D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Esker]

No, what I’m saying is that “doesn’t reach high end optimization of DPR” is a completely different statement from “falls short mechanically”

I agree. But both of those statements apply to the monk.

I'd be perfectly happy if we dropped the word 'suck' entirely from this thread. It's clearly riling people up in ways that are orthogonal to the purpose of the original video that kicked this off. I've clarified that all I've ever meant by critiques of the class are that it has a number of flaws that cause parties to be mechanically weaker overall if they slot in a monk instead of pretty much anything else. I think what "sucks" is that that's the case. Like, it's a bummer for the game for someone who cares about having a lot of options for playstyles that are roughly on par with each other.

The mechanics aren't damage numbers, no. And lots of other things are harder to quantify. That doesn't mean that trying to quantify them is wrong. There might be better and worse ways to do it... and that's one role that threads like this can play: pointing out shortcomings of some particular analysis. But, I mean... the game runs on an engine of dice rolls, and numbers, with imagination and roleplay layered on top. It's a pretty darn quantitative system. That doesn't mean there aren't also other ways to talk about it that aren't quantitative, but quantitative analysis is most definitely a valid pursuit in itself.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Empirically, it was?

Statistically, yes.

That was not why I started the thread, and wasn't a big part of the video either.

OK, and yet, here we are, with you stating that what you really want to talk about is stuff that will make monks better.

But I don't think it's so far off topic, given part of the argument is "Monk is the worst melee focused class". I have not had trouble ignoring that part of the thread, have you?

Hmm, methinks he doth protest too much.

Understand that I have no particular horse in this race, and your passive-aggressive statements are sadly misdirected.

Man, this nit picking is really telling.

Preach it, brother.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Esker]

So can we at least agree that against a solo enemy that the monk is better to have in the party than a fighter?

I guess it probably depends on their CON save modifier compared to their AC and HP... My gut has two reactions: (1) Could be, but IME solo enemies usually aren't very interesting or challenging, and (2) The sorts of enemies where stun is super effective tend to also be the sort of enemies where ranged nova damage might be even more effective --- especially once you get to levels where any solo enemy worth thinking about has legendary resistance. But... I like the approach you took above, trying to convert stuns and damage into a common unit, and I need to think about it a bit more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree. But both of those statements apply to the monk

Except, they don’t. The top tier optimization is more DM/campaign dependent for the monk, but that’s it. As for “falling short mechanically”...IMO the only way to still think that is if you are only comparing flat numbers in a white room analysis, and ignoring facts everything else folks have said about playing a monk.

Like...we aren’t talking about how saitisfying the RP is. We are talking about the gameplay experience in combat and exploration. Ie, the experience with the mechanics.

This isn’t “how likely are you to get Covid” or some other discussion where data trumps experience. Experience is more relevant to whether the mechanics are working, because working is a matter of satisfaction, which is inherently experiential.

But even beyond that, many of the things that are harder to quantify are mechanics. Moving 20ft further per move action at no cost is a mechanic, it impacts fights and exploration challenges, and it’s hard to quantify in a white room because it is very hard to plug into an equation without running a thousand simulated scenarios first. But, when most people who play monks say that they often end up the star of a scene because of their speed, it’s hard to take seriously an analysis with a strongly held conclusion that doesn’t take that into account.

 

[Flamestrike]

IME solo enemies usually aren't very interesting or challenging,

That's why a good DM makes his Solo creatures Legendaries.

Increase HP by 50 percent, tack on 3 LR and 3 Legendary actions and boom.

And yes, 'legendary saves hurt the Monk because he relies on Stunning' but another way of looking at it is there is no finer way to deplete Legendary resistances than a Monk. The ability to force several LR burns in a single turn is priceless.

A legendary monster that fails a save vs Stun will use its resistance to pass. Same cant be said for many BM save effects.

 

[CleverNickName]

Query: If I were joining your group for a hypothetical campaign where you were inclined to exclude monks, assuming a swashbuckler sort of character concept would be appropriate in general, and I wanted to play a Monk (probably kensei or drunken master flavored as someone who employs a style of fighitng that causes enemies to overreach and get in eachother's way, like a trickier Spanish Circle) as a sort of Aramis-style musketeer/man of god, would you allow that?

Because I think honestly the PHB should have focused the lore less on Asian themes, and let the class breath a bit more, and that is 90% of why it feels off for some campaigns.

Probably not. I'd probably try to steer you into the direction of the rogue or fighter, whichever would be more appropriate for a non-monk game. I figure it would be easier to do that than to rewrite all of the monk's lore and rename all of the monk's abilities to make it fit the world.

But if you really, really insisted on playing monk because nothing but the monk would do, I'd try to find out why, and then accommodate as best I could within the framework of the game. Possibly making changes to the lore, or maybe allowing a Fighter to take a Monk subclass, I dunno.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That quote is quite old as @Yunru hasn't posted here in quite some time. There's no telling if that wording issue was settled at the time it was made. I was only suggesting the reason he would have used different percentages. No idea why you are quoting me like I don't understand that or agree.

Um, you missed the part where I said this was from my discussion with them over at GiTP today. They are literally... well, ignoring me, but responding in that thread.

Speaking of...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treantmonk popped in over there, and left a quote. I want to put this out there, because I think this helps highlight his ideas of the "Baseline damage" and explain a lot of where the confusion has come from.

What I don't do when calculating DPR is take a spell that does damage for one round and claim it can be expected as DPR for more than one round, for the same reason I wouldn't do that with Flames of the Fire Snake. However, when a spell has an extended effect, and can be used for many rounds, and in some cases (like Spirit Guardians) for potentially many combats, then I do. Obviously, this decision could have been different, but it's in line with the way I analyze these things. I am definitely not hiding the decisions I made and am happy to explain why I made them (and I have), but others might make different decisions than me, and draw different conclusions, which is fine.

I'd include a link, but I remember linking to other forums is generally frowned upon.

The point here though is, Treantmonk considers daily spells with durations as part of the baseline damage. So, a Cleric's baseline damage is going to include Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon. While, since he only looks at a single fight, a Paladin's smites are also counted into their baseline damage (I am to assume, he did not state this)

That aspect clarifies why the monk is behind "all" other classes. Because most of those classes are burning daily abilities in a single fight to count, while a monk doesn't have any daily spells to utilize to increase their damage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I just take on a single point:

Shadow monk is the most mobile character I have ever seen. He is also very sneaky on top.

 

[humble minion]

Shadow monk is the most mobile character I have ever seen. He is also very sneaky on top.

I played a 3e shadowdancer to 20th level. Shadow monk is what shadowdancer should have been.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I figure it would be easier to do that than to rewrite all of the monk's lore and rename all of the monk's abilities to make it fit the world.

Fluff is invisible in-game. All the player has to do is say "this is my character and this is what I can do".

Shadow Monk always makes me think of a Batman type character rather than anything wuxia.