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

[grimslade]

The monk is serviceable. So is the ranger. You can have fun playing 5e with completely idiosyncratic builds too. Bounded accuracy means there are very small differences to efficacy in the game. IS the Monk broken? No. Could the monk be better? Sure. But it will take a rework to give a small (at best) boost.
The Way of 4 Elements monk is hot garbage. It is a failed subclass to replicate A:TLA characters. It can be fun, but will never feel like you are a bender.
I guess I don't understand what these threads are supposed to accomplish. The Monk is beloved by a lot of players. They are not so flawed that they don't add to a party. You could play a mage and do many of the same things, but you would be playing a mage and not a monk.
I would love to redo the monk. More because I think the class is pigeon-holed into the dex-wis combo. There is room for a strength wis monk. A 1/2 caster monk should be made. But the PHB and 2/3 sub classes are fine.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Long thorough replies take Moore time to respond to. Haven’t had time to address it yet. Shorts posts are easier and faster to respond to. If you want short fast response then use shorter posts

putting words in my mouth as you did here doesn’t help either...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Before we get into this @NotAYakk , I want to remind you.

Your own post started this discussion by comparing the average damage of a Warlock using Eldritch Blast+Agaonizing Blast+Hex, to a monk's damage, without flurry, with no consideration for accuracy at all.

My post was pointing out that to that standard, many classes fall short of that at-will damage.

You have now taken it to discussing how accurate a rogue can be (which does not overly change their average damage) and how Paladin smites can never miss, which by the way, takes us into Daily resources.

I think it is fair to say that your original point was weak, and you are now struggling to defend your position on monk damage being inferior by looking at daily allotments and accuracy, since the RAW numbers of at-will damage without accuracy components are not in your favor.

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.

I'll say that isn't the whole story, either homebrew, using the new fighting style feat (if Variant Human) or a multi-classed fighter is the only way that you get that +8. Rogue's don't get to deal their mod with an off-hand strike, so your base number there should be 5d6+4 (21.5) which I admitted if you dual-wielded would be the damage.

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

Well, we started with you initialing going forward sans accuracy. I put forth a rogue using a shortbow, which is my standard experience. Not dual-wielding. If you want to shout that the Rogue's damage on average should be higher than 18 (4d6+4) because of accuracy concerns when dual-wielding... fine. It still won't change the initial point that Monk damage is perfectly fine when compared to rogues, fighters, and paladins

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.

Okay? Smite damage is a daily resource, Ki isn't. And if you only smite on crits, that is great for spiking damage in the moment, but if you never crit, it won't matter.

Also, what BS is this idea that Monks can't choose to not utilize their Ki on "not tough" fights? If it isn't worth smiting on, why would it suddenly be worth spending Ki on? Maybe because Ki is a less valuable resource so it can be spent a little bit more freely? But, they can still choose to save it if it doesn't feel like it is worth using.


Also, I love how know we are talking about Smite damage being 100% accurate, when previously it was about how much damage it was.

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)

So wait, now it isn't about how much damage they do, but how well they are able to focus that damage due to random criticals?

But actually, it doesn't matter, because the truth is that your analysis is only proving my point.

See, you have taken one of the strongest damage dealing classes in the game, and given it full daily resource expenditure with a limited number of attacks, and given us accuracy numbers. So, let's dig in.

That 83.25 seems odd to me, If we assume all of the 2nd level spells crit, that is 12d8, and the four 1st levels are 8d8. That is 20d8 which is 90 damage. I think this is because of your previous math involving stating that the paladin does 4.9 damage per die? But frankly, this isn't needed because Smite is 100% accurate.

But, we do need their damage for their normal attacks. 2d10+1d4+12 is 25.5, on an accuraccy of 60% I should multiply those together to get an approximation of 15.3 damage per round, correct?

30 rounds over the course of the day is 15.3*30 + 90 (because smite is 100% accurate, and we are assuming the 2nd level crits) that total damage for the day is 549 damage.

Now, let us pull up the Monk. If we are assuming 30 rounds, split evenly, then the monk will get to make four attacks about half the time. So, We calculate their non ki as 24.5 and their ki turns as 32. Both those times 60% gets us 14.7 and 19.2.

