I've played monks and they are underpowered but certainly viable.
Monks are pretty good until you run out of ki and then you lose a lot of damage, versatility, defense, etc. The ki mechanic needs to be fixed. Monks need like one free ki on every initiative roll at level 5.
they mostly need to boost the damage and nerf stunning strike or just give it to a subclass . people often think becuase you can stun you shouldn't be able to do dmg so id rather them go back to a 3.5 style monk where i can actually hurt things . I also hate that they want to force you to skirmish and without a feat that costs ki and a bonus action . Monk should be a frontliner. a warrior is "someone who can deal wounds and take a hit" .barbs got a facelift hopefully monk will as well.
The Monk is objectively, mathematically, factually the worst class in the game. Anything it can do is done better than another class, other than in extremely niche situations like "oops everyone is naked and unarmed. Treantmonk did an excellent video breaking down every problem with the Monk class through unassailable math. They're not good at damage, they're not good at control, they're not good at skirmishing, they have bad AC and HP... the list goes on.
And the playtest released today fixes none of their problems while also nerfing Stunning Strike. It's wild.
The Monk is objectively, mathematically, factually the worst class in the game. Anything it can do is done better than another class, other than in extremely niche situations like "oops everyone is naked and unarmed. Treantmonk did an excellent video breaking down every problem with the Monk class through unassailable math. They're not good at damage, they're not good at control, they're not good at skirmishing, they have bad AC and HP... the list goes on.
And the playtest released today fixes none of their problems while also nerfing Stunning Strike. It's wild.
This might be matter if it were not for the overwhelming dominance luck plays in the game, particularly with respect to ability scores. A Monk who starts at 1st level with two 18s (before racial bonuses) and an average distribution elsewhere is objectively, mathematically and factually WAY, WAY, WAY better than any other non-caster with no ability above 15 and will continue to be mathematically superior through at least the first 12 levels of play, and both of those would be completely viable and playable as a class and still viable if they switched places.
I would also argue that the Monk as a class is faster and more mobile than any other at most levels. Not at all levels (Rogues are better at levels 2-4 and about equal at 5-6), but at most levels Monks are the best class at this. That is something that a Monk can factually and mathematically do better at levels 7+ than other classes except in niche situations.
If it is of upmost importance to have the most powerful character possible given your ability scores then Monk is not a viable choice .... and really neither is any other class except Wizard because of the unassailable factual disparity in power between Wizards and other classes. But if your goal is not to build the most powerful character possible, but rather a character you want to play, then then the relative power between a Monk and what you could otherwise play is irrelevant.
Bottom line - if the power is all you care about then Wizard is the ONLY single-class choice and the disparity between Wizards and Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins is far greater than the disparity between Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins and Monks. TBH, considering races, backgrounds and feats, Wizard is usually the best choice mathematically even if you already have 4 other Wizards in the party.
The Monk is objectively, mathematically, factually the worst class in the game. Anything it can do is done better than another class, other than in extremely niche situations like "oops everyone is naked and unarmed. Treantmonk did an excellent video breaking down every problem with the Monk class through unassailable math. They're not good at damage, they're not good at control, they're not good at skirmishing, they have bad AC and HP... the list goes on.
And the playtest released today fixes none of their problems while also nerfing Stunning Strike. It's wild.
This might be matter if it were not for the overwhelming dominance luck plays in the game, particularly with respect to ability scores. A Monk who starts at 1st level with two 18s (before racial bonuses) and an average distribution elsewhere is objectively, mathematically and factually WAY, WAY, WAY better than any other non-caster with no ability above 15 and will continue to be mathematically superior through at least the first 12 levels of play, and both of those would be completely viable and playable as a class and still viable if they switched places.
I would also argue that the Monk as a class is faster and more mobile than any other at most levels. Not at all levels (Rogues are better at levels 2-4 and about equal at 5-6), but at most levels Monks are the best class at this. That is something that a Monk can factually and mathematically do better at levels 7+ than other classes except in niche situations.
If it is of upmost importance to have the most powerful character possible given your ability scores then Monk is not a viable choice .... and really neither is any other class except Wizard because of the unassailable factual disparity in power between Wizards and other classes. But if your goal is not to build the most powerful character possible, but rather a character you want to play, then then the relative power between a Monk and what you could otherwise play is irrelevant.
Bottom line - if the power is all you care about then Wizard is the ONLY single-class choice and the disparity between Wizards and Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins is far greater than the disparity between Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins and Monks. TBH, considering races, backgrounds and feats, Wizard is usually the best choice mathematically even if you already have 4 other Wizards in the party.
If you need two 18s at character creation to make a monk good, then monks aren't good.
What monks are bad at is being optimized. It is hard to optimize a monk.
If you need two 18s at character creation to make a monk good, then monks aren't good.
You don't need that. As I noted above you can have no score higher than a 15 (after racial bonus) and still be viable.
The point is not that you need those scores or need to be something other than a Monk "to be good". The point is you can be MUCH BETTER than a martial of a different class with a different class in play.
Your argument suggesting Monks can't be good is the equivalent of saying you can't be good Basketball players unless you are 7 foot tall when in the NBA includes players under 6 foot tall and there are many Americans over 7 foot tall who can't play BBall at all.
What monks are bad at is being optimized. It is hard to optimize a monk.
