Here's the answer, Crayon, Agile: currently, making a monk doesn't feel good. Your HP is too low, neither your attacks nor your defenses can be upgraded in-game through Sweet Loot because magic weapons and armor/protectives both are No-Go for monks, "skirmishing" is a damn dirty lie because you don't have the HP or the AC to shrug off attacks of opportunity and you never have the ki to disengage every turn, your every ASI is already earmarked for improving your base stats because that's literally the only way to improve your capabilities at all, and you always feel like you're a tier of play behind everybody else. Your monk always feels incomplete, unless you're playing a game with Heroic stat rolls and no/minimal magic gear, because it takes monks 19 levels to get to where everybody else is by level tennish. It sucks, and it doesn't bloody need to.
I disagree, "neither your attacks nor your defenses can be upgraded in-game through Sweet Loot because magic weapons and armor/protectives both are No-Go for monk" - false, there are no less than 3 magic items that buff the damage of unarmed strikes, 6 that boost AC without being armour, and there is no reason a monk cannot use a magical weapon if it is a monk weapon (of which there are dozens of possibilities). "you don't have the HP or the AC to shrug off attacks of opportunity and you never have the ki to disengage every turn" - again false, I've played an open-hand monk and starting each combat with full ki is sufficient to disengage when you need to - which isn't every round b/c some time you'll kill an enemy. Monks only have 15% less HP than a Paladin or Ranger. That is typically less than 1 hit by an enemy different. And as already noted their AC is typically the same as that of a Ranger, or 1-2 points lower than a fighter. "your every ASI is already earmarked for improving your base stats" - With half-feats you can get other stuff in addition to increasing your base stats, and most of the "big gun" feats aren't applicable to Monk anyway. "you always feel like you're a tier of play behind everybody else" - up to level 8 this is absolutely not true.
I've played three different monks in Tier 1 & Tier 2 play and they hold up just fine.
Here's the answer, Crayon, Agile: currently, making a monk doesn't feel good. Your HP is too low, neither your attacks nor your defenses can be upgraded in-game through Sweet Loot because magic weapons and armor/protectives both are No-Go for monks, "skirmishing" is a damn dirty lie because you don't have the HP or the AC to shrug off attacks of opportunity and you never have the ki to disengage every turn, your every ASI is already earmarked for improving your base stats because that's literally the only way to improve your capabilities at all, and you always feel like you're a tier of play behind everybody else. Your monk always feels incomplete, unless you're playing a game with Heroic stat rolls and no/minimal magic gear, because it takes monks 19 levels to get to where everybody else is by level tennish. It sucks, and it doesn't bloody need to.
I disagree, "neither your attacks nor your defenses can be upgraded in-game through Sweet Loot because magic weapons and armor/protectives both are No-Go for monk" - false, there are no less than 3 magic items that buff the damage of unarmed strikes, 6 that boost AC without being armour, and there is no reason a monk cannot use a magical weapon if it is a monk weapon (of which there are dozens of possibilities). "you don't have the HP or the AC to shrug off attacks of opportunity and you never have the ki to disengage every turn" - again false, I've played an open-hand monk and starting each combat with full ki is sufficient to disengage when you need to - which isn't every round b/c some time you'll kill an enemy. Monks only have 15% less HP than a Paladin or Ranger. That is typically less than 1 hit by an enemy different. And as already noted their AC is typically the same as that of a Ranger, or 1-2 points lower than a fighter. "your every ASI is already earmarked for improving your base stats" - With half-feats you can get other stuff in addition to increasing your base stats, and most of the "big gun" feats aren't applicable to Monk anyway. "you always feel like you're a tier of play behind everybody else" - up to level 8 this is absolutely not true.
I've played three different monks in Tier 1 & Tier 2 play and they hold up just fine.
Yurei, one thing I disagree with you about is magic weapons are a no-go for monks. If that's how your group plays, then that's on them, and I feel sorry for you or anyone in that group that plays a monk. Or if you are playing a low magic campaign and you find maybe one or two, at most, magic weapons ever. Then, yeah, I can see them going to other martials first. But I think on average there is probably at least one magic weapon that can be "spared" for the monk. Even if it's just a dagger because you are replacing the damage die with your martial arts die anyway.
Agile, while yes there are half feats that can boost your stats, if you start with 16/16 DEX/WIS (the highest you can start with in 1D&D unless you roll) that's AC 16. And since ASI's are now feats, if you take a half feat that means levels 4 and 8 could be half feats (unless the warrior group as a whole gets the fighters extra "ASI's") to get your DEX to 18 bumping up your to hit/damage and AC by a whopping 1. So Tier 2 going into Tier 3 you have 17 AC. Any more half feats and you're behind many other martials. So your ASI's/Feats are kind of earmarked for getting the +2 to a stat unless your DM scales down the to hit bonus of your Tier 3 monsters you are facing.
And not all of us can start each combat with full Ki as we don't short rest after each combat.
Honestly, the best way to set your stats for most characters in 1DnD, using Point Buy, is 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Then put +2 in one of the 15s and +1 in the other. That gives you 17, 16, 14, 10, 8, 8. Then you can use your first feat at level 4 to get a new feat ability, and an 18.
So you could make a Monk that has 18 Dex, 16 Wis, and 14 Con at level 4. That's not really too bad.
I'm not saying that Monks aren't spread thin on their stats. Because they are. But we do need to consider that's an intentional part of the balance.
They aren't supposed to have the AC of a Paladin. They have the AC of a Rogue, because they have the defensive abilities of a Rogue.
They aren't supposed to have the spell save DC of a Wizard, because they only need it for one ability. An ability that many DMs complain is too strong.
They don't need the raw damage of a Barbarian with a Greataxe, because they have more attacks and other options in combat.
That doesn't mean they don't need help. But it does mean they don't need to compare to the best of every other class in every respect. You can make a perfectly fine Monk with maxing only Dexterity. And you can do that by level 8 with a feat included.
they aren't supposed to have the strength of a martial class for ability checks?
they aren't supposed to have magical melee attacks of an adventurer?
they aren't supposed to have intellect for inspection, history, or religion?
