In the last few weeks, Treantmonk posted a video about the inadequacies of the monk class, which was discussed in this forum thread: 5E - Monks Suck
I’ve taken some time to really read through the thread and the video. I’ll admit that before the thread I had generally considered the monk a “poor” class due to my own play experience with them (dming a player who tried a monk). However, after some consideration, I have changed some of my opinions, and wanted to share where I have wound up.
A note on Levels: One key element of my discussion, I am only going to focus on levels 1-10. WOTC data has routinely shown that this is where players play, high level is…for most players, merely a theoretical exercise. Now that does not forgive any bad class designs at high levels, but I commonly see people extending high level issues into more general class problems…which is not productive in discussion as to whether a class is a good fit for the “general table”.
A summary of the argument: Treatmonk’s video makes 4 general points about the monk class. I will be arguing for or against these points.
I did my own DPS analysis here: 5E - Monk vs Warlock: Checking the Baseline
I’ve also read several other analyses as well. From what I can see, the Monk does plenty of DPS, both with and without flurry of blows. It all comes down to the types of enemies the DM uses, and the frequency of short rests. That as close to a balance we can expect.
A lot of the DPS arguments extend into high levels, and I do think there are some issues there. But looking at the levels of interest, the Monk has no issue.
Defense (Agree)
Treantmonk was right that the Monk’s lack of AC and hit points are a major detriment to tanking damage. The dodge power only really gets the monk back to the baseline, at the cost of very precious KI resources.
I will add one more component that Treantmonk did not discuss. The main frontlines (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger) don’t just rely on “defense” but also on “damage mitigation”. The barbarian straight up reduces damage. The rest have abilities and/or spells that heal damage. Also, there higher hit die allows them to recover more hp on a short rest.
Only the 6th level open hand monk gets such an ability. So not only does the monk take more damage, but it also generates a greater burden on the party’s healing resources because he doesn’t come with his own.
So ultimately, I think this is a key weakness of the monk. My one counterargument is the deflect missiles ability. Treantmonk dismissed this ability a bit, but it’s a great lever for the DM to pull. It’s a way to make the monk “defensively cool”, which is a key aspect of balance. I don’t think it makes up for the general lack, but it’s not a “throwaway power”, the DM can absolutely use it to make the Monk feel special.
Control (Partially Agree)
Treantmonk’s points about the chance of success are correct. Compared to a spell powered by a caster’s best stat…. against a creature’s weaker save (as caster’s will most certainly do), the stun effect is hard to pull off. Further, when you look at the menagerie of conditions spellcasters can pull off, its fair that a simple stun is just decent.
That said, I think he underestimated the power of the “Stun Nova”, which is a repeated argument defender of the Stun use. The ability to apply a stun chance 2, 3, or even 4 times against a key monster is a strength most casters can’t pull off…and players really enjoy it.
Further, players also really like the ability to do full damage AND apply control effects, it works with the battlemaster and it works with the monk.
So ultimately, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I think players overestimate the strength of stunning strike. But ultimately dnd is a game of psychology, and the ability to nova and stun a big bad and let the whole party wail on them…it makes you feel like a million bucks no matter what the math might say.
Maneuverability (Disagree)
I think this is where the white room analysis fails to account for the myriad of things that happen in a Dnd game. Even if we accept that the Monk is not a greater damage dealer (which I am arguing against but let’s assume it for the sake of argument), there are so many more things that happen in a combat than the simple application of damage.
Running past the guards and saving a hostage, getting to the key lever to turn off the trap, racing a lifesaving potion to a fallen comrade…there are many things that a creative player can do with great speed. These are moments where a Monk player feels special, much more than simply “moving up and hitting the monster”.
As to the argument that all players can simply ride horses…. well I think that’s a pretty laughable argument at best. I have never run or played in a game where everyone rode horses all the time, and horses are incredibly impractical in any kind of dungeon setting.
So overall maneuverability is a useful lever to make a character feel special, and the monk has good use of it.
Other Factors
There are a few other factors that are important to an overall assessment of the monk not talked about in the Treantmonk video.
Rigidity
One real issue with the monk is it is extremely pigeonholed as a class…for no good reason. Why is it so important that a monk can’t wear armor, if he takes the feats or multiclass to get it? Why must the monk use a quarterstaff to do real damage until such a high level?
For example, a rogue could abandon dex, get heavier armor with feats or multiclass, and go for a “brawler” type. Now it may not be optimal, but it’s possible. If you attempted the equivalent with the monk, it would fall off a cliff.
Lack of Combat Options
The older monks were commonly known for “special tactics”. The grapple monk, the trip monk, etc. While the monk can take athletics, without a class use for strength you are not going to see a monk with a lot of strength, and so they will be weak in those areas. A rogue can actually be a better grappler than the monk!
I think this is a key weakness in 5e monk.
Final Thoughts
So overall, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that the Monk class is not as bad as I once thought. There is still much to like about the class. That said, the class is not perfect, and I do think updates (similar to what happened to the ranger) are warranted to fix some of the rough edges. But again…its adjustments, not an overhaul.
I’ve taken some time to really read through the thread and the video. I’ll admit that before the thread I had generally considered the monk a “poor” class due to my own play experience with them (dming a player who tried a monk). However, after some consideration, I have changed some of my opinions, and wanted to share where I have wound up.
