D&D 5E Monks Suck

[wizard71]

Monks do not suck. They just do not dominate a single aspect of combat hence people claim, they are terrible. The only possible change I would give monks is a flat bonus to armor that stacks with Dex bonus. Maybe 15+Dex mod. The end result is still a 20 Armor Class but at lower levels the monk can tank as decently as a two weapon or great sword wielding fighter

 

[Zardnaar]

He does claim that a straight-classed dual-wielding rogue is fairly bad at damage. They're the second-worst combat class if you don't multiclass (and rogues at least can get a significant boost if they do multiclass; monks really don't have a way to do this, short of ignoring most of their monk abilities). Reasonable people can disagree about whether the non-combat abilities they get make up for that, but if monks are slightly behind rogues in combat and also don't have rogues' non-combat features, what are they bringing to the table?



Agreed. The analysis I did assumed they used all their ki on Flurry of Blows, so for that damage level, they can't use stunning strike at all, but yes, at higher levels they can flurry every turn and make stun attempts sometimes. But also their direct damage potential falls even further behind at higher levels, so the value they get from stun would need to be higher to close the gap.

You're skilled at quantitative analysis; why don't you take a crack at it? It'd be a useful contribution to try to put everything the monk does together in some common units... But then once you've done that, I'd suggest doing the same analysis for a warlock that spams Hypnotic Pattern / Synaptic Static and then pew pews (they won't have Hex up, so they will fall below the direct damage baseline, but that's fine, since they're bringing other things to the table), as well as for a Battlemaster archer using Menacing Attack, say, or a Ranger supplementing their weapon damage with conjured animals.

Monks deal good damage early on although beaten by a dual wielding fighter.

However we know the fighter us not the best as getting two magical weapons might be difficult. Monk gets magic damage built in level 6 iirc.

Damage is also all the dual wielder fighter is doing. No stunning strikes or flurry of blows.

 

[Undrave]

It's because it's setting the damage bar too high, and hex tends to not be sustainable because of the concentration mechanics.

The result compares monk damage to high end focus and optimization instead of a general overall standing.

That's not high end focus and optimization what are you talking about? It's Warlock 101. And why would Hex not be sustainable? Eldritch Blast has range of 120 feet. If you're making concentration checks, you got more to worry about than your DPS.

 

[Todd Roybark]

if monks are slightly behind rogues in combat and also don't have rogues' non-combat features, what are they bringing to the table?

A suite of abilities that is excellent for Exploration....that do not cost spell slot resources.
The ability to silence an enemy sentry.
The same skill level as any class w/o Expertise.

Will a single class Rogue ever be immune to Disease or Poison? Will a Rogue transport themselves to the Astral Plane and be able to communicate with anything that knows a language?

Expertise in Persuasion and Deception, and Reliable Talent matter very little if no means of communication exist between the character and the very weird stuff one encounters at High Level.

So now the bar is moved from "Monks Suck" to "Monks are the worst at DPS...given certain assumptions", but not by much? (Otay!)

Yawn

 

[auburn2]

My 2 cents:

The monk is better in melee than the wizard, better at tanking than the rogue, better at controlling the battlefield than the fighter and more mobile than the cleric.

Also in 1E the monk was pretty good at mid to high levels if had had a 16 constitution or better. Other classes stopped getting hit dice around level 10.

 

[Undrave]

Expertise in Persuasion and Deception, and Reliable Talent matter very little if no means of communication exist between the character and the very weird stuff one encounters at High Level.

No one plays at high level!

Okay so it's an exageration, but the majority of players DON'T.

If Monks are meant to be an optional replacement for Rogues, they really need Expertise. Just slap it on the class, play up the 'dedicatation to perfecting their craft' aspect from their Martial Arts and boom, already more interesting.

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

If only... More Ki points early on would help for sure, but the design could be tweaked.

I think Monks have too many class features that don't really synergize into a coherent gameplan and mostly compete for Ki.

Stunning Strike is such a central feature, despite coming in at level 6, that I feel like it would have been better off as a subclass ability and the base class be given more of the Open Hand stuff like pushes on a hit. That sort of thing should be options you can pick from a list in the Martial Arts feature that apply to your Martial Arts or Flurry of Blow attacks. One of those options could be the grappling aspect of Tavern Brawler. I feel like the Base Class should be lighter at later level and give the subclasses more leeway, so the Monk can have more breadth of builds.

