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.
I guess I would phrase it like this:
Monks benefit far less from feats than fighter and barbarian.
Feats are generally seen as a good thing in games.
Thus in most games monks will be a little behind due to having far fewer feats that really aid in their toolkit. Mobile is good but their movement is already a strength so its hard to say its a must grab.
Monks also suffer more from not maxing their core stats. Fighters are fairly single attribute dependent as I mentioned (Dex fighters just need dex for everything) and barbarians get more in their base kit to make up for their AC being multiple attribute dependent (Medium armor and shields).
This doesnt make monks bad per say but does make the opportunity cost higher for them taking a fun feat.
I agree that fighter is worse off in a feat-less game and there is no doubt that is a heavy consideration I would take if I knew at session 0 that we were running a featless game. I would likely not pick a fighter.
In the same token if I knew a game had feats and that two of my fellow party mates were going fighter/barbarian I would likely bow out of monk.
Its more about knowing how the game will play out with the information at hand more so than something being "bad" or "good".
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.
I guess I would phrase it like this:
Monks benefit far less from feats than fighter and barbarian.
Feats are generally seen as a good thing in games.
Thus in most games monks will be a little behind due to having far fewer feats that really aid in their toolkit. Mobile is good but their movement is already a strength so its hard to say its a must grab.
Monks also suffer more from not maxing their core stats. Fighters are fairly single attribute dependent as I mentioned (Dex fighters just need dex for everything) and barbarians get more in their base kit to make up for their AC being multiple attribute dependent (Medium armor and shields).
This doesnt make monks bad per say but does make the opportunity cost higher for them taking a fun feat.
I agree that fighter is worse off in a feat-less game and there is no doubt that is a heavy consideration I would take if I knew at session 0 that we were running a featless game. I would likely not pick a fighter.
In the same token if I knew a game had feats and that two of my fellow party mates were going fighter/barbarian I would likely bow out of monk.
Its more about knowing how the game will play out with the information at hand more so than something being "bad" or "good".
Why do monks benefit far less from feats than fighters or barbarians? Which feats are we talking about?
One of the things that's nice about Mobile on a monk is the free disengage on an attack depending on how your DM rules, how you want to use your bonus action, and your level, that can be 2-4 free disengages just by making attacks you may have made anyway and leaving you open to engage a priority target. The dash bonus means that the monk can ignore any difficult terrain (perhaps as ac result of another player's actions) for the cost of a ki point, allowing the party to set up shop in a defensible position without hampering the monks ability to strike priority targets. The extra speed is just icing.
The monk won't take armor specific feats and won't take GWM, but a fighter or barbarian won't take the armor feats aside from Medium Armor Master or Heavy Armor Master (in the case of the fighter). The barbarian won't likely take Sharpshooter, which a Kensei might take if that's the flavor of monk that they want to portray.
Each class will take whatever feats that they feel adds to the concept that they are trying to achieve. The other reason that I can think of that a monk might not take feats would be because they fill needs that the monk has prepackaged. PAM works fine for a monk with a spear or quarterstaff, but it won't help the bonus action need (does give added options though). Tavern Brawler doesn't improve a monk's unarmed damage, but does help with improvised weapons (which a monk doesn't need as much). Is already having the abilities a weakness?
"Why do monks benefit far less from feats than fighters or barbarians? Which feats are we talking about?"
The opportunity cost is more. Monks rely on ability scores more so than these classes. Their AC is based on both DEX and WIS and their DC for their ki abilities is based on WIS.
Barbarian and Fighter rely less on a second ability as they can utilize armor for AC purposes and generally their DC is key'd off the main stat or they simply do not have a DC to worry about.
Overall it benefits them less because it costs them more on more fronts.
That being said you can use feats but you suffer in more areas for doing so.
Again this is not saying monk is bad....its being honest on what they are all about.
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.
While you sometimes do go after people's points directly, you don't listen when people disagree with you; you just jump into another thread and make the exact same arguments as if they hadn't already been shot down a million 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.
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.
Sighs. And now we're at the point where I ask you to actually read what I said and you probably won't.
Im just stating facts when I say that before using any of their ki abilities, monk is just the weakest martial class all around.
Ah, so now your statements are magically "facts" and weakness is whatever you say it is. Would you like to just declare everyone that disagrees with you as heretics and have them burned at the stake next?
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).
And this is the part where you forget you've had the concept of versatility explained to you a million times. Versatility doesn't mean you can deal more damage than a Fighter when you want to, then out-tank a Barbarian in the next, it means that in a party without one of those you can fulfil the same role, and in situations where you don't need it, you can fulfil another.
Depending upon what you would actually need those other classes to do in any given moment Monks can compete; sure, if all you need to do is put out damage they can't do quite as much as a Fighter or Paladin nova except in certain circumstances, but in most situations damage isn't the only factor.
Even if your goal in dealing damage is just to make something not be alive anymore, then sometimes stunning it so the whole group can deal more damage overall is far more valuable, sometimes you just want to grab its attention as a distraction for a round or two to save another character and so-on. Again, your narrow focus on numbers alone ignores huge portions of what characters are actually trying to achieve in a game, and why being able to switch as circumstances demand is incredibly valuable.
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.
That's not a scenario, it's a simple point, which you've ignored again.
Movement is rewarded in 5e's combat; movement is how you get from one place to another, so of course if you only ever play battles in small rooms where everyone's within 30 feet of each other, you'll never appreciate how useful movement can be (and is) for people who's games are run better. Again, you ignore an entire section of the rules because it doesn't suit you or fit your limited experience; if your DM doesn't give you more varied combat encounters, then try to nudge them into giving you more.
The easiest way is to fish for cover; when a room is described to you, ask if there are any walls, crates, piles of rocks or whatever then use them. More speed means you can get to them easier, move around enemies and so-on, and with Ki point dash you can potentially do-so and still attack.
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.
I don't care about being "right", I care that you keep reposting the same arguments against Monks onto every thread you can find. It feels like all you do is sit on the forums waiting for one to pop up so you can repeat them again. It's not constructive, and really it's unhealthy.
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.
My group is using Avrae and while it's good for what it is, it isn't exactly an ideal way to play; there's also a lot that it just doesn't support by default. I've had to add loads of aliases and snippets to make things much smoother; if you join the Avrae Discord server there's a snippet lookup channel where there should be a !monk command which you can add with most of the Monk abilities (including sub-classes) managed for you. I think in the lookup channel you just do "!alias monk" (without quotes) and it gives you the alias, which you should then able to add as an alias to your own character. Not super user friendly, but a lot of the classes are the same.
Slightly higher AC and 8 hit points difference shouldn't matter if you're using Patient Defence when you need to (with Agile Parry if necessary), being surrounded by a mob is an ideal time as high AC is less useful than advantage against high volumes of attacks.
If you're regularly being "dog-piled" then that doesn't sound like you're getting much enemy variety; again this is a problem with playing online, but you could try to nudge your DM to provide maps as images to give you an easier time with fights so they're not just theatre of the mind empty rooms, and again, fish for cover and other features you can use to your advantage. In our group the DM has a handful of prepared maps with no specific features that they can just post and just say "this is the layout, the circles are barrels" or whatever.
Even so if you have two casters you should have at least one that's able to interfere with mobs by softening them with AoE damage (blast or persisting), using control spells, or buffing one or both of you and the Fighter and so-on. Monks don't exist in isolation, and you shouldn't need to be competing with a Fighter at being a Fighter, especially if your group doesn't have a Rogue to hit at leaders/casters etc. which is what a Monk can be good at. The fact that you can fight alongside the Fighter though is part of what I mean; it's not what Monks are primarily for, but when the situation requires you can be right in there fighting if you absolutely have to, but it shouldn't be your first resort.
