well every class is perfectly viable and fine, but i will say that paladins are generally an good mix of everything, bards can do literally anything and can be built to fit literally any niché, from summoner to debuffer to frontline melee fighter to archer to anything else, and the druid gets complete spellcasting with a lot of useful spells plus the fantastic wild shape feature plus decent martial prowess. The ranger can be an really good source of damage per second, but is held back greatly by its primary feature favoured enemy and natural explorer being underwhelming
i will say that i love the fighter, but its primary source of supremacy, superior abillity score improvements and more attacks than any class do not come up that often, the first abillity score improvement no other class gets is at 6th level, and the next will not come until 14th level, similarly from levels 1 through 10 the fighter will have just as many attacks per turn as any other martial class, once 11th level rolls arround it wil be special but by then most ranger subclasses has some way of making more than two attacks per turn (granted those features are often worse than the other stuff). The fighter does have some great subclasses, and it is great as an 1st level dip for builds, and ultimately it is still somewhat on-par with the other classes, it happens to lack oomph
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I really don't understand the "monks are weak" perspective, considering that they do more damage, have higher AC's, more immunities, and more abilities to incapacitate enemies, with a flexible short-rest rechargeable resource... even before you get into examining which subclass you're talking about. But other than that, I agree that Rangers and Sorcerers lag behind other classes, not because their numbers necessarily suck, but more because they don't really do anything that other classes don't do better (Fighters are better archers than Rangers are, Wizards or Warlocks are better explosion slingers than sorcerers are). I'm not sure if I'd really call any class out as 'weak" other than those two.
I really don't understand the "monks are weak" perspective, considering that they do more damage, have higher AC's, more immunities, and more abilities to incapacitate enemies, with a flexible short-rest rechargeable resource... even before you get into examining which subclass you're talking about. But other than that, I agree that Rangers and Sorcerers lag behind other classes, not because their numbers necessarily suck, but more because they don't really do anything that other classes don't do better (Fighters are better archers than Rangers are, Wizards or Warlocks are better explosion slingers than sorcerers are). I'm not sure if I'd really call any class out as 'weak" other than those two.
It's the critical hits. Monks feel SUUUPERRR weak when they score a critical hit. Up until level 5, their critical hits only do 2d4 + Str/Dex mod damage. With point buy or standard array, that's an average of 7 damage on a critical hit. A half-orc barbarian with a greatsword while raging at the same level range does 3d12 + 4 damage, an average of 23 damage on a critical hit, 3 times the damage.
Nothing feels worse than getting a critical hit, and getting 7 damage.
Sure, they can attack 3 times as of level 2, doing an average of 13 damage every time they do Flurry of Blows, but their damage dice are so low, that they really don't feel like they're doing much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Before level 5, a monk will very typicall do 1d8+3, 1d4+3, 1d4+3, for an average of 18.5 damage in a round (or 13, if they're out of Ki). The raging barbarian with his big scary sword is going to be doing 2d6+3+2, average of 12.
Monks do more damage, a lot more damage. This propaganda and slander needs to stop.
I'll echo (parrot?) the sentiment that it's part situational and part player. Some classes fit or don't fit an encounter and some players fit or don't fit a class and some players fit or don't fit a class in only specific scenarios.
A secondary (primary?) factor is the DM bias. The DM's interpretation of results can skew a player's and the player's class' effectiveness to be better or worse than another DM might interpret.
This is all assuming that evil, horrible, vengeful dice don't chop the player off at the kneecaps or grant them godlike power. That's luck and a separate issue altogether.
They can all be strong or weak at any time.
