Monks excel at speed, and they're really versatility, the most versatile of the martial classes (spellcasters can be more versatile, but that's kind of their entire thing).
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range. I’m not saying monks are bad, just that the versatility argument doesn’t really convince me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range.
Look harder 😝
Monks don't need to maximise three stats; they don't need huge Constitution, they tank using good AC and Patient Defence to not be hit in the first place, and by using superior movement and cover to boost that even further. The martial sub-classes that can be casters do need to maximise three, or only pick spells that don't use their spellcasting ability, and there are trade-offs involved.
A Monk's Ki lets them throw out more attacks, stun enemies, tank, disengage, move even faster etc. etc., it's a class that's all about versatility from its early level features all the way up to their higher level ones. And they can be effective at range; all Monks can use Shortbows, Way of the Kensei allows Longbows and a bunch of useful bonuses on top of that, but you don't really want to be at range all the time as Monk, a ranged weapons is for switching to when it makes sense; again, versatility.
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.
And that's why you're always wrong; the purpose of the Monk is not to excel in any one of your choice of categories, of which you only seem to have one (damage).
I've mentioned damage, ac, hp, resource use... I don't get what it profits you to make a strawman out of my points and just accuse me of some tunnel versioned bias towards damage.
Monks excel at speed, and they're really versatile, easily the most versatile of the martial classes
As I've pointed out, they simply aren't versatile. They are deficient in every category, and then spend ki points to be on par (or just nearly on par) with the other martials in one category for a moment. It isn't worthwhile versatility if it comes at the cost of being less versatile at all times.
Even being deficient with jet engines strapped on doesn't make them on par with the other martials.
How many times do you have to be told this before you either listen
If you're just going to repeat the same debunked points and insult me, I see no reason to listen. Its a shame, since we seem to generally agree and have constructive discussion on almost every other topic but this.
And it's a silly argument in the first place; if your argument is that Monks can be as good as other martial classes at what those classes are designed to be best at, then your argument is actually that Monks are the best martial class in the game
wtf? Where did I ever make that argument? How can I be saying that if Im saying monk is deficient in most categories?
And that's why you're always wrong; the purpose of the Monk is not to excel in any one of your choice of categories, of which you only seem to have one (damage).
I've mentioned damage, ac, hp, resource use... I don't get what it profits you to make a strawman out of my points and just accuse me of some tunnel versioned bias towards damage.
Monks excel at speed, and they're really versatile, easily the most versatile of the martial classes
As I've pointed out, they simply aren't versatile. They are deficient in every category, and then spend ki points to be on par (or just nearly on par) with the other martials in one category for a moment. It isn't worthwhile versatility if it comes at the cost of being less versatile at all times.
Even being deficient with jet engines strapped on doesn't make them on par with the other martials.
How many times do you have to be told this before you either listen
If you're just going to repeat the same debunked points and insult me, I see no reason to listen. Its a shame, since we seem to generally agree and have constructive discussion on almost every other topic but this.
And it's a silly argument in the first place; if your argument is that Monks can be as good as other martial classes at what those classes are designed to be best at, then your argument is actually that Monks are the best martial class in the game
wtf? Where did I ever make that argument? How can I be saying that if Im saying monk is deficient in most categories?
Seems like a lot of disingenuous discussion.....
01011000Lehrer had the best post so far in terms of actually being honest about the pros/cons of the class. They have a high floor due to their options which means even a unoptimized monk will likely outperform a unoptimized fighter or barbarian. But their ceiling is low so if you make good choices with fighter or barbarian they will fall behind.
Does that mean they are unplayable? No...in fact I think most everyone here fully agrees they are a FUN class to play which is one of (if not the most) important factors in the game.
Does that mean we should be dishonest about their shortcomings? No...you need to be honest with what the Monk is and what is not. Simply lying and saying they do as much damage as other martials doesn't help monk or help people who are thinking about playing monk. Instead focus on telling them how fun they are to play as 01011000Lehrer stated.
Be honest and let people draw their own conclusions.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The monk isn't paying anything to be less deficient. Dealing damage is not the be-all-end-all of playing the game. What the monk excels in is mobility, getting in and out of the fray, and supporting their allies. It's the only "martial" class that is guaranteed to deal magical damage. It can stun, which is rare. Its numerous archetypes offer a wide variety of control. And we're haven't even gotten into its defensive abilities.
Monks aren't just deficient in damage. They are also behind other martials defensively. Even its archetypes offer lack luster control options, since they are over-priced in terms or resource cost, and pull the monk away from using its main class abilities.
And the monk is spending resources to be deficient. If they spend ki points on flurry of blows, they are just matching the low end of other martials' damage. If they spend ki points on defense, they are just using the dodge action to make up for fewer hit points, AC, healing, and damage reduction abilities. Speed makes up for very little in the way of effective ranged options in combat, with spending ki on the step of the wind being necessary to really give a monk legs.
Monks aren't so bad as to be unplayable. But they could do a heck of a lot more, still be unique, and not be overpowered.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The monk isn't paying anything to be less deficient. Dealing damage is not the be-all-end-all of playing the game. What the monk excels in is mobility, getting in and out of the fray, and supporting their allies. It's the only "martial" class that is guaranteed to deal magical damage. It can stun, which is rare. Its numerous archetypes offer a wide variety of control. And we're haven't even gotten into its defensive abilities.
Monks aren't just deficient in damage. They are also behind other martials defensively. Even its archetypes offer lack luster control options, since they are over-priced in terms or resource cost, and pull the monk away from using its main class abilities.
And the monk is spending resources to be deficient. If they spend ki points on flurry of blows, they are just matching the low end of other martials' damage. If they spend ki points on defense, they are just using the dodge action to make up for fewer hit points, AC, healing, and damage reduction abilities. Speed makes up for very little in the way of effective ranged options in combat, with spending ki on the step of the wind being necessary to really give a monk legs.
Monks aren't so bad as to be unplayable. But they could do a heck of a lot more, still be unique, and not be overpowered.
I suppose that depends on what tier of play you're in, but let's take a quick look.
A 5th-level fighter is swinging a greatsword for maybe 22 (4d6+8) damage; 24 if they have the accompanying fighting style. A 5th-level monk with a spear is getting in maybe 17 (2d8+8) + 7(1d6+4) for a total of...you guess it, 24 damage per round. So, right off the bat, that's impressive. The monk ties the fighter and, without even factoring in archetypes or resource expenditure beyond the bonus action, they'll pull ahead of full martial classes. And if monks wish to spend a ki point, they can do more. So can everyone else, but that's a pretty solid chassis. Going back to the fighter for a second, action surge isn't just for attacking more often. It can be used to Cast a Spell (if available), Dodge, Help, and more. You use the tools at your disposal in a manner best befitting the current situation. To put it another way, "white room" theory-crafting simply won't ever cut it.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
Will the monk fall behind at dealing damage when compared to other classes at levels continue to increase and new features are continued to be unlocked? Sure. They're not a full martial. They're not supposed to. But, again, they're highly mobile. They have the most speed of anyone. They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. They can run up walls and over water. They can stun enemies, which is incredibly powerful. They can be immune to poison, be proficient in all saving throws, and shake off a number of mental effects just by taking a second to concentrate. Their AC will likely be higher than an unarmored barbarian and on par with anyone in full plate with a shield. And they can impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and even stop ranged missiles from hitting at all.
And that's all just some of their core features. We aren't even discussing what their archetypes allow for.
Monk's, quite frankly, do a lot of things really well because nobody else can even come close in their versatility. You think of that as a weakness, but you're wrong. They can be whatever the party needs them to be. Monks are adaptable in a way that no one else is.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The monk isn't paying anything to be less deficient. Dealing damage is not the be-all-end-all of playing the game. What the monk excels in is mobility, getting in and out of the fray, and supporting their allies. It's the only "martial" class that is guaranteed to deal magical damage. It can stun, which is rare. Its numerous archetypes offer a wide variety of control. And we're haven't even gotten into its defensive abilities.
Monks aren't just deficient in damage. They are also behind other martials defensively. Even its archetypes offer lack luster control options, since they are over-priced in terms or resource cost, and pull the monk away from using its main class abilities.
And the monk is spending resources to be deficient. If they spend ki points on flurry of blows, they are just matching the low end of other martials' damage. If they spend ki points on defense, they are just using the dodge action to make up for fewer hit points, AC, healing, and damage reduction abilities. Speed makes up for very little in the way of effective ranged options in combat, with spending ki on the step of the wind being necessary to really give a monk legs.
