I've been the DM for my friends and me for the last year since we started playing D&D with the starter set that eventually led to me making a homebrew campaign. I haven't had an opportunity to play until a friend of mine who plays offered to make a small short campaign for us to play. No one is our party has played Monk before and it's probably the class I know the least about. That's part of the reason why I wanted to play it. I was wondering how important Movement Speed is as well as what subclasses you guys have played in the past.
Movement speed is important for the monk, but not so much that I would ignore a race that has a 25 movement speed when making your character.
They are a mobile combatant, skirmisher, if you will. They can move in, strike, and move out. At higher levels run across water and on vertical surfaces (Though it’s only during your movement, you cannot stop and stay on a wall or stand on water) but it’s a good way to get around foes to get to bosses/spellcasters behind them.
They may not have the best AC but being able to Dodge Disengage or Dash as a bonus action helps. i think the PHB subclasses (with possible exception of Four Elements) and Kensai, Drunken Master are all pretty solid.
Speed isn't terribly relevant in 5e. The only time it comes up is when you have less than normal speed, since you could be kited by some of the weakest critters. But the usefulness between 30ft speed and 300ft speed is pretty negligible.
About the only scenario where it really comes in handy is if you're doing a hit and run or ranged kiting sort of strategy, which also rarely work well as a part of a team, and can be done to way more effect by classes other than monks.
Speed isn't terribly relevant in 5e. The only time it comes up is when you have less than normal speed, since you could be kited by some of the weakest critters. But the usefulness between 30ft speed and 300ft speed is pretty negligible.
About the only scenario where it really comes in handy is if you're doing a hit and run or ranged kiting sort of strategy, which also rarely work well as a part of a team, and can be done to way more effect by classes other than monks.
Maybe the way we play is different but there have been plenty of times where we’ve had enemies in different groups, separated by distance, in one encounter. For example, a few melee fighters, boss or casters to the north and some ranged attackers to the east. The front liners usually will go to the melee group or boss/ casters to protect the squishier members of the party, and spell casters and ranged dealing with the others.
A monk can use the extra speed to possibly move, attack and stun the spell caster then move again to attack and stun or just attack and disrupt the ranged enemies.
I would hardly say movement is negligible, but again, every table and DM are different so it may or may not matter to a specific table.
For combat it depends a lot on your DM; a good DM should throw varied enemies and mixtures of enemies at you, so that every encounter is slightly different. Instead of just having a mob of melee enemies rush you and turn the fight into a melee scrum, you want to have ranged enemies like archers and/or casters, as these are the enemies you want a Monk and/or Rogue in your group for, as the Rogue can try to sneak around and get the drop on them, a Monk can just run straight at them, hopefully drawing their fire with some Patient Defence, before taking them out while any other melee fighters engage the melee enemies. Vertical wall running is just brilliant if the ranged enemies are up high on a tower, castle wall etc.
Outside of combat speed can still be useful; if you're trying to sneak in somewhere then the faster you can move while remaining hidden, the easier it will be to avoid enemy patrols or get to isolated enemies to take them out. If someone is chasing you, or you're chasing them, then the more speed, the better. It should also be noted that if you're ever knocked prone (can happen) then having more speed means you're less limited once you get back up (once you're at 60 feet you can get up and still make a full normal move of 30 feet afterwards).
So yeah, it's up to your DM to give you opportunities to really make the most of your speed; they don't necessarily have to do it specifically for your benefit, they should be doing it to make enemy encounters more interesting and challenging. A group of enemies in a 30 foot circular chamber isn't as interesting as having them spread out around a camp-site with obstacles, elevations etc., regardless of whether you have fast party members. In fact if you don't, it presents an interesting challenge; do you attack what's nearest just get hits in, knowing the other enemies can do as they please, or do you try to take them out some other way (spells, make better use of cover and so-on). I've played in campaigns where positioning and cover just never really mattered, and it can risk getting boring, much better to force players to pick out a plan of action, switch tactics mid fight and so-on, and those are the kinds of battles where Monks excel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, it’s more relevant in a campaign with large empty battlefields, but then any class could get more benefit just buying/summoning a horse.
But I have a hard time imagining that combat encounters requiring more than a single dash to enter melee combat are that common to begin with.
True. But just a few sessions ago we had a chamber that was about 60 feet X 60 feet in a tower with groups Scattered about. The fighter could dash to get into melee but not attack that turn. A monk could conceivably cover the distance and still attack. Then next turn stun and move to another group and attack all in one turn, where the fighter would again have to dash and not attack to get to that next group.
Sure, in tighter quarters it doesn’t matter as much. Just depends on the situation and how often these come up in your games. At the table I play at it probably would come up 1 out of every 4-6 combats which I would consider frequent enough to the extra mobility is nice.
I mean, it’s more relevant in a campaign with large empty battlefields, but then any class could get more benefit just buying/summoning a horse.
But I have a hard time imagining that combat encounters requiring more than a single dash to enter melee combat are that common to begin with.
True. But just a few sessions ago we had a chamber that was about 60 feet X 60 feet in a tower with groups Scattered about. The fighter could dash to get into melee but not attack that turn. A monk could conceivably cover the distance and still attack. Then next turn stun and move to another group and attack all in one turn, where the fighter would again have to dash and not attack to get to that next group.
Sure, in tighter quarters it doesn’t matter as much. Just depends on the situation and how often these come up in your games. At the table I play at it probably would come up 1 out of every 4-6 combats which I would consider frequent enough to the extra mobility is nice.
There are edge cases where speed is useful, but even then they are of limited use to the monk. They aren't really made to benefit from being the first in melee range unless their opponents are weak or they have enough speed left over to run away.
Speed works better for barbarians in most situations because they rarely mind being first into conflict and being forced to tank.
I mean, it’s more relevant in a campaign with large empty battlefields, but then any class could get more benefit just buying/summoning a horse.
But I have a hard time imagining that combat encounters requiring more than a single dash to enter melee combat are that common to begin with.
True. But just a few sessions ago we had a chamber that was about 60 feet X 60 feet in a tower with groups Scattered about. The fighter could dash to get into melee but not attack that turn. A monk could conceivably cover the distance and still attack. Then next turn stun and move to another group and attack all in one turn, where the fighter would again have to dash and not attack to get to that next group.
