D&D 5E My Response to the "Monk Sucks" thread

[Chaosmancer]

Did you say "only 25% damage"?

Oh well, if it's ONLY TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT lol.

And it's not even one guaranteed surprise round. The cleric or fighter mucking about in plate with an 8 dex may still blow the check. You still roll for stealth, it's not generally a passive skill.

Come on man, you guys had me leaning away from "monk's suck" but this type of argument makes me think it was all smoke and mirrors and the monks do suck if I see arguments like "you ONLY lose a full quarter of your damage" type arguments in their defense.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim the druid or ranger or bard or cleric that has Pass Without Trace (which they can cast more times per day on average than a Shadow Monk) thinks that spell is worth 25% of their damage output! It's a fine spell but it's not that good! If it were that good, people would be much happier with the Ranger than they are for instance.

BTW if we're picking sub-classes to cherry-pick skill-based help, the rogue Arcane Trickster at that same level could be casting any of these spells which either have a skill-based effect or duplicate a skill-based effect: Charm Person, Disguise Self, Distort Value, Illusory Script, Nyskul's Magical Aura, Invisibility, and Suggestion.

Yeah, I'm not sure where the 25% comes from. I think they were just rough mathing it from losing a potential 4th attack by spending every single ki point on Pass Without Trace.

But, the difference between 24.5 and 32 is... ah, okay, yeah it is about a 25% difference, but I tend to view that as 125% compared to 100% instead of 100% to 75%

Kind of how like Action surge can be +50% damage for a fighter. I don't consider the fighter not using action surge to be losing 50% of their damage, they just get a turn to go up and above normal.


And, by 6th level, they would have to cast the spell three times per short rest, which is more than I've ever seen that spell cast ever. It is usually 1/day for the hour boost. If you needed it 9 times... well, the monk can do it I guess. But I've never seen a situation that would call for it.

It is always bad to simply add up Rogue damage. A smart rogue has an offhand weapon to get 2 chances to land sneak attack damage dice (at the risk of not being able to disengage), which is a massive increase in actual damage delivered. (They also get a small edge from the fact that damage dice > static damage due to crits)

Whenever there is such a significant accuracy difference between characters, you should pick a model AC. Personally I often pick 18, as it is a credible AC to run into at both low and high levels, and using -5/+10 feats is a bad plan at that AC at almost any level.

None of those builds are relying in -5/+10, so they should all have a fairly similiar accuracy. In fact, since the Monk is getting three attacks natively, they actually tend to have more accuracy, since they are more likely to land at least one blow.

But, the average rogue damage is 18, and while you prefer dual-wielding, I prefer the shortbow and hide option, which also increases my chances to land sneak attack, but keeps me safer from melee. Neither option really changes the overall damage effect. Dual-Wielding would only increase the average to 21.5.

But, this is the entire point. You immediately switched from "monk damage is bad, look at how much damage this warlock is doing" to "well we need to consider accuracy". But, the fighters, paladins, monks, and warlocks are all operating with the same type of accuracy, unless you start putting even more conditions on the formula to try and weight it.

The simple fact is, Monk's At-Will damage is not bad when compared to other martial at-will damage. End of statement. This is true. Even without Ki, if we have martials not using resources, the monk is doing fine. Every time. The only martial at-will (before level 11), not counting accuracy of -5/+10 that does superior damage is Polearm master, which is 26.5 compared to the Monks 24.5.

This is a group game. So redirecting damage to someone else is worse than not taking it yourself.

And, as noted, it is really expensive. You are burning a lot of potential damage in order to not be splattered, and you have to do it preemptively.

You as the player have no control over the DM's choice to hit someone else. And, hitting the Wizard once and dropping him to half might be better than hitting the monk once and dropping him to zero and dying.

And, is it really that much damage? By level five it is only an average of 7.5 damage. Sure, significant, but you could potentially be saving far more than that in health. It is a choice, and no other class in the game gets the choice to dodge as a bonus action, so I'd say it is a very powerful choice.

Can it be wasted? Sure. Lots of things can be wasted. But, that comes with the territory.

It is a 2x per day ability on level 5 wizards/bards or 2x per rest abilty on level 5 warlocks.

There are multiple possible uses for stunning strike. One of them is to run in and stun a bunch of weak foes. The other is to hammer one big foe.

I'm noting that stunning strike isn't that effective at a bunch of weak foes.