This is only true if tyou are comparing it to other classes (with the same ability scores) and if you are doing that the ONLY class that can actually be optimized is Wizard. ANYTHING else is suboptimal. You are accepting compromises if you play any class other than Wizard.
Monk doesn't have some niche building out of combat utility either though.
Monk's speed is nice, but rogues can dash twice.
Monk's ability to run along walls is cool, but out of combat a rope and grappling hook can accomplish much the same thing.
And a note on in-combat utility: if the monk can't be optimized, then its also going to feel weaker in unoptimized play. Its floor and ceiling are lower than the other classes.
Its not unplayable, but its way less impressive and fun than it could be.
People who talk about "optimization" really drive home why their attitudes towards classes is completely clueless. Because what "optimization" really means to such folks is divorcing classes from 90% of gameplay possibilities to look at them purely through a lens of numbers devoid of context. They judge classes not on actual practical utility, but purely on whether these numbers are the absolute highest among all the classes. And not only does it ignore the vast majority of class features, the fact that it is done strictly through the lens of "combat" in a featureless void means it isn't even a meaningful analysis of a class's practicality and usefulness in battle situations other than a field that's just as featureless.
In short, if a Monk is far and away the weakest class at your table, it's not because the Monk is bad, it's because the DM is too lazy and uninventive to make any sort of encounter and situation where "who can do the highest DPR" isn't the only thing that matters.
Ah yes, blame the DM and not the poor game design and mechanics in the Monk class. That makes sense. If a DM has to bend over backwards to make a Monk feel capable where no other class needs that level of pandering, I think the monk is the problem. The monk has many issues, pretending they don't exist helps nobody.
Ah yes, blame the DM and not the poor game design and mechanics in the Monk class. That makes sense. If a DM has to bend over backwards to make a Monk feel capable where no other class needs that level of pandering, I think the monk is the problem. The monk has many issues, pretending they don't exist helps nobody.
If literally the only thing that matters about a class is raw damage due to a DM's adventure design, then yes, it is the DM's fault.
It isn't difficult to create elements that different classes can take advantage of in different ways, and it isn't only the Monk that benefits in such cases. Monks have exceptional mobility that can be utilized in combat and non-combat situations. Their subclasses give them differing abilities that can be used in different situations.
If your sole metric of a class's utility is the damage they deal in a featureless void, then either the player in question or the DM is not considering possibilities beyond pure damage-per-round.
A DM could set up a situation with more than just damage mattering, and the monk won't shine.
Im guessing what you are imagining is a battlemap scenario where the enemies are massively spread out, with terrain obstacles. So much so that the monk's speed actually comes in handy for closing distances.
But there are 2 problems here:
First, this could be an incredibly slow encounter. The other martials have to spend turns dashing or using subpar ranged attacks, and the monk is rarely going to shut down serious threats running ahead on their own.
But secondly, this isn't even an encounter made to favor monks. Its one that favors casters, whose range with spells could potentially handle such threats before monks even get a chance to attack. They can even cast fly and haste by the time the monk can run up walls, sending flying Paladins out speeding and out maneuvering monks.
Its a real problem that martials in general have a lot less effective range and damage than casters. And that kills monks' niche as the speedster... that speed doesn't automatically equate to some huge utility even in specific scenarios.
Not that its some insane boost to begin with, they can't even hit and run effectively against any creature with more than 30 movement speed. Even when it gets up to 80ft movement speed with a bonus action dash, so what? It doesn't confer inherent advantages. You still can't drag a Dragon off a cliff, or carry a caster out of trouble, or get extra damage for running at an enemy at Mach 10 before punching them.
Yes, damage shouldn't be the sole mechanic being weighed. But you can't just turn around and say "well speed and running up walls should be the only things being weighed, so there!"
Ah yes, blame the DM and not the poor game design and mechanics in the Monk class. That makes sense. If a DM has to bend over backwards to make a Monk feel capable where no other class needs that level of pandering, I think the monk is the problem. The monk has many issues, pretending they don't exist helps nobody.
If literally the only thing that matters about a class is raw damage due to a DM's adventure design, then yes, it is the DM's fault.
It isn't difficult to create elements that different classes can take advantage of in different ways, and it isn't only the Monk that benefits in such cases. Monks have exceptional mobility that can be utilized in combat and non-combat situations. Their subclasses give them differing abilities that can be used in different situations.
If your sole metric of a class's utility is the damage they deal in a featureless void, then either the player in question or the DM is not considering possibilities beyond pure damage-per-round.
A DM could set up a situation with more than just damage mattering, and the monk won't shine.
Im guessing what you are imagining is a battlemap scenario where the enemies are massively spread out, with terrain obstacles. So much so that the monk's speed actually comes in handy for closing distances.
But there are 2 problems here:
First, this could be an incredibly slow encounter. The other martials have to spend turns dashing or using subpar ranged attacks, and the monk is rarely going to shut down serious threats running ahead on their own.
But secondly, this isn't even an encounter made to favor monks. Its one that favors casters, whose range with spells could potentially handle such threats before monks even get a chance to attack. They can even cast fly and haste by the time the monk can run up walls, sending flying Paladins out speeding and out maneuvering monks.