We can't even begin to consider who would be the strongest or weakest in the most situations as that's still situational upon the situation, the player in the situation, and the DM making the situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I really don't understand the "monks are weak" perspective, considering that they do more damage, have higher AC's, more immunities, and more abilities to incapacitate enemies, with a flexible short-rest rechargeable resource... even before you get into examining which subclass you're talking about. But other than that, I agree that Rangers and Sorcerers lag behind other classes, not because their numbers necessarily suck, but more because they don't really do anything that other classes don't do better (Fighters are better archers than Rangers are, Wizards or Warlocks are better explosion slingers than sorcerers are). I'm not sure if I'd really call any class out as 'weak" other than those two.
It's the critical hits. Monks feel SUUUPERRR weak when they score a critical hit. Up until level 5, their critical hits only do 2d4 + Str/Dex mod damage. With point buy or standard array, that's an average of 7 damage on a critical hit. A half-orc barbarian with a greatsword while raging at the same level range does 3d12 + 4 damage, an average of 23 damage on a critical hit, 3 times the damage.
Nothing feels worse than getting a critical hit, and getting 7 damage.
Sure, they can attack 3 times as of level 2, doing an average of 13 damage every time they do Flurry of Blows, but their damage dice are so low, that they really don't feel like they're doing much.
This is all true. But monks have a long stretch of dead period between level 7 and level 13. Where they don’t really get anything great. Meanwhile their hp dice and ac aren’t scaling effectively compared to CRs and etc.
so it’s hard to sustain survivability to a degree. But then once monks get proficiency in all saves and fluent in all languages. They become useful again.
monks are good tier 1 and tier 4. But tiers 2-3 are struggles.
I voted Bard, Rogue, and Cleric for the strongest. Because when it comes to combat, the classes are quite well balanced, but when it comes to skills, the Bard and the Rogue are way ahead of all the other classes. And I included Cleric because if you have a D&D party that doesn't have a Cleric and you gave them a choice of which class they could have to join their party if somebody new joined the party, they'd probably ask for a Cleric.
I considered damage, support, and utility/versatility.
Paladins nova hard and have good support to boot. Wizards are the gods of utility and high level arcane casters can put up the numbers. For best support is probably cleric, but druid is a close second and generally has better versatility, so I went with that as my third.
Weakest was a little harder. Rangers are obvious since its damage can't compete with any class, it's support can't compare to bard, cleric, or druid, and it has limited utility compared to half the classes too. I chose rogues second because while they have strong utility, it is limited to skills and locks and low versatility outside that, damage and support can't compete with a full caster or even a fighter or paladin. I flip-flopped a bit on the third, bards are probably the weakest casters, but more than make up for it in support and versatility, so I went with monk despite its steady damage and powerful stun locks it does less damage than half the melee classes and its support is limited to those stuns, not much versatility or utility.
I play my characters for the RP. I still try to have a "good build" and don't just make RP focused builds. But I can have fun with my friends playing any character. ATM, I think Bard is the best RP, but not the "strongest Class."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I picked Cleric, Paladin and Wizard as the top three. Hard to debate those.
Like a lot of folks I had a hard time picking the bottom three. I finally went with Monk, Ranger and Sorcerer but I must admit all three can have their moments. The biggest issue I see with Ranger or Sorcerer is their primary strength is when mulitclassed. They have a few appealing features that make a dip or more very appealing that that is it. As for monk...
I really don't understand the "monks are weak" perspective, considering that they do more damage, have higher AC's, more immunities, and more abilities to incapacitate enemies, with a flexible short-rest rechargeable resource... even before you get into examining which subclass you're talking about. But other than that, I agree that Rangers and Sorcerers lag behind other classes, not because their numbers necessarily suck, but more because they don't really do anything that other classes don't do better (Fighters are better archers than Rangers are, Wizards or Warlocks are better explosion slingers than sorcerers are). I'm not sure if I'd really call any class out as 'weak" other than those two.
