Fighters & Monks play very differently, just because the fighter has a reflavored quarterstaff as "fists" doesn't take away from the Monk. Very different playstyles, one focuses on micro-managing Ki and being a skirmisher, while the other focuses on grappling and being in the frontlines. I mean, you could try to make a grappler monk or a skirmisher unarmed fighter, but it wouldn't be as good and that's not the point of this thread.
The level 1 fighter monk dip is eh, same with the feat.
And if your somehow so concerned over damage, for one the fighter is obviously balanced against other fighters, not against monks because they have completely different styles of gameplay. If that isn't enough, then as 01011000Lehrer points out, monks will do better or tie against the average unarmed fighter until level 20. That's not even including the d10 monk weapons that now exist cause of TCoE, nor the d8 monk weapons for non-TCoE monks.
It’s a factual portrayal. If you want to argue against reality there’s all kinds of windmills in this world for you to tilt at.
Except it's not factual and very basic math proves it.
White rooming to defend a bad decision is not “very basic math”. As soon as a Monk does anything other than attack with his bonus action he falls off a cliff.
Fighters & Monks play very differently, just because the fighter has a reflavored quarterstaff as "fists" doesn't take away from the Monk. Very different playstyles, one focuses on micro-managing Ki and being a skirmisher, while the other focuses on grappling and being in the frontlines. I mean, you could try to make a grappler monk or a skirmisher unarmed fighter, but it wouldn't be as good and that's not the point of this thread.
The level 1 fighter monk dip is eh, same with the feat.
And if your somehow so concerned over damage, for one the fighter is obviously balanced against other fighters, not against monks because they have completely different styles of gameplay. If that isn't enough, then as 01011000Lehrer points out, monks will do better or tie against the average unarmed fighter until level 20. That's not even including the d10 monk weapons that now exist cause of TCoE, nor the d8 monk weapons for non-TCoE monks.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Imagine if those fancy fey/shadow/telepath feats let you cast a level 6 spell at level one once per long rest and how much stirring of the crap bucket that would cause. But the biggest problem is monks get shit on routinely in 5e. And the staff at wizards of the coasts solution is to just roll a fighter instead with monk class features, this also applies to Rangers who have had it MUCH worse than monks. Same can be said for Arcane casters and Wizards. 5 years of cluster **** and no end in sight of the piecemeal game design that funnels everyone in to Fighters and Wizards.
It’s a factual portrayal. If you want to argue against reality there’s all kinds of windmills in this world for you to tilt at.
Except it's not factual and very basic math proves it.
White rooming to defend a bad decision is not “very basic math”. As soon as a Monk does anything other than attack with his bonus action he falls off a cliff.
And a Fighter's damage falls off a cliff if they use their action or attacks for anything other than attacks. Monks having more options is not a detriment to the class.
I'm not here saying Monks are mechanically superior to fighters. Monks do have their issues but being an inferior unarmed combatant to a fighter with the unarmed fighting style is not one of them. You're right, official magic items that benefit unarmed fighting are insufficient and that is probably the biggest knock against monks if you're using Tasha's. That's also an issue for the unarmed fighter too though.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Again, the monk beats the unarmed fighter without a weapon. The weapon just skyrockets the monk far beyond anything the unarmed fighter can pull off, same with Flurry of Blows.
"stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom" None of those are hindered via the usage of a monk weapon. Monk features are written with the assumption the monk is using a monk weapon, a monk (excluding past level 11/17 where their fists are d8s/d10s) is automatically assumed to be using a monk weapon. Lehrer's math of a monk not using a monk weapon is the exception, not the norm (i.e monks are supposed to be doing much more damage than what was displayed there).
Quotes: (Emphasis in the form of Italics is mine)
Stunning Strike
Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.
Open Hand Technique
Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you can manipulate your enemy’s ki when you harness your own. Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target:
Wholeness of Body
At 6th level, you gain the ability to heal yourself. As an action, you can regain hit points equal to three times your monk level. You must finish a long rest before you can use this feature again.
