D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

Thank you for the summary

1. Monk deals poor damage for melee attackers:

Important Note: Treantmonk uses "Baseline Damage" as a measuring tool. Baseline Damage is based on a Warlock using hex spell, agonizing blast, increases charisma over time and uses eldritch blast. You can agree or disagree with it, but just know it's a fixed-line he can use for comparison for all classes, and his goals in looking at damage is to always be above that baseline.

a. Of all classes in the game which use weapons primarily to deal damage, monks are the worst. Any class can be made to do more damage than the monk if they specialize in doing damage.

Let's start the parameters as level 1-10, no variant humans. I'd say the monk is within 10% of any characters damage output, while having equal AC, a higher movement speed, and being able to use a bow. (All things that will tend to increase their actual damage dealt in an adventuring day when compared to any strength based character). In short, I think you are vastly underestimating their damage output.

b. Martial Arts deals about 8.15 points of damage per round at level 1. All martial arts is, is two-weapon fighting. All other classes can do that. Level 1 fighter deals the same damage with two weapon fighting. A level 1 rogue dos 9.5 damage per round by the way.

1. Let's not play the game where you pick the best fighting style for whatever level is given. Pick one style and let's look at it over a range of levels, because you don't change up your fighting style as you go.

**Corrected Calc
2. TWF at level 1 does 8.15 damage when using a quarterstaff. The rogue does 9.47 when TWF (I believe rogue is the highest damage character at level 1?). That's 16.2% more damage than the monk.

By level 5 the monk does 16.55 DPR at will with +25.25 Damage per short rest. For an 8 round short rest that's effectively 19.7 DPR. The TWF rogue does 17.2 DPR.

c. Monks struggle to even do the Baseline Damage, and just the Baseline, though any other class built for damage can exceed Baseline Damage pretty easily (yes even a beastmaster ranger). But the monks can only struggle to get to the baseline to level 10. After that, their damage will suffer below the baseline.

Monks are pretty well ahead of baseline damage through level 10. They fall behind it about 10% at level 10, of course that's ignoring any DPR benefits that knocking enemies prone with the open hand monk brings.

d. Flurry of Blows: It's too limited a resource to be able to do every attack so it doesn't change their numbers much, and it requires devoting too many resources to Dex which causes stunning strike to suffer. But even if the Monk mysteriously could use flurry of blows all the time, and did crank Dex over Wis, they still would fall below the baseline of damage after level 10. But more likely they will fall below baseline at level 5.

Monks will focus on dex then wisdom. By level 10 a monk can pretty much flurry of blows every attack.

I say pick a build that you expect to outdo the monk and let's compare.

 

[Zardnaar]

Treantmonk is wrong, he's not even that good at min/maxing. Wasn't back in 3E either on the WotC forums.

The Monk is very subclass dependent and it rewards higher stats more than say a fighter if you roll stats.
Deals more damage than rogue, worse at skills.

Rogue sneak attack damage isn't guranteed.

It's damage us fine vs most of the classes, they're all fairly close.

However the -5/+10 blow this out. That's a problem with those two feats not the classes.

Hell I pointed this out back in 2014. Think I was one of the first to raise the alarm on those feats, probably was one of the first to break 5E a month or two after it launched.

When I play monks I rarely use stunning strikes, more flurry of blows espicially if you're playing open hand.

Flurry's best used on Spellcasters.

Latter in they can almost flurry at will often around level 6. Assuming you're getting a short rest after say two combats.

 

[Asisreo]

"Barbarians who follow the Path of the Storm Herald learn to transform that rage into a mantle of primal magic, which swirls around them. When in a fury, a barbarian of this path taps into the forces of nature to create powerful magical effects."

Storm Aura: Starting at 3rd level, you emanate a stormy, magical aura while you rage.

If your aura’s effects require a saving throw, the DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Constitution modifier.

...all other creatures in your aura take 2 fire damage each. The damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class, increasing to 3 at 5th level, 4 at 10th level, 5 at 15th level, and 6 at 20th level... The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The target takes 1d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class, increasing to 2d6 at 10th level, 3d6 at 15th level, and 4d6 at 20th level...

