D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Mistwell]

I'm on mobile so things will be harder.

I'll note though, I'm responding to stun because you changed the goalpost. We are talking about damage as far as I coukd tell, and you immediately switched to "but what about your stun?"

The post I was replying to was about stun being the focus, with "good damage" as well. I questioned the "good damage" part, saying it wouldn't be both. I didn't switch.

How does a double scimitar kensei monk stack up?

I don't know. Someone should stat one up. I have wished Treantmonk would take a shot at making his own best monk. So far he has not.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait. Why can't I stun and flurry? That is literally the biggest strength of the stunning strike.

You're right you can. Having never played a monk, I forgot it's not a bonus action to stun. Just an attack action.

 

[Esker]

Wait. Why can't I stun and flurry? That is literally the biggest strength of the stunning strike.

I just did an analysis on GiTP showing that with a 20% stun rate per hit (jumping off another posters work) that translates to about a 60% chance of successfully stunning after 4 hits.

Which is a counter to the "lower Stun dc" because the iterative chance is still good if you really need it

20% per hit seems quite low. I guess it's not far off the success rate in Critical Role, but I'm not sure that's the best point of comparison, to be honest, since a party of 7 is likely to be facing higher CR monsters for their level than a party of a more typical size.

But whatever the rate, CON is a worse save to target on average than most other things, so while the rate is probably higher than 20%, it's lower attempt-for-attempt than something targeting DEX or WIS, say (which I believe swap places as you level, with WIS being a better target early, and DEX being a better target late). And so, being able to make multiple attempts in a turn is nice.... except that it's something you can't do very often, because you'll burn through ki too quickly.

Which is why I think it makes sense to look at some reasonable benchmark for number of rounds per short rest, and see how many turns worth of stunned you get for your ki pool if you use it on nothing else. And then you can look at how many enemy turns you prevent with damage assuming you're spending your ki that way (though you'll need some enemy damage estimates there, too), and add them up.

 

[Asisreo]

Can we have a genuine discussion without the goal post moves? This shouldn't be a game of whack-a-mole.

There's nowhere left for the discussion to go. We've distilled the game down to DPR, AC, and save chances when there's more to combat than those three.

I can argue whether or not it's fair for a TWF rogue to have sneak attack or not. We can all agree if they don't, there damage goes out the window. I could argue whether or not it's fair to assume a fighter at any level will have more protective armor than the ones they start with. We can agree if they don't, tanking goes out the window. I can argue most wizards never take a control spell that parallels stunning strike. We can agree if they don't, a monk in a party is much more unique.

And I can make these claims uncontested just as anyone can make uncontested claims about how sneak attacks are guaranteed every turn or that all mundane equipment will be available and affordable by level 2.

Whichever sounds reasonable or gets the most agreements doesn't matter since you can't quantify an appropriate estimation based on the most likely maximum of 10 responders to this 45 page deep discussion. The sample size is too small and their testimony may differ from their actual play.

Honestly, I can play this way:

Let's assume the amount of opportunities to attack that a fighter gets every turn equates to 60% of all their enemies and a fighter's DPR is 45. Now, let's assume the monk's extra movement speed grants them 95% opportunities to make their attack every turn. A monk's DPR is 40. The fighter only has an effective DPR of 27 while the monk has an effective DPR of 38.

It's nonsense based on assumptions that you require the audience to have in order for your predictions to work. Even if you consider yourself being generous, the actual number is no more than the assumption it's based on.

You can start the discussion with: "let's assume the fighter will have GWM and they do this damage..."

I can say "No. I don't think an average fighter will pick up the GWM feat."

You could respond with: "Look how often it comes up in these forums! Everyone I know who plays fighter takes it!"

And I'd say "So? That doesn't mean the average fighter takes GWM, even when the feat's available."

It's the same energy as "The earth is flat! Let's assume the earth is flat, that would explain this! Look around, these are flat plains, not a round curve!"

 

[Esker]

Someone should stat one up.

Alas, the double scimitar has the "special" property and so can't be used as a kensei weapon.

 

[Undrave]

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

I feel the same way.

 

[Mort]

You're right you can. Having never played a monk, I forgot it's not a bonus action to stun. Just an attack action.

It's not even that. It's like paladin smite, after you hit you can declare you also want to try to stun. You can do it on every hit - as long as you have Ki.

 

[Asisreo]

It's not even that. It's like paladin smite, after you hit you can declare you also want to try to stun. You can do it on every hit - as long as you have Ki.

What's interesting is that this means it isn't a matter of using 4 Ki points every turn to try a stun, we can actually determine how many ki points would be needed to successfully stun on average since it isn't a matter of if the stun happens but when.

So, with a 20% chance of success, it would take only 5 ki points to stun the target. That's 5 ki points, not necessarily 5 attacks since some can miss depending on AC.

Still not conclusive whether the monk sucks or not, but now we get an idea how much Ki would be needed to successfully stun: not alot, actually.

I think people may be wasting their Ki on Flurry too much when Stunning can be more effective if they strategize right.

But that's just my hypothesis.

 

[Weiley31]

Does the damage issue still come up if your a Way of The Soulknife Monk? The Mike Mearls version. You can have your attacks do Psychic Damage and you can Synaptic Overload something to gain vulnerability to Psychic Damage, therefore doubling your damage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

20% per hit seems quite low. I guess it's not far off the success rate in Critical Role, but I'm not sure that's the best point of comparison, to be honest, since a party of 7 is likely to be facing higher CR monsters for their level than a party of a more typical size.

But whatever the rate, CON is a worse save to target on average than most other things, so while the rate is probably higher than 20%, it's lower attempt-for-attempt than something targeting DEX or WIS, say (which I believe swap places as you level, with WIS being a better target early, and DEX being a better target late). And so, being able to make multiple attempts in a turn is nice.... except that it's something you can't do very often, because you'll burn through ki too quickly.

Which is why I think it makes sense to look at some reasonable benchmark for number of rounds per short rest, and see how many turns worth of stunned you get for your ki pool if you use it on nothing else. And then you can look at how many enemy turns you prevent with damage assuming you're spending your ki that way (though you'll need some enemy damage estimates there, too), and add them up.

The person had statted a fight against a beholder, and said that they had only a 22% chance at level 5, per attack. But stopped right before showing that if you spend all 4 attacks, is a real good chance of actually succeeding.

I do agree it is incredibly expensive if you have to spend until the end but, I wanted to show that the chance of succeeding increases by spending more