(By the time you get Quivering Palm your unarmed strikes are better/equal to your monk weapons, so your assumed to have dropped them)
As for flurry of blows, as per the rules of two-handed weapons, a two handed weapon only requires two hands to make a attack with that weapon. If you are not attacking with that weapon, you do not need two hands. You can attack with your two-handed warhammer twice, then hold it with one hand to make unarmed strikes (which are not warhammer strikes are therefore you don't need two hands)
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.
Melee Attacks
...
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
(parts of the melee attack section have been cut as they are irrelevant)
Edit: Warhammers are not two-handed, but the same logic applies.
The reason monks are assumed to be using a monk weapon is because of:
Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
(a) a shortsword or (b) any simple weapon
(a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
10 darts
Oh yeah and for:
Imagine if those fancy fey/shadow/telepath feats let you cast a level 6 spell at level one once per long rest and how much stirring of the crap bucket that would cause. But the biggest problem is monks get shit on routinely in 5e. And the staff at wizards of the coasts solution is to just roll a fighter instead with monk class features, this also applies to Rangers who have had it MUCH worse than monks. Same can be said for Arcane casters and Wizards. 5 years of cluster **** and no end in sight of the piecemeal game design that funnels everyone in to Fighters and Wizards.
I already addressed this, the two have completely different playstyles and there is zero overlap between the two besides both of them have quarterstaffs (just one of them have a renamed quarterstaff). Neither the Fighter nor the Monk is defined by the weapon they use. The Fighter is defined by it's four attacks & the Monk is defined by it's Ki and mobility.
I'm not sure what your problem with Rangers are, they're agreed upon (in the dndbeyond forums) to be good with the TCoE changes (and is also irrelevant to this conversation). A lot of Monk stuff got buffed in TCoE as well. In fact, this isn't even a Fighter buff, as any unarmed Fighter is going to be far worse than a non-unarmed Fighter in almost every way outside of grappling.
It’s a factual portrayal. If you want to argue against reality there’s all kinds of windmills in this world for you to tilt at.
Except it's not factual and very basic math proves it.
White rooming to defend a bad decision is not “very basic math”. As soon as a Monk does anything other than attack with his bonus action he falls off a cliff.
Fighters & Monks play very differently, just because the fighter has a reflavored quarterstaff as "fists" doesn't take away from the Monk. Very different playstyles, one focuses on micro-managing Ki and being a skirmisher, while the other focuses on grappling and being in the frontlines. I mean, you could try to make a grappler monk or a skirmisher unarmed fighter, but it wouldn't be as good and that's not the point of this thread.
The level 1 fighter monk dip is eh, same with the feat.
And if your somehow so concerned over damage, for one the fighter is obviously balanced against other fighters, not against monks because they have completely different styles of gameplay. If that isn't enough, then as 01011000Lehrer points out, monks will do better or tie against the average unarmed fighter until level 20. That's not even including the d10 monk weapons that now exist cause of TCoE, nor the d8 monk weapons for non-TCoE monks.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Imagine if those fancy fey/shadow/telepath feats let you cast a level 6 spell at level one once per long rest and how much stirring of the crap bucket that would cause. But the biggest problem is monks get shit on routinely in 5e. And the staff at wizards of the coasts solution is to just roll a fighter instead with monk class features, this also applies to Rangers who have had it MUCH worse than monks. Same can be said for Arcane casters and Wizards. 5 years of cluster **** and no end in sight of the piecemeal game design that funnels everyone in to Fighters and Wizards.
Your whole argument here is a strawman. AND it's based around crappy white room math done by others.
Also What's "shitting" on monks in 5e is not the System. It's false perceptions by part of the player base. Partly done by white room math by min-maxers that decided something else was better and often don't even fully understand the monk so they give advice in So called Guides that is contradictory even to itself. Which people should realize if they really looked at it. Like doing things like relying primarily on a move that requires a DC and a resource cost but then allocating stats that completely ignore raising DC's in any way what so ever until it's convenient.
As others have pointed out. Not only do Monks play a different style which means slight different Priorities. All that white rooming that people do. is usually at the detriment to the monk as compared to other classes and usually based on completely misaligned builds. Lehrer's math is basically like the damage floor of the monk. They have a lot more to add onto that between things like Subclass and using weapons.
