D&D 5E My Response to the "Monk Sucks" thread

[Mistwell]

Sure there is, a Lizardfolk Monk that is proficient in shields can just keep a shield on their back, (not wearing Heavy armor).
If Scales and Shield would yield a better AC, the Monk equips the shield. If the monk needs to hit nitrous..the monk drops the shield.

If Plate Armor..say for a battlefield sequence would be a better option...it is an available option as well.
If Magic Loot is found that changes the balance of the numbers, you adapt your style to make use of what is available.

The part in italics is a brief summation of Musashi's fighting philosophy....Mr. Kensai himself.

OK I see what you're saying now. I thought you were saying there was a good option for just Lizardfolk natural armor. I see you tied it to a shield so yes that does make sense.

 

[FrozenNorth]

On a more serious note, if you are in a party of 4 or fewer PCs, the skills provided by a rogue may be more critical to the party than the fighting prowess of the monk. A traditional party of a Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter could use a Rogue more than a Monk I think. Cleric and Fighter can take front line, while rogue and wizard back line. Rogue can cover just about all the skills-focused needs of the party. Monk might be more effective for combat, but leaving the party short on skills will likely have worse long term consequences for adventuring.

Unless you have a Paladin instead of a Cleric, in which case a Monk can net you both Wis and Dex skills.

 

[Undrave]

A monk in armor can still Flurry and Stunning Fist

Why would you Flurry when your unarmed attack would do 1 dmg? Or do you mean with that ONE build with the Lizardfolk race? Then congrats! You found a second build of monk! Yay... that needs MCing to gain armor proficiency, which, AGAIN, doesn't actually speak much of the Monk's versatility.

If your game does not feature needing to change arms and armor, if a GWM Fighter can always expect to waltz up to monsters and whack them with their glaive...then versatility is just not an Important attribute, then. Games differ.

Unless you're doing a 'you wake up in prison' game then...yeah... usuall, the Fighter has their signature weapon, and if they can't reach then they have thrown weapon or a long bow, which are all on par or superior to the Monk's own ranged options. I don't think having a class rely on the niche scenario of 'you get attacked while naked' is worth it if you ask me.

If Scales and Shield would yield a better AC, the Monk equips the shield.

WHEN? When would 15 AC be better than a Monk unarmored defense exactly?

The moment you use a shield or armor you lose your entire Martial Arts class feature, waste the Unarmored Defense class feature (so basically you monk level 1 is pointless and no longer exists, except to give you terrible hit dice) and you lose your Unarmored Movement bonus to speed...

If you want to MC into Cleric and delay Stunning Fist and Evasion even more, go ahead, but using heavy armor or a shield is just lugging needless bagage.

 

[see]

Or, alternatively, that Monks do not receive much support from non-class resources, which is true, but it's not something you should be blaming on the class.

Okay, but is it the fault of the monk that they received little to no support in feats and magic items

Yeah, see, the class is not a person that I'm blaming or faulting. It's one bit of rules text among many, written by the very same people who wrote the rules texts for feats and magic items. Either the character class under-performs in the context of the whole game or it doesn't. Saying "it's not the fault of the class features that it under-performs, it's the fault of some other part of the rules that it under-performs" is simply conceding that the class under-performs.

If a DM chooses to run a game without feats, he's chosen to nerf the fighter class's extra ASIs feature a bit. That's a perfectly acceptable choice; it isn't so important that it makes the game unplayable for the fighter. But showing that the monk keeps up with a nerfed version of the fighter is a demonstration of the monk's under-performance.

a Monk with a Defender Shortsword, Bracers of Defense, A Ring of Protection and a Cloak of Protection, with 20/16 Dex/Wis can have 25 AC every single round. Very similiar to the Fighter with +3 Platemail and +3 Shield (26)

Well, yes, if you equip a monk with four items that require attunement, in defiance of the rules, you can be just short of the AC of a fighter that has two items that don't require attunement.

If the DM is running a game where the fact that the basic versions of fighter magic items (weapons, armor, shields) do not require attunement is not an advantage, he again has chosen to nerf the fighter a bit. That's fine as a choice for any given campaign; it doesn't make the game unplayable for the fighter. But showing that the monk keeps up with a nerfed version of the fighter again goes ahead and demonstrates the monk's under-performance.

