Monks don't have proficiencies, or the spare stat points, to be good in social interactions. With their wisdom they could be okay in exploration, although you'd have to build for that. In combat they're okay, but not spectacular.
I wouldn't say they're no good at all; Monks favour Dexterity and Wisdom which gives them a good mix of out of combat skills they're decent at (or good at, with proficiency). That said, it would be nice if they had something extra, or if the game didn't force the use of Charisma by default for Persuasion; as a DM I'm happy to let players use Intelligence or Wisdom if their character is giving an intellectual or wise argument (rather than just asking real nicely with a few shirt buttons undone or whatever).
But in 5e ability score swapping is an optional rule, it should really be the default.
In combat keeping units close enough together for mutual support is beneficial, so having a 'skirmisher' running off on their own isn't helping anyone, and Monk isn't doing enough damage to cause an enemy to focus on them. Since there's no 'aggro' mechanic in D&D enemies can just ignore the Monk and attack either the '"squishy" but powerful casters, or less squishy but also less powerful fighters if they feel like it.
This depends a lot on where fights take place; if you've got an enemy caster then having the Monk rush off to flurry their concentration to pieces (and impose disadvantage on ranged attacks etc.) is a perfectly good thing to do, with or without voluntary aggro from the DM. A Monk typically has enough speed that if trying to single out an enemy means exposing an ally, they can be back to help again within a turn.
The problem for Monks is that the meta in most groups doesn't support mobility much at all; especially when you see discussions online the assumption always seems to be either a 30 foot featureless killbox, or a shooting gallery exactly as long as the ideal range required to "win" the argument. But with nice mixed battlefields with cover, elevations, different enemy types of varying threat level etc., a Monks' speed can be very useful.
In 5e Wizards of the Coast did very little to push that kind of variety though; even a lot of their example and adventure module fights don't do a good job of it, which makes 99% of fights boring without extra work by the DM.
Stunning Strike spam is probably not good for the game, but it's basically all the Monk brings to the fight. Nerfing it, as the latest 1D&D UA does, leaves Monk even further out in the cold.
It's definitely not good for the game; it led to Wizards of the Coast crippling the Monk and nerfing its most promising sub-classes, and at worst it wastes Ki, and at best it trivialises fights by leaving a big boss unable to act, draining their legendary resistances, or both.
Nerfing them even further in the playtest is insane, when the real problem is that Stunning Strike should never have been a 5th-level feature with only a single saving throw required. The earliest spell that can inflict stunned is contagion, a 5th-level spell (so minimum 9th-level) and that requires hitting followed by three failed Constitution saving throws, then damage, otherwise you're looking at divine word or symbol for a single failed save as a 7th-level spell (so 13th-level minimum), but divine word requires the target to have 30 hit-points or less (so basically dead already at that level) and symbol requires setup and is indiscriminate.
While Stunning Strike probably should be nerfed to some extent, it also needs replacing with something else earlier on, or a choice of abilities. I'd like to see some kind of core build-up mechanic along with a second bonus action later on for scaling. I've posted the specifics to its own thread.
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.
Not sure where this is coming from. 2d10 is usually calculated as 10-12dpr. Magical damage too, that doesn't' require a magical weapon.
I'll also note that fighter's can't throw a javelin as a second attack because of weapon juggling, though I'd allow as per rule of cool.
Also, rogue has a neat niche here with sneak attack, but they can't use longbows or heavy crossbows naturally.
But this gets to the point that the caster is doing as much damage or more than a heavy crossbow for free, while martials just can't compete without feats or spending resources like martial arts dice. And that is without spending spell slots. No martial can really keep up in ranged combat with a fireball or the utility of a wall of force.
Ranged martials can have consistency, but unless a fight is drawn out to be several minutes long, its not consistently large enough damage or control to matter. Not without feats upping the damage, or some other limited resource giving control abilities.
Which to get back to the monk, makes the scenario of a battlefield where their speed matters not that impressive for them. Especially if you think strength based martials with crossbows will still do as much damage as monks and casters.
Not sure where this is coming from. 2d10 is usually calculated as 10-12dpr. Magical damage too, that doesn't' require a magical weapon.
You are right, it is 11DPR if you hit. I mistakenly used Chill Touch, which is 9 if you hit. With AC15 you will hit 65% of the time and crit 5% of the time.
With Firebolt it is actually 7.7 DPR vs AC15, I would change the numbers above but for some reason I can't edit the post.
The point still stands the Wizard is doing lower than a melee fighter or Rogue using a heavy crossbow at every range EXCEPT between 100 and 120 feet and as you alluded to that is without a magic weapon.
I'll also note that fighter's can't throw a javelin as a second attack because of weapon juggling, though I'd allow as per rule of cool.
Absolutely he can as long as he is holding one of them at the start of the turn (or if he has the thrown weapon fighting style). If he isn't holding one of them then this only matters for the first turn of combat
Also, rogue has a neat niche here with sneak attack, but they can't use longbows or heavy crossbows naturally.
Absolutely they can use them. RAW there is no requirement for proficiency to get sneak attack and the numbers for the Rogue assume NO PROFICIENCY.
But this gets to the point that the caster is doing as much damage or more than a heavy crossbow for free, while martials just can't compete without feats or spending resources like martial arts dice. And that is without spending spell slots.
He is doing no damage for free beyond 120 feet and more damage for free below 100 feet and this is a melee-optimized fighter.
This post was a response to the observation that melee fighters could not keep up in terms of damage at range.
Your point about spell slots is noted, but there are a ton of caveats that go into this:
1. At 5th level there are very few damaging spells with a Range of more than 120 feet. Fireball is the only one I can even think of offhand, of any class. I don't believe there are any cantrip, 1st or 2nd level Wizard spells that do damage and go that far.
2. Assuming Fireball is the only one, this presumes you have it prepared, which means you gave up other more powerful spells to prepare it.
3. You can only do it twice a day.
3. You can only
Ranged martials can have consistency, but unless a fight is drawn out to be several minutes long, its not consistently large enough damage or control to matter. Not without feats upping the damage, or some other limited resource giving control abilities.
I was comparing ranged attacks from melee martials, not ranged martials. Give a fighter a longbow and archery and the numbers are a lot better than what I posted above.
Range martials will outdamage all casters except Warlocks at range by a country mile.
As I pointed out above a Wizard with firebolt and 18 intelligence is doing 7.7DPR inside 120 feet. A fighter with 18 dex and a longbow and archery fighting style is doing 11.6. A fighter with darts and thrown weapon fighting and dual wielding will do 14.5. Those numbers are not even optimized for the martials and in this discussion keep in mind that the damage rolled is not the damage delivered doing more damage in smaller amounts in multiple attacks will result in more damage delivered over the course of the day than a single attack delivered in one shot.
Yes a Wizard can throw spells, but over the course of a normal adventuring day (about 25 turns) the martial is going to do a lot more total damage to enemies, even without optimizing.
Which to get back to the monk, makes the scenario of a battlefield where their speed matters not that impressive for them. Especially if you think strength based martials with crossbows will still do as much damage as monks and casters.
At level 4-16, a Monk with a heavy crossbow will typically outdamge a melee-oriented fighter with that same heavy crossbow even without proficiency because his dexterity is usually significantly higher. A Monk with a Shortbow, Light Crossbow or Longbow will outdamage a fighter with a heavy crossbow by a lot once you get beyond 60 feet until you hit the range limit of those weapons.
