D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Guest 6801328]

I mean trained in a fighting style or martial art. Barbarians fight via raw athleticism, talent, and emotion. Discipline goes out the window when you rage anyway.

Sure, that's one way to flavor it. But you could just as easily envision a barbarian clan that does otherwise. It's whatever you like.

Yeah but that's the point. The Emporer's bodyguards and the Emporer's assassins would NOT have the same features.

Either would any of the various flavors of "fighter" you might imagine. Arthurian knights, Greek hoplites, Angle-Saxon shield-wall warriors...those would all have totally different training. The class is just a very, very, very loose abstraction.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

One reason Monks are great to play is that you get to roll a lot more dice during combat and do a lot more stuff than a lot of other classes. That's because of the unarmed strike, which you get to use every turn.

Monks are fun to play, they are effective enough (maybe not the best), they do cool naughty word.

I like playing monks more than wizards, clerics, sorcerers, fighters - all of which I have played. I haven't played other classes yet, so can't compare.

One flaw in the arguments: Not being the best =/= (does not equal) sucking. I would argue that while the monk may not be the best at any given metric, they are not the worst in those metrics by a looooong shot.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

The Monk's apparently CORE defining feature, the reason why you should want to play a Monk, Stunning Strike, only comes online at level 6?!

I disagree that that's the only reason to play them. They get multiple attacks at 1st level, that includes their +Damage ability bonus.

They can deflect missiles at 3rd level.
They can fall and not take damage.

They do lots of cool stuff.

I don't agree with your definition of "Core defining feature" of the monk.

Having played a monk to 9th level, and playing another now at 5th level, I have actually only rarely used Stunning Strike. And I had tons of fun - and was effective in play and combat.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree with you. I guess I would agree with you if your 2nd to last sentence ended with
"in my world" or "at my table".

The character Aragorn isn't in Forgotten Realms or D&D. Neither are the Rangers of the North/South, if you are talking about Tolkein rangers. Nor is he "real world". Or at least, any more "real world" than Remo Williams, Kwai Chan Cane, or Wong Fei Hung.

The monk fits just perfectly well in my world, at my table.

I dind't say monks shouldn't exist.
I said the monk class serves no clear purpose for the world's society and the adventuring group based on its class features.

A ranger serves a purpose. They fight, and scout, and track because the game has them as defenders from the wild, trackers, hunters, scouts, and traveller. It's class features serve its purpose. When people complain about rangers, its because people know what a ranger's purpose is and see it not fulfilling it.

Which monk class features serve it's purpose?
Idunno
What is a monk supposed to be doing?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think Monk and Sorcerer are both evidence for why "one point per character level" key class resources are a mistake.

I will say that...although I love playing monks...the one thing that doesn't quite work for me is the same issue that sorcerers have: it's not necessarily the number of points, it's that more and more abilities are fueled from the same not-so-large pool.

Some ideas:
- Critical hits restore a point of Ki
- At a certain level, flurry of blows is free.
- Refresh your entire Ki pool, and when combat ends you gain a level of exhaustion (incoming Frenzy Barbarian haters...)

 

[Undrave]

They do lots of cool stuff.

That they do... but it never feels like it coalesces into something clear. The Monk is just a pile of cool naughty word from previous edition. It's not that it can't be effective, it's that it feels slap dash in design and you need to wrangle that effectiveness out of them at every corner, thinking in ways that are very different to other classes.

 

[Mort]

One reason Monks are great to play is that you get to roll a lot more dice during combat and do a lot more stuff than a lot of other classes. That's because of the unarmed strike, which you get to use every turn.

Unarmed strike is really just re flavored 2 weapon fighting. Monks are only better at it if the spend Ki (flurry of blows) and then not by that much.

Monks are fun to play, they are effective enough (maybe not the best), they do cool naughty word.

I like playing monks more than wizards, clerics, sorcerers, fighters - all of which I have played. I haven't played other classes yet, so can't compare.

One flaw in the arguments: Not being the best =/= (does not equal) sucking. I would argue that while the monk may not be the best at any given metric, they are not the worst in those metrics by a looooong shot.

The classes in 5e are much closer together, balance wise and in effectiveness, than in prior editions (with the possible exception of 4e). There are certainly better and worse classes, but the space between them isn't that much - not nearly what they were in 3rd edition for example. IMO the monk lags behind, but it's still quite playable.

That said:

Here's a recently resurrected thread on a monk homebrew which I think does a great job with the class (YMMV, but I like it).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think if fighter's had a way to do this only a couple times per long rest, it would be ok. Sure, a wizard can blow up a division via meteor swarm, etc. but their resources are limited-- fighter's not nearly as much.

People flipped out about fighters being able to do stuff like that on a limited recharge rate, though. Fighters having Daily powers was one of the things that constantly got brought up in edition war threads.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, that's one way to flavor it. But you could just as easily envision a barbarian clan that does otherwise. It's whatever you like.

I'm just going on the base assumption. Babrabrians have a history of being nonlawful, being primal, or not getting fighting styles.

Either would any of the various flavors of "fighter" you might imagine. Arthurian knights, Greek hoplites, Angle-Saxon shield-wall warriors...those would all have totally different training. The class is just a very, very, very loose abstraction.

Yeah, but they all are tough warriors who kill stuff with all the arms and armor of their society.

They certainly serve a purpose in my games. They are the philosophers, warrior poets, spiritual counsellors, alternative clergy for certain faiths, teachers of matters academic and martial, and so on.

So where is their bonus to Religion, Insight, and History?

 

[jayoungr]

All I can say is that I'm enjoying the heck out of the Drunken Master monk I'm currently playing in Princes of the Apocalypse.