like "the rules don't have many outright rewards for speed except in niche cases" while also suggesting they potentially throw their whole build out of whack for a speed feat.
Speed is something to play around with, it gives "options" as you say. But its not something you can squeeze much use out of, cause that just isn't how 5e rolls. It will very rarely be the thing that improves your monk's performance in any given situation.
So, as in all things, have fun with it.
Who said anything about min/maxing speed? That's certainly not where I'm coming from and not how I read the OP and that's probably the disconnect we're having. If that's what they're asking then I'd suggest not worrying about it that much. I was looking at it like, "Do I need to grab a race with higher speeds?" which has been answered as no by a few people (including myself saying that the difference between a halfling with 25 speed and a centaur with 40 speed wouldn't be a difference long run if the features of one fit the character better than the other) and is a feat like Mobile or Squat Nimbleness going to be a must have. The answer is no, unless the other parts of the feat add extra utility for you or it helps you fit your concept. The reason being that the monk takes care of its extra mobility on it's own.
That said, if you are thinking of taking a multiclass that will take from that built in speed, determine what specifically you are trying to accomplish with the monk to determine whether that loss will affect you. Most other classes that have built in speed usually have it gated behind 5 levels. This is the area where the choice is likely to make more of a difference. If there is no difference, then speed doesn't factor in. If there is a difference, then what are you trying to accomplish.
If you want to min/max speed then you're just doing it for gimmicks and therefore you are likely going to value it highly and will want to look at something like Aarakocra, Centaur, Wood Elf, or Tabaxi plus pick up Mobile, look into getting Longstrider, maybe a couple of other spells and some magic items like the Boots of Speed or similar items. This is certainly where the reward is lacking and I better understand why you're emphasizing that more now.
But that's more a function of what you're trying to do and still gets answered by asking what they are trying to do. It doesn't matter if it's niche if they are trying to play niche. Speed will matter to some of those things and not others. If speed didn't matter to the class, then they wouldn't have built it in, but I'll agree that with pretty much everyone that has said you don't need to min/max it (unless that's exactly what you're trying to do), but what else are you doing with it?
I'll agree to disagree that grabbing mobile feat is crippling your build. Doing it for no reason than to grab it would be, but:
Mobile
You are exceptionally speedy and agile. You gain the following benefits:
That's a nice package for the player that wants to use it, especially one that can make as many attacks as a monk. It's well worth an ASI to enable your playstyle and increase options, especially for a monk that may not be taking too many other feats. Putting your damage where you want it can be more rewarding than just doing more damage, especially if the net damage for the party increases because of it.
edit: made a spelling correction and added the statement at the end of the min max paragraph.
I know Kronzypants willsay it is niche but I have an open hand monk that has reached level 17 with varying combats. I would reckon about 1/4 combats have been if tight spaces where the extra movement has been of little help. 1/2 have been cases where the extra mobilty had been of use in one or two turns (for example killing an enemy with my first attack and then moving to an enemy 50 foot away, and the remaining quarter of combats I have used the extra mobility almost every turn. Of course his your campaign might be a huge dungeon crawl where no room is more than 30ft square and mobility is niche.
On more than one occassion I have had a combat in a relatively large area where you waste movement just to find another enemy. For example a village has been attacked by the BBEG's mod, there are enemies and innocents all over the map but it is night so you can only see your darkvision / light source range and you can not see around corners. Every round some innocents are killed (or worse) and while a fighter might move 30ft after killing a bad guy with their first attack, look round the next house and see nothing the monk might get past the next house (using step of the wind) a further 50ft away behind which another bad guy has take cover, the monk can hit him with his second attack and call out his location to his fighter friend the bad guys location (not that the fighter would be able to attackhim next turn as he has total cover and is 50 ft away. Dynamic lighting can make manouverablity more useful in suituations like this (unless you are very good at avoiding meta gaming if the player knows where the nearest enemy is they will probably head that way with dynamic lighting you can easily trave 3 times that distance.
Sure it is situational everything is situational, spellcasting is only of use outside an anti-magic field a longward is uselss if you are attacking an ochre jelly but over an adventuring career they are useful often enough to prove their worth unless it is a very oddly run campaign with all cambats being very similar. I would put mobility in the same category. over the course of a career mobility is very important to a monk.
