And this is why it's difficult to have a discussion with you. You choose some of the most powerful creatures in the game and then say "what, huh, your power ain't gunna work now derp derp?".
I apologize, but it was my understanding that the game of Dungeons & Dragons was played with a party that goes up against encounters of a CR determined by the party level and composition.
And I'm not cherrypicking, dear. That was the complete list of CR 20 monsters in core.
A huge chunk of the wizards repertoire is entirely useless against the Tarrasque, including the iconic magic missile as well as cone of cold, lightning bolt, etc etc. Does this somehow make spells useless? No.
You are correct, sir. That is because, despite some spells being ineffective, there are spells that would work against the Tarrasque.
Why can you not wrap your head around this extremely simple concept?
Perhaps because, while there are ways for a wizard to use his class abilities against the Tarrasque, the same could not be said for the monk?
Again, feel free to prove me wrong. Go on, tell me what the monk does to contribute against enemies.
You ask what the monk does so well and I've told you again and again he consumes fewer resources than other party members.
And how does the most gear and buff dependent class in the game do this?
That's how he plays a support character, that is his virtue. Just as a fighter having a high AC reduces the amount of healing a cleric has to do, the monk having the various defenses he has reduces the among of restoration, healing, etc etc spells he must cast.
He also does not do anything useful; in combat, the fighter is dealing out DPS. This justifies his position in the party, because he is doign something useful.
Not consuming many resources is not useful. If that were the case, the party would spend less resources if the monk were not there in the first place. And now an empty slot is now better than the most balanced class in the game.
For as much as you're on this forum you'd think you'd be acquainted with the basics rather than just some crap you ripped off/regurgitated of some guidebook somewhere and adopted as your dogma.
I like to use not only all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.
A monk can fight, scout, play as the party face and is significantly harder to kill than the next guy who has the ability to fill all those roles (the rogue/bard), and is about the most mobile character on the playing field. He can do all these things and then you turn around herp a derp and ask why he can't stand toe to toe like a fighter when a fighter can't touch his other capabilities.
I would love to see a build that can do all of those things. In my experience, from seeing many monk builds in action, monks can fight poorly, set off traps while scouting, put their foot in their mouths, and flutter about uselessly while enemies ignore him in favor of actual threats.
I mean if you want to have an actual conversation about this, let's have it... but save the ridiculously short sighted assumptions about the class.
If you desire an actual conversation, perhaps you would care to back up your statements with evidence rather than by flailing about verbally?
By all means, let us engage in enlightened discourse. Now is the time for us to set aside our prejudices and assumptions about the class in order to examine it with eyes anew.
Would you kindly build a monk of level 12, with 28 point buy, using the standard Wealth By Level guidelines? I want to see the monk that "can fight, scout, play as the party face and is significantly harder to kill than the next guy who has the ability to fill all those roles."
Herp-a-derp.