I've been working for over a month trying to find a viable strategy for a Monk, but I have come to the conclusion that they have been nerfed into the void.

They are now completely outclassed by a STYLE of fighter with the Optional Fighting Style:  Unarmed Combat

The Fighter will do a d8 Unarmed+Str with both hands free.  The Monk will start out with a d4+Str OR Dex until he eventually gets a d8+Str OR Dex at ELEVENTH LEVEL

The Fighter acquires the Extra Attack Feature as the Monk does at Level 5, but ultimately beat the Monk by having Action Surge at Level 2.

Additionally, the fighter will have a THIRD attack at Level 20.  Add to that Action Surge 2 at Level 17 and he wins.  The Monk only has Flurry of Ineffectual blows.

The fighter will have SEVEN Ability Score Increases/Feats over his 20 Levels.  The Monk will have FOUR Ability Score Increase/Feats over his 20 Levels.

The Fighter will have 200 pts Max HP and the Monk has a 160 pts Max HP.  That isn't even counting that the fighter has a preferred stat being Constitution.

The Fighter has a maximum movement of 30 feet.  The Monk can move a maximum of 60 feet.  FINALLY, one win.

A large CHUNK of the Monks other features are more feel good than anything, but do have some small merit:

Deflect Missiles would be great IF the Monk could effectively use Long Range Weapons.  It ultimately makes him a target that just needs to be beaten to death in person.

Slow Fall MIGHT have a use.  But how many times are you going to fall into a bear trap?

Stunning Strike would be a BIG win, but it is limited by the requirement for Ki which is also needed for Flurry of Blows and any other special feature the Monk has.

Stillness of Mind.  If it were that important wouldn't it have been easier to be an Elf instead of waiting until 7th Level?  You wouldn't even have to waste one of your actions then.

Purity of Body.  At 10th level if you have survived, you finally get immunity to disease and poison.  But you still have soft d6 hands.

Tongue of Sun and Moon.  Great.  You can talk to everyone.  Maybe it will help with begging for your life while your Fighter brother over there just got Indomitable 2!

You FINALLY made it to 15th level and you have acquired Timeless Body!  Great you don't age and don't eat or drink.  Tell me how that is going to keep you out of the dragon's stomach?

EIGHTEENTH LEVEL you just got an invisibility spell or a way to escape to the Astral Plane where Githyanki can kill you.

Here is the most damning thing about them:  Good luck finding a magic item to salvage these weak and pathetic creatures.  The Loot tables are NOT in your favor.

Now you can argue that the Monk has high mobility and high survivability in a combat and is meant to be a back line skirmisher or that you are doing it for the aesthetic or roleplay purposes.  But if you are playing the HERO of a story, wouldn't you like to actually be able to take out the enemy?

HOW can a Monk compete with fighter with the Unarmed Combat option?  Convince me I'm wrong.

I'm just going to bring up a couple points here, but TLDR you're just glossing over everything good about monk:

Yes, a Fighter with Unarmed Fighting can do 1d8+STR at level 1. The unarmed monk is doing 1d4+DEX and then 1d4+DEX again with its bonus action.

Or let them both use weapons and the monk's 1d8+DEX + 1d4+DEX is still outclassing the Fighter's 2d6+STR or matching a DW Fighter using 1d6 weapons.

You downplay every single ki ability. Fighters would kill to be able to dodge or make two attacks with their bonus action. These are really good abilities. Stunning Strike is even better; it can trivialize encounters.

You didn't even mention Diamond Soul. Proficiency in every single saving throw is possibly the best non-capstone class feature there is, and if that wasn't good enough, you also get to reroll fails for the cost of 1 ki point. It makes Indomitable look like a joke in comparison. You just don't fail saving throws anymore. Meanwhile your Fighter buddy with the +0 WIS save just got dominated and is using his sweet extra attacks to murder his teammates.

I mean I don't even like this class that much, but it's balanced. I've played monks at high and low levels. At low levels it's decent, but at high levels it's an absolute beast.

My monk is currently going through Curse of Strahd. We had issues the first time we came up against Baba Lysaga. This time we went in with a plan. The rogue and I took invisibility potions and stealth and snuck up to the hut where Baba was. The rogue got the initiative advantage and was able to sneak attack her. She was probably down to half hit points immediately. I went in next and hit her four times and stunned her. The rogue finished her off the next round. I turned and tore up the floor to pull the gem that animated her hut. 2 rounds and it was over. The fighter and the rest of the crew were outside handling scarecrows. Stun is a massive benefit that the guy in the heavy armor outside just doesn't have. 

So first and foremost, You're forgetting that monks CAN STILL USE WEAPONS! No reason why a monk can't use a flame tongue for its main attacks then do a 1, 2 punch as a bonus action putting it AHEAD of the fighter until level 11

Yeah, I hope monk gets an overhaul someday in something like 5.5 or 6e. Some of their mechanics are neat on the surface, but really underwhelming when compared to other classes. 