Monk's have a lower AC then most other front line combatants. And more importantly less hit points. The paladin and fighter are going to start with a 16 or 18 AC while a monk starting with point buy will be lucky to start with 16. As they level the difference will stay about the same. Eventually the paladin and fighter are going to hit 18 or 20 AC with the monk slightly behind and dependent on using ki for step of the wind or patient defense. Damage won't keep up either. A monk with a staff is dealing maybe 1d8+5 twice (19 avg) with one or two attacks at 1d6+5 (another 8-17). Meanwhile the fighter is dealing 2d6+5 three times (36 avg) with a greatsword while the paladin is dealing 2d8+7 twice (23 avg) with a longsword and the major difference comes into play when you consider special features. With sub classes like the battlemaster and feats like great weapon master a fighter easily outstrips a monk. Likewise with the paladin who can use spell slots for smites and may have access to spells like hunters mark. This isn't where the problem ends either. At higher levels the fighter and paladin are getting magic armor, shields and weapons. Little of which will prove helpful for our monk. All this conspires to keep the monk in the role of stun locking and bouncing in and out of combat.
Personally I would do two things to help the monk out. First I would allow them to spend ki to give their open hand attacks a plus to hit and damage (like the kensai can do with weapons). Second, I would give them more ASI. Possibly on the level of the fighter but definitely in line with the rogue. The monk is the MADdest of classes and really needs more ASI.
If Monks and non-shield fighters both start at 16 AC, I fail to see how that's a mark against the monk? The monk is going to be bumping Dex with his first two feats at the same time the Fighter is buffing Strength (and picking up other non-stat feats like Sentinel), so they'll probably hit 20 Str/20 Dex at the same time at level 8, where the Fighter and Monk will both have AC 18 (Fighter may find some Plate before Monk finishes his ASI, but they roughly advance at the same rate through the first tier). Both classes will have a middling Con (Fighter's might be a bit better), so the main difference defensively between the two is, at 8th level the Fighter has about 8 more hit points, while the Monk is taking a Dodge action against scary opponents to avoid being hit entirely, deflecting ranged missile attacks, and taking half damage/no damage from Reflex saves. The Monk honestly is probably more tanky than the non-shield Fighter... especially because past level 8, the Monk is going to continue bumping Wisdom and get up to 20 AC, while the non-shield Fighter will be staying at 18. Monk will be picking up all saves, the ability to reroll saves, immunity to a common damage type... and heck, if you're really afraid of dying, a Long Death monk is functionally invincible in combat because they can negate as many killing blows against themselves as they have ki points, no action required, any number of times per round, and constantly inject themselves with huge THP pools. Monks are potentially tankier than non-shield Fighters, or as tanky as Shield Fighters, though their defense comes from features and not being hit rather than a large HP pool.
And you poo-pooed the monk damage of 27-36 per round average (which starts right at level 5-8 once you have Extra Attack and max your Dex), against a Fighter's 36 average damage at level 11, at which point the Monk is going to be doing four d8+5 attacks per round (average 38, still more damage). Yes, the Fighter can be doing more with GWM, but then he's hitting less, so in plenty of combats the monk will be doing more damage and more reliable damage. You've glossed over the DPR and defensive spike that comes from Stunning Strike as well, a trick that Fighter simply has no answer for. At max level, Greatsword fighter is doing 2d6+5 four times (average 48, or 88 if he has GWM and can be sure he hits). Monk is doing 1d12+5 four times (average 46, but more likely to hit and can be reliably stunning to gain advantage).
Monks don't need any more buffs, because depending on subclass (Long Death is probably the best one to make them stand up against Fighters and Barbarians), they are already better melee combatants than Fighters. No they don't do nova damage like a Paladin or Rogue, but they have unparallelled mobility (get the damage to the right place on the battlefield), A-Tier Defense, A-tier DPR, and lots of ribbon abilities.
And finally, I don't agree that Monks are MAD. They want to max two abilities (or only one, if they don't care about 20 AC), which is not particularly different from every other class. The fact that instead of having an offense stat and a defense stat they have an offense+defense stat and a defense+DC stat actually makes them quite a bit less MAD than even something like a Wizard, because half of the monk subclasses don't even care about DC for anything other than Stunning Strike (and the fact that you can try four times/round with SS means that essentially enemies have Ultra-Super-Disadvantage on their save against it).