Sure, in tighter quarters it doesn’t matter as much. Just depends on the situation and how often these come up in your games. At the table I play at it probably would come up 1 out of every 4-6 combats which I would consider frequent enough to the extra mobility is nice.
There are edge cases where speed is useful, but even then they are of limited use to the monk. They aren't really made to benefit from being the first in melee range unless their opponents are weak or they have enough speed left over to run away.
Speed works better for barbarians in most situations because they rarely mind being first into conflict and being forced to tank.
I see your point. If, in those situations, the monk still has their bonus action Patient Defense or Step of the Wind helps. I'm not saying speed is of utmost importance. I even said in my first post, it was important but not so much that I would avoid choices that didn't give me the optimal, like choosing a race, like Halfling, that only has 25 base movement. I'm just saying that speed isn't negligible for a class where mobility is important.
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
That says more about the campaigns you play in and/or the way you play than about how the Monk class works.
A melee fighter that cannot physically reach an enemy, cannot hurt it; if you only play campaigns where every enemy is conveniently within easy reach, and where sneaking past moving enemies or chasing things down never crop up then of course you won't see any benefit.
One common theme that seems to run through the things you complain about in the class forums is that you only seem to care about raw damage and hit-points, which makes it seem like the only campaigns you play in involve a lot of standing within 5 feet of enemies knocking lumps out of each other and not much else, the fact that you consider moving to be an "edge case" reinforces this observation; mobility and versatility are of little value in a campaign where most (if not all) fights are just a boring melee scrum, but these are a Monk's strengths.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
That says more about the campaigns you play in and/or the way you play than about how the Monk class works.
A melee fighter that cannot physically reach an enemy, cannot hurt it; if you only play campaigns where every enemy is conveniently within easy reach, and where sneaking past moving enemies or chasing things down never crop up then of course you won't see any benefit.
One common theme that seems to run through the things you complain about in the class forums is that you only seem to care about raw damage and hit-points, which makes it seem like the only campaigns you play in involve a lot of standing within 5 feet of enemies knocking lumps out of each other and not much else, the fact that you consider moving to be an "edge case" reinforces this observation; mobility and versatility are of little value in a campaign where most (if not all) fights are just a boring melee scrum, but these are a Monk's strengths.
Something that is only useful situationally isn't versatile, its niche. Its like the True Strike cantrip: there might be one or two rare scenarios where it could be beneficial, but that doesn't make it versatile.
When distance becomes a factor in combat, the easiest answer is ranged attacks, which every character starts with for free. Monks and barbarians draw the short end of the stick in that department (darts, javelins), so they get a bit more speed. But while Barbs want to be first in combat taking all the melee, monks aren't made to be rewarded for that. That isn't some controversial hot take, you've recognized that barbs are tailor made for that kind of stuff before, which should heavily imply that monks are not.
The main role speed plays for monks is basically as light cavalry: hit and run tactics, chasing weakened enemies, closing with weak melee fodder. Its not entirely pointless, but its also just not very important either. Any other class can accomplish the same goals with ranged attacks, or dashing for one turn in order to be consistently more useful every turn afterwards once they are in range.
Speed would be more poignant if it wasn't so easy to substitute, or if it had more benefits through things like flanking. Which is somewhat unfortunate for the monk archetype, because it would be so cool to get some kind of advantage for jumping off the walls and moving at superhuman speeds to get behind an enemy and land a punishing blow. But hitting that distracted half-dragon in the back of the neck with a shortsword after jumping off a wall 20 ft. behind them is just as good/bad as casually walking up to them.
So the only factor in which speed is truly useful to the monk is in terms of flavor, and a good DM might even reward that by letting you get advantage on attacks, or intimidation checks, or non-combat interactions. But again, that isn't a base rules sort of thing, so mileage will really vary. You could just as easily have a DM that thinks you need to make an acrobatics check to do the cinematic thing without any game benefit being on the table.
Something that is only useful situationally isn't versatile, its niche.
Firstly, it's only situational if your DM never uses it; movement is a core part of the rules, just as attack rolls and AC are, these would also be "situational" if your DM ensured you were rarely in a situation to use them. Secondly, being able to adapt to different situations is versatility; every feature that enables you to do something that others can't adds to versatility.
Its like the True Strike cantrip: there might be one or two rare scenarios where it could be beneficial, but that doesn't make it versatile.
That's a very strange thing to raise; the problem with True Strike is people take it thinking it does something it doesn't, then get disappointed with it. But it's actually a very good cantrip for those that can get the most out of it. Arcane Tricksters for example can use it to great effect (guaranteeing a Sneak Attack, especially at range), Sorcerers can use sorcery points to trigger it whenever they want, it can be combined with Haste and so-on, these aren't "rare scenarios" as you can, and should, make use of them as much as you need to to get a sneak attack at the right moment, or when you don't want to waste big spells or other limited abilities that do nothing if you miss.
If anything it's a cantrip that isn't versatile at all; if you take it thinking you might use it then you probably never will, but if you take it having thought about how exactly you intend to use and how it suits your built, then it can be extremely useful.
When distance becomes a factor in combat, the easiest answer is ranged attacks
Very few front-line melee fighters are as effective with ranged attacks as they are in melee; a number of Battle Master manoeuvres are melee only, a Paladin's Divine Smite is melee only, and ranged weapons generally deal less damage, and only a Champion (or UA feats) can allow you to have both a melee and a ranged oriented fighting style. There's also the issue of switching weapons (you can draw or stow one weapon as a free action, which means a wasted turn if you've got a two-handed melee weapon and/or ranged weapon), and again if you intend to switch back (i.e- fire ranged weapon while closing). There's also the issue that if you're fighting an enemy at range they may be in cover, or even total cover.
Switching to ranged attacks is far from the easiest option, and certainly not as effective as making full use of your typically superior melee attacks and abilities, with the enemy locked down next to you, especially when you also account for things like feats (Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master etc. are of no use on ranged attacks).
There are also at least two sub-classes of Monk that are also ranged, the Way of the Kensei and the Way of the Sun Soul (though Kensei has the same switching problem). Both of these have the added advantage that they have access to some of the same abilities, or different ones, on those ranged attacks, and the added speed means they can line up a shot avoiding cover a lot more easily, so speed is still an advantage even if you're stuck in a ranged battle.