...well, that last one's reaching a bit but they certainly don't replace a rogue for trap detection. they don't replace a fighter for carrying groceries. they max the same abilities as ranger which means stepping on toes regarding ability checks. what niche do monks cover if not dexterous barbarians: hitting hard and shedding damage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
they aren't supposed to have the strength of a martial class for ability checks?
they aren't supposed to have magical melee attacks of an adventurer?
they aren't supposed to have intellect for inspection, history, or religion?
...well, that last one's reaching a bit but they certainly don't replace a rogue for trap detection. they don't replace a fighter for carrying groceries. they max the same abilities as ranger which means stepping on toes regarding ability checks. what niche do monks cover if not dexterous barbarians: hitting hard and shedding damage?
This is a bad argument, there are lots of classes that don't have a unique role in the party (see below). But they all have a unique combination of roles. Monks uniquely have super high maneuverability and exploration (extra movement and special movements: running up castle walls to sneak inside, run across moats, jump down holes without dying), good damage (until level 11), unique control options (stunning strike), and decent skills.
What niche does a Sorcerer fill? - less spells (but the same spell list) as a Wizard - worse skills than a Bard
What niche does a Rogue fill? - worse at scouting than a druid or ranger - same skill expertise as Bard but non of the spell-caster ability - worse damage than other weapon-users - worse tool proficiencies than an Artificer
What niche does a Ranger fill? - worse at scouting than a druid - worse skills than a Rogue - worse damage than a Fighter - worse casting and same spells as a Druid
What niche does an Artificer fill? - less tanky than a Barbarian or Paladin - worse spellcasting than a Bard or Wizard (and same spells) - one of the lowest DPRs in the game. - skills no better than a Wizard
What niche does a Warlock fill? - worse damage than a Fighter - less utility than a Wizard - worse Charisma skills than a Bard
What niche does a Cleric fill? - healing no better than a Druid - less utility than a Wizard or Druid - same skills as a Druid - worse at melee combat than a fighter - less tanky than a Paladin - less damage than a Sorcerer
What niche does a Druid fill? - healing no better than a Cleric - less utility than a Wizard - same skills as a Cleric - worse at melee combat than a fighter - less tanky than a Paladin - less damage than a Sorcerer
A Monk needs high Dexterity. That's the only real requirement. Everything else is up for customization. They can get by just fine with 14 Wisdom. That gives them the same AC as a Rogue in studded leather. And the same HP too. The only reason to raise it higher is to push AC up more and use one ability. They don't depend on dozens of spells based on Wisdom like a Cleric. They have one ability. It's a good one, but you can also attempt to get it to work with every attack you make. That's something not many casters can do. So it's okay if the DC is a little lower. You can specialize in a subclass that uses Wisdom more, but you don't have to.
But so many people see the AC part and Stunning Strike and thinks it's vital to the class. Because they are thinking of Monks as Paladins. As front line fighters that pull off big hits. Stunning Strike ends encounters. So much so that many DMs hate it. And a Monk can force a save on it 4 times in one single round at level 5. No Hold Person spell can do that. You might burn most of you ki, but the fight is over. The boss is beat. I almost wish Stunning Strike didn't exist. Not because I think it's too strong. I don't. But just so people could see the rest of the cool stuff a Monk can do.
We shouldn't be comparing a Monk to a Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter. Monks don't need 20 AC or spell save DCs of 18. We should think of Monks more like Rogues. Their role on the battlefield is much closer to a Rogue. They are Rogues that dump the skill expert part and sneak attacks, in exchange for even more mobility, and more consistent damage.
If Monk was a subclass of Rogue, it would be one of the most popular choices. But because it's grouped with Warriors, there's this strange idea that they should be tanking and smiting things. That's not their role. They are very mobile strikers, with dependable damage, and a really cool theme.
We shouldn't be comparing a Monk to a Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter. Monks don't need 20 AC or spell save DCs of 18. We should think of Monks more like Rogues. Their role on the battlefield is much closer to a Rogue. They are Rogues that dump the skill expert part and sneak attacks, in exchange for even more mobility, and more consistent damage.
I dunno, Monks whole purpose is that they are able to do well in and out of the front lines of combat. Of course they don't need AC 20 or spell save DCs of 18+, but improving their armor class and spell save bonus a bit would be cool and would help make Monk a more enjoyable class. Also, Monks are very, very, very much MAD. They need a high wisdom score for all of their Ki effects (not just Stunning Strike), and they need a decent con score f they actually want to survive as a semi-martial basically anywhere on the battlefield.
Everyone that has other thoughts are just wrong and/or are playing wrong. Thanks for letting us know. Do we go back to talking about Fighters in that other thread or do we move on to Barbarian from here?
Maybe we should give Barbarians a version of Martial Arts with the corresponding 6th level ability.
While I too disagree with most of Stegodorkus' points, I really don't think that they were saying anyone who doesn't agree with them are wrong and/or bad.
Maybe, but they were pretty mater of fact about how people should be looking at/playing Monk and very dismissive of everyone's complaints.
they need a decent con score f they actually want to survive as a semi-martial basically anywhere on the battlefield.
Could someone please, please, please explain this to me? I've seen rogues, clerics, and artificers survive while being primarily melee characters and they all have a d8 hit die and usually no more than 14 Con. Why suddenly does a Monk with the exact same HP instantly die?
In my current game, I play a lizardfolk Rogue with 14 Con and AC 18 and half of the time I just stand in melee just in case I can get a AoO sneak attack (we have a bard that like to use Dissonant Whispers) and typically I only go down 1 round before our Paladin does. With so many ways to heal, unless you're concentrating on a spell going down isn't really that bad and happens to someone most combats. Does 1 round really make that much difference? Failing a saving throw against enemy control spells typically takes us out of the fight for longer than getting dropped to 0 hp.
Just wanting to highlight a couple things again because I feel like they were ignored. Monks are already comparatively stronger than they were just with the rules glossary changes.