Monks aren't so bad as to be unplayable. But they could do a heck of a lot more, still be unique, and not be overpowered.
I suppose that depends on what tier of play you're in, but let's take a quick look.
A 5th-level fighter is swinging a greatsword for maybe 22 (4d6+8) damage; 24 if they have the accompanying fighting style. A 5th-level monk with a spear is getting in maybe 17 (2d8+8) + 7(1d6+4) for a total of...you guess it, 24 damage per round. So, right off the bat, that's impressive. The monk ties the fighter and, without even factoring in archetypes or resource expenditure beyond the bonus action, they'll pull ahead of full martial classes. And if monks wish to spend a ki point, they can do more. So can everyone else, but that's a pretty solid chassis. Going back to the fighter for a second, action surge isn't just for attacking more often. It can be used to Cast a Spell (if available), Dodge, Help, and more. You use the tools at your disposal in a manner best befitting the current situation. To put it another way, "white room" theory-crafting simply won't ever cut it.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
Will the monk fall behind at dealing damage when compared to other classes at levels continue to increase and new features are continued to be unlocked? Sure. They're not a full martial. They're not supposed to. But, again, they're highly mobile. They have the most speed of anyone. They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. They can run up walls and over water. They can stun enemies, which is incredibly powerful. They can be immune to poison, be proficient in all saving throws, and shake off a number of mental effects just by taking a second to concentrate. Their AC will likely be higher than an unarmored barbarian and on par with anyone in full plate with a shield. And they can impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and even stop ranged missiles from hitting at all.
And that's all just some of their core features. We aren't even discussing what their archetypes allow for.
Monk's, quite frankly, do a lot of things really well because nobody else can even come close in their versatility. You think of that as a weakness, but you're wrong. They can be whatever the party needs them to be. Monks are adaptable in a way that no one else is.
Again you compare apples to oranges by not including things like subclass features for fighter...which is honestly where a good majority of their damage comes from. Also Action Surge alone puts fighter well ahead of monk on a day to day basis any way. You are allowing monks to use a class feature (Martial Arts) but not allowing fighter to do the same.
Monk is not doing the same amount of damage as fighter or barb...please just get over this fact and move on its not productive to try to argue a point that has been so thoroughly dismissed. They do "Okay" and are no where near the top for DPR until they get to level 17 which 99% of campaigns (including written modules) never get to.
You then seem to agree that they don't do as much damage.... so which is it?
Then you make a straight up error: "They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. "
This is simply not true....they can pick one or the other and it costs a ki point to do so. A rogue will actually out run a monk in most situations as they can dash for free as a BA and their damage comes from a single attack so their opportunity loss for using it is much much much less than monk. A rogue with mobile will be able to move much more than a monk.
I am not saying Monk is bad...I honestly do not see a single class (Beastmaster gets reallllly close) that is just straight up bad. They have their pros/cons but Damange is not a pro and movement is barely a pro...they are about even with a rogue for the majority of their lifespan in normal games (<level 10).
They do get a bonus to AC and they can STUN which is not ever talked about enough about how good it is. Yes Con saves are ridiculous at higher levels: Check out this great post.
But even a chance to completely shut down a single target through YOUR turn is crazy good. Also the new monk with the free proficiency uses of a subclass ability per LR is really good and I hope that is the standard moving forward.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
So I made a mistake or two. It happens. That doesn't mean I'm behind dishonest. I'm sure not dumping on perfectly good classes and archetypes for no good reason. At least I can see and love the potential that's there.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
So I made a mistake or two. It happens. That doesn't mean I'm behind dishonest. I'm sure not dumping on perfectly good classes and archetypes for no good reason. At least I can see and love the potential that's there.
Again you miss the point...I am not "Dumping" on anything simply being honest about their strengths/weaknesses. I think they are good class as the "Fun" level while playing them is very high. I also do not suggest they are DPR machines or that they should feel they should be doing as much damage as fighter/ranger/barbarian....they just will not. This is completely fine and expected. They have STUN which is amazing and a few other niche things that when you pull them off are cool. (Catching an arrow and throwing it back to kill the goblin is pretty amazing)
I just hate when people paint a rosy picture of a class/feature/etc... without engaging in the criticisms for said class/feature/etc. Especially for new players this is a bad as they come in with unreal expectations and can feel unfulfilled. Its always better to have an honest take and do not try to prop up the bad...simply state it as such and let people decide.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The monk isn't paying anything to be less deficient. Dealing damage is not the be-all-end-all of playing the game. What the monk excels in is mobility, getting in and out of the fray, and supporting their allies. It's the only "martial" class that is guaranteed to deal magical damage. It can stun, which is rare. Its numerous archetypes offer a wide variety of control. And we're haven't even gotten into its defensive abilities.
Monks aren't just deficient in damage. They are also behind other martials defensively. Even its archetypes offer lack luster control options, since they are over-priced in terms or resource cost, and pull the monk away from using its main class abilities.
And the monk is spending resources to be deficient. If they spend ki points on flurry of blows, they are just matching the low end of other martials' damage. If they spend ki points on defense, they are just using the dodge action to make up for fewer hit points, AC, healing, and damage reduction abilities. Speed makes up for very little in the way of effective ranged options in combat, with spending ki on the step of the wind being necessary to really give a monk legs.
Monks aren't so bad as to be unplayable. But they could do a heck of a lot more, still be unique, and not be overpowered.
I suppose that depends on what tier of play you're in, but let's take a quick look.
A 5th-level fighter is swinging a greatsword for maybe 22 (4d6+8) damage; 24 if they have the accompanying fighting style. A 5th-level monk with a spear is getting in maybe 17 (2d8+8) + 7(1d6+4) for a total of...you guess it, 24 damage per round. So, right off the bat, that's impressive. The monk ties the fighter and, without even factoring in archetypes or resource expenditure beyond the bonus action, they'll pull ahead of full martial classes. And if monks wish to spend a ki point, they can do more. So can everyone else, but that's a pretty solid chassis. Going back to the fighter for a second, action surge isn't just for attacking more often. It can be used to Cast a Spell (if available), Dodge, Help, and more. You use the tools at your disposal in a manner best befitting the current situation. To put it another way, "white room" theory-crafting simply won't ever cut it.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
Will the monk fall behind at dealing damage when compared to other classes at levels continue to increase and new features are continued to be unlocked? Sure. They're not a full martial. They're not supposed to. But, again, they're highly mobile. They have the most speed of anyone. They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. They can run up walls and over water. They can stun enemies, which is incredibly powerful. They can be immune to poison, be proficient in all saving throws, and shake off a number of mental effects just by taking a second to concentrate. Their AC will likely be higher than an unarmored barbarian and on par with anyone in full plate with a shield. And they can impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and even stop ranged missiles from hitting at all.
And that's all just some of their core features. We aren't even discussing what their archetypes allow for.
Monk's, quite frankly, do a lot of things really well because nobody else can even come close in their versatility. You think of that as a weakness, but you're wrong. They can be whatever the party needs them to be. Monks are adaptable in a way that no one else is.
Again you compare apples to oranges by not including things like subclass features for fighter...which is honestly where a good majority of their damage comes from. Also Action Surge alone puts fighter well ahead of monk on a day to day basis any way. You are allowing monks to use a class feature (Martial Arts) but not allowing fighter to do the same.
Monk is not doing the same amount of damage as fighter or barb...please just get over this fact and move on its not productive to try to argue a point that has been so thoroughly dismissed. They do "Okay" and are no where near the top for DPR until they get to level 17 which 99% of campaigns (including written modules) never get to.
You then seem to agree that they don't do as much damage.... so which is it?
Then you make a straight up error: "They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. "
This is simply not true....they can pick one or the other and it costs a ki point to do so. A rogue will actually out run a monk in most situations as they can dash for free as a BA and their damage comes from a single attack so their opportunity loss for using it is much much much less than monk. A rogue with mobile will be able to move much more than a monk.
I am not saying Monk is bad...I honestly do not see a single class (Beastmaster gets reallllly close) that is just straight up bad. They have their pros/cons but Damange is not a pro and movement is barely a pro...they are about even with a rogue for the majority of their lifespan in normal games (<level 10).
