D&D 5E Short Rest Classes: Is the "Short Rest Problem" a "Monk Problem"

[Maxperson]

I mean, I have two games with Monks in right now. Both of them use Stunning Strike A LOT. Like, do they "spam it" by my normal definition of spam, i.e. use it every possible opportunity? No. Do they use it every possible sane opportunity when there's some kind of high-HD or otherwise threatening monster, especially a boss-type monster? Oh hell yeah.

This was my experience with the one monk I have DM'd for so far. Didn't spam it, but used it a lot and especially in important situations.

 

[ECMO3]

To my understanding, which may be flawed, isn't the monk a midliner class?

What I mean is there are primarily three types of classes: Frontliners, midliners, and backliners.

-Frontliners are face to face with enemies, typically "tank" types with d10 hit dice and heavy armor.

-Midliners are often "striker" types like the rogue and the monk, that move in to make a strike(s), then move out of the creatures reach. They typically have d8 hit dice and only use light armor (or no armor for monks).

-Backliners are typically the "blaster" spellcasters and ranged classes that have no intention of being in close combat, like wizards. d6 hit dice and little to no armor prof's.

Of course a few standout classes don't fit this model (like the bard), but it holds true for most classes.

Edit: Not that people actually play classes as they are designed

I think that is dated thinking that is not applicable in 5E. Any class can fill any of those roles and most can do it well.

For example, a Bladesinger, built right, is probably the best "frontliner" in the game and other Wizard subclasses can do very good at it with the right spells and race selections.

It is tougher to do a frontline Monk than it is for a Wizard, Fighter, Paladin or Cleric. But I think it is easier than it is for other classes and it is doable. I think you want to start with Shadar Kai for the damage resistance or a Halfling for second chance feat. Play a Kensei. If you take halfling on point buy start with a 17 Dex and take second chance, if SK take 17 Wisdom and pick up gift of Gem dragon, consider defensive duelist at 8th level. Then use your ki exclusively for patient defense. Doing this, you should have a pretty survivable frontliner.

 

[ECMO3]

Monk is the 'hoard Ki, then hope a boss fails to save vs Stunning Fist' class. I really hate that's where they went with it.

Who do you mean by they? Are you talking about WOTC or the average player?

The Monk chassis has a lot more than that .... enough that if you see this as a problem make stunning fist once a day use and Monks at your table will probably be a lot more effective.

 

[Minigiant]

If you actually think about the numbers Monks get a lot of ki. A 6th level Monk has 6 ki. If you assume a short rest every 2 battles and a battle lasts 3-4 rounds on average that is roughly enough ki to use one ki every single turn in combat. A 12th level Monk can use 2 ki just about every single turn. That is plenty ..... as long as you are not wasting it.

The only reason Monks seem to need a short rest is because players spam flurry of blows and stunning strike. Wizards would need more rests too if you allowed them to cast 5 leveled spells in a round.

I think the core issue is if you do2-3 encounters between short rest, then you only have access to level/2 or level/3 KI per fight.It averages to having Ki for each for the early half off your fights.

Not bad. But this assumption is based on a good half your party outsde of the monk dedicated to damage.

But if a lot of your party is not beatdown, the monsters drop slower. If the monsters drop slower then the monk has more turns with ki. And more turns without ki is more turns with the monk looking weaker as the non-ki monk is sad.

If your party is full of healers, utility guys, faces, and bards, your monk is gonna look

The other short rest classes have the same problem but the fighter and warlock are often high damage in "tired mode".

 

[ECMO3]

No, I'd say. They do equal or less damage and don't actually lockdown as well as a lot. But if they use Stunning Strike, well...

If you are basing this only on class abilities they do more in tier 1 and tier 2 than any other class.

The reason is they get a base 2 attacks a turn in tier 1 and 3 attacks a turn in tier 2, all with ability modifiers.

A Monk with a staff on point buy is doing 1d8+1d4+6 in tier 1 and 2d8+1d6+12 in tier 2. That is without using ki and without subclass, race or feats.

For comparison, a base fighter or Barbarian (not raging) is doing up to 2d6+3 in tier 1 and 4d6+8 in tier 2.