Most of the time, speed is pretty useless, but every once in a while you end up against a slow enemy in open terrain and can just bully them. The key is not getting caught up in the aesthetic and carry a decent ranged weapon like a shortbow. Even if the enemy has ranged attacks, they aren't likely to be stronger than their melee attacks and you can deflect one hit per turn.
All combat abilities are situationally useful if you want to think in those terms as a DM has to present you with combat opportunities, or you have to go out of your way to provoke fights just to get some in a campaign that's otherwise light on combat. Every ability is situational if your DM doesn't give you opportunities to use it.
This is also speaks more to your experience of your DMs than to the value of movement; a DM shouldn't be "going out of their way" to make combat varied and interesting. Combats that are intended to be challenging absolutely should use tricky layouts where distance is an extra challenge, with mixed enemy groups where different players will want to prioritise different enemy types and so-on. If every combat you play is a melee scrum, that's on your DM; encourage them to make full use of the toolset to make your encounters more interesting.
Having had lazy DMs is not proof that all DMs will be lazy.
Except that it doesn't; True Strike is something you choose to build into your strategy, fast movement for a Monk is something they have in their toolbox and can use when it makes sense to. I'm starting to think your hatred for versatility is that you don't know what the word means.
You keep claiming this, indeed your arguments always seem to hinge upon it, and yet you never bother to back it up.
At 5th level a Monk with a spear puts out two attacks of D8+DEX/STR, and as a simple bonus action can add a third D6+DEX/STR attack. A Barbarian or Fighter with a two-handed weapon will do two 1d12+STR or 2d6+STR, while a Fighter with one-handed weapon may do two 1d8+STR+2. Assuming all attacks hit and a +3 in the relevant score, that's an average of 21.5 for the Monk, 19-21 for the two-handed fighters and 19 for the Fighter. Factoring in chance to hit is trickier since the Monk's attacks aren't all the same, but in general more weaker attacks is usually better, as it's better to do any amount of damage than it is to miss entirely.
Yes, that's baseline damage, as adding a comparison of all abilities and sub-classes becomes exponentially more complex, and there's the issue of what levels are "past level 5" as Monks gain more and more Ki which means more Flurry of Blows (fourth attack from level 5) and increasing martial arts die, which also means their weapon attacks are improved (or they can drop the weapon if non-magical), as well as factoring in the ability to remove enemy turns entirely or inflict other effects.
And again, you ignore that dealing damage isn't all Monks do, yet you insist on dismissing everything else that they can do. Contrary to your claims, Stunning Strike is not a widely ignored ability, this spreadsheet covers the bulk of monsters and finds only 19 that are immune. Stunning Strike's DC goes up as long as you increase with your proficiency bonus and your Wisdom (which a Monk should be trying to maximise, as it also increases their AC up towards 20 over time), and the more attacks you make, the more chances you get to inflict it, unlike comparable spells that get one per turn. The benefit of robbing an enemy of a full turn and giving yourself and your allies advantage against it should never be underestimated.
You don't need to rush in and get out of range in a single turn for a hit & run strategy; if you run in, deal a load of attacks, and then in the next turn deal your attacks again before darting out, then you're still halving the amount of attacks the enemy can do in return, while keeping them locked down part of the time so they don't just go after an ally instead (as well as getting the opportunity attacks if they try to). That said, with the Mobile feat they absolutely can dart in, attack and dart out again beyond an enemy's range if they want to, by using Step of the Wind, one more ability in a Monk's arsenal.
The worst thing for concentration is quantity of checks rather than one big check, especially as casters often have tricks for avoiding the big ones; some of these, like Shield also work against a Monk's attacks, but every time they use it they lose a spell slot to do-so, while others such as Counterspell don't work on fists (even magical ones).
And do you want to know anyother thing that interrupts concentration? Being Incapacitated, which is something a little ability called Stunning Strike inflicts. If you really need that spell to end, then there's nothing quite like up to four concentration saves plus up to four stunning strike saves to do it, especially as the latter will also rob them of a turn and give everyone advantage against them. A caster might be able to pass one or two checks quite happily per turn, eight is another matter.
This is why a Monk's range of abilities is absolutely critical to any and all considerations of mobility, as their mobility is both one of those abilities, as well as a means of delivering the others more easily. There's no use saying a Fighter can just dash to get to a caster, especially when a Monk can also Dash for even more speed and still attack afterwards if they want, as the Fighter also needs to be able to do what they need to within time. If you want a caster disrupted in a single turn rather than in maybe two or three, then it's not comparable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Another use of the monks high mobility in a situation You would not expect it.
