These statements are not mutually exclusive, yet you keep treating them as such; "Monk's don't need to beat everyone" and "Monks can excel" is not contradictory. Until you learn this very basic concept I'm not sure what the point is in continuing.
No, saying monks don't get to exceed other martials at what they do because they are versatile, but that they do also get to exceed... those are conflicting statements. Either monks never get to do defense and offense better than their counterparts, or they do.
No. I've never made such an argument, and never will, nor do I expect will anyone else.
Well you just said I was making up facts when I claimed that monks are the weakest martial fighter before using ki abilities, so you kind of did:
Im just stating facts when I say that before using any of their ki abilities, monk is just the weakest martial class all around.
"Ah, so now your statements are magically "facts" and weakness is whatever you say it is. Would you like to just declare everyone that disagrees with you as heretics and have them burned at the stake next?"
And again you don't seem to understand the very basic concept that you insist on arguing against. Versatility doesn't mean you exceed everyone at everything, so why do you keep demanding that Monks must be something that no-one is arguing that they are?
Versatility doesn't just mean doing everything, but having some capacity to do everything with some competency, or as you say "do well at what you need the most in a given turn.". Otherwise, I could claim to be "versatile" as a kickboxer, Japanese speaker, and mechanic, even though Im equally terrible at all of those things.
If monks were truly versatile, truly a jack of all trades, they would be decent at everything but have a lower ceiling for how far they can excel from there. They wouldn't start off deficient at most everything, with the ability to burn resources to be as good as their counterparts at one thing for a moment.
Being less well-rounded with the option to shore up shortcomings is less versatile than just being more well rounded.
Feel free to actually show your working for once. Make sure you actually account for full round dodges on defence, making four attacks at level 5 etc
We can quibble over exactly how mathematically weaker the monk is before ki abilities, but after mocking me for making up facts, you agreed that it is factually true.
Also, you seem to really not understand that you do have to choose just one of those ki ability options. If you start off weaker in defence and offense, then using a ki ability to improve one of those categories still means being comparatively weaker in the other. Your monk still has less overall ability than others, even if you get to choose to distribute where the deficiency is.
And here we go with the absurd scenarios; can you seriously only conceive of battles in a 30 foot (or smaller) room versus a 200 foot field? Because these aren't scenarios that I or anyone else have argued for.
Battlefield variety means cover, it means obstructions, it means vertical height, it means separate enemy groups rather than one big mob and so-on. Movement is king in actually varied combat encounters, because if you can't get to an enemy, or get to where you can see them, then you can't do much against them.
If your DM just throws you into barren rooms with different enemies, that's not battlefield variety.
There are cases where speed helps the monk enter melee with a chosen target a round earlier. Thats not nothing, but its not game breaking either, and its not going to be every encounter, or even necessarily most or many.
Its a side benefit that doesn't make up for the monk's comparative sacrifices. Even if you feel it is weighted so highly, then the speed enhancing abilities many other classes get access to would once again create a gap. Monks have a little more speed by default, but not much more way to use it than a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or Rogue get to use their extra speed abilities.
So now apparently being able to attack a target when another can't has zero combat benefit?
Every class has some penchant for ranged attacks or speed enhancement. The monk's speed isn't so great that they would straight up be able to attack where no one else could. Not unless we really are talking about battlefields spread out over hundreds of square feet, but that'd be ridiculous.
Flanking is up to your DM, and I'd say actually being able to do damage is a pretty huge damage bonus, and moving does provide defensive bonuses if you take advantage of cover and other obstacles. These are all basic mechanics in the game; if your DM isn't making use of them, then ask them to.
Flanking is optional though, not baked into the game. As I just pointed out and as you seem to agree with (sometimes) a scenario where the monk is literally the only one able to make an attack because the battlefield is so huge is an extreme scenario. And anyone can use cover, and can dash to it if its so vital. As you say, these are base mechanics, so they aren't unique to the monk.
The eagle totem bonus is bad because it's going up against far superior options
So extra speed doesn't compare to more defense, offense, or direct utility towards the team. Great, I am glad we agree.
especially as Barbarians are primarily tanks; when your main goal is to get stuck in and stay there, resistance to all damage or bonuses to allies will of course be more valuable than movement. If it were more movement it might be a different situation, but it's just a really weak bonus compared to far superior options available to that sub-class.