Multiple both of those by 15 to get our full day, and we have (14.7*15)+(19.2*15) = 508.5

Now, you might be confused, because I said you proved my point for me, and this shows that the Paladin is coming ahead by 40.5 damage. And, even though I didn't calculate the critical hit damage into either side, the ratio should be fairly close. So, am I just confused?

No. We've shown a paladin with a damage dealing feat that improves their damage output is better than a Monk with no feat. That should have been blatantly obvious anyways, and the monk is pretty darn close. And, I used my 90 damage instead of your 83.

But, what about a paladin without a feat?

A Sword and Board Paladin keeps the same smite damage, but their longsword drops them to 2d8+10, or 19. Times 60% is 11.4 times 30 with our +90 is... 432. Over 70 pts lower than the monk.

Greatsword? 4d6+10 (assuming heavily in favor of the GW fighting Style) is 24 times 60% is 14.4 times 30 with the +90 is...522. Only 14 points higher than the monk, and very likely that is only because I counted GW style to be equivalent to a +2 on every strike.


So, it is highly likely, that a monk who spends every single attack on Ki, can match or exceed a paladin who smites every single turn, and never uses their bigger smites except on crits... unless that Paladin has Polearm Master.

Or to put it another way, the only way a paladin can guarentee to exceed the monks "crappy damage" is to have a feat that lets him increase his damage. So... how is the monk's damage so poor again?

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.

Right, because there is no feat to help increase monk damage. No items to help increase monk damage.

That isn't a problem with the monk. That is a problem with feat and magic item support.

Just because their damage is already as maximized as it can be doesn't mean it is bad though.

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).

Wow, another combat feat to let the fighter match the monk's natural number of attacks, and on a human who was able to max their main attack stat by level 6. And their average damage is only a whole point higher at 25.5 instead of 24.5. So impressive.

And then of course you add a -5/+10 feat, so that you can actually beat their damage by a respectable amount.

And then PAM again.


So... yes. Shockingly builds that can utilize combat feats can just barely excceed the monk's base damage. That 27.5 being a whole 3 points on average better than a monk with zero combat feats.

And why do they have no combat feats? Because there is no feat that lets the monk improve their damage output. Unlike every single example you have put forth.

So, again, maybe the solution isn't to say that monk's suck at damage, but to give them a feat that lets them improve their damage. Or an item.

Because, let us just for a moment decide the monk gets a feat that allows them to add +2 damage to every strike they make. This is less than what PAM gives to a round of combat (which is an average of 6.5)

That means their damage goes up to 30.5 and 40, at 60% and that is (18.3*15)+(24*15) = 634.5 damage, compared to the Halberd paladin's 549. It crushes it.

Heck, even at +1 damage we end up with 580.5 which is still 30 pts higher.

So, literally, if the monk received a bonus that was +2 damage to every hit, they would outperform every smiting paladin build you have proposed. And that is less than the boost those builds get from PAM or XBE. I think maybe, the issue isn't that monk damage sucks compared to paladin damage, or fighter damage, or rogue damage.

I think maybe, just maybe, the issue is that monks have no way to increase their damage via feats or spells. Like literally every build trying to put down monk damage is doing.

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).

Banishment deal zero damage. Your expectation that you should count all the damage that might be done by the party ignores the fact that the monk's stunning strike might also very well lead to the entire party burning down the boss.

Also, a failed banishment does 0 damage. While a failed stunning strike still deals full damage.

I have no idea what you mean by a "crowd control "kill all allies"" and while yes, Banishment could last long enough for the party to recover, you might also lose concentration because of a minion's attack and get zero benefit from it except however long the Aboleth was gone.

Again. Banishment is great, but saying Stunning strike sucks because banishment is a 4th level spell that can do something similiar seems to be like saying Persuasion sucks because dominate person exists. They aren't meant to be directly comparable anyways.

 

[Seramus]

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

I considered it, and decided it would strongly favor high levels on a class that would really appreciate a few more points early on. Granted, Stunning Strike doesn't come online until 5th. I did consider 3 until 11th, then 4 from there, which may sit better with some people. But 4 doesn't unbalance anything.

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

I can't. Status effects have no numeric value outside of arbitrary scenarios. We can establish benchmark tests, but our adjudication of those benchmarks would be likewise arbitrary unless there is a gross imbalance.

 

[NotAYakk]

I quoted someone adding up rogue damage and ignoring accuracy. And doing the same to paladin smites.