Comparing a two-handed greatweapon master barbarian to a two-weapon fighting monk. The great-weapon master barbarian starts with stats 17 st, 14 dex, 16 con, 8 int, 10 wis, 8 Cha and the level 1 feat great weapon fighting style because warrior group at level 4 he picks up great weapon master to bump his strength to 18 and he wears medium armor. at level 5 he has a +7 to hit. When he rages if he hits with both attacks the barbarian will do 4d6+12+3 points of damage with rerolls to 1's and 2's on the 4d6. Meaning he will average 33x his chance to hit, which with reckless attack he will be able to attack at advantage against his foe results now in an average damage of 27.72 damage per round assuming the enemies ac is 16.
Meanwhile the current monk using two-weapon fighting fighting style at level 1 starting with 8 strength, 17 dex, 14 con, 8 int, 16 wisdom and 10 charisma at level 4 he takes the charger feat bumping his dex to 18. If he uses ki to flurry of blows and moved just 10 feet to the target that results in 5 attacks each at 1d6+4 for a total of 5d6+20 or 37.5 points of damage x.6 for chance to hit to get down to 22.5, but add 4.5 from charger for 27 points of damage per round. The Monk will also have less variance on this is a single miss won't hurt it as much as a barbarians single miss. In addition since the barbarian used reckless attack it will also likely be easier to hit as with a 18 in dex and 16 in wis the monk has an AC of 17, something the barbarian is only matching here if he has half-plate armor. If anyone wants to point out that monks lose ki when using flurry, the barbarian can also only rage 3 times a day at this level.
Comparing to a fighter of 5th level the fighter does even less than the barbarian because it lacks rage damage bonus and lacks the reckless attack bringing its damage with great weapons down to 4d6+8+3 rerolls on 1's and 2's or 29 points of damage x.6 = 17.4, the fighter needs something from its subclasses or from its level 1 feat (because it gets a free fighting style feat) to keep up with either of the other 2 "warriors".
If you don't want to use fighting styles with the monk and want to go full martial arts build, you can go tavern brawler, alert or lucky at level 1 and then athlete, mage slayer, defensive duelist and use a finesse weapon (I think all monk weapons count as finesse weapons), Grappler all of which you can increase your dex by 1 if you want bringing it to 18 at level 4 and then ASI at level 8 to bring it to 20.
The math has changed as to what martial characters can do, and with that change monks aren't really lagging behind the other martials right now. Martials are just HARD lagging behind casters.
(For those curious about level 11 monks damage scales to 5d8+25 at this level still only has charger feat which adds 1d8 to any one of the attacks that hits for a +4.5 average. Compared to polearm master+ GWM fighter at level 11. The fighter attacks 3 times all the heavy reach weapons deal 1d10. So for a fighter this is 3d10+15+1d4+5 points of damage with rerolls on 1's and 2's or an average damage of 42.5x .6= 25.5+4 from GWM for 29.5, vs monk 47.5x.6=28.5+4.5=33 damage, meaning now that GWM was changed and the two weapon fighting was changed the monks damage is still staying relevant all the way up to level 11 and beyond).
Edit 2: for those curious how an unarmed monk fairs with the new rules take tavern brawler at level 1 and probably still charger at level 4. The damage ends up 4d6+16 with flurry of blows at level 5 with rerolls on 1's and the ability to shove the target 5 feet away on a hit as well as the damage. This results in 34*.6= 20.4+4.5 or 24.9 and a potentially shove for a free disengage effectively. Monks can also go the grappler route instead of the charger route, and with their first hit grapple move the target where they want since they aren't slowed because of their feat and with the rest of the attacks attempt to shove the target off all without giving up any damage, in fact you would do more damage as the grappler feat gives you advantage on all of your subsequent attacks after you land the grapple, making it more likely to shove.
So math on travern brawler, grappler assuming you land the first hit the subsequent attacks become 3d6+12x chance to hit with rerolls of 1 = 20.16+ the initial hit for an average of 28.16 (if you land the first hit, if you land the second and miss the first the damage would be an average of 21.44 and you would have a greater chance of being able to shove on your final hit.
they need a decent con score f they actually want to survive as a semi-martial basically anywhere on the battlefield.
Could someone please, please, please explain this to me? I've seen rogues, clerics, and artificers survive while being primarily melee characters and they all have a d8 hit die and usually no more than 14 Con. Why suddenly does a Monk with the exact same HP instantly die?
Clerics and artificers get heavy armor and shields and often times the best versions of these characters find ways to get the shield spell bumping their AC's to insane levels of 25+. Rogues are using their bonus action to disengage and hide and dash instead of needing it to keep their damage up so they are putting themselves in harms way less, even if they are melee. Monks need their bonus action to deal damage and can't have their AC's to those ungodly levels. (though defensive duelist is much better on a monk right now than people are giving credit. It is a psuedo shield spell for martials with finesse weapons, which monks can use and is a half feat that bumps dex).
I've played three different monks in Tier 1 & Tier 2 play and they hold up just fine.
But what if you want to shine rather than "hold up just fine"? If a martial isn't as good as paladin or 1DnD ranger, then there's surely something wrong. Last time we played Curse of Strahd with a paladin who was almost invincible, a fighter/barbarian , and also a monk and rogue who sort of were there. I played as a rogue and at least I got to snipe flying and spellcasting enemies and use mastermind's help bonus action to grant others advantage on attacks, but monk... Felt the most useless in the party. Definitey was the weakest combatant.
A Monk needs high Dexterity. That's the only real requirement. Everything else is up for customization. They can get by just fine with 14 Wisdom. That gives them the same AC as a Rogue in studded leather. And the same HP too. The only reason to raise it higher is to push AC up more and use one ability. They don't depend on dozens of spells based on Wisdom like a Cleric. They have one ability. It's a good one, but you can also attempt to get it to work with every attack you make. That's something not many casters can do. So it's okay if the DC is a little lower. You can specialize in a subclass that uses Wisdom more, but you don't have to.