There is also this overall problem that people min-max heavily for damage. But don't bother to take into account things like what is really needed to be viable at most levels of game play and the like. The power curve is often way below their characters meaning DM's have to ramp it up artificially. The game as designed actually functions a fair bit lower than people white rooming this stuff. Again. Usually to the inserted Detriment of the Monk over other classes and not playing to their strengths. (some other Casters get the same raw deal where white room doesn't play to their strengths).
In actual game play however with some understanding of what the monk is and does and ways to build to different strengths. The monk does not fall behind the way it is portrayed.
Monk to me has a very high floor but a lower than average ceiling.
They can lock down a single enemy pretty much without fail if needed (chances of saving against 4 stun attempts even with a +9 CON save is low) and they can a lot of things pretty good but nothing better than any other class. Mobility is often mentioned as the best of any class but I have found that if you do use the BA dash to move you are paying too much in ki opportunity cost and left with two attacks to try and impact the situation which is not usually enough.
They are a value add to any party but are not missed if not represented.
Fighter 1/ Monk X is a great option for the between though...with dedicated weapon and fighter martial weapon proficiency you have a TON of options for a monk weapon. Go with whip for reach! Get a d10 longsword! Find a +1 Warhammer? you can use it as a monk weapon! Dueling style is awesome if you want to use a weapon (turn that d8 warhammer into a d12 effectively with that extra +2 damage!) or the Unarmed Style to boost your damage output with the ol' dukes.
Second wind is a great way to get some free healing and if you are so bold as to take a second level you get Action Surge and literally dash across the planet if you want.
Overall I think its a good mix of both worlds but I wouldn't do it until after 5th level.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Again, the monk beats the unarmed fighter without a weapon. The weapon just skyrockets the monk far beyond anything the unarmed fighter can pull off, same with Flurry of Blows.
"stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom" None of those are hindered via the usage of a monk weapon.
Wrong, and this will be my last post on the topic.
Open hand:
Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target
Astral Self:
The unarmed strikes you make with the arms can use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier for the attack and damage rolls, and their damage type is force.
Mercy:
Hand of Healing
Your mystical touch can mend wounds. As an action, you can spend 1 ki point to touch a creature and restore a number of hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier.
Hand of Harm
You use your ki to inflict wounds. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage equal to one roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. You can use this feature only once per turn.
Picking up a versatile weapon cuts you off from using these abilities. Furthermore, all your martial arts bonus attacks and flurry of blows are unarmed only. You don’t get to make versatile weapon attacks more than twice past level 5.
Which brings up the Fighters superiority, it’s not strictly superior damage from level 1-10, the fighter only needs to use one or two of his ASIs to max out his strength, a monk HAS to max out two. Requiring three to four ASIs. A fighter has more ASIs before 15th level than the monk has in his whole 20th level career. So the monk MAYBE can squeeze in one feat in between pumping his DEX and WIS. While the fighter is ready to take feats like Crusher and Shield Master. Maybe even Grappler and Tavern Brawler. Skies the limit on how he wants to improve his combat abilities. Maybe he wants to take skilled and get more skill proficiencies so he’s useful outside of combat as well. Maybe he wants to take a nice fancy magic feat and pick up a nice eldritch blast for ranged combat and pump his CHA with the over abundance of ASIs he has to work with that cost him nothing.
Including a mid-level class feature on another class at first level is bad design.
...not meaning to challenge.. but i was under the impression that unarmed strikes did not require a free hand... you could make these with your feet elbows or even head butt... i mean, it would look wierd to apply Hands of Healing by placing your head on someone's chest to heal them, but it is simply a touch attack and unarmed strikes are not restricted to your hands. Same with Astral Self. It doesnt say your physical arms have to mimic the astral astral arms.
I'll agree with you though, that Fighters typically do more damage, but there is a lot more utility to the monk
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Again, the monk beats the unarmed fighter without a weapon. The weapon just skyrockets the monk far beyond anything the unarmed fighter can pull off, same with Flurry of Blows.
"stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom" None of those are hindered via the usage of a monk weapon.