Keep in mind that you don't need to be in and out every round to do a hit & run; even if you do it every second round that's potentially halving the number of attacks headed your way (i.e- fight with Patient Defence and/or Agile Parry one round, then attack again and disengage with Step of the Wind in the next).
Without knowing more about the party and builds it's hard to advise further, but the Monk does have ways to compete even in these kinds of awkward unfavourable circumstances.
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 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.
Feats being optional is really a sad indictment of the Fighter class. Assuming the standard array and +3 total to stats from race (+5 if human), it only takes 8-9 points from ASIs to hit the stat cap of 20 in the two highest abilities. Fighters get 14 points total from ASIs, enough for a third 20 stat. And that's just assuming the standard array. With point-buy 3 abilities can hit the cap with 6 ASIs, and with slightly lucky rolls using 4d6 drop lowest it can well be less than that. That's just silly to me. If WotC wants feats to be optional, they should have designed the Fighter class differently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
I'm trying to understand how doing hit and run tactics means that you have to let the fighter get dogpiled or leave the mages to melee combat. There is this thing called movement speed (which you don't seem to enjoy) that can let you hit a creature and run back to help your mages or up to assist the fighter. Do the mages not move around and do their best to mitigate bad situations for themselves? Is your fighter not able to stand up to a few attacks with its superior AC and hit points? You don't have to be doing hit and run tactics all through out the entire fight, just like you don't have to patient defense, or flurry of blows, or Agile Parry, or whatever on every turn. For the most part, fighters and barbarians do that same thing round after round, occasionally throwing in a rage, action surge, or whatever other options that they have available from they're class. Also, how is the fighter outshining you in every combat? Is it more damage? Is it the fact that they're in there providing a buffer for the casters? There isn't much else that a fighter can do on a fight to fight case without using subclass features. What aspects about the monk are you finding fun?
Sorry, Haravikk, I currently have Kronzy on ignore but saw those comments on your post and wanted to respond to them.
"Why do monks benefit far less from feats than fighters or barbarians? Which feats are we talking about?"
The opportunity cost is more. Monks rely on ability scores more so than these classes. Their AC is based on both DEX and WIS and their DC for their ki abilities is based on WIS.
Barbarian and Fighter rely less on a second ability as they can utilize armor for AC purposes and generally their DC is key'd off the main stat or they simply do not have a DC to worry about.
Overall it benefits them less because it costs them more on more fronts.
That being said you can use feats but you suffer in more areas for doing so.
Again this is not saying monk is bad....its being honest on what they are all about.
I see what you're saying. Sure, the opportunity cost for a fighter and for a rogue is less than for a monk as far as ASI. The barbarian has medium armor and reckless attack to help take GWM or PAM early and not feel as bad about their defenses or attacking ability (plus that high HP and rage). That said, none of them has a bonus action attack without going two weapon fighting or with a feat. Rogue can do a fine job without it, particularly if Cunning Action helps them to maintain their sneak attack damage. Playing a barbarian right now, I can tell you that I struggled with the idea of bumping my AC with dex (or constitution allowing me to drop the medium armor and that dreaded disadvantage on stealth), bumping my attacking ability with strength, or going with GWM. I eventually went with GWM, almost immediately picked up a [Tooltip Not Found] that I'm constantly swapping with my [Tooltip Not Found] so that I can toggle between being more accurate and being able to use the power attack, and am sometimes wondering if I shouldn't have gone with one of the other options or something else. The bonus action attack still works with the battle axe, so at least the feat isn't a complete waste when I'm using the weapon, but the specialization does come with its own cost as well.
Martial arts can allow a monk to take PAM, use the quarterstaff or spear's damage (two handed even!) until the martial arts damage catches up. Even then, the martial arts damage can still apply to the weapon attack allowing the monk to take advantage of the PAM triggers while not losing any damage. The fighter does get more ASIs to do different things with, meaning that their opportunity cost for using the ASIs is lower, but the opportunity cost is still present in the fact that fighters are more combat centric than any other class. Aside from their skills, the base chassis doesn't give any help for the other pillars of the game and they don't get additional skills to make up for it. They do have some reasonable skills to choose from to help with this and do have flexibility with their stats, particularly if they go with a dex based build. However, the dex based build does mean that they do give up some raw damage and probably a little bit of survivability to go more SAD and free up some of those stats. The opportunity cost is still very real for them objectively, but the how that cost stacks up with the monk's opportunity cost is certainly subjective. Different players will value different things more or less. Players that value combat highly will certainly favor the fighter's opportunity cost over the monk's especially if they like to have lots and lots of feats. The player that sees that a monk can do many of the things that feats allow other classes to do without going into those feats and is happy with the trade off will probably value the ASIs less, particularly when they see the things that the monk gets to help in several facets of the game.
Lol, if the fighter is getting dog-piled because the monk is more mobile I would think that demonstrates a monk advantage.
DPR calcs that often come up are misleading. Characters don't make enough attacks in an encounter to see those averages. Abilities like action surge are nice spike damage but adding that to the total daily damage implies a benefit that does not exist every round it's not applied. Bigger swingier attacks are less reliable and more prone to lost over-kill damage than smaller more consistent damage regardless of overall average.
A fighter or barbarian using GWM or SS/CE isn't using a shield. A person cannot argue the higher AC along with better damage after giving up the higher AC. Plus, monks can use sharpshooter with darts anyway; kensei monks add options in that regard.
The focus on both DEX and WIS is good for ability checks in general.
A fighter or barbarian can be built for better damage and can soak up damage. The amount tends to be overstated based on calcs compared to actual gameplay.
Monks are about mobility. If a person values a straight up meat grinder more than mobile striking then monks might not be worth it to that person, but it is worth playing for how it was designed to play.
The fighter does get more ASIs to do different things with, meaning that their opportunity cost for using the ASIs is lower, but the opportunity cost is still present in the fact that fighters are more combat centric than any other class. Aside from their skills, the base chassis doesn't give any help for the other pillars of the game and they don't get additional skills to make up for it.
Everybody can get up to three additional skill proficiencies via the Skilled feat, and for fighters the opportunity cost to take that feat is lower than for most (certainly lower than for monks). It can be a pretty worthwhile feat to take too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lol, if the fighter is getting dog-piled because the monk is more mobile I would think that demonstrates a monk advantage.
DPR calcs that often come up are misleading. Characters don't make enough attacks in an encounter to see those averages. Abilities like action surge are nice spike damage but adding that to the total daily damage implies a benefit that does not exist every round it's not applied. Bigger swingier attacks are less reliable and more prone to lost over-kill damage than smaller more consistent damage regardless of overall average.
A fighter or barbarian using GWM or SS/CE isn't using a shield. A person cannot argue the higher AC along with better damage after giving up the higher AC. Plus, monks can use sharpshooter with darts anyway; kensei monks add options in that regard.
The focus on both DEX and WIS is good for ability checks in general.
A fighter or barbarian can be built for better damage and can soak up damage. The amount tends to be overstated based on calcs compared to actual gameplay.
Monks are about mobility. If a person values a straight up meat grinder more than mobile striking then monks might not be worth it to that person, but it is worth playing for how it was designed to play.
I think you misunderstood...I meant they can have as good or better AC then a monk with less ability score investment. Barbarian has a built in way to mitigate damage and fighter can get a boost from fighting style.
Fighter and barbarian add ways to hit more regularly (precision attack, reckless, etc..) than monk and therefore utilize sharpshooter and GWM better. Barbarian also has rage damage so it's honestly not even close. As I've said it's ok to be ok with the weak aspects of a class. Monk is not good at damage and that's fine.
It doesn't take a white room to easily have these other classes beat monk in damage. It's just the way it is and that's ok.
Monk has unique things they get that make them interesting and they do work well enough it's a fun class to play.