Okay? Very few people try and use it that way, because spreading your damage is a fairly weak option. Of course, if you can pull it off, it is very powerful, but that is a huge gamble.

Also, no need to really nitpick on the precise number of 3rd level slots people get, the point is, the monk's stunning strike can be used far more often than spells. Which means, in part, it is slightly weaker, because it can be used more often. Just like a 1st level spell slot is weaker than a 3rd level.

I thought I covered that?

Suppose you are a level 8 monk fighting an Aboleth (CR 10 legendary foe). It has a +6 con save and 3 legendary resistances and 17 AC

You have 14 wisdom and +3 proficiency for a DC 13 stun (not great, not crappy). It needs a 7+ to save, or 70%.

Your Dex is 20, so you have a +8 to hit, and hit on a 9+ (60% chance). You flurry and land 2.4 blows (1 Ki). You stun each time you hit, and burn 2.4*.3=0.72 legendary resists/turn at the cost of 3.4 Ki, or 0.21 legendary resists/ki.

You keep this up for 2 rounds (6.8 Ki), then burn the rest on stunning strike (1.2 more) over the next 1 or 2 rounds. This is 6 stunning strikes, for 1.8 legendary resists soaked.

A pure caster has a saving throw DC of 16 at this point. A cast of banishment requires a 12+, so 45% chance of passing. They'll have at least 2 level 4 slots, burning 0.9 legendary resists over 2 turns.

The caster can also web (Aboleth has no effective ranged options, and crappy strength)

If banish lands, the party gets to set up a readied-action ambush, after cleaning up any "trash" allies of the Aboleth.

Not sure why an Aboleth, but sure, why not.

You would be far more likely to have a wisdom 16, the base monk assumptions we have been going forward with (even in Treantmonk's video) was a 16/16 at level 1. Which increases the save DC to 14, and gives the Aboleth a 65% on a single save (important)

Your math does a lot with decimals, but it seems to raise that to a .84 per turn, which is .25 per ki. And honestly, I lose your math at this point, but I'm going to figure this at least rounds it up to 2 legendary resistance burned through.

But wait! We have forgotten three things.

1) All of those hits? They deal damage, We are assuming about 7 strikes, which will deal an average of about 8 damage (8.5 on staff, 7.5 on fist) meaning we have dealt 56 damage or nearly 40% of the Aboleth's health in addition to the potential stuns.

Meanwhile, the wizard casting banishment has done a grand total of.... 0 damage.

So, nearly identical burning of legendary resistances, and the monk has nearly killed the creature in the meantime.

2) Aboleths don't have legendary resistance at all. Also, Web is a terrible spell since the Aboleth tends to be in or underwater, potentially meaning the webs can't anchor to attach to it anyways.

3) This is a team game. Even if the Aboleth had legendary resistances and the monk could only make it spend 2 of them.... that means the wizard has a chance to land a spell that otherwise wouldn't have landed.

That is a net win for the party.

Sure, but the level 5 fighter has 10.5 healing/short rest while the (open hand) monk has 0. At 6 the fighter has 11.5 healing/short rest on bonus action, while the open hand monk has 18 per long rest on action.

Ah yes, I forgot the most important thing when comparing a classes damage output, how much healing they have. Silly me, I thought we were talking about the damage numbers and AC. Neither of which you address with this point.

No one is arguing Fighter's don't have more hp than monks. And that does not counter their AC or damage output

Are we talking a 16 dex/16 wis monk with crappy con? Then at 6 the monk has 17 AC as does the fighter.

If the monk wants HP, they are going to probably lose 2 points of wis for it.

You can't have everything. A lower Con is fine if you have decent AC and play the skirmisher.

The issue is that the resources to make a Monk more effective are expensive (attunement, rarer) or absent (feats).

So why not make items that don't require attunement, and make feats?

Seriously, if the issue is Monks don't have good options for magic items and feats, then get them magic items and feats.

And bracers of defence are great for monks, but they are +2 and attunement.

Which it shouldn't be. It is literally just a shield for people who can't wear armor. There is no reason to make that cost attunement.

Monks don't use mechanics that overlap much with other classes (other than weapons), so items tend to be either monk only, or useless to the monk.

So, we fix that

Baseline, monks are a bit behind other damage dealers. Adding feats and items, they fall further behind. Their defence is also a bit behind, and Ki-based defence eats their damage.