Wrong, and this will be my last post on the topic.
Oh great, I can't wait to read your actual argument.
Open hand:
Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target
Astral Self:
The unarmed strikes you make with the arms can use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier for the attack and damage rolls, and their damage type is force.
Mercy:
Hand of Healing
Your mystical touch can mend wounds. As an action, you can spend 1 ki point to touch a creature and restore a number of hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier.
Hand of Harm
You use your ki to inflict wounds. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage equal to one roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. You can use this feature only once per turn.
Picking up a versatile weapon cuts you off from using these abilities. Furthermore, all your martial arts bonus attacks and flurry of blows are unarmed only. You don’t get to make versatile weapon attacks more than twice past level 5.
Which brings up the Fighters superiority, it’s not strictly superior damage from level 1-10, the fighter only needs to use one or two of his ASIs to max out his strength, a monk HAS to max out two. Requiring three to four ASIs. A fighter has more ASIs before 15th level than the monk has in his whole 20th level career. So the monk MAYBE can squeeze in one feat in between pumping his DEX and WIS. While the fighter is ready to take feats like Crusher and Shield Master. Maybe even Grappler and Tavern Brawler. Skies the limit on how he wants to improve his combat abilities. Maybe he wants to take skilled and get more skill proficiencies so he’s useful outside of combat as well. Maybe he wants to take a nice fancy magic feat and pick up a nice eldritch blast for ranged combat and pump his CHA with the over abundance of ASIs he has to work with that cost him nothing.
Including a mid-level class feature on another class at first level is bad design.
Wtf? You say he's wrong, say a bunch of random stuff, then conclude that you're right and he's wrong? Literally nothing you said even discusses the topic. It's fine if you want to say that in your opinion it's bad design. It's also fine if you have actual evidence to show how it's bad design. Instead you just spew a bunch of random nonsense and try to draw a conclusion from it that is impossible to follow. You can believe whatever you want but if you come to a monk forum, claim something as fact, you better actually know what you're talking about.
To respond to your first comment about not being able to stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom with a two handed weapon, you're only correct if you're not using Tasha's. Tasha's gives monks this:
Dedicated Weapon:
2nd-level monk feature
You train yourself to use a variety of weapons as monk weapons, not just simple melee weapons and shortswords. Whenever you finish a short or long rest, you can touch one weapon, focus your ki on it, and then count that weapon as a monk weapon until you use this feature again.
If your race or whatever else gives you proficiency in a weapon, say an elf with a long sword or dwarf with a war hammer, it can be a monk weapon. Or maybe you're a vhuman and took a feat giving you the weapon proficiency. If it's a monk weapon, you can use all your features.
Tasha's actually solved a lot of the issues monks had. You should read it.
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
Seems no one mentioned this but there is a big difference betwen a fighters fist and a monk fist since eventually you might face something like a werewolf and unless you're a silver-golem your fists will do no damage if youre a fighter while the monk will punch on like normal because the monks fists count as magical for overcoming damage reduction. So, the monks fists ARE deadlier, it's just not as noticable against all enemies.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Again, the monk beats the unarmed fighter without a weapon. The weapon just skyrockets the monk far beyond anything the unarmed fighter can pull off, same with Flurry of Blows.
"stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom" None of those are hindered via the usage of a monk weapon.
Wrong, and this will be my last post on the topic.
Open hand:
Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target
Astral Self:
The unarmed strikes you make with the arms can use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier for the attack and damage rolls, and their damage type is force.
Mercy:
Hand of Healing
Your mystical touch can mend wounds. As an action, you can spend 1 ki point to touch a creature and restore a number of hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier.
Hand of Harm
You use your ki to inflict wounds. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage equal to one roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. You can use this feature only once per turn.
Picking up a versatile weapon cuts you off from using these abilities. Furthermore, all your martial arts bonus attacks and flurry of blows are unarmed only. You don’t get to make versatile weapon attacks more than twice past level 5.