As for fighter and barbarian not getting a BA Attack that's not really true as they can pick up a feat to get one. Crossbow expert, polearm master, and revenant blade give you a way to have a consistent bonus Action attacks.
Also the damage bonus from subclass features generally means a barbarian or fighter will outdamage a monk handily enough they don't need to use a BA to match it.
Non-damage related abilities it's tough to say between the three as it's highly dependant on the enemies. I love using a monk in a single big bad encounter and stun spamming as that's fun af.
Thats kind of my point as well though: monks don't exist in isolation. There are other classes that are more well rounded (ergo versatile). And within a team, monks don't really have a role to fill other than to be the worst option at filling another class' role. If the party needs me to fight on the front line, Im just a worse fighter. If I use my speed to get around the enemy or stay safe, Im not helping my team. If Im using stuns or subclass abilities to act as controller, Im spending a ton of ki points to be a less effective controller than a spellcaster of a lower level, or even potentially no more effective than other martials at the task.
But we're not going to agree, and thats ok. I think we ended up in a more or less civil place too, even if there has been some passion. Thanks for the tips.
Few classes can do what the monk can, and no class can do it all. I don't know why this alleged lack of versatility is a hill you think is worth dying on, but that's your problem. And let's put something to bed right now: the monk is not a martial class. It lacks proficiency with martial weapons. As a class, it's closer to a melee bard, rogue, or ranger than it is to a barbarian, fighter, or paladin. (And, oh boy, do people have the wrong idea about rangers.) The monk, at its heart, is a skirmisher that can, pretty much, be whatever the party needs at that moment. And that's awesome.
You're playing a Kensei right now who's 4th level. You're still in tier 1 without Extra Attack or Stunning Strike. That's not terribly fun, I know, but it's hardly a definitive experience. My wife played a Four Elements monk well into tier 2. One of my players was a Sun Soul monk, also tier 2. And I've played monks into tier 3. Please, trust us when we say they're not nearly as bad as you think they are.
And if there are any misconceptions people are drawing from your words, take a moment and wonder if you're being vague. The impetus is on all of us to communicate our point(s) effectively.
Lol, if the fighter is getting dog-piled because the monk is more mobile I would think that demonstrates a monk advantage.
DPR calcs that often come up are misleading. Characters don't make enough attacks in an encounter to see those averages. Abilities like action surge are nice spike damage but adding that to the total daily damage implies a benefit that does not exist every round it's not applied. Bigger swingier attacks are less reliable and more prone to lost over-kill damage than smaller more consistent damage regardless of overall average.
A fighter or barbarian using GWM or SS/CE isn't using a shield. A person cannot argue the higher AC along with better damage after giving up the higher AC. Plus, monks can use sharpshooter with darts anyway; kensei monks add options in that regard.
The focus on both DEX and WIS is good for ability checks in general.
A fighter or barbarian can be built for better damage and can soak up damage. The amount tends to be overstated based on calcs compared to actual gameplay.
Monks are about mobility. If a person values a straight up meat grinder more than mobile striking then monks might not be worth it to that person, but it is worth playing for how it was designed to play.
I think you misunderstood...I meant they can have as good or better AC then a monk with less ability score investment. Barbarian has a built in way to mitigate damage and fighter can get a boost from fighting style.
Fighter and barbarian add ways to hit more regularly (precision attack, reckless, etc..) than monk and therefore utilize sharpshooter and GWM better. Barbarian also has rage damage so it's honestly not even close. As I've said it's ok to be ok with the weak aspects of a class. Monk is not good at damage and that's fine.
It doesn't take a white room to easily have these other classes beat monk in damage. It's just the way it is and that's ok.
Monk has unique things they get that make them interesting and they do work well enough it's a fun class to play.
As for fighter and barbarian not getting a BA Attack that's not really true as they can pick up a feat to get one. Crossbow expert, polearm master, and revenant blade give you a way to have a consistent bonus Action attacks.
Also the damage bonus from subclass features generally means a barbarian or fighter will outdamage a monk handily enough they don't need to use a BA to match it.
Non-damage related abilities it's tough to say between the three as it's highly dependant on the enemies. I love using a monk in a single big bad encounter and stun spamming as that's fun af.
Where did I say fighters and barbarians can't have a bonus action attack? Spending the feat to gain delays the ASI to cost accuracy a monk doesn't lose for the same bonus action attack though.
Subclasses (since you brought them up) also give things like up to +3 hit and damage longer than precision attack lasts, easy +2 AC, and enerring accuracy eventually.
Lol, if the fighter is getting dog-piled because the monk is more mobile I would think that demonstrates a monk advantage.
DPR calcs that often come up are misleading. Characters don't make enough attacks in an encounter to see those averages. Abilities like action surge are nice spike damage but adding that to the total daily damage implies a benefit that does not exist every round it's not applied. Bigger swingier attacks are less reliable and more prone to lost over-kill damage than smaller more consistent damage regardless of overall average.
A fighter or barbarian using GWM or SS/CE isn't using a shield. A person cannot argue the higher AC along with better damage after giving up the higher AC. Plus, monks can use sharpshooter with darts anyway; kensei monks add options in that regard.
The focus on both DEX and WIS is good for ability checks in general.
A fighter or barbarian can be built for better damage and can soak up damage. The amount tends to be overstated based on calcs compared to actual gameplay.
Monks are about mobility. If a person values a straight up meat grinder more than mobile striking then monks might not be worth it to that person, but it is worth playing for how it was designed to play.
I think you misunderstood...I meant they can have as good or better AC then a monk with less ability score investment. Barbarian has a built in way to mitigate damage and fighter can get a boost from fighting style.
Fighter and barbarian add ways to hit more regularly (precision attack, reckless, etc..) than monk and therefore utilize sharpshooter and GWM better. Barbarian also has rage damage so it's honestly not even close. As I've said it's ok to be ok with the weak aspects of a class. Monk is not good at damage and that's fine.
It doesn't take a white room to easily have these other classes beat monk in damage. It's just the way it is and that's ok.
Monk has unique things they get that make them interesting and they do work well enough it's a fun class to play.
As for fighter and barbarian not getting a BA Attack that's not really true as they can pick up a feat to get one. Crossbow expert, polearm master, and revenant blade give you a way to have a consistent bonus Action attacks.
Also the damage bonus from subclass features generally means a barbarian or fighter will outdamage a monk handily enough they don't need to use a BA to match it.
Non-damage related abilities it's tough to say between the three as it's highly dependant on the enemies. I love using a monk in a single big bad encounter and stun spamming as that's fun af.
Where did I say fighters and barbarians can't have a bonus action attack? Spending the feat to gain delays the ASI to cost accuracy a monk doesn't lose for the same bonus action attack though.
Subclasses (since you brought them up) also give things like up to +3 hit and damage longer than precision attack lasts, easy +2 AC, and enerring accuracy eventually.
It was not you who suggested the BA attack but another poster. Sorry for the confusion.
The +3 for monk comes at level 11 and level 17 for accuracy. While helpful this is pretty far into the build to get much use in the vast majority of campaigns. Compare this to level 3 for fighter and level 2 for barbarian.
Also as mentioned the damage the other classes get with an action outweigh the need for the BA attack most of the time.
Again it's fine the monk has lower damage. They are not built to be the end all for damage.
Thats kind of my point as well though: monks don't exist in isolation. There are other classes that are more well rounded (ergo versatile). And within a team, monks don't really have a role to fill other than to be the worst option at filling another class' role. If the party needs me to fight on the front line, Im just a worse fighter. If I use my speed to get around the enemy or stay safe, Im not helping my team. If Im using stuns or subclass abilities to act as controller, Im spending a ton of ki points to be a less effective controller than a spellcaster of a lower level, or even potentially no more effective than other martials at the task.
But we're not going to agree, and thats ok. I think we ended up in a more or less civil place too, even if there has been some passion. Thanks for the tips.