The point still stands the Wizard is doing lower than a melee fighter or Rogue using a heavy crossbow at every range EXCEPT between 100 and 120 feet and as you alluded to that is without a magic weapon.
I still wouldn't give the win to the the melee fighter or rogue with a heavy crossbow. Strength based builds and a Rogue lacking proficiency will have a much lower chance to hit. At best, rogue with a light crossbow can succeed here and anyone else with a heavy crossbow kind of falls near a caster's cantrip attack.
If he isn't holding one of them then this only matters for the first turn of combat
Its not often that a greatsword wielding barbarian/fighter/Paladin will choose to walk around with a Heavy Crossbow out instead, just incase a ranged fight starts.
And the juggling issue will probably come up later in the round too, as the enemy melee fighters close ranks and run past the crossbow wielding martials to attack the casters. The weapon juggling issue is a limiting annoyance.
At 5th level there are very few damaging spells with a Range of more than 120 feet. Fireball is the only one I can even think of offhand, of any class. I don't believe there are any cantrip, 1st or 2nd level Wizard spells that do damage and go that far.
Most characters can walk 30 ft to get in range for their other spells. And the specific scenario of enemy Heavy Crossbow wielding snipers volleying from 400ft away would spell the long, boring fight. Even a monk would need 3 rounds to get into range.
At level 4-16, a Monk with a heavy crossbow will typically outdamge a melee-oriented fighter with that same heavy crossbow even without proficiency because his dexterity is usually significantly higher.
So to take your assumption about a level 5 melee martial with 14 dex... that is an attack bonus of 5. The highest a Monk will have without proficiency is 4. So no, the monk might do 2 points more damage, but they will also have a slightly worse to hit chance. And since its only one shot a turn, they aren't going to be outdamaging anyone by more than a margin.
ya its fine low level but higher level the scaling falls off. I know you don't care about damage, but sorry it is a factor ,your argument is basically don't fix monks and let them have subpar damage .
Giving Monks more DPR would not "fix" them because their low DPR (and it is low compared to other martials) is not a problem, nor even their biggest weakness as a class.
If you want high damage output you should not be playing a Monk. It is that simple.
so you don't bring anything to the argument. but want the monk to continue to be weak. you also make a giant assumption that short rests are just being handed out, which is a big flaw in your argument.
I make a giant assumption that the game is being played as designed and that you are not wasting ki at the end of fights. I know there are games with long 8 fight days with no short rests, but I think there are more games with 2 fights and 2 short rests a day.
also you are hilarious . you think you play your character better then me hahaha that's rich .
I am not the one complaininging about Monks being too weak ... so yes I do think I play them better, or to put it another way, I apparently I can play them effectively.
Ok, I'm sorry fair game, I realize now you are a troll who actually doesn't care about the class . my fault for thinking you were serious. well played. the problem is simple, monks have weak damage and ki problems . give them more ki and damage. that this would somehow ruin monks for you is hilarious.
I play my monk more then effectively, I play them optimally you gave away that you really don't .you don't sound like you care about them progressing as a class. you are basically arguing to reinforce your idea of a subpar melee control who cant do competitive damage.
this is a roleplaying game I should be able to choose my role and be competitive. it was so in other versions of the game. so don't act like the monk could never do damage, also in pathfinder this is already easier to do . so other then you arguing to keep monks bad, do you actually have any solutions or are your really in the party of "keep monks weak or you will ruin my immersion" camp?
The point still stands the Wizard is doing lower than a melee fighter or Rogue using a heavy crossbow at every range EXCEPT between 100 and 120 feet and as you alluded to that is without a magic weapon.
I still wouldn't give the win to the the melee fighter or rogue with a heavy crossbow. Strength based builds and a Rogue lacking proficiency will have a much lower chance to hit. At best, rogue with a light crossbow can succeed here and anyone else with a heavy crossbow kind of falls near a caster's cantrip attack.
Not much lower. Fighters, are 10% lower chance to hit at 5th level assuming they have at least a 14 Dexterity. The only way this favors the Wizard is if the fighter uses Dexterity as a dump stat, and if he does that then he is making a purposeful decision not to be good at ranged attacks ..... similar to a Wizard who choses Toll the Dead and not Firebolt or Chill touched and has no long range Cantrip option.
A Rogue without proficiency generally has a higher chance to hit than the wizard due to advantage from either cunning action hide or steady aim. +5 to hit with advantage and no proficiency is generally going to hit more often than +8 to hit.
At 5th level there are very few damaging spells with a Range of more than 120 feet. Fireball is the only one I can even think of offhand, of any class. I don't believe there are any cantrip, 1st or 2nd level Wizard spells that do damage and go that far.
Most characters can walk 30 ft to get in range for their other spells. And the specific scenario of enemy Heavy Crossbow wielding snipers volleying from 400ft away would spell the long, boring fight. Even a monk would need 3 rounds to get into range.
If they were 150 feet away walking 30 feet will not get them to 90 when a few more spells become available.
Moreover the point that started this whole discussion was that a 5th level melee-oriented Martial with a heavy crossbow is "instantly outclassed by a Wizard with Firebolt"
That statement is factually, mathematically untrue.
At level 4-16, a Monk with a heavy crossbow will typically outdamge a melee-oriented fighter with that same heavy crossbow even without proficiency because his dexterity is usually significantly higher.
So to take your assumption about a level 5 melee martial with 14 dex... that is an attack bonus of 5. The highest a Monk will have without proficiency is 4.
Yes but we are talking about damage and the +4 on damage vs the fighters +2 will result in more damage for the character with a the higher dexterity even though he has a lower attack bonus. The fighter will hit more often, but the Monk will average "slightly more damage" as I said.
For example at 5th level against a 15 AC foe
Fighter 14 Dex, heavy crossbow +5 attack roll needs a 10 to hit or 55% hit chance. Damage on a hit is 7.5 average (5.5+2 dex) and on a crit is an extra 5.5 average. Overall average damage from the crossbow vs 15AC is 4.4DPR
The Monk with an 18 dexterity and no proficiency has a +4 attack roll or 50% chance to hit. Damage on a hit is 9.5 average (5.5+4 dex) and on a crit is an extra 5.5. Overall damage fromm the crossbow without proficiency is 5.025DPR.
As I said the Monk without proficiency will do "slightly more" damage with a heavy crossbow than the fighter with proficiency and a lower attack stat. Eventually the fighter will catch up when his proficiency bonus starts to overcome the higher damage bonus the Monk gets, but that is not until very high level.
So no, the monk might do 2 points more damage, but they will also have a slightly worse to hit chance.
Yes and with that lower hit percentage they will do "slightly more damage" on average like I said.
And since its only one shot a turn, they aren't going to be outdamaging anyone by more than a margin.
Sure it is a small margin, but we are purposely nerfing the Monk in this example and not giving him a weapon he would be substantially better with like a shortbow or light crossbow.
this is a roleplaying game I should be able to choose my role and be competitive.
This is the problem right here. Class is part of this discussion. You should choose a class that is good at playing how you want to play.
A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do.
It was so in other versions of the game.
Not true.