None of this makes any sense. How does a versatile weapon stop you from using any of the features you listed? An "unarmed strike" per RAW can include kicks, headbutts, etc so it does not matter if you are holding a weapon in your hands. For Hands of Healing, if you use your action to touch a creature, you can just let go of the versatile weapon with one hand to touch the creature and grab it again next time you are ready to make an attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
Seems no one mentioned this but there is a big difference betwen a fighters fist and a monk fist since eventually you might face something like a werewolf and unless you're a silver-golem your fists will do no damage if youre a fighter while the monk will punch on like normal because the monks fists count as magical for overcoming damage reduction. So, the monks fists ARE deadlier, it's just not as noticable against all enemies.
Yeah fighters lack a good way to deal magical damage and when like 25% of all enemies in the game have non-magical resistance its not a good place to be if your DM isn't handing out magic items.
Fists are less deadly (for most of the 'normal' playtime) but more reliable is how I would put it....you are always armed and always ready for a fight.
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
Seems no one mentioned this but there is a big difference betwen a fighters fist and a monk fist since eventually you might face something like a werewolf and unless you're a silver-golem your fists will do no damage if youre a fighter while the monk will punch on like normal because the monks fists count as magical for overcoming damage reduction. So, the monks fists ARE deadlier, it's just not as noticable against all enemies.
Yeah fighters lack a good way to deal magical damage and when like 25% of all enemies in the game have non-magical resistance its not a good place to be if your DM isn't handing out magic items.
Fists are less deadly (for most of the 'normal' playtime) but more reliable is how I would put it....you are always armed and always ready for a fight.
See people make this argument over and over again. But this is what I mean about white room. This conclusion relies heavily on White room situations like basically always hitting your target and optimal conditions and full resources not being meted out properly.
I've played monks in more than one campaign. I'm not lagging behind in damage in any significant way against fighters at lower levels. There are various ways to manage to be one of the better damage dealers in actual application. People get caught up on single biggest numbers but they tend to forget that if you do a little math. A bunch of smaller numbers can actually add up to more at times than one or two bigger numbers. Averages are nice but Static damage is even better. Monks tend to bring more static damage that they are going to do no matter what their damage rolls are to the table a lot of the time. Monks are actually surprisingly good at bending RNG into their favor and minimizing it's effect to an extent.
And I saw somebody bring up the ASI requirement again. Yes Great. The Fighter has more ASI's. The Monk uses their's primarily on their Stats. But the Monk is also not Gear Reliant So what the monk is doing with Asi's others are doing with other things and unless their DM is nice and vary tailoring or there is a robust magical item market in their campaign world that they can get exactly what they want they are Relying to some extent on RNG. They are hoping that they get the right kind of things that they need. Not only for Offense but also for Defense. Those extra ASI's are great and all but they are required for the strength of the character in other ways to make that Fighter do more. Whether it's Offensively, Defensively, or Utility wise.
Where as for the Monk. A magical weapon is not even a requirement but it's something that can bolster them if they want it. It is never needed to make the Monk hit reliably as they try to use different abilities or anything of that nature. And it's not a required part of their Damage component with a couple of exceptions.
I really want to try making a draconic sorcerer re-skinned as a monk. Use spells like invisibility, shield, and mirror image for defense. Focus on using offensive spells with touch range and describe it as ki attacks. Spam cantrips and describe them as different ki attacks or ki empowered throwing stars.
I really want to try making a draconic sorcerer re-skinned as a monk. Use spells like invisibility, shield, and mirror image for defense. Focus on using offensive spells with touch range and describe it as ki attacks. Spam cantrips and describe them as different ki attacks or ki empowered throwing stars.
You might want to look at the Warlock as an alternative. You can reskin the Eldritch Blast and make them throwing stars.
Yeah, but quicken spell and twinned spell feel more like replicating flurry of blows. although if I’m focusing on cantrips and low level spells, multi-classing could be good.
This whole thread is pointless. Fighters and Monks are different. Fighters are NOT better unarmed fighters than monk by any means. They are just weaker fighters that want to copy monks. Also, min-maxers are so obsessed with hating on monks...
Except it's not factual and very basic math proves it.
Not sure why we are still arguing about this.