And that's again before you factor in just how rapidly and easily they can move; Step of the Wind doubles their already fast speed while still leaving them able to attack if they reach the target in a single turn, if they can't (at which point we're talking beyond the short range of many ranged weapons and the maximum range of various spells) then they can just do that as an action and either save the Ki or use Patient Defence instead. Then there's the 9th level ability to run on water and up vertical surfaces, meaning obstacles that can make it difficult to get to an enemy become meaningless to a Monk.
while Barbs want to be first in combat taking all the melee, monks aren't made to be rewarded for that. That isn't some controversial hot take, you've recognized that barbs are tailor made for that kind of stuff before, which should heavily imply that monks are not.
It doesn't imply that all; just because a Barbarian's favoured terrain is in the middle of a melee scrum doesn't mean that other classes can't do well there, and I've never said that they need to be best at it. You seriously need to purge yourself of the idea that something not being best at something somehow means it's the worst instead and should never, ever do it.
Monks are entirely capable of tanking for several rounds with Patient Defence and/or by dealing Stunning Strikes (especially ideal for when your allies catch up to you and can also get advantage). This kind of thing is literally the entire point, and greatest strength, of the Monk class.
The main role speed plays for monks is basically as light cavalry: hit and run tactics, chasing weakened enemies, closing with weak melee fodder. Its not entirely pointless, but its also just not very important either. Any other class can accomplish the same goals with ranged attacks, or dashing for one turn in order to be consistently more useful every turn afterwards once they are in range.
"Consistently more useful"? Monks aren't low damage, in fact with their range of abilities they can shift between higher damage and better defense, even at higher levels (as unarmed strikes scale up in damage and you get more and more Ki in your pool). Meanwhile a Stunned enemy literally cannot hurt you, and is even easier for you to hurt next turn (and potentially stun again), plus it benefits any allies in range.
You seem determined to get your opinions on Monks onto every Monk related thread (and some not) yet I'm increasingly convinced you've never actually properly tried to play as one (if you've played as one at all), and probably never even played alongside one. My impression more and more is that "proving" the Monk is bad matters more to you than you learning why it isn't; it's an intensely negative attitude to take, and only begs the question of why you hang around the Monk sub-forum so much if you hate the class? Are you just here to troll?
Rapid movement in D&D can be incredibly useful, and I've only covered a handful of the main cases where you can use it; of course if your DM sets every fight in a small cave then you'll never get to, but that's not a problem with the Monk sub-class (and they've lots of other things they can do if it happens).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
Lower ACs and lower HP totals would mean that a monk that is lacking in ranged options would want to ideally get in, make an attack and get out. Ideally, they are attacking a creature with minimal OA ability such as a spellcaster, a creature with low HP such that it dies after the monk's attacks, or the monk would have the Mobile feat for even more speed and a built in disengage that doesn't trigger OAs to get in attack and get out unscathed. They don't regularly want to be in the scrum and having options with your bonus action instead of just step of the wind helps.
Edit: this is also a high view general take and need not be considered the be all of a monk. They have many abilities that come into play in many situations. This may be a reason that many players find them lacking, since versatility is viewed as a negative thing more often than not, particularly on these forums.
Firstly, it's only situational if your DM never uses it; movement is a core part of the rules, just as attack rolls and AC are, these would also be "situational" if your DM ensured you were rarely in a situation to use them. Secondly, being able to adapt to different situations is versatility; every feature that enables you to do something that others can't adds to versatility.
You have it backwards in the case of speed; its only situationally useful if you DM goes out of the way to make it meaningful. Because while it is a base part of the rules, the base rules don't make inherently rewarding.
This was on purpose too, as a simplification of the rules from 4e, where movement was theoretically rewarding through mechanics like flanking and shifting, but where it was just terribly over-complicated like a lot of things in 4e. It might even have been a bit of an over-reaction, but it did accomplish simplifying combat.
That's a very strange thing to raise; the problem with True Strike is people take it thinking it does something it doesn't, then get disappointed with it. But it's actually a very good cantrip for those that can get the most out of it. Arcane Tricksters for example can use it to great effect (guaranteeing a Sneak Attack, especially at range), Sorcerers can use sorcery points to trigger it whenever they want, it can be combined with Haste and so-on, these aren't "rare scenarios" as you can, and should, make use of them as much as you need to to get a sneak attack at the right moment, or when you don't want to waste big spells or other limited abilities that do nothing if you miss.
But no one can benefit by milking it to get "the most" out of it. Taking two attacks is always purely better. Its not even that useful for Arcane Tricksters, since stealth or ally proximity does the same thing but better. It really is just pointless.
If anything it's a cantrip that isn't versatile at all; if you take it thinking you might use it then you probably never will, but if you take it having thought about how exactly you intend to use and how it suits your built, then it can be extremely useful.
That perfectly describes the "versatility" of greater movement speed. You might be slightly more likely to use it just to close range at moments in a campaign, but it could realistically just never have any benefit.
If you intend to use it for a strategy, then it lets you do different things, but not anything that the game actually rewards mechanically (just like spamming true strike for character builds where it isn't as punishing to do so).
Very few front-line melee fighters are as effective with ranged attacks as they are in melee;
Then they can dash to close range and immediately be more effective the next turn, or suck it up and be sub-par ranged combatants for one round. Its not a problem in which speed is a unique answer that garners much reward even in that scenario.
It doesn't imply that all; just because a Barbarian's favoured terrain is in the middle of a melee scrum doesn't mean that other classes can't do well there,
Any character can be buffed or built or played to do something, it doesn't mean they will do well at something that goes against what they're mechanically made for. And while most melee combatants can do well alone on the front line, its just especially not the strength of the Monk. But that is due more to the monk's "lack of all trades, master of none" nature.
Again, just having the ability to be able to do something doesn't mean the game is structured to reward it. Which, if you cared about the OP's question, is more to the point.
Monks are entirely capable of tanking for several rounds with Patient Defence and/or by dealing Stunning Strikes (especially ideal for when your allies catch up to you and can also get advantage). This kind of thing is literally the entire point, and greatest strength, of the Monk class.