If extra speed is needed to even make contact that first round of combat, or to get to a priority target and put it down, then its just as useful to a barbarian. And dash as a bonus action + imposing disadvantage on opportunity attacks is a solid speed bonus. Its basically Step Of the Wind, but with a different downside than ki point expenditure.
Again you continue to miss the point; for the addition of a single character your party has a fighter, tank, rogue and control options all rolled into one.
Again, you miss the point: any martial class except the rogue is already more versatile in filling those roles merely by being more well rounded. Competing to be the best worst option doesn't recommend the monk. It just makes it a warm body, better than nothing.
I'll say one last thing. This game doesn't need an optimized character. A party with 5 normal characters with a single class and no feats can handle hard and even deadly encounters. And it is SO MUCH MORE FUN when you have a balanced party of just normal characters. Teamwork and tactics become way more important. Also, I've played optimized characters and guess what. They were way less fun. I put so much effort into making a character that I thought was good, I never put any effort into making sure he was fun.
Think about this. If you all have a party of heavily optimized characters, your GM is just going to compensate with higher CR creatures. That does not mean more fun encounters or a more fun session. To be honest, in my opinion optimized characters decrease the overall fun for everyone because there are only a handful of builds that are the best. If you play long enough, you'll see the same stupid characters over and over if all your table is worried about is having the most effective characters possible. If your group likes optimizing, then by all means go crazy and have fun. Personally, I find creating builds that are effective but also in line with a character concept much more engaging. I enjoy tactics more than big numbers and honestly think my games are better for it.
I'm not discouraging people from coming up with powerful and interesting builds, in fact quite the opposite. However, when you don't go in thinking about the most optimal choices the game opens up to so many interesting and effective characters. My shadow monk with mage slayer I mentioned earlier is a great example. I haven't made a single optimal choice but I am having so much fun. Every time I see an NPC cast a spell my eyes light up because I know I'm going to have a really fun encounter trying to shut down that caster. And my character is crazy effective at doing it. That's the kind of character I encourage people to make. Dive into the mechanics, if that's your thing, and come up with something interesting and fun. It doesn't need to be the best option for it to be the most fun option. In my opinion, this game is at its best when you're focused more on making engaging and unique character choices and less about making the best characters.
I'm not saying a barbarian shouldn't go GWM. They probably should. It's very good. But do it because you think the character sounds fun and engaging, not because that's what you're supposed to do be effective. A regular old barbarian is still a very good character. If you'd rather beef up stats or take a less OP feat, do it. You'll love it.
Lastly, avoid the internet like the plague when it comes to making a character. The internet has all sorts of crappy opinions (hi). Just open the book, read the lore and mechanics, and make that character you think will be awesome. I promise you it will be. Someone on the internet will always tell you that your character sucks because it's not a Warlock/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin combo that can do 250 damage in a round. F those guys.
When I first got into D&D I joined a group of veterans and we decided to roll for stats. My buddy had pretty crappy rolls and made a gnome monk. He was a D&D veteran and made objectively bad choices. At the time, small race monks did less damage on their hand to hand attacks so this was an awful decision. Guess who was consistently doing the coolest shit at the table and having the most fun. That guy. He didn't care about the best choices, he cared about fun choices. It's a good lesson.
I just wanted to say that I actually think you provided the best balanced look at the monk and had some good insights into the class as you played it.
I agree with your points and I think that people may want to argue these small aspects to death but the real question is: "Are you having fun?"
If the answer is no then look for a change.
However, I for one wanted to thank you for the honesty you shared!
A rogue with a bow is nothing to sneeze at, and every class is capable of melee damage. I think your idea of what constitutes a "martial class" is terribly overbroad. But enough of that.
Martial classes are just the ones that focus on using weaponry. Its accepted lingo in the dnd community, Im not just making it up.
What in the Nine Hells does "solid role play and combat benefits" mean? Do you think the monk isn't capable of being roleplayed well? Well, I have news for you, Buster Brown. Roleplaying isn't done by the class. It's done by the player. And do you honestly still think there are no combat benefits?