DM 'As you come to the corner of the passageway two hulking meat shields stand side by side 15ft away blocking your path a20ft behind them is the BBEG, a high level wizard"
Monk "How high is the ceiling "
DM "20 ft
Monk "I run diagonally up the wall keeping out of melee range of the meat shields when I am past them I jump down next to the wizard and start stunning strikes.
We've gone over this before; the game is designed with the assumption of a certain amount of combat encounters per session. And while 5e focuses on things like bounded accuracy, damage, AC, and control, there is no baked in assumption about the size of battle maps because its not really something the system rewards. A giant battlefield where characters have to move for turns to engage just makes combat slower, while things like choosing to go prone and using cover wouldn't even make it especially challenging for melee characters to close range.
And if your characters are in crazy large battlefield situations like that, horses are a relatively cheap way to make the whole party faster than monks, as well as spells that can increase speed.
For this one scenario of needing to close range on a large battlefield, the monk's speed is nice but not unique, not the only or best answer, and is therefore not important even in that niche scenario.
Having had jerk DMs who decided to make to make your melee characters dash around an empty map long enough to make the monk's bonus speed look good is not proof that all DM's make pretentiously bad maps, let alone do so often.
Do you own a toolbox? I've had some old wood chisels from my sister's days in art college for about a decade. I used one once as a subpar paint can opener. Does that make it a versatile part of my toolbox, for having one occasional use for me where it probably wasn't even the best or only option? More, does that make it "important," as the OP is asking about the monk's speed?
Im all for having more toys in the toy box, and speed is best thought of as a toy; 99% of the time its just flashy and fun, not the thing that will get them out of trouble in a pinch.
Actually I posted a whole video where the math is spelled out, and you dismissed it, probably without watching.
It uses a warlock with eldritch blast, hex, and agonizing blast as a baseline example for damage over the levels of the game. All classes and subclasses are capable of beating that baseline easily, and many can even get close to something like 150% of that and more without feats or multiclassing.
Monks can only beat that baseline until level 5 (like any martial character with the duel wielding fighting style). They can get slightly back above it until level 11 if they are always using flurry of blows, but that isn't an option. There are times they'll need/want to use patient defense, step of the wind, or other abilities, or where they will run out of ki points between short rests. They won't always use their free 3rd attack, since it still competes for their bonus action.
As you point out, monks are on better footing with sword and board melee characters, but those characters get to choose to sacrifice damage of AC, and still have access to the class abilities like hunter's mark, colossus slayer, battlemaster maneuvers, reckless attack, smite, rage damage, improved crit ranges, etc. that give their classes a higher lower end of damage averages.
The martial arts die do increase, but they do too slowly too change the outcome.
If versatility is their point, any character with spell casting is automatically better at that angle. And the things that monks can do are all about filling in gaps between themselves and other melee characters.
Read that spreadsheet more carefully, that number is 79 not 19. Also, I've seen this spreadsheet before, and Im not clear on whether or not it counts legendary resistances. And more that than, con saves are one of the most favorable saves towards monsters in 5e. If you watched the video, he goes into the math of how the success rate on stunning strikes is between 20% and 30%, depending on how much wisdom is prioritized.
We've kind of devolved into the whole frenzy argument in reverse here: wide ranging utility vs more focused utility. And if that is the idea behind how the monks are supposed to work, then its not a bad concept. But the problem with Monks is that they start off with so much less utility than other melee characters to throw around in the first place. So much so that the difference is in the realm of a barbarian who could frenzy all the time vs other barbarians, except that monks are the non-24/7 frenzied barbarian.
Again, its a thing that they can do, but its a trade off that makes them less useful in the end. If they aren't using flurry of blows, the are dismally behind in damage. If they use step of the wind to make mobile worthwhile for a janky tactic, then why waste an ability score improvement needed to help their attacks land and hurt, their ac be closer to the average melee fighters, or make their stunning strikes work slightly more often? Again, its giving options at the cost of doing any one thing especially well compared to other classes.
Quantity of attacks helps to give more chances to break concentration, but they are still generally going to be 50% chances per hit. Im also constantly told that the monk should be using things other than flurry of blows all the time, especially in this situation because they can jump into the midst of enemies to attack the spellcaster with the use of patient defense or step of the wind.
