Well, in that case... there isn't really any "weakest" class. What's more common is to have a class that's just over-specialized, so they end up really good at one thing. Some classes are really versatile at early levels, but never quite reach the heights of others. Some classes have specialties that only apply to RP situations... it really depends on what kind of game you're playing. Some of the most interesting superhero stories are focused on the "weaker" hero having some unique skill or ability that makes them invaluable in a very key moment, even if they can't just drop-kick most enemies to the moon in half a second.
So, yeah... if you go for a, "If you put one of each class in a big empty room and tell them to kill each other", there's a few that just aren't going to make it without some seriously lucky dice rolls. But for most players that's not what the game is. The Monk might not have the raw killing power of a barbarian, but every DM fears the monk landing that stunning strike on the Big Bad right before he's about to get away and now the DM has to come up with a new story for the party.
In every case except the highly contrived one where characters are stripped of their weapons and gear, the monk is overshadowed.
Even when Stunning Strike is factored in. A simple Command spell can be done at 1st level, can be attempted far more often than Stunning Strike, and can prevent a BBEG from getting away. At first level, Sleep can do it to multiple targets. A Fighter can prevent an enemy from running away by grappling them, again at first level, and suffers less from MAD.
Oh sure, there are multiple ways to accomplish a similar effect, but that's not the only trick Monks have up their sleeves. Aside from being able to fight unarmed, they also have a ton of movement options that allow them to get to unique or advantageous locations. After a certain point they can just run right up sheer cliff faces or run right across water. Other classes can accomplish the same thing, sure, but requires use of spells slots or other resources.
I think that's the biggest factor with the classes you listed as weakest... Monk and Warlock don't have as many chances to do big damage bursts or large AOE effects that drastically alter the battlefield, but they have a lot of smaller things that they can do for free.
Stunning Strike beats the hell out of Command or just about anything similar you want to pit it against. 1 ki point per attempt is cheaper than a 1st level slot, it doesn't cost monks their action, they get 3-4 attempts per turn, the penalties of being stunned are worse than forcing a creature to be prone, it doesn't hinder ranged attackers or end if the target takes damage, it works regardless of whether the creature can understand you, it's not shut down by silence or counterspell and the effects last until the end of the monk's next turn which makes re-applying it all that much easier.
they have a lot of smaller things that they can do for free.
Your basic summary of my position is flawed. Fighters have a bunch of small stuff they can do for free, too, and aren't among the weakest classes.
And running across water, I can honestly say that I can't remember ever playing a character where I missed that ability.
If you just don't like Monk or Warlock that's fine, but you seem really dead set on just being told, 'Yes, you are right. These two specific classes are the weakest in the game" and have gone out of your way to dismiss any arguments to your initial premise. I'm sorry that nobody's argument has been good enough to convince you of how flawed the concept is, but if you're not willing to concede even the smallest point then there's not much reason to continue discussing it.
"1 ki point per attempt is cheaper than a 1st level spell"
Stop. I didn't say that Command and Stunning Strike are equivalent. I said that Command can stop the BBEG from running away and it is available at first level. Stunning Strike isn't available until 5th level (the level where spells which are better than Stunning Strike - such as Hypnotic Pattern) become available.
they have a lot of smaller things that they can do for free.
Your basic summary of my position is flawed. Fighters have a bunch of small stuff they can do for free, too, and aren't among the weakest classes.
And running across water, I can honestly say that I can't remember ever playing a character where I missed that ability.
If you just don't like Monk or Warlock that's fine, but you seem really dead set on just being told, 'Yes, you are right. These two specific classes are the weakest in the game" and have gone out of your way to dismiss any arguments to your initial premise. I'm sorry that nobody's argument has been good enough to convince you of how flawed the concept is, but if you're not willing to concede even the smallest point then there's not much reason to continue discussing it.
The plain and simple point of the facts at hand is that Monks and Warlocks are not the "weakest" class based on any information being proposed to make that assumption based on personal preferences, then the plethora of points being provided to counterpoint what you're trying to spin also support this. There isn't even a substantiated standard by which we could feasibly propose how to address a class as "weakest" because we're just going to end up comparing apples to oranges every time.
All classes have strengths, and all classes have drawbacks.
Stop. I didn't say that Command and Stunning Strike are equivalent. I said that Command can stop the BBEG from running away and it is available at first level.
You said "In every case except the highly contrived one where characters are stripped of their weapons and gear, the monk is overshadowed."
Stopping a BBEG from running away during the game's shortest tier is so niche I'm not sure why you even bring it up. Anyone can do that with a grapple attempt.
