D&D 5E Monks Suck

My take with the monk is that he can control any important enemy the controller misses. When there isn’t a really important enemy to stun he can do pretty good damage.

He’s better than most fighters against solos - stun is that good. He’s really effective against casters. His value in 2-4 enemy fights needs more computations but if you already assume the party has 1 controller the then stun can be really good there as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My take with the monk is that he can control any important enemy the controller misses. When there isn’t a really important enemy to stun he can do pretty good damage.

Except if you're a good stunner, you cannot do "pretty good damage". We've measured this. ANY class can out-damage your "pretty good damage", particularly if you made sure you're good at stunning. That is, if you use point buy or standard array, of course.
 


Except if you're a good stunner, you cannot do "pretty good damage". We've measured this. ANY class can out-damage your "pretty good damage", particularly if you made sure you're good at stunning. That is, if you use point buy or standard array, of course.

We looked at a TWF rogue and by the end of the analysis the monk was ahead levels 5-10. Once all abilities were factored in.
 


That's fine but you wrote it as a reply to my comment, so I was addressing it as such.

Ahhhhhh...

My bad. I was on my phone. I thought I was replying to @Esker's comment, that you were replying to.

Specifically:
I'm not ready to concede that just yet. It might turn out that way, but what I said before that we should really do is roll it out a bunch of times (and not clog up this thread further with a fake play-by-post match). But you went ahead with it anyway.
 

We looked at a TWF rogue and by the end of the analysis the monk was ahead levels 5-10. Once all abilities were factored in.

Not if you were pumping Wisdom over Dex, which is what you have to do to be good at stunning. And that wasn't even his example, his example was that two-headed weapon, not the two short swords. You're cherry picking purely because he posted a chart which also happened to include that information. And even with that you got FIVE LEVELs. Come on Froggie...Monks cannot do "good damage" and also focus on stunning.
 

Tonight I can write a Monte Carlo aim for this if you guys want to spell out specifics. That is, exactly what steps to follow for each turn for one fight. Then I’ll run it a million times.

Sure. I'll try to spell out a sufficiently detailed tactical plan for a computer program to execute it without the need for further input. It ends up being pretty complicated! Though if there's something I've missed, let me know.

For the record, I agree with others that this exercise doesn't really say much about the viability or lack thereof of monks in general, because every character will have good and bad match-ups. But it's kind of fun anyway.

1a. If I start my turn within 15', and have superiority dice left, I will close to melee, draw a shortsword, and make my first attack without using the -5/+10. If it hits I will use Trip Attack. Go to 2a.
1b. Else, I will make my first attack without -5/+10 with the hand crossbow. If it hits and I have superiority dice left, I will use Menacing Attack. Go to 2c.

2a. If the monk is prone, I will make my bonus action attack from 5' with -5/+10 (using hand crossbow). I will use Menacing Attack on hits unless the monk is already frightened, and precision attack on near-misses, using action surge if available to continue in this manner, dropping the shortsword for reloading purposes. Go to 4.
2b. Else, if I am within 5' and have not used action surge, I will make a bonus action attack with the shortsword without -5/+10, using Trip attack on a hit, and no maneuver on a miss. If he is prone after this, go to 2a, otherwise go to 3a.
2c. Else, I will make a bonus action attack (no -5/+10, unless he is already frightened and has used his reaction), using Menacing attack on a hit if he is not yet frightened, and no maneuver on a miss. Go to 3a.

3a. If he is frightened and (has used his reaction or it is the last attack of my turn) and isn't dodging, I use -5/+10 attacks, using precision attack on near-misses, and no maneuver on hits.
3b. Else, I use non -5/+10 attacks (with shortsword if within 5', otherwise with hand crossbow), using Menacing attack on hits, and no maneuver on misses, unless he is below about 5 x (number of remaining attacks) HP, in which case I will use precision attack on near-misses.

4. I use any remaining movement to back away, willingly provoking an opportunity if (a) he is frightened, or (b) is prone, has ki left, I am above 10 HP, and I can get more than 25' away.
 

Except if you're a good stunner, you cannot do "pretty good damage". We've measured this. ANY class can out-damage your "pretty good damage", particularly if you made sure you're good at stunning. That is, if you use point buy or standard array, of course.


I've yet to see a champion fighter sword and board mentioned as beating the monks damage. For Paladins are you assuming they get to use all their divine smites? A daily resource.

Speaking of daily resources, how are we measuring a monks at-will damage against a bard? Do the bards get their daily spells? Or are they sticking with at-will damage too?

As you can see, I'm skeptical about ANY class.

Not if you were pumping Wisdom over Dex, which is what you have to do to be good at stunning. And that wasn't even his example, his example was that two-headed weapon, not the two short swords. You're cherry picking purely because he posted a chart which also happened to include that information. And even with that you got FIVE LEVELs. Come on Froggie...Monks cannot do "good damage" and also focus on stunning.


"We showed it wasn't good with this set up"

"Come on, he used a setting specific build that did beat it, you are cherry picking the example of the generic build that couldn't"



Also, if you care about damage, then why are you immediately jumping that our stun will be bad. That isn't damage.
 

My opinion is that the monk doesn't suck as much as it is very narrow. It's a 4e class in 5e. It's really good at one thing.

All monks except for the kensei archer is skirmisher. The class has 15 ways to do the same thing. Any attempt to branch out of that role leads to a weaker character.

And one the noncombat side, the high dependencies of Dex and Wis makes monks narrow on exploration and social roles as well.

Monks are way too similar. They are all* skirmishers.

*except bow kensei
 

Remove ads

Top