I didn't even critique the Monk in terms of roleplay, I just praised the Rogue. So chill out. And yeah, proficiency in a half dozen skills, expertise, and eventually getting reliable talent does benefit Rogues' role play, or at least their social interactions. That doesn't mean monk can't be fun to roleplay.
As for combat benefits, when did I say the monk gets "no combat benefits?" Again, you are making some dank strawmen. But I did compare the things that monks can do to the Rogues' sneak attack and cunning action, and I don't see how its crazy to say that the rogue's abilities come out on top. You basically get the equivalent of a better Step of the Wind and a more powerful damage ability than Flurry of Blows, but they are free. If you think those are good monk abilities, I don't see how you aren't stuck admitting that making them cost nothing makes them better.
Look, at some point, you're going to have to reevaluate your life choices. If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is about whether or not the monk is a viable class option. And the answer is a resounding yes. So, it's time to pack it in.
Lol, you're acting like Im defending something awful like holocaust denialism. I agree monks are viable, Im just pointing out that they among the weakest options and could be better.
I'm actually flabbergasted. You come within a hair's breadth of invoking Godwin's Law and have the audacity to accuse me of making "dank strawmen".
I'll say one last thing. This game doesn't need an optimized character. A party with 5 normal characters with a single class and no feats can handle hard and even deadly encounters. And it is SO MUCH MORE FUN when you have a balanced party of just normal characters. Teamwork and tactics become way more important. Also, I've played optimized characters and guess what. They were way less fun. I put so much effort into making a character that I thought was good, I never put any effort into making sure he was fun.
Think about this. If you all have a party of heavily optimized characters, your GM is just going to compensate with higher CR creatures. That does not mean more fun encounters or a more fun session. To be honest, in my opinion optimized characters decrease the overall fun for everyone because there are only a handful of builds that are the best. If you play long enough, you'll see the same stupid characters over and over if all your table is worried about is having the most effective characters possible. If your group likes optimizing, then by all means go crazy and have fun. Personally, I find creating builds that are effective but also in line with a character concept much more engaging. I enjoy tactics more than big numbers and honestly think my games are better for it.
I'm not discouraging people from coming up with powerful and interesting builds, in fact quite the opposite. However, when you don't go in thinking about the most optimal choices the game opens up to so many interesting and effective characters. My shadow monk with mage slayer I mentioned earlier is a great example. I haven't made a single optimal choice but I am having so much fun. Every time I see an NPC cast a spell my eyes light up because I know I'm going to have a really fun encounter trying to shut down that caster. And my character is crazy effective at doing it. That's the kind of character I encourage people to make. Dive into the mechanics, if that's your thing, and come up with something interesting and fun. It doesn't need to be the best option for it to be the most fun option. In my opinion, this game is at its best when you're focused more on making engaging and unique character choices and less about making the best characters.
I'm not saying a barbarian shouldn't go GWM. They probably should. It's very good. But do it because you think the character sounds fun and engaging, not because that's what you're supposed to do be effective. A regular old barbarian is still a very good character. If you'd rather beef up stats or take a less OP feat, do it. You'll love it.
Lastly, avoid the internet like the plague when it comes to making a character. The internet has all sorts of crappy opinions (hi). Just open the book, read the lore and mechanics, and make that character you think will be awesome. I promise you it will be. Someone on the internet will always tell you that your character sucks because it's not a Warlock/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin combo that can do 250 damage in a round. F those guys.
When I first got into D&D I joined a group of veterans and we decided to roll for stats. My buddy had pretty crappy rolls and made a gnome monk. He was a D&D veteran and made objectively bad choices. At the time, small race monks did less damage on their hand to hand attacks so this was an awful decision. Guess who was consistently doing the coolest shit at the table and having the most fun. That guy. He didn't care about the best choices, he cared about fun choices. It's a good lesson.
I just wanted to say that I actually think you provided the best balanced look at the monk and had some good insights into the class as you played it.
I agree with your points and I think that people may want to argue these small aspects to death but the real question is: "Are you having fun?"
If the answer is no then look for a change.
However, I for one wanted to thank you for the honesty you shared!
You're welcome! Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it!
I think the fun of a class comes in what it's not good at, instead of what it is good at. That's what creates the space for collaborative play. All the classes in 5e can be very "versatile," so it comes down to how you play rather than what you play. Figuring out how to work best with the other people at the table is the point of this game.