The original Monk in AD&D was far, far weaker comparatively than the current Monk in 5E. The Monk in AD&D had d4 hit dice and had an awful AC. They had attack rolls equal to a cleric but unlike a cleric they could not add strength bonus to their weapon attacks
In 2nd Edition AD&D the Monk got d8 hit dice, below the fighter but still had terrible AC and a stipulation that they could not even use AC enhancing items. They still had cleric attack rolls. They did get buffed by adding spells which made them closer to a fighter or a cleric in ovewrall power.
A 5E Monk is much closer to other 5E classes than either of these were.
this is a roleplaying game I should be able to choose my role and be competitive.
This is the problem right here. Class is part of this discussion. You should choose a class that is good at playing how you want to play.
A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do.
It was so in other versions of the game.
Not true.
The original Monk in AD&D was far, far weaker comparatively than the current Monk in 5E. The Monk in AD&D had d4 hit dice and had an awful AC. They had attack rolls equal to a cleric but unlike a cleric they could not add strength bonus to their weapon attacks
In 2nd Edition AD&D the Monk got d8 hit dice, below the fighter but still had terrible AC and a stipulation that they could not even use AC enhancing items. They still had cleric attack rolls. They did get buffed by adding spells which made them closer to a fighter or a cleric.
A 5E Monk is much closer to other 5E classes than either of these were.
No I think the problem is players who have mindsets that like to gatekeep how others play. there is nothing about a monk not doing competitive damage that is inherent to the class in fact id argue them not doing proper damage is more against the idea of a monk. also, you are funny saying you shouldn't play a wizard for melee damage when in fact you can make a stronger melee attacker easily with a blade singer, all things need to be accounted for before you sweeping assumptions .
also, yes monks could very well do more damage.as if you didn't realize I was referring to 3.5 which you intentionally skipped lol. where you could flurry for free and even with your weapon. there were ways to lower the penalty to attack on top of it being reduced over time by level, that's why pathfinder monks started out stronger as they are based on 3.5. and give more choice on character customization.
"A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do." e3mo3
Your right currently that is a design mistake. lets fix that so people can have variable ways to play . if you want damage, you should have a branch for that , if you want control you should have a branch for that. a monk shouldn't have strong control and damage ok cool section those areas off and allow for variation.
why not just play the fighter? cause I like the monk and I am not advocating that they easily out damage the fighter I'm arguing it should be closer . a wizard and a druid the druid will generally do less damage but its much less so then between a fighter and monk especially after your out of ki .
of course, there is more than combat but that is not where the problem is.
there are also easy ways for a fighter to get mobility they could be a tabaxi and grab mobile in fact a fighter who does this will generally have more mobility then a monk who does not.
a wizard is a caster a druid is a caster . a warrior is monk,fighter,barb as per wotc own description they should be able to deal many wounds and be able to take them as well.
not"oh sorry one of them is supposed to just run around and bite at your ankles."
Im fine if they add damage option subclasses however if think its better to fix this in the base class , just like how they added orders for clerics on top of subclasses it allows for more variation, so we both could have what we want . I don't know why you wouldn't like that unless your just arguing for the sake of contrarianism . Im not on team nerf rp or variation so i don't understand why you seem to be anti variable choice .
"A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do." e3mo3
Your right currently that is a design mistake. lets fix that so people can have variable ways to play . if you want damage, you should have a branch for that , if you want control you should have a branch for that. a monk shouldn't have strong control and damage ok cool section those areas off and allow for variation.
I don't think that is what most people want out of a Monk. Just like I don't think it is what most want out of a Wizard.
We could fix it with a subclass I suppose, like they did with Bladesinger to make it possible to build a melee God on a Wizard chassis, but I would not want to see the whole Monk class changed into some high damage-focused martial.
why not just play the fighter? cause I like the monk and I am not advocating that they easily out damage the fighter I'm arguing it should be closer .
Why should it be?
A fighter with Tavern Brawler and unarmed figthing style is going to be a better unarmed strike martial artist than a Monk will be up to level 12 or so. I don't understand why people don't just use that chassis if it is what they want.
I would be ok with a sublcass that does it, but I don't want the whole Monk as a class changed into that.
a wizard and a druid the druid will generally do less damage but its much less so then between a fighter and monk especially after your out of ki .
A base Monk is not very far behind a base fighter. If both of them have identical abilities Monks are actually substantially ahead in base damage until level 11 without using any ki at all (they will also be less survivable if they do this though). They are way ahead from levels 1-4 and still ahead from 5-10.
The fighter only outruns the Monk when you start bringing feats and subclasses into the discussion. The good fighter subclasses bring a lot to the table and a lot of feats work well with the fighter both because Fighters are not ASI-starved like Monks and their weapons work better with the feat options.
A Kensai Monk for example will outdamage a Purple Dragon Knight without any feats by quite a bit through level 11 without burning Ki at all.
"We could fix it with a subclass I suppose, like they did with Bladesinger to make it possible to build a melee God on a Wizard chassis, but I would not want to see the whole Monk class changed into some high damage-focused martial."
ok this is progress, I'm glad you are at least open to a possible subclass that can do the job.
ya Kensei is the best monk atm imo if you want damage though this might change with the change to martial arts die not working with weapons.
also, yes monks could very well do more damage.as if you didn't realize I was referring to 3.5 which you intentionally skipped lol.
You said "versions" which mean more than one, and I gave you two versions where Monks were comparitively worse relative to other classes. I personally have played both 1E and 2E Monks. I have played 3E, but I have never played a 3E Monk, mostly because I did not like what they did with the class. I have not seen one played either so I would not know how they compare.
When it comes to tradition and history of the Monk class:
1. There were no Monks in basic D&D
2. AD&D 1E had very weak Monks, by far the weakest class. No FOB at all (although they did get extra attacks but only if they used martial arts, no extra weapon attacks)
3. 2E Monks were still weak but better. Not as powerful as the current iteration but closer. I also do not believe they had FOB at all but it has been a while.
4. 3E Monks were good damage dealers and equals according to you. I'm will take your word for it. They also had unlimited FOB.
5. 4E Monks were assuredly perfectly balanced as that is the hallmark of this edition (although I only played 4E once). I assume they had FOB probably limited by the schema of daily/encounter/at will powers.
This is the history of the D&D Monk. If you go by the history and tradition the current 5E Monk is right where he should be wedged between the least powerful versions and the most powerful versions. Getting FOB as a limited use resource is on par too, with early editions where he did not get it at all and 3.5 where he apparently got it for free.
IMO 3.5 is the exception to the Monk, not the standard by which the class should be modeled and they way it is in Pathfinder is not really an endorsement IMO.
ya Kensei is the best monk atm imo if you want damage though this might change with the change to martial arts die not working with weapons.
I would agree it is the best damage subclass, but Kensai is not a greatsubclass overall in my opinion. If you really want to be on par with fighters I think you need a subclass that opens up heavy weapons as Monk weapons and something that brings battlemaster-like maneuvers to the table. I would make the maneuvers run off of ki though (maybe even 2 ki per). To be honest Glaives (and Longswords, Flalis, Heavy Crossbows and Blowguns) should be Monk weapons already, based on what the warriors from the far east historically used. The original 1E monks could use all polearms, and there were about 30 different types of them.