Stunning Strike isn't available until 5th level (the level where spells which are better than Stunning Strike - such as Hypnotic Pattern) become available.
Hypnotic Pattern is only better at dealing with large crowds. Stunning Strike's still cheaper and better on a per-target basis. Even if a party has both, Hypnotic Pattern doesn't make Stunning Strike redundant because some monsters will still succeed on their save, sometimes the spellcaster has better spells to burn a spell slot or concentration on, and it costs the monk 0 actions to stun things.
Okay, well let me concede some points to your premise.
If, say... we were to take the time to create each class as a standard human, using only the first listed subclass listed for each one, and giving each character a standard array spread of stats, treated each one as a level 10 character and put them in a series of one-on-one fights using starting equipment and set in a simple battlefield with no need to do any exploring or roleplay, then the Monk and Warlock would likely have more losses than most of the other classes.
But I argue that's just not what the game is. Even that scenario I mentioned, trying to boil down the game to core combat has a wild number of variables, like which spells are selected by spellcasting classes, whether fighters focus on dex or strength, or whether or not the battlefield has sufficient space to allow Rogues to successfully stealth. The game's simply too dynamic to say that one class is just inherently worse than another.
Okay, well let me concede some points to your premise.
If, say... we were to take the time to create each class as a standard human, using only the first listed subclass listed for each one, and giving each character a standard array spread of stats, treated each one as a level 10 character and put them in a series of one-on-one fights using starting equipment and set in a simple battlefield with no need to do any exploring or roleplay,
That has nothing to do with my position which I clearly stated. If you aren't going to take the time to address my actual position then, perhaps, you should stop pretrnding you are.
Stop. I didn't say that Command and Stunning Strike are equivalent. I said that Command can stop the BBEG from running away and it is available at first level.
You said "In every case except the highly contrived one where characters are stripped of their weapons and gear, the monk is overshadowed."
Stopping a BBEG from running away during the game's shortest tier is so niche I'm not sure why you even bring it up. Anyone can do that with a grapple attempt.
Stunning Strike isn't available until 5th level (the level where spells which are better than Stunning Strike - such as Hypnotic Pattern) become available.
Hypnotic Pattern is only better at dealing with large crowds. Stunning Strike's still cheaper and better on a per-target basis. Even if a party has both, Hypnotic Pattern doesn't make Stunning Strike redundant because some monsters will still succeed on their save, sometimes the spellcaster has better spells to burn a spell slot or concentration on, and it costs the monk 0 actions to stun things.
And Hypnotic Pattern is an example of a better spell. There are others such as Hold Person
As for stopping a BBEG from running away, are you even reading this thread?? *I* didn't bring it up. Someone else did. I was just responding to them and I mentioned grappling.
The problem is that the very position you state is flawed. The core concept, if I'm understanding right, is that some classes are too inherently weak to effectively ever get the spotlight in combat, and thus there's no logical reason to take those classes at any point. That's an extremely bizarre and narrow concept, and the premise I mentioned was to illustrate that, to effectively state which class is weak or strong is wholly dependent on the circumstances. Even something as simple as "Which class has the highest damage output" relies on a ton of variables. Does that mean most damage in a single round? Most damage inflicted over the course of an adventure? Does it include using spells or abilities that weaken the opponent and make it easier for other party members to inflict damage?
The problem isn't with the answer, necessarily, but with the question itself. No one class is inherently weakest or strongest because there's no one way of playing the game.
The problem is that the very position you state is flawed. The core concept, if I'm understanding right, is that some classes are too inherently weak to effectively ever get the spotlight in combat, and thus there's no logical reason to take those classes at any point. That's an extremely bizarre and narrow concept, and the premise I mentioned was to illustrate that, to effectively state which class is weak or strong is wholly dependent on the circumstances. Even something as simple as "Which class has the highest damage output" relies on a ton of variables. Does that mean most damage in a single round? Most damage inflicted over the course of an adventure? Does it include using spells or abilities that weaken the opponent and make it easier for other party members to inflict damage?
The problem isn't with the answer, necessarily, but with the question itself. No one class is inherently weakest or strongest because there's no one way of playing the game.
As for stopping a BBEG from running away, are you even reading this thread?? *I* didn't bring it up. Someone else did. I was just responding to them and I mentioned grappling.
Fair enough, I'm on my phone and since you didn't quote them I missed the fact that you were responding to the last part of Transmorpher's post. Still not sure where you're getting that nonsense about monks being outshined except in contrived scenarios though.