Fighters & Monks play very differently, just because the fighter has a reflavored quarterstaff as "fists" doesn't take away from the Monk. Very different playstyles, one focuses on micro-managing Ki and being a skirmisher, while the other focuses on grappling and being in the frontlines. I mean, you could try to make a grappler monk or a skirmisher unarmed fighter, but it wouldn't be as good and that's not the point of this thread.
The level 1 fighter monk dip is eh, same with the feat.
And if your somehow so concerned over damage, for one the fighter is obviously balanced against other fighters, not against monks because they have completely different styles of gameplay. If that isn't enough, then as 01011000Lehrer points out, monks will do better or tie against the average unarmed fighter until level 20. That's not even including the d10 monk weapons that now exist cause of TCoE, nor the d8 monk weapons for non-TCoE monks.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
White rooming to defend a bad decision is not “very basic math”. As soon as a Monk does anything other than attack with his bonus action he falls off a cliff.
Great! Thanks for bringing it up. I want to use my monk abilities two-handing a war hammer. What do you mean I can’t stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom? Why am I using a weapon again? Oh yeah, because I have to so the unarmed fighter doesn’t just make me look foolish. A champion fighter with shield master and a few extra feats it has access to does everything the monk does now, with better magic item upgrades and the pursuit of something beyond levels. The reason you’re still arguing it is because as I said, when you give another class a mid level ability from level 1 it’s bad design.
Imagine if those fancy fey/shadow/telepath feats let you cast a level 6 spell at level one once per long rest and how much stirring of the crap bucket that would cause. But the biggest problem is monks get shit on routinely in 5e. And the staff at wizards of the coasts solution is to just roll a fighter instead with monk class features, this also applies to Rangers who have had it MUCH worse than monks. Same can be said for Arcane casters and Wizards. 5 years of cluster **** and no end in sight of the piecemeal game design that funnels everyone in to Fighters and Wizards.
Again, the monk beats the unarmed fighter without a weapon. The weapon just skyrockets the monk far beyond anything the unarmed fighter can pull off, same with Flurry of Blows.
"stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom" None of those are hindered via the usage of a monk weapon. Monk features are written with the assumption the monk is using a monk weapon, a monk (excluding past level 11/17 where their fists are d8s/d10s) is automatically assumed to be using a monk weapon. Lehrer's math of a monk not using a monk weapon is the exception, not the norm (i.e monks are supposed to be doing much more damage than what was displayed there).
Quotes: (Emphasis in the form of Italics is mine)
(By the time you get Quivering Palm your unarmed strikes are better/equal to your monk weapons, so your assumed to have dropped them)
As for flurry of blows, as per the rules of two-handed weapons, a two handed weapon only requires two hands to make a attack with that weapon. If you are not attacking with that weapon, you do not need two hands. You can attack with your two-handed warhammer twice, then hold it with one hand to make unarmed strikes (which are not warhammer strikes are therefore you don't need two hands)
(parts of the melee attack section have been cut as they are irrelevant)
Edit: Warhammers are not two-handed, but the same logic applies.
The reason monks are assumed to be using a monk weapon is because of:
Oh yeah and for:
I already addressed this, the two have completely different playstyles and there is zero overlap between the two besides both of them have quarterstaffs (just one of them have a renamed quarterstaff). Neither the Fighter nor the Monk is defined by the weapon they use. The Fighter is defined by it's four attacks & the Monk is defined by it's Ki and mobility.
I'm not sure what your problem with Rangers are, they're agreed upon (in the dndbeyond forums) to be good with the TCoE changes (and is also irrelevant to this conversation). A lot of Monk stuff got buffed in TCoE as well. In fact, this isn't even a Fighter buff, as any unarmed Fighter is going to be far worse than a non-unarmed Fighter in almost every way outside of grappling.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Your whole argument here is a strawman. AND it's based around crappy white room math done by others.
Also What's "shitting" on monks in 5e is not the System. It's false perceptions by part of the player base. Partly done by white room math by min-maxers that decided something else was better and often don't even fully understand the monk so they give advice in So called Guides that is contradictory even to itself. Which people should realize if they really looked at it. Like doing things like relying primarily on a move that requires a DC and a resource cost but then allocating stats that completely ignore raising DC's in any way what so ever until it's convenient.