More people should try to do what Lehrer describes: make objectively bad decisions in rolling up your character. Try it in a one shot some time.
The Monk is great because it's easy to see how to create engaging flawed characters. The core of the Monk is that they fight without using a lot of equipment. You can be a naked screaming madman, a refined noble who won't lower himself to touching any weapon, a mystic who doesn't believe in "ownership of things". Stuff like this will make for a memorable and fun to play character.
I think the fun of a class comes in what it's not good at, instead of what it is good at. That's what creates the space for collaborative play. All the classes in 5e can be very "versatile," so it comes down to how you play rather than what you play. Figuring out how to work best with the other people at the table is the point of this game.
More people should try to do what Lehrer describes: make objectively bad decisions in rolling up your character. Try it in a one shot some time.
The Monk is great because it's easy to see how to create engaging flawed characters. The core of the Monk is that they fight without using a lot of equipment. You can be a naked screaming madman, a refined noble who won't lower himself to touching any weapon, a mystic who doesn't believe in "ownership of things". Stuff like this will make for a memorable and fun to play character.
Yeah the fact they are "always on" regardless of equipment is pretty damn cool.
I love playing monks for the feel of being always ready or at least 1 short rest away from being back to full.
That being said I've never felt overtly powerful... More ready to get down whenever.
>mfw I find the perfect flame war to match the thread title
Since monks are meant to be masters of both mind and body, I would allow monks at my table to:
Use a d10 Hit Die, because it's humorous that such honed machines would fare worse than a fighter
Have two starting proficiencies in savings throws of their choice – STR and DEX makes little sense for a lot of Monks and I struggle to reconcile that individuals who have typically dedicated so much of their lives to mastering thought, notions of the self, as well as discipline and self-control (as many monks do IRL), that they wouldn't have some resilience of the mind.
Have two starting proficiencies in savings throws of their choice – STR and DEX makes little sense for a lot of Monks and I struggle to reconcile that individuals who have typically dedicated so much of their lives to mastering thought, notions of the self, as well as discipline and self-control (as many monks do IRL), that they wouldn't have some resilience of the mind.
This is one of the few things I would actually change; I've often thought it would make more sense for a Monk's save proficiencies to be DEX and WIS, as this emphasises dodging and mental fortitude. It's arguably stronger than other class save proficiencies as these are both "major" saves, as a lot of stuff tests against DEX and WIS, but if people want to keep arguing that Monks are bad, while I'll absolutely disagree with them every time, I'm not going to say no to boosts. 😉
On my current Monk I multi-classed with War Domain Cleric, and ended up going for the cleric save proficiencies (WIS and CHA), then took Resilient for the DEX save because with the split I'm going for I probably won't get diamond soul (proficiency in all saves). Though this is in a campaign starting at level 3 with a free feat; otherwise I probably would have asked my DM for DEX/WIS proficiency and just edited the sheet.
The other thing I've always found strange with the Monk is a lack of access to fighting styles; some don't fit but quite a few do like Archery, Duelling, Great Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting, with many encouraging more unusual weapon choices for a Monk which would have been good. Of course that would make Monks even stronger at early levels if they got it right away, but it might have made sense to be something they got later on (suggesting them specialising later). Of course with UA fighting styles feats we can take these if we want, but it comes back to the smaller number of ability score increases, though it does mean more competition with Mobile.
Again though, I don't consider these to be deficiencies with the Monk class, just somewhat strange design decisions.
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.
Have two starting proficiencies in savings throws of their choice – STR and DEX makes little sense for a lot of Monks and I struggle to reconcile that individuals who have typically dedicated so much of their lives to mastering thought, notions of the self, as well as discipline and self-control (as many monks do IRL), that they wouldn't have some resilience of the mind.
This is one of the few things I would actually change; I've often thought it would make more sense for a Monk's save proficiencies to be DEX and WIS, as this emphasises dodging and mental fortitude. It's arguably stronger than other class save proficiencies as these are both "major" saves, as a lot of stuff tests against DEX and WIS, but if people want to keep arguing that Monks are bad, while I'll absolutely disagree with them every time, I'm not going to say no to boosts. 😉
On my current Monk I multi-classed with War Domain Cleric, and ended up going for the cleric save proficiencies (WIS and CHA), then took Resilient for the DEX save because with the split I'm going for I probably won't get diamond soul (proficiency in all saves). Though this is in a campaign starting at level 3 with a free feat; otherwise I probably would have asked my DM for DEX/WIS proficiency and just edited the sheet.