@Chicken Champ...Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions about the monk. Continuing with my example of a 12 level character you have the monk with 2 attacks (possibly 3 or 4 with ki and bonus action), a 19 AC and maybe 75 hp versus a fighter with 3 attacks (maybe 4 to 7 depending on action surge, features and feats), a 19 AC and 124 hp. We've already shown that the fighter can do more damage but you're lending too much weight to the -5 for GWM. Every statistic chart I have seen seems to favor taking the -5 if your opponent's AC is under 19 or so and advantage is not that hard to get. Is 75 hp and a 19 AC A-tier defense? For 12th level not at all. Is 38 DPR A-tier. Nope, and the monk can do little to boost it.
You're right that the monk can pour ki into every round throwing stunning strikes and flurry of blows galore but that resource has a limit. One you can easily hit in the first fight of the day. Furthermore, once you start seeing high level play the amount of ways the party can knock prone, stun or incapacitate foes increases substantially so the monk stops being quite as special in that regard.
All the special features that a monk gets are really a trap. Few of them directly bump damage like a battle master's maneuvers. Or help with defense like shield for a eldritch knight. And since CON is a tertiary stat the monk ends up with so few hp they become something of a paper tiger. With fangs that do C-tier damage (but hey you can stun...sometimes).
All the special features that a monk gets are really a trap. Few of them directly bump damage like a battle master's maneuvers. Or help with defense like shield for a eldritch knight. And since CON is a tertiary stat the monk ends up with so few hp they become something of a paper tiger. With fangs that do C-tier damage (but hey you can stun...sometimes).
Evasion is a trap? Proficiency in all saving throws is a trap?
Some have already said as much in their answers, but any poll like this should definitely include a frame of reference. I'm sure answers will vary even from the same person if you are thinking 3 tiers of play evenly vs how they end up split in the average game (whatever mix that may be). With combat, is it 2-3 combat encounters a day, equal to daily maximum xp encounter difficulty, or just 1 combat at "hard" or "deadly" difficulty (which is not maximum daily xp).
Ludicrous math leads to ludicrous conclusions. 75 hp? Puhleez. These sorts of disagreements are difficult to resolve without long posts comparing apples to apples, which nobody else is probably interested in, but that’s never stopped me before :p
A v. human monk at 12 should have 99 HP AND 19 AC, doing either four d8+5 attacks per round (38 avg) or two d8+5 attacks per round (19 avg.) and a dodge (effective ~AC 24). How to quantify that they’re taking little or no damage from ranged attacks or reflex saves or poison and generating 16 THP with every kill (probably 60 THP from that alone)... hard to argue that all of that (zero from a dragons breath attack, zero from an arrow or two, 60 THP) isnt worth at least 100 HP over the course of a day? With 12 ki per short rest, they can probably spend at least 1 per round with no real risk of running out before lunch time most days (combat 5-10 rounds, 2 combats before short rest). If they need to be the tank, that ki can always be dodges and negated death blows. If they need to be striker, that ki can always be flurry. If they need to be controller, that ki can be stuns and they can be grappling up a storm instead of bonus punching. Swiss Army knife.
Versus a v. human 2H fighter at 12 having 124 hp and 18 AC (soak 3 b/s/p nonmagical, we’ll call that 30 more hp per day in Tier 3 though it was more useful in T1 and T2) doing three 2d6+15 attacks at -5 to hit (-25% to hit) rerolling 1s and 2s (avg. 72ish raw, adjusted to 54ish due to hit malus). He’s got martial dice, but only enough for a couple per combat, not much of a DPR adjustment warranted. Yeah they can spike higher once a day by taking an extra turn, and yeah they may get a bonus fourth attack once or twice per fight... but with all of that scraped together in a pile, you’re not gonna convince me their true avg dpr is higher than 60ish.
