I noticed that they can spend 3 focus points to gain resistance to all damage except force, which, combined with Deflect attacks, kind of makes them better tanks then Barbarians. If optimized, they'll only have about 100 less health than a barbarian, but they can ignore one attack each round, which, assuming 6 3-round combats, works out to around 270 avoided damage at 20th level.
It's a feature relying on a very restricted resource, the focus points. Barbarians can resist damage turn after turn but Monks are going to be able to do it once or twice in a combat for most of thet careers and only if they give up other things like flurry of blows which means they'll be doing significantly less damage with their turn. So no I don't think it's over tuned.
At 20th level, the monster have way more than 1 attack per round, and the barbarian shrugs off all of them. And 100 hit points is a lot. It’s the difference between power word kill working or not.
But they have effectively 80 focus points per day. They can spend 3 focus points every combat and still have SEVEN left for Flurry of Blows, stunning strike, and anything else they want to use. With Deflect attacks, assuming the monk is fighting a monster with three attacks, one is likely going to miss, one will be nullified by Deflect attacks, and the third will be halved. Also, a Monk can easily get a much higher AC than a barbarian, because their capstone buffs both of their AC determining scores. A barbarian is only going to have an AC of about 20 without magic items, but a monk can easily get 24. Each turn, a 20th level monk will, statistically, be hit by one and a half attacks, whereas a barbarian (without recklessly attacking) will be hit by about 2 and a half, assuming the monster has about a +16 to hit. I did the math, and the barbarian will be hit for about 25 damage a turn in this scenario, and the monk will take about 10.
But they have effectively 80 focus points per day. They can spend 3 focus points every combat and still have SEVEN left for Flurry of Blows, stunning strike, and anything else they want to use. With Deflect attacks, assuming the monk is fighting a monster with three attacks, one is likely going to miss, one will be nullified by Deflect attacks, and the third will be halved. Also, a Monk can easily get a much higher AC than a barbarian, because their capstone buffs both of their AC determining scores. A barbarian is only going to have an AC of about 20 without magic items, but a monk can easily get 24. Each turn, a 20th level monk will, statistically, be hit by one and a half attacks, whereas a barbarian (without recklessly attacking) will be hit by about 2 and a half, assuming the monster has about a +16 to hit. I did the math, and the barbarian will be hit for about 25 damage a turn in this scenario, and the monk will take about 10.
You are describing what it is on paper with perfect variables and conditions. I neve see a high level monster alone. There are always companions, but then there are always other PCs. There was a another thread mentioning 20 Level PCs are a small niche. Because of that niche, is comparing 20 level characters useful on the table when your monk is closer to 7 or maybe 14?
Play the monk as your math describes, then come back and say yes I am correct, or no it is not as powerful as I envisioned.
But they have effectively 80 focus points per day. They can spend 3 focus points every combat and still have SEVEN left for Flurry of Blows, stunning strike, and anything else they want to use. With Deflect attacks, assuming the monk is fighting a monster with three attacks, one is likely going to miss, one will be nullified by Deflect attacks, and the third will be halved. Also, a Monk can easily get a much higher AC than a barbarian, because their capstone buffs both of their AC determining scores. A barbarian is only going to have an AC of about 20 without magic items, but a monk can easily get 24. Each turn, a 20th level monk will, statistically, be hit by one and a half attacks, whereas a barbarian (without recklessly attacking) will be hit by about 2 and a half, assuming the monster has about a +16 to hit. I did the math, and the barbarian will be hit for about 25 damage a turn in this scenario, and the monk will take about 10.
You are describing what it is on paper with perfect variables and conditions. I neve see a high level monster alone. There are always companions, but then there are always other PCs. There was a another thread mentioning 20 Level PCs are a small niche. Because of that niche, is comparing 20 level characters useful on the table when your monk is closer to 7 or maybe 14?
Play the monk as your math describes, then come back and say yes I am correct, or no it is not as powerful as I envisioned.
True, but if a campaign gets to 20th level, that feature makes them hugely powerful.
But they have effectively 80 focus points per day. They can spend 3 focus points every combat and still have SEVEN left for Flurry of Blows, stunning strike, and anything else they want to use. With Deflect attacks, assuming the monk is fighting a monster with three attacks, one is likely going to miss, one will be nullified by Deflect attacks, and the third will be halved. Also, a Monk can easily get a much higher AC than a barbarian, because their capstone buffs both of their AC determining scores. A barbarian is only going to have an AC of about 20 without magic items, but a monk can easily get 24. Each turn, a 20th level monk will, statistically, be hit by one and a half attacks, whereas a barbarian (without recklessly attacking) will be hit by about 2 and a half, assuming the monster has about a +16 to hit. I did the math, and the barbarian will be hit for about 25 damage a turn in this scenario, and the monk will take about 10.