A note on Levels: One key element of my discussion, I am only going to focus on levels 1-10. WOTC data has routinely shown that this is where players play, high level is…for most players, merely a theoretical exercise. Now that does not forgive any bad class designs at high levels, but I commonly see people extending high level issues into more general class problems…which is not productive in discussion as to whether a class is a good fit for the “general table”.
A summary of the argument: Treatmonk’s video makes 4 general points about the monk class. I will be arguing for or against these points.
- Offense: The monk’s offense is poor against a general “baseline” of damage, even with good use of flurry of blows.
- Defense: The monk simply does not have the hitpoints and AC to serve as a frontline class.
- Control: Stunning blow’s success rate is too low to be considered real control, and its effect does not compare to the controls of spellcasters.
- Maneuverability: Because of its weakness in other areas, the monk’s maneuverability does not grant it any real benefit. Further, other characters can gain similar speed through things like mounts.
I did my own DPS analysis here: 5E - Monk vs Warlock: Checking the Baseline
I’ve also read several other analyses as well. From what I can see, the Monk does plenty of DPS, both with and without flurry of blows. It all comes down to the types of enemies the DM uses, and the frequency of short rests. That as close to a balance we can expect.
A lot of the DPS arguments extend into high levels, and I do think there are some issues there. But looking at the levels of interest, the Monk has no issue.
Defense (Agree)
Treantmonk was right that the Monk’s lack of AC and hit points are a major detriment to tanking damage. The dodge power only really gets the monk back to the baseline, at the cost of very precious KI resources.
I will add one more component that Treantmonk did not discuss. The main frontlines (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger) don’t just rely on “defense” but also on “damage mitigation”. The barbarian straight up reduces damage. The rest have abilities and/or spells that heal damage. Also, there higher hit die allows them to recover more hp on a short rest.
Only the 6th level open hand monk gets such an ability. So not only does the monk take more damage, but it also generates a greater burden on the party’s healing resources because he doesn’t come with his own.
So ultimately, I think this is a key weakness of the monk. My one counterargument is the deflect missiles ability. Treantmonk dismissed this ability a bit, but it’s a great lever for the DM to pull. It’s a way to make the monk “defensively cool”, which is a key aspect of balance. I don’t think it makes up for the general lack, but it’s not a “throwaway power”, the DM can absolutely use it to make the Monk feel special.
Control (Partially Agree)
Treantmonk’s points about the chance of success are correct. Compared to a spell powered by a caster’s best stat…. against a creature’s weaker save (as caster’s will most certainly do), the stun effect is hard to pull off. Further, when you look at the menagerie of conditions spellcasters can pull off, its fair that a simple stun is just decent.
That said, I think he underestimated the power of the “Stun Nova”, which is a repeated argument defender of the Stun use. The ability to apply a stun chance 2, 3, or even 4 times against a key monster is a strength most casters can’t pull off…and players really enjoy it.
Further, players also really like the ability to do full damage AND apply control effects, it works with the battlemaster and it works with the monk.
So ultimately, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I think players overestimate the strength of stunning strike. But ultimately dnd is a game of psychology, and the ability to nova and stun a big bad and let the whole party wail on them…it makes you feel like a million bucks no matter what the math might say.
Maneuverability (Disagree)
I think this is where the white room analysis fails to account for the myriad of things that happen in a Dnd game. Even if we accept that the Monk is not a greater damage dealer (which I am arguing against but let’s assume it for the sake of argument), there are so many more things that happen in a combat than the simple application of damage.
Running past the guards and saving a hostage, getting to the key lever to turn off the trap, racing a lifesaving potion to a fallen comrade…there are many things that a creative player can do with great speed. These are moments where a Monk player feels special, much more than simply “moving up and hitting the monster”.
As to the argument that all players can simply ride horses…. well I think that’s a pretty laughable argument at best. I have never run or played in a game where everyone rode horses all the time, and horses are incredibly impractical in any kind of dungeon setting.
So overall maneuverability is a useful lever to make a character feel special, and the monk has good use of it.
Other Factors
There are a few other factors that are important to an overall assessment of the monk not talked about in the Treantmonk video.
Rigidity
One real issue with the monk is it is extremely pigeonholed as a class…for no good reason. Why is it so important that a monk can’t wear armor, if he takes the feats or multiclass to get it? Why must the monk use a quarterstaff to do real damage until such a high level?
For example, a rogue could abandon dex, get heavier armor with feats or multiclass, and go for a “brawler” type. Now it may not be optimal, but it’s possible. If you attempted the equivalent with the monk, it would fall off a cliff.
Lack of Combat Options
The older monks were commonly known for “special tactics”. The grapple monk, the trip monk, etc. While the monk can take athletics, without a class use for strength you are not going to see a monk with a lot of strength, and so they will be weak in those areas. A rogue can actually be a better grappler than the monk!
I think this is a key weakness in 5e monk.
Final Thoughts
So overall, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that the Monk class is not as bad as I once thought. There is still much to like about the class. That said, the class is not perfect, and I do think updates (similar to what happened to the ranger) are warranted to fix some of the rough edges. But again…its adjustments, not an overhaul.