No, their damage is not behind until post level 10

Defense is a little behind, but not by much.

Possibly they should best be compared to other half-casters (Paladin and Ranger); if you look at spell points, monks basically get what you'd expect a per-short-rest half-caster would get in spell points, but as Ki. And then if you look at the 4E monk Ki costs, they are similar to spell point costs.

Viewed that way, we campared to a sword+board strength-paladin.

At level 6, the strength paladin has 18 Str, Plate+Shield (20 AC), 14 charisma (+2 to all save aura), deals 2d8+12 (21) damage at-will, and has 14d8 (63) of smite-damage from spells (can be traded for other spells) per day.

The 2H Paladin is 18 AC, deals 4d6+8 (24.67) at-will, and has 14d8 (63) of smite-damage from spells.

The PAM Paladin is 18 AC, deals 2d10+1d4+12 (2.1+11+2.5+12=27.6) damage at-will at 1 lower accuracy (unless human), and has 14d8 (63) of smite-damage from spells.

The Monk has similar accuracy, 18 dex 14 wis for 16 AC, deals 2d8+1d6+12 damage at-will (24.5), and has 6d6+24 (45) of short-rest flurry damage (can miss, be traded for defence or stuns).

Attacking 18 AC normal damage is worth about 1/2 smite-damage (due to misses), so with 2 short rests the monk's flurry damage is only slightly more than the paladins (and has to be spread out over the day). On lower AC "trash", flurry damage is more useful.

A +1 weapon boosts paladin damage output and accuracy (percentage wise) more than the monk.

The paladin can cast crazy useful spells like "bless" instead of a 2d8 (9) smite. The monk can convert 7.5 damage into a stun, or 15 damage into a one-turn dodge.

Wait, huh?

The Paladin can potentially add 63 damage a day to their damage

With two short rests the monk can add potentially 135 damage if everything is flurry. The only way that is "about equal" is if you assume the monk misses at least half the time.

And, since their baseline is three attacks, unlike every paladin except the PAM, and they have the same accuracy, that means the Paladin is likely to be hitting only once a turn for between 10.5 or 11 damage, while the monk is more likely to be hitting at least twice, for 16 to 17 damage.

Assuming a 50% accuracy rate, the Paladin needs to smite just to keep up.

So... how is that a strike against the monk that the Paladin is required to smite to avoid falling behind the monks damage?

Note: I have no idea why the paladin is adding 2.1 to their PAM damage.

I mean, the monk is within a "margin of error" of the comparisons. 10% here, 20% here. But it almost always comes up short in the raw numbers, has little in the way of "going the extra mile".

In the hands of a non-optimizer, you probably aren't doing a 16/16 build and carefully using open hand to dash in-out by turning off reactions. In the hands of an optimizer, the player could play that monk, or the PAM human paladin, deal 86% of a monk's "all out" damage at-will, then turn on mass smites and end boss fights faster than the monk can say "I use stunning strike for the 5th time".

86% of their "all-out damage" at will.

Yeah, that is one way to describe it. The Monk is also doing 90% of the paladin's damage, the monk "all out" which is spending a single ki point, is 32 compared to your 27.5 (which my math says should be 25.5)

And yes, the paladin could have saved all their spell slots and been behind the monk in damage over the day (assuming the monk got to use their ki and short rest before the fight) and could have spiked some impressive damage.

But none of this shows the monk as doing badly, especially since Paladins are consisdered one of the best damage dealing classes in the game. And we are easily within a margin of error of matching the damage of an optimized paladin smiter.

How is this bad?

 

[Ancalagon]

I still think Stunning Strike is overrated in the balancing aspect of the class. Putting aside that you get it much later than other role defining features, I think it's not THAT great. Here's what I fought as a Monk: minions that would die from one turn or two of attacks, creatures with Legendary Resistances, creatures I DO NOT want to be in melee with, a friggin' Greater Invisibilty caster and some knights. The Knights were the only one where Stunning Strike had any impact, and they still had lots of CON and took multiple attempts to stun.

I'm... baffled by this post. In the campaign I ran (Yoon Suin, level 2-8) the monks stunned:

A powerful bone devil
Giants
Giant dwarves
Wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, necromancers and other evil casters
Yak-men
Thugs of various sorts
Squidmen
Beings from the Far Realms
Ogres
Chicken Warriors
Abishai
Barbazu
An enormous bio-construct

And many others.