Also, the OP is confused on fighter attacks: they get 3 attacks at level 11, and 4 attacks at level 20. 

I think the first fix should be a d10 hit die. That takes a bit of the MAD aspect away. Second, the unarmed damage should increase more quickly. Maybe some sort of building bonus in successive hits. For instance, the first hit is normal. Hitting a second time gives a damage bonus, and so on. Kind of like a "fury" buildup you might see in a video game. 

I didn't see an answer regarding fighting unarmed past level 7/8 when a lot of foes are immune or resistant to non-magical damage either.  No stuns for the Fighter.  Highly dependent on finding or buying armor to NOT be a squishy.  No skills to compare to the Monks, because their roles are so different.

Sure, if you look at pure potential damage output a Fighter likely outdoes a Monk.  Start considering utility and the fighter loses ground.  Add in gear dependency and the Fighter becomes a needy child to be effective and useful.  The classes simply don't share enough to make a moderately reasonable comparison.

Quote from Falwith >>

I didn't see an answer regarding fighting unarmed past level 7/8 when a lot of foes are immune or resistant to non-magical damage either.  No stuns for the Fighter.  Highly dependent on finding or buying armor to NOT be a squishy.  No skills to compare to the Monks, because their roles are so different.

Sure, if you look at pure potential damage output a Fighter likely outdoes a Monk.  Start considering utility and the fighter loses ground.  Add in gear dependency and the Fighter becomes a needy child to be effective and useful.  The classes simply don't share enough to make a moderately reasonable comparison.

 Its odd, because someone else pointed out that monks can hang with fighters because they too can make some use of magic weapons. 

Tasha's has added the Eldritch Claw tattoo which overrides magic resistance. so its one uncommon magic item to solve that issue, not counting a few other odds and ends among other source books. And even then, its not hard to imagine a DM allowing something like silvered knuckle dusters as a mundane item. Or, the fighter can just keep a silvered weapon like a cool warrior monk glaive for such occasions. Its really not a big issue. 

How much out of combat utility does the monk really have over the fighter? I suppose Wisdom and Dex lend themselves to more abilities than strength/dex, but monks aren't exactly skill monkeys either. And Fighters have the utility of being able to take feats, and more feats even than a monk who chooses to sacrifice their much more precious ASI's. 

 

 Its odd, because someone else pointed out that monks can hang with fighters because they too can make some use of magic weapons.   And even then, its not hard to imagine a DM allowing something like silvered knuckle dusters as a mundane item. Or, the fighter can just keep a silvered weapon like a cool warrior monk glaive for such occasions. Its really not a big issue. 

 

 Ok, my problem with this is you are technically turning the Monks attack into a Melee weapon and I don't think knuckledusters is a "finesse" weapon.  Which brings up my other hatred is why the monks unarmed attack is considered a melee weapon in some ways, but a melee attack in others.  It's NOT consistent, but largely arbitrary to keep them from combining features with other classes.  Consider that, if you have the character just were BRASS knuckles we all know that is a weapon.  Yet, the game says it's not?  Or if it does say it's a weapon, then how is that so much different really from a bare hand punch from a guy who punches rocks for a hobby 3 hours a day?  Just skip the nonsense and move on....

My Monk has been the one to do most of the "go up there and grab that" stuff, he's used slow fall a few times to reach an area quicker.  Primarily combat utility, but leaving a pair of the more dangerous baddies stunned for a round can't be understated.  Being able to get back to the caster/ranged to address someone getting in their face quickly is useful.  I find myself doing all the stuff a Rogue or Bard might do, since we don't have one.  I am the Dex monkey of our group.

I'm not saying anything down about either class, aside from there's no point trying to do a side by side, because there isn't enough common ground.  Compare the Fighter to the Rogue then, or the Ranger.  Compare the Wizard to your Druid.  Different folks, different stuff they bring to the table.

Why not compare classes? I'd gladly compare spellcasters to spellcasters, because even when they do very different things they can have similar overall utility in and out of combat. Same with martial classes. All except the monk.

And now fighters can take the place of monks as the best unarmed combatants, and can do so by intentionally picking not to go crazy optimized with something like pole-arm master or great-weapon master. 

Honestly this is a bad comparison. Why are you using unarmed fighting style? Compare a monk's d4 with a greatsword at 2d6 and it's literally just exact same comparison + fighter does more damage.

Having it be a unarmed strike does not grant special powers or anything like that. Fighter fighting styles are balanced around other fighting styles. In this case, their unarmed fighting style is balanced around the other options of grabbing a rapier or greatsword.

Fighter and monk cannot be compared like this. Fighters will always consistently outdps a lot of things. Unarmed Fighting Style if anything is a buff towards the monk, not the fighter due to the Fighter Initiate Feat (and considering GWM, SS, PAM, etc. I consider this to be a balanced feat for a monk).