That's all, of course, an attack. It's not an "attack action" but it's an attack. It would, for example, break charm effects or invisibility effects which change the condition if you attack. And it's all magical. I didn't say it was "impressive" by the way. It's just a "subclass" which includes "magical attacks".

That's not an attack, that's an effect that does damage. A feature that activates on an attack would not activate on their aura. Not just features that activate on attack actions, but features that activate on attacks, period. Not all attacks are from the attack action.

Unless a barbarian that activates their aura is a candidate for an invisibility spell to break, which isn't what I'd consider RAW.

 

[FrogReaver]

Monk vs GWF Battlemaster (no feats)

 

[Immoralkickass]

When i think monk, i can only think of one good thing - Stunning Strike. Its the combination of weaknesses that make them so underwhelming, and they seem to be tied to a certain narrative.

Lacking in HP? Fine, monks aren't known to be tough anyways. Lack damage? I get it, fists don't hurt as much as weapons. But mediocre AC i cannot forgive. Monks are known to be very fast and agile, hard to hit, weaving in and out of attacks. They have lightning quick reflexes, and fancy footwork to go along with their fancy stances. But this fantasy cannot be achieved if you did not max out your Dex and Wis. Also, bounded accuracy ensures the monk get hit very often. I also don't get the logic of having a unique AC formula that is not even as good as armor. What's the point then? Narratively it makes sense as Monks don't wear armor. But mechanically, it feels like they dont wear armor so that they can get hit more. A fighter can put on a plate armor for 18 AC. For monks, they need 18 Dex and 18 Wis just to get 18 AC.

Monk as a class have no stand out strength at the moment. They are a skirmisher, but not a very good one at that due to the mechanics and meta of the game. I think they should be a class based on reactions. They should have more uses of reactions, and more reaction abilities than other classes. Where's the parry? The counter-punches?

They also have other problems like lack of combat feat options, can't use most magic armor and weapons, and also starts off poorer than every other class. Its insane to have your background pigeonholed. There are rich monasteries, and there are rich kung-fu masters. So why force monks to be dirt poor?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fun is often the forgotten factor.

I'm not terribly sold on the monk has to equal asian factor either, I'd rather it be reflavoured as a "pugilist" of some sort. That's why my monk is a Calmishani desert werling dervish style shaman. Granted powers by the elemental Djinni, and has travelled to the Sword Coast.

Yeah my Shadar-Kai Drunken Master Monk is a pit fighter and former arena slave who uses his innate ties to shadow to move unnatural fast, never being quite where he appears to be, and putting himself in the midst of enemies to use their attacks against them. His flavor is more Persian than East Asian.

I’ve got an idea brewing in another game (AU magical Earth 1630’s) for a monk who is of mixed Iraquois and Scandinavian heritage, whose Unarmored defense is partly runic paint magically seared into his skin, and partly harnessing the spiritual energy of life to enhance his senses.

If you can't figure out how to use them to their fullest potential easily, or the class doesn't have multiple paths to full potential, then it's an issue with the class. The monk is too restrictive with relevant attributes to accommodate a lot of builds the way many other classes can, and playing a cookie cutter monk to get "full potential" also makes me a sad panda.

Yeah tbh the armor restriction is the main thing, there. I’d allow a monk to swap Strength in as their main AC stat, or replace it with AC 10+Wisdom Mod+proficiency bonus.

My main argument is they are underpowered and could use some mechanical boosts. Like some feats tailored to benefit them, and feats which give them more Ki points. They could use some magic items that grant better AC and better unarmed strike damage tailored to them. I think they could use a couple of additional subclasses which don't draw on the same Ki pool as the base class. All of these things could be done without errata on the original class.

A feat that gives Wisdom mod Ki would be very cool.

My two reactions to that were, "Really?" and "Oh, now I think I get it."