And of course, finda way to reduce the MAD aspect... unless you want that stunning strike, then the trade off is you need more WIS for your save.

 

[Esker]

Monks deal good damage early on although beaten by a dual wielding fighter.

However we know the fighter us not the best as getting two magical weapons might be difficult. Monk gets magic damage built in level 6 iirc.

Damage is also all the dual wielder fighter is doing. No stunning strikes or flurry of blows.

Everyone agrees that monks are fine in tier 1. And yes, in a campaign where there are no magic weapons and lots of creatures resist non-magical weapons, everyone who doesn't have a built-in feature to do magical damage will have their damage output reduced significantly, possibly letting monks pull ahead of other non-optimized martial builds. But as I said above, that's not the norm, and even if you do find yourself in a campaign like that, you'll really want to play some sort of caster. That's a scenario where a not-particularly-optimized cleric can likely do more damage than three martials combined.

As for dual-wielding fighters, yeah, they suck past tier 1 too. At least this is something most everyone agrees on.

 

[Esker]

The monk is better in melee than the wizard, better at tanking than the rogue, better at controlling the battlefield than the fighter and more mobile than the cleric.

A commoner is faster than a redcap, stronger than an intellect devourer, and has a higher AC than a gelatinous cube. Does that mean they're a comparable threat to any of them?

 

[Esker]

A suite of abilities that is excellent for Exploration....that do not cost spell slot resources.

What abilities are those? Running on walls?

The same skill level as any class w/o Expertise.

Yes. But classes without expertise do more than rogues in combat. Except monks.

Will a single class Rogue ever be immune to Disease or Poison? Will a Rogue transport themselves to the Astral Plane and be able to communicate with anything that knows a language?

Poison and Disease immunity don't really contribute to the party, they mostly just help the monk stay alive. But also there are a number of races that get things like that.

Communicate with anything that knows a language?? At 13th level?? You mean the ability that most spellcasters can have when needed at level 5? That Great Old One warlocks have always-on starting at level 1?

So now the bar is moved from "Monks Suck" to "Monks are the worst at DPS...given certain assumptions", but not by much? (Otay!)

They come reasonably close to a single-classed rogue's at-will damage when using all their resources for damage and when in melee, but the rogue is about as good at range as in melee, whereas a monk forced to fight at range cuts their damage roughly in half. And in any case a single-classed rogue is the second-worst, so it's a small comfort. But unlike rogues, monks have no real way to remedy their deficits by dipping into another class; whereas a rogue gains a lot from a dip into fighter, ranger, warlock, wizard, barbarian, artificer... lots of ways they can go.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think I've ever demeaned people. I've demeaned game features, and fictional characters, but I can't recall ever going after an actual person. Can you provide an example? I certainly have never intentionally done so. I agree insulting people for humor is crass.

Hey, sorry, I owe you a response. (I've been on the road all day.)

Here's the one paragraph in particular that I was thinking of:

The Waste of Space:
What else do you call him? The Waste of Space is the guy who thought that a low Charisma Warlock made an excellent "character concept", or maybe he figures that a dedicated healer is an appropriate contributor to a combat environment*, I could go on, but you know who I mean, there is probably one in your current group. If there isn't...well...maybe there is...cough cough...ahem.

True that it's the most overt example, but I think it's indicative of the general tone of the piece, which is to suggest that somehow how "good" you are at D&D directly correlates to how effectively you optimize. Sure, I get it, the piece is about optimization. But that doesn't mean you have to be so dismissive and insulting toward people who play a different way.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to direct young players to it, even though I think it would help them think about wizards in a way other than just blasting. Any more than I would direct young baseball players to a YouTube that thought it was high humor to belittle kids who struggled with catching and throwing:

The Waste of Space
What else do you call him? The Waste of Space is the kid who hasn't spent hours practicing, and still holds his hands backwards on the bat, or maybe watches the runner rather than the ball when playing 1st Base. I could go on, but you know who I mean, there is probably one on your current team. If there isn't...well...maybe there is...cough cough...ahem.