The other thing I've always found strange with the Monk is a lack of access to fighting styles; some don't fit but quite a few do like Archery, Duelling, Great Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting, with many encouraging more unusual weapon choices for a Monk which would have been good. Of course that would make Monks even stronger at early levels if they got it right away, but it might have made sense to be something they got later on (suggesting them specialising later). Of course with UA fighting styles feats we can take these if we want, but it comes back to the smaller number of ability score increases, though it does mean more competition with Mobile.
Again though, I don't consider these to be deficiencies with the Monk class, just somewhat strange design decisions.
I would actually like to see them get to pick STR or DEX as their key stat. If you pick STR just replace anywhere it says DEX with STR. I've tested this a few times for 1 shots but I would like to see how it handles for longer games.
Is it though? An optimised Monk should be able to have 16 AC right away, which is equivalent to a Fighter/Paladin etc. wearing starter heavy armour. Okay, so they can go to 18 AC with a shield, or 19 AC with a shield and a fighting style, but they're doing that in place of other options.
So they can have maybe +3 AC on you at the start, but you get Patient Defence, which makes your AC effectively higher (disadvantage vs AC 16 is much better than AC 19); while they might get better armour over time, as you level up you'll be boosting your AC as well with each step in Dexterity and Wisdom (up to 20 AC) and more and more Ki to spend on Patient Defence if you need it. And that's not accounting for not being attacked in the first place (using mobility to not be within range to be hit, using stunning strike to prevent any return attacks etc.).
It can be a risky way to play, but overall I think Monks stack up just fine even against that one player whose character is no longer visible beneath a mountain of enchanted metal. If your DM is giving them magic armour and/or shields then you should be getting [Tooltip Not Found] and/or [Tooltip Not Found] or similar. While you'll still be a bit behind overall, Patient Defence and being out of range will still be better overall than a higher AC.
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.
Is it though? An optimised Monk should be able to have 16 AC right away, which is equivalent to a Fighter/Paladin etc. wearing starter heavy armour. Okay, so they can go to 18 AC with a shield, or 19 AC with a shield and a fighting style, but they're doing that in place of other options.
So they can have maybe +3 AC on you at the start, but you get Patient Defence, which makes your AC effectively higher (disadvantage vs AC 16 is much better than AC 19); while they might get better armour over time, as you level up you'll be boosting your AC as well with each step in Dexterity and Wisdom (up to 20 AC) and more and more Ki to spend on Patient Defence if you need it. And that's not accounting for not being attacked in the first place (using mobility to not be within range to be hit, using stunning strike to prevent any return attacks etc.).
It can be a risky way to play, but overall I think Monks stack up just fine even against that one player whose character is no longer visible beneath a mountain of enchanted metal. If your DM is giving them magic armour and/or shields then you should be getting [Tooltip Not Found] and/or [Tooltip Not Found] or similar. While you'll still be a bit behind overall, Patient Defence and being out of range will still be better overall than a higher AC.
I was referring to the previous comment about a strength based Monk.
Even an unoptimized monk with just a +2 modifier in both Dex and Wis has an AC of 14, the same as an optimized rogue. Heck, a Hill Dwarf with the standard array can easily have 15s in Dex, Con, and Wis.
I was referring to the previous comment about a strength based Monk.
Oh sorry, ignore me in that case!
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.
Tortle is the only way I can think of to make a viable strength based monk off the top of my head. But some build throwing a few points in dex as a 3rd stat could probably scrape by in early levels. After 8, the AC might really start to feel insufficient though.
Tortle is the only way I can think of to make a viable strength based monk off the top of my head. But some build throwing a few points in dex as a 3rd stat could probably scrape by in early levels. After 8, the AC might really start to feel insufficient though.
Sad STR monk is terrible. I was saying you give the option to replace STR in the AC equation for AC. Ultimately it's not going to change anything as Dex is still better overall.