Its a real problem that martials in general have a lot less effective range and damage than casters. And that kills monks' niche as the speedster... that speed doesn't automatically equate to some huge utility even in specific scenarios.
Not that its some insane boost to begin with, they can't even hit and run effectively against any creature with more than 30 movement speed. Even when it gets up to 80ft movement speed with a bonus action dash, so what? It doesn't confer inherent advantages. You still can't drag a Dragon off a cliff, or carry a caster out of trouble, or get extra damage for running at an enemy at Mach 10 before punching them.
Yes, damage shouldn't be the sole mechanic being weighed. But you can't just turn around and say "well speed and running up walls should be the only things being weighed, so there!"
Ya im with kron . one of the big problems with the monk is no damage and to do damage you must expend ki which you don't have a lot of these problems are connected.
if you can do more damage that doesn't rely on ki you can save your ki for defensive and tactical use. rogue and fighter can do their damage without resource paladin can do theirs with a resource but are actually compensated for it .saying damage doesn't matter means your not serious about fixing the class .
So can Monks and they do it with a higher base speed.
And a note on in-combat utility: if the monk can't be optimized, then its also going to feel weaker in unoptimized play. Its floor and ceiling are lower than the other classes.
True, but this is equally true for fighter, Paladin and Barbarian as their floor and cieling are lower than the other classes as well (except Monk).
Its a real problem that martials in general have a lot less effective range and damage than casters. And that kills monks' niche as the speedster... that speed doesn't automatically equate to some huge utility even in specific scenarios
I would disagree with this. In comparison to casters the shortfall with most Martials is not range, Heavy Crossbows and Longbows outrange just about everything and their damage is decent too. The realy problem with martials Barbarians, Monks, Fighters and Paladins is they don't have spells, or in the case of Paladin they don't have meaningful spells in good quantity.
It is also not damage that makes casters better, it is the opposite - their ability to buff and use control spells, is what makes them better.
A Bladesinger optimizes for melee will mop the floor with just about all Paladins, most fighters and be about equal to a Barbarian in one-on-one melee without using a single offensive leveled spell. This is despite having no fighting style and doing less damage on a hit (much lower than Paladins or Barbarians). The reason is mostly the defensive spells they bring to the table.
..... you must expend ki which you don't have a lot of these problems are connected.
I see this a lot, but I wonder if these people actually have played Monks beyond level 3. Monks have a crap ton of Ki. After 8th level it is uncommon to ever run out of ki unless you are purposely trying to spam it. With a standard adventuring day you should have over 30 ki a day at 8th level to spend in about 25 rounds of combat. And if you are not running a standard day then you are generally not doing many combats and you have an even larger abundance.
Now at low levels sure, ki is at a premium, but by 4th level you have quite a bit of it and by 6th you can generally spend it at will when there is a good reason to (note spending it for a possible extra 6 damage on the boss is not generally a good reason, unless he is about to die and one of your allies is not going to kill him before his turn).
if you can do more damage that doesn't rely on ki you can save your ki for defensive and tactical use.
IME damage is not that powerful and using ki for damage is generally a waste. Using ki for FOB is not generally wise. At high levels it is not even using the Ki that is a waste as much as it is using your bonus action for FOB that is a waste.
Purposely playing your character inneffectively is going to give bad results. My Wizard with 8-strength would be pretty weak if he decided to go whack people with his staff instead of using spells!
It certainly depends on your subclass, and some Monk subclasses are designed to do damage (those are in general the weaker Monk subclasses) but using ki for damage is rarely wise.
saying damage doesn't matter means your not serious about fixing the class .
Damage matters a lot less than other things in the game. If damage was of primary importance Fighters and Paladins would be the toughest classes in the game because in total raw damage they outdo every other class. Instead they are two of the weakest classes (although not as weak as Monks or Barbarians).
The fact that you need to strawman an actual counter-argument, or that your only counter to one of the Monk's unique advantages is imagining that it only matters on large battlefields, sums up how little you have to go off of and how little creativity you have beyond "damage numbers in featureless void".
Ok, if its a strawman give a valid scenario where the monk's mobility can shine without slowing the encounter to the speed of molasses or handing it off to casters to solve.
No, not all of a Monk's features rely on ki. No, ki is not some tiny resource pool that runs out instantly (unless you waste it, in which case you just suck at playing a Monk) and then they are useless without with no way to restore it. No, a class's abilities aren't invalidated purely because "muh muh casters!".
All of Monk's features that do things worthwhile things in combat depend on ki, for their main class and subclass. It is a really intensive resources that runs out faster than spell slots without rarely ever doing anything nearly as powerful as spells. Stunning Strike and the Open Palm's Quivering Fist were the rare exceptions, and they've been gutted in the new playtest.
About the only thing a monk without ki can do with their bonus action is the martial arts attack, which is just two weapon fighting without the possibility of magic weapons like flametongue.
If that's the way you think, then I hope no one you play with plays anything but a Wizard or Sorcerer, because I imagine you would take offense to that every turn they took.
Not at all. Even if I play monk, rogue, etc. and not a caster, I can still contribute and have fun. But the monk could be allowed to be so much cooler mechanically without any risk of becoming broken.
I would disagree with this. In comparison to casters the shortfall with most Martials is not range, Heavy Crossbows and Longbows outrange just about everything and their damage is decent too.