Few classes can do what the monk can, and no class can do it all. I don't know why this alleged lack of versatility is a hill you think is worth dying on, but that's your problem. And let's put something to bed right now: the monk is not a martial class. It lacks proficiency with martial weapons. As a class, it's closer to a melee bard, rogue, or ranger than it is to a barbarian, fighter, or paladin. (And, oh boy, do people have the wrong idea about rangers.) The monk, at its heart, is a skirmisher that can, pretty much, be whatever the party needs at that moment. And that's awesome.
You're playing a Kensei right now who's 4th level. You're still in tier 1 without Extra Attack or Stunning Strike. That's not terribly fun, I know, but it's hardly a definitive experience. My wife played a Four Elements monk well into tier 2. One of my players was a Sun Soul monk, also tier 2. And I've played monks into tier 3. Please, trust us when we say they're not nearly as bad as you think they are.
And if there are any misconceptions people are drawing from your words, take a moment and wonder if you're being vague. The impetus is on all of us to communicate our point(s) effectively.
I mean, they focus on melee fighting and their level 1 ability is called "martial arts." If they aren't a martial class, then I don't know what they are meant to be, especially since the only alternative is being a spellcaster, which they certainly are not.
And I agree, it probably gets better as the levels proceed and more features become available, like any class. But Im just not convinced that it ever feels quite adequate. I'll still have fun role-playing the Lizardfolk Kensei trying to live up to the glory of his adopted dragonborn paladin clan in his own way, but the monk class could be better. Its apparently always been a wonky class, so Im just imagining what a 6e monk would be like in a perfect world, where its not just a valid choice, but also one that is clearly on par with other classes in terms of ability while doing something unique.
Thats kind of my point as well though: monks don't exist in isolation. There are other classes that are more well rounded (ergo versatile). And within a team, monks don't really have a role to fill other than to be the worst option at filling another class' role. If the party needs me to fight on the front line, Im just a worse fighter. If I use my speed to get around the enemy or stay safe, Im not helping my team. If Im using stuns or subclass abilities to act as controller, Im spending a ton of ki points to be a less effective controller than a spellcaster of a lower level, or even potentially no more effective than other martials at the task.
But we're not going to agree, and thats ok. I think we ended up in a more or less civil place too, even if there has been some passion. Thanks for the tips.
Few classes can do what the monk can, and no class can do it all. I don't know why this alleged lack of versatility is a hill you think is worth dying on, but that's your problem. And let's put something to bed right now: the monk is not a martial class. It lacks proficiency with martial weapons. As a class, it's closer to a melee bard, rogue, or ranger than it is to a barbarian, fighter, or paladin. (And, oh boy, do people have the wrong idea about rangers.) The monk, at its heart, is a skirmisher that can, pretty much, be whatever the party needs at that moment. And that's awesome.
You're playing a Kensei right now who's 4th level. You're still in tier 1 without Extra Attack or Stunning Strike. That's not terribly fun, I know, but it's hardly a definitive experience. My wife played a Four Elements monk well into tier 2. One of my players was a Sun Soul monk, also tier 2. And I've played monks into tier 3. Please, trust us when we say they're not nearly as bad as you think they are.
And if there are any misconceptions people are drawing from your words, take a moment and wonder if you're being vague. The impetus is on all of us to communicate our point(s) effectively.
I mean, they focus on melee fighting and their level 1 ability is called "martial arts." If they aren't a martial class, then I don't know what they are meant to be, especially since the only alternative is being a spellcaster, which they certainly are not.
And I agree, it probably gets better as the levels proceed and more features become available, like any class. But Im just not convinced that it ever feels quite adequate. I'll still have fun role-playing the Lizardfolk Kensei trying to live up to the glory of his adopted dragonborn paladin clan in his own way, but the monk class could be better. Its apparently always been a wonky class, so Im just imagining what a 6e monk would be like in a perfect world, where its not just a valid choice, but also one that is clearly on par with other classes in terms of ability while doing something unique.
You wouldn't call the rogue a martial class, would you?
And if you want, "a valid choice," that's also, "clearly on par with other classes in terms of ability while doing something unique," I hear 4E was remarkably well balanced.
Rogue does melee damage, so yeah, its a martial class. Rogue is actually a good example of a class that is terribly unique, but still holds its own among other classes in terms of ability.
I mean, what does monk do that compares to free bonus action disengage/dash/hide or sneak attack? Rogue makes trade offs in terms of HP and AC for solid role play and combat benefits.
Rogue does melee damage, so yeah, its a martial class. Rogue is actually a good example of a class that is terribly unique, but still holds its own among other classes in terms of ability.
I mean, what does monk do that compares to free bonus action disengage/dash/hide or sneak attack? Rogue makes trade offs in terms of HP and AC for solid role play and combat benefits.
A rogue with a bow is nothing to sneeze at, and every class is capable of melee damage. I think your idea of what constitutes a "martial class" is terribly overbroad. But enough of that.
What in the Nine Hells does "solid role play and combat benefits" mean? Do you think the monk isn't capable of being roleplayed well? Well, I have news for you, Buster Brown. Roleplaying isn't done by the class. It's done by the player. And do you honestly still think there are no combat benefits?
Look, at some point, you're going to have to reevaluate your life choices. If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is about whether or not the monk is a viable class option. And the answer is a resounding yes. So, it's time to pack it in.
I'll say one last thing. This game doesn't need an optimized character. A party with 5 normal characters with a single class and no feats can handle hard and even deadly encounters. And it is SO MUCH MORE FUN when you have a balanced party of just normal characters. Teamwork and tactics become way more important. Also, I've played optimized characters and guess what. They were way less fun. I put so much effort into making a character that I thought was good, I never put any effort into making sure he was fun.
Think about this. If you all have a party of heavily optimized characters, your GM is just going to compensate with higher CR creatures. That does not mean more fun encounters or a more fun session. To be honest, in my opinion optimized characters decrease the overall fun for everyone because there are only a handful of builds that are the best. If you play long enough, you'll see the same stupid characters over and over if all your table is worried about is having the most effective characters possible. If your group likes optimizing, then by all means go crazy and have fun. Personally, I find creating builds that are effective but also in line with a character concept much more engaging. I enjoy tactics more than big numbers and honestly think my games are better for it.
I'm not discouraging people from coming up with powerful and interesting builds, in fact quite the opposite. However, when you don't go in thinking about the most optimal choices the game opens up to so many interesting and effective characters. My shadow monk with mage slayer I mentioned earlier is a great example. I haven't made a single optimal choice but I am having so much fun. Every time I see an NPC cast a spell my eyes light up because I know I'm going to have a really fun encounter trying to shut down that caster. And my character is crazy effective at doing it. That's the kind of character I encourage people to make. Dive into the mechanics, if that's your thing, and come up with something interesting and fun. It doesn't need to be the best option for it to be the most fun option. In my opinion, this game is at its best when you're focused more on making engaging and unique character choices and less about making the best characters.
I'm not saying a barbarian shouldn't go GWM. They probably should. It's very good. But do it because you think the character sounds fun and engaging, not because that's what you're supposed to do be effective. A regular old barbarian is still a very good character. If you'd rather beef up stats or take a less OP feat, do it. You'll love it.
Lastly, avoid the internet like the plague when it comes to making a character. The internet has all sorts of crappy opinions (hi). Just open the book, read the lore and mechanics, and make that character you think will be awesome. I promise you it will be. Someone on the internet will always tell you that your character sucks because it's not a Warlock/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin combo that can do 250 damage in a round. F those guys.
When I first got into D&D I joined a group of veterans and we decided to roll for stats. My buddy had pretty crappy rolls and made a gnome monk. He was a D&D veteran and made objectively bad choices. At the time, small race monks did less damage on their hand to hand attacks so this was an awful decision. Guess who was consistently doing the coolest shit at the table and having the most fun. That guy. He didn't care about the best choices, he cared about fun choices. It's a good lesson.