Tortle is the only way I can think of to make a viable strength based monk off the top of my head. But some build throwing a few points in dex as a 3rd stat could probably scrape by in early levels. After 8, the AC might really start to feel insufficient though.
Sad STR monk is terrible. I was saying you give the option to replace STR in the AC equation for AC. Ultimately it's not going to change anything as Dex is still better overall.
I wonder how a few levels of barbarian would play with a strength based monk? That'd be fun to roleplay, and rage and reckless attack on a monk could be awesome.
I wonder how a few levels of barbarian would play with a strength based monk? That'd be fun to roleplay, and rage and reckless attack on a monk could be awesome.
The difficulty with not taking good Dexterity on both Monks and Barbarians is you need it for both forms of Unarmored Defence, and if you take armour or a shield instead through multi-classing then you lose a lot of your Monk abilities.
I've seen the opposite way around with people multi-classing into Monk as Barbarians a few times, but it's usually as part of a high Dexterity unarmored Barbarian taking a few levels in Monk to get the bonus attack, some speed, some Ki abilities.
Doing it the other way around, if you build a normal Dexterity Monk then add two or three levels in Barbarian to get Rage, Reckless Attack and maybe a sub-class ability can definitely work.
Where it's interesting in both is that a Monk can choose to use Strength to attack with even if it's a worse stat for them, so you could just Strength attack as a kind of knock-off Great Weapon Master, i.e- Rage for extra Strength damage, take a lower chance to hit, add Reckless to hit anyway, gain the extra damage, then optionally use Patient Defence to counter enemy advantage against you.
Both versions should be a lot of fun to play though. Monks in general can multi-class really well:
Monk + Fighter is good if you don't have a Fighter in the party (or just want to hit stuff more), plus you can take a Fighting Style to support more unusual Monk weapon choices (two weapons, one handed, ranged etc.) or great weapon fighting for the classic two-handed quarterstaff or spear. Slinky_the_Wonder_Ferret in the Kensei thread shared a Kensei/Samurai build that looked very fun to play.
Monk + Cleric is a current favourite of mine as Clerics pick a domain at level 1 so you can get a lot out of it with just one or two levels. My current main character is Kensei + War Domain, which gives War Priest (limited bonus action weapon attack ideal for longbow use), Divine Favor and Shield of Faith, cantrips and for a 2nd level in War Domain level will give Guided Strike (channel divinity giving +10 to hit).
Monk + Druid can be great as I believe it's been confirmed most of the Monk abilities work even when wildshaped. Even if they didn't, Druid has a great select of mixed elemental casting, ideal for building a more magic focused Way of the Four Elements hybrid (plus you get to pick a different Monk sub-class as part of that).
Monk + Ranger also seems like it could be really good. All flavours can stack extra damage onto the Monk side, and Hunter/Monster Hunter and Gloom Stalker all go further in various ways. Horizon Walker could also be a lot of fun, especially combined with Way of Shadow because why not have multiple ways to teleport?
Monk + Rogue can work well too due to them both being Dexterity oriented, and Cunning Action effectively makes Step of the Wind free, while Monk makes you faster than ever. The trade off is a ceiling on sneak attack damage but two attacks to means you're less likely to miss, and more speed makes you more likely to get that sneak attack where you need it. Add Mobile into the mix and you can rush in, sneak attack and hide in the shadows in a single round, or if that fails you're a Rogue that can stab someone in the neck then tank their bodyguards.
And those are just the ones I've thought about myself, I'm sure there are other more unusual ones.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is why I don't typically make forum posts lol. They all just end up devolving into petty arguments.
No, saying monks don't get to exceed other martials at what they do because they are versatile, but that they do also get to exceed... those are conflicting statements. Either monks never get to do defense and offense better than their counterparts, or they do.
Well you just said I was making up facts when I claimed that monks are the weakest martial fighter before using ki abilities, so you kind of did:
"Ah, so now your statements are magically "facts" and weakness is whatever you say it is. Would you like to just declare everyone that disagrees with you as heretics and have them burned at the stake next?"
Versatility doesn't just mean doing everything, but having some capacity to do everything with some competency, or as you say "do well at what you need the most in a given turn.". Otherwise, I could claim to be "versatile" as a kickboxer, Japanese speaker, and mechanic, even though Im equally terrible at all of those things.