It was a systematic error. It should be corrected, or your conclusions are garbage.

I keep on seeing monks as slightly sub par marial damage dealers with next to zero "optimization room" compared to other classes.

At max optimization, you get a fragile character that requires tactics and logistics to contribute or becomes a liability.

At nearly no optimization, other melee classes match its damage, exceed its durability, and walk a bit slower.

At higher optimization, other melee classes blow the monk away. XBR or PAM alone does it for most classes. A rogue with off-turn attacks, or booming blade.

If magic items show up, the monks are rarer and don't boost the monk as much.

I mean, none of this is crippling. It just means the monk is meh.

 

[FrogReaver]

I quoted someone adding up rogue damage and ignoring accuracy. And doing the same to paladin smites.

It was a systematic error. It should be corrected, or your conclusions are garbage.

I keep on seeing monks as slightly sub par marial damage dealers with next to zero "optimization room" compared to other classes.

At max optimization, you get a fragile character that requires tactics and logistics to contribute or becomes a liability.

At nearly no optimization, other melee classes match its damage, exceed its durability, and walk a bit slower.

At higher optimization, other melee classes blow the monk away. XBR or PAM alone does it for most classes. A rogue with off-turn attacks, or booming blade.

If magic items show up, the monks are rarer and don't boost the monk as much.

I mean, none of this is crippling. It just means the monk is meh.

Granting the whole party advantage on enemies is huge! Why does no one consider that in the monks DPR?

 

[GlassJaw]

C. The one recurrent problem for Monk it that the Monk and the Warlock are the two most short-rest dependent classes; I think a decent argument can be made that Monk is the most short-rest dependent. As such, if your DM is not comfortable with short rests, and you are not getting sufficient short rests, then the class is going to feel very underpowered. While JC has said there is no limit, the rule of thumb is that you should be getting two short rests per adventuring day. So, if you have a short rest problem, then simply multiply the Ki points by three (two short rests + long rest) and use them as a long rest resource. .....If that is still insufficient, multiply by four as a long rest resource- and if that is insufficient, you have bigger issues playing that the amount of ki.

This is the best explanation of the difficulty "balancing" the monk's ki resource.

I would also add that while the warlock is extremely-short rest dependent as well, it has more "always on" combat abilities than the monk. Hence why the monk feels so strapped to some people.

 

[Seramus]

Granting the whole party advantage on enemies is huge! Why does no one consider that in the monks DPR?

I just told you.

 

[see]

Or, like I suggested, make the bracers not cost an attunement slot since they have zero reason to take up one.

Yes, if you make house rules to benefit the monk, the monk can keep up with other classes. That's the same as saying that in the game as published, the monk is an inferior class.

If you think a fighter with two legendary magical items for AC is "nerfed" that might explain a few things.

First, my forbearance in not calling you out on your lack of rigor in accounting for actual magic item availability in the example you authored wasn't actually an invitation for you to invent lies about what I'm thinking.

Second, a +3 shield isn't a legendary item, it's a very rare item, which means you were comparing a monk with a legendary (defender), two rare (bracers and ring), and one uncommon (cloak) to a fighter with one legendary and one very rare.

Third, by the time you've dropped, say, the ring to actually get under the attunement limit, the monk's dropped two AC behind the fighter. So, in your chosen comparison, we can drop the fighter to +2 items. Thus the monk needs three items (1 legendary/1 rare/1 uncommon) to match a fighter with two items (1 very rare/1 rare). Give the fighter a cloak (1 uncommon) and move the fighter's armor back up to legendary for an exact commonality match with the defender, and have the fighter be ahead by 2 on AC, plus having two attunement "slots" open to the monk's zero.

In any case, the point again is that the monk lags. The debate clearly isn't whether or not the monk sucks, it's whether the monk's sucking should be fixed by revising the class, adding feats, changing magic items, or something else.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I quoted someone adding up rogue damage and ignoring accuracy. And doing the same to paladin smites.

It was a systematic error. It should be corrected, or your conclusions are garbage.

I keep on seeing monks as slightly sub par marial damage dealers with next to zero "optimization room" compared to other classes.

At max optimization, you get a fragile character that requires tactics and logistics to contribute or becomes a liability.

At nearly no optimization, other melee classes match its damage, exceed its durability, and walk a bit slower.