Edit: this is ignoring the obvious fact that Monks were never supposed to be dps machines in 5E, but instead extremely versatile fighters who can spend a ki point to do basically any role in a party. Of course- the usefulness of being able to switch between tank dps and controllers is limited when your in a party who already has all 3 of those roles, but that's a different discussion. 

Quote from 4yulming4 >>

Honestly this is a bad comparison. Why are you using unarmed fighting style? Compare a monk's d4 with a greatsword at 2d6 and it's literally just exact same comparison + fighter does more damage.

Having it be a unarmed strike does not grant special powers or anything like that. Fighter fighting styles are balanced around other fighting styles. In this case, their unarmed fighting style is balanced around the other options of grabbing a rapier or greatsword.

Fighter and monk cannot be compared like this. Fighters will always consistently outdps a lot of things. Unarmed Fighting Style if anything is a buff towards the monk, not the fighter due to the Fighter Initiate Feat (and considering GWM, SS, PAM, etc. I consider this to be a balanced feat for a monk).

Edit: this is ignoring the obvious fact that Monks were never supposed to be dps machines in 5E, but instead extremely versatile fighters who can spend a ki point to do basically any role in a party. Of course- the usefulness of being able to switch between tank dps and controllers is limited when your in a party who already has all 3 of those roles, but that's a different discussion. 

 Well, we are already comparing them. You even make a point about monks doing something different than the fighter, and being good at that. So we can skip over whether any comparison should be made.

Classes are at least theoretically balanced to each other. They do different things, but no one is meant to feel like their character is purely deficient next to other classes. 

monks won’t benefit much from the unarmed fighting style, because it is strength based. It throws off the rest of their build. They also can’t afford to throw away an asi without falling behind even more on AC and bounded accuracy. 

Unarmed Fighting Style and Martial Arts are not incompatible, they both impact Unarmed Strikes and nowhere does it states that you can only use DEX if your using the martial arts die (and wise-versa).

Edit: The using DEX and martial arts die are explicitly separate bullets, and this is further supported by the fact that martial arts only allows you to replace the die of unarmed strikes/monk weapons, it does not force you to. If you rule that Unarmed Fighting Style means no DEX because your not using the martial arts die, that also forbids any monk non-finesse weapon from using DEX. 

Quote from 4yulming4 >>

Unarmed Fighting Style and Martial Arts are not incompatible, they both impact Unarmed Strikes and nowhere does it states that you can only use DEX if your using the martial arts die (and wise-versa).

Edit: The using DEX and martial arts die are explicitly separate bullets, and this is further supported by the fact that martial arts only allows you to replace the die of unarmed strikes/monk weapons, it does not force you to. If you rule that Unarmed Fighting Style means no DEX because your not using the martial arts die, that also forbids any monk non-finesse weapon from using DEX. 

While that is technically true, it makes no sense for a Monk to be diving into strength.  Dex grants attack and AC, so Dex is the go-to for a Monk.  The reason they are "incompatible" for a Monk is because you would need to boost your Str and thus likely have a lower Dex, which would seriously hinder the Monk.  As has been mentioned a few times, the classes can't effectively be compared side by side because they are too different.  A Monk is a Monk and a Fighter is not.

...why would you dive into Strength? Fighting Initiate is a feat, you already have prof. with short-swords so no multiclassing need, I just explained how the fighting style can be used with DEX.

I was the one who argued against comparing the classes?

Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.

The fighting style itself is locked into Strength modifier. The Martial arts ability doesn't allow for mixing dex for attack roll and strength for damage. They are incompatible in terms of using your dex in place of strength for the fighting style. 

It isn't comparable to monk weapons being allowed to use dex, because Martial Arts specifically overrides those weapons' rules. Martial arts does not specifically override the unarmed fighting style rules. Martial arts and the fighting style are different alternative options for damage, not overlapping calculations. 

Unarmed Fighting Style allows you to attack with your unarmed strikes for 1d8 + STR.

Monk states that "You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons".

Unarmed Fighting Style changes your unarmed strikes, it does not grant you a additional type of unarmed strike, it IS a unarmed strike.

Edit: Also, what's more specific? You add STR to damage for unarmed strikes, or "You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes"

Already explained that as a feat it's still iffy cause it's like a 1d4 to 1d8 at best, +2 average damage. So it comes out to be okay. It is exactly comparable to a monk weapon, because a lot of monk weapons use the same wording the unarmed fighting style uses, 1d8 + STR. The only exception is that the unarmed fighting style explicitly states it's a unarmed strike and thus a monk weapon.

Unarmed Fighting
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
At the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to one creature grappled by you.

Can't see anything there that allows you to swap Dex for the Str the style specifically states.  This is a fighting style, it carries specific language telling you Strength.  Maybe you're being allowed to Homebrew the feat to suit you build, but as worded, it says, rather plainly, it calls for Strength.  It wouldn't fly at my table, due there being no real point to it, and the wording.

"Your unarmed strikes "

literally the first 3 words states it's a monk weapon.

Edit: The quarterstaff is another weapon that carries specific language telling you to use Strength. Your point?