You are describing what it is on paper with perfect variables and conditions. I neve see a high level monster alone. There are always companions, but then there are always other PCs. There was a another thread mentioning 20 Level PCs are a small niche. Because of that niche, is comparing 20 level characters useful on the table when your monk is closer to 7 or maybe 14?
Play the monk as your math describes, then come back and say yes I am correct, or no it is not as powerful as I envisioned.
True, but if a campaign gets to 20th level, that feature makes them hugely powerful.
No they aren’t. It’s the di rolls that would determine powerful.
I have no idea if gaining resistance to all damage (except force) makes monks better tanks than barbarians. It's one ability that's super cool. At 18th level. That's almost never going to come up in the vast, vast majority of games. Maybe the party doesn't have a barbarian, and this helps make up for that. Maybe the barbarian has tuned his character to do other fun stuff. Maybe it's what makes it possible for the party to survive high-CR encounters.
Especially for a high level campaign, the PCs' abilities, opponents' abilities, and each encounter's circumstances will mix for an intensely specific and unique experience every single time.So, sure, you can consider the monk's 18th level feature in a vacuum. But I don't think that actually tells you anything. And we'll all go blue in the face sorting out all the other variables that would actually play into a more contextualized comparison. AND EVEN THEN it wouldn't be helpful because tier 4 campaigns are going to be as uniquely composed as they are rare.
To answer the question in the title of your thread, however, LOL: a resounding no. The monk is definitely not overtuned in 2025. They did do a great job at making it much, much more on par with other martials, though, thankfully. I've only played a 2025 monk for a brief one-shot in tier 1 and seen some online analysis. I did play a 2014 one quite a bit, and felt let down, as have many others.
The problem with talking about tuning at 18th level relative to barbarians is that barbarians... aren't great in tier 4. They're crazy strong in tier 1 and 2, and mostly flatline after that. The actually impressive thing about a level 20 barbarian isn't their damage or their tanking -- it's the fact that they can, while raging, get automatic minimum roll of 25 on athletics, acrobatics, intimidation, perception, stealth, and survival (strength 25 at level 20, primal knowledge turns those skills into strength checks, indomitable might means minimum roll = strength).
Just because the math says it's possible, doesn't mean it's likely or certain, even at an optimized table.
(Optimization is valid, I'm just addressing the Chaos in practice)
Same as with the Spellfire Sorcerer article comments where OP made similar bombastic claims, & didn't show their math.
At this point, I'm starting to doubt that Twilight & Peace Clerics are that mathematically OP outside of theorycrafting by content creators who have very specific but valid playstyles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
At this point, I'm starting to doubt that Twilight & Peace Clerics are that mathematically OP outside of theorycrafting by content creators who have very specific but valid playstyles.
Both twilight and peace have a very strong channel divinity buff effect that requires an action to activate and does not require concentration. This means their power level is heavily dependent on the availability of time to buff; if your DMs style is to have the monsters jump you with massive alpha strikes and there's two characters making death saves by the time the cleric gets their first action, well, a Life cleric may be a better choice. If combat is slower pace or commonly allows prep time, twilight and peace become OP.
At this point, I'm starting to doubt that Twilight & Peace Clerics are that mathematically OP outside of theorycrafting by content creators who have very specific but valid playstyles.
I’m DM ing for a twilight cleric right now and playing in a game with another. They are simply not OP. And while we’re at it, neither is silvery barbs.
I find it generally the case when theorycrafters lose their minds how strong various powers are that it turns out in play they’re fine. Ditto the “broken combos” people come up with. I have yet to see someone drag around a cleric with spirit guardians active.
Just because the math says it's possible, doesn't mean it's likely or certain, even at an optimized table.
(Optimization is valid, I'm just addressing the Chaos in practice)
Same as with the Spellfire Sorcerer article comments where OP made similar bombastic claims, & didn't show their math.
At this point, I'm starting to doubt that Twilight & Peace Clerics are that mathematically OP outside of theorycrafting by content creators who have very specific but valid playstyles.
Spellfire Sorcerers are overpowered, and I'll show the math. Let's do the math for a 14th level sorcerer, which is where they get broken.
14 sorcery points per long rest, +7 from the short rest feature.
