D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Esker]

How are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?

Valenar Wood Elf, presumably?

 

[Asisreo]

They are the actual worst at damage.

The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.

Second, being the worst at something doesn't make you bad. I can be in the last place at the Olympics, that doesn't make me a bad athlete.

 

[Esker]

The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.

I agree, bards' built-in damage capabilities are awful, but they have options that let them be decent at damage if they choose to (though I would contend that's the wrong priority for most bards). A lore bard who takes the moderately armored feat, picks spirit guardians and spiritual weapon at 6th, and spends most of their actions dodging, for example. Or for single-target, a swords bard who takes PAM and uses a spear or quarterstaff with dueling style. And on top of that, they're full spellcasters; so as a whole it's not close. Any bard can induce opportunity attacks that wouldn't otherwise happen with Dissonant Whispers, for example, or create large added damage by polymorphing an ally into a giant ape (bonus points if that ally is a monk!), or cast Animate Objects for ~45 damage as a bonus action, etc.

Second, being the worst at something doesn't make you bad. I can be in the last place at the Olympics, that doesn't make me a bad athlete.

True, I will concede that even the worst D&D adventurer is much better at fighting than I would be. But I'm not sure that really redeems monks, since the point of comparison is not some schlub at a computer, but rather other adventurers.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

How are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?

In this case it is an Eberron build (uses the Eberron sourcebooks) in which there is a wood elf variant

Then at level 4 you can take Revenant blade increasing Dex to 18 and getting finesse property on DBS.

Edit: Of course most importantly, if you aren't in an Eberron setting and these features and weapon are not allowed, you can see by the math I've posted that the Rogue has other routes to improve over Monk damage. Primarily two-shortswords eventually switching to rapier+booming blade

 

[Esker]

The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.

And, by the way, that's before taking multiclassing into account. Monks also have fewer synergies with other classes via multiclassing than almost any other class, maybe any other class.

But even when you stack the deck heavily in the monk's favor, by assuming no feats and no multiclassing, monks still look bad. If in addition you assume no magic weapons, then monks suffer less than other martials, and may actually pull ahead of some of them in relative standing, but (a) that describes hardly any actual games, and (b) all martials are so far behind casters at that point that it's sort of a silly exercise to be comparing them to each other anyway.

 

[Mort]

There are many people here who find this whole exercise an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, either because they do not value DPR in their campaigns, because they do not believe accurately DPR measures the utility that is provided, or because arguments always boil down to someone claiming that their DPR model truly accounts for the "citrus difference" while the other person is like, "No way, Johnny Appleseed."

I think you'll find that most people arguing against monks are not just limiting to DPR. For example, people are trying to argue Monks make decent tanks (which has little to nothing to do with DPR) except they really, really don't.

Monks make decent skirmishers - assuming they properly conserve their ki (and/or are given enough short rests) and monks can lock down magic resistant foes decently.

Anyway, even in these divided times, hopefully we can all agree on a simple truism; Bards should be consigned to the Appendix of the next PHB, and thence to the dustbin.

So this is almost certainly tongue in cheek, yes (quite hard to tell with some of the assertions being made lately)?

I find the 5e Bard to be an extremely good version of the class, much better than the 3e or 2e version. Bards are extremely effective at aiding the rest of the party - The Bard in my group routinely turns fights I though would be nail biters into cakewalks!

 

[Zardnaar]

Problem with a lit of these comparisons is you can't really factor in tripping or stunning into a for calculation.

And people are comparing best case scenario to Monk base line.

For example a rogue using green flame blade isn't dual wielding. Rogues win initiative a lot and often whiff on sneak attack damage round 1.

The -5/+10 feats are borked. We should all know this by now. That's on the feats not the classes.

Mobility is over rated. I see a lot of rogues running around the map not achieving much. Sometimes see monks doing the same thing.

At levels people mostly play at (1-10 if not 1-6) the Monk is fine. Compares well to the rogue as Monks extra damage potential is always on.

Level 6 us about as good as it gets for monks damage wise. You can flurry a lot and have 4 attacks.

I would be more inclined to play a Monk with rolled stats that give you better scores. Default array is useful for white room theory crafting. Vast majority of tables I see roll for stats. Saw first table last week that didn't come to think of it.

Comparisons with fighters are flawed. Different roles,Monks are skirmisher bad tanks. A monk trying to tank is bad@monking. Long death is about as good at tanking the class gets.
Long fist monk I saw being played was bad@monking. Liked blowing ki points running around using dodge.

Cute trick much like rogue doing something similar not achieving much.

Monks should also use magic weapons if appropriate ones turn up. Spears, staff, finesse ones, swords for elves and kensai.

I think monks make for a decent rogue replacement. You're trading skills for better at combat.

Yes I consider Monks better than rogues at combat.

DPR comparisons are very flawed as you can't white room flurry of blows, stunning strikes and trip attacks on way of fist.

And outside combat the pass without trace ability on shadow monk is very good.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you'll find that most people arguing against monks are not just limiting to DPR. For example, people are trying to argue Monks make decent tanks (which has little to nothing to do with DPR) except they really, really don't.

Monks make decent skirmishers - assuming they properly conserve their ki (and/or are given enough short rests) and monks can lock down magic resistant foes decently.

I think that it really depends. There seems to be three primary "camps" of people that don't like Monks (to overgeneralize, there is some overlap):

1. DPR / optimizers / theorycrafters.

2. The "meh, boring" crowd.

3. The "I don't want Kung Fu Monk raisins in my Western Fantasy Oatmeal" contingent.


For (1), I happen to think that they are wrong, but the fix is easy. Just bump up the damage dice for martial arts. Or something. Heck, just give the monks a special ability that's called, um, Monk Funk that adds their proficiency to each damage die. It doesn't really matter- it's just math to make people happy.

For (2), it's just not the class for them, which is fine. Really! There are a number of different monk subclasses, some will scratch different itches, but some people just won't like it. This is why we have more than one class to choose from! It's just preference- the things you don't like, that make monks different, are the things other people might like. It's not a design failure if you don't like a class, it's a design failure if no one does, or most people don't.

For (3), that's just, you know, their opinion, man. It's been the same since OD&D, when the Monk first showed up in the Blackmoor supplement. At this point, arguing against the monk in D&D is as old as saying, "Wait, so it's not Friar Tuck?"

So this is almost certainly tongue in cheek, yes (quite hard to tell with some of the assertions being made lately)?

I find the 5e Bard to be an extremely good version of the class, much better than the 3e or 2e version. Bards are extremely effective at aiding the rest of the party - The Bard in my group routinely turns fights I though would be nail biters into cakewalks!

The issue with making the Bard better is the same as you have making a super cockroach.

You don't want a super cockroach, because you're trying to kill it, not make it better.

Also? Super Cockroaches sound better than a bard trying to play a medieval recorder.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't get the 'they don't fit the western fantasy' complaint. D&D is not supposed to be just western fantasy, it has elements from all over. And sure, they might not fit every setting and if your setting is one of them, then don't put them there! D&D is a toolbox, you don't have to put all classes, races and creatures that are in the books into your setting.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a prime example of the myopia I referenced above.
How is a Rogue a better archer then a Monk?
How is the Rogue applying Sneak Attack on those ranged attacks?
What are the opportunity costs to the Rogue solely being an archer?

Because rogues have class features that applies to ranged weapons and have a lower ability score dependence.

Rogues aren't the best archers nor is it easy. But the style is available without wasting class features. A monk is as good an Archer as an elf wizard (bad) unless they take kensai.