Im not sure you've ever played a strength based martial then. A Heavy Crossbow wielder without things like Crossbow Expert is instantly outclassed by a level 5 caster with firebolt. And it only gets worse from there.
Which could be a fair trade off if martials could reliably do amazing things in melee or specializing in ranged combat, but that isn't really guarantied. Not every class gets battlemaster maneuvers or smites. Its part of what the weapon masteries are seeking to fix.
It is also not damage that makes casters better, it is the opposite - their ability to buff and use control spells, is what makes them better.
Never said it was just their damage. I was actually pointing out their range and ability to deal with enemies through control spells or damage spells.
A Bladesinger optimizes for melee will mop the floor with just about all Paladins, most fighters and be about equal to a Barbarian in one-on-one melee without using a single offensive leveled spell. This is despite having no fighting style and doing less damage on a hit (much lower than Paladins or Barbarians). The reason is mostly the defensive spells they bring to the table.
Meh, I don't really care about head to head comparisons of that sort, but what the class can bring to a team.
Most Martials can soak up damage, deal a moderate amount consistently, or snipe at important targets at range. They are good when used for the role they are made for.
My main issue with monks is that they aren't made to fit any combat role. They are speedy skirmishers without enough speed to make sense passing on ranged weapons, little proclivity for ranged fighting, and less able to stand up to a fight alone if they actually use their speed to get up close and personal without the rest of their team.
There could be a role in trying to assassinate or incapacitate big targets in the back, but that looks like its going away with the nerf to stunning strike.
..... you must expend ki which you don't have a lot of these problems are connected.
I see this a lot, but I wonder if these people actually have played Monks beyond level 3. Monks have a crap ton of Ki. After 8th level it is uncommon to ever run out of ki unless you are purposely trying to spam it. With a standard adventuring day you should have over 30 ki a day at 8th level to spend in about 25 rounds of combat. And if you are not running a standard day then you are generally not doing many combats and you have an even larger abundance.
Now at low levels sure, ki is at a premium, but by 4th level you have quite a bit of it and by 6th you can generally spend it at will when there is a good reason to (note spending it for a possible extra 6 damage on the boss is not generally a good reason, unless he is about to die and one of your allies is not going to kill him before his turn).
if you can do more damage that doesn't rely on ki you can save your ki for defensive and tactical use.
IME damage is not that powerful and using ki for damage is generally a waste. Using ki for FOB is not generally wise. At high levels it is not even using the Ki that is a waste as much as it is using your bonus action for FOB that is a waste.
Purposely playing your character inneffectively is going to give bad results. My Wizard with 8-strength would be pretty weak if he decided to go whack people with his staff instead of using spells!
It certainly depends on your subclass, and some Monk subclasses are designed to do damage (those are in general the weaker Monk subclasses) but using ki for damage is rarely wise.
saying damage doesn't matter means your not serious about fixing the class .
Damage matters a lot less than other things in the game. If damage was of primary importance Fighters and Paladins would be the toughest classes in the game because in total raw damage they outdo every other class. Instead they are two of the weakest classes (although not as weak as Monks or Barbarians).
ya I have played monk at all levels and Im probably more aware of the mechanics then you. that's why I want fixes.
ya its fine low level but higher level the scaling falls off. I know you don't care about damage, but sorry it is a factor ,your argument is basically don't fix monks and let them have subpar damage .
so you don't bring anything to the argument. but want the monk to continue to be weak. you also make a giant assumption that short rests are just being handed out, which is a big flaw in your argument.
also you are hilarious . you think you play your character better then me hahaha that's rich .
sorry my dm actually runs challenging combat that you actually have to use your brain for, we don't get Candyland rp that you seem to favor. which is reflected in your weak arguments.
ya its fine low level but higher level the scaling falls off. I know you don't care about damage, but sorry it is a factor ,your argument is basically don't fix monks and let them have subpar damage .
Giving Monks more DPR would not "fix" them because their low DPR (and it is low compared to other martials) is not a problem, nor even their biggest weakness as a class.
If you want high damage output you should not be playing a Monk. It is that simple.
so you don't bring anything to the argument. but want the monk to continue to be weak. you also make a giant assumption that short rests are just being handed out, which is a big flaw in your argument.
I make a giant assumption that the game is being played as designed and that you are not wasting ki at the end of fights. I know there are games with long 8 fight days with no short rests, but I think there are more games with 2 fights and 2 short rests a day.
also you are hilarious . you think you play your character better then me hahaha that's rich .
I am not the one complaininging about Monks being too weak ... so yes I do think I play them better, or to put it another way, I apparently I can play them effectively.
There are three pillars of interaction in D&D. Social, exploration, and combat.
Monks don't have proficiencies, or the spare stat points, to be good in social interactions. With their wisdom they could be okay in exploration, although you'd have to build for that. In combat they're okay, but not spectacular.
In combat keeping units close enough together for mutual support is beneficial, so having a 'skirmisher' running off on their own isn't helping anyone, and Monk isn't doing enough damage to cause an enemy to focus on them. Since there's no 'aggro' mechanic in D&D enemies can just ignore the Monk and attack either the '"squishy" but powerful casters, or less squishy but also less powerful fighters if they feel like it.
Stunning Strike spam is probably not good for the game, but it's basically all the Monk brings to the fight. Nerfing it, as the latest 1D&D UA does, leaves Monk even further out in the cold.