If they are tanking using patient defense, then its the same as avoiding melee range and just throwing darts (they don't have to unequip their melee weapon to do so). And if they are facing opponents past level 9, patient defense's utility for tanking basically disappears in the face of +to hit numbers reaching towards 10 and above. Stunning strikes have a low success rate for a condition with one of the widest ranges of immunities and resistances in the game, and I have even less opportunity to land it if I am playing a subpar tank with patient defense as well.
Again, these are things a monk can do with speed, but it doesn't offer any special reward. It helps if you want to do a certain thing in the one niche scenario we've discussed. But that just means you have more choices for what to do, not that any of those choices are designed to be rewarded by the game's design.
Monks aren't low damage
Past level 5 they are.
You seem determined to get your opinions on Monks onto every Monk related thread (and some not) yet I'm increasingly convinced you've never actually properly tried to play as one (if you've played as one at all), and probably never even played alongside one. My impression more and more is that "proving" the Monk is bad matters more to you than you learning why it isn't; it's an intensely negative attitude to take, and only begs the question of why you hang around the Monk sub-forum so much if you hate the class? Are you just here to troll?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN THIS THREAD! I just said that movement isn't terribly rewarding for any class for most of this thread. The closest I came to saying anything bad about the monk before you came in was that "I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much."
But then you came in just to attack me personally as a player and call me a troll. Rich.
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
Lower ACs and lower HP totals would mean that a monk that is lacking in ranged options would want to ideally get in, make an attack and get out. Ideally, they are attacking a creature with minimal OA ability such as a spellcaster, a creature with low HP such that it dies after the monk's attacks, or the monk would have the Mobile feat for even more speed and a built in disengage that doesn't trigger OAs to get in attack and get out unscathed. They don't regularly want to be in the scrum and having options with your bonus action instead of just step of the wind helps.
Edit: this is also a high view general take and need not be considered the be all of a monk. They have many abilities that come into play in many situations. This may be a reason that many players find them lacking, since versatility is viewed as a negative thing more often than not, particularly on these forums.
Speed certainly doesn't hurt their ability to employ more options in the one specific scenario of wanting to close range (and where the range is short enough for the Monk's speed bonus to matter). But to the OP's original question of "How important is speed to the Monk class," I still wouldn't say its not terribly important. Its nice to have for those rare occassions that it helps, but battlefield mobility isn't something 5e rewards very much.
Im playing a rogue with mobility and charger in one of my games right now, and I can tell you the novelty of 80ft of speed has worn of pretty quickly even in those large battlefield situations. Ironically to whats happening in the discussion above, I've multiclassed into sorceror and might even take True Strike to help my gish of a rogue speedster do more tricks with his running around. But its stuff Im just doing for fun knowing that I kind of want to kill off this character and that sneak attack is already a strong enough mechanic to carry whatever shenanigans I want to attempt. Speed is goofy and fun, but rarely mechanically useful.
But no one can benefit by milking it to get "the most" out of it. Taking two attacks is always purely better. Its not even that useful for Arcane Tricksters, since stealth or ally proximity does the same thing but better. It really is just pointless.
This isn't quite true. True Strike shines in moments where a hit is almost required and usually involves a limited resource while trying to remain at range. If you are forced to dash to remain out of attack range but manage to get just enough cushion to be able to cast True Strike while remaining out of range and really need that last spell slot to hit, it's better to make the two rolls on one attack than on two attacks as it presents less opportunity for the enemy to hit you. Outside of that niche scenario, it's usually better to make the two attacks with a chance at two hits.
"Any character can be buffed or built or played to do something, it doesn't mean they will do well at something that goes against what they're mechanically made for. And while most melee combatants can do well alone on the front line, its just especially not the strength of the Monk. But that is due more to the monk's "lack of all trades, master of none" nature." (Deleted too much and I'm on my phone) This is an example of not valuing versatility. There is nothing wrong with valuing speciality versus versatility, just pointing out that this type of attitude won't appreciate monk as much when other builds/classes can do some of the things that they want to do better. If you value versatility, then monk will be better for you while you will find it lacking otherwise.
Monks aren't low damage
Past level 5 they are.
They remain quite competitive until later than 5. I don't recall the exact level where the drop off occurs, but it's much closer to where there damage die hits a d10. This is assuming that ki aren't needed for defense, which does play into the question at hand. If the monk is going to try to stand and fight, that damage will drop off.
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
Lower ACs and lower HP totals would mean that a monk that is lacking in ranged options would want to ideally get in, make an attack and get out. Ideally, they are attacking a creature with minimal OA ability such as a spellcaster, a creature with low HP such that it dies after the monk's attacks, or the monk would have the Mobile feat for even more speed and a built in disengage that doesn't trigger OAs to get in attack and get out unscathed. They don't regularly want to be in the scrum and having options with your bonus action instead of just step of the wind helps.
Edit: this is also a high view general take and need not be considered the be all of a monk. They have many abilities that come into play in many situations. This may be a reason that many players find them lacking, since versatility is viewed as a negative thing more often than not, particularly on these forums.
Speed certainly doesn't hurt their ability to employ more options in the one specific scenario of wanting to close range (and where the range is short enough for the Monk's speed bonus to matter). But to the OP's original question of "How important is speed to the Monk class," I still wouldn't say its not terribly important. Its nice to have for those rare occassions that it helps, but battlefield mobility isn't something 5e rewards very much.
Im playing a rogue with mobility and charger in one of my games right now, and I can tell you the novelty of 80ft of speed has worn of pretty quickly even in those large battlefield situations. Ironically to whats happening in the discussion above, I've multiclassed into sorceror and might even take True Strike to help my gish of a rogue speedster do more tricks with his running around. But its stuff Im just doing for fun knowing that I kind of want to kill off this character and that sneak attack is already a strong enough mechanic to carry whatever shenanigans I want to attempt. Speed is goofy and fun, but rarely mechanically useful.
The better answer for the OP is what are you trying to do with your monk. Speed is important for certain playstyles and less important for others.
You probably won't want to value it to the exclusion of other things, but every bit of extra mobility gives you options that no one else will have. It's not important enough to just grab mobile feat for the extra 10 movement most of the time, but that free disengage can make a lot of difference with it. The difference between a halfling and a centaur won't be enough difference if the rest of the racial traits make more sense for you, especially as you start stacking the speed boosts.
However, being able to disengage the enemy you are attacking to help out your wizard buddy that just got surprised can make a difference in the outcome of the fight. But YMMV depending on what you are doing, how your DM manages things, and the ever present opportunity cost associated with getting more speed (and whatever else comes with it).