At higher optimization, other melee classes blow the monk away. XBR or PAM alone does it for most classes. A rogue with off-turn attacks, or booming blade.

If magic items show up, the monks are rarer and don't boost the monk as much.

I mean, none of this is crippling. It just means the monk is meh.

I guess I'm the "person above" who you are referring to?

If I did something wrong with the math, I'd be interested in seeing it corrected. Because, I keep seeing monks as on par with other martials and exceeding those martials who focus on defense. It is slightly behind with at-will when those classes start optimizing, and only really falls behind significantly when they start heavily optimizing.

And, the lack of RAW options to pump Monk damage seems to be the sole cause of the difference. Followed by the only items being good for monk, being strangely kept at higher tiers, or locked behind "spellcaster only" barriers.

Yes, if you make house rules to benefit the monk, the monk can keep up with other classes. That's the same as saying that in the game as published, the monk is an inferior class.

Yes, cherry pick the one example out of my post about me realizing thatr Bracers of Defense are a garbage item that were poorly designed and use that to attack the monk.

First, my forbearance in not calling you out on your lack of rigor in accounting for actual magic item availability in the example you authored wasn't actually an invitation for you to invent lies about what I'm thinking.

Second, a +3 shield isn't a legendary item, it's a very rare item, which means you were comparing a monk with a legendary (defender), two rare (bracers and ring), and one uncommon (cloak) to a fighter with one legendary and one very rare.

Third, by the time you've dropped, say, the ring to actually get under the attunement limit, the monk's dropped two AC behind the fighter. So, in your chosen comparison, we can drop the fighter to +2 items. Thus the monk needs three items (1 legendary/1 rare/1 uncommon) to match a fighter with two items (1 very rare/1 rare). Give the fighter a cloak (1 uncommon) and move the fighter's armor back up to legendary for an exact commonality match with the defender, and have the fighter be ahead by 2 on AC, plus having two attunement "slots" open to the monk's zero.

In any case, the point again is that the monk lags. The debate clearly isn't whether or not the monk sucks, it's whether the monk's sucking should be fixed by revising the class, adding feats, changing magic items, or something else.

Right, but it "lags" because of the items.

Take away all the magic items and the Figher with Plate and Shield has 20 AC. And a monk can match 20 AC with no magical items.


But, whether because of legacy or something else, magical armor stacks and stacks and stacks.

Let us return to the Bracers of Defense. With these a Monk could hit 22 AC. That is amazing, but are these an amazing item? No... in fact for just about everyone they suck.

If you can wear any armor at all, the Bracers are equivalent to wearing studded leather, if they are your only magical item for AC.

If you can use a shield... they are identical to a shield. Literally, they are +2 AC.

But the Bracers only work if you wear no armor and wield no shield. So they are meant for Barbarians, Monks, Wizards and Sorcerers.... Except that a Barbarian can wear +2 or +3 Half-Plate, not use an attunement slot, and be far better off... And they can use a normal shield.

A wizard or Sorcerer could use them... they are fine, but those classes tend not to be super needy for AC.

So, it falls to the monk... who is the only class incapable of using magical armor, or magic shields (wizards and sorcerers can, through feats and races, but Monk's lose class abilities). So why do they cost attunement? For the Ring or the Cloak, they make sense to cost attunement because of the power of +1 to saves, and the fact that they stack with armor.

And this is why I get so frustrated with this idea that the Monk's AC falls behind because they don't get magical armor. Because everything that boosts AC seems to have been limited because it can stack with magical armor. But a Dwarven Wizard can get +3 Half-Plate, +3 Shield, a Staff of Power, A ring and cloak of protection and have an AC of 29. Is that because wizards have amazing AC? No, it is because all of those items stack and are adding +10 to their total AC.


But, I don't see this as a case of the monk having low AC or the wizard having high AC. I see this as the case that magical armor and magical shield with flat bonuses are incredibly powerful. Those two non-attunement items are granting +6 to AC in addition to their benefits as armor. While it costs an attunement slot to get a +2 AC if you forgo armor entirely.

So yeah, if you count the fact that the monk has no access to magic items that are essentially free armor boosts in the base game, Monk AC falls behind. Just like my SUV tends to be slower than car that has jet engines strapped to it. The problem might not be that my car is slow, it might be the lack of jet engines.