They do get a bonus to AC and they can STUN which is not ever talked about enough about how good it is. Yes Con saves are ridiculous at higher levels: Check out this great post.
But even a chance to completely shut down a single target through YOUR turn is crazy good. Also the new monk with the free proficiency uses of a subclass ability per LR is really good and I hope that is the standard moving forward.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
To be fair, Jounichi essentially placed Action Surge in the same category as Ki points with the ability to do extra damage, dodge, etc. I also didn't see any reference to monk subclass damage being added into the equation, but here's the thing: it doesn't matter that Fighters can do more damage than monks because that is what fighters are designed to do. They are designed to be good in combat with few bones thrown to other aspects of the game. The closest thing that they have to contribute outside of combat is the two extra ASIs. That can help them take feats to be more well rounded or put points in stats to be better at some skills. That allows them a lot of flexibility in the theoretical realm but their path becomes a lot more rigid once those choices are made.
Monks do well with damage. They aren't chart toppers, but they aren't designed to be chart toppers. Their mobility gives them an amazing amount of flexibility on a turn by turn basis and the shear number of options that they can bring to bear at any time gives them an amazing amount of power. They are meant to have a high amount of time on target (which can make up for lower DPR), the ability to maneuver the battlefield almost at will and be a swiss army knife of options to plug and play in whatever situation that they are called on to fill. When you can rotate your role on a turn by turn basis as well as a monk, you can shore up a lot of problems. Being able to hamper an enemy spell caster can be huge.
Saying that the Rogue with mobile feat can be as mobile as a monk is a compliment to the monk's mobility, but does ignore the fact that a rogue will want to use that bonus action to hide frequently, so there is a cost involved.
I do like 01011000Lehrer's take as I remember agreeing with most of what they brought up.
In short, the best way to judge a class's fit for you is to play it, but the next best way is to read in the threads, take everything with a grain of salt, figure that the truth is somewhere in between, have an idea of what your expectations of a class are and weigh those expectations against what people are telling you. When you choose to play a class, play it in a way that is similar to the ways that people who love the class say that they play it. Don't focus on the aspects that people who hate the class say they hate. As for damage, remember that the difference on a round to round basis will likely only be a few points on average. Those moments when your character shines will make up for the moments when they don't. When your character has an epic fail, lean into it, and make it memorable. And if you are a support character, remember to count all the damage that you enable as your own if damage is a big measuring stick for your fun.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
So I made a mistake or two. It happens. That doesn't mean I'm behind dishonest. I'm sure not dumping on perfectly good classes and archetypes for no good reason. At least I can see and love the potential that's there.
Again you miss the point...I am not "Dumping" on anything simply being honest about their strengths/weaknesses. I think they are good class as the "Fun" level while playing them is very high. I also do not suggest they are DPR machines or that they should feel they should be doing as much damage as fighter/ranger/barbarian....they just will not. This is completely fine and expected. They have STUN which is amazing and a few other niche things that when you pull them off are cool. (Catching an arrow and throwing it back to kill the goblin is pretty amazing)
I just hate when people paint a rosy picture of a class/feature/etc... without engaging in the criticisms for said class/feature/etc. Especially for new players this is a bad as they come in with unreal expectations and can feel unfulfilled. Its always better to have an honest take and do not try to prop up the bad...simply state it as such and let people decide.
When you say objectively false things like how monks, "simply aren't versatile," and how they're, "deficient in every category," you are dumping on them. You're the one who's not being honest about their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have to paint a rosy picture to see the class' strengths. And for all your talk of how bad the class can be for new players, 5E is incredibly forgiving. New players are supposed to learn how to play their class as they level. Even experienced players, if trying out a new class at a higher level for a one-shot, are going to struggle a little. Some classes have bigger toolboxes than others.
It's kind of funny how I keep noticing people whinging about classes that are only okay at dealing damage but are pretty good in a supporting role. Really tells you where people's priorities lie.
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range.
Look harder 😝
Monks don't need to maximise three stats; they don't need huge Constitution, they tank using good AC and Patient Defence to not be hit in the first place, and by using superior movement and cover to boost that even further. The martial sub-classes that can be casters do need to maximise three, or only pick spells that don't use their spellcasting ability, and there are trade-offs involved.
A Monk's Ki lets them throw out more attacks, stun enemies, tank, disengage, move even faster etc. etc., it's a class that's all about versatility from its early level features all the way up to their higher level ones. And they can be effective at range; all Monks can use Shortbows, Way of the Kensei allows Longbows and a bunch of useful bonuses on top of that, but you don't really want to be at range all the time as Monk, a ranged weapons is for switching to when it makes sense; again, versatility.
Con still should be high-ish, arguably. With a standard array, that kind of locks you in. Martial casters do have to focus on three abilities as well to some extent, but then they get that versatility from those spells. At that point I don't think monks can claim any real versatility advantage.
Ki is all about combat. Are monks more versatile in combat than fighters? I don't see that. Especially with fighters' broad access to feats, which allow the player to choose something instead of getting locked-in class abilities, and can be used for out-of-combat ability as well. I like Way of the Kensei myself, but it's a subclass - if we throw those into the mix the other classes gain a wide variety of options as well. And shortbow at range isn't much good. Better use that mobility to get stuck in asap.
Again, it's not a bad class. I don't think it's meaningfully more versatile than other martial classes though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
So I made a mistake or two. It happens. That doesn't mean I'm behind dishonest. I'm sure not dumping on perfectly good classes and archetypes for no good reason. At least I can see and love the potential that's there.
Again you miss the point...I am not "Dumping" on anything simply being honest about their strengths/weaknesses. I think they are good class as the "Fun" level while playing them is very high. I also do not suggest they are DPR machines or that they should feel they should be doing as much damage as fighter/ranger/barbarian....they just will not. This is completely fine and expected. They have STUN which is amazing and a few other niche things that when you pull them off are cool. (Catching an arrow and throwing it back to kill the goblin is pretty amazing)
I just hate when people paint a rosy picture of a class/feature/etc... without engaging in the criticisms for said class/feature/etc. Especially for new players this is a bad as they come in with unreal expectations and can feel unfulfilled. Its always better to have an honest take and do not try to prop up the bad...simply state it as such and let people decide.
When you say objectively false things like how monks, "simply aren't versatile," and how they're, "deficient in every category," you are dumping on them. You're the one who's not being honest about their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have to paint a rosy picture to see the class' strengths. And for all your talk of how bad the class can be for new players, 5E is incredibly forgiving. New players are supposed to learn how to play their class as they level. Even experienced players, if trying out a new class at a higher level for a one-shot, are going to struggle a little. Some classes have bigger toolboxes than others.
It's kind of funny how I keep noticing people whinging about classes that are only okay at dealing damage but are pretty good in a supporting role. Really tells you where people's priorities lie.
I think you have me mistaken for another poster....I never said those particular things. I think you are very confused here...
I did say that its better to be honest with new players and give them strengths/weaknesses up front. I disagree if you do not want to do that but you can I guess if you wish?
I am also not "Whinging" about monk at all...simply being honest. I have talked them up at several points here...
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range.
Look harder 😝
Monks don't need to maximise three stats; they don't need huge Constitution, they tank using good AC and Patient Defence to not be hit in the first place, and by using superior movement and cover to boost that even further. The martial sub-classes that can be casters do need to maximise three, or only pick spells that don't use their spellcasting ability, and there are trade-offs involved.
A Monk's Ki lets them throw out more attacks, stun enemies, tank, disengage, move even faster etc. etc., it's a class that's all about versatility from its early level features all the way up to their higher level ones. And they can be effective at range; all Monks can use Shortbows, Way of the Kensei allows Longbows and a bunch of useful bonuses on top of that, but you don't really want to be at range all the time as Monk, a ranged weapons is for switching to when it makes sense; again, versatility.
Con still should be high-ish, arguably. With a standard array, that kind of locks you in. Martial casters do have to focus on three abilities as well to some extent, but then they get that versatility from those spells. At that point I don't think monks can claim any real versatility advantage.
Ki is all about combat. Are monks more versatile in combat than fighters? I don't see that. Especially with fighters' broad access to feats, which allow the player to choose something instead of getting locked-in class abilities, and can be used for out-of-combat ability as well. I like Way of the Kensei myself, but it's a subclass - if we throw those into the mix the other classes gain a wide variety of options as well. And shortbow at range isn't much good. Better use that mobility to get stuck in asap.