Currently Mercy, Dragon, Shadow and Long Death are the Most powerful Monk subclasses through level 10 IMO. Shadow is a really good class in this area due to their spells. But these are not competitive with the best martial class-subclass combos in the game at those levels and not as good in melee as a Kensai either.
If you go past level 10, Long Death at high levels is one of the most powerful characters in the game as long as you budget ki wisely. They are essentially unkillable until they run out of ki, and when they get that feature they have a lot of it to spend.
ya long death is one of my favorite subclasses as well.they even get some free non ki use abilities which is very nice. pretty good at being tanky. I guess we got to see what the next revision for monk is . its only the first pass so hopefully they will show more subclasses and figure a way to have multi style playstyles supported.
a wizard and a druid the druid will generally do less damage but its much less so then between a fighter and monk especially after your out of ki .
A base Monk is not very far behind a base fighter. If both of them have identical abilities Monks are actually substantially ahead in base damage until level 11 without using any ki at all (they will also be less survivable if they do this though). They are way ahead from levels 1-4 and still ahead from 5-10.
The fighter only outruns the Monk when you start bringing feats and subclasses into the discussion. The good fighter subclasses bring a lot to the table and a lot of feats work well with the fighter both because Fighters are not ASI-starved like Monks and their weapons work better with the feat options.
A Kensai Monk for example will outdamage a Purple Dragon Knight without any feats by quite a bit through level 11 without burning Ki at all.
People are wrong to think that the damage done by the monk is similar to and higher than that of the fighter (even at 1–11 level). This is because they calculate the damage done by the monk in its bonus action and forget to compare it with the possible damage that the fighter could also do in its bonus action. While the monk can no longer develop the bonus action, the fighter could, and so when you make a comparison, you also respect their potential. Action vs. action; bonus action vs. bonus action; reaction vs. reaction; combat time (resources) for short rest vs. "the same." Only in this way can you make a semi-realistic comparison.
It should also be reflected that in the standard of dnd 5e, the bonus action is mostly used as a discard action for special actions and therefore not always used as an attack, and this is also true for the monk, while the action for a warrior is mainly used for attacking. With this, I want to highlight the difference between action and bonus action.
The fact that monks attack unarmed is also a limitation that needs to be calculated, given the strong advantage given by magical weapons, which is apparently limited to the monk and its unarmed attacks.
If the class has a problem, it will ripple through all the subclasses. Indeed, these will lose value because they will have to solve class problems in order to work and then use features for something that should work by default.
This is absolutely a mockery, and the fact that now WEAPON MASTERY is not combinable with unarmed attacks is proof that we are being mocked.
a wizard and a druid the druid will generally do less damage but its much less so then between a fighter and monk especially after your out of ki .
A base Monk is not very far behind a base fighter. If both of them have identical abilities Monks are actually substantially ahead in base damage until level 11 without using any ki at all (they will also be less survivable if they do this though). They are way ahead from levels 1-4 and still ahead from 5-10.
The fighter only outruns the Monk when you start bringing feats and subclasses into the discussion. The good fighter subclasses bring a lot to the table and a lot of feats work well with the fighter both because Fighters are not ASI-starved like Monks and their weapons work better with the feat options.
A Kensai Monk for example will outdamage a Purple Dragon Knight without any feats by quite a bit through level 11 without burning Ki at all.
People are wrong to think that the damage done by the monk is similar to and higher than that of the fighter (even at 1–11 level). This is because they calculate the damage done by the monk in its bonus action and forget to compare it with the possible damage that the fighter could also do in its bonus action.
Not true. If you do not consider feats or subclass abilities and include a bonus action attack for the fighter the Monk is equal or ahead of a figther at every level from 1 to 10:
That is including fighting style and bonus action. I don't know of any fighting style that is going to do more base at will damage with a fighter without considering subclass or feats.
Also keep in mind here this is using no Ki at all (which is a class resource, not a subclass resource). At 10th level a Monk can average spending more than a ki a turn in combat.
While the monk can no longer develop in its bonus action, the fighter could, and so when you make a comparison, you also respect their potential.
Sure, but a base fighter has only two bonus actions available - Second Wind and Two-Weapon fighting, and if he uses the latter without the two weapon fighting style he will be substantially behind the Monk in damage. A Monk has much better bonus action options, so if you want to compare this you need to compare the relative value of the extra damage a heavy weapon fighter would do on actions alone (about 1.5 damage per hit) and develop a numerical equivalence for the better bonus actions the Monk gets and compare those along with a numerical equivalence for a figther being able to do second wind once per short rest.
Your point is valid, you can get subclasses, multiclasses, feats or races that give other bonus action options and you can use a diffferent fighting style that does a lot more damge with your action so you can use a different bonus action and not fall far behind (or even stay ahead with the things mentioned earlier).
But this is true only because of how those other non-fighter and subclass features synergize with fighters, the weapons they use, the bonus actions available etc. The specific claim I disagree with is that the fighter as a classdoes more damage than a Monk as a stand-alone class. That is simply not true.
Action vs. action; bonus action vs. bonus action; reaction vs. reaction; combat time (resources) for short rest vs. "the same." Only in this way can you make a semi-realistic comparison.
Bonus action vs Bonus action a figther can only do Two Weapon Figthing and Second Wind. A Monk can do Martial Arts, FOB, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, Ki-Fueled attack and Two-Weapon Fighting.
The argument that this is not fair because a fighter can use his bonus action is not valid when the fighter as a class doesn't get any bonus actions he can use regularly.
I did action vs action plus bonus vs bonus above, assuming the fighter was using the only bonus action he gets damage from and optimizing the numbers for that fighting style. That is the highest damage you are going to get as a fighter from levels 1-10.
You can't account for reactions as without a feat or other ability there is not a good way to measure them. If you are looking at pure overall damage as your metric based on class abilities only, that is going to drive fighters to a d6 light weapon where as a Monk will be using a d8 staff or spear and getting more reaction damage. Using a heavier weapon for the fighter will eliminate all bonus action damage.
This leaves Ki and Action Surge as the two things you really need to account for in damage.
Action surge is relatively easy, if you assume 24 rounds of combat and 2 short rests per day that assumes 27 actions over 24 rounds.
Ki is more difficult and ramps up with level. If you assume you use it on FOB, which is generally the worst use of ki but the highest damage use, this is going to start as one extra martial arts attack per short rest and ramp up to a maximum of 8 extra attacks per short rest. After 8th level a Monk has extra ki he is not spending on FOB. In terms of damage only this could be spent on focused aim to boost hit chances, but I am not going to account for that here.
For this I am actually going to assume the following abilities: 16 at level 1, 18 at level 4, 20 for fighter at level 6, 20 for Monk at level 8. I will compare at 4 levels: 2, 5, 6 and 8-10. I will not count crits here because I am not using an AC and you can't do that accurately without AC. This assumes both have the same attack bonus. At level 6-7 the fighter actually has a slightly higher attack bonus, but this also does not account for Focused aim, which will effectively make the Monk better at levels 9-10 and make up some ground at level 6-7. With this in mind, I will call the attack bonus difference at those two levels awash.