HP is WELL in monks favor, cuz there’s only 25 real HP between them but the monk has higher AC, Dodges often, beats every reflex save, and pumps about 60 THP into his veins a day. Damage is in the Fighters favor about two to one... but he’s stuck fighting whoever the DM wants to put in front of him or being out of range entirely, while the monk is off striking and stunning the BBEG and casters in the back row. The monk does cool monk shit and is invincible, the fighter kills a dozen faceless meat shield minions, dies to the dragon’s breath, and spends half the fight against the final boss mind controlled.
It isn’t that fighters suck, they’re one of the best and most flexible classes, obviously. But there is very little daylight between the Long Death monk and the 2H Battlemaster in terms of kills at the end of the day, and the monk is far more likely to be waking the fighter up with a potion than the other way around. Monks are tough, and deliver their damage effectively and often, with very few wasted or unoptimal turns. They don’t belong in the bottom tier, that’s Barbarians you’re thinking of :p
Curious what people think.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Not one class is stronger overall. So, in terms of combat is how I'll vote.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
What are you going for when you say “strongest”? Damage output?
well every class is perfectly viable and fine, but i will say that paladins are generally an good mix of everything, bards can do literally anything and can be built to fit literally any niché, from summoner to debuffer to frontline melee fighter to archer to anything else, and the druid gets complete spellcasting with a lot of useful spells plus the fantastic wild shape feature plus decent martial prowess. The ranger can be an really good source of damage per second, but is held back greatly by its primary feature favoured enemy and natural explorer being underwhelming
i will say that i love the fighter, but its primary source of supremacy, superior abillity score improvements and more attacks than any class do not come up that often, the first abillity score improvement no other class gets is at 6th level, and the next will not come until 14th level, similarly from levels 1 through 10 the fighter will have just as many attacks per turn as any other martial class, once 11th level rolls arround it wil be special but by then most ranger subclasses has some way of making more than two attacks per turn (granted those features are often worse than the other stuff). The fighter does have some great subclasses, and it is great as an 1st level dip for builds, and ultimately it is still somewhat on-par with the other classes, it happens to lack oomph
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I put Paladin, Wizard, and Rogue as strongest (Which most people did) and Ranger, Monk, and Warlock as weakest.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I really don't understand the "monks are weak" perspective, considering that they do more damage, have higher AC's, more immunities, and more abilities to incapacitate enemies, with a flexible short-rest rechargeable resource... even before you get into examining which subclass you're talking about. But other than that, I agree that Rangers and Sorcerers lag behind other classes, not because their numbers necessarily suck, but more because they don't really do anything that other classes don't do better (Fighters are better archers than Rangers are, Wizards or Warlocks are better explosion slingers than sorcerers are). I'm not sure if I'd really call any class out as 'weak" other than those two.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's the critical hits. Monks feel SUUUPERRR weak when they score a critical hit. Up until level 5, their critical hits only do 2d4 + Str/Dex mod damage. With point buy or standard array, that's an average of 7 damage on a critical hit. A half-orc barbarian with a greatsword while raging at the same level range does 3d12 + 4 damage, an average of 23 damage on a critical hit, 3 times the damage.
Nothing feels worse than getting a critical hit, and getting 7 damage.
Sure, they can attack 3 times as of level 2, doing an average of 13 damage every time they do Flurry of Blows, but their damage dice are so low, that they really don't feel like they're doing much.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Before level 5, a monk will very typicall do 1d8+3, 1d4+3, 1d4+3, for an average of 18.5 damage in a round (or 13, if they're out of Ki). The raging barbarian with his big scary sword is going to be doing 2d6+3+2, average of 12.
Monks do more damage, a lot more damage. This propaganda and slander needs to stop.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'll echo (parrot?) the sentiment that it's part situational and part player. Some classes fit or don't fit an encounter and some players fit or don't fit a class and some players fit or don't fit a class in only specific scenarios.