As others have pointed out. Not only do Monks play a different style which means slight different Priorities. All that white rooming that people do. is usually at the detriment to the monk as compared to other classes and usually based on completely misaligned builds. Lehrer's math is basically like the damage floor of the monk. They have a lot more to add onto that between things like Subclass and using weapons.
There is also this overall problem that people min-max heavily for damage. But don't bother to take into account things like what is really needed to be viable at most levels of game play and the like. The power curve is often way below their characters meaning DM's have to ramp it up artificially. The game as designed actually functions a fair bit lower than people white rooming this stuff. Again. Usually to the inserted Detriment of the Monk over other classes and not playing to their strengths. (some other Casters get the same raw deal where white room doesn't play to their strengths).
In actual game play however with some understanding of what the monk is and does and ways to build to different strengths. The monk does not fall behind the way it is portrayed.
Monk to me has a very high floor but a lower than average ceiling.
They can lock down a single enemy pretty much without fail if needed (chances of saving against 4 stun attempts even with a +9 CON save is low) and they can a lot of things pretty good but nothing better than any other class. Mobility is often mentioned as the best of any class but I have found that if you do use the BA dash to move you are paying too much in ki opportunity cost and left with two attacks to try and impact the situation which is not usually enough.
They are a value add to any party but are not missed if not represented.
Fighter 1/ Monk X is a great option for the between though...with dedicated weapon and fighter martial weapon proficiency you have a TON of options for a monk weapon. Go with whip for reach! Get a d10 longsword! Find a +1 Warhammer? you can use it as a monk weapon! Dueling style is awesome if you want to use a weapon (turn that d8 warhammer into a d12 effectively with that extra +2 damage!) or the Unarmed Style to boost your damage output with the ol' dukes.
Second wind is a great way to get some free healing and if you are so bold as to take a second level you get Action Surge and literally dash across the planet if you want.
Overall I think its a good mix of both worlds but I wouldn't do it until after 5th level.
Wrong, and this will be my last post on the topic.
Open hand:
Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target
Astral Self:
Mercy:
Hand of Healing
Your mystical touch can mend wounds. As an action, you can spend 1 ki point to touch a creature and restore a number of hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier.
Hand of Harm
You use your ki to inflict wounds. When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage equal to one roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. You can use this feature only once per turn.
Picking up a versatile weapon cuts you off from using these abilities. Furthermore, all your martial arts bonus attacks and flurry of blows are unarmed only. You don’t get to make versatile weapon attacks more than twice past level 5.
Which brings up the Fighters superiority, it’s not strictly superior damage from level 1-10, the fighter only needs to use one or two of his ASIs to max out his strength, a monk HAS to max out two. Requiring three to four ASIs. A fighter has more ASIs before 15th level than the monk has in his whole 20th level career. So the monk MAYBE can squeeze in one feat in between pumping his DEX and WIS. While the fighter is ready to take feats like Crusher and Shield Master. Maybe even Grappler and Tavern Brawler. Skies the limit on how he wants to improve his combat abilities. Maybe he wants to take skilled and get more skill proficiencies so he’s useful outside of combat as well. Maybe he wants to take a nice fancy magic feat and pick up a nice eldritch blast for ranged combat and pump his CHA with the over abundance of ASIs he has to work with that cost him nothing.
Including a mid-level class feature on another class at first level is bad design.
...not meaning to challenge.. but i was under the impression that unarmed strikes did not require a free hand... you could make these with your feet elbows or even head butt... i mean, it would look wierd to apply Hands of Healing by placing your head on someone's chest to heal them, but it is simply a touch attack and unarmed strikes are not restricted to your hands. Same with Astral Self. It doesnt say your physical arms have to mimic the astral astral arms.
I'll agree with you though, that Fighters typically do more damage, but there is a lot more utility to the monk
Oh great, I can't wait to read your actual argument.
Wtf? You say he's wrong, say a bunch of random stuff, then conclude that you're right and he's wrong? Literally nothing you said even discusses the topic. It's fine if you want to say that in your opinion it's bad design. It's also fine if you have actual evidence to show how it's bad design. Instead you just spew a bunch of random nonsense and try to draw a conclusion from it that is impossible to follow. You can believe whatever you want but if you come to a monk forum, claim something as fact, you better actually know what you're talking about.