A hit and run playstyle isn't really viable for a monk even when their speed bonus is maxed out. What good is moving in to hit, spending a ki point to disengage, and then only moving far enough away that the enemy could still walk up and hit you? Maybe you could nickle and dime something out of it if you have a team mate with sentinel or something like that, but its not game breaking.
All of these examples are still playing back into my point that speed isn't terribly important: its useful in edge cases and can be a fun thing to play with. But that speed is rarely useful, is never make or break, and is something to play with for offbeat strategies kind of just reinforces its lack of importance.
A hit and run playstyle isn't really viable for a monk even when their speed bonus is maxed out. What good is moving in to hit, spending a ki point to disengage, and then only moving far enough away that the enemy could still walk up and hit you? Maybe you could nickle and dime something out of it if you have a team mate with sentinel or something like that, but its not game breaking.
All of these examples are still playing back into my point that speed isn't terribly important: its useful in edge cases and can be a fun thing to play with. But that speed is rarely useful, is never make or break, and is something to play with for offbeat strategies kind of just reinforces its lack of importance.
All you stated there is that you didn't read my full post. I said the better question was what type of playstyle the player wanted to have would matter. If they want the hit and run playstyle, then the speed matters as would getting the Mobile Feat. At 10th level with the feat and the bonus +20, they'd have enough for the hit and run at "a full 30" in and out without dashing and the feat would provide the disengage. Likewise, if they are planning on getting into harrass casters and ranged attackers, the extra movement is vital to getting in and out while using as few rounds as possible to attack. Getting in to disrupt a casters concentration and then getting out with minimal damage requires speed so that extra actions aren't used for movement.
IF THAT ISN'T YOUR PLAYSTYLE, then movement won't be as important for you. If you want to use ranged attacks for that, then movement won't be as important for you. But IF THAT'S THE PLAYSTYLE THAT YOU ENVISION, then it will be crucial.
Therefore, the answer to the OPs question is how do you envision using your monk? Are you asking to see when it would be good to multiclass out? Are you asking to see if it would be good to go with a race with increased movement? Are you considering Mobile Feat? The rules don't have many outright rewards for using speed except in niche cases. However, if you are using your speed to offset a lower AC, it can help particularly when Deflect Missiles comes online at 3. If you are planning on maxing dex and wis quickly and sticking in closer, are planning on multiclassing into a beefier class, or something along those lines, then your returns won't be as high.
Figure out what playstyle you want to play before deciding how pivotal speed will be to your monk. Consider the subclass features. Shadow monk may have you deciding that the movement speed is less important or it may make you think that speed is even more important to extend your reach further or not gimp you when shadows aren't around for your teleports. Do you have a viable ranged option or are you using speed to make up for the lack of such options? You will get your reward from increased speed in how you use it and that will determine how valuable it will be for you.
Not for nothing, but our group recently had runners who were dashing. 3/4s of us had 30 ft movement while the rogue is a wood elf with 35. She could cunning dash to move 70 ft and attack with her light crossbow while most of us were stuck keeping pace with our dashes. The warlock did have EB but was badly out of position to use it when the runners broke for it. The cleric had a max of 60 ft with Toll the Dead and maybe 120 ft with Guiding Bolt. The Rogue was out of position but made up for it faster with that extra 10 from the dashing. As it turned out, it still wasn't enough and one of the runners was able to call out to a dragon, which ended up killing it without paying attention to us. The extra speed on another character could have gotten us into a fight with the dragon sooner than we wanted or prevented the second runner from even calling out.
All you stated there is that you didn't read my full post. I said the better question was what type of playstyle the player wanted to have would matter. If they want the hit and run playstyle, then the speed matters as would getting the Mobile Feat. At 10th level with the feat and the bonus +20, they'd have enough for the hit and run at "a full 30" in and out without dashing and the feat would provide the disengage. Likewise, if they are planning on getting into harrass casters and ranged attackers, the extra movement is vital to getting in and out while using as few rounds as possible to attack. Getting in to disrupt a casters concentration and then getting out with minimal damage requires speed so that extra actions aren't used for movement.
Again, its a thing you can do as a gish kind of strategy, but the game doesn't reward you for it. Even with mobile (which means sacrificing coveted ability score points) you would still be in walking distance of the enemy you just hit 99% of the time.
Even the spellcaster thing doesn't make much sense if you are looking for strategies that employ speed. It would be hard for a monk to break a spellcaster's concentration with their low damage attacks, and there wouldn't be much reason in using hit and run tactics against an enemy who wouldn't mind letting you leave melee range so they could take a step back and blast you with a fireball.
IF THAT ISN'T YOUR PLAYSTYLE, then movement won't be as important for you. If you want to use ranged attacks for that, then movement won't be as important for you. But IF THAT'S THE PLAYSTYLE THAT YOU ENVISION, then it will be crucial.
The OP's question isn't "can I make movement speed useful in specific situations for a off-meta playstyle" but "how important is speed to a monk?" And you answer that with "The rules don't have many outright rewards for using speed except in niche cases." So I don't get where our disagreement is coming from. Speed isn't that important to the monk or any other character, the end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been the DM for my friends and me for the last year since we started playing D&D with the starter set that eventually led to me making a homebrew campaign. I haven't had an opportunity to play until a friend of mine who plays offered to make a small short campaign for us to play. No one is our party has played Monk before and it's probably the class I know the least about. That's part of the reason why I wanted to play it. I was wondering how important Movement Speed is as well as what subclasses you guys have played in the past.
Movement speed is important for the monk, but not so much that I would ignore a race that has a 25 movement speed when making your character.
They are a mobile combatant, skirmisher, if you will. They can move in, strike, and move out. At higher levels run across water and on vertical surfaces (Though it’s only during your movement, you cannot stop and stay on a wall or stand on water) but it’s a good way to get around foes to get to bosses/spellcasters behind them.
They may not have the best AC but being able to Dodge Disengage or Dash as a bonus action helps. i think the PHB subclasses (with possible exception of Four Elements) and Kensai, Drunken Master are all pretty solid.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Speed isn't terribly relevant in 5e. The only time it comes up is when you have less than normal speed, since you could be kited by some of the weakest critters. But the usefulness between 30ft speed and 300ft speed is pretty negligible.