... but it doesn't. You linked it, its an 8 word long sentence, but you still got it wrong.
Yet this is still all just a replacement for ranged weapons and spells. You know what has basically a 100% chance of breaking a spell caster's concentration? A fireball. Or hex and an eldritch blast. Or a rogue stealthing behind a rock and firing off any weapon. Bow wielding fighters and rangers also have a decent chance at breaking concentration.
You've been holding up this one, single scenario as proof of the utility of the Monk's speed, but its just one possible solution to the scenarios problem, and not even clearly the best the option available for that given scenario, unless you want to move the goalposts to assume everything else a party can expect to have access to is off the table, making it an even more fringe example.
And if we all we can say is that this use of speed is "an option for those rare cases" and not "a good option even in those rare cases," then the answer to the question "is a monk's speed important" is still clearly "no."
That would be cool, but it would be up to the GM to allow it. RAW, the monk can run "along" walls at level 9, but do not explicitly gain the ability to run up walls. Movement rules even infer the GM ought to still require an athletics check for it and treat wall running as difficult terrain, although that is up to the DM to decide if it applies.
A real jerk of a DM could let your monk run along the wall at 5ft up, make you roll to see if you even do that without falling prone, and still have the meat shields a chance hammer you, only to end several squares short of your goal.
Shall we just call it what it is? Everything that you've laid out says that if you're playing a monk, then you're doing it wrong. You say that they don't have good damage because they have to use flurry to keep up. Their movement, which is one thing that they most certainly do better than any class, isn't worthwhile because other classes can sometimes match or exceed what they do with that movement with a ranged weapon. Both you and Lunali have said to just suck it up and take a ranged weapon (darts or a shortbow respectively) despite having little support for using either (not even the barbarian's attack or lose rage mechanism). The movement bonus for moving along walls is suddenly restricted to 5 ft up the wall and must have an athletics check just to stick on the wall while moving despite nothing in the feature suggesting that (mind you that no other class can move along walls, thus this is certainly a case of specific beats general). The fact that the rogue gets to disengage or dash discounts the utility of the step of the wind feature, the fact that the monk can bonus action dodge (patient defense) is discounted because the monk might have to choose between doing that and any number of other things. Yet, all of this flexibility is discounted because spellcasters can do flexible stuff too (with a resource that usually regenerates on a long rest and not a short rest).
Sure, the monk is a "jack of no trades and master of none." How many classes is the monk able to fill in for? Fighter and multiple attacks, check. Ranged attacker, check. Stealth attacker check. Skill monkey.... hmmm not so much there, but dexterity and wisdom do have a large chunk of the skills and a couple of knowledge checks are on their list so not as bad as first suspected. The monk can control the battlefield, but it's usually only 1 enemy at a time, so spellcaster gets the edge there.
Of course, movement enables most of these niches that the monk can fill, but because it's niches that the monk is filling to round off a party, it's discounted.
Therefore, if you are playing a monk, you are doing it wrong so just pick one thing (but certainly not movement) to specialize in and go do that so you can be so much better at that thing and we'll just ignore the weaknesses that our party has or fill in those weaknesses with other players that we'll get from somewhere.
But sure, niches are situational and playing a class that has a playstyle available to fill in the niches because of its movement and versatility means that the DM has to include niches and the DM is a jerk for doing that.
Have I missed anything about why Monks are terrible and the reasons why movement isn't important to them because someone else can do it better without movement, even though the party might not have someone with that class?
Since you brought up the berserker thread, why is it so bad to have a super specialist like a berserker and a very versatile class like the monk? Because you don't like their mechanics?
Anyway, I'm done with discussing things with Kronzypantz. To the OP, if you've read this thread this far, decide whether you want to play a monk like every other melee class. If so, movement is barely needed especially if you're willing to throw darts for 1d4+strength/dexterity modifier with a 20/60 range (same damage as martial arts until 5th level and capping at 2 per round at 5th, barring a multiclass) or a shortbow to shoot for 1d6+dexterity with a 80/320 range (better damage than martial arts die until 5th, same until 11th). Both are limited by ammunition or number held, which may or may not be a problem based on how your DM handles recovering ammunition and weight. Neither will activate your unarmed strikes bonus action. Neither will get a boost from anything within the class for damage and you'll have to resort to going to a feat or a multiclass to get anything better.