Thing is, rogue can hide in the bushes and shoot. Monk is strictly melee. At the frontline. And yes, you can make an atttempt at Stunning Strike with your every attack. That'll be 3 ki a turn. 5, if you use FoB. And you're out of ki. And there's no short rest. This happens all the time in practice.
But so many people see the AC part and Stunning Strike and thinks it's vital to the class. Because they are thinking of Monks as Paladins. As front line fighters that pull off big hits. Stunning Strike ends encounters. So much so that many DMs hate it. And a Monk can force a save on it 4 times in one single round at level 5. No Hold Person spell can do that. You might burn most of you ki, but the fight is over. The boss is beat. I almost wish Stunning Strike didn't exist. Not because I think it's too strong. I don't. But just so people could see the rest of the cool stuff a Monk can do.
Yeah the boss has Legendary Resistance and the monk is the guy whose job is to dump all their ki shaving it off. Hold Person is better, because paralysis lets you auto-crit the target, and upcasting it increases the amount of targets you can paralyze. And it lasts longer than 1 round. And it uses spell save DC which is always based on your highest ability score. The only downside is that it only works against humanoids.
We shouldn't be comparing a Monk to a Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter. Monks don't need 20 AC or spell save DCs of 18. We should think of Monks more like Rogues. Their role on the battlefield is much closer to a Rogue. They are Rogues that dump the skill expert part and sneak attacks, in exchange for even more mobility, and more consistent damage.
If Monk was a subclass of Rogue, it would be one of the most popular choices. But because it's grouped with Warriors, there's this strange idea that they should be tanking and smiting things. That's not their role. They are very mobile strikers, with dependable damage, and a really cool theme.
This frankly seems like a pretty perverted way to see the monk to me. A melee frontliner from the warrior group that shouldn't be as powerful as other warriors... I don't like the idea of just running around being useless while the real warriors do the job.
Just to remind you: in 3,5e, monks' unarmed damage started at 1d6, and increased every fourth level. Level 4 - 1d8, 8 - 1d10, 12 - 2d6, 16 - 2d8, 20 - 2d10. And they had a built-in AC bonus in addition to Wis+Dex that went up to +4. And on top of having all saving throws, the monk also had passive magic resistance so spells failed half the time before even trying to overcome high saving throws. And Flurry of Blows was free. It had a small penalty which, however, disappeared by level 9. Though even with all that monk wasn't in A tier of power, playing as monk had its own satisfaction - you hit hard and fast enough to stand up to other martials with magic weapons, you have a good AC, and you almost ignore magic.
At the risk of slowing down combat too much: Someone previously in the thread mentioned giving Monks the ability to 'Deflect Attacks' the same way they Deflect Missiles. To make it competitive at higher levels, you could give them the ability to do it for free once per round at level 6, then maybe for free once per turn at level 12. And if we retain the ability to do it on-demand with a reaction, it gives you a panic button if someone gets a crit on their second attack and you've already used your deflection. The reduced damage would allow a Monk to survive longer at the front lines. Again, though, this calls for rolling more dice, which can and will slow down combat.
If we want a patch on AC from Unarmored Defense, then just make it 12+Dex+Wis. If a Monk only needs 1-2 more AC to be effective, then just give it to them? Who cares if they end up at a natural 22 AC at Tier 4? Or if Tier 1 18 AC is too much, then change the calculation as a Monk levels up. Keep it at 10+Dex+Wis at first level, but then at 7th make it 11+Dex+Wis, and then at level 13 it becomes 12+Dex+Wis. The levels can be changed, but this idea of up-scaling the AC calculation should be a fine enough fix.
Finally: If Monks are supposed to be skirmishers, moving in and out of combat, then just make it so everyone has disadvantage on Opportunity Attacks against them. Now moving out of the hot zone becomes a lot more feasible. Don't give it at Level 1, to avoid multiclass shenanigans, but give it early to emphasize the skirmisher aspect of the class.
At the risk of slowing down combat too much: Someone previously in the thread mentioned giving Monks the ability to 'Deflect Attacks' the same way they Deflect Missiles. To make it competitive at higher levels, you could give them the ability to do it for free once per round at level 6, then maybe for free once per turn at level 12. And if we retain the ability to do it on-demand with a reaction, it gives you a panic button if someone gets a crit on their second attack and you've already used your deflection. The reduced damage would allow a Monk to survive longer at the front lines. Again, though, this calls for rolling more dice, which can and will slow down combat.
If we want a patch on AC from Unarmored Defense, then just make it 12+Dex+Wis. If a Monk only needs 1-2 more AC to be effective, then just give it to them? Who cares if they end up at a natural 22 AC at Tier 4? Or if Tier 1 18 AC is too much, then change the calculation as a Monk levels up. Keep it at 10+Dex+Wis at first level, but then at 7th make it 11+Dex+Wis, and then at level 13 it becomes 12+Dex+Wis. The levels can be changed, but this idea of up-scaling the AC calculation should be a fine enough fix.
Finally: If Monks are supposed to be skirmishers, moving in and out of combat, then just make it so everyone has disadvantage on Opportunity Attacks against them. Now moving out of the hot zone becomes a lot more feasible. Don't give it at Level 1, to avoid multiclass shenanigans, but give it early to emphasize the skirmisher aspect of the class.
Something I want to note is defensive duelist exists. It provides +1 to dex and only works in melee.
Everyone that has other thoughts are just wrong and/or are playing wrong. Thanks for letting us know. Do we go back to talking about Fighters in that other thread or do we move on to Barbarian from here?
Maybe we should give Barbarians a version of Martial Arts with the corresponding 6th level ability.
While I too disagree with most of Stegodorkus' points, I really don't think that they were saying anyone who doesn't agree with them are wrong and/or bad.
Maybe, but they were pretty mater of fact about how people should be looking at/playing Monk and very dismissive of everyone's complaints.
I didn't intend it to sound anything like that. If that's how it came across, then I'm sorry.
If you go back through this and any other thread like it, I've made every effort to be very receptive of other people's opinions and complaints, even when I didn't agree personally. Because I know we all play the game a little differently, and everyone should have fun, and get a game they enjoy. I have defended giving Monks a higher damage die, access to some of their abilities without costing ki, a melee deflect, and even allowing medium armor as an option.