 

[NotAYakk]

None of those builds are relying in -5/+10, so they should all have a fairly similiar accuracy. In fact, since the Monk is getting three attacks natively, they actually tend to have more accuracy, since they are more likely to land at least one blow.

But, the average rogue damage is 18, and while you prefer dual-wielding, I prefer the shortbow and hide option, which also increases my chances to land sneak attack, but keeps me safer from melee. Neither option really changes the overall damage effect. Dual-Wielding would only increase the average to 21.5.

Take a dual wielding rogue at level 5 with +4 dex and two short swords against AC 18.

Their max damage is 5d6+8 (25.5) and they hit on an 11+, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

They have two chances to land their sneak attack damage. So their sneak attack damage has 75% accuracy, even through their weapon attacks are only 50% accurate.

This is why modelling "total damage done" when the kind of damage has different accuracy characteristics gives garbage results.

The same thing happens with Paladin Smite damage. Paladin Smite damage is 100% accurate, while Monk flurry damage ... isn't. Paladin Smite damage can be doubled if you dole it out slowly (over a long day) with crits, monk damage ... doesn't. Finally, Paladin Smite damage can be deployed on "tough" fights and not on "not tough" fights.

If we have 60% accuracy, each Ki on a 18 dex monk produces +4.7 damage at a max rate of that 1 ki/round. With 2 short rests, that level 5 monk has 15 Ki, so 70.5 total damage
If we have 60% accuracy, each of the 14d8 smite damage on a PAM paladin produces an average of 4.9 damage per die (due to crits) at a rate of +8.8 damage per round, so 68.25 total damage.

If you have 30 rounds/day and 3 attacks/round, and no advantage (!), that Paladin gets 1.5 crits/day. If they save those for their level 2 smites ('sustained damage'), they have an average of 83.25 smite damage/day, and still have a better ability to focus this damage than a monk.

As accuracy goes up, the Paladin can drop smites faster and Ki efficiency goes up. If you have advantage, the smite efficiency goes up because "random crits" become more likely.

Their "daily damage budget" from Ki/Smites ends up being very similar. Paladins are able to burn their smites down faster than a monk can.

Monks get stunning blow (open hand also get their trip attack, which is solid and ki-free). Paladins can cast bless (on someone dealing ~20 total swing damage, bless is +2.5 DPR, and boosts 3 targets; if it lasts 2 rounds, it outperforms smite)

But, this is the entire point. You immediately switched from "monk damage is bad, look at how much damage this warlock is doing"

No, monk damage is meh, and cannot be moved upwards. A min maxed optimized monk deals damage roughly similar to a default non-monk melee.

to "well we need to consider accuracy".

Yes, when comparing Rogues to Monks, we have to consider accuracy.

Against an 18 AC target, a level 7 18 dex monk does 2d8+1d6+12 damage, or 12.9 damage per round after accouning for misses. Each Ki adds +3.9 damage.

A level 7 18 dex double-shortsword rogue does 6d6+4. Of that, 2d6+4 is 50% accurate (5% crit), and 4d6 is 75% accurate (7.5% crit). 17.4 damage per round, on average.

If you ignore accuracy, you get 25 rogue vs 24.5 monk (+7.5 from flurry), which makes it look like the Monk is matching the Rogue without Ki, and blowing past the Rogue with Ki; in reality, the Rogue is doing more damage than the Monk burning ki as fast as she can.

In short, don't compare differently accurate damage to each other 1:1. You get garbage results. If you don't know when you are making that mistake (if you don't know that comparing sneak attack damage to ki damage to smite damage is wrong), always model it against some actual AC.

But, the fighters, paladins, monks, and warlocks are all operating with the same type of accuracy, unless you start putting even more conditions on the formula to try and weight it.

The simple fact is, Monk's At-Will damage is not bad when compared to other martial at-will damage. End of statement. This is true. Even without Ki, if we have martials not using resources, the monk is doing fine. Every time. The only martial at-will (before level 11), not counting accuracy of -5/+10 that does superior damage is Polearm master, which is 26.5 compared to the Monks 24.5.

A monk, optimized for combat, is less survivable than other melee and deals meh (not amazing, not horrible) damage.

A non-monk, optimized for combat, is as survivable or more than the monk, and deals more damage.