Again, it's not a bad class. I don't think it's meaningfully more versatile than other martial classes though.
A shortbow isn't bad, it's only 1 point of damage on average worse than a long bow and two points worse than a heavy crossbow. You'll usually want to attack in melee but a short bow shot to mop up one target before moving to another is a valid option. Flexibility and versatility. Being able to take that shot and move into melee to beat up a wizard or tank someone beating up on yours all in the same round without giving up any survivability is the versatility that I refer to and that I think most proponents of monks are talking about.
Spell casters can be more versatile but their mechanics are usually balanced to overall versatility rather than in the moment versatility. A monk can do many things well that some classes can only do by specializing. Sure those classes can do it better by specializing, but they lack in other areas.
As for whether that versatility is meaningful or not is subjective. If your group has enough players to make sure that each facet of the game is covered by a specialist (or at least the facets that your party focuses on and your DM uses), that versatility is not always meaningful. If your party wasn't metagamed together (on purpose or otherwise), then that versatility will be key just like having a bard with Jack of All Trades means that you won't be terrible at skills that nobody invested into.
My guess is that a starting con of 13-14 is probably sufficient more many monks and going higher than 16 isn't going to gimp many of them to badly, if they go higher than 14. Intelligence is the universal dump stat for non-wizards and artificers, though some EKs and ATs like higher int. Charisma is often covered by the plethora of bards, warlocks, and Paladins and many rogues like it, too. Dumping that isn't as bad in that case. Putting your 15 and 14 into dex and wisdom with your 13 into con and 12 into strength gives you a fair amount of flexibility with skills in many parties, allows for your athletics to be adequate if you go proficient in it and your saves will be pretty good even before you hit 14. With Evasion, high dex, and dex save proficiency from the start, you'll worry less about dex saves than most characters and your mobility allows you to pick your fights better than most classes while still productively assisting the party.
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range.
Look harder 😝
Monks don't need to maximise three stats; they don't need huge Constitution, they tank using good AC and Patient Defence to not be hit in the first place, and by using superior movement and cover to boost that even further. The martial sub-classes that can be casters do need to maximise three, or only pick spells that don't use their spellcasting ability, and there are trade-offs involved.
A Monk's Ki lets them throw out more attacks, stun enemies, tank, disengage, move even faster etc. etc., it's a class that's all about versatility from its early level features all the way up to their higher level ones. And they can be effective at range; all Monks can use Shortbows, Way of the Kensei allows Longbows and a bunch of useful bonuses on top of that, but you don't really want to be at range all the time as Monk, a ranged weapons is for switching to when it makes sense; again, versatility.
Con still should be high-ish, arguably. With a standard array, that kind of locks you in. Martial casters do have to focus on three abilities as well to some extent, but then they get that versatility from those spells. At that point I don't think monks can claim any real versatility advantage.
Ki is all about combat. Are monks more versatile in combat than fighters? I don't see that. Especially with fighters' broad access to feats, which allow the player to choose something instead of getting locked-in class abilities, and can be used for out-of-combat ability as well. I like Way of the Kensei myself, but it's a subclass - if we throw those into the mix the other classes gain a wide variety of options as well. And shortbow at range isn't much good. Better use that mobility to get stuck in asap.
Again, it's not a bad class. I don't think it's meaningfully more versatile than other martial classes though.
A shortbow isn't bad, it's only 1 point of damage on average worse than a long bow and two points worse than a heavy crossbow. You'll usually want to attack in melee but a short bow shot to mop up one target before moving to another is a valid option. Flexibility and versatility. Being able to take that shot and move into melee to beat up a wizard or tank someone beating up on yours all in the same round without giving up any survivability is the versatility that I refer to and that I think most proponents of monks are talking about.
Spell casters can be more versatile but their mechanics are usually balanced to overall versatility rather than in the moment versatility. A monk can do many things well that some classes can only do by specializing. Sure those classes can do it better by specializing, but they lack in other areas.
As for whether that versatility is meaningful or not is subjective. If your group has enough players to make sure that each facet of the game is covered by a specialist (or at least the facets that your party focuses on and your DM uses), that versatility is not always meaningful. If your party wasn't metagamed together (on purpose or otherwise), then that versatility will be key just like having a bard with Jack of All Trades means that you won't be terrible at skills that nobody invested into.
My guess is that a starting con of 13-14 is probably sufficient more many monks and going higher than 16 isn't going to gimp many of them to badly, if they go higher than 14. Intelligence is the universal dump stat for non-wizards and artificers, though some EKs and ATs like higher int. Charisma is often covered by the plethora of bards, warlocks, and Paladins and many rogues like it, too. Dumping that isn't as bad in that case. Putting your 15 and 14 into dex and wisdom with your 13 into con and 12 into strength gives you a fair amount of flexibility with skills in many parties, allows for your athletics to be adequate if you go proficient in it and your saves will be pretty good even before you hit 14. With Evasion, high dex, and dex save proficiency from the start, you'll worry less about dex saves than most characters and your mobility allows you to pick your fights better than most classes while still productively assisting the party.
I think that fighters have more variety to what stat they prioritize for sure...especially for battlemaster DEX fighters as they use dex for so much. They are truly the most single attribute dependent as they use it for AC, to hit, and DC. They can pick what mental stat they want to get good in.
In a featless game the monk will likely be more versatile than fighter as they are limited to their subclass. However, with feats a fighter is given so many more options as they get more ASI/Feats.
Feats also make the DPR highly in favor of fighter/barbarian to the point that its not very close at all.
Monk excels better when they have amble short rest as their stun becomes encounter defining more often they get to use it.
And that's why you're always wrong; the purpose of the Monk is not to excel in any one of your choice of categories, of which you only seem to have one (damage).
I've mentioned damage, ac, hp, resource use... I don't get what it profits you to make a strawman out of my points and just accuse me of some tunnel versioned bias towards damage.
It's not a strawman, but you do place an unhealthy emphasis on damage above all else, and go out of your way to ignore defensive abilities, movement, and versatility in either abilities or options, as well as non-combat utility. And you do this to construct scenarios that favour your arguments while ignoring everyone elses. And you do this ad nauseum.
If you excise entire sections of the rules that you consider irrelevant then of course you can construct a narrative that favours what you want to say, except that what you keep trying to say is that something is objectively bad, when you consistently refuse to examine anything objectively at all, or make any effort to understand how a class is played (or actually play it).
Monks excel at speed, and they're really versatile, easily the most versatile of the martial classes
As I've pointed out, they simply aren't versatile. They are deficient in every category, and then spend ki points to be on par (or just nearly on par) with the other martials in one category for a moment. It isn't worthwhile versatility if it comes at the cost of being less versatile at all times.
And here we go again, this is the part where you can't understand that versatility doesn't mean you beat everyone whenever you want. Versatility has a cost, but it also has value.
Especially as don't get just get "on par"; they can exceed, as well as do things that other martial classes simply can't. But as usual these are things you refuse to consider because none of them is raw damage, even when it is. And even when you're not using Ki, Monks are still perfectly capable fighters if used properly.
Even being deficient with jet engines strapped on doesn't make them on par with the other martials.
Begin able to do 1,000 damage per hit has zero value if you can't deliver that hit where it needs to be. Again, you don't consider anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
If you're just going to repeat the same debunked points and insult me, I see no reason to listen. Its a shame, since we seem to generally agree and have constructive discussion on almost every other topic but this.
I'M not the one repeating debunked points, YOU are, because you never actually debunk mine, you rarely even acknowledge them at all. You make the same arguments in every thread, which you seem to just be copying from that one treantmonk video (where he makes it abundantly clear he's never actually tried to play as a Monk), and when challenged on them you invent elaborate scenarios to favour Fighters and Paladins over Monks, while ignoring any that don't.
You don't appear to have any actual experience playing as a Monk, and sometimes I question whether you've ever actually played D&D either, yet you seem to think that you know all the answers while pointedly ignoring any that don't agree with you. It's at best unproductive, and at worst… well apparently we're not allowed to call out for what it is.
Con still should be high-ish, arguably. With a standard array, that kind of locks you in.
I've never played higher than a +2 in Constitution as a Monk and it's never really been an issue for me. You get DEX save proficiency as standard, good AC plus Patient Defence, and Evasion at level 8, not to mention very high mobility that you should absolutely use to your advantage as much as possible.