If monks were truly versatile, truly a jack of all trades, they would be decent at everything but have a lower ceiling for how far they can excel from there. They wouldn't start off deficient at most everything, with the ability to burn resources to be as good as their counterparts at one thing for a moment.
Being less well-rounded with the option to shore up shortcomings is less versatile than just being more well rounded.
We can quibble over exactly how mathematically weaker the monk is before ki abilities, but after mocking me for making up facts, you agreed that it is factually true.
Also, you seem to really not understand that you do have to choose just one of those ki ability options. If you start off weaker in defence and offense, then using a ki ability to improve one of those categories still means being comparatively weaker in the other. Your monk still has less overall ability than others, even if you get to choose to distribute where the deficiency is.
There are cases where speed helps the monk enter melee with a chosen target a round earlier. Thats not nothing, but its not game breaking either, and its not going to be every encounter, or even necessarily most or many.
Its a side benefit that doesn't make up for the monk's comparative sacrifices. Even if you feel it is weighted so highly, then the speed enhancing abilities many other classes get access to would once again create a gap. Monks have a little more speed by default, but not much more way to use it than a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or Rogue get to use their extra speed abilities.
Every class has some penchant for ranged attacks or speed enhancement. The monk's speed isn't so great that they would straight up be able to attack where no one else could. Not unless we really are talking about battlefields spread out over hundreds of square feet, but that'd be ridiculous.
Flanking is optional though, not baked into the game. As I just pointed out and as you seem to agree with (sometimes) a scenario where the monk is literally the only one able to make an attack because the battlefield is so huge is an extreme scenario. And anyone can use cover, and can dash to it if its so vital. As you say, these are base mechanics, so they aren't unique to the monk.
So extra speed doesn't compare to more defense, offense, or direct utility towards the team. Great, I am glad we agree.
If extra speed is needed to even make contact that first round of combat, or to get to a priority target and put it down, then its just as useful to a barbarian. And dash as a bonus action + imposing disadvantage on opportunity attacks is a solid speed bonus. Its basically Step Of the Wind, but with a different downside than ki point expenditure.
Again, you miss the point: any martial class except the rogue is already more versatile in filling those roles merely by being more well rounded. Competing to be the best worst option doesn't recommend the monk. It just makes it a warm body, better than nothing.
You're not wrong, and Im not innocent of it.
I just wanted to say that I actually think you provided the best balanced look at the monk and had some good insights into the class as you played it.
I agree with your points and I think that people may want to argue these small aspects to death but the real question is: "Are you having fun?"
If the answer is no then look for a change.
However, I for one wanted to thank you for the honesty you shared!
I'm actually flabbergasted. You come within a hair's breadth of invoking Godwin's Law and have the audacity to accuse me of making "dank strawmen".
I'm not only blocking you. I'm reporting you.
You're welcome! Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it!
I think the fun of a class comes in what it's not good at, instead of what it is good at. That's what creates the space for collaborative play. All the classes in 5e can be very "versatile," so it comes down to how you play rather than what you play. Figuring out how to work best with the other people at the table is the point of this game.
More people should try to do what Lehrer describes: make objectively bad decisions in rolling up your character. Try it in a one shot some time.
The Monk is great because it's easy to see how to create engaging flawed characters. The core of the Monk is that they fight without using a lot of equipment. You can be a naked screaming madman, a refined noble who won't lower himself to touching any weapon, a mystic who doesn't believe in "ownership of things". Stuff like this will make for a memorable and fun to play character.
Yeah the fact they are "always on" regardless of equipment is pretty damn cool.
I love playing monks for the feel of being always ready or at least 1 short rest away from being back to full.
That being said I've never felt overtly powerful... More ready to get down whenever.