About the only scenario where it really comes in handy is if you're doing a hit and run or ranged kiting sort of strategy, which also rarely work well as a part of a team, and can be done to way more effect by classes other than monks.
Maybe the way we play is different but there have been plenty of times where we’ve had enemies in different groups, separated by distance, in one encounter. For example, a few melee fighters, boss or casters to the north and some ranged attackers to the east. The front liners usually will go to the melee group or boss/ casters to protect the squishier members of the party, and spell casters and ranged dealing with the others.
A monk can use the extra speed to possibly move, attack and stun the spell caster then move again to attack and stun or just attack and disrupt the ranged enemies.
I would hardly say movement is negligible, but again, every table and DM are different so it may or may not matter to a specific table.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I mean, it’s more relevant in a campaign with large empty battlefields, but then any class could get more benefit just buying/summoning a horse.
But I have a hard time imagining that combat encounters requiring more than a single dash to enter melee combat are that common to begin with.
For combat it depends a lot on your DM; a good DM should throw varied enemies and mixtures of enemies at you, so that every encounter is slightly different. Instead of just having a mob of melee enemies rush you and turn the fight into a melee scrum, you want to have ranged enemies like archers and/or casters, as these are the enemies you want a Monk and/or Rogue in your group for, as the Rogue can try to sneak around and get the drop on them, a Monk can just run straight at them, hopefully drawing their fire with some Patient Defence, before taking them out while any other melee fighters engage the melee enemies. Vertical wall running is just brilliant if the ranged enemies are up high on a tower, castle wall etc.
Outside of combat speed can still be useful; if you're trying to sneak in somewhere then the faster you can move while remaining hidden, the easier it will be to avoid enemy patrols or get to isolated enemies to take them out. If someone is chasing you, or you're chasing them, then the more speed, the better. It should also be noted that if you're ever knocked prone (can happen) then having more speed means you're less limited once you get back up (once you're at 60 feet you can get up and still make a full normal move of 30 feet afterwards).
So yeah, it's up to your DM to give you opportunities to really make the most of your speed; they don't necessarily have to do it specifically for your benefit, they should be doing it to make enemy encounters more interesting and challenging. A group of enemies in a 30 foot circular chamber isn't as interesting as having them spread out around a camp-site with obstacles, elevations etc., regardless of whether you have fast party members. In fact if you don't, it presents an interesting challenge; do you attack what's nearest just get hits in, knowing the other enemies can do as they please, or do you try to take them out some other way (spells, make better use of cover and so-on). I've played in campaigns where positioning and cover just never really mattered, and it can risk getting boring, much better to force players to pick out a plan of action, switch tactics mid fight and so-on, and those are the kinds of battles where Monks excel.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
True. But just a few sessions ago we had a chamber that was about 60 feet X 60 feet in a tower with groups Scattered about. The fighter could dash to get into melee but not attack that turn. A monk could conceivably cover the distance and still attack. Then next turn stun and move to another group and attack all in one turn, where the fighter would again have to dash and not attack to get to that next group.
Sure, in tighter quarters it doesn’t matter as much. Just depends on the situation and how often these come up in your games. At the table I play at it probably would come up 1 out of every 4-6 combats which I would consider frequent enough to the extra mobility is nice.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
There are edge cases where speed is useful, but even then they are of limited use to the monk. They aren't really made to benefit from being the first in melee range unless their opponents are weak or they have enough speed left over to run away.
Speed works better for barbarians in most situations because they rarely mind being first into conflict and being forced to tank.
I see your point. If, in those situations, the monk still has their bonus action Patient Defense or Step of the Wind helps. I'm not saying speed is of utmost importance. I even said in my first post, it was important but not so much that I would avoid choices that didn't give me the optimal, like choosing a race, like Halfling, that only has 25 base movement. I'm just saying that speed isn't negligible for a class where mobility is important.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much.
That says more about the campaigns you play in and/or the way you play than about how the Monk class works.
A melee fighter that cannot physically reach an enemy, cannot hurt it; if you only play campaigns where every enemy is conveniently within easy reach, and where sneaking past moving enemies or chasing things down never crop up then of course you won't see any benefit.
One common theme that seems to run through the things you complain about in the class forums is that you only seem to care about raw damage and hit-points, which makes it seem like the only campaigns you play in involve a lot of standing within 5 feet of enemies knocking lumps out of each other and not much else, the fact that you consider moving to be an "edge case" reinforces this observation; mobility and versatility are of little value in a campaign where most (if not all) fights are just a boring melee scrum, but these are a Monk's strengths.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Something that is only useful situationally isn't versatile, its niche. Its like the True Strike cantrip: there might be one or two rare scenarios where it could be beneficial, but that doesn't make it versatile.
When distance becomes a factor in combat, the easiest answer is ranged attacks, which every character starts with for free. Monks and barbarians draw the short end of the stick in that department (darts, javelins), so they get a bit more speed. But while Barbs want to be first in combat taking all the melee, monks aren't made to be rewarded for that. That isn't some controversial hot take, you've recognized that barbs are tailor made for that kind of stuff before, which should heavily imply that monks are not.
The main role speed plays for monks is basically as light cavalry: hit and run tactics, chasing weakened enemies, closing with weak melee fodder. Its not entirely pointless, but its also just not very important either. Any other class can accomplish the same goals with ranged attacks, or dashing for one turn in order to be consistently more useful every turn afterwards once they are in range.
Speed would be more poignant if it wasn't so easy to substitute, or if it had more benefits through things like flanking. Which is somewhat unfortunate for the monk archetype, because it would be so cool to get some kind of advantage for jumping off the walls and moving at superhuman speeds to get behind an enemy and land a punishing blow. But hitting that distracted half-dragon in the back of the neck with a shortsword after jumping off a wall 20 ft. behind them is just as good/bad as casually walking up to them.
So the only factor in which speed is truly useful to the monk is in terms of flavor, and a good DM might even reward that by letting you get advantage on attacks, or intimidation checks, or non-combat interactions. But again, that isn't a base rules sort of thing, so mileage will really vary. You could just as easily have a DM that thinks you need to make an acrobatics check to do the cinematic thing without any game benefit being on the table.