If you want to try the things that the rest of us were talking about, then movement will be much more important, but not enough to specifically min/max it for the sake of min/maxing it. Getting Mobile Feat can open more options if it fits the playstyle you are thinking of, but it's less necessary to get than something like Sharpshooter would be for a ranged monk that wasn't using something like Sun Soul or Kensei (which isn't what the others were advocating, they were suggesting using the ranged weapons to supplement your movement, which is a valid option particularly if you can't get somewhere with your movement or don't want to engage in melee with the targets that your movement can reach. Monk is about options and those options shouldn't be discounted unless they don't fit your character concept at all.) Don't feel like you have to do either playstyle, choose the one that seems the most fun for you and have fun with it!
So they are in the lower half of possible substitutes for any given role, and that is what makes them good? Again, they're fun, but fighting to be the 5th or 6th best option to fill any given role specifically doesn't make them well balanced or versatile.
Yes, in all things have fun with it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versatile
Really... how is a monk not versatile? Other classes may be able to be as versatile until they are built, but monks have versatile built into them. You can specialize a monk and still be more versatile than most any other class while playing and not just as a "Well, a spellcaster can be versatile, but once you select your spells your locked in until you gain a level to change those out or gain new options (or long rest to change spells if it's a prepared caster)." As I said before, movement speed is a key factor to being able to accomplish this and movement options overall increase that functionality. It is literally the thing that the base monk does better than any other base class. So, if you want to continue to say that movement is not an important aspect of the monk, go right on ahead and do it. If you're saying it because the movement is baked in and you don't have to min/max it, then I can understand that, but qualify it as such. The closest that I've seen on that spectrum from you is that anything above 30 ft just doesn't really matter except in niche cases and then discount that because they hardly ever come up. Again, if you choose not to play a monk to take advantage of one of your greatest assets, you can. Just like you can only ever make 1 or 2 attacks with a fighter, never or rarely cast a spell with a wizard, never or rarely rage as a barbarian, and on down the list. But don't try to say that making attacks isn't important to a fighter, or rage isn't important to a barbarian or spellcasting important to a wizard just because you choose to play them that way. And don't say that it's because the rules don't reward you for doing it just because they don't reward you for playing the way that you want to play.
Versatile compared to what? Any given melee class is as or more versatile in terms of ranged combat, tanking, and melee combat. The only real exception are rogues, but they specialize in damage and stealth as their trade off, although an arcane trickster can still be pretty versatile with their extra ASI's and spells.
If the monk sacrifices its versatility as a melee combatant to also have control, its a poor trade, given that they are automatically worse at it than every spellcaster, battlemaster fighters, Paladins, and rangers at the very least.
So Monks are the 6th most versatile melee combatant, tied with Barbarian in terms of ranged attacks, but worse at everything else. Which makes them versatile only in that they are better at a given role than just being short a party member, not in that they are capable of filling multiple roles better than other classes.
Their speed has occasional uses. But sticking rockets on a mechanical turd doesn't make it a swiss army knife. Running around and being the least versatile class isn't suddenly fantastic compared to walking around and being the least versatile class. As a class they are all flavor, and can be fun, but it doesn't put them on equal footing with other classes in terms of the game side of things.
And Im not saying I hate monks. I love their theme and flavor, I just think Wizards did the class wrong by not letting them do more bad *ss things when they could definitely get away with it and still not be at all broken compared to other classes.
Not sure where you get 79 from the only 79s on that spreadsheet are All monsters immune to paralyzed and monsters in MToF immune to poisoned. The Immune to stunfigures are 9 in MM, 2 in VGtM and 9 in MToF making a total of 19.
I am not sure what video you are referring to but take my monk as an example, He started with 16 Dex 16 Wis so at level 1-3 his DC was 13, this has a 30% success rate on monsters with a Con of +7 (and a 20% chance with monsters of +9),if a DM is throwing monsters with +7 (or +9) Con at level 1-3 characters we is wanting to guarantee a TPK. A serious challenge for a a group of level three could be anything from a high con Red Dragon Wyrmling (+5 con so 40% chanceof the stun succeeding) to a low con banshee (+0 con so 65% chance of stun succeeding) and the +5 to con saves in the CR range are rare. a 20-30% chance of success against CR3-4 monsters would require a -3 Wis modifier!!!