Martial casters do have to focus on three abilities as well to some extent, but then they get that versatility from those spells. At that point I don't think monks can claim any real versatility advantage.
For martial casters their spell slots are regained on long rest, Ki is regained on a short rest (or a Catnap), and the actual versatility depends a great deal on spell choice. I'd say it evens out personally when you dive into the spell lists and what Paladins/Rangers actually use. Paladins for example don't often cast spells at all, but use their slots as a Ki-like resource purely for Divine Smites.
Ki is all about combat. Are monks more versatile in combat than fighters? I don't see that. Especially with fighters' broad access to feats, which allow the player to choose something instead of getting locked-in class abilities, and can be used for out-of-combat ability as well.
Feats are an optional rule, you have to actually take them, and it won't give a Fighter the same versatility as a Monk for nothing, it'll take time and lost ability score increases. Even if you only use your two extra ones, there are things you simply can't add with feats; you can only add so much speed and mobility compared to what a Monk gets for free, you can't give yourself Patient Defence or Stunning Strike etc.
I like Way of the Kensei myself, but it's a subclass - if we throw those into the mix the other classes gain a wide variety of options as well. And shortbow at range isn't much good. Better use that mobility to get stuck in asap.
You: "Monks are bad because they don't have any ranged options!" Me: "Here are some" You: "How dare you mention ranged options! You should only ever be fighting in melee!"
Please make up your mind. And you can't really just say "don't mention sub-classes that's cheating" when the issue is versatility; every Monk sub-class adds a bunch of extra abilities with and without Ki costs that only expand them further. Sub-classes and how they interact with classes is a huge part of how they actually perform.
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.
To be fair a single level of fighter produces a better ranged option for monks than picking up Kensei. Archery style produces about the same amount of DPR increase as the extra d4 and doesn't require a BA. And it gives you proficiency on ALL marital weapons so the new monk weapon variant in Tasha's makes it an amazing pick up.
I like Kensei ok but honestly its the most underwhelming monk option. I actually like 4 elements better as they at least have some interesting options unique to them (Water whip and the like).
And the whole "feats are optional" is a sad indictment of monk...the only way it really shines is if you remove them from the game which is sad because there are so many cool options you can have with feats. Removing that to simply balance back a monk is a net negative to the game IMO and I would never recommend it.
To be fair a single level of fighter produces a better ranged option for monks than picking up Kensei. Archery style produces about the same amount of DPR increase as the extra d4 and doesn't require a BA. And it gives you proficiency on ALL marital weapons so the new monk weapon variant in Tasha's makes it an amazing pick up.
I like Kensei ok but honestly its the most underwhelming monk option. I actually like 4 elements better as they at least have some interesting options unique to them (Water whip and the like).
And the whole "feats are optional" is a sad indictment of monk...the only way it really shines is if you remove them from the game which is sad because there are so many cool options you can have with feats. Removing that to simply balance back a monk is a net negative to the game IMO and I would never recommend it.
While Kensei does give monk a ranged option and 1 level of fighter may provide more damage over the course of a campaign for a ranged monk than Kensei's 1d4, the combat flexibility that a monk has is simply strengthened by Kensei. The scenario where a monk can shoot at a distant enemy and then turn to engage another enemy in any number of circumstances is the epitome of the flexibility that Kensei brings. Adding the 1d4 damage one round, then engaging a big hitter with Agile Parry and Patient Defense without putting the bow away while maybe drawing another weapon, to disengaging the enemy to strike distantly after the regular tank steps in is something that no other class can do without spells. The damage may decline during the defensive round, but only fighter can have a +2 AC, dodge, and attack in the same round without spells and they can only do it once or twice a short rest. The kensei monk may not want to do that often, but they can more and more as they level up. The spellcasters that can manage most of that sequence can't do it with an attack during the defensive round outside of Cleric with Spiritual Weapon and their range and mobility won't allow as great a range in most cases.
The most common complaint that I see with monks deals with damage. They do fine with damage, dealing several smaller attacks per round instead of one or two larger attacks. They put that damage to highly efficient use, applying it where it is most needed and rarely contributing no damage during a round. Most other characters either rely on a few larger attacks that may contribute nothing if they miss, have AOE damage to contribute, or contribute via support. Monks can do a little bit of all of that, particularly with certain subclasses.
If you want damage galore, go fighter or fling a fireball. If you want nova damage on a single target, go Paladin. If you want to be tough to kill, go barbarian. If you want to do a little bit of everything but nova, monk just might be what you're looking for.
It's not a strawman, but you do place an unhealthy emphasis on damage above all else, and go out of your way to ignore defensive abilities, movement, and versatility in either abilities or options, as well as non-combat utility.
You take time to disagree with my takes on defensive abilities, movement, and versatility, so its really interesting how you keep claiming I ignore them.
And here we go again, this is the part where you can't understand that versatility doesn't mean you beat everyone whenever you want. Versatility has a cost, but it also has value.
Especially as don't get just get "on par"; they can exceed, as well as do things that other martial classes simply can't. But as usual these are things you refuse to consider because none of them is raw damage, even when it is. And even when you're not using Ki, Monks are still perfectly capable fighters if used properly.
So monks don't need to excel at what they wish to do when using ki points, but you still hold that they do? Does "versatility" have a cost or not, because you are really trying to have it both ways.
Im just stating facts when I say that before using any of their ki abilities, monk is just the weakest martial class all around. The class makes that sacrifice to give you "versatile options" in ki abilities. But those abilities never make them better offensively or defensively than other martial classes (rogue being the exception for having a totally unique play style). Even if we assume using a ki ability towards a certain end completely puts the monk on par or even just a bit better in a certain category for a turn, they are still deficient in another. Thats the mechanics. Thats just facts. You keep half-admitting that whenever you say "monk pays a price for its versatility," even if you immediately contradict yourself on that every time.
My opinion is that this isn't versatility, since the overall utility is just straight up diminished.
Begin able to do 1,000 damage per hit has zero value if you can't deliver that hit where it needs to be. Again, you don't consider anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
Yeah my scenarios are absurd. Speed is nice, and occasionally useful. Its just just not directly rewarded in 5e's combat in any way, and it isn't even unique to the monk. And it certainly isn't an equal trade for all the other things the monk gives up.
'M not the one repeating debunked points, YOU are, because you never actually debunk mine, you rarely even acknowledge them at all. You make the same arguments in every thread, which you seem to just be copying from that one treantmonk video (where he makes it abundantly clear he's never actually tried to play as a Monk), and when challenged on them you invent elaborate scenarios to favour Fighters and Paladins over Monks, while ignoring any that don't.
There, I didn't even include scenarios in my response, I responded to you point by point, and included things like defensive abilities, speed, and versatility in my discussion. Tell me why you disagree rather than re-asserting your conclusions. Or don't, I really don't care at this point. You seem knowledgeable and addition to any table, but you seem to have an emotional need to be absolutely right tied up in this.
You don't appear to have any actual experience playing as a Monk,
Im playing a monk in a campaign right now. I might be enjoying it less because its a chat based campaign using Avrae, which makes it tedious. But Im also getting annoyed that the other martial character, a fighter, constantly outshines my Kensei in combat without even using his subclass abilities. Slightly higher ac, 8 more hit points, the ability to focus solely on his main combat stat... it all adds up to be more effective in every fight. Even when the party spams short rests to restore my ki points and heal me up between fights.
Now at level 4, maybe I can try to use hit and run tactics, but that would mean letting the fighter get dogpiled in every encounter, or leaving the two mages to get into melee combat, which are pretty bad tactics. And anyways, 40 ft of speed isn't enough for me to dart in and out anyways even against slower creatures.
Maybe I've just had a terrible string of rolls for 6 sessions worth of encounters, and Im sure you'll offer all kinds of assumptions about how I can't build characters correctly, don't understand tactical play, or how I must be a shite human being whose bad at the game and/or lying somehow. But aside from a few years playing the game in general, I have played monk once a week for nearly 2 months.
Even so... nothing I've critiqued about the monk needs to rely on experience. I've only pointed to the actual mechanics printed in the black and white.
And the whole "feats are optional" is a sad indictment of monk...the only way it really shines is if you remove them from the game which is sad because there are so many cool options you can have with feats. Removing that to simply balance back a monk is a net negative to the game IMO and I would never recommend it.