The problem is that the very position you state is flawed. The core concept, if I'm understanding right, is that some classes are too inherently weak to effectively ever get the spotlight in combat, and thus there's no logical reason to take those classes at any point. That's an extremely bizarre and narrow concept, and the premise I mentioned was to illustrate that, to effectively state which class is weak or strong is wholly dependent on the circumstances. Even something as simple as "Which class has the highest damage output" relies on a ton of variables. Does that mean most damage in a single round? Most damage inflicted over the course of an adventure? Does it include using spells or abilities that weaken the opponent and make it easier for other party members to inflict damage?
The problem isn't with the answer, necessarily, but with the question itself. No one class is inherently weakest or strongest because there's no one way of playing the game.
I never said the spotlight had to be in combat.
Then what are we even talking about? The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables to state universally that one class or the other is weak enough to have no value compared to all other classes. Some classes are easier to play, some classes are more versatile in general situations, and some classes are overspecialized in a way that makes it difficult to use them in many situations. None of those are the same thing as being weak.
To settle one thing, and unfortunately regardless of how I say this I feel someone going to feel offended...
I would love to recap everything that's been said which suggests the initial position and feelings/opinions are flawed, but that would require quoting numerous posts and that will get excessively long. By now the bigger picture is that, between these classes initially presented, neither are the "weakest" by any measure in any variety of preparation or base value. There are simply far too many variables to conclude this, and multiple people have given very good examples and/or presented facts on why. At best the querying position is grasping for a compromise because there is a want for what is being proposed to have an irrevocable, absolute answer; the rudimentary positions of any debate suggest that isn't possible in an instance like this because factually there isn't enough evidence to support that one of those classes (Monk or Warlock) is superior to the other in every regard, then also suggest that there is a single class between those two that is inferior when compared to all of the other classes.
That is what was being implied, thusly many inferred that because of logical reasoning.
If people don't agree with the proposition that either Monk or Warlock must have to be a weakest class, but the querying position has a need that only their opinion is what matters versus facts and evidence which support otherwise, a compromise cannot be forced into play so that everything is fair. There is no reason to be "fair" and attempt forcing others to concede to an utterly inconclusive point or position just because their side has more to support and yours is lacking. There is insufficient evidence to counterpoint them respectively anyway because you would have to concede to what they're saying just to begin validating that one class must be weaker than the other, or all others, soundly defeating that argument by paradox alone. It is plainly just stubbornness in the face of opposition and clearly a want to be right one way or another on whether or not a Monk is weaker than a Warlock (or vice versa) so that in the end you're right regardless of anything that is a valid point to the contrary. The implied initial position wants the initial query to be subjective rather than objective which can't conclusively happen either. Regardless of how you feel though, the facts don't support that one of those classes has to be or is in fact weaker than the other, or all others. At least not anymore than repeating them several times over.
I am remiss to state that recurring themes of insufficient retorts and antagonistic "I'm rubber, you're glue." rebuttals further decrease the objective value of the querying position's initial desire for a conclusive answer.
Rocks Fall.
Everyone Dies.
I prefer Warlock over Monk because it is more fun to play, but recently playing Monk I have learned it is a valuable compatriot as well. To me, they stand on equal ground because of the extreme measures of versatility they both have. Neither of them are the "weakest".
The problem is that the very position you state is flawed. The core concept, if I'm understanding right, is that some classes are too inherently weak to effectively ever get the spotlight in combat, and thus there's no logical reason to take those classes at any point. That's an extremely bizarre and narrow concept, and the premise I mentioned was to illustrate that, to effectively state which class is weak or strong is wholly dependent on the circumstances. Even something as simple as "Which class has the highest damage output" relies on a ton of variables. Does that mean most damage in a single round? Most damage inflicted over the course of an adventure? Does it include using spells or abilities that weaken the opponent and make it easier for other party members to inflict damage?
The problem isn't with the answer, necessarily, but with the question itself. No one class is inherently weakest or strongest because there's no one way of playing the game.
I never said the spotlight had to be in combat.
Then what are we even talking about? The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables to state universally that one class or the other is weak enough to have no value compared to all other classes. Some classes are easier to play, some classes are more versatile in general situations, and some classes are overspecialized in a way that makes it difficult to use them in many situations. None of those are the same thing as being weak.
I said that practically everyone wants a chance for their character to shine. I never limited that to combat. One character might shine in sneaking around and another might shine in social encounters.