My only point was that I want to consider game balance too. I love Monks. I'd like to see more people enjoy them. I just don't think they really need 20+ AC, and really high damage, and really high save DC, and really high HP, and all the defensive abilities, and the high mobility, and powerful special attacks, and all the cool extra stuff they can do, and on and on... They don't need to be the best in every single category. They were balanced the way they were for a reason. It needs a little help. But they don't need every restriction removed.
They really do work without maxing Wisdom. They work without maxing Constitution. Yes, they are more MAD than most classes, and I have agreed that they could be better in that regard. They just don't need d12 hit dice, an AC of 20 or more, and infinite stunning strikes. They don't need one stat to do everything for them. And if Short Rest recovery doesn't work for some people, that's a problem with Short Rests, not the monk, and not the players. And even though I personally don't have a problem with short rests, I went to a lot of effort making two threads defending the people who don't like them. One thread to try to fix them. And one thread to help people use them better for the time being.
But that's just my opinion. Sharing it does not mean that I'm saying you or anyone else is wrong, or playing wrong. We're all sharing opinions. We're all just trying to make the game better. I want it to be good for everyone. I'm sorry if it ever sounds like I don't.
If a monk with no magic items is on par with another character kitted out head-to-toe in legendary items then there is something completely broken about the class b/c 5e is supposed to be playable with no magic items at all. Monks can use magic items just fine, and have AC equal to that of any character that doesn't use a shield (which is lots IME).
PS "At the risk of slowing down combat too much: Someone previously in the thread mentioned giving Monks the ability to 'Deflect Attacks' the same way they Deflect Missiles. To make it competitive at higher levels, you could give them the ability to do it for free once per round at level 6, then maybe for free once per turn at level 12." - Come on! What are you even talking about here? Do you even know how Deflect Missiles works? It is free already but it costs a reaction so is limited to once per round. It is also a MASSIVE damage reduction (i.e. more than Rage or Uncanny Dodge even up to Tier 4). At the level monk's get it, they can turn a Critical hit into 0 damage.
I didn't intend it to sound anything like that. If that's how it came across, then I'm sorry.
If you go back through this and any other thread like it, I've made every effort to be very receptive of other people's opinions and complaints, even when I didn't agree personally. Because I know we all play the game a little differently, and everyone should have fun, and get a game they enjoy. I have defended giving Monks a higher damage die, access to some of their abilities without costing ki, a melee deflect, and even allowing medium armor as an option.
My only point was that I want to consider game balance too. I love Monks. I'd like to see more people enjoy them. I just don't think they really need 20+ AC, and really high damage, and really high save DC, and really high HP, and all the defensive abilities, and the high mobility, and powerful special attacks, and all the cool extra stuff they can do, and on and on... They don't need to be the best in every single category. They were balanced the way they were for a reason. It needs a little help. But they don't need every restriction removed.
They really do work without maxing Wisdom. They work without maxing Constitution. Yes, they are more MAD than most classes, and I have agreed that they could be better in that regard. They just don't need d12 hit dice, an AC of 20 or more, and infinite stunning strikes. They don't need one stat to do everything for them. And if Short Rest recovery doesn't work for some people, that's a problem with Short Rests, not the monk, and not the players. And even though I personally don't have a problem with short rests, I went to a lot of effort making two threads defending the people who don't like them. One thread to try to fix them. And one thread to help people use them better for the time being.
But that's just my opinion. Sharing it does not mean that I'm saying you or anyone else is wrong, or playing wrong. We're all sharing opinions. We're all just trying to make the game better. I want it to be good for everyone. I'm sorry if it ever sounds like I don't.
I apologize to you if I misunderstood. There have be a lot of instances lately of people telling others what they need/don't need or what they should do or how they should think. It is tiring.
If a monk with no magic items is on par with another character kitted out head-to-toe in legendary items then there is something completely broken about the class b/c 5e is supposed to be playable with no magic items at all. Monks can use magic items just fine, and have AC equal to that of any character that doesn't use a shield (which is lots IME).
But magic exists in DnD. Magic weapons and armor also exist in DnD. You have to take that into account. But even if you play a low magic setting, so what? A monk that is powerful without magic items gets to shine. Just like a ranger in exploration/survival scenarios. Just like a bard in intrigue scenarios. Just like a wizard pretty much anywhere. I don't see a problem with one class being a bit ahead of others in very specific cases.
For some reason no one complained about monk being bonkers broken and overpowered in 3.5e, then monk got nerfed drastically in 5e and some people claim that it's alright...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree,
"neither your attacks nor your defenses can be upgraded in-game through Sweet Loot because magic weapons and armor/protectives both are No-Go for monk" - false, there are no less than 3 magic items that buff the damage of unarmed strikes, 6 that boost AC without being armour, and there is no reason a monk cannot use a magical weapon if it is a monk weapon (of which there are dozens of possibilities).
"you don't have the HP or the AC to shrug off attacks of opportunity and you never have the ki to disengage every turn" - again false, I've played an open-hand monk and starting each combat with full ki is sufficient to disengage when you need to - which isn't every round b/c some time you'll kill an enemy. Monks only have 15% less HP than a Paladin or Ranger. That is typically less than 1 hit by an enemy different. And as already noted their AC is typically the same as that of a Ranger, or 1-2 points lower than a fighter.
"your every ASI is already earmarked for improving your base stats" - With half-feats you can get other stuff in addition to increasing your base stats, and most of the "big gun" feats aren't applicable to Monk anyway.
"you always feel like you're a tier of play behind everybody else" - up to level 8 this is absolutely not true.
I've played three different monks in Tier 1 & Tier 2 play and they hold up just fine.
Yurei, one thing I disagree with you about is magic weapons are a no-go for monks. If that's how your group plays, then that's on them, and I feel sorry for you or anyone in that group that plays a monk. Or if you are playing a low magic campaign and you find maybe one or two, at most, magic weapons ever. Then, yeah, I can see them going to other martials first. But I think on average there is probably at least one magic weapon that can be "spared" for the monk. Even if it's just a dagger because you are replacing the damage die with your martial arts die anyway.