Level 6 Monk daily damage: 24 attacks (48d8+192) + 42 martial arts (42d6+168). Total daily damage: 723
Level 8-10 Monk daily damage: 24 attacks (48d8+220) + 48 martial arts (48d6+220). Total daily damage: 819
That is without using all of the Monk's Ki at levels 9-10. Obviously this will vary based on how many short rests you get and how long combat is, but I think 6 combats of 4 rounds each is a good middle of the road number to start with.
This is somewhat resilient to changes in number of fights, rounds or rests. Fewer combats will favor the Fighter in this discussion assuming the Monk is only spending Ki on FOB, while longer combats will favor the Monk. However, fewer combats will also mean the Monk does not run out of ki and would have more ki to spam and we really are not accounting for things other than FOB.
With this, I want to highlight the difference between action and bonus action.
The fact that monks attack unarmed is also a limitation that needs to be calculated, given the strong advantage given by magical weapons, which is apparently limited to the monk and its unarmed attacks.
The Monk is not typically unarmed. For maximum damage he will typically be armed with a spear or a staff and can use a host of magic weapons. Not as many as a fighter, but there are a lot of options he can use. Also Monk weapons benefit from Monk damage, so that magic sickle you found is doing 1d6 at 5th level, not 1d4.
The Monk is not getting any magic bonuses on his bonus action attack and that is legit for his bonus actions, however his unarmed strikes count as magic, so the Monk will not be caught attacking the BBEG with the magic sickle your party found because it is the only magic weapon you have, like the fighter will frequently be forced to do in early tier 2. Also, for looking at a two-weapon fighting build you need to look at getting 2 magic, light weapons for a fighter. A Monk by comparison has more options available and only needs can still use martial arts for magic damage.
Generalists fighters do really well in play, where optimized whiteboard fighters frequently find themselves without a decent magic weapon to suit their character IME. Those generalists don't get the eye-popping damage numbers that the PAM/GWM or XBE/SS builds on the whiteboard but they do better with whatever you find.
If the class has a problem, it will ripple through all the subclasses. Indeed, these will lose value because they will have to solve class problems in order to work and then use features for something that should work by default. None of this makes any sense.
But the class doesn't and that is the point here. The Monk class is versatile and measures up well. It is the other things - specifically subclasses, feats and racial abilities that put a fighter way ahead.
You will be hard pressed to show numerically a basic fighter without any of those things that performs better than a Monk in general. And yes, the Monk has to use her bonus action to be better, but that itself speaks to the fact the Monk has multiple, effective, bonus action options as part of her class and the fighter, as a class, doesn't.
Polearm Master weaponizes the bonus attack for Fighter, and at level 11 they're doing three attacks, plus their bonus attack. That's 3(d10 + 5) + d4 + 5, for an average of 39 per round.
It's easier to find one magical glaive than two magical shortswords.
Monk does have decent melee damage, so long as the ki holds out, but Fighter is basically the baseline for martial damage.
Polearm Master weaponizes the bonus attack for Fighter, and at level 11 they're doing three attacks, plus their bonus attack. That's 3(d10 + 5) + d4 + 5, for an average of 39 per round.
Agreed. That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said:
"Your point is valid, you can get subclasses, multiclasses, feats or races that give other bonus action options and you can use a diffferent fighting style that does a lot more damge with your action so you can use a different bonus action and not fall far behind (or even stay ahead with the things mentioned earlier).
But this is true only because of how those other non-fighter and subclass features synergize with fighters, the weapons they use, the bonus actions available etc. The specific claim I disagree with is that the fighter as a class does more damage than a Monk as a stand-alone class. That is simply not true."
It's easier to find one magical glaive than two magical shortswords.
Sure, but they are not extremely common and Rare, Very Rare and Legendary Glaives are unheard of. Further it is not just shortswords. A two weapon fighter could use any light weapons. Handaxes and Scimitars do the same damage as Shortswords. Clubs, Daggers, and Sickles do 1 point less on average, which would be counteracted if they have a magic bonus.
It is also worth mentioning that a Monk can use any simple weapon at all and do 1d6 at level 5, 1d8 with it at level 11 and 1d10 at level 17.
Fighters are designed to work with feats (to the extent any D&D class can be said to be 'designed'). That's why they get two extra ASIs that would be virtually useless if feats were disallowed in the game.
Monks meanwhile are not. Most feats are useless to them, Mobile aside, and if the player is planning to maximize their AC then they have no free ASIs until level 19.
The "Monk Weapons" rule has been removed in the latest 1D&D playtest. I guess WotC thought it was too strong. *eyeroll*
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wouldn't say they're no good at all; Monks favour Dexterity and Wisdom which gives them a good mix of out of combat skills they're decent at (or good at, with proficiency). That said, it would be nice if they had something extra, or if the game didn't force the use of Charisma by default for Persuasion; as a DM I'm happy to let players use Intelligence or Wisdom if their character is giving an intellectual or wise argument (rather than just asking real nicely with a few shirt buttons undone or whatever).
But in 5e ability score swapping is an optional rule, it should really be the default.
This depends a lot on where fights take place; if you've got an enemy caster then having the Monk rush off to flurry their concentration to pieces (and impose disadvantage on ranged attacks etc.) is a perfectly good thing to do, with or without voluntary aggro from the DM. A Monk typically has enough speed that if trying to single out an enemy means exposing an ally, they can be back to help again within a turn.
The problem for Monks is that the meta in most groups doesn't support mobility much at all; especially when you see discussions online the assumption always seems to be either a 30 foot featureless killbox, or a shooting gallery exactly as long as the ideal range required to "win" the argument. But with nice mixed battlefields with cover, elevations, different enemy types of varying threat level etc., a Monks' speed can be very useful.
In 5e Wizards of the Coast did very little to push that kind of variety though; even a lot of their example and adventure module fights don't do a good job of it, which makes 99% of fights boring without extra work by the DM.
It's definitely not good for the game; it led to Wizards of the Coast crippling the Monk and nerfing its most promising sub-classes, and at worst it wastes Ki, and at best it trivialises fights by leaving a big boss unable to act, draining their legendary resistances, or both.
Nerfing them even further in the playtest is insane, when the real problem is that Stunning Strike should never have been a 5th-level feature with only a single saving throw required. The earliest spell that can inflict stunned is contagion, a 5th-level spell (so minimum 9th-level) and that requires hitting followed by three failed Constitution saving throws, then damage, otherwise you're looking at divine word or symbol for a single failed save as a 7th-level spell (so 13th-level minimum), but divine word requires the target to have 30 hit-points or less (so basically dead already at that level) and symbol requires setup and is indiscriminate.
While Stunning Strike probably should be nerfed to some extent, it also needs replacing with something else earlier on, or a choice of abilities. I'd like to see some kind of core build-up mechanic along with a second bonus action later on for scaling. I've posted the specifics to its own thread.
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.
Not sure where this is coming from. 2d10 is usually calculated as 10-12dpr. Magical damage too, that doesn't' require a magical weapon.
I'll also note that fighter's can't throw a javelin as a second attack because of weapon juggling, though I'd allow as per rule of cool.
Also, rogue has a neat niche here with sneak attack, but they can't use longbows or heavy crossbows naturally.
But this gets to the point that the caster is doing as much damage or more than a heavy crossbow for free, while martials just can't compete without feats or spending resources like martial arts dice. And that is without spending spell slots. No martial can really keep up in ranged combat with a fireball or the utility of a wall of force.