I would disagree with this. In comparison to casters the shortfall with most Martials is not range, Heavy Crossbows and Longbows outrange just about everything and their damage is decent too.
Im not sure you've ever played a strength based martial then. A Heavy Crossbow wielder without things like Crossbow Expert is instantly outclassed by a level 5 caster with firebolt. And it only gets worse from there.
I have and you are wrong. Firebolt has a range of 120 feet, so lets do this in 3 ranges: 50 feet, 120 feet and 300 feet against an AC15 enemy. For this I won't even use any fighting style bonuses for the fighter:
50 feet range:
Wizard 18 Intelligence firebolt: 6.3DPR
Fighter with 18 Strength and 14 Dexterity using a Heavy Crossbow and then throwing a Javelin for a second attack: 9.5 DPR
Rogue with 18 Dex using Steady aim and heavy crossbow WITHOUT proficiency: 16.6 DPR
At 120 feet range:
Same Wizard: 6.3 DPR
Same Fighter with disadvantage on both his Javelin and his Heavy Crossbow: 5.5 DPR
Rogue using steady aim with Heavy Crossbow WITHOUT sneak attack and WITHOUT proficiency: 5.5 DPR
Over 120 feet range:
Wizard: 0 DPR
Fighter 1 shot with a heavy crossbow: 2.3 DPR
Rogue using steady aim with Heavy Crossbow WITHOUT sneak attack and WITHOUT proficiency: 5.5 DPR
Note this is purposely not using a longbow which would give the fighter 2 attacks without disadvantage at 120 feet and not using a light crossbow that the Rogue is proficient in. Even with the characters purposely ******, both the strength-based Fighter and Rogue will out damage the Wizard everywhere except when the target is more than 100 feet away and less than 120 feet away and in that very narrow range window there will be less than 1 point difference against a 15 AC foe.
Substitute a Paladin for a Fighter and the damage is the same as the fighter. Substitute a Barbarian or a Strength-based Ranger and the damage goes up as compared to the fighter.
It is also not damage that makes casters better, it is the opposite - their ability to buff and use control spells, is what makes them better.
Never said it was just their damage. I was actually pointing out their range and ability to deal with enemies through control spells or damage spells.
But what you pointed with respect to ranged damage is mathematically incorrect as the numbers above show, and remember those numbers are without a fighting style and without the Rogue even being proficient in a Heavy crossbow.
A Bladesinger optimizes for melee will mop the floor with just about all Paladins, most fighters and be about equal to a Barbarian in one-on-one melee without using a single offensive leveled spell. This is despite having no fighting style and doing less damage on a hit (much lower than Paladins or Barbarians). The reason is mostly the defensive spells they bring to the table.
Most Martials can soak up damage, deal a moderate amount consistently, or snipe at important targets at range. They are good when used for the role they are made for.
Again the math does not support this. At 10th level the difference between a fighter and a wizard with the same constitution is 20 hps. The average CR10 monster deals about 65DPR. The difference in hps between a d6 Wizard and a d10 martial is not even a round. So a martial will not even last a single round longer. Now that does assume an equal AC, which is not really viable, but even when you account for the difference, most martials are not going to last much longer than a Wizard with the same constitution.
Most martials can't really soak up damage effectively unless they have a very high constitution or a very high Armor class (which they will need more than just class abilities for) or other way to avoid hits that they manage to get through a subclass. Barbarians are an exception due to damage resistance when Raging and Fighters with the Eldritch Kinght subclass are an exception because they can run their AC into bladesinger territory.
little proclivity for ranged fighting,
They have as much proclivity for ranged fighting as any class, more if you build them primarily as a melee combatant as you don't need to have a high score in 2 areas. Up above I put numbers for ranged damage with a melee-based Fighter, a Monk is going to beat those numbers (at 5th level).
and less able to stand up to a fight alone if they actually use their speed to get up close and personal without the rest of their team.
Once you get to 8th level a Monk is more durable up close and personal in combat as a fighter of the same level if you use ki to dodge as a bonus action. They can't keep up with the elite classes which are Bladesinger Wizards and Barbarians.
Using an actual example from a published encounter in Tyranny of Dragons, at 8th level against Glazhael at the Castle in the Clouds:
A Sword and Board Fighter in Plate and shield and with defense fighting style (21 AC) will on average take 28 damage on each of the dragons turns if the dragon concentrates attacks on the fighter.
A Monk with an 18AC and dodging will on average take 23 damage on each of the dragons turns if the dragon concentrates all attacks on the Monk.
Assuming the fighter has a 16 Constitution (76hp) and the Monk has a 14 Constitution (59hps) they will both on average die in the third round of combat.
The melee DPR output from these two example combatants is exactly equal (d8 weapon and 2 attacks a turn with a 20 attack stat). Assuming optimal weapons for both, and a 14 Dex for the fighter, the Monk would have slightly better ranged DPR out to 60 feet and substantially better ranged DPR beyond that.
That is using the highest AC you can get the fighter from base class features and does not account for initiative, legendary actions, frightful presence, breath weapons, focused aim, dedicated weapon or stunning strike. A few of those would favor the fighter, most would favor the Monk and in totality would tilt it in favor of the Monk if you added all of them.