I didn't say get rid of feats, but feats are optional, it's an entirely valid issue to raise with that argument. Consider your own argument in reverse; if Fighters can only become more versatile through the use of an optional rule (no matter how commonly used) then that's a trade off being made to go a Fighter, or Barbarian etc.
Most of the campaigns I've played in do allow feats, and I enjoy using them, indeed my group's current preference for starting out is start at 3rd level with one bonus feat as it really lets you flesh out your character right away, but we tend to take feats that are fun and flavourful, not necessarily the most powerful (though sometimes the three align).
Even so, feats don't actually add huge amounts of versatility to other martial types as claimed; you can certainly give yourself some extra non-combat utility, patch up some weak saves and so-on, but mostly the feats you want are the ones that let you double down on what you're already good at; Great Weapon Master for the Battleaxe/Greatsword fighters, Polearm Master for reach fighters and so-on. By the same token Monks, if they take any feats (you should be able to squeeze in one even without house rules or variant human), will benefit a lot from Mobile to double down on rapid movement while saving a little Ki, or they can add some Wisdom based or ritual spellcasting, or a myriad other things that add flexibility, it depends what you and your group need and want, which is something that's never considered in threads like these.
But there are no feats that directly compete on many of the Monk abilities; none of them can give you Patient Defence or Stunning Strike, the extra movement you can get is limited and so-on. You can build in some overlap, but you're using feats to take what Monks get as standard; how is that an argument against a Monk's versatility?
As a class on its own merits a Monk is highly mobile, and can bounce between lots of attacks (ideal for concentration breaking), solid tanking, or even more rapid/unimpeded mobility. And that's just the early level stuff, and ignoring what else you get from sub-classes. They're a flexible martial combatant that only gets more flexible and capable over time; they don't get a lot of damage increases later on, but the Monk isn't about raw damage, it's about martial arts flavoured shenanigans, and it absolutely excels at that, and they're an absolute blast to play. They're also a great addition to nearly any party, because they switch between helping you double down on your party is good at, or filling in a gap if the party lacks a Rogue for sneaking/scouting and so-on.
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.
I’m not really seeing it, to be honest. Not the speed part, that’s obvious, but the versatility part. Monks really want 3 highish to high stats before looking beyond their main functions, Fighters can get by with two. Fighters can also more easily broaden their skillset via feats. Two of the martial classes *are* spellcasters. Monks need to go out of their way to be effective at range.
I’m not saying monks are bad, just that the versatility argument doesn’t really convince me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Look harder 😝
Monks don't need to maximise three stats; they don't need huge Constitution, they tank using good AC and Patient Defence to not be hit in the first place, and by using superior movement and cover to boost that even further. The martial sub-classes that can be casters do need to maximise three, or only pick spells that don't use their spellcasting ability, and there are trade-offs involved.
A Monk's Ki lets them throw out more attacks, stun enemies, tank, disengage, move even faster etc. etc., it's a class that's all about versatility from its early level features all the way up to their higher level ones. And they can be effective at range; all Monks can use Shortbows, Way of the Kensei allows Longbows and a bunch of useful bonuses on top of that, but you don't really want to be at range all the time as Monk, a ranged weapons is for switching to when it makes sense; again, versatility.
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've mentioned damage, ac, hp, resource use... I don't get what it profits you to make a strawman out of my points and just accuse me of some tunnel versioned bias towards damage.
As I've pointed out, they simply aren't versatile. They are deficient in every category, and then spend ki points to be on par (or just nearly on par) with the other martials in one category for a moment. It isn't worthwhile versatility if it comes at the cost of being less versatile at all times.
Even being deficient with jet engines strapped on doesn't make them on par with the other martials.
If you're just going to repeat the same debunked points and insult me, I see no reason to listen. Its a shame, since we seem to generally agree and have constructive discussion on almost every other topic but this.
wtf? Where did I ever make that argument? How can I be saying that if Im saying monk is deficient in most categories?
Seems like a lot of disingenuous discussion.....
01011000Lehrer had the best post so far in terms of actually being honest about the pros/cons of the class. They have a high floor due to their options which means even a unoptimized monk will likely outperform a unoptimized fighter or barbarian. But their ceiling is low so if you make good choices with fighter or barbarian they will fall behind.
Does that mean they are unplayable? No...in fact I think most everyone here fully agrees they are a FUN class to play which is one of (if not the most) important factors in the game.
Does that mean we should be dishonest about their shortcomings? No...you need to be honest with what the Monk is and what is not. Simply lying and saying they do as much damage as other martials doesn't help monk or help people who are thinking about playing monk. Instead focus on telling them how fun they are to play as 01011000Lehrer stated.
Be honest and let people draw their own conclusions.
Monks aren't just deficient in damage. They are also behind other martials defensively. Even its archetypes offer lack luster control options, since they are over-priced in terms or resource cost, and pull the monk away from using its main class abilities.
And the monk is spending resources to be deficient. If they spend ki points on flurry of blows, they are just matching the low end of other martials' damage. If they spend ki points on defense, they are just using the dodge action to make up for fewer hit points, AC, healing, and damage reduction abilities. Speed makes up for very little in the way of effective ranged options in combat, with spending ki on the step of the wind being necessary to really give a monk legs.
Monks aren't so bad as to be unplayable. But they could do a heck of a lot more, still be unique, and not be overpowered.
I suppose that depends on what tier of play you're in, but let's take a quick look.
A 5th-level fighter is swinging a greatsword for maybe 22 (4d6+8) damage; 24 if they have the accompanying fighting style. A 5th-level monk with a spear is getting in maybe 17 (2d8+8) + 7(1d6+4) for a total of...you guess it, 24 damage per round. So, right off the bat, that's impressive. The monk ties the fighter and, without even factoring in archetypes or resource expenditure beyond the bonus action, they'll pull ahead of full martial classes. And if monks wish to spend a ki point, they can do more. So can everyone else, but that's a pretty solid chassis. Going back to the fighter for a second, action surge isn't just for attacking more often. It can be used to Cast a Spell (if available), Dodge, Help, and more. You use the tools at your disposal in a manner best befitting the current situation. To put it another way, "white room" theory-crafting simply won't ever cut it.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
Will the monk fall behind at dealing damage when compared to other classes at levels continue to increase and new features are continued to be unlocked? Sure. They're not a full martial. They're not supposed to. But, again, they're highly mobile. They have the most speed of anyone. They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. They can run up walls and over water. They can stun enemies, which is incredibly powerful. They can be immune to poison, be proficient in all saving throws, and shake off a number of mental effects just by taking a second to concentrate. Their AC will likely be higher than an unarmored barbarian and on par with anyone in full plate with a shield. And they can impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and even stop ranged missiles from hitting at all.
And that's all just some of their core features. We aren't even discussing what their archetypes allow for.
Monk's, quite frankly, do a lot of things really well because nobody else can even come close in their versatility. You think of that as a weakness, but you're wrong. They can be whatever the party needs them to be. Monks are adaptable in a way that no one else is.
Again you compare apples to oranges by not including things like subclass features for fighter...which is honestly where a good majority of their damage comes from. Also Action Surge alone puts fighter well ahead of monk on a day to day basis any way. You are allowing monks to use a class feature (Martial Arts) but not allowing fighter to do the same.
Monk is not doing the same amount of damage as fighter or barb...please just get over this fact and move on its not productive to try to argue a point that has been so thoroughly dismissed. They do "Okay" and are no where near the top for DPR until they get to level 17 which 99% of campaigns (including written modules) never get to.
You then seem to agree that they don't do as much damage.... so which is it?
Then you make a straight up error:
"They can Dash and Disengage as a bonus action at the same time. "
This is simply not true....they can pick one or the other and it costs a ki point to do so. A rogue will actually out run a monk in most situations as they can dash for free as a BA and their damage comes from a single attack so their opportunity loss for using it is much much much less than monk. A rogue with mobile will be able to move much more than a monk.
I am not saying Monk is bad...I honestly do not see a single class (Beastmaster gets reallllly close) that is just straight up bad. They have their pros/cons but Damange is not a pro and movement is barely a pro...they are about even with a rogue for the majority of their lifespan in normal games (<level 10).
They do get a bonus to AC and they can STUN which is not ever talked about enough about how good it is. Yes Con saves are ridiculous at higher levels: Check out this great post.
But even a chance to completely shut down a single target through YOUR turn is crazy good. Also the new monk with the free proficiency uses of a subclass ability per LR is really good and I hope that is the standard moving forward.