And it isn't just a PAM glaive user that matches or exceeds the monk. Human fighter 6 XBE is 3d6+15 (25.5) at +10 to hit (3 higher than monk) and turns on SS at 8 (loses 3 accuracy compared to monk for ridiculous damage), Spear+Shield PAM paladin 6 is 2d6+1d4+18 (27.5).

And, is it really that much damage? By level five it is only an average of 7.5 damage. Sure, significant, but you could potentially be saving far more than that in health. It is a choice, and no other class in the game gets the choice to dodge as a bonus action, so I'd say it is a very powerful choice.

No, it is 15 damage. You burn a ki (worth a swing of 7.5) and an attack (worth 7.5) to dodge.

Compare to the Rogue; a DW rogue, if they land their main attack, can use their bonus action to disengage (costing them 3.5 "swing" damage) and walk away. If you want to do the same, it costs you 15 "swing" damage. What more, by level 6 the Rogue's defensive toy is a resource-free reaction.

What more, if that Rogue is being boosted by their allies tactically (say, command or dissonant whispers), they can sneak attack on their reaction instead of defending with it for 5d6+4 (21.5). That is an example of an optimization ceiling that the Rogue has that the Monk lacks (the monk's equivalent OA is 8.5 damage).

OTOH, the "free trip" on the open hand monk is solid.

Not sure why an Aboleth, but sure, why not.

Sorry, I was looking for a CR 1-10 legendary creature. I thought it had legendary resists. Ignore my analysis.

And no, while Banishment is 0 damage, it is a setup for a full round of damage by the entire party, and a crowd control "kill all allies", and a chance to burn piles of actions recovering. A creature with a legendary resist should 99/100 use it to stop being banished. (the same is often true of stunning strike).

I chose Banishment because it was a charisma saving throw (low DC). Strength "you suck if you fail" saves are also good choices. (wis/con are poor, as most boss monsters have good saves their, int is rare and psi-monsters are smart, dex is almost only damage).

 

[Ancalagon]

2. Yes that happens at least once in a while. If it happens repeatedly, your DM just wants you to die because nobody's getting their long rest on.

Just a quick aside, the interruption has to be more than 1 hour to disturb the long rest.

 

[Seramus]

I would personally like to divorce Stunning Strike from the Ki requirement. This would give the monk more 'virtual' Ki, and lets the monk have fun with their Ki abilities without cannibalizing their possible stuns.

Stunning Strike can be done 4 times per short rest. No ki involved.

 

[Krachek]

For me Monk is balanced according to core assumption.
Meaning that he is sufficiently balanced for fun and casual play.
Note that default core assume rolled stats, and thus default core imply some difference between characters.

 

[Undrave]

I would personally like to divorce Stunning Strike from the Ki requirement. This would give the monk more 'virtual' Ki, and lets the monk have fun with their Ki abilities without cannibalizing their possible stuns.

Stunning Strike can be done 4 times per short rest. No ki involved.

How about a number if times equal to your proficiency bonus?

 

[FrogReaver]

I would personally like to divorce Stunning Strike from the Ki requirement. This would give the monk more 'virtual' Ki, and lets the monk have fun with their Ki abilities without cannibalizing their possible stuns.

Stunning Strike can be done 4 times per short rest. No ki involved.

posts like this lead me to believe folks have no clue how to balance.

Please prove me wrong, can you justify with numbers why this is balanced?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm... baffled by this post. In the campaign I ran (Yoon Suin, level 2-8) the monks stunned:

A powerful bone devil
Giants
Giant dwarves
Wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, necromancers and other evil casters
Yak-men
Thugs of various sorts
Squidmen
Beings from the Far Realms
Ogres
Chicken Warriors
Abishai
Barbazu
An enormous bio-construct

And many others.

In Tomb of Annhiliation my Kensai stunned Nanny PuPu every round they were still alive so that they never actually got an action in combat.

 

[Mistwell]

A ranger can cast pass without trace 2x per long rest at level 6.

A monk can cast it 3 times per short rest at the same level.

If the monk is just casting it twice per day he isn’t losing 25% damage. More like 5%.

You are doing a bad job of comparing apples to apples.

I posted a long, thorough reply to you. You ignored it, and then replied to a response that wasn't even to you. And I didn't make the comparison by the way I am just responding to it. I think claiming "the monk" is about "pass without trace" is a ridiculous claim to begin with.