Agile, while yes there are half feats that can boost your stats, if you start with 16/16 DEX/WIS (the highest you can start with in 1D&D unless you roll) that's AC 16. And since ASI's are now feats, if you take a half feat that means levels 4 and 8 could be half feats (unless the warrior group as a whole gets the fighters extra "ASI's") to get your DEX to 18 bumping up your to hit/damage and AC by a whopping 1. So Tier 2 going into Tier 3 you have 17 AC. Any more half feats and you're behind many other martials. So your ASI's/Feats are kind of earmarked for getting the +2 to a stat unless your DM scales down the to hit bonus of your Tier 3 monsters you are facing.
And not all of us can start each combat with full Ki as we don't short rest after each combat.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Honestly, the best way to set your stats for most characters in 1DnD, using Point Buy, is 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Then put +2 in one of the 15s and +1 in the other. That gives you 17, 16, 14, 10, 8, 8. Then you can use your first feat at level 4 to get a new feat ability, and an 18.
So you could make a Monk that has 18 Dex, 16 Wis, and 14 Con at level 4. That's not really too bad.
I'm not saying that Monks aren't spread thin on their stats. Because they are. But we do need to consider that's an intentional part of the balance.
They aren't supposed to have the AC of a Paladin. They have the AC of a Rogue, because they have the defensive abilities of a Rogue.
They aren't supposed to have the spell save DC of a Wizard, because they only need it for one ability. An ability that many DMs complain is too strong.
They don't need the raw damage of a Barbarian with a Greataxe, because they have more attacks and other options in combat.
That doesn't mean they don't need help. But it does mean they don't need to compare to the best of every other class in every respect. You can make a perfectly fine Monk with maxing only Dexterity. And you can do that by level 8 with a feat included.
they aren't supposed to have the strength of a martial class for ability checks?
they aren't supposed to have magical melee attacks of an adventurer?
they aren't supposed to have intellect for inspection, history, or religion?
...well, that last one's reaching a bit but they certainly don't replace a rogue for trap detection. they don't replace a fighter for carrying groceries. they max the same abilities as ranger which means stepping on toes regarding ability checks. what niche do monks cover if not dexterous barbarians: hitting hard and shedding damage?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This is a bad argument, there are lots of classes that don't have a unique role in the party (see below). But they all have a unique combination of roles. Monks uniquely have super high maneuverability and exploration (extra movement and special movements: running up castle walls to sneak inside, run across moats, jump down holes without dying), good damage (until level 11), unique control options (stunning strike), and decent skills.
What niche does a Sorcerer fill?
- less spells (but the same spell list) as a Wizard
- worse skills than a Bard
What niche does a Rogue fill?
- worse at scouting than a druid or ranger
- same skill expertise as Bard but non of the spell-caster ability
- worse damage than other weapon-users
- worse tool proficiencies than an Artificer
What niche does a Ranger fill?
- worse at scouting than a druid
- worse skills than a Rogue
- worse damage than a Fighter
- worse casting and same spells as a Druid
What niche does an Artificer fill?
- less tanky than a Barbarian or Paladin
- worse spellcasting than a Bard or Wizard (and same spells)
- one of the lowest DPRs in the game.
- skills no better than a Wizard
What niche does a Warlock fill?
- worse damage than a Fighter
- less utility than a Wizard
- worse Charisma skills than a Bard
What niche does a Cleric fill?
- healing no better than a Druid
- less utility than a Wizard or Druid
- same skills as a Druid
- worse at melee combat than a fighter
- less tanky than a Paladin
- less damage than a Sorcerer
What niche does a Druid fill?
- healing no better than a Cleric
- less utility than a Wizard
- same skills as a Cleric
- worse at melee combat than a fighter
- less tanky than a Paladin
- less damage than a Sorcerer
A Monk needs high Dexterity. That's the only real requirement. Everything else is up for customization. They can get by just fine with 14 Wisdom. That gives them the same AC as a Rogue in studded leather. And the same HP too. The only reason to raise it higher is to push AC up more and use one ability. They don't depend on dozens of spells based on Wisdom like a Cleric. They have one ability. It's a good one, but you can also attempt to get it to work with every attack you make. That's something not many casters can do. So it's okay if the DC is a little lower. You can specialize in a subclass that uses Wisdom more, but you don't have to.
But so many people see the AC part and Stunning Strike and thinks it's vital to the class. Because they are thinking of Monks as Paladins. As front line fighters that pull off big hits. Stunning Strike ends encounters. So much so that many DMs hate it. And a Monk can force a save on it 4 times in one single round at level 5. No Hold Person spell can do that. You might burn most of you ki, but the fight is over. The boss is beat. I almost wish Stunning Strike didn't exist. Not because I think it's too strong. I don't. But just so people could see the rest of the cool stuff a Monk can do.
We shouldn't be comparing a Monk to a Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter. Monks don't need 20 AC or spell save DCs of 18. We should think of Monks more like Rogues. Their role on the battlefield is much closer to a Rogue. They are Rogues that dump the skill expert part and sneak attacks, in exchange for even more mobility, and more consistent damage.
If Monk was a subclass of Rogue, it would be one of the most popular choices. But because it's grouped with Warriors, there's this strange idea that they should be tanking and smiting things. That's not their role. They are very mobile strikers, with dependable damage, and a really cool theme.
Self Redacted
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I dunno, Monks whole purpose is that they are able to do well in and out of the front lines of combat. Of course they don't need AC 20 or spell save DCs of 18+, but improving their armor class and spell save bonus a bit would be cool and would help make Monk a more enjoyable class. Also, Monks are very, very, very much MAD. They need a high wisdom score for all of their Ki effects (not just Stunning Strike), and they need a decent con score f they actually want to survive as a semi-martial basically anywhere on the battlefield.
[Deleted response to "Self Redacted" comment.]