>mfw I find the perfect flame war to match the thread title
Since monks are meant to be masters of both mind and body, I would allow monks at my table to:
This is one of the few things I would actually change; I've often thought it would make more sense for a Monk's save proficiencies to be DEX and WIS, as this emphasises dodging and mental fortitude. It's arguably stronger than other class save proficiencies as these are both "major" saves, as a lot of stuff tests against DEX and WIS, but if people want to keep arguing that Monks are bad, while I'll absolutely disagree with them every time, I'm not going to say no to boosts. 😉
On my current Monk I multi-classed with War Domain Cleric, and ended up going for the cleric save proficiencies (WIS and CHA), then took Resilient for the DEX save because with the split I'm going for I probably won't get diamond soul (proficiency in all saves). Though this is in a campaign starting at level 3 with a free feat; otherwise I probably would have asked my DM for DEX/WIS proficiency and just edited the sheet.
The other thing I've always found strange with the Monk is a lack of access to fighting styles; some don't fit but quite a few do like Archery, Duelling, Great Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting, with many encouraging more unusual weapon choices for a Monk which would have been good. Of course that would make Monks even stronger at early levels if they got it right away, but it might have made sense to be something they got later on (suggesting them specialising later). Of course with UA fighting styles feats we can take these if we want, but it comes back to the smaller number of ability score increases, though it does mean more competition with Mobile.
Again though, I don't consider these to be deficiencies with the Monk class, just somewhat strange design decisions.
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 would actually like to see them get to pick STR or DEX as their key stat. If you pick STR just replace anywhere it says DEX with STR. I've tested this a few times for 1 shots but I would like to see how it handles for longer games.
The only major issue is AC.
Is it though? An optimised Monk should be able to have 16 AC right away, which is equivalent to a Fighter/Paladin etc. wearing starter heavy armour. Okay, so they can go to 18 AC with a shield, or 19 AC with a shield and a fighting style, but they're doing that in place of other options.
So they can have maybe +3 AC on you at the start, but you get Patient Defence, which makes your AC effectively higher (disadvantage vs AC 16 is much better than AC 19); while they might get better armour over time, as you level up you'll be boosting your AC as well with each step in Dexterity and Wisdom (up to 20 AC) and more and more Ki to spend on Patient Defence if you need it. And that's not accounting for not being attacked in the first place (using mobility to not be within range to be hit, using stunning strike to prevent any return attacks etc.).
It can be a risky way to play, but overall I think Monks stack up just fine even against that one player whose character is no longer visible beneath a mountain of enchanted metal. If your DM is giving them magic armour and/or shields then you should be getting [Tooltip Not Found] and/or [Tooltip Not Found] or similar. While you'll still be a bit behind overall, Patient Defence and being out of range will still be better overall than a higher AC.
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 was referring to the previous comment about a strength based Monk.
Even an unoptimized monk with just a +2 modifier in both Dex and Wis has an AC of 14, the same as an optimized rogue. Heck, a Hill Dwarf with the standard array can easily have 15s in Dex, Con, and Wis.
Oh sorry, ignore me in that case!
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.
Tortle is the only way I can think of to make a viable strength based monk off the top of my head. But some build throwing a few points in dex as a 3rd stat could probably scrape by in early levels. After 8, the AC might really start to feel insufficient though.
Sad STR monk is terrible. I was saying you give the option to replace STR in the AC equation for AC. Ultimately it's not going to change anything as Dex is still better overall.
I wonder how a few levels of barbarian would play with a strength based monk? That'd be fun to roleplay, and rage and reckless attack on a monk could be awesome.
The difficulty with not taking good Dexterity on both Monks and Barbarians is you need it for both forms of Unarmored Defence, and if you take armour or a shield instead through multi-classing then you lose a lot of your Monk abilities.
I've seen the opposite way around with people multi-classing into Monk as Barbarians a few times, but it's usually as part of a high Dexterity unarmored Barbarian taking a few levels in Monk to get the bonus attack, some speed, some Ki abilities.
Doing it the other way around, if you build a normal Dexterity Monk then add two or three levels in Barbarian to get Rage, Reckless Attack and maybe a sub-class ability can definitely work.
Where it's interesting in both is that a Monk can choose to use Strength to attack with even if it's a worse stat for them, so you could just Strength attack as a kind of knock-off Great Weapon Master, i.e- Rage for extra Strength damage, take a lower chance to hit, add Reckless to hit anyway, gain the extra damage, then optionally use Patient Defence to counter enemy advantage against you.
Both versions should be a lot of fun to play though. Monks in general can multi-class really well:
And those are just the ones I've thought about myself, I'm sure there are other more unusual ones.
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.