Ranged martials can have consistency, but unless a fight is drawn out to be several minutes long, its not consistently large enough damage or control to matter. Not without feats upping the damage, or some other limited resource giving control abilities.
Which to get back to the monk, makes the scenario of a battlefield where their speed matters not that impressive for them. Especially if you think strength based martials with crossbows will still do as much damage as monks and casters.
You are right, it is 11DPR if you hit. I mistakenly used Chill Touch, which is 9 if you hit. With AC15 you will hit 65% of the time and crit 5% of the time.
With Firebolt it is actually 7.7 DPR vs AC15, I would change the numbers above but for some reason I can't edit the post.
The point still stands the Wizard is doing lower than a melee fighter or Rogue using a heavy crossbow at every range EXCEPT between 100 and 120 feet and as you alluded to that is without a magic weapon.
Absolutely he can as long as he is holding one of them at the start of the turn (or if he has the thrown weapon fighting style). If he isn't holding one of them then this only matters for the first turn of combat
Absolutely they can use them. RAW there is no requirement for proficiency to get sneak attack and the numbers for the Rogue assume NO PROFICIENCY.
He is doing no damage for free beyond 120 feet and more damage for free below 100 feet and this is a melee-optimized fighter.
This post was a response to the observation that melee fighters could not keep up in terms of damage at range.
Your point about spell slots is noted, but there are a ton of caveats that go into this:
1. At 5th level there are very few damaging spells with a Range of more than 120 feet. Fireball is the only one I can even think of offhand, of any class. I don't believe there are any cantrip, 1st or 2nd level Wizard spells that do damage and go that far.
2. Assuming Fireball is the only one, this presumes you have it prepared, which means you gave up other more powerful spells to prepare it.
3. You can only do it twice a day.
3. You can only
I was comparing ranged attacks from melee martials, not ranged martials. Give a fighter a longbow and archery and the numbers are a lot better than what I posted above.
Range martials will outdamage all casters except Warlocks at range by a country mile.
As I pointed out above a Wizard with firebolt and 18 intelligence is doing 7.7DPR inside 120 feet. A fighter with 18 dex and a longbow and archery fighting style is doing 11.6. A fighter with darts and thrown weapon fighting and dual wielding will do 14.5. Those numbers are not even optimized for the martials and in this discussion keep in mind that the damage rolled is not the damage delivered doing more damage in smaller amounts in multiple attacks will result in more damage delivered over the course of the day than a single attack delivered in one shot.
Yes a Wizard can throw spells, but over the course of a normal adventuring day (about 25 turns) the martial is going to do a lot more total damage to enemies, even without optimizing.
At level 4-16, a Monk with a heavy crossbow will typically outdamge a melee-oriented fighter with that same heavy crossbow even without proficiency because his dexterity is usually significantly higher. A Monk with a Shortbow, Light Crossbow or Longbow will outdamage a fighter with a heavy crossbow by a lot once you get beyond 60 feet until you hit the range limit of those weapons.
I still wouldn't give the win to the the melee fighter or rogue with a heavy crossbow. Strength based builds and a Rogue lacking proficiency will have a much lower chance to hit. At best, rogue with a light crossbow can succeed here and anyone else with a heavy crossbow kind of falls near a caster's cantrip attack.
Its not often that a greatsword wielding barbarian/fighter/Paladin will choose to walk around with a Heavy Crossbow out instead, just incase a ranged fight starts.
And the juggling issue will probably come up later in the round too, as the enemy melee fighters close ranks and run past the crossbow wielding martials to attack the casters. The weapon juggling issue is a limiting annoyance.
Most characters can walk 30 ft to get in range for their other spells. And the specific scenario of enemy Heavy Crossbow wielding snipers volleying from 400ft away would spell the long, boring fight. Even a monk would need 3 rounds to get into range.
So to take your assumption about a level 5 melee martial with 14 dex... that is an attack bonus of 5. The highest a Monk will have without proficiency is 4. So no, the monk might do 2 points more damage, but they will also have a slightly worse to hit chance. And since its only one shot a turn, they aren't going to be outdamaging anyone by more than a margin.
Ok, I'm sorry fair game, I realize now you are a troll who actually doesn't care about the class . my fault for thinking you were serious. well played. the problem is simple, monks have weak damage and ki problems . give them more ki and damage. that this would somehow ruin monks for you is hilarious.
I play my monk more then effectively, I play them optimally you gave away that you really don't .you don't sound like you care about them progressing as a class. you are basically arguing to reinforce your idea of a subpar melee control who cant do competitive damage.
this is a roleplaying game I should be able to choose my role and be competitive. it was so in other versions of the game. so don't act like the monk could never do damage, also in pathfinder this is already easier to do . so other then you arguing to keep monks bad, do you actually have any solutions or are your really in the party of "keep monks weak or you will ruin my immersion" camp?
Not much lower. Fighters, are 10% lower chance to hit at 5th level assuming they have at least a 14 Dexterity. The only way this favors the Wizard is if the fighter uses Dexterity as a dump stat, and if he does that then he is making a purposeful decision not to be good at ranged attacks ..... similar to a Wizard who choses Toll the Dead and not Firebolt or Chill touched and has no long range Cantrip option.
A Rogue without proficiency generally has a higher chance to hit than the wizard due to advantage from either cunning action hide or steady aim. +5 to hit with advantage and no proficiency is generally going to hit more often than +8 to hit.
If they were 150 feet away walking 30 feet will not get them to 90 when a few more spells become available.
Moreover the point that started this whole discussion was that a 5th level melee-oriented Martial with a heavy crossbow is "instantly outclassed by a Wizard with Firebolt"
That statement is factually, mathematically untrue.
Yes but we are talking about damage and the +4 on damage vs the fighters +2 will result in more damage for the character with a the higher dexterity even though he has a lower attack bonus. The fighter will hit more often, but the Monk will average "slightly more damage" as I said.
For example at 5th level against a 15 AC foe
Fighter 14 Dex, heavy crossbow +5 attack roll needs a 10 to hit or 55% hit chance. Damage on a hit is 7.5 average (5.5+2 dex) and on a crit is an extra 5.5 average. Overall average damage from the crossbow vs 15AC is 4.4DPR
The Monk with an 18 dexterity and no proficiency has a +4 attack roll or 50% chance to hit. Damage on a hit is 9.5 average (5.5+4 dex) and on a crit is an extra 5.5. Overall damage fromm the crossbow without proficiency is 5.025DPR.
As I said the Monk without proficiency will do "slightly more" damage with a heavy crossbow than the fighter with proficiency and a lower attack stat. Eventually the fighter will catch up when his proficiency bonus starts to overcome the higher damage bonus the Monk gets, but that is not until very high level.
Yes and with that lower hit percentage they will do "slightly more damage" on average like I said.
Sure it is a small margin, but we are purposely nerfing the Monk in this example and not giving him a weapon he would be substantially better with like a shortbow or light crossbow.
This is the problem right here. Class is part of this discussion. You should choose a class that is good at playing how you want to play.
A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do.
Not true.