A secondary (primary?) factor is the DM bias. The DM's interpretation of results can skew a player's and the player's class' effectiveness to be better or worse than another DM might interpret.
This is all assuming that evil, horrible, vengeful dice don't chop the player off at the kneecaps or grant them godlike power. That's luck and a separate issue altogether.
They can all be strong or weak at any time.
We can't even begin to consider who would be the strongest or weakest in the most situations as that's still situational upon the situation, the player in the situation, and the DM making the situation.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Let me know what the bottom three are when this is done. Pretty sure can point out specific way to beat whatever is on the top.
It would have been better to ask which is the most well rounded class, and then we could all agree... or not...
This is all true. But monks have a long stretch of dead period between level 7 and level 13. Where they don’t really get anything great. Meanwhile their hp dice and ac aren’t scaling effectively compared to CRs and etc.
so it’s hard to sustain survivability to a degree. But then once monks get proficiency in all saves and fluent in all languages. They become useful again.
monks are good tier 1 and tier 4. But tiers 2-3 are struggles.
Blank
I voted Bard, Rogue, and Cleric for the strongest. Because when it comes to combat, the classes are quite well balanced, but when it comes to skills, the Bard and the Rogue are way ahead of all the other classes. And I included Cleric because if you have a D&D party that doesn't have a Cleric and you gave them a choice of which class they could have to join their party if somebody new joined the party, they'd probably ask for a Cleric.
I considered damage, support, and utility/versatility.
Paladins nova hard and have good support to boot. Wizards are the gods of utility and high level arcane casters can put up the numbers. For best support is probably cleric, but druid is a close second and generally has better versatility, so I went with that as my third.
Weakest was a little harder. Rangers are obvious since its damage can't compete with any class, it's support can't compare to bard, cleric, or druid, and it has limited utility compared to half the classes too. I chose rogues second because while they have strong utility, it is limited to skills and locks and low versatility outside that, damage and support can't compete with a full caster or even a fighter or paladin. I flip-flopped a bit on the third, bards are probably the weakest casters, but more than make up for it in support and versatility, so I went with monk despite its steady damage and powerful stun locks it does less damage than half the melee classes and its support is limited to those stuns, not much versatility or utility.
I play my characters for the RP. I still try to have a "good build" and don't just make RP focused builds. But I can have fun with my friends playing any character. ATM, I think Bard is the best RP, but not the "strongest Class."
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I picked Cleric, Paladin and Wizard as the top three. Hard to debate those.
Like a lot of folks I had a hard time picking the bottom three. I finally went with Monk, Ranger and Sorcerer but I must admit all three can have their moments. The biggest issue I see with Ranger or Sorcerer is their primary strength is when mulitclassed. They have a few appealing features that make a dip or more very appealing that that is it. As for monk...
Monk's have a lower AC then most other front line combatants. And more importantly less hit points. The paladin and fighter are going to start with a 16 or 18 AC while a monk starting with point buy will be lucky to start with 16. As they level the difference will stay about the same. Eventually the paladin and fighter are going to hit 18 or 20 AC with the monk slightly behind and dependent on using ki for step of the wind or patient defense. Damage won't keep up either. A monk with a staff is dealing maybe 1d8+5 twice (19 avg) with one or two attacks at 1d6+5 (another 8-17). Meanwhile the fighter is dealing 2d6+5 three times (36 avg) with a greatsword while the paladin is dealing 2d8+7 twice (23 avg) with a longsword and the major difference comes into play when you consider special features. With sub classes like the battlemaster and feats like great weapon master a fighter easily outstrips a monk. Likewise with the paladin who can use spell slots for smites and may have access to spells like hunters mark. This isn't where the problem ends either. At higher levels the fighter and paladin are getting magic armor, shields and weapons. Little of which will prove helpful for our monk. All this conspires to keep the monk in the role of stun locking and bouncing in and out of combat.