 

[Mistwell]

Unless you have a Paladin instead of a Cleric, in which case a Monk can net you both Wis and Dex skills.

With fewer skills, a shorter list of skills to choose, no expertise, no other major skill boosting abilities, and multi stat dependency, monk will not keep up with the rogue for skills.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Unless you're doing a 'you wake up in prison' game then...yeah... usuall, the Fighter has their signature weapon, and if they can't reach then they have thrown weapon or a long bow, which are all on par or superior to the Monk's own ranged options. I don't think having a class rely on the niche scenario of 'you get attacked while naked' is worth it if you ask me.

Common tropes of D&D where PCs typically are unarmed and unarmored.

1. Barfight
2. Attacked while sleeping
3. In the nobles court
4. Captured and jailed
5. Bushwhacked by an enemy waiting for you to let your guard down
6. Equipment destroying traps and monsters.
7. Bushwhacking an enemy by appearing to have let your guard down
8. Impersonating someone who is unarmed and unarmored

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, see, the class is not a person that I'm blaming or faulting. It's one bit of rules text among many, written by the very same people who wrote the rules texts for feats and magic items. Either the character class under-performs in the context of the whole game or it doesn't. Saying "it's not the fault of the class features that it under-performs, it's the fault of some other part of the rules that it under-performs" is simply conceding that the class under-performs.

A very important distinction though. If the monk is too weak because limited magic item support then you fix that by creating stronger magic items for monks. If the monk is weak because of class features you buff the monk's class features.

If a DM chooses to run a game without feats, he's chosen to nerf the fighter class's extra ASIs feature a bit. That's a perfectly acceptable choice; it isn't so important that it makes the game unplayable for the fighter. But showing that the monk keeps up with a nerfed version of the fighter is a demonstration of the monk's under-performance.

I think you've got this backwards. Feats are an optional rule - albeit a very popular one. Technically that means using feats would be buffing a fighter's class extra ASI feature. Showing that a monk keeps up with an unbuffed version of the fighter is precisely the point!

If the DM is running a game where the fact that the basic versions of fighter magic items (weapons, armor, shields) do not require attunement is not an advantage, he again has chosen to nerf the fighter a bit. That's fine as a choice for any given campaign; it doesn't make the game unplayable for the fighter. But showing that the monk keeps up with a nerfed version of the fighter again goes ahead and demonstrates the monk's under-performance.

If your Monk doesn't have good magic items he can use you can fix it by homebrewing some. That's a trivially easy problem to solve.

 

[FrogReaver]

With fewer skills, a shorter list of skills to choose, no expertise, no other major skill boosting abilities, and multi stat dependency, monk will not keep up with the rogue for skills.

I'm looking at the shadow monk and it's +10 to party stealth spell. I'd say the right monk arguably performs better than the rogue at skills.

The multi-stat dependency is great for skills - dex and wis are two very good stats for strong skills.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm looking at the shadow monk and it's +10 to party stealth spell. I'd say the right monk arguably performs better than the rogue at skills.

The multi-stat dependency is great for skills - dex and wis are two very good stats for strong skills.

It's not great for skills because it means you cannot choose a different stat to boost. A rogue can afford to spend points in Charisma if the party needs face skills, or intelligence if the party needs investigation or history or something. A monk cannot really make that choice - they must go dex and wis. Multi stat dependency is never good for flexibility.

As for the spell, sure, one subclass can do that thing. And a rogue can choose a spellcasting subclass too (and of course Druids, Rangers, Bards, trickery Clerics, etc. can cast the same spell). We're talking base class here. Rogues outclass monks on skills. I don't think that's really something very debatable.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not great for skills because it means you cannot choose a different stat to boost. A rogue can afford to spend points in Charisma if the party needs face skills, or intelligence if the party needs investigation or history or something. A monk cannot really make that choice - they must go dex and wis. Multi stat dependency is never good for flexibility.

As for the spell, sure, one subclass can do that thing. And a rogue can choose a spellcasting subclass too. We're talking base class here. Rogues outclass monks on skills. I don't think that's really something very debatable.

I don’t think that’s a fair way of looking at either of those things.