The "Really?" was because the 2nd one (no weapons in palace) seems to be all about one particular features, Martial Arts. And the third one (warrior-envoy) was also about features: they can speak any language, they have high Wisdom, and they can defend themselves without having to go around armed and armored.

But the "Oh, now I think I get it" is that I think I have a better understanding what you are talking about. I think you're looking purely at the mechanics, devoid of any connotations attached to those mechanics. So the fact that the Monk achieves its AC without any armor, or can do essentially all of its damage without any weapons, wouldn't be relevant; you're just looking at a straight comparison of AC and DPR.

If that's the approach you're taking with your analysis, then, yeah. But that also feels, to me, like it's leaving out a big part of what the game is all about.

Yeah, at worst the monk is behind on some of the math, at some levels.

My monks tend to have an AC of 16 fairly early on, and hit AC 20 eventually, not counting magic items. So, no worse off that a rogue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Monks don't wear armor. But mechanically, it feels like they dont wear armor so that they can get hit more. A fighter can put on a plate armor for 18 AC. For monks, they need 18 Dex and 18 Wis just to get 18 AC.

“Less than Plate AC” isn’t mediocre AC, though. That’s an absurd standard.

 

[FrogReaver]

2. Monks are ineffective tanks and have mediocre to poor defense;

Monks have nearly the same AC as a Great Weapon Fighter. Depending on subclass they get a similar heal to 2nd wind. They get additional defensive features like deflect missiles and evasion. Their downside is lower hp.

Monks can make better tanks than fighters if they want. Dumping KI into the bonus action dodge instead of dumping ki into flurry of blows allows the monk to be one of the most defensive melee characters in the game. It is at the expense of offense but it's very impressive.

a. Hit Points: For all classes expected to be in melee, monks are tied for the worst HP. Made worse by the fact they need Dex and Wis, which means their Con won't be as high as some others.

Yes they have worse hp. Hp is just one aspect of defense and by the time you are mid level it's one of the least important ones.

b. AC: Every other melee class other than the rogue that wants a higher defense will have a higher, often much higher, AC. The monk can spend some precious resources (which power everything else they do as opposed to drawing from multiple pools) to increase their defense, but other melee classes can also spend their resources to increase their defense as well. Monk's defense won't catch up to other melee classes (other than rogue) until around level 16 without spending resources, and even spending resources they can at best reach the middle of the pack versus other melee classes not spending any resources to get that same AC.

The only way classes get a higher AC than a monk is by using a shield. That's doable but it puts those characters using the shield really far back in offense compared to the monk.

c. Saving Throws: Dex will be high, Con will be low, Wisdom will be in the middle. Essentially the same number of strengths and weaknesses as other melee classes. At the level they get evasion - same as rogues. They only get better saves at 14th level, which is very late and by that point some other melee classes that wanted good saves would have them before that point. Paladins get better saves by level 6, gloomstalker rangers bypass wisdom saves at 7, warmages can use their reaction to any save at level 2, fighters get lots of feats and at level 12 they often get a feat for saves like resilient wisdom, and get a save re-roll. So, even at level 14 they're not noteworthy for being able to have better saves.

Evasion is huge. Being able to remove charm and fear effects is solid. The only class flat out better at saves is the Paladin. The others are judgement calls.

 

[FrogReaver]

“Less than Plate AC” isn’t mediocre AC, though. That’s an absurd standard.

Yea, Monks start at the same AC heavy armor wearers do (provided 16 dex/16 wis). They max out at the same AC plate users do at level 8. More importantly though, they take no stealth penalty which can be huge. The only thing that gives some characters more AC than them is a shield - but characters that use a shield aren't usually that great at damage.

 

[Asisreo]

A fighter can put on a plate armor for 18 AC. For monks, they need 18 Dex and 18 Wis just to get 18 AC.

They need a DEX 20, WIS 16 to get an AC of 18, something achievable by level 8. Of course, ai fully expect a fighter to be more resilient, but a monk is more slippery.

Plus, the monk could always just dodge as a bonus action and have an effective AC much higher than an AC 18 fighter.