Shove the snark and stop talking about my comments as abstractions you can't find.
I can find them just fine; just pick any of a dozen threads you've made the same stale arguments in in the past few months alone and you'll find them. That's precisely the problem.
What, did you not type "being versatile doesn't mean doesn't mean you beat everyone whenever you want" immediately followed by "Especially as don't get just get "on par"; they can exceed, as well as do things that other martial classes simply can't."? You are making contradictory claims again and again.
These statements are not mutually exclusive, yet you keep treating them as such; "Monk's don't need to beat everyone" and "Monks can excel" is not contradictory. Until you learn this very basic concept I'm not sure what the point is in continuing.
Are you saying that before using ki abilities the monk class is just as strong as other martial classes in every category?
No. I've never made such an argument, and never will, nor do I expect will anyone else.
And yet you keep accusing people of making this argument when they don't; once again, you've made the same ridiculous claims across multiple threads, it's never been true on any of them, and it isn't true here either. Until you actually read what people say, is there any point in engaging you further?
That isn't versatility, thats being better than nothing.
And again you don't seem to understand the very basic concept that you insist on arguing against. Versatility doesn't mean you exceed everyone at everything, so why do you keep demanding that Monks must be something that no-one is arguing that they are?
Versatility is the ability to do a bit of everything, and do well at what you need the most in a given turn. That is what Monks are good at; if you need them to tank they can tank, if you need them to hit more they can, if you need them to be somewhere they can be.
You're currently arguing against versatility apparently without understanding what it is. I have tried to explain the concept to you across dozens of threads and you either ignore me, or prefer to continue using your own twisted incorrect definition where you get to belittle everyone for making arguments they've never actually made.
Its a base class that is like 75% of a martial class in defense and offense, with the ability to burn resources to be around 100% in one of those categories for a turn, but not both.
Feel free to actually show your working for once. Make sure you actually account for full round dodges on defence, making four attacks at level 5 etc.
Ah, so my DM's are bad for not having 200x200 battlefields with foes spread out enough for 40 ft. of movement to feel like a lot (but not so spread out that we sit there playing a sprinting simulator for 20 minutes).
And here we go with the absurd scenarios; can you seriously only conceive of battles in a 30 foot (or smaller) room versus a 200 foot field? Because these aren't scenarios that I or anyone else have argued for.
Battlefield variety means cover, it means obstructions, it means vertical height, it means separate enemy groups rather than one big mob and so-on. Movement is king in actually varied combat encounters, because if you can't get to an enemy, or get to where you can see them, then you can't do much against them.
If your DM just throws you into barren rooms with different enemies, that's not battlefield variety.
Its not enough speed to hit and run, it doesn't give a flanking bonus, it doesn't add to attack damage, it doesn't provide direct protective bonuses unless you are just fleeing combat entirely. 5e just doesn't have all the crazy little bonuses and triggers that older editions gave movement.
Flanking is up to your DM, and I'd say actually being able to do damage is a pretty huge damage bonus, and moving does provide defensive bonuses if you take advantage of cover and other obstacles. These are all basic mechanics in the game; if your DM isn't making use of them, then ask them to.
I think I even recall you calling out the eagle totem warrior barbarian for just getting movement benefits in another discussion, because movement bonuses are so much weaker than just about any other benefit.
The eagle totem bonus is bad because it's going up against far superior options, especially as Barbarians are primarily tanks; when your main goal is to get stuck in and stay there, resistance to all damage or bonuses to allies will of course be more valuable than movement. If it were more movement it might be a different situation, but it's just a really weak bonus compared to far superior options available to that sub-class.
Thats kind of my point as well though: monks don't exist in isolation. There are other classes that are more well rounded (ergo versatile). And within a team, monks don't really have a role to fill other than to be the worst option at filling another class' role. If the party needs me to fight on the front line, Im just a worse fighter. If I use my speed to get around the enemy or stay safe, Im not helping my team. If Im using stuns or subclass abilities to act as controller, Im spending a ton of ki points to be a less effective controller than a spellcaster of a lower level, or even potentially no more effective than other martials at the task.
Again you continue to miss the point; for the addition of a single character your party has a fighter, tank, rogue and control options all rolled into one.
If your casters aren't controlling the battlefield and you are, then you are infinitely more valuable in that role than them. If you are scouting or striking key targets because your party doesn't have a rogue to do it, then you are infinitely more valuable in that role than a non-existent or hypothetical rogue. Even if you had a more balanced party (fighter, caster and rogue all optimised for what they're best at) adding a Monk allows you to double down on one or all of these as required. If you need more control, you can do that, if you need more roguing, you can do that, if your frontline is struggling, you can join it etc.
That is what versatility is all about; there isn't another martial class in the game that can do all of these things as easily as a Monk can. If your party has two rogues instead, then you might be better at rogue stuff than a rogue plus a monk would be, but you also end up more specialised in that direction.
We disagree because you continue to refuse to understand what versatility means; it doesn't mean you don't need help from anyone else, it doesn't mean you standalone, it means you can fulfil different roles as required. A basic Fighter having both good offence and defence doesn't make it any less of a single-note class that just stands and fights, fights and fights some more. A Monk isn't intended to do that, yet it can stand and fight when you need it to, but it can also do a bunch of other things as the situation demands; that is versatility.
Until you actually make an effort to understand what being versatile means, you will never understand the value that it has. If you're actually genuinely playing as a Monk then you'd better learn fast, because doubling down on your misconceptions in game is only going to guarantee you have a bad time, and it won't be the Monk class' fault.
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.
A rogue with a bow is nothing to sneeze at, and every class is capable of melee damage. I think your idea of what constitutes a "martial class" is terribly overbroad. But enough of that.
Martial classes are just the ones that focus on using weaponry. Its accepted lingo in the dnd community, Im not just making it up.
What in the Nine Hells does "solid role play and combat benefits" mean? Do you think the monk isn't capable of being roleplayed well? Well, I have news for you, Buster Brown. Roleplaying isn't done by the class. It's done by the player. And do you honestly still think there are no combat benefits?
I didn't even critique the Monk in terms of roleplay, I just praised the Rogue. So chill out. And yeah, proficiency in a half dozen skills, expertise, and eventually getting reliable talent does benefit Rogues' role play, or at least their social interactions. That doesn't mean monk can't be fun to roleplay.
As for combat benefits, when did I say the monk gets "no combat benefits?" Again, you are making some dank strawmen. But I did compare the things that monks can do to the Rogues' sneak attack and cunning action, and I don't see how its crazy to say that the rogue's abilities come out on top. You basically get the equivalent of a better Step of the Wind and a more powerful damage ability than Flurry of Blows, but they are free. If you think those are good monk abilities, I don't see how you aren't stuck admitting that making them cost nothing makes them better.
Look, at some point, you're going to have to reevaluate your life choices. If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is about whether or not the monk is a viable class option. And the answer is a resounding yes. So, it's time to pack it in.
Lol, you're acting like Im defending something awful like holocaust denialism. I agree monks are viable, Im just pointing out that they among the weakest options and could be better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess I would phrase it like this:
Monks benefit far less from feats than fighter and barbarian.
Feats are generally seen as a good thing in games.
Thus in most games monks will be a little behind due to having far fewer feats that really aid in their toolkit. Mobile is good but their movement is already a strength so its hard to say its a must grab.
Monks also suffer more from not maxing their core stats. Fighters are fairly single attribute dependent as I mentioned (Dex fighters just need dex for everything) and barbarians get more in their base kit to make up for their AC being multiple attribute dependent (Medium armor and shields).
This doesnt make monks bad per say but does make the opportunity cost higher for them taking a fun feat.