Personally I would do two things to help the monk out. First I would allow them to spend ki to give their open hand attacks a plus to hit and damage (like the kensai can do with weapons). Second, I would give them more ASI. Possibly on the level of the fighter but definitely in line with the rogue. The monk is the MADdest of classes and really needs more ASI.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
If Monks and non-shield fighters both start at 16 AC, I fail to see how that's a mark against the monk? The monk is going to be bumping Dex with his first two feats at the same time the Fighter is buffing Strength (and picking up other non-stat feats like Sentinel), so they'll probably hit 20 Str/20 Dex at the same time at level 8, where the Fighter and Monk will both have AC 18 (Fighter may find some Plate before Monk finishes his ASI, but they roughly advance at the same rate through the first tier). Both classes will have a middling Con (Fighter's might be a bit better), so the main difference defensively between the two is, at 8th level the Fighter has about 8 more hit points, while the Monk is taking a Dodge action against scary opponents to avoid being hit entirely, deflecting ranged missile attacks, and taking half damage/no damage from Reflex saves. The Monk honestly is probably more tanky than the non-shield Fighter... especially because past level 8, the Monk is going to continue bumping Wisdom and get up to 20 AC, while the non-shield Fighter will be staying at 18. Monk will be picking up all saves, the ability to reroll saves, immunity to a common damage type... and heck, if you're really afraid of dying, a Long Death monk is functionally invincible in combat because they can negate as many killing blows against themselves as they have ki points, no action required, any number of times per round, and constantly inject themselves with huge THP pools. Monks are potentially tankier than non-shield Fighters, or as tanky as Shield Fighters, though their defense comes from features and not being hit rather than a large HP pool.
And you poo-pooed the monk damage of 27-36 per round average (which starts right at level 5-8 once you have Extra Attack and max your Dex), against a Fighter's 36 average damage at level 11, at which point the Monk is going to be doing four d8+5 attacks per round (average 38, still more damage). Yes, the Fighter can be doing more with GWM, but then he's hitting less, so in plenty of combats the monk will be doing more damage and more reliable damage. You've glossed over the DPR and defensive spike that comes from Stunning Strike as well, a trick that Fighter simply has no answer for. At max level, Greatsword fighter is doing 2d6+5 four times (average 48, or 88 if he has GWM and can be sure he hits). Monk is doing 1d12+5 four times (average 46, but more likely to hit and can be reliably stunning to gain advantage).
Monks don't need any more buffs, because depending on subclass (Long Death is probably the best one to make them stand up against Fighters and Barbarians), they are already better melee combatants than Fighters. No they don't do nova damage like a Paladin or Rogue, but they have unparallelled mobility (get the damage to the right place on the battlefield), A-Tier Defense, A-tier DPR, and lots of ribbon abilities.
And finally, I don't agree that Monks are MAD. They want to max two abilities (or only one, if they don't care about 20 AC), which is not particularly different from every other class. The fact that instead of having an offense stat and a defense stat they have an offense+defense stat and a defense+DC stat actually makes them quite a bit less MAD than even something like a Wizard, because half of the monk subclasses don't even care about DC for anything other than Stunning Strike (and the fact that you can try four times/round with SS means that essentially enemies have Ultra-Super-Disadvantage on their save against it).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
@Chicken Champ...Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions about the monk. Continuing with my example of a 12 level character you have the monk with 2 attacks (possibly 3 or 4 with ki and bonus action), a 19 AC and maybe 75 hp versus a fighter with 3 attacks (maybe 4 to 7 depending on action surge, features and feats), a 19 AC and 124 hp. We've already shown that the fighter can do more damage but you're lending too much weight to the -5 for GWM. Every statistic chart I have seen seems to favor taking the -5 if your opponent's AC is under 19 or so and advantage is not that hard to get. Is 75 hp and a 19 AC A-tier defense? For 12th level not at all. Is 38 DPR A-tier. Nope, and the monk can do little to boost it.