At middling levels (9-11) my monk has +4 wis and a DC of 16 but pretty well any monk should have at least +2.+2 Wis and +4 proficiency gives a DC 14. 20-30% chance of success implies you are fighting monsters with +8 to +10 Con Save, the party might fight the occassional monster with a Con in that range (e.g. Roc) but +4-+7 would be the normal
Monsters above CR 20 have a con save in the 10-16 range if we go to the top of that range and it is only really at that point that the 20-30% right be reasonable. With +5 Wis and an Ioun stone of Mastery my monk has a 20DC so I would only have a 15% change of success against an Ancient red dragon and a 45% chance against a Lich or a Tarrasque, but because I can do multiple attempts in a turn by burniong extra ki I can increase the odds a success (25% chance to stun becomes 44% with two hits and 58% with 3)
The other thing with stun is it is such a big de-buff, i9f forces the monster to use a legendary resistance (it it has one) or take a completre battering from the party for the next round.
Never mind the fact that you can choose to not stunning strike the big creatures but focus on stunning the archers, casters, or other dangerous creatures to limit the amount of danger that they present and allow your heavy hitters to go to town on the big creatures. Of course, that's not the only option that you have, you can join your buddies beating up on the big bad. If your tank goes down for a turn or is busy with the main target, you can off tank the creature harassing your caster buddy on the fly without wasting a turn pulling out a shield while continuing to do damage.
No it isn't; there is a recommendation of how many combat encounters there should be at most in an adventuring day (assuming you want your players to be able to survive it). This is neither a guideline nor a requirement on how much combat there should be in any given adventuring day. It is possible (indeed recommended) to spend entire adventuring days without any combat at all, you can even play a campaign with little or no combat if a group wants to.
D&D is not "combat, combat and more combat", it's a toolset that lets you play a whole bunch of things, and works best when you play with a mixture of the capabilities. If your DM never gives you interesting combat setups, then you're playing D&D with a chunk of the rules missing; it's time to start accepting that your campaign might be the reason why you can't understand that movement has a purpose in D&D, you're just refusing to see it.
Not only does riding a horse make you a larger target, eliminate the use of cover, and enable you to be knocked prone more easily, we're not talking about "crazy large" battlefield situations, we're talking about battlefields larger than a 30'x30' room, i.e- such that a character with average movement cannot simply cross it in a single turn whenever they want.
It's this kind of constant hyperbole and introducing of ridiculously stacked situations just so that your flimsy arguments don't fall apart that is why I accuse you of trolling; you seem incapable of participating in discussion in good faith.
Well done for missing the point like always; the point is that they remain close to the baseline at all times, they never have "dismal" damage as you constantly claim; even when a Fighter finally gets their second extra attack (and is the only martial class to do so) the Monk isn't far behind if damage dealing is what you want to do. But as I and others have tried, clearly in vain, unlike Fighters dealing damage isn't the sole focus of the Monk, it's just one of many things they can do when they want to.
A little extra raw damage might be fine over a long haul, but it is nothing compared to a round where the enemy can't attack at all and everyone in the party has advantage against it. Doing a bit more damage is great, but if your goal is to interrupt casting or to take an enemy out of the fight for a round, then a Flurry of Blows and/or a few Stunning Strikes is better.
Monk abilities don't make Monks on par with other classes, they make them better in various ways, because of how they combine with their other abilities (which many of the sub-classes then build upon further). This is why I'm convinced you've never even tried to play as a Monk, or if you have, you've found either too difficult to grasp, or played badly on purpose. If your position is based upon ignorance, you will be wrong every single time.
Spellcasters also have finite (long rest) resources and generally less health and armour. Also if you can find anywhere that I've said that Monks are the most versatile class in the game, please do, otherwise please stop inventing arguments that I'm not making. You also seem to determined to compare to classes that are clearly not what a player wants to be if they want to go a Monk; the best class in D&D hands down is whichever one helps you build the character you want to play as; if a player wants to go a caster then they won't consider a Monk at all, likewise if a party already has enough casters the player will be looking at something else.
No, you read it; 79 is for paralyzed, immunity to stunned (it's in the name of Stunning Strike) is 19.
You know how I constantly accuse you of not actually reading anything? 😂
Firstly, your argument was that they can't hit and run, except they clearly can. Second, if the aim is to take less damage then doing this succeeds tremendously, as you can reduce damage you take by 50%, while still doing full normal attacks, or full Flurry of Blows depending upon how you've built the character, and how and when (or if) you use Step of the Wind.