Take every possible way to shine and consider how contrived you have to make an encounter so that that way of shining is possible and then look at each class and see which ones shine the best in that situation. Other classes will outperform the monk in every case except for the highly contrived one where everybody's gear and weapons are taken from them. So, a monk will never actually get a chance to shine outside of that highly contrived situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, in that case... there isn't really any "weakest" class. What's more common is to have a class that's just over-specialized, so they end up really good at one thing. Some classes are really versatile at early levels, but never quite reach the heights of others. Some classes have specialties that only apply to RP situations... it really depends on what kind of game you're playing. Some of the most interesting superhero stories are focused on the "weaker" hero having some unique skill or ability that makes them invaluable in a very key moment, even if they can't just drop-kick most enemies to the moon in half a second.
So, yeah... if you go for a, "If you put one of each class in a big empty room and tell them to kill each other", there's a few that just aren't going to make it without some seriously lucky dice rolls. But for most players that's not what the game is. The Monk might not have the raw killing power of a barbarian, but every DM fears the monk landing that stunning strike on the Big Bad right before he's about to get away and now the DM has to come up with a new story for the party.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
In every case except the highly contrived one where characters are stripped of their weapons and gear, the monk is overshadowed.
Even when Stunning Strike is factored in. A simple Command spell can be done at 1st level, can be attempted far more often than Stunning Strike, and can prevent a BBEG from getting away. At first level, Sleep can do it to multiple targets. A Fighter can prevent an enemy from running away by grappling them, again at first level, and suffers less from MAD.
Oh sure, there are multiple ways to accomplish a similar effect, but that's not the only trick Monks have up their sleeves. Aside from being able to fight unarmed, they also have a ton of movement options that allow them to get to unique or advantageous locations. After a certain point they can just run right up sheer cliff faces or run right across water. Other classes can accomplish the same thing, sure, but requires use of spells slots or other resources.
I think that's the biggest factor with the classes you listed as weakest... Monk and Warlock don't have as many chances to do big damage bursts or large AOE effects that drastically alter the battlefield, but they have a lot of smaller things that they can do for free.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Your basic summary of my position is flawed. Fighters have a bunch of small stuff they can do for free, too, and aren't among the weakest classes.
And running across water, I can honestly say that I can't remember ever playing a character where I missed that ability.
Stunning Strike beats the hell out of Command or just about anything similar you want to pit it against. 1 ki point per attempt is cheaper than a 1st level slot, it doesn't cost monks their action, they get 3-4 attempts per turn, the penalties of being stunned are worse than forcing a creature to be prone, it doesn't hinder ranged attackers or end if the target takes damage, it works regardless of whether the creature can understand you, it's not shut down by silence or counterspell and the effects last until the end of the monk's next turn which makes re-applying it all that much easier.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If you just don't like Monk or Warlock that's fine, but you seem really dead set on just being told, 'Yes, you are right. These two specific classes are the weakest in the game" and have gone out of your way to dismiss any arguments to your initial premise. I'm sorry that nobody's argument has been good enough to convince you of how flawed the concept is, but if you're not willing to concede even the smallest point then there's not much reason to continue discussing it.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
"1 ki point per attempt is cheaper than a 1st level spell"
Stop. I didn't say that Command and Stunning Strike are equivalent. I said that Command can stop the BBEG from running away and it is available at first level. Stunning Strike isn't available until 5th level (the level where spells which are better than Stunning Strike - such as Hypnotic Pattern) become available.
I was about to say the same thing about you.
The plain and simple point of the facts at hand is that Monks and Warlocks are not the "weakest" class based on any information being proposed to make that assumption based on personal preferences, then the plethora of points being provided to counterpoint what you're trying to spin also support this. There isn't even a substantiated standard by which we could feasibly propose how to address a class as "weakest" because we're just going to end up comparing apples to oranges every time.
All classes have strengths, and all classes have drawbacks.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
You said "In every case except the highly contrived one where characters are stripped of their weapons and gear, the monk is overshadowed."
Stopping a BBEG from running away during the game's shortest tier is so niche I'm not sure why you even bring it up. Anyone can do that with a grapple attempt.
Hypnotic Pattern is only better at dealing with large crowds. Stunning Strike's still cheaper and better on a per-target basis. Even if a party has both, Hypnotic Pattern doesn't make Stunning Strike redundant because some monsters will still succeed on their save, sometimes the spellcaster has better spells to burn a spell slot or concentration on, and it costs the monk 0 actions to stun things.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Okay, well let me concede some points to your premise.
If, say... we were to take the time to create each class as a standard human, using only the first listed subclass listed for each one, and giving each character a standard array spread of stats, treated each one as a level 10 character and put them in a series of one-on-one fights using starting equipment and set in a simple battlefield with no need to do any exploring or roleplay, then the Monk and Warlock would likely have more losses than most of the other classes.