Monks don't have proficiencies, or the spare stat points, to be good in social interactions.
Monks do get an extra proficiency compared to most classes. They get either a tool or a musical instrument at 1st level in addition to the two skill proficiencies.
I've played monks and they are underpowered but certainly viable.
Monks are pretty good until you run out of ki and then you lose a lot of damage, versatility, defense, etc. The ki mechanic needs to be fixed.
Monks need like one free ki on every initiative roll at level 5.
they mostly need to boost the damage and nerf stunning strike or just give it to a subclass . people often think becuase you can stun you shouldn't be able to do dmg so id rather them go back to a 3.5 style monk where i can actually hurt things . I also hate that they want to force you to skirmish and without a feat that costs ki and a bonus action . Monk should be a frontliner. a warrior is "someone who can deal wounds and take a hit" .barbs got a facelift hopefully monk will as well.
The Monk is objectively, mathematically, factually the worst class in the game. Anything it can do is done better than another class, other than in extremely niche situations like "oops everyone is naked and unarmed. Treantmonk did an excellent video breaking down every problem with the Monk class through unassailable math. They're not good at damage, they're not good at control, they're not good at skirmishing, they have bad AC and HP... the list goes on.
And the playtest released today fixes none of their problems while also nerfing Stunning Strike. It's wild.
This might be matter if it were not for the overwhelming dominance luck plays in the game, particularly with respect to ability scores. A Monk who starts at 1st level with two 18s (before racial bonuses) and an average distribution elsewhere is objectively, mathematically and factually WAY, WAY, WAY better than any other non-caster with no ability above 15 and will continue to be mathematically superior through at least the first 12 levels of play, and both of those would be completely viable and playable as a class and still viable if they switched places.
I would also argue that the Monk as a class is faster and more mobile than any other at most levels. Not at all levels (Rogues are better at levels 2-4 and about equal at 5-6), but at most levels Monks are the best class at this. That is something that a Monk can factually and mathematically do better at levels 7+ than other classes except in niche situations.
If it is of upmost importance to have the most powerful character possible given your ability scores then Monk is not a viable choice .... and really neither is any other class except Wizard because of the unassailable factual disparity in power between Wizards and other classes. But if your goal is not to build the most powerful character possible, but rather a character you want to play, then then the relative power between a Monk and what you could otherwise play is irrelevant.
Bottom line - if the power is all you care about then Wizard is the ONLY single-class choice and the disparity between Wizards and Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins is far greater than the disparity between Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins and Monks. TBH, considering races, backgrounds and feats, Wizard is usually the best choice mathematically even if you already have 4 other Wizards in the party.
If you need two 18s at character creation to make a monk good, then monks aren't good.
What monks are bad at is being optimized. It is hard to optimize a monk.
You don't need that. As I noted above you can have no score higher than a 15 (after racial bonus) and still be viable.
The point is not that you need those scores or need to be something other than a Monk "to be good". The point is you can be MUCH BETTER than a martial of a different class with a different class in play.
Your argument suggesting Monks can't be good is the equivalent of saying you can't be good Basketball players unless you are 7 foot tall when in the NBA includes players under 6 foot tall and there are many Americans over 7 foot tall who can't play BBall at all.
Monk doesn't have some niche building out of combat utility either though.
Monk's speed is nice, but rogues can dash twice.
Monk's ability to run along walls is cool, but out of combat a rope and grappling hook can accomplish much the same thing.
And a note on in-combat utility: if the monk can't be optimized, then its also going to feel weaker in unoptimized play. Its floor and ceiling are lower than the other classes.
Its not unplayable, but its way less impressive and fun than it could be.
Ah yes, blame the DM and not the poor game design and mechanics in the Monk class. That makes sense. If a DM has to bend over backwards to make a Monk feel capable where no other class needs that level of pandering, I think the monk is the problem. The monk has many issues, pretending they don't exist helps nobody.
A DM could set up a situation with more than just damage mattering, and the monk won't shine.
Im guessing what you are imagining is a battlemap scenario where the enemies are massively spread out, with terrain obstacles. So much so that the monk's speed actually comes in handy for closing distances.
But there are 2 problems here:
First, this could be an incredibly slow encounter. The other martials have to spend turns dashing or using subpar ranged attacks, and the monk is rarely going to shut down serious threats running ahead on their own.
But secondly, this isn't even an encounter made to favor monks. Its one that favors casters, whose range with spells could potentially handle such threats before monks even get a chance to attack. They can even cast fly and haste by the time the monk can run up walls, sending flying Paladins out speeding and out maneuvering monks.
Its a real problem that martials in general have a lot less effective range and damage than casters. And that kills monks' niche as the speedster... that speed doesn't automatically equate to some huge utility even in specific scenarios.
Not that its some insane boost to begin with, they can't even hit and run effectively against any creature with more than 30 movement speed. Even when it gets up to 80ft movement speed with a bonus action dash, so what? It doesn't confer inherent advantages. You still can't drag a Dragon off a cliff, or carry a caster out of trouble, or get extra damage for running at an enemy at Mach 10 before punching them.
Yes, damage shouldn't be the sole mechanic being weighed. But you can't just turn around and say "well speed and running up walls should be the only things being weighed, so there!"
