D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is a false argument. No one is saying we want to take it away. We want to make it BETTER. And no one is proposing taking away anything that people already enjoy from it, just buff some aspects of it. You can't make the Monk better by taking features out, just by buffing the features!

Then, as I noted before, it just becomes a banal math issue.

To the extent you agree with the DPR assessment (I don't), just buff the math. Done and done.

Thread is over, and we can move on to more important things, like everyone's favorite campaign: Discard the Bard!

You know you're going to chant that now.

 

[Seramus]

Stunning Strike is easily calculated into DPR anyway, because it gives them Advantage and auto-crits. It's wrong to say it can't be captured.

Where are the auto-crits coming from?

 

[Asisreo]

This is a false argument. No one is saying we want to take it away. We want to make it BETTER. And no one is proposing taking away anything that people already enjoy from it, just buff some aspects of it. You can't make the Monk better by taking features out, just by buffing the features!

It doesn't need to be better. It's a bit insulting that people who find the monk difficult to play wants to change it for everyone who hasn't experienced it. It's basically saying what we've personally experienced is wrong with little-to-no reasons why.

We tell people that monks are more than damage and stunning strike and the best defense is well, if they aren't the best at damage, CC, and tanking, they're awful at all three.

It's called diversity. A fighter sucks against most saving throws since they can't benefit from Wis proficiency, their greatest weakness. Barbarian's damage isn't that great either and when your gameplan revolves around you getting hit, you'll find that you're taking more damage than the extra health would have given you.

A rogue is good at dodging some things, but they can't dodge as a bonus action and they don't get evasion until level 7, meaning the only thing they can do to prevent damage at level 1-6 is cutting words once an attack. Rogues aren't great tanks either.

Monks aren't the best in anything, but that doesn't mean they're bad. They're the wizards of martial classes, they aren't better at anything specialized casters like sorcerers, bards, clerics, and druids can do, but they have the diversity to be of assistance when needed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True. Of course, that's to make up for the fact the monk is using his fists and feet often (though they can use some weapons), and the barbarian is using a weapon. The barbarian should, relatively quickly, obtain a magic weapon. Right around the time foes are regularly resistant to non magical weapon damage. It's kinda how the game is built.

The game isn’t built with an assumption of anyone getting magic items, ever.

 

[FrogReaver]

Already done. Here's a straight class rogue that beats the monk numbers levels 1-10 (all of them) comparing to the same baseline I do in my Monk vid. This character is a wood-elf.
View attachment 124230

Except for levels 1, 3 and 11 the Monk is right there with the 2 shortswords rogue. Do you also claim the 2 shortswords rogue is bad at damage? I don't think so. So why do you claim the monk is?

Also, to really get a true picture, the benefits of prone on DPR for allies really needs factored in. Additionally, at higher levels the benefits of stunning strike also need factored. How you can make any claims about monk damage contributions without at least attempting to factor in those 2 abilities I have no idea.

Side note: I'm curious how Booming Blade increases level 1 damage?

 

[Undrave]

It doesn't need to be better. It's a bit insulting that people who find the monk difficult to play wants to change it for everyone who hasn't experienced it. It's basically saying what we've personally experienced is wrong with little-to-no reasons why.

We tell people that monks are more than damage and stunning strike and the best defense is well, if they aren't the best at damage, CC, and tanking, they're awful at all three.

I've experienced the Monk and still think it sucks. Any single hit can take half my HP away, and my damage is miserable despite my good stats.

Only thing fun is stealth and teleportation shenanigans. I can traverse some decent terrain (I specifically took Athlete at level 4 because I thought my rolled stats were TOO HIGH!) but that's about it.

Part of being a Monk is fun, part of being my specific character is fun, but I still feel like the kid sidekick of the group rather than an equal partner and it's not quite what I signed up for.

 

[jayoungr]

Where are the auto-crits coming from?

Attacks against a stunned target, presumably.

 

[Minigiant]

It doesn't need to be better. It's a bit insulting that people who find the monk difficult to play wants to change it for everyone who hasn't experienced it. It's basically saying what we've personally experienced is wrong with little-to-no reasons why.

We tell people that monks are more than damage and stunning strike and the best defense is well, if they aren't the best at damage, CC, and tanking, they're awful at all three.

It isn't that people having difficulying playing the monk.

It people saying they want to play the monk like a "fighter class" and not like a "rogue class".

Why should people who want to play tank monks not be allowed to play tank monks if tank monks are popular in the media?

 

[billd91]

Attacks against a stunned target, presumably.

That wouldn't translate into auto-critical, though.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why should people who want to play tank monks not be allowed to play tank monks if tank monks are popular in the media?

Because we do not give in to the demands of terrorists and white-room theorycrafters.

That's what gave us Bards as full casters.