But I argue that's just not what the game is. Even that scenario I mentioned, trying to boil down the game to core combat has a wild number of variables, like which spells are selected by spellcasting classes, whether fighters focus on dex or strength, or whether or not the battlefield has sufficient space to allow Rogues to successfully stealth. The game's simply too dynamic to say that one class is just inherently worse than another.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That has nothing to do with my position which I clearly stated. If you aren't going to take the time to address my actual position then, perhaps, you should stop pretrnding you are.
And Hypnotic Pattern is an example of a better spell. There are others such as Hold Person
As for stopping a BBEG from running away, are you even reading this thread?? *I* didn't bring it up. Someone else did. I was just responding to them and I mentioned grappling.
The problem is that the very position you state is flawed. The core concept, if I'm understanding right, is that some classes are too inherently weak to effectively ever get the spotlight in combat, and thus there's no logical reason to take those classes at any point. That's an extremely bizarre and narrow concept, and the premise I mentioned was to illustrate that, to effectively state which class is weak or strong is wholly dependent on the circumstances. Even something as simple as "Which class has the highest damage output" relies on a ton of variables. Does that mean most damage in a single round? Most damage inflicted over the course of an adventure? Does it include using spells or abilities that weaken the opponent and make it easier for other party members to inflict damage?
The problem isn't with the answer, necessarily, but with the question itself. No one class is inherently weakest or strongest because there's no one way of playing the game.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I never said the spotlight had to be in combat.
Fair enough, I'm on my phone and since you didn't quote them I missed the fact that you were responding to the last part of Transmorpher's post. Still not sure where you're getting that nonsense about monks being outshined except in contrived scenarios though.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Then what are we even talking about? The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables to state universally that one class or the other is weak enough to have no value compared to all other classes. Some classes are easier to play, some classes are more versatile in general situations, and some classes are overspecialized in a way that makes it difficult to use them in many situations. None of those are the same thing as being weak.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Honestly Straight monk
To settle one thing, and unfortunately regardless of how I say this I feel someone going to feel offended...
I would love to recap everything that's been said which suggests the initial position and feelings/opinions are flawed, but that would require quoting numerous posts and that will get excessively long. By now the bigger picture is that, between these classes initially presented, neither are the "weakest" by any measure in any variety of preparation or base value. There are simply far too many variables to conclude this, and multiple people have given very good examples and/or presented facts on why. At best the querying position is grasping for a compromise because there is a want for what is being proposed to have an irrevocable, absolute answer; the rudimentary positions of any debate suggest that isn't possible in an instance like this because factually there isn't enough evidence to support that one of those classes (Monk or Warlock) is superior to the other in every regard, then also suggest that there is a single class between those two that is inferior when compared to all of the other classes.
That is what was being implied, thusly many inferred that because of logical reasoning.
If people don't agree with the proposition that either Monk or Warlock must have to be a weakest class, but the querying position has a need that only their opinion is what matters versus facts and evidence which support otherwise, a compromise cannot be forced into play so that everything is fair. There is no reason to be "fair" and attempt forcing others to concede to an utterly inconclusive point or position just because their side has more to support and yours is lacking. There is insufficient evidence to counterpoint them respectively anyway because you would have to concede to what they're saying just to begin validating that one class must be weaker than the other, or all others, soundly defeating that argument by paradox alone. It is plainly just stubbornness in the face of opposition and clearly a want to be right one way or another on whether or not a Monk is weaker than a Warlock (or vice versa) so that in the end you're right regardless of anything that is a valid point to the contrary. The implied initial position wants the initial query to be subjective rather than objective which can't conclusively happen either. Regardless of how you feel though, the facts don't support that one of those classes has to be or is in fact weaker than the other, or all others. At least not anymore than repeating them several times over.
I am remiss to state that recurring themes of insufficient retorts and antagonistic "I'm rubber, you're glue." rebuttals further decrease the objective value of the querying position's initial desire for a conclusive answer.
Rocks Fall.
Everyone Dies.
I prefer Warlock over Monk because it is more fun to play, but recently playing Monk I have learned it is a valuable compatriot as well. To me, they stand on equal ground because of the extreme measures of versatility they both have. Neither of them are the "weakest".Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
I said that practically everyone wants a chance for their character to shine. I never limited that to combat. One character might shine in sneaking around and another might shine in social encounters.
Take every possible way to shine and consider how contrived you have to make an encounter so that that way of shining is possible and then look at each class and see which ones shine the best in that situation. Other classes will outperform the monk in every case except for the highly contrived one where everybody's gear and weapons are taken from them. So, a monk will never actually get a chance to shine outside of that highly contrived situation.