Overall monks are fine...but again please be honest about their strengths/weaknesses.
So I made a mistake or two. It happens. That doesn't mean I'm behind dishonest. I'm sure not dumping on perfectly good classes and archetypes for no good reason. At least I can see and love the potential that's there.
Again you miss the point...I am not "Dumping" on anything simply being honest about their strengths/weaknesses. I think they are good class as the "Fun" level while playing them is very high. I also do not suggest they are DPR machines or that they should feel they should be doing as much damage as fighter/ranger/barbarian....they just will not. This is completely fine and expected. They have STUN which is amazing and a few other niche things that when you pull them off are cool. (Catching an arrow and throwing it back to kill the goblin is pretty amazing)
I just hate when people paint a rosy picture of a class/feature/etc... without engaging in the criticisms for said class/feature/etc. Especially for new players this is a bad as they come in with unreal expectations and can feel unfulfilled. Its always better to have an honest take and do not try to prop up the bad...simply state it as such and let people decide.
To be fair, Jounichi essentially placed Action Surge in the same category as Ki points with the ability to do extra damage, dodge, etc. I also didn't see any reference to monk subclass damage being added into the equation, but here's the thing: it doesn't matter that Fighters can do more damage than monks because that is what fighters are designed to do. They are designed to be good in combat with few bones thrown to other aspects of the game. The closest thing that they have to contribute outside of combat is the two extra ASIs. That can help them take feats to be more well rounded or put points in stats to be better at some skills. That allows them a lot of flexibility in the theoretical realm but their path becomes a lot more rigid once those choices are made.
Monks do well with damage. They aren't chart toppers, but they aren't designed to be chart toppers. Their mobility gives them an amazing amount of flexibility on a turn by turn basis and the shear number of options that they can bring to bear at any time gives them an amazing amount of power. They are meant to have a high amount of time on target (which can make up for lower DPR), the ability to maneuver the battlefield almost at will and be a swiss army knife of options to plug and play in whatever situation that they are called on to fill. When you can rotate your role on a turn by turn basis as well as a monk, you can shore up a lot of problems. Being able to hamper an enemy spell caster can be huge.
Saying that the Rogue with mobile feat can be as mobile as a monk is a compliment to the monk's mobility, but does ignore the fact that a rogue will want to use that bonus action to hide frequently, so there is a cost involved.
I do like 01011000Lehrer's take as I remember agreeing with most of what they brought up.
In short, the best way to judge a class's fit for you is to play it, but the next best way is to read in the threads, take everything with a grain of salt, figure that the truth is somewhere in between, have an idea of what your expectations of a class are and weigh those expectations against what people are telling you. When you choose to play a class, play it in a way that is similar to the ways that people who love the class say that they play it. Don't focus on the aspects that people who hate the class say they hate. As for damage, remember that the difference on a round to round basis will likely only be a few points on average. Those moments when your character shines will make up for the moments when they don't. When your character has an epic fail, lean into it, and make it memorable. And if you are a support character, remember to count all the damage that you enable as your own if damage is a big measuring stick for your fun.
When you say objectively false things like how monks, "simply aren't versatile," and how they're, "deficient in every category," you are dumping on them. You're the one who's not being honest about their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have to paint a rosy picture to see the class' strengths. And for all your talk of how bad the class can be for new players, 5E is incredibly forgiving. New players are supposed to learn how to play their class as they level. Even experienced players, if trying out a new class at a higher level for a one-shot, are going to struggle a little. Some classes have bigger toolboxes than others.
It's kind of funny how I keep noticing people whinging about classes that are only okay at dealing damage but are pretty good in a supporting role. Really tells you where people's priorities lie.
Con still should be high-ish, arguably. With a standard array, that kind of locks you in. Martial casters do have to focus on three abilities as well to some extent, but then they get that versatility from those spells. At that point I don't think monks can claim any real versatility advantage.
Ki is all about combat. Are monks more versatile in combat than fighters? I don't see that. Especially with fighters' broad access to feats, which allow the player to choose something instead of getting locked-in class abilities, and can be used for out-of-combat ability as well. I like Way of the Kensei myself, but it's a subclass - if we throw those into the mix the other classes gain a wide variety of options as well. And shortbow at range isn't much good. Better use that mobility to get stuck in asap.
Again, it's not a bad class. I don't think it's meaningfully more versatile than other martial classes though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you have me mistaken for another poster....I never said those particular things. I think you are very confused here...
I did say that its better to be honest with new players and give them strengths/weaknesses up front. I disagree if you do not want to do that but you can I guess if you wish?
I am also not "Whinging" about monk at all...simply being honest. I have talked them up at several points here...
A shortbow isn't bad, it's only 1 point of damage on average worse than a long bow and two points worse than a heavy crossbow. You'll usually want to attack in melee but a short bow shot to mop up one target before moving to another is a valid option. Flexibility and versatility. Being able to take that shot and move into melee to beat up a wizard or tank someone beating up on yours all in the same round without giving up any survivability is the versatility that I refer to and that I think most proponents of monks are talking about.
Spell casters can be more versatile but their mechanics are usually balanced to overall versatility rather than in the moment versatility. A monk can do many things well that some classes can only do by specializing. Sure those classes can do it better by specializing, but they lack in other areas.
As for whether that versatility is meaningful or not is subjective. If your group has enough players to make sure that each facet of the game is covered by a specialist (or at least the facets that your party focuses on and your DM uses), that versatility is not always meaningful. If your party wasn't metagamed together (on purpose or otherwise), then that versatility will be key just like having a bard with Jack of All Trades means that you won't be terrible at skills that nobody invested into.
My guess is that a starting con of 13-14 is probably sufficient more many monks and going higher than 16 isn't going to gimp many of them to badly, if they go higher than 14. Intelligence is the universal dump stat for non-wizards and artificers, though some EKs and ATs like higher int. Charisma is often covered by the plethora of bards, warlocks, and Paladins and many rogues like it, too. Dumping that isn't as bad in that case. Putting your 15 and 14 into dex and wisdom with your 13 into con and 12 into strength gives you a fair amount of flexibility with skills in many parties, allows for your athletics to be adequate if you go proficient in it and your saves will be pretty good even before you hit 14. With Evasion, high dex, and dex save proficiency from the start, you'll worry less about dex saves than most characters and your mobility allows you to pick your fights better than most classes while still productively assisting the party.
I think that fighters have more variety to what stat they prioritize for sure...especially for battlemaster DEX fighters as they use dex for so much. They are truly the most single attribute dependent as they use it for AC, to hit, and DC. They can pick what mental stat they want to get good in.
In a featless game the monk will likely be more versatile than fighter as they are limited to their subclass. However, with feats a fighter is given so many more options as they get more ASI/Feats.
Feats also make the DPR highly in favor of fighter/barbarian to the point that its not very close at all.
Monk excels better when they have amble short rest as their stun becomes encounter defining more often they get to use it.
It's not a strawman, but you do place an unhealthy emphasis on damage above all else, and go out of your way to ignore defensive abilities, movement, and versatility in either abilities or options, as well as non-combat utility. And you do this to construct scenarios that favour your arguments while ignoring everyone elses. And you do this ad nauseum.
If you excise entire sections of the rules that you consider irrelevant then of course you can construct a narrative that favours what you want to say, except that what you keep trying to say is that something is objectively bad, when you consistently refuse to examine anything objectively at all, or make any effort to understand how a class is played (or actually play it).
And here we go again, this is the part where you can't understand that versatility doesn't mean you beat everyone whenever you want. Versatility has a cost, but it also has value.
Especially as don't get just get "on par"; they can exceed, as well as do things that other martial classes simply can't. But as usual these are things you refuse to consider because none of them is raw damage, even when it is. And even when you're not using Ki, Monks are still perfectly capable fighters if used properly.
Begin able to do 1,000 damage per hit has zero value if you can't deliver that hit where it needs to be. Again, you don't consider anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
I'M not the one repeating debunked points, YOU are, because you never actually debunk mine, you rarely even acknowledge them at all. You make the same arguments in every thread, which you seem to just be copying from that one treantmonk video (where he makes it abundantly clear he's never actually tried to play as a Monk), and when challenged on them you invent elaborate scenarios to favour Fighters and Paladins over Monks, while ignoring any that don't.