You're right that the monk can pour ki into every round throwing stunning strikes and flurry of blows galore but that resource has a limit. One you can easily hit in the first fight of the day. Furthermore, once you start seeing high level play the amount of ways the party can knock prone, stun or incapacitate foes increases substantially so the monk stops being quite as special in that regard.
All the special features that a monk gets are really a trap. Few of them directly bump damage like a battle master's maneuvers. Or help with defense like shield for a eldritch knight. And since CON is a tertiary stat the monk ends up with so few hp they become something of a paper tiger. With fangs that do C-tier damage (but hey you can stun...sometimes).
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Evasion is a trap? Proficiency in all saving throws is a trap?
Some have already said as much in their answers, but any poll like this should definitely include a frame of reference. I'm sure answers will vary even from the same person if you are thinking 3 tiers of play evenly vs how they end up split in the average game (whatever mix that may be). With combat, is it 2-3 combat encounters a day, equal to daily maximum xp encounter difficulty, or just 1 combat at "hard" or "deadly" difficulty (which is not maximum daily xp).
Ludicrous math leads to ludicrous conclusions. 75 hp? Puhleez. These sorts of disagreements are difficult to resolve without long posts comparing apples to apples, which nobody else is probably interested in, but that’s never stopped me before :p
A v. human monk at 12 should have 99 HP AND 19 AC, doing either four d8+5 attacks per round (38 avg) or two d8+5 attacks per round (19 avg.) and a dodge (effective ~AC 24). How to quantify that they’re taking little or no damage from ranged attacks or reflex saves or poison and generating 16 THP with every kill (probably 60 THP from that alone)... hard to argue that all of that (zero from a dragons breath attack, zero from an arrow or two, 60 THP) isnt worth at least 100 HP over the course of a day? With 12 ki per short rest, they can probably spend at least 1 per round with no real risk of running out before lunch time most days (combat 5-10 rounds, 2 combats before short rest). If they need to be the tank, that ki can always be dodges and negated death blows. If they need to be striker, that ki can always be flurry. If they need to be controller, that ki can be stuns and they can be grappling up a storm instead of bonus punching. Swiss Army knife.
Versus a v. human 2H fighter at 12 having 124 hp and 18 AC (soak 3 b/s/p nonmagical, we’ll call that 30 more hp per day in Tier 3 though it was more useful in T1 and T2) doing three 2d6+15 attacks at -5 to hit (-25% to hit) rerolling 1s and 2s (avg. 72ish raw, adjusted to 54ish due to hit malus). He’s got martial dice, but only enough for a couple per combat, not much of a DPR adjustment warranted. Yeah they can spike higher once a day by taking an extra turn, and yeah they may get a bonus fourth attack once or twice per fight... but with all of that scraped together in a pile, you’re not gonna convince me their true avg dpr is higher than 60ish.
HP is WELL in monks favor, cuz there’s only 25 real HP between them but the monk has higher AC, Dodges often, beats every reflex save, and pumps about 60 THP into his veins a day. Damage is in the Fighters favor about two to one... but he’s stuck fighting whoever the DM wants to put in front of him or being out of range entirely, while the monk is off striking and stunning the BBEG and casters in the back row. The monk does cool monk shit and is invincible, the fighter kills a dozen faceless meat shield minions, dies to the dragon’s breath, and spends half the fight against the final boss mind controlled.
It isn’t that fighters suck, they’re one of the best and most flexible classes, obviously. But there is very little daylight between the Long Death monk and the 2H Battlemaster in terms of kills at the end of the day, and the monk is far more likely to be waking the fighter up with a potion than the other way around. Monks are tough, and deliver their damage effectively and often, with very few wasted or unoptimal turns. They don’t belong in the bottom tier, that’s Barbarians you’re thinking of :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.