Ya im with kron . one of the big problems with the monk is no damage and to do damage you must expend ki which you don't have a lot of these problems are connected.
if you can do more damage that doesn't rely on ki you can save your ki for defensive and tactical use. rogue and fighter can do their damage without resource paladin can do theirs with a resource but are actually compensated for it .saying damage doesn't matter means your not serious about fixing the class .
So can Monks and they do it with a higher base speed.
True, but this is equally true for fighter, Paladin and Barbarian as their floor and cieling are lower than the other classes as well (except Monk).
I would disagree with this. In comparison to casters the shortfall with most Martials is not range, Heavy Crossbows and Longbows outrange just about everything and their damage is decent too. The realy problem with martials Barbarians, Monks, Fighters and Paladins is they don't have spells, or in the case of Paladin they don't have meaningful spells in good quantity.
It is also not damage that makes casters better, it is the opposite - their ability to buff and use control spells, is what makes them better.
A Bladesinger optimizes for melee will mop the floor with just about all Paladins, most fighters and be about equal to a Barbarian in one-on-one melee without using a single offensive leveled spell. This is despite having no fighting style and doing less damage on a hit (much lower than Paladins or Barbarians). The reason is mostly the defensive spells they bring to the table.
I see this a lot, but I wonder if these people actually have played Monks beyond level 3. Monks have a crap ton of Ki. After 8th level it is uncommon to ever run out of ki unless you are purposely trying to spam it. With a standard adventuring day you should have over 30 ki a day at 8th level to spend in about 25 rounds of combat. And if you are not running a standard day then you are generally not doing many combats and you have an even larger abundance.
Now at low levels sure, ki is at a premium, but by 4th level you have quite a bit of it and by 6th you can generally spend it at will when there is a good reason to (note spending it for a possible extra 6 damage on the boss is not generally a good reason, unless he is about to die and one of your allies is not going to kill him before his turn).
IME damage is not that powerful and using ki for damage is generally a waste. Using ki for FOB is not generally wise. At high levels it is not even using the Ki that is a waste as much as it is using your bonus action for FOB that is a waste.
Purposely playing your character inneffectively is going to give bad results. My Wizard with 8-strength would be pretty weak if he decided to go whack people with his staff instead of using spells!
It certainly depends on your subclass, and some Monk subclasses are designed to do damage (those are in general the weaker Monk subclasses) but using ki for damage is rarely wise.
Damage matters a lot less than other things in the game. If damage was of primary importance Fighters and Paladins would be the toughest classes in the game because in total raw damage they outdo every other class. Instead they are two of the weakest classes (although not as weak as Monks or Barbarians).
Ok, if its a strawman give a valid scenario where the monk's mobility can shine without slowing the encounter to the speed of molasses or handing it off to casters to solve.
All of Monk's features that do things worthwhile things in combat depend on ki, for their main class and subclass. It is a really intensive resources that runs out faster than spell slots without rarely ever doing anything nearly as powerful as spells. Stunning Strike and the Open Palm's Quivering Fist were the rare exceptions, and they've been gutted in the new playtest.
About the only thing a monk without ki can do with their bonus action is the martial arts attack, which is just two weapon fighting without the possibility of magic weapons like flametongue.
Not at all. Even if I play monk, rogue, etc. and not a caster, I can still contribute and have fun. But the monk could be allowed to be so much cooler mechanically without any risk of becoming broken.
Im not sure you've ever played a strength based martial then. A Heavy Crossbow wielder without things like Crossbow Expert is instantly outclassed by a level 5 caster with firebolt. And it only gets worse from there.
Which could be a fair trade off if martials could reliably do amazing things in melee or specializing in ranged combat, but that isn't really guarantied. Not every class gets battlemaster maneuvers or smites. Its part of what the weapon masteries are seeking to fix.
Never said it was just their damage. I was actually pointing out their range and ability to deal with enemies through control spells or damage spells.
Meh, I don't really care about head to head comparisons of that sort, but what the class can bring to a team.
Most Martials can soak up damage, deal a moderate amount consistently, or snipe at important targets at range. They are good when used for the role they are made for.
My main issue with monks is that they aren't made to fit any combat role. They are speedy skirmishers without enough speed to make sense passing on ranged weapons, little proclivity for ranged fighting, and less able to stand up to a fight alone if they actually use their speed to get up close and personal without the rest of their team.
There could be a role in trying to assassinate or incapacitate big targets in the back, but that looks like its going away with the nerf to stunning strike.
ya I have played monk at all levels and Im probably more aware of the mechanics then you. that's why I want fixes.
ya its fine low level but higher level the scaling falls off. I know you don't care about damage, but sorry it is a factor ,your argument is basically don't fix monks and let them have subpar damage .
so you don't bring anything to the argument. but want the monk to continue to be weak. you also make a giant assumption that short rests are just being handed out, which is a big flaw in your argument.
also you are hilarious . you think you play your character better then me hahaha that's rich .
sorry my dm actually runs challenging combat that you actually have to use your brain for, we don't get Candyland rp that you seem to favor. which is reflected in your weak arguments.
Giving Monks more DPR would not "fix" them because their low DPR (and it is low compared to other martials) is not a problem, nor even their biggest weakness as a class.
If you want high damage output you should not be playing a Monk. It is that simple.