You don't appear to have any actual experience playing as a Monk, and sometimes I question whether you've ever actually played D&D either, yet you seem to think that you know all the answers while pointedly ignoring any that don't agree with you. It's at best unproductive, and at worst… well apparently we're not allowed to call out for what it is.
I've never played higher than a +2 in Constitution as a Monk and it's never really been an issue for me. You get DEX save proficiency as standard, good AC plus Patient Defence, and Evasion at level 8, not to mention very high mobility that you should absolutely use to your advantage as much as possible.
For martial casters their spell slots are regained on long rest, Ki is regained on a short rest (or a Catnap), and the actual versatility depends a great deal on spell choice. I'd say it evens out personally when you dive into the spell lists and what Paladins/Rangers actually use. Paladins for example don't often cast spells at all, but use their slots as a Ki-like resource purely for Divine Smites.
Feats are an optional rule, you have to actually take them, and it won't give a Fighter the same versatility as a Monk for nothing, it'll take time and lost ability score increases. Even if you only use your two extra ones, there are things you simply can't add with feats; you can only add so much speed and mobility compared to what a Monk gets for free, you can't give yourself Patient Defence or Stunning Strike etc.
You: "Monks are bad because they don't have any ranged options!"
Me: "Here are some"
You: "How dare you mention ranged options! You should only ever be fighting in melee!"
Please make up your mind. And you can't really just say "don't mention sub-classes that's cheating" when the issue is versatility; every Monk sub-class adds a bunch of extra abilities with and without Ki costs that only expand them further. Sub-classes and how they interact with classes is a huge part of how they actually perform.
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 be fair a single level of fighter produces a better ranged option for monks than picking up Kensei. Archery style produces about the same amount of DPR increase as the extra d4 and doesn't require a BA. And it gives you proficiency on ALL marital weapons so the new monk weapon variant in Tasha's makes it an amazing pick up.
I like Kensei ok but honestly its the most underwhelming monk option. I actually like 4 elements better as they at least have some interesting options unique to them (Water whip and the like).
And the whole "feats are optional" is a sad indictment of monk...the only way it really shines is if you remove them from the game which is sad because there are so many cool options you can have with feats. Removing that to simply balance back a monk is a net negative to the game IMO and I would never recommend it.
While Kensei does give monk a ranged option and 1 level of fighter may provide more damage over the course of a campaign for a ranged monk than Kensei's 1d4, the combat flexibility that a monk has is simply strengthened by Kensei. The scenario where a monk can shoot at a distant enemy and then turn to engage another enemy in any number of circumstances is the epitome of the flexibility that Kensei brings. Adding the 1d4 damage one round, then engaging a big hitter with Agile Parry and Patient Defense without putting the bow away while maybe drawing another weapon, to disengaging the enemy to strike distantly after the regular tank steps in is something that no other class can do without spells. The damage may decline during the defensive round, but only fighter can have a +2 AC, dodge, and attack in the same round without spells and they can only do it once or twice a short rest. The kensei monk may not want to do that often, but they can more and more as they level up. The spellcasters that can manage most of that sequence can't do it with an attack during the defensive round outside of Cleric with Spiritual Weapon and their range and mobility won't allow as great a range in most cases.
The most common complaint that I see with monks deals with damage. They do fine with damage, dealing several smaller attacks per round instead of one or two larger attacks. They put that damage to highly efficient use, applying it where it is most needed and rarely contributing no damage during a round. Most other characters either rely on a few larger attacks that may contribute nothing if they miss, have AOE damage to contribute, or contribute via support. Monks can do a little bit of all of that, particularly with certain subclasses.
If you want damage galore, go fighter or fling a fireball. If you want nova damage on a single target, go Paladin. If you want to be tough to kill, go barbarian. If you want to do a little bit of everything but nova, monk just might be what you're looking for.
You take time to disagree with my takes on defensive abilities, movement, and versatility, so its really interesting how you keep claiming I ignore them.
So monks don't need to excel at what they wish to do when using ki points, but you still hold that they do? Does "versatility" have a cost or not, because you are really trying to have it both ways.
Im just stating facts when I say that before using any of their ki abilities, monk is just the weakest martial class all around. The class makes that sacrifice to give you "versatile options" in ki abilities. But those abilities never make them better offensively or defensively than other martial classes (rogue being the exception for having a totally unique play style). Even if we assume using a ki ability towards a certain end completely puts the monk on par or even just a bit better in a certain category for a turn, they are still deficient in another. Thats the mechanics. Thats just facts. You keep half-admitting that whenever you say "monk pays a price for its versatility," even if you immediately contradict yourself on that every time.
My opinion is that this isn't versatility, since the overall utility is just straight up diminished.
Yeah my scenarios are absurd. Speed is nice, and occasionally useful. Its just just not directly rewarded in 5e's combat in any way, and it isn't even unique to the monk. And it certainly isn't an equal trade for all the other things the monk gives up.
There, I didn't even include scenarios in my response, I responded to you point by point, and included things like defensive abilities, speed, and versatility in my discussion. Tell me why you disagree rather than re-asserting your conclusions. Or don't, I really don't care at this point. You seem knowledgeable and addition to any table, but you seem to have an emotional need to be absolutely right tied up in this.
Im playing a monk in a campaign right now. I might be enjoying it less because its a chat based campaign using Avrae, which makes it tedious. But Im also getting annoyed that the other martial character, a fighter, constantly outshines my Kensei in combat without even using his subclass abilities. Slightly higher ac, 8 more hit points, the ability to focus solely on his main combat stat... it all adds up to be more effective in every fight. Even when the party spams short rests to restore my ki points and heal me up between fights.
Now at level 4, maybe I can try to use hit and run tactics, but that would mean letting the fighter get dogpiled in every encounter, or leaving the two mages to get into melee combat, which are pretty bad tactics. And anyways, 40 ft of speed isn't enough for me to dart in and out anyways even against slower creatures.
Maybe I've just had a terrible string of rolls for 6 sessions worth of encounters, and Im sure you'll offer all kinds of assumptions about how I can't build characters correctly, don't understand tactical play, or how I must be a shite human being whose bad at the game and/or lying somehow. But aside from a few years playing the game in general, I have played monk once a week for nearly 2 months.
Even so... nothing I've critiqued about the monk needs to rely on experience. I've only pointed to the actual mechanics printed in the black and white.
I didn't say get rid of feats, but feats are optional, it's an entirely valid issue to raise with that argument. Consider your own argument in reverse; if Fighters can only become more versatile through the use of an optional rule (no matter how commonly used) then that's a trade off being made to go a Fighter, or Barbarian etc.
Most of the campaigns I've played in do allow feats, and I enjoy using them, indeed my group's current preference for starting out is start at 3rd level with one bonus feat as it really lets you flesh out your character right away, but we tend to take feats that are fun and flavourful, not necessarily the most powerful (though sometimes the three align).
Even so, feats don't actually add huge amounts of versatility to other martial types as claimed; you can certainly give yourself some extra non-combat utility, patch up some weak saves and so-on, but mostly the feats you want are the ones that let you double down on what you're already good at; Great Weapon Master for the Battleaxe/Greatsword fighters, Polearm Master for reach fighters and so-on. By the same token Monks, if they take any feats (you should be able to squeeze in one even without house rules or variant human), will benefit a lot from Mobile to double down on rapid movement while saving a little Ki, or they can add some Wisdom based or ritual spellcasting, or a myriad other things that add flexibility, it depends what you and your group need and want, which is something that's never considered in threads like these.
But there are no feats that directly compete on many of the Monk abilities; none of them can give you Patient Defence or Stunning Strike, the extra movement you can get is limited and so-on. You can build in some overlap, but you're using feats to take what Monks get as standard; how is that an argument against a Monk's versatility?
As a class on its own merits a Monk is highly mobile, and can bounce between lots of attacks (ideal for concentration breaking), solid tanking, or even more rapid/unimpeded mobility. And that's just the early level stuff, and ignoring what else you get from sub-classes. They're a flexible martial combatant that only gets more flexible and capable over time; they don't get a lot of damage increases later on, but the Monk isn't about raw damage, it's about martial arts flavoured shenanigans, and it absolutely excels at that, and they're an absolute blast to play. They're also a great addition to nearly any party, because they switch between helping you double down on your party is good at, or filling in a gap if the party lacks a Rogue for sneaking/scouting and so-on.
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.