Each time you use a sorcery point, an ally gains about 21 temp HP
With 21 sorcery points, you can give the party 441 temp HP, more if you convert spell slots.
The best part is that doing this doesn't require you to spend any more resources than a normal sorcerer. You just use your metamagic and break the game.
14 sorcery points per long rest, +7 from the short rest feature.
Each time you use a sorcery point, an ally gains about 21 temp HP
With 21 sorcery points, you can give the party 441 temp HP, more if you convert spell slots.
Obviously, your math skills are 100% unrealistic and deserve to stay on paper not on the table or used to persuade people. If you have a max of 14 points and can get back points after a short rest, you will never have 21 points. You will just have 14 points at any one time. There is no way you can use 14 points in a battle, have a rest then gain and therefore use another 7 points to finish the battle.
Therefore you can never have 21 points. Over 1 week you can probably get over a 100 points, but again, now matter how many you can get over a long period of time you still only get 14 points.
Think about what you are saying. No matter how many points you can get back, you cannot exceed your max during a battle as there is no way you would be able to have a short rest in the middle of a battle. There is a 0.0000000001% chance you can have the exception.
I can see an argument they are the best martial at level 20. But levels 1-10 which I am currently playing one as, no they are not. They are competitive with other martials but a dedicated fighter or barbarian will be better in a fight. Just not by as large of a margin as in 2014. At level 20, they are no where near as good as a wizard or sorcerer. or cleric and druid. They may outdo warlocks, but not by much if at all.
That being said I'd of designed every martial around focus points. And martials would have choices in what powers those focus points would be toward, a known spells thing kind of. And they would range from standard combat buff that is really effective, like attack a lot more etc, and crap that is flat out reality changing area of effect attacks, siege damage on a large scale, with a range of utility powers as well so players can tune their martial from mundane warrior to mystic hero. Their class would effect their known power list, barbarians focused on taking hits and deal damage, fighters being more generalists, rogues with powers focused on stealth and secret attacks. but oh well only monks have it, so it creates a perception of them having more power when in reality at most levels as you play them, they don't/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I noticed that they can spend 3 focus points to gain resistance to all damage except force, which, combined with Deflect attacks, kind of makes them better tanks then Barbarians. If optimized, they'll only have about 100 less health than a barbarian, but they can ignore one attack each round, which, assuming 6 3-round combats, works out to around 270 avoided damage at 20th level.
No.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's a feature relying on a very restricted resource, the focus points. Barbarians can resist damage turn after turn but Monks are going to be able to do it once or twice in a combat for most of thet careers and only if they give up other things like flurry of blows which means they'll be doing significantly less damage with their turn. So no I don't think it's over tuned.
At 20th level, the monster have way more than 1 attack per round, and the barbarian shrugs off all of them.
And 100 hit points is a lot. It’s the difference between power word kill working or not.
But they have effectively 80 focus points per day. They can spend 3 focus points every combat and still have SEVEN left for Flurry of Blows, stunning strike, and anything else they want to use. With Deflect attacks, assuming the monk is fighting a monster with three attacks, one is likely going to miss, one will be nullified by Deflect attacks, and the third will be halved. Also, a Monk can easily get a much higher AC than a barbarian, because their capstone buffs both of their AC determining scores. A barbarian is only going to have an AC of about 20 without magic items, but a monk can easily get 24. Each turn, a 20th level monk will, statistically, be hit by one and a half attacks, whereas a barbarian (without recklessly attacking) will be hit by about 2 and a half, assuming the monster has about a +16 to hit. I did the math, and the barbarian will be hit for about 25 damage a turn in this scenario, and the monk will take about 10.
You are describing what it is on paper with perfect variables and conditions. I neve see a high level monster alone. There are always companions, but then there are always other PCs. There was a another thread mentioning 20 Level PCs are a small niche. Because of that niche, is comparing 20 level characters useful on the table when your monk is closer to 7 or maybe 14?
Play the monk as your math describes, then come back and say yes I am correct, or no it is not as powerful as I envisioned.
True, but if a campaign gets to 20th level, that feature makes them hugely powerful.
No they aren’t. It’s the di rolls that would determine powerful.
I have no idea if gaining resistance to all damage (except force) makes monks better tanks than barbarians. It's one ability that's super cool. At 18th level. That's almost never going to come up in the vast, vast majority of games. Maybe the party doesn't have a barbarian, and this helps make up for that. Maybe the barbarian has tuned his character to do other fun stuff. Maybe it's what makes it possible for the party to survive high-CR encounters.
