mellored
Legend
Half casters now get their spells at level 1...
D&D (2024) 1st level monk. Why?
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Not in the 2014 rules. But that’s a good observation, and a good argument for Discipline Points at level 1! I’ll include that in my survey feedback.
Over in the other monk thread I've noted the damage of a 1st level monk: https://www.enworld.org/threads/playtest-packet-6-monk-reactions.698502/page-9#post-9058753
and compared it to the a fighter (and then eventually the barbarian in later posts:
What the results showed is: A 1st level monk does PLENTY of damage, in fact a good bit more than other martial classes.
If you were going to argue anything for the monk at this point would be a little more survivability, but they really do not need more damage at 1st level. They are currently the "glass cannon" of the martials, and that cannon is packing.
and compared it to the a fighter (and then eventually the barbarian in later posts:
What the results showed is: A 1st level monk does PLENTY of damage, in fact a good bit more than other martial classes.
If you were going to argue anything for the monk at this point would be a little more survivability, but they really do not need more damage at 1st level. They are currently the "glass cannon" of the martials, and that cannon is packing.
Chaosmancer
Legend
Not really. A Cleric with medium armor can trivially have an 18 AC by level 1. A monk maxes at 16 AC at the same level. This is why Barbarians often wear medium armor, the way the numbers shape up, it is always better than unarmored defense until you get 16/20 in the stats and get 18 AC. But casters like clerics, druids and artificers can use shields, meaning that quite quickly, by level 5 at least, they are going to be sporting a 19 AC. And that's before magic boosts that may happen.
To get a 19 AC for monks requires a getting to either level 12 or level 16, depending on if you took a feat. And by level 16 it would not be unfair to assume magical armor that has special properties, something a monk cannot access.
So, yes, by the time you are reaching tier 3 play, you have the same AC as medium armor and shield at the very beginning of tier 2, but that isn't a GOOD amount of armor for someone reliant on being in melee.
Chaosmancer
Legend
Which is why the fantasy the monk promises is enticing to people. It fails to meet that fantasy though, which is a problem.
Yes, if you mean giving the Monk a chance to be as good or better than the fighter within their space, then that is what they should have done.
Put a Paladin and a Fighter side by side, and it is nearly impossible to determine which one is "better" at level 1. They are doing basically the same things.
Put a Ranger and a Fighter side by side, and it is the same thing.
Put a Barbarian and a Fighter side by side, and the barbarian is going to be doing less damage probably, but they are much tougher, and so it works out pretty nicely.
At level 1 the monk (without the nick exploit) is not doing more damage than the fighter, they aren't tougher than the fighter, they aren't faster than the fighter. They lack spells and abilities almost entirely. They are... generally just weaker. And that is a problem.
Heck, Monks get compared to Rogues a lot. The rogue will have 1 less AC, massive buff to out-of-combat skills through expertise, and be capable of dealing 3d6+3 or 13.5 damage on a turn. Basically the same as the completely unarmed monk.
I don't need Monks to do more damage. I'm okay if their AC stays as is. But they need a little more HP, and they need something unique beyond "if we are captured, stripped and enslaved, I can still fight!" for a class identity.
You are right, that is another question, and not one we are discussing.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I could get behind the dodge. I was thinking of leaning into their mobility aspect. Give them ki of 1+wis mod and step of the wind at level 1, and they transform pretty dramatically in terms of what they can do. Maybe even start unarmored movement at a +5 ft level 1.
Part of the issue might be whether someone considers 6.5 points of average damage to actually be a "CRUSHING" difference, or just a standard difference of what a Fighter and a Monk could/should/would do.
I personally do not see a Fighter doing 6.5 more points of damage more than the Monk to be that big of a deal... especially considering if I chose to play a Monk it was probably because of all the story and fluff reasons and not because I just wanted to be concerned with combat damage. But that's just me.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
And advanced mobility, so you can get your damage on the targets that might actually want to stay out of combat.
Just comparing DPR numbers is just white room analysis without any basis.
Also I have not seen stunning blow factored in.
Edit: and if you happen to advance to 14th level, having only good saves and advantage if you desire can transition in a lot more damage than 6.5 DPR.
The fighter might wish that he had taken rsilience wisdom instead of charger.
So if you don't use Nick, you can still use a quarterstaff and do 1d8 + 3, 1d6 +3 (14) . Versus a Fighter with TWF doing 1d6 + 3, 1d6 +3 (13).
So the Monk does still does 7.7% more damage. You can argue whether that's enough considering you have removed the Monk's best damage option, but the monk still does more than the fighter.
Or the monk can use a greatclub to do 1d8 +3 damage and push the target away 10 feet, allowing them to run back..... which might address that key survivability option people are concerned about in certain fights. Though its should be noted that doing that you forego your unarmed strike, so you are trading offense for defense. But that is an option as I know people were saying monks have no flexibility in trading offense and defense.
Similar Threads