The original Monk in AD&D was far, far weaker comparatively than the current Monk in 5E. The Monk in AD&D had d4 hit dice and had an awful AC. They had attack rolls equal to a cleric but unlike a cleric they could not add strength bonus to their weapon attacks
In 2nd Edition AD&D the Monk got d8 hit dice, below the fighter but still had terrible AC and a stipulation that they could not even use AC enhancing items. They still had cleric attack rolls. They did get buffed by adding spells which made them closer to a fighter or a cleric in ovewrall power.
A 5E Monk is much closer to other 5E classes than either of these were.
No I think the problem is players who have mindsets that like to gatekeep how others play. there is nothing about a monk not doing competitive damage that is inherent to the class in fact id argue them not doing proper damage is more against the idea of a monk. also, you are funny saying you shouldn't play a wizard for melee damage when in fact you can make a stronger melee attacker easily with a blade singer, all things need to be accounted for before you sweeping assumptions .
also, yes monks could very well do more damage.as if you didn't realize I was referring to 3.5 which you intentionally skipped lol. where you could flurry for free and even with your weapon. there were ways to lower the penalty to attack on top of it being reduced over time by level, that's why pathfinder monks started out stronger as they are based on 3.5. and give more choice on character customization.
nice try though.
"A Monk is not designed as a class to be a good melee damage dealer and if you want to do that you should not play the Monk class. Just like you should not play a Wizard or a Sorcerer if that is what you want to do." e3mo3
Your right currently that is a design mistake. lets fix that so people can have variable ways to play . if you want damage, you should have a branch for that , if you want control you should have a branch for that. a monk shouldn't have strong control and damage ok cool section those areas off and allow for variation.
why not just play the fighter? cause I like the monk and I am not advocating that they easily out damage the fighter I'm arguing it should be closer . a wizard and a druid the druid will generally do less damage but its much less so then between a fighter and monk especially after your out of ki .
of course, there is more than combat but that is not where the problem is.
there are also easy ways for a fighter to get mobility they could be a tabaxi and grab mobile in fact a fighter who does this will generally have more mobility then a monk who does not.
a wizard is a caster a druid is a caster . a warrior is monk,fighter,barb as per wotc own description they should be able to deal many wounds and be able to take them as well.
not"oh sorry one of them is supposed to just run around and bite at your ankles."
Im fine if they add damage option subclasses however if think its better to fix this in the base class , just like how they added orders for clerics on top of subclasses it allows for more variation, so we both could have what we want . I don't know why you wouldn't like that unless your just arguing for the sake of contrarianism . Im not on team nerf rp or variation so i don't understand why you seem to be anti variable choice .
I don't think that is what most people want out of a Monk. Just like I don't think it is what most want out of a Wizard.
We could fix it with a subclass I suppose, like they did with Bladesinger to make it possible to build a melee God on a Wizard chassis, but I would not want to see the whole Monk class changed into some high damage-focused martial.
Why should it be?
A fighter with Tavern Brawler and unarmed figthing style is going to be a better unarmed strike martial artist than a Monk will be up to level 12 or so. I don't understand why people don't just use that chassis if it is what they want.
I would be ok with a sublcass that does it, but I don't want the whole Monk as a class changed into that.
A base Monk is not very far behind a base fighter. If both of them have identical abilities Monks are actually substantially ahead in base damage until level 11 without using any ki at all (they will also be less survivable if they do this though). They are way ahead from levels 1-4 and still ahead from 5-10.
The fighter only outruns the Monk when you start bringing feats and subclasses into the discussion. The good fighter subclasses bring a lot to the table and a lot of feats work well with the fighter both because Fighters are not ASI-starved like Monks and their weapons work better with the feat options.
A Kensai Monk for example will outdamage a Purple Dragon Knight without any feats by quite a bit through level 11 without burning Ki at all.
"We could fix it with a subclass I suppose, like they did with Bladesinger to make it possible to build a melee God on a Wizard chassis, but I would not want to see the whole Monk class changed into some high damage-focused martial."
ok this is progress, I'm glad you are at least open to a possible subclass that can do the job.
ya Kensei is the best monk atm imo if you want damage though this might change with the change to martial arts die not working with weapons.
You said "versions" which mean more than one, and I gave you two versions where Monks were comparitively worse relative to other classes. I personally have played both 1E and 2E Monks. I have played 3E, but I have never played a 3E Monk, mostly because I did not like what they did with the class. I have not seen one played either so I would not know how they compare.
When it comes to tradition and history of the Monk class:
1. There were no Monks in basic D&D
2. AD&D 1E had very weak Monks, by far the weakest class. No FOB at all (although they did get extra attacks but only if they used martial arts, no extra weapon attacks)
3. 2E Monks were still weak but better. Not as powerful as the current iteration but closer. I also do not believe they had FOB at all but it has been a while.
4. 3E Monks were good damage dealers and equals according to you. I'm will take your word for it. They also had unlimited FOB.
5. 4E Monks were assuredly perfectly balanced as that is the hallmark of this edition (although I only played 4E once). I assume they had FOB probably limited by the schema of daily/encounter/at will powers.
This is the history of the D&D Monk. If you go by the history and tradition the current 5E Monk is right where he should be wedged between the least powerful versions and the most powerful versions. Getting FOB as a limited use resource is on par too, with early editions where he did not get it at all and 3.5 where he apparently got it for free.
IMO 3.5 is the exception to the Monk, not the standard by which the class should be modeled and they way it is in Pathfinder is not really an endorsement IMO.
I would agree it is the best damage subclass, but Kensai is not a greatsubclass overall in my opinion. If you really want to be on par with fighters I think you need a subclass that opens up heavy weapons as Monk weapons and something that brings battlemaster-like maneuvers to the table. I would make the maneuvers run off of ki though (maybe even 2 ki per). To be honest Glaives (and Longswords, Flalis, Heavy Crossbows and Blowguns) should be Monk weapons already, based on what the warriors from the far east historically used. The original 1E monks could use all polearms, and there were about 30 different types of them.
Currently Mercy, Dragon, Shadow and Long Death are the Most powerful Monk subclasses through level 10 IMO. Shadow is a really good class in this area due to their spells. But these are not competitive with the best martial class-subclass combos in the game at those levels and not as good in melee as a Kensai either.
If you go past level 10, Long Death at high levels is one of the most powerful characters in the game as long as you budget ki wisely. They are essentially unkillable until they run out of ki, and when they get that feature they have a lot of it to spend.
ya long death is one of my favorite subclasses as well.they even get some free non ki use abilities which is very nice. pretty good at being tanky. I guess we got to see what the next revision for monk is . its only the first pass so hopefully they will show more subclasses and figure a way to have multi style playstyles supported.
People are wrong to think that the damage done by the monk is similar to and higher than that of the fighter (even at 1–11 level). This is because they calculate the damage done by the monk in its bonus action and forget to compare it with the possible damage that the fighter could also do in its bonus action. While the monk can no longer develop the bonus action, the fighter could, and so when you make a comparison, you also respect their potential. Action vs. action; bonus action vs. bonus action; reaction vs. reaction; combat time (resources) for short rest vs. "the same." Only in this way can you make a semi-realistic comparison.
It should also be reflected that in the standard of dnd 5e, the bonus action is mostly used as a discard action for special actions and therefore not always used as an attack, and this is also true for the monk, while the action for a warrior is mainly used for attacking. With this, I want to highlight the difference between action and bonus action.