Firstly, it's only situational if your DM never uses it; movement is a core part of the rules, just as attack rolls and AC are, these would also be "situational" if your DM ensured you were rarely in a situation to use them. Secondly, being able to adapt to different situations is versatility; every feature that enables you to do something that others can't adds to versatility.
That's a very strange thing to raise; the problem with True Strike is people take it thinking it does something it doesn't, then get disappointed with it. But it's actually a very good cantrip for those that can get the most out of it. Arcane Tricksters for example can use it to great effect (guaranteeing a Sneak Attack, especially at range), Sorcerers can use sorcery points to trigger it whenever they want, it can be combined with Haste and so-on, these aren't "rare scenarios" as you can, and should, make use of them as much as you need to to get a sneak attack at the right moment, or when you don't want to waste big spells or other limited abilities that do nothing if you miss.
If anything it's a cantrip that isn't versatile at all; if you take it thinking you might use it then you probably never will, but if you take it having thought about how exactly you intend to use and how it suits your built, then it can be extremely useful.
Very few front-line melee fighters are as effective with ranged attacks as they are in melee; a number of Battle Master manoeuvres are melee only, a Paladin's Divine Smite is melee only, and ranged weapons generally deal less damage, and only a Champion (or UA feats) can allow you to have both a melee and a ranged oriented fighting style. There's also the issue of switching weapons (you can draw or stow one weapon as a free action, which means a wasted turn if you've got a two-handed melee weapon and/or ranged weapon), and again if you intend to switch back (i.e- fire ranged weapon while closing). There's also the issue that if you're fighting an enemy at range they may be in cover, or even total cover.
Switching to ranged attacks is far from the easiest option, and certainly not as effective as making full use of your typically superior melee attacks and abilities, with the enemy locked down next to you, especially when you also account for things like feats (Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master etc. are of no use on ranged attacks).
There are also at least two sub-classes of Monk that are also ranged, the Way of the Kensei and the Way of the Sun Soul (though Kensei has the same switching problem). Both of these have the added advantage that they have access to some of the same abilities, or different ones, on those ranged attacks, and the added speed means they can line up a shot avoiding cover a lot more easily, so speed is still an advantage even if you're stuck in a ranged battle.
And that's again before you factor in just how rapidly and easily they can move; Step of the Wind doubles their already fast speed while still leaving them able to attack if they reach the target in a single turn, if they can't (at which point we're talking beyond the short range of many ranged weapons and the maximum range of various spells) then they can just do that as an action and either save the Ki or use Patient Defence instead. Then there's the 9th level ability to run on water and up vertical surfaces, meaning obstacles that can make it difficult to get to an enemy become meaningless to a Monk.
It doesn't imply that all; just because a Barbarian's favoured terrain is in the middle of a melee scrum doesn't mean that other classes can't do well there, and I've never said that they need to be best at it. You seriously need to purge yourself of the idea that something not being best at something somehow means it's the worst instead and should never, ever do it.
Monks are entirely capable of tanking for several rounds with Patient Defence and/or by dealing Stunning Strikes (especially ideal for when your allies catch up to you and can also get advantage). This kind of thing is literally the entire point, and greatest strength, of the Monk class.
"Consistently more useful"? Monks aren't low damage, in fact with their range of abilities they can shift between higher damage and better defense, even at higher levels (as unarmed strikes scale up in damage and you get more and more Ki in your pool). Meanwhile a Stunned enemy literally cannot hurt you, and is even easier for you to hurt next turn (and potentially stun again), plus it benefits any allies in range.
You seem determined to get your opinions on Monks onto every Monk related thread (and some not) yet I'm increasingly convinced you've never actually properly tried to play as one (if you've played as one at all), and probably never even played alongside one. My impression more and more is that "proving" the Monk is bad matters more to you than you learning why it isn't; it's an intensely negative attitude to take, and only begs the question of why you hang around the Monk sub-forum so much if you hate the class? Are you just here to troll?
Rapid movement in D&D can be incredibly useful, and I've only covered a handful of the main cases where you can use it; of course if your DM sets every fight in a small cave then you'll never get to, but that's not a problem with the Monk sub-class (and they've lots of other things they can do if it happens).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Lower ACs and lower HP totals would mean that a monk that is lacking in ranged options would want to ideally get in, make an attack and get out. Ideally, they are attacking a creature with minimal OA ability such as a spellcaster, a creature with low HP such that it dies after the monk's attacks, or the monk would have the Mobile feat for even more speed and a built in disengage that doesn't trigger OAs to get in attack and get out unscathed. They don't regularly want to be in the scrum and having options with your bonus action instead of just step of the wind helps.
Edit: this is also a high view general take and need not be considered the be all of a monk. They have many abilities that come into play in many situations. This may be a reason that many players find them lacking, since versatility is viewed as a negative thing more often than not, particularly on these forums.
You have it backwards in the case of speed; its only situationally useful if you DM goes out of the way to make it meaningful. Because while it is a base part of the rules, the base rules don't make inherently rewarding.
This was on purpose too, as a simplification of the rules from 4e, where movement was theoretically rewarding through mechanics like flanking and shifting, but where it was just terribly over-complicated like a lot of things in 4e. It might even have been a bit of an over-reaction, but it did accomplish simplifying combat.
But no one can benefit by milking it to get "the most" out of it. Taking two attacks is always purely better. Its not even that useful for Arcane Tricksters, since stealth or ally proximity does the same thing but better. It really is just pointless.
That perfectly describes the "versatility" of greater movement speed. You might be slightly more likely to use it just to close range at moments in a campaign, but it could realistically just never have any benefit.
If you intend to use it for a strategy, then it lets you do different things, but not anything that the game actually rewards mechanically (just like spamming true strike for character builds where it isn't as punishing to do so).
Then they can dash to close range and immediately be more effective the next turn, or suck it up and be sub-par ranged combatants for one round. Its not a problem in which speed is a unique answer that garners much reward even in that scenario.
Any character can be buffed or built or played to do something, it doesn't mean they will do well at something that goes against what they're mechanically made for. And while most melee combatants can do well alone on the front line, its just especially not the strength of the Monk. But that is due more to the monk's "lack of all trades, master of none" nature.
Again, just having the ability to be able to do something doesn't mean the game is structured to reward it. Which, if you cared about the OP's question, is more to the point.