Third, your definition of useful is completely flawed; you clearly only care about damage and nothing else, but single character damage pales in comparison to what you can do for the party, whether that's taking out ranged threats, opening up an enemy for others and so-on. Monks can do do these things and still do solid damage of their own if they want to.
Again, versatility, that thing you don't seem able to understand; which speaks volumes about you, but says nothing against the Monk.
And? If you've got four of them then that's better than a Fighter's chances, and that's (once again) ignoring Stunning Strikes which you can also do on top, meaning you may not need to pour extra attacks into it at all and can do even more than just break their concentration.
No, you're being told that Monks have abilities other than Flurry of Blows, and most of the time Patient Defence is probably better, but that doesn't mean they should never use Flurry of Blows. This seems to the big sticking point with you; you appear to think that for a class to have any value it must have one "best" option that you can spam over and over again until it wins; if that's how you play then your games must be extremely dull.
If the spellcaster is the greatest threat to your party, and you're the only one that can reach it, then high movement, Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike are the most valuable abilities in the game at that moment. Yes it means you might be vulnerable to some counter attacks (though that's assuming the caster is surrounded by bodyguards), but if it means interrupting a spell that's worse than (possibly) taking some hits, then that's the trade off that you make.
That's what versatility is; the ability to what will benefit the party most in a given situation. Extra damage is worthless if a caster is the biggest threat on the field and all you can do is take out a regular enemy or two a little bit faster.
My apologies; I appear to have mistakenly assumed you knew how Concentration worked since you're the one who seems to know everything about why Monks are bad at breaking it. It ends when you're incapacitated, that clear things up for you?
Everything ranged requires line of sight, and can be limited by cover, as well as made even harder with Shield, Absorb Elements and other spells. Meanwhile spells can be ended entirely with Counterspell. If you're going to raise things that you believe to be "100%" options, try taking the two seconds required to properly consider them.
This is the key problem you seem to have with the concept of versatility; if every battle you play is in an empty room where everything has a "100%" solution then your games must be insanely boring. And feel free to point out where I've said that Monks are the best for stopping casters, or that no other class can do it. Go on, I'll wait, though it's going to be a long time as all I've done is point out why Monks are good at it; it's not the only thing they can do, nor is it the only thing they're good at.
You know, versatility, that concept you either can't, or refuse, to grasp. And the silliest part is that you're arguing in their favour without realising it.
One minute you're attacking the Monk for not disengaging for free like a Rogue, then for not doing quite as much damage as a Fighter, then for not having as many abilities as a caster has spells, or having to use Patient Defence to tank etc. etc., but all you're doing is highlighting the sheer range of capabilities they can switch between; it doesn't matter if Rogues can disengage "for free", Monks being able to do it is still valuable, and it's on top of a bunch of other abilities that Rogue do not have.
If you assume a party of five players, with a Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard and Bard/Cleric, the Monk's abilities mean they can infiltrate or flank alongside the Rogue, fight and/or tank with the warrior, rush to a caster's aid or neutralise enemy casters, and that's on top of their own tricks and unique abilities, which makes them a perfect complement to most parties. Hell, you can build a party of all Monks (ideally of different sub-classes) and be able to cope with just about any situation that can be thrown at you; it's a very versatile class, it also multi-classes extremely well (as that all Monk party would lack a little on healing, but you can always have one or more party member multi-class as their choice of Cleric).
No I haven't, I've listed plenty of others which you've ignored, but I guess we're at the inevitable stage of all "discussions" with you where I have to remind you that if you want to argue an issue then you actually have to read what other people say, otherwise you're only arguing with yourself.
As always, you're wrong on this issue because you seem incapable of understanding that D&D isn't a game where there's only one solution to everything and a class has to be "best" at one thing to have any value. If you'd like to understand why you're wrong on this, go back and actually read mine and Jhfffan's posts, though we all know you won't (as you've demonstrated you haven't read or thought about them the first time either).