I agree that fighter is worse off in a feat-less game and there is no doubt that is a heavy consideration I would take if I knew at session 0 that we were running a featless game. I would likely not pick a fighter.
In the same token if I knew a game had feats and that two of my fellow party mates were going fighter/barbarian I would likely bow out of monk.
Its more about knowing how the game will play out with the information at hand more so than something being "bad" or "good".
Why do monks benefit far less from feats than fighters or barbarians? Which feats are we talking about?
One of the things that's nice about Mobile on a monk is the free disengage on an attack depending on how your DM rules, how you want to use your bonus action, and your level, that can be 2-4 free disengages just by making attacks you may have made anyway and leaving you open to engage a priority target. The dash bonus means that the monk can ignore any difficult terrain (perhaps as ac result of another player's actions) for the cost of a ki point, allowing the party to set up shop in a defensible position without hampering the monks ability to strike priority targets. The extra speed is just icing.
The monk won't take armor specific feats and won't take GWM, but a fighter or barbarian won't take the armor feats aside from Medium Armor Master or Heavy Armor Master (in the case of the fighter). The barbarian won't likely take Sharpshooter, which a Kensei might take if that's the flavor of monk that they want to portray.
Each class will take whatever feats that they feel adds to the concept that they are trying to achieve. The other reason that I can think of that a monk might not take feats would be because they fill needs that the monk has prepackaged. PAM works fine for a monk with a spear or quarterstaff, but it won't help the bonus action need (does give added options though). Tavern Brawler doesn't improve a monk's unarmed damage, but does help with improvised weapons (which a monk doesn't need as much). Is already having the abilities a weakness?
"Why do monks benefit far less from feats than fighters or barbarians? Which feats are we talking about?"
The opportunity cost is more. Monks rely on ability scores more so than these classes. Their AC is based on both DEX and WIS and their DC for their ki abilities is based on WIS.
Barbarian and Fighter rely less on a second ability as they can utilize armor for AC purposes and generally their DC is key'd off the main stat or they simply do not have a DC to worry about.
Overall it benefits them less because it costs them more on more fronts.
That being said you can use feats but you suffer in more areas for doing so.
Again this is not saying monk is bad....its being honest on what they are all about.
While you sometimes do go after people's points directly, you don't listen when people disagree with you; you just jump into another thread and make the exact same arguments as if they hadn't already been shot down a million times.
Sighs. And now we're at the point where I ask you to actually read what I said and you probably won't.
Ah, so now your statements are magically "facts" and weakness is whatever you say it is. Would you like to just declare everyone that disagrees with you as heretics and have them burned at the stake next?
And this is the part where you forget you've had the concept of versatility explained to you a million times. Versatility doesn't mean you can deal more damage than a Fighter when you want to, then out-tank a Barbarian in the next, it means that in a party without one of those you can fulfil the same role, and in situations where you don't need it, you can fulfil another.
Depending upon what you would actually need those other classes to do in any given moment Monks can compete; sure, if all you need to do is put out damage they can't do quite as much as a Fighter or Paladin nova except in certain circumstances, but in most situations damage isn't the only factor.
Even if your goal in dealing damage is just to make something not be alive anymore, then sometimes stunning it so the whole group can deal more damage overall is far more valuable, sometimes you just want to grab its attention as a distraction for a round or two to save another character and so-on. Again, your narrow focus on numbers alone ignores huge portions of what characters are actually trying to achieve in a game, and why being able to switch as circumstances demand is incredibly valuable.
That's not a scenario, it's a simple point, which you've ignored again.
Movement is rewarded in 5e's combat; movement is how you get from one place to another, so of course if you only ever play battles in small rooms where everyone's within 30 feet of each other, you'll never appreciate how useful movement can be (and is) for people who's games are run better. Again, you ignore an entire section of the rules because it doesn't suit you or fit your limited experience; if your DM doesn't give you more varied combat encounters, then try to nudge them into giving you more.
The easiest way is to fish for cover; when a room is described to you, ask if there are any walls, crates, piles of rocks or whatever then use them. More speed means you can get to them easier, move around enemies and so-on, and with Ki point dash you can potentially do-so and still attack.
I don't care about being "right", I care that you keep reposting the same arguments against Monks onto every thread you can find. It feels like all you do is sit on the forums waiting for one to pop up so you can repeat them again. It's not constructive, and really it's unhealthy.
My group is using Avrae and while it's good for what it is, it isn't exactly an ideal way to play; there's also a lot that it just doesn't support by default. I've had to add loads of aliases and snippets to make things much smoother; if you join the Avrae Discord server there's a snippet lookup channel where there should be a !monk command which you can add with most of the Monk abilities (including sub-classes) managed for you. I think in the lookup channel you just do "!alias monk" (without quotes) and it gives you the alias, which you should then able to add as an alias to your own character. Not super user friendly, but a lot of the classes are the same.
Slightly higher AC and 8 hit points difference shouldn't matter if you're using Patient Defence when you need to (with Agile Parry if necessary), being surrounded by a mob is an ideal time as high AC is less useful than advantage against high volumes of attacks.
If you're regularly being "dog-piled" then that doesn't sound like you're getting much enemy variety; again this is a problem with playing online, but you could try to nudge your DM to provide maps as images to give you an easier time with fights so they're not just theatre of the mind empty rooms, and again, fish for cover and other features you can use to your advantage. In our group the DM has a handful of prepared maps with no specific features that they can just post and just say "this is the layout, the circles are barrels" or whatever.
Even so if you have two casters you should have at least one that's able to interfere with mobs by softening them with AoE damage (blast or persisting), using control spells, or buffing one or both of you and the Fighter and so-on. Monks don't exist in isolation, and you shouldn't need to be competing with a Fighter at being a Fighter, especially if your group doesn't have a Rogue to hit at leaders/casters etc. which is what a Monk can be good at. The fact that you can fight alongside the Fighter though is part of what I mean; it's not what Monks are primarily for, but when the situation requires you can be right in there fighting if you absolutely have to, but it shouldn't be your first resort.
Keep in mind that you don't need to be in and out every round to do a hit & run; even if you do it every second round that's potentially halving the number of attacks headed your way (i.e- fight with Patient Defence and/or Agile Parry one round, then attack again and disengage with Step of the Wind in the next).
Without knowing more about the party and builds it's hard to advise further, but the Monk does have ways to compete even in these kinds of awkward unfavourable circumstances.
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.
Feats being optional is really a sad indictment of the Fighter class. Assuming the standard array and +3 total to stats from race (+5 if human), it only takes 8-9 points from ASIs to hit the stat cap of 20 in the two highest abilities. Fighters get 14 points total from ASIs, enough for a third 20 stat. And that's just assuming the standard array. With point-buy 3 abilities can hit the cap with 6 ASIs, and with slightly lucky rolls using 4d6 drop lowest it can well be less than that. That's just silly to me. If WotC wants feats to be optional, they should have designed the Fighter class differently.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm trying to understand how doing hit and run tactics means that you have to let the fighter get dogpiled or leave the mages to melee combat. There is this thing called movement speed (which you don't seem to enjoy) that can let you hit a creature and run back to help your mages or up to assist the fighter. Do the mages not move around and do their best to mitigate bad situations for themselves? Is your fighter not able to stand up to a few attacks with its superior AC and hit points? You don't have to be doing hit and run tactics all through out the entire fight, just like you don't have to patient defense, or flurry of blows, or Agile Parry, or whatever on every turn. For the most part, fighters and barbarians do that same thing round after round, occasionally throwing in a rage, action surge, or whatever other options that they have available from they're class. Also, how is the fighter outshining you in every combat? Is it more damage? Is it the fact that they're in there providing a buffer for the casters? There isn't much else that a fighter can do on a fight to fight case without using subclass features. What aspects about the monk are you finding fun?