If they are tanking using patient defense, then its the same as avoiding melee range and just throwing darts (they don't have to unequip their melee weapon to do so). And if they are facing opponents past level 9, patient defense's utility for tanking basically disappears in the face of +to hit numbers reaching towards 10 and above. Stunning strikes have a low success rate for a condition with one of the widest ranges of immunities and resistances in the game, and I have even less opportunity to land it if I am playing a subpar tank with patient defense as well.
Again, these are things a monk can do with speed, but it doesn't offer any special reward. It helps if you want to do a certain thing in the one niche scenario we've discussed. But that just means you have more choices for what to do, not that any of those choices are designed to be rewarded by the game's design.
Past level 5 they are.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN THIS THREAD! I just said that movement isn't terribly rewarding for any class for most of this thread. The closest I came to saying anything bad about the monk before you came in was that "I just don’t see how mobility is important for the monk. It’s neat, but it just doesn’t do much."
But then you came in just to attack me personally as a player and call me a troll. Rich.
Speed certainly doesn't hurt their ability to employ more options in the one specific scenario of wanting to close range (and where the range is short enough for the Monk's speed bonus to matter). But to the OP's original question of "How important is speed to the Monk class," I still wouldn't say its not terribly important. Its nice to have for those rare occassions that it helps, but battlefield mobility isn't something 5e rewards very much.
Im playing a rogue with mobility and charger in one of my games right now, and I can tell you the novelty of 80ft of speed has worn of pretty quickly even in those large battlefield situations. Ironically to whats happening in the discussion above, I've multiclassed into sorceror and might even take True Strike to help my gish of a rogue speedster do more tricks with his running around. But its stuff Im just doing for fun knowing that I kind of want to kill off this character and that sneak attack is already a strong enough mechanic to carry whatever shenanigans I want to attempt. Speed is goofy and fun, but rarely mechanically useful.
The better answer for the OP is what are you trying to do with your monk. Speed is important for certain playstyles and less important for others.
You probably won't want to value it to the exclusion of other things, but every bit of extra mobility gives you options that no one else will have. It's not important enough to just grab mobile feat for the extra 10 movement most of the time, but that free disengage can make a lot of difference with it. The difference between a halfling and a centaur won't be enough difference if the rest of the racial traits make more sense for you, especially as you start stacking the speed boosts.
However, being able to disengage the enemy you are attacking to help out your wizard buddy that just got surprised can make a difference in the outcome of the fight. But YMMV depending on what you are doing, how your DM manages things, and the ever present opportunity cost associated with getting more speed (and whatever else comes with it).
A hit and run playstyle isn't really viable for a monk even when their speed bonus is maxed out. What good is moving in to hit, spending a ki point to disengage, and then only moving far enough away that the enemy could still walk up and hit you? Maybe you could nickle and dime something out of it if you have a team mate with sentinel or something like that, but its not game breaking.
All of these examples are still playing back into my point that speed isn't terribly important: its useful in edge cases and can be a fun thing to play with. But that speed is rarely useful, is never make or break, and is something to play with for offbeat strategies kind of just reinforces its lack of importance.
All you stated there is that you didn't read my full post. I said the better question was what type of playstyle the player wanted to have would matter. If they want the hit and run playstyle, then the speed matters as would getting the Mobile Feat. At 10th level with the feat and the bonus +20, they'd have enough for the hit and run at "a full 30" in and out without dashing and the feat would provide the disengage. Likewise, if they are planning on getting into harrass casters and ranged attackers, the extra movement is vital to getting in and out while using as few rounds as possible to attack. Getting in to disrupt a casters concentration and then getting out with minimal damage requires speed so that extra actions aren't used for movement.
IF THAT ISN'T YOUR PLAYSTYLE, then movement won't be as important for you. If you want to use ranged attacks for that, then movement won't be as important for you. But IF THAT'S THE PLAYSTYLE THAT YOU ENVISION, then it will be crucial.
Therefore, the answer to the OPs question is how do you envision using your monk? Are you asking to see when it would be good to multiclass out? Are you asking to see if it would be good to go with a race with increased movement? Are you considering Mobile Feat? The rules don't have many outright rewards for using speed except in niche cases. However, if you are using your speed to offset a lower AC, it can help particularly when Deflect Missiles comes online at 3. If you are planning on maxing dex and wis quickly and sticking in closer, are planning on multiclassing into a beefier class, or something along those lines, then your returns won't be as high.
Figure out what playstyle you want to play before deciding how pivotal speed will be to your monk. Consider the subclass features. Shadow monk may have you deciding that the movement speed is less important or it may make you think that speed is even more important to extend your reach further or not gimp you when shadows aren't around for your teleports. Do you have a viable ranged option or are you using speed to make up for the lack of such options? You will get your reward from increased speed in how you use it and that will determine how valuable it will be for you.
Not for nothing, but our group recently had runners who were dashing. 3/4s of us had 30 ft movement while the rogue is a wood elf with 35. She could cunning dash to move 70 ft and attack with her light crossbow while most of us were stuck keeping pace with our dashes. The warlock did have EB but was badly out of position to use it when the runners broke for it. The cleric had a max of 60 ft with Toll the Dead and maybe 120 ft with Guiding Bolt. The Rogue was out of position but made up for it faster with that extra 10 from the dashing. As it turned out, it still wasn't enough and one of the runners was able to call out to a dragon, which ended up killing it without paying attention to us. The extra speed on another character could have gotten us into a fight with the dragon sooner than we wanted or prevented the second runner from even calling out.
Again, its a thing you can do as a gish kind of strategy, but the game doesn't reward you for it. Even with mobile (which means sacrificing coveted ability score points) you would still be in walking distance of the enemy you just hit 99% of the time.
Even the spellcaster thing doesn't make much sense if you are looking for strategies that employ speed. It would be hard for a monk to break a spellcaster's concentration with their low damage attacks, and there wouldn't be much reason in using hit and run tactics against an enemy who wouldn't mind letting you leave melee range so they could take a step back and blast you with a fireball.
The OP's question isn't "can I make movement speed useful in specific situations for a off-meta playstyle" but "how important is speed to a monk?" And you answer that with "The rules don't have many outright rewards for using speed except in niche cases." So I don't get where our disagreement is coming from. Speed isn't that important to the monk or any other character, the end.