This is why I accused you of trolling; maybe that's genuinely not your goal, but when you argue points while refusing to listen to anyone else's the end result is the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mixed up stunned and paralyzed, I'll own that. The math on stunning strike's low success rate has to do with monster's average con save modifiers. By levels 8 and 9, that average is jumping from 4 to 9. That moves an optimized stunning strike save from hitting around 50% for 3 or 4 levels to about 25% for the rest of the game. And I can focus on the small fries, or burn through ki points to try and land a stunning strike on something bigger, but that is drawing a lot off of a limited resource for what is essentially a less effective "hold person/monster" spell.
Stunning strike is a fun ability, but its not really an equal trade-off for being less well rounded as a melee character.
What on earth are you comparing against? If you're assuming a level 10-ish Monk (DC 16-17) you'd need to be fighting CR 20+ type creatures to get the chance down to 25%, in which case sure, that should absolutely be difficult. But you're not going to find a Hold spell much more effective, as various monsters in that range can just as easily have high Wisdom saves instead or in addition, and you can only attempt the hold spell once per turn, wasting an entire turn if it fails.
Besides which, it doesn't need to be an either/or; if you've got a caster with a hold spell then use both, or whichever one is more likely to get through against each specific monster.
This is also assuming that all your fights are against big high level monsters, rather than several smaller ones, mixed groups of bandits/guards/whatever and so-on, and even if they are all against big monsters, stunning them for even a single round is an even bigger deal, so you should absolutely consider spending the Ki to do it if you need to (e.g- someone is in a bad way, or you just want to get in as much as damage from the whole party as possible). You're also suddenly switching to big high CON monsters, when a lot of the discussion was about stunning casters, who don't tend to have huge CON.
This is another case where you seem to be trying to stack the odds in favour of your arguments, because you know they don't work otherwise. If we go that route then anyone easily do the same, here's one; you're in a room filling with acid, the only exit is 80 feet away and you've got one round to escape before you die. Have fun with that.
Besides, no-one is saying that a Monk can stunning strike everything they encounter with 100% reliability. As always it is just one part of their versatility, one feature they can use when they want/need to, one of which is speed, you know, what the topic is about.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Haravikk suggested you would need to be fighting level CR20+ for stunning strike to have a 25% success rate and certainly if you play combats if level 8-9 characters playing CR20 monsters (probably played sub-optimally so you don't always TPK) that is correct but let me look into whether that is the case if you are fighting monsters that are intended for such parties.
You say the average con save has jumped to +9, such a monster would fail a DC15 25% of the time. A level 8 character has +3 proficiency and a level 9 character has +4 so this implies the Monk has +3 or +4 Wisdom which is reasonable at this level.
The next question is what con save does the "average" monster that a level 8 or 9 character face. I had a look at all the CR 8 and 9 monsters I might have miscounted but I belive their there are 90 of them, 8 of them have a Con save of +9 or more. So while they do exist it is only a small minority of the monsters you could possibly face. For comparison at the other end of the scale 9 CR 8-9 monsters have a con save +1 or less where a DC15 Con save will fail 65% of the time or more.
With regard to Hold person / Monster 24 CR8-9 monsters have magic resistance so for them the Wis save will be at advantage, and for non-humanoid enemies hold monster is a 5th level spell not available at level 8 and level 9 only have 1 5th level slot, it also uses up the spellcasters action so it is a much bigger resource cost than a single ki point.
For the number of CR 8/9 creatures, are you counting all the named NPC's from multiple sources? Because yes, if you're going to count them, it will make it look as though monsters have basically no con bonus.
But if you look at actual monsters from the monster manual we are talking about varying giants, fiends, and young adult dragons at those levels. Maybe that gets blown out of the water from other source books just breaking with the pattern of high con bonuses at those CRs, but a cursory glance hasn't revealed that to me. I don't have them all though, so I'll set that aside.
In regards to spellcaster control spells, they can upcast hold person/monster to target more than one creature with paralyzation, a stronger effect than stun that can last multiple rounds. They also just have several other options for control like fear, hypnotic patter, wall of force, plant growth, etc. And while their spell slots are limited, so is a monk's ki, which they need for everything.
Anyway we parse it, monk isn't a master of battlefield control, they are the 7th best option in that aspect, perhaps even lower if we include half-casters and certain martial subclasses. Stunning strike alone is not a balanced trade off for being subpar as a martial character. Would monks really go off the rails if they had a d10 hit dice, more ki points, stunning strikes that targeted wisdom, and martial arts die that increased in damage a bit faster? Hardly. They'd be better at doing all the things they are supposedly meant to do, while still not being stronger than other martial classes.