To respond to your first comment about not being able to stun/trip/push/harm/heal/use wisdom with a two handed weapon, you're only correct if you're not using Tasha's. Tasha's gives monks this:
If your race or whatever else gives you proficiency in a weapon, say an elf with a long sword or dwarf with a war hammer, it can be a monk weapon. Or maybe you're a vhuman and took a feat giving you the weapon proficiency. If it's a monk weapon, you can use all your features.
Tasha's actually solved a lot of the issues monks had. You should read it.
Seems no one mentioned this but there is a big difference betwen a fighters fist and a monk fist since eventually you might face something like a werewolf and unless you're a silver-golem your fists will do no damage if youre a fighter while the monk will punch on like normal because the monks fists count as magical for overcoming damage reduction.
So, the monks fists ARE deadlier, it's just not as noticable against all enemies.
None of this makes any sense. How does a versatile weapon stop you from using any of the features you listed? An "unarmed strike" per RAW can include kicks, headbutts, etc so it does not matter if you are holding a weapon in your hands. For Hands of Healing, if you use your action to touch a creature, you can just let go of the versatile weapon with one hand to touch the creature and grab it again next time you are ready to make an attack.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yeah fighters lack a good way to deal magical damage and when like 25% of all enemies in the game have non-magical resistance its not a good place to be if your DM isn't handing out magic items.
Fists are less deadly (for most of the 'normal' playtime) but more reliable is how I would put it....you are always armed and always ready for a fight.
See people make this argument over and over again. But this is what I mean about white room. This conclusion relies heavily on White room situations like basically always hitting your target and optimal conditions and full resources not being meted out properly.
I've played monks in more than one campaign. I'm not lagging behind in damage in any significant way against fighters at lower levels. There are various ways to manage to be one of the better damage dealers in actual application. People get caught up on single biggest numbers but they tend to forget that if you do a little math. A bunch of smaller numbers can actually add up to more at times than one or two bigger numbers. Averages are nice but Static damage is even better. Monks tend to bring more static damage that they are going to do no matter what their damage rolls are to the table a lot of the time. Monks are actually surprisingly good at bending RNG into their favor and minimizing it's effect to an extent.
And I saw somebody bring up the ASI requirement again. Yes Great. The Fighter has more ASI's. The Monk uses their's primarily on their Stats. But the Monk is also not Gear Reliant So what the monk is doing with Asi's others are doing with other things and unless their DM is nice and vary tailoring or there is a robust magical item market in their campaign world that they can get exactly what they want they are Relying to some extent on RNG. They are hoping that they get the right kind of things that they need. Not only for Offense but also for Defense. Those extra ASI's are great and all but they are required for the strength of the character in other ways to make that Fighter do more. Whether it's Offensively, Defensively, or Utility wise.
Where as for the Monk. A magical weapon is not even a requirement but it's something that can bolster them if they want it. It is never needed to make the Monk hit reliably as they try to use different abilities or anything of that nature. And it's not a required part of their Damage component with a couple of exceptions.
I really want to try making a draconic sorcerer re-skinned as a monk. Use spells like invisibility, shield, and mirror image for defense. Focus on using offensive spells with touch range and describe it as ki attacks. Spam cantrips and describe them as different ki attacks or ki empowered throwing stars.
You might want to look at the Warlock as an alternative. You can reskin the Eldritch Blast and make them throwing stars.
Yeah, but quicken spell and twinned spell feel more like replicating flurry of blows. although if I’m focusing on cantrips and low level spells, multi-classing could be good.
This whole thread is pointless. Fighters and Monks are different. Fighters are NOT better unarmed fighters than monk by any means. They are just weaker fighters that want to copy monks. Also, min-maxers are so obsessed with hating on monks...
Is "fighters are good at damage" really that surprising to some people? I feel like this shouldn't be news.
"Monks are good at damage" really shouldn't surprise anyone either... Espeically not post-tasha's.