A raging barbarian is doing more in tier 2 (average 24.5 Monk vs 28 Barbarian), but he is using Rage and we are counting that then you should compare using FOB for the Monk which would boost his DPR to 32. If you are following standard short rest timelines a Monk should be able to use a ki nearly every turn.

You can use feats and subclass abilities to beat those numbers, but a base Monk is not behind anyone on melee damage before tier 3.

 

[ECMO3]

I said it's highly effective to play it that way, and I don't believe you're disagreeing. Stunning Strike is a truly incredible tool. It's probably the single most powerful tool Monks have. If you're not using it, you're definitely not playing a Monk to it's "full effectiveness" as you put it.

It can be an incredible tool. But a lot of enemies ... a whole lot ... have very high con saves and most Monks are maxing dex before wisdom so their DC is not usually stellar. If they are maxing wisdom, then they are not hitting as much.

For example, you are never going to build a Monk that is going to reliably land stunning strike against a purple worm or adult dragon. Chance for a bad roll (or really bad roll) - sure - but is that worth trying (and failing) at stunning strike until you are out of ki?

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps your Monk is effective with you playing it in a different way because of your DM and their choices in encounter design? Rather than solely patting yourself on the back for your "creativity" and implied "better-class"-ness (lol jeez dude come on, even I wouldn't say something like that, and I can be pretty pleased with myself!), perhaps consider that they design encounters in a way that actually creates room for a skirmisher to do clever things and for them to actually work? Which is not easy to do, and requires some intentionality (or a natural proclivity, I guess).

I play mostly WOTC adventures, both as a DM and as a player. IME Monks would be more effective if they used stunning strike less and if they used FOB a lot less and if they used patient defense, step of the wind and subclass abiilities more.

 

[Minigiant]

The Monk's issue is that it can't upgrade itself. Since its weapon selection is low and is unarmored, it really has few options upgrade itself with better equipment, magic items, and feats. This compels monk players to nova or stun more to look useful.

Same with nonhexblade Warlocks to lesser extent.

The Fighter doesn't have this problem but has fewer SR resources. So they gas out fast. The high power of their "tired" self masks them having few resources well if you build a fighter well or if they get good magic items.

 

[Art Waring]

I think that is dated thinking that is not applicable in 5E

I had a caveat at the end that some classes don't fit the model, and that most people dont play classes as they are designed...

but to each their own...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can use feats and subclass abilities to beat those numbers, but a base Monk is not behind anyone on melee damage before tier 3.

I mean, it's not really a "can". It's pretty much "if you have a Fighter subclass, you will beat those numbers". Barbarian subclasses vary but most will either boost their DPR further or boost survivability or both.

Whereas a lot of Monk subclasses will reduce your DPR if you use their abilities (or will just have very little impact on how you play at all). Often their ways to use Ki are objectively worse than baseline ways. This goes back to the overloaded chassis for Monks.

It's beside the point anyway, because you're just agreeing with me. They do equal or less damage, you're just pushing the equal more. Which isn't enough to wander around picking off casters/archers/etc. because 5E has high HP amounts for enemies. So the skirmisher role is kind of invalidated by that design - not just for Monks - a lot of classes have a skirmisher subclass or sub-subclass or two - whilst some work well for other reasons (Swashbuckler for example) none of them can "solo" people reliably.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I play mostly WOTC adventures, both as a DM and as a player. IME Monks would be more effective if they used stunning strike less and if they used FOB a lot less and if they used patient defense, step of the wind and subclass abiilities more.

I do agree that Patient Defense is underrated in Deadly encounters and up. Step of the Wind is mostly good for repositioning to use Stunning Strike or the like though, because the fact that Monks, like everyone else, can't "solo" people means that unless you're going after someone the ranged can also hit, it's rarely a good use of Ki. Re: subclasses, I'm not sure I agree. An awful lot of subclasses have no good Ki-using abilities (but often good free ones or riders on FoB), or Ki-using abilities that are very tightly situational to unusual situations (or even situations that are at odds with being a skirmisher and/or wanting to be alive). If the martial arts die was larger then an awful lot would be more useful.