Especially for a high level campaign, the PCs' abilities, opponents' abilities, and each encounter's circumstances will mix for an intensely specific and unique experience every single time.So, sure, you can consider the monk's 18th level feature in a vacuum. But I don't think that actually tells you anything. And we'll all go blue in the face sorting out all the other variables that would actually play into a more contextualized comparison. AND EVEN THEN it wouldn't be helpful because tier 4 campaigns are going to be as uniquely composed as they are rare.
To answer the question in the title of your thread, however, LOL: a resounding no. The monk is definitely not overtuned in 2025. They did do a great job at making it much, much more on par with other martials, though, thankfully. I've only played a 2025 monk for a brief one-shot in tier 1 and seen some online analysis. I did play a 2014 one quite a bit, and felt let down, as have many others.
The problem with talking about tuning at 18th level relative to barbarians is that barbarians... aren't great in tier 4. They're crazy strong in tier 1 and 2, and mostly flatline after that. The actually impressive thing about a level 20 barbarian isn't their damage or their tanking -- it's the fact that they can, while raging, get automatic minimum roll of 25 on athletics, acrobatics, intimidation, perception, stealth, and survival (strength 25 at level 20, primal knowledge turns those skills into strength checks, indomitable might means minimum roll = strength).
Just because the math says it's possible, doesn't mean it's likely or certain, even at an optimized table.
(Optimization is valid, I'm just addressing the Chaos in practice)
Same as with the Spellfire Sorcerer article comments where OP made similar bombastic claims, & didn't show their math.
At this point, I'm starting to doubt that Twilight & Peace Clerics are that mathematically OP outside of theorycrafting by content creators who have very specific but valid playstyles.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Both twilight and peace have a very strong channel divinity buff effect that requires an action to activate and does not require concentration. This means their power level is heavily dependent on the availability of time to buff; if your DMs style is to have the monsters jump you with massive alpha strikes and there's two characters making death saves by the time the cleric gets their first action, well, a Life cleric may be a better choice. If combat is slower pace or commonly allows prep time, twilight and peace become OP.
I’m DM ing for a twilight cleric right now and playing in a game with another. They are simply not OP. And while we’re at it, neither is silvery barbs.
I find it generally the case when theorycrafters lose their minds how strong various powers are that it turns out in play they’re fine. Ditto the “broken combos” people come up with. I have yet to see someone drag around a cleric with spirit guardians active.
What does OP mean?
OverPowered
In this thread both original poster and overpowered
No. Just look up "Martial Caster Divide" and you will get your answer.
Spellfire Sorcerers are overpowered, and I'll show the math. Let's do the math for a 14th level sorcerer, which is where they get broken.
14 sorcery points per long rest, +7 from the short rest feature.
Each time you use a sorcery point, an ally gains about 21 temp HP
With 21 sorcery points, you can give the party 441 temp HP, more if you convert spell slots.
The best part is that doing this doesn't require you to spend any more resources than a normal sorcerer. You just use your metamagic and break the game.
Obviously, your math skills are 100% unrealistic and deserve to stay on paper not on the table or used to persuade people. If you have a max of 14 points and can get back points after a short rest, you will never have 21 points. You will just have 14 points at any one time. There is no way you can use 14 points in a battle, have a rest then gain and therefore use another 7 points to finish the battle.
Therefore you can never have 21 points. Over 1 week you can probably get over a 100 points, but again, now matter how many you can get over a long period of time you still only get 14 points.
Think about what you are saying. No matter how many points you can get back, you cannot exceed your max during a battle as there is no way you would be able to have a short rest in the middle of a battle. There is a 0.0000000001% chance you can have the exception.
I can see an argument they are the best martial at level 20. But levels 1-10 which I am currently playing one as, no they are not. They are competitive with other martials but a dedicated fighter or barbarian will be better in a fight. Just not by as large of a margin as in 2014. At level 20, they are no where near as good as a wizard or sorcerer. or cleric and druid. They may outdo warlocks, but not by much if at all.
That being said I'd of designed every martial around focus points. And martials would have choices in what powers those focus points would be toward, a known spells thing kind of. And they would range from standard combat buff that is really effective, like attack a lot more etc, and crap that is flat out reality changing area of effect attacks, siege damage on a large scale, with a range of utility powers as well so players can tune their martial from mundane warrior to mystic hero. Their class would effect their known power list, barbarians focused on taking hits and deal damage, fighters being more generalists, rogues with powers focused on stealth and secret attacks. but oh well only monks have it, so it creates a perception of them having more power when in reality at most levels as you play them, they don't/