D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Flamestrike]

Is a depleted Monk as strong as a depleted Fighter or depleted Rogue.

Theyre better than a depleted Wizard thats for sure.

And Rogues dont get depleted (other than HP). All their abilities and features are 'at will'.

They;re unique there, with only Champion fighters coming close (and they're still reliant on Action surge, Second Wind and Indomitable).

 

[Undrave]

They will use whatever strategies are most effective. I have not seen any argument that would make destroying weapons a more effective strategy for monks than for goblins.

All I've seen is the argument that allowing for weapon destruction is more advantageous for Monks than for Goblins because they don't rely on them.

 

[Helldritch]

They wouldn't be going into a fight against each other, we're past that discussion, the Monk is good one on one. We're back to the discussion on baseline damage expectation.

Is a depleted Monk as strong as a depleted Fighter or depleted Rogue. No ressources that are restored on a rest at all, At-Will abilities only. How does their DPS or AC or defences, stack. If they're all on equal enough footing (say, less then 20% variance?), then from that point we can better judge if their rest-based ressources are plentiful enough or not.

Well, it is evident that a depleted monk would tend to rely on kiting enemies. A rogue would not be diminished especialy if the rogue can have an ally in melee (as per usual). The fighter will be like the monk (unless primarly melee) then he is in a worst state than the monk because kiting is out of the question.

 

[Flamestrike]

What is your monk's intelligence again? 8?

You are only going to fight monsters that are more stupid than you? Good luck with that.

It's OK, Im wiser than Obi-Wan (Wisdom 16). Im crafty, intuitive and cunning.

I just never went to school to get a formal education. Instead I spent my childhood waxing some old guys cars, painting his fence, and sanding his deck.

 

[Undrave]

Theyre better than a depleted Wizard thats for sure.

And Rogues dont get depleted (other than HP). All their abilities and features are 'at will'.

They;re unique there, with only Champion fighters coming close (and they're still reliant on Action surge, Second Wind and Indomitable).

In this case it would include Arcane Trickster rogues too.

Yeah, I didn't want to pick any of the casters for that reason. I don't think they would compare well.

You could probably make an argument for Rangers, Paladins and even Clerics (of the heavy armoured kind) to be included in that comparison too.

If we go down to that level we would have a more solid foundation to compare classes don't you think?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All I've seen is the argument that allowing for weapon destruction is more advantageous for Monks than for Goblins because they don't rely on them.

It's less effective used against them. Which is a very different kettle of fish all together. Our goblins who have learned to attack swords may well be thrown when confronted by a monk, but that is not what was being argued.

I think it's fair to say that enemies being confused when confronted by an unfamiliar fighting style is a genuine intangible advantage of a monk.

 

[Undrave]

Well, it is evident that a depleted monk would tend to rely on kiting enemies. A rogue would not be diminished especialy if the rogue can have an ally in melee (as per usual). The fighter will be like the monk (unless primarly melee) then he is in a worst state than the monk because kiting is out of the question.

What weapon would the monk use? They can't go into melee since they're out of ki to disengage or use Flurry of Blow shenanigans. Kensei Archer and a Rogue would probably be the best build in that situation.An Archer fighter COULD technically kite if the enemy isn't faster.

It's less effective used against them. Which is a very different kettle of fish all together. Our goblins who have learned to attack swords may well be thrown when confronted by a monk, but that is not what was being argued.

I know, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Flamestrike]

In this case it would include Arcane Trickster rogues too.

They're about the only archetype. Assasins, Thieves, Swashbucklers and Scouts are all 'at will' as is the base Rogue chassis.

You could probably make an argument for Rangers, Paladins and even Clerics (of the heavy armoured kind) to be included in that comparison too.

Taking the spell slots from those classes cripples them. A paladin without smites kinda sucks; its the core OOMPH of the class.

 

[Flamestrike]

What weapon would the monk use?

Daggers and hand axes and spears and light hammers are all monk weapons and you can throw them just fine.

Monks are also proficient in shortbows and crossbows.

 

[Undrave]

They're about the only archetype. Assasins, Thieves, Swashbucklers and Scouts are all 'at will' as is the base Rogue chassis.

Of course, I just wanted to make it clear their slots would also be exhausted.

Taking the spell slots from those classes cripples them. A paladin without smites kinda sucks; its the core OOMPH of the class.

Well yeah... if we have an idea what they look like when exhausted, we can have a better understanding of the impact of each resource on the the strength of the class itself. We can also better judge who starts at the same level, then we can add their rest-resource and see if one of them pulls ahead of the other or not and by how much.

Gotta say... Level 1 makes the Monk looks like a superstar compared to the Paladin and Ranger