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Maybe, but they were pretty mater of fact about how people should be looking at/playing Monk and very dismissive of everyone's complaints.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Could someone please, please, please explain this to me? I've seen rogues, clerics, and artificers survive while being primarily melee characters and they all have a d8 hit die and usually no more than 14 Con. Why suddenly does a Monk with the exact same HP instantly die?
In my current game, I play a lizardfolk Rogue with 14 Con and AC 18 and half of the time I just stand in melee just in case I can get a AoO sneak attack (we have a bard that like to use Dissonant Whispers) and typically I only go down 1 round before our Paladin does. With so many ways to heal, unless you're concentrating on a spell going down isn't really that bad and happens to someone most combats. Does 1 round really make that much difference? Failing a saving throw against enemy control spells typically takes us out of the fight for longer than getting dropped to 0 hp.
Just wanting to highlight a couple things again because I feel like they were ignored. Monks are already comparatively stronger than they were just with the rules glossary changes.
Comparing a two-handed greatweapon master barbarian to a two-weapon fighting monk. The great-weapon master barbarian starts with stats 17 st, 14 dex, 16 con, 8 int, 10 wis, 8 Cha and the level 1 feat great weapon fighting style because warrior group at level 4 he picks up great weapon master to bump his strength to 18 and he wears medium armor. at level 5 he has a +7 to hit. When he rages if he hits with both attacks the barbarian will do 4d6+12+3 points of damage with rerolls to 1's and 2's on the 4d6. Meaning he will average 33x his chance to hit, which with reckless attack he will be able to attack at advantage against his foe results now in an average damage of 27.72 damage per round assuming the enemies ac is 16.
Meanwhile the current monk using two-weapon fighting fighting style at level 1 starting with 8 strength, 17 dex, 14 con, 8 int, 16 wisdom and 10 charisma at level 4 he takes the charger feat bumping his dex to 18. If he uses ki to flurry of blows and moved just 10 feet to the target that results in 5 attacks each at 1d6+4 for a total of 5d6+20 or 37.5 points of damage x.6 for chance to hit to get down to 22.5, but add 4.5 from charger for 27 points of damage per round. The Monk will also have less variance on this is a single miss won't hurt it as much as a barbarians single miss. In addition since the barbarian used reckless attack it will also likely be easier to hit as with a 18 in dex and 16 in wis the monk has an AC of 17, something the barbarian is only matching here if he has half-plate armor. If anyone wants to point out that monks lose ki when using flurry, the barbarian can also only rage 3 times a day at this level.
Comparing to a fighter of 5th level the fighter does even less than the barbarian because it lacks rage damage bonus and lacks the reckless attack bringing its damage with great weapons down to 4d6+8+3 rerolls on 1's and 2's or 29 points of damage x.6 = 17.4, the fighter needs something from its subclasses or from its level 1 feat (because it gets a free fighting style feat) to keep up with either of the other 2 "warriors".
If you don't want to use fighting styles with the monk and want to go full martial arts build, you can go tavern brawler, alert or lucky at level 1 and then athlete, mage slayer, defensive duelist and use a finesse weapon (I think all monk weapons count as finesse weapons), Grappler all of which you can increase your dex by 1 if you want bringing it to 18 at level 4 and then ASI at level 8 to bring it to 20.
The math has changed as to what martial characters can do, and with that change monks aren't really lagging behind the other martials right now. Martials are just HARD lagging behind casters.
(For those curious about level 11 monks damage scales to 5d8+25 at this level still only has charger feat which adds 1d8 to any one of the attacks that hits for a +4.5 average. Compared to polearm master+ GWM fighter at level 11. The fighter attacks 3 times all the heavy reach weapons deal 1d10. So for a fighter this is 3d10+15+1d4+5 points of damage with rerolls on 1's and 2's or an average damage of 42.5x .6= 25.5+4 from GWM for 29.5, vs monk 47.5x.6=28.5+4.5=33 damage, meaning now that GWM was changed and the two weapon fighting was changed the monks damage is still staying relevant all the way up to level 11 and beyond).
Edit 2: for those curious how an unarmed monk fairs with the new rules take tavern brawler at level 1 and probably still charger at level 4. The damage ends up 4d6+16 with flurry of blows at level 5 with rerolls on 1's and the ability to shove the target 5 feet away on a hit as well as the damage. This results in 34*.6= 20.4+4.5 or 24.9 and a potentially shove for a free disengage effectively. Monks can also go the grappler route instead of the charger route, and with their first hit grapple move the target where they want since they aren't slowed because of their feat and with the rest of the attacks attempt to shove the target off all without giving up any damage, in fact you would do more damage as the grappler feat gives you advantage on all of your subsequent attacks after you land the grapple, making it more likely to shove.
So math on travern brawler, grappler assuming you land the first hit the subsequent attacks become 3d6+12x chance to hit with rerolls of 1 = 20.16+ the initial hit for an average of 28.16 (if you land the first hit, if you land the second and miss the first the damage would be an average of 21.44 and you would have a greater chance of being able to shove on your final hit.
Clerics and artificers get heavy armor and shields and often times the best versions of these characters find ways to get the shield spell bumping their AC's to insane levels of 25+. Rogues are using their bonus action to disengage and hide and dash instead of needing it to keep their damage up so they are putting themselves in harms way less, even if they are melee. Monks need their bonus action to deal damage and can't have their AC's to those ungodly levels. (though defensive duelist is much better on a monk right now than people are giving credit. It is a psuedo shield spell for martials with finesse weapons, which monks can use and is a half feat that bumps dex).
I’m just happy to see so many people care about the monk.
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
But what if you want to shine rather than "hold up just fine"? If a martial isn't as good as paladin or 1DnD ranger, then there's surely something wrong. Last time we played Curse of Strahd with a paladin who was almost invincible, a fighter/barbarian , and also a monk and rogue who sort of were there. I played as a rogue and at least I got to snipe flying and spellcasting enemies and use mastermind's help bonus action to grant others advantage on attacks, but monk... Felt the most useless in the party. Definitey was the weakest combatant.