Sorry, Haravikk, I currently have Kronzy on ignore but saw those comments on your post and wanted to respond to them.
I see what you're saying. Sure, the opportunity cost for a fighter and for a rogue is less than for a monk as far as ASI. The barbarian has medium armor and reckless attack to help take GWM or PAM early and not feel as bad about their defenses or attacking ability (plus that high HP and rage). That said, none of them has a bonus action attack without going two weapon fighting or with a feat. Rogue can do a fine job without it, particularly if Cunning Action helps them to maintain their sneak attack damage. Playing a barbarian right now, I can tell you that I struggled with the idea of bumping my AC with dex (or constitution allowing me to drop the medium armor and that dreaded disadvantage on stealth), bumping my attacking ability with strength, or going with GWM. I eventually went with GWM, almost immediately picked up a [Tooltip Not Found] that I'm constantly swapping with my [Tooltip Not Found] so that I can toggle between being more accurate and being able to use the power attack, and am sometimes wondering if I shouldn't have gone with one of the other options or something else. The bonus action attack still works with the battle axe, so at least the feat isn't a complete waste when I'm using the weapon, but the specialization does come with its own cost as well.
Martial arts can allow a monk to take PAM, use the quarterstaff or spear's damage (two handed even!) until the martial arts damage catches up. Even then, the martial arts damage can still apply to the weapon attack allowing the monk to take advantage of the PAM triggers while not losing any damage. The fighter does get more ASIs to do different things with, meaning that their opportunity cost for using the ASIs is lower, but the opportunity cost is still present in the fact that fighters are more combat centric than any other class. Aside from their skills, the base chassis doesn't give any help for the other pillars of the game and they don't get additional skills to make up for it. They do have some reasonable skills to choose from to help with this and do have flexibility with their stats, particularly if they go with a dex based build. However, the dex based build does mean that they do give up some raw damage and probably a little bit of survivability to go more SAD and free up some of those stats. The opportunity cost is still very real for them objectively, but the how that cost stacks up with the monk's opportunity cost is certainly subjective. Different players will value different things more or less. Players that value combat highly will certainly favor the fighter's opportunity cost over the monk's especially if they like to have lots and lots of feats. The player that sees that a monk can do many of the things that feats allow other classes to do without going into those feats and is happy with the trade off will probably value the ASIs less, particularly when they see the things that the monk gets to help in several facets of the game.
Lol, if the fighter is getting dog-piled because the monk is more mobile I would think that demonstrates a monk advantage.
DPR calcs that often come up are misleading. Characters don't make enough attacks in an encounter to see those averages. Abilities like action surge are nice spike damage but adding that to the total daily damage implies a benefit that does not exist every round it's not applied. Bigger swingier attacks are less reliable and more prone to lost over-kill damage than smaller more consistent damage regardless of overall average.
A fighter or barbarian using GWM or SS/CE isn't using a shield. A person cannot argue the higher AC along with better damage after giving up the higher AC. Plus, monks can use sharpshooter with darts anyway; kensei monks add options in that regard.
The focus on both DEX and WIS is good for ability checks in general.
A fighter or barbarian can be built for better damage and can soak up damage. The amount tends to be overstated based on calcs compared to actual gameplay.
Monks are about mobility. If a person values a straight up meat grinder more than mobile striking then monks might not be worth it to that person, but it is worth playing for how it was designed to play.
Everybody can get up to three additional skill proficiencies via the Skilled feat, and for fighters the opportunity cost to take that feat is lower than for most (certainly lower than for monks). It can be a pretty worthwhile feat to take too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you misunderstood...I meant they can have as good or better AC then a monk with less ability score investment. Barbarian has a built in way to mitigate damage and fighter can get a boost from fighting style.
Fighter and barbarian add ways to hit more regularly (precision attack, reckless, etc..) than monk and therefore utilize sharpshooter and GWM better. Barbarian also has rage damage so it's honestly not even close. As I've said it's ok to be ok with the weak aspects of a class. Monk is not good at damage and that's fine.
It doesn't take a white room to easily have these other classes beat monk in damage. It's just the way it is and that's ok.
Monk has unique things they get that make them interesting and they do work well enough it's a fun class to play.
As for fighter and barbarian not getting a BA Attack that's not really true as they can pick up a feat to get one. Crossbow expert, polearm master, and revenant blade give you a way to have a consistent bonus Action attacks.
Also the damage bonus from subclass features generally means a barbarian or fighter will outdamage a monk handily enough they don't need to use a BA to match it.
Non-damage related abilities it's tough to say between the three as it's highly dependant on the enemies. I love using a monk in a single big bad encounter and stun spamming as that's fun af.
Few classes can do what the monk can, and no class can do it all. I don't know why this alleged lack of versatility is a hill you think is worth dying on, but that's your problem. And let's put something to bed right now: the monk is not a martial class. It lacks proficiency with martial weapons. As a class, it's closer to a melee bard, rogue, or ranger than it is to a barbarian, fighter, or paladin. (And, oh boy, do people have the wrong idea about rangers.) The monk, at its heart, is a skirmisher that can, pretty much, be whatever the party needs at that moment. And that's awesome.
You're playing a Kensei right now who's 4th level. You're still in tier 1 without Extra Attack or Stunning Strike. That's not terribly fun, I know, but it's hardly a definitive experience. My wife played a Four Elements monk well into tier 2. One of my players was a Sun Soul monk, also tier 2. And I've played monks into tier 3. Please, trust us when we say they're not nearly as bad as you think they are.
And if there are any misconceptions people are drawing from your words, take a moment and wonder if you're being vague. The impetus is on all of us to communicate our point(s) effectively.
Where did I say fighters and barbarians can't have a bonus action attack? Spending the feat to gain delays the ASI to cost accuracy a monk doesn't lose for the same bonus action attack though.
Subclasses (since you brought them up) also give things like up to +3 hit and damage longer than precision attack lasts, easy +2 AC, and enerring accuracy eventually.
It was not you who suggested the BA attack but another poster. Sorry for the confusion.
The +3 for monk comes at level 11 and level 17 for accuracy. While helpful this is pretty far into the build to get much use in the vast majority of campaigns. Compare this to level 3 for fighter and level 2 for barbarian.
Also as mentioned the damage the other classes get with an action outweigh the need for the BA attack most of the time.
Again it's fine the monk has lower damage. They are not built to be the end all for damage.
I mean, they focus on melee fighting and their level 1 ability is called "martial arts." If they aren't a martial class, then I don't know what they are meant to be, especially since the only alternative is being a spellcaster, which they certainly are not.
And I agree, it probably gets better as the levels proceed and more features become available, like any class. But Im just not convinced that it ever feels quite adequate. I'll still have fun role-playing the Lizardfolk Kensei trying to live up to the glory of his adopted dragonborn paladin clan in his own way, but the monk class could be better. Its apparently always been a wonky class, so Im just imagining what a 6e monk would be like in a perfect world, where its not just a valid choice, but also one that is clearly on par with other classes in terms of ability while doing something unique.
You wouldn't call the rogue a martial class, would you?
And if you want, "a valid choice," that's also, "clearly on par with other classes in terms of ability while doing something unique," I hear 4E was remarkably well balanced.
Rogue does melee damage, so yeah, its a martial class. Rogue is actually a good example of a class that is terribly unique, but still holds its own among other classes in terms of ability.
I mean, what does monk do that compares to free bonus action disengage/dash/hide or sneak attack? Rogue makes trade offs in terms of HP and AC for solid role play and combat benefits.
A rogue with a bow is nothing to sneeze at, and every class is capable of melee damage. I think your idea of what constitutes a "martial class" is terribly overbroad. But enough of that.
What in the Nine Hells does "solid role play and combat benefits" mean? Do you think the monk isn't capable of being roleplayed well? Well, I have news for you, Buster Brown. Roleplaying isn't done by the class. It's done by the player. And do you honestly still think there are no combat benefits?