Not true. If you do not consider feats or subclass abilities and include a bonus action attack for the fighter the Monk is equal or ahead of a figther at every level from 1 to 10:
Fighter level 1-4 (TWF): 2d6+2*strength/Dex (1d6 action, 1d6 bonus)
Monk level 1-4: 1d4+1d8 +2*dex (1d8 action, 1d4 bonus)
Fighter level 5-10: 3d6+3*strength (2d6 action, 1d6 bonus)
Monk level 5-10: 2d8+1d6+3*dex (2d8 action, 1d6 bonus)
That is including fighting style and bonus action. I don't know of any fighting style that is going to do more base at will damage with a fighter without considering subclass or feats.
Also keep in mind here this is using no Ki at all (which is a class resource, not a subclass resource). At 10th level a Monk can average spending more than a ki a turn in combat.
Sure, but a base fighter has only two bonus actions available - Second Wind and Two-Weapon fighting, and if he uses the latter without the two weapon fighting style he will be substantially behind the Monk in damage. A Monk has much better bonus action options, so if you want to compare this you need to compare the relative value of the extra damage a heavy weapon fighter would do on actions alone (about 1.5 damage per hit) and develop a numerical equivalence for the better bonus actions the Monk gets and compare those along with a numerical equivalence for a figther being able to do second wind once per short rest.
Your point is valid, you can get subclasses, multiclasses, feats or races that give other bonus action options and you can use a diffferent fighting style that does a lot more damge with your action so you can use a different bonus action and not fall far behind (or even stay ahead with the things mentioned earlier).
But this is true only because of how those other non-fighter and subclass features synergize with fighters, the weapons they use, the bonus actions available etc. The specific claim I disagree with is that the fighter as a class does more damage than a Monk as a stand-alone class. That is simply not true.
Bonus action vs Bonus action a figther can only do Two Weapon Figthing and Second Wind. A Monk can do Martial Arts, FOB, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, Ki-Fueled attack and Two-Weapon Fighting.
The argument that this is not fair because a fighter can use his bonus action is not valid when the fighter as a class doesn't get any bonus actions he can use regularly.
I did action vs action plus bonus vs bonus above, assuming the fighter was using the only bonus action he gets damage from and optimizing the numbers for that fighting style. That is the highest damage you are going to get as a fighter from levels 1-10.
You can't account for reactions as without a feat or other ability there is not a good way to measure them. If you are looking at pure overall damage as your metric based on class abilities only, that is going to drive fighters to a d6 light weapon where as a Monk will be using a d8 staff or spear and getting more reaction damage. Using a heavier weapon for the fighter will eliminate all bonus action damage.
This leaves Ki and Action Surge as the two things you really need to account for in damage.
Action surge is relatively easy, if you assume 24 rounds of combat and 2 short rests per day that assumes 27 actions over 24 rounds.
Ki is more difficult and ramps up with level. If you assume you use it on FOB, which is generally the worst use of ki but the highest damage use, this is going to start as one extra martial arts attack per short rest and ramp up to a maximum of 8 extra attacks per short rest. After 8th level a Monk has extra ki he is not spending on FOB. In terms of damage only this could be spent on focused aim to boost hit chances, but I am not going to account for that here.
For this I am actually going to assume the following abilities: 16 at level 1, 18 at level 4, 20 for fighter at level 6, 20 for Monk at level 8. I will compare at 4 levels: 2, 5, 6 and 8-10. I will not count crits here because I am not using an AC and you can't do that accurately without AC. This assumes both have the same attack bonus. At level 6-7 the fighter actually has a slightly higher attack bonus, but this also does not account for Focused aim, which will effectively make the Monk better at levels 9-10 and make up some ground at level 6-7. With this in mind, I will call the attack bonus difference at those two levels awash.
Level 2 Fighter daily damage total: 27 attacks (27d6+81) + 24 Bonus actions (24d6+72). Total daily damage 331.5
Level 2 Monk daily total: 24 attacks (24d8+72) + 30 martial arts (30d4+30). Total daily damage: 325
Level 5 Fighter daily damage total: 27 attacks (54d6+216) + 24 Bonus actions (24d6+96). Total daily damage: 585
Level 5 Monk daily damage total: 24 attacks (48d8+192) + 39 martial arts (39d6+156). Total daily damage: 700.5
Level 6-10 Fighter daily damage: 27 attacks (54d6+270) + 24 Bonus actions (24d6+120). Total daily damage: 663
Level 6 Monk daily damage: 24 attacks (48d8+192) + 42 martial arts (42d6+168). Total daily damage: 723
Level 8-10 Monk daily damage: 24 attacks (48d8+220) + 48 martial arts (48d6+220). Total daily damage: 819
That is without using all of the Monk's Ki at levels 9-10. Obviously this will vary based on how many short rests you get and how long combat is, but I think 6 combats of 4 rounds each is a good middle of the road number to start with.
This is somewhat resilient to changes in number of fights, rounds or rests. Fewer combats will favor the Fighter in this discussion assuming the Monk is only spending Ki on FOB, while longer combats will favor the Monk. However, fewer combats will also mean the Monk does not run out of ki and would have more ki to spam and we really are not accounting for things other than FOB.
But the class doesn't and that is the point here. The Monk class is versatile and measures up well. It is the other things - specifically subclasses, feats and racial abilities that put a fighter way ahead.
You will be hard pressed to show numerically a basic fighter without any of those things that performs better than a Monk in general. And yes, the Monk has to use her bonus action to be better, but that itself speaks to the fact the Monk has multiple, effective, bonus action options as part of her class and the fighter, as a class, doesn't.
Polearm Master weaponizes the bonus attack for Fighter, and at level 11 they're doing three attacks, plus their bonus attack. That's 3(d10 + 5) + d4 + 5, for an average of 39 per round.
It's easier to find one magical glaive than two magical shortswords.
Monk does have decent melee damage, so long as the ki holds out, but Fighter is basically the baseline for martial damage.
Agreed. That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said:
"Your point is valid, you can get subclasses, multiclasses, feats or races that give other bonus action options and you can use a diffferent fighting style that does a lot more damge with your action so you can use a different bonus action and not fall far behind (or even stay ahead with the things mentioned earlier).
But this is true only because of how those other non-fighter and subclass features synergize with fighters, the weapons they use, the bonus actions available etc. The specific claim I disagree with is that the fighter as a class does more damage than a Monk as a stand-alone class. That is simply not true."
Sure, but they are not extremely common and Rare, Very Rare and Legendary Glaives are unheard of. Further it is not just shortswords. A two weapon fighter could use any light weapons. Handaxes and Scimitars do the same damage as Shortswords. Clubs, Daggers, and Sickles do 1 point less on average, which would be counteracted if they have a magic bonus.
It is also worth mentioning that a Monk can use any simple weapon at all and do 1d6 at level 5, 1d8 with it at level 11 and 1d10 at level 17.
Fighters are designed to work with feats (to the extent any D&D class can be said to be 'designed'). That's why they get two extra ASIs that would be virtually useless if feats were disallowed in the game.
Monks meanwhile are not. Most feats are useless to them, Mobile aside, and if the player is planning to maximize their AC then they have no free ASIs until level 19.
The "Monk Weapons" rule has been removed in the latest 1D&D playtest. I guess WotC thought it was too strong. *eyeroll*