I make a giant assumption that the game is being played as designed and that you are not wasting ki at the end of fights. I know there are games with long 8 fight days with no short rests, but I think there are more games with 2 fights and 2 short rests a day.
I am not the one complaininging about Monks being too weak ... so yes I do think I play them better, or to put it another way, I apparently I can play them effectively.
There are three pillars of interaction in D&D. Social, exploration, and combat.
Monks don't have proficiencies, or the spare stat points, to be good in social interactions. With their wisdom they could be okay in exploration, although you'd have to build for that. In combat they're okay, but not spectacular.
In combat keeping units close enough together for mutual support is beneficial, so having a 'skirmisher' running off on their own isn't helping anyone, and Monk isn't doing enough damage to cause an enemy to focus on them. Since there's no 'aggro' mechanic in D&D enemies can just ignore the Monk and attack either the '"squishy" but powerful casters, or less squishy but also less powerful fighters if they feel like it.
Stunning Strike spam is probably not good for the game, but it's basically all the Monk brings to the fight. Nerfing it, as the latest 1D&D UA does, leaves Monk even further out in the cold.
I have and you are wrong. Firebolt has a range of 120 feet, so lets do this in 3 ranges: 50 feet, 120 feet and 300 feet against an AC15 enemy. For this I won't even use any fighting style bonuses for the fighter:
50 feet range:
Wizard 18 Intelligence firebolt: 6.3DPR
Fighter with 18 Strength and 14 Dexterity using a Heavy Crossbow and then throwing a Javelin for a second attack: 9.5 DPR
Rogue with 18 Dex using Steady aim and heavy crossbow WITHOUT proficiency: 16.6 DPR
At 120 feet range:
Same Wizard: 6.3 DPR
Same Fighter with disadvantage on both his Javelin and his Heavy Crossbow: 5.5 DPR
Rogue using steady aim with Heavy Crossbow WITHOUT sneak attack and WITHOUT proficiency: 5.5 DPR
Over 120 feet range:
Wizard: 0 DPR
Fighter 1 shot with a heavy crossbow: 2.3 DPR
Rogue using steady aim with Heavy Crossbow WITHOUT sneak attack and WITHOUT proficiency: 5.5 DPR
Note this is purposely not using a longbow which would give the fighter 2 attacks without disadvantage at 120 feet and not using a light crossbow that the Rogue is proficient in. Even with the characters purposely ******, both the strength-based Fighter and Rogue will out damage the Wizard everywhere except when the target is more than 100 feet away and less than 120 feet away and in that very narrow range window there will be less than 1 point difference against a 15 AC foe.
Substitute a Paladin for a Fighter and the damage is the same as the fighter. Substitute a Barbarian or a Strength-based Ranger and the damage goes up as compared to the fighter.
But what you pointed with respect to ranged damage is mathematically incorrect as the numbers above show, and remember those numbers are without a fighting style and without the Rogue even being proficient in a Heavy crossbow.
Again the math does not support this. At 10th level the difference between a fighter and a wizard with the same constitution is 20 hps. The average CR10 monster deals about 65DPR. The difference in hps between a d6 Wizard and a d10 martial is not even a round. So a martial will not even last a single round longer. Now that does assume an equal AC, which is not really viable, but even when you account for the difference, most martials are not going to last much longer than a Wizard with the same constitution.
Most martials can't really soak up damage effectively unless they have a very high constitution or a very high Armor class (which they will need more than just class abilities for) or other way to avoid hits that they manage to get through a subclass. Barbarians are an exception due to damage resistance when Raging and Fighters with the Eldritch Kinght subclass are an exception because they can run their AC into bladesinger territory.
They have as much proclivity for ranged fighting as any class, more if you build them primarily as a melee combatant as you don't need to have a high score in 2 areas. Up above I put numbers for ranged damage with a melee-based Fighter, a Monk is going to beat those numbers (at 5th level).
Once you get to 8th level a Monk is more durable up close and personal in combat as a fighter of the same level if you use ki to dodge as a bonus action. They can't keep up with the elite classes which are Bladesinger Wizards and Barbarians.
Using an actual example from a published encounter in Tyranny of Dragons, at 8th level against Glazhael at the Castle in the Clouds:
A Sword and Board Fighter in Plate and shield and with defense fighting style (21 AC) will on average take 28 damage on each of the dragons turns if the dragon concentrates attacks on the fighter.
A Monk with an 18AC and dodging will on average take 23 damage on each of the dragons turns if the dragon concentrates all attacks on the Monk.
Assuming the fighter has a 16 Constitution (76hp) and the Monk has a 14 Constitution (59hps) they will both on average die in the third round of combat.
The melee DPR output from these two example combatants is exactly equal (d8 weapon and 2 attacks a turn with a 20 attack stat). Assuming optimal weapons for both, and a 14 Dex for the fighter, the Monk would have slightly better ranged DPR out to 60 feet and substantially better ranged DPR beyond that.
That is using the highest AC you can get the fighter from base class features and does not account for initiative, legendary actions, frightful presence, breath weapons, focused aim, dedicated weapon or stunning strike. A few of those would favor the fighter, most would favor the Monk and in totality would tilt it in favor of the Monk if you added all of them.
Monks do get an extra proficiency compared to most classes. They get either a tool or a musical instrument at 1st level in addition to the two skill proficiencies.