Look, at some point, you're going to have to reevaluate your life choices. If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is about whether or not the monk is a viable class option. And the answer is a resounding yes. So, it's time to pack it in.
I'll say one last thing. This game doesn't need an optimized character. A party with 5 normal characters with a single class and no feats can handle hard and even deadly encounters. And it is SO MUCH MORE FUN when you have a balanced party of just normal characters. Teamwork and tactics become way more important. Also, I've played optimized characters and guess what. They were way less fun. I put so much effort into making a character that I thought was good, I never put any effort into making sure he was fun.
Think about this. If you all have a party of heavily optimized characters, your GM is just going to compensate with higher CR creatures. That does not mean more fun encounters or a more fun session. To be honest, in my opinion optimized characters decrease the overall fun for everyone because there are only a handful of builds that are the best. If you play long enough, you'll see the same stupid characters over and over if all your table is worried about is having the most effective characters possible. If your group likes optimizing, then by all means go crazy and have fun. Personally, I find creating builds that are effective but also in line with a character concept much more engaging. I enjoy tactics more than big numbers and honestly think my games are better for it.
I'm not discouraging people from coming up with powerful and interesting builds, in fact quite the opposite. However, when you don't go in thinking about the most optimal choices the game opens up to so many interesting and effective characters. My shadow monk with mage slayer I mentioned earlier is a great example. I haven't made a single optimal choice but I am having so much fun. Every time I see an NPC cast a spell my eyes light up because I know I'm going to have a really fun encounter trying to shut down that caster. And my character is crazy effective at doing it. That's the kind of character I encourage people to make. Dive into the mechanics, if that's your thing, and come up with something interesting and fun. It doesn't need to be the best option for it to be the most fun option. In my opinion, this game is at its best when you're focused more on making engaging and unique character choices and less about making the best characters.
I'm not saying a barbarian shouldn't go GWM. They probably should. It's very good. But do it because you think the character sounds fun and engaging, not because that's what you're supposed to do be effective. A regular old barbarian is still a very good character. If you'd rather beef up stats or take a less OP feat, do it. You'll love it.
Lastly, avoid the internet like the plague when it comes to making a character. The internet has all sorts of crappy opinions (hi). Just open the book, read the lore and mechanics, and make that character you think will be awesome. I promise you it will be. Someone on the internet will always tell you that your character sucks because it's not a Warlock/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin combo that can do 250 damage in a round. F those guys.
When I first got into D&D I joined a group of veterans and we decided to roll for stats. My buddy had pretty crappy rolls and made a gnome monk. He was a D&D veteran and made objectively bad choices. At the time, small race monks did less damage on their hand to hand attacks so this was an awful decision. Guess who was consistently doing the coolest shit at the table and having the most fun. That guy. He didn't care about the best choices, he cared about fun choices. It's a good lesson.
I can find them just fine; just pick any of a dozen threads you've made the same stale arguments in in the past few months alone and you'll find them. That's precisely the problem.
These statements are not mutually exclusive, yet you keep treating them as such; "Monk's don't need to beat everyone" and "Monks can excel" is not contradictory. Until you learn this very basic concept I'm not sure what the point is in continuing.
No. I've never made such an argument, and never will, nor do I expect will anyone else.
And yet you keep accusing people of making this argument when they don't; once again, you've made the same ridiculous claims across multiple threads, it's never been true on any of them, and it isn't true here either. Until you actually read what people say, is there any point in engaging you further?
And again you don't seem to understand the very basic concept that you insist on arguing against. Versatility doesn't mean you exceed everyone at everything, so why do you keep demanding that Monks must be something that no-one is arguing that they are?
Versatility is the ability to do a bit of everything, and do well at what you need the most in a given turn. That is what Monks are good at; if you need them to tank they can tank, if you need them to hit more they can, if you need them to be somewhere they can be.
You're currently arguing against versatility apparently without understanding what it is. I have tried to explain the concept to you across dozens of threads and you either ignore me, or prefer to continue using your own twisted incorrect definition where you get to belittle everyone for making arguments they've never actually made.
Feel free to actually show your working for once. Make sure you actually account for full round dodges on defence, making four attacks at level 5 etc.
And here we go with the absurd scenarios; can you seriously only conceive of battles in a 30 foot (or smaller) room versus a 200 foot field? Because these aren't scenarios that I or anyone else have argued for.
Battlefield variety means cover, it means obstructions, it means vertical height, it means separate enemy groups rather than one big mob and so-on. Movement is king in actually varied combat encounters, because if you can't get to an enemy, or get to where you can see them, then you can't do much against them.
If your DM just throws you into barren rooms with different enemies, that's not battlefield variety.
So now apparently being able to attack a target when another can't has zero combat benefit? 🤦♂️
Flanking is up to your DM, and I'd say actually being able to do damage is a pretty huge damage bonus, and moving does provide defensive bonuses if you take advantage of cover and other obstacles. These are all basic mechanics in the game; if your DM isn't making use of them, then ask them to.
The eagle totem bonus is bad because it's going up against far superior options, especially as Barbarians are primarily tanks; when your main goal is to get stuck in and stay there, resistance to all damage or bonuses to allies will of course be more valuable than movement. If it were more movement it might be a different situation, but it's just a really weak bonus compared to far superior options available to that sub-class.
Again you continue to miss the point; for the addition of a single character your party has a fighter, tank, rogue and control options all rolled into one.
If your casters aren't controlling the battlefield and you are, then you are infinitely more valuable in that role than them. If you are scouting or striking key targets because your party doesn't have a rogue to do it, then you are infinitely more valuable in that role than a non-existent or hypothetical rogue. Even if you had a more balanced party (fighter, caster and rogue all optimised for what they're best at) adding a Monk allows you to double down on one or all of these as required. If you need more control, you can do that, if you need more roguing, you can do that, if your frontline is struggling, you can join it etc.
That is what versatility is all about; there isn't another martial class in the game that can do all of these things as easily as a Monk can. If your party has two rogues instead, then you might be better at rogue stuff than a rogue plus a monk would be, but you also end up more specialised in that direction.
We disagree because you continue to refuse to understand what versatility means; it doesn't mean you don't need help from anyone else, it doesn't mean you standalone, it means you can fulfil different roles as required. A basic Fighter having both good offence and defence doesn't make it any less of a single-note class that just stands and fights, fights and fights some more. A Monk isn't intended to do that, yet it can stand and fight when you need it to, but it can also do a bunch of other things as the situation demands; that is versatility.
Until you actually make an effort to understand what being versatile means, you will never understand the value that it has. If you're actually genuinely playing as a Monk then you'd better learn fast, because doubling down on your misconceptions in game is only going to guarantee you have a bad time, and it won't be the Monk class' fault.
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.
Martial classes are just the ones that focus on using weaponry. Its accepted lingo in the dnd community, Im not just making it up.
I didn't even critique the Monk in terms of roleplay, I just praised the Rogue. So chill out. And yeah, proficiency in a half dozen skills, expertise, and eventually getting reliable talent does benefit Rogues' role play, or at least their social interactions. That doesn't mean monk can't be fun to roleplay.
As for combat benefits, when did I say the monk gets "no combat benefits?" Again, you are making some dank strawmen. But I did compare the things that monks can do to the Rogues' sneak attack and cunning action, and I don't see how its crazy to say that the rogue's abilities come out on top. You basically get the equivalent of a better Step of the Wind and a more powerful damage ability than Flurry of Blows, but they are free. If you think those are good monk abilities, I don't see how you aren't stuck admitting that making them cost nothing makes them better.
Lol, you're acting like Im defending something awful like holocaust denialism. I agree monks are viable, Im just pointing out that they among the weakest options and could be better.