Thing is, rogue can hide in the bushes and shoot. Monk is strictly melee. At the frontline. And yes, you can make an atttempt at Stunning Strike with your every attack. That'll be 3 ki a turn. 5, if you use FoB. And you're out of ki. And there's no short rest. This happens all the time in practice.
Yeah the boss has Legendary Resistance and the monk is the guy whose job is to dump all their ki shaving it off. Hold Person is better, because paralysis lets you auto-crit the target, and upcasting it increases the amount of targets you can paralyze. And it lasts longer than 1 round. And it uses spell save DC which is always based on your highest ability score. The only downside is that it only works against humanoids.
This frankly seems like a pretty perverted way to see the monk to me. A melee frontliner from the warrior group that shouldn't be as powerful as other warriors... I don't like the idea of just running around being useless while the real warriors do the job.
Just to remind you: in 3,5e, monks' unarmed damage started at 1d6, and increased every fourth level. Level 4 - 1d8, 8 - 1d10, 12 - 2d6, 16 - 2d8, 20 - 2d10. And they had a built-in AC bonus in addition to Wis+Dex that went up to +4. And on top of having all saving throws, the monk also had passive magic resistance so spells failed half the time before even trying to overcome high saving throws. And Flurry of Blows was free. It had a small penalty which, however, disappeared by level 9. Though even with all that monk wasn't in A tier of power, playing as monk had its own satisfaction - you hit hard and fast enough to stand up to other martials with magic weapons, you have a good AC, and you almost ignore magic.
At the risk of slowing down combat too much: Someone previously in the thread mentioned giving Monks the ability to 'Deflect Attacks' the same way they Deflect Missiles. To make it competitive at higher levels, you could give them the ability to do it for free once per round at level 6, then maybe for free once per turn at level 12. And if we retain the ability to do it on-demand with a reaction, it gives you a panic button if someone gets a crit on their second attack and you've already used your deflection. The reduced damage would allow a Monk to survive longer at the front lines. Again, though, this calls for rolling more dice, which can and will slow down combat.
If we want a patch on AC from Unarmored Defense, then just make it 12+Dex+Wis. If a Monk only needs 1-2 more AC to be effective, then just give it to them? Who cares if they end up at a natural 22 AC at Tier 4? Or if Tier 1 18 AC is too much, then change the calculation as a Monk levels up. Keep it at 10+Dex+Wis at first level, but then at 7th make it 11+Dex+Wis, and then at level 13 it becomes 12+Dex+Wis. The levels can be changed, but this idea of up-scaling the AC calculation should be a fine enough fix.
Finally: If Monks are supposed to be skirmishers, moving in and out of combat, then just make it so everyone has disadvantage on Opportunity Attacks against them. Now moving out of the hot zone becomes a lot more feasible. Don't give it at Level 1, to avoid multiclass shenanigans, but give it early to emphasize the skirmisher aspect of the class.
Something I want to note is defensive duelist exists. It provides +1 to dex and only works in melee.
I didn't intend it to sound anything like that. If that's how it came across, then I'm sorry.
If you go back through this and any other thread like it, I've made every effort to be very receptive of other people's opinions and complaints, even when I didn't agree personally. Because I know we all play the game a little differently, and everyone should have fun, and get a game they enjoy. I have defended giving Monks a higher damage die, access to some of their abilities without costing ki, a melee deflect, and even allowing medium armor as an option.
My only point was that I want to consider game balance too. I love Monks. I'd like to see more people enjoy them. I just don't think they really need 20+ AC, and really high damage, and really high save DC, and really high HP, and all the defensive abilities, and the high mobility, and powerful special attacks, and all the cool extra stuff they can do, and on and on... They don't need to be the best in every single category. They were balanced the way they were for a reason. It needs a little help. But they don't need every restriction removed.
They really do work without maxing Wisdom. They work without maxing Constitution. Yes, they are more MAD than most classes, and I have agreed that they could be better in that regard. They just don't need d12 hit dice, an AC of 20 or more, and infinite stunning strikes. They don't need one stat to do everything for them. And if Short Rest recovery doesn't work for some people, that's a problem with Short Rests, not the monk, and not the players. And even though I personally don't have a problem with short rests, I went to a lot of effort making two threads defending the people who don't like them. One thread to try to fix them. And one thread to help people use them better for the time being.
But that's just my opinion. Sharing it does not mean that I'm saying you or anyone else is wrong, or playing wrong. We're all sharing opinions. We're all just trying to make the game better. I want it to be good for everyone. I'm sorry if it ever sounds like I don't.
If a monk with no magic items is on par with another character kitted out head-to-toe in legendary items then there is something completely broken about the class b/c 5e is supposed to be playable with no magic items at all. Monks can use magic items just fine, and have AC equal to that of any character that doesn't use a shield (which is lots IME).
PS "At the risk of slowing down combat too much: Someone previously in the thread mentioned giving Monks the ability to 'Deflect Attacks' the same way they Deflect Missiles. To make it competitive at higher levels, you could give them the ability to do it for free once per round at level 6, then maybe for free once per turn at level 12."
- Come on! What are you even talking about here? Do you even know how Deflect Missiles works? It is free already but it costs a reaction so is limited to once per round. It is also a MASSIVE damage reduction (i.e. more than Rage or Uncanny Dodge even up to Tier 4). At the level monk's get it, they can turn a Critical hit into 0 damage.
I apologize to you if I misunderstood. There have be a lot of instances lately of people telling others what they need/don't need or what they should do or how they should think. It is tiring.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
But magic exists in DnD. Magic weapons and armor also exist in DnD. You have to take that into account. But even if you play a low magic setting, so what? A monk that is powerful without magic items gets to shine. Just like a ranger in exploration/survival scenarios. Just like a bard in intrigue scenarios. Just like a wizard pretty much anywhere. I don't see a problem with one class being a bit ahead of others in very specific cases.
For some reason no one complained about monk being bonkers broken and overpowered in 3.5e, then monk got nerfed drastically in 5e and some people claim that it's alright...