D&D 5E Are monks very samey?

[Minigiant]

Thank you, but I was referring to the part I put in bold text.

It probably refer to many quotes on hammer and anvil where the hammer strikes the anvil. Monks are best at striking, not being striked.

Are monk at-will abilities less interesting than cantrips? Is punching (with a fist, sword, or nunchaku) less exciting than what a champion does?

It's less that they are less interesting and that they are all the same.

Level 5
Monk Fist: Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2 Bonus Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage
Monk Nunchaku: Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2 Bonus Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage
Monk Sword: Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2 Bonus Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage
Monk bow: Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2 Bonus Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage

Fighter Archer: Action Dex+5 to hit/1d8+Dex damage X2
Fighter Longsword: Action Str+3 to hit/1d8+Str+2 damage X2
Fighter Dual Shortswords: Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2 Bonus Action Dex+3 to hit/1d6+Dex damage X2
Fighter Greatsword: Action Str+3 to hit/2d6+Str damage X2 reroll 1 or 2


This is no counting reach or range. or the 3 syles which give defensive bonuses. Nor is it counting feats as it becomes worse as fighters get feats faster and monks are more dependent on stat increases in 2 ability scores.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hammer and anvil is a tactic where you use a mobile, destructive force (hammer) to crush an enemy against your other tough, static force (anvil).

Precisely. Monks don't really have anything going for them as anvils that a fighter doesn't have more of. Once contact is made in earnest, the monk transitions to a support role, not a main combatant--but he's good at ensuring that the fight takes place when/where/how you've chosen, and punishing an enemy who refuses to engage him.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's less that they are less interesting and that they are all the same.

So it's a mechanical thing? All monks, on an at-will level, are mechanically nigh-identical to a single style of fighter? And apparently it doesn't alleviate the homogeneity much, that you can wield nunchaku or sword or whatever without being penalized.

That seems pretty straightforward, and a fairly definitive affirmation of the question at hand.

 

[Celtavian]

"Grok" means "deeply understand". It's a reference to Heinlein's book "Stranger In a Strange Land" about a telepathic Martian who groks things very quickly. I've actually never read the whole book but the term is part of pop culture now...
[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], you don't strictly need the Mobile feat. You could just rely on missile weapons. But Mobile lets you get your bonus action attack into play, and eventually Stunning Strike. Yes, a fighter can do it too but a monk does it somewhat better due to faster movement (fighter would need to cast Expeditious Retreat to keep up). Mobile is not a mandatory feat, but it's helpful, just as Sharpshooter is helpful for an archer.

And yes, I know not having a tank can get casters dead. That's why I said the rest of the party is a liability against conventional foes. Monks can handle hobgoblins/goblins/basilisks/etc. by themselves.

I read that book recently. You didn't miss much. It was a hippy love dream.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So it's a mechanical thing? All monks, on an at-will level, are mechanically nigh-identical to a single style of fighter? And apparently it doesn't alleviate the homogeneity much, that you can wield nunchaku or sword or whatever without being penalized.

Here's a thought:

They're offensively similar, but defensively quite different. Here's the thing about defenses: you can either use them passively (Slow Fall whenever someone happens to throw you off a cliff) or proactively (deliberately fight in slippery slidey terrain with lots of cliffs to fall off of/push people off of). Did you ever see the movie Batman Begins? Offensively, Batman is kind of samey, right? All he ever does is punch people. But he seeks out dark places with lots of vertical surfaces so he can separate his enemies and attack from unexpected angles.

If you want monk passive abilities to be fun, you need to seek out a place with lots of shadows and vertical surfaces to run up/fall down. (Poison gasses are nice too.) Spider Man territory, or Lord of the Rings/Hobbit territory even. On a flat featureless plain like the Mongolian steppes, the only passive ability in play will be monk movement, and it can be negated by enemies simply climbing on a horse. Fight in the mountains instead, and in broken terrain crisscrossed with canyons.

D&D combat tends to be 2D, perhaps because it's hard to represent contour lines on a grid map, but IMO it's more fun if it's 3D-ish. I've been trying to take a page from video game design and use more Legos recently to represent slopes/mounds/roofs/etc. in my "levels", because a good area should be fun to navigate, and vertical movement is fun!

/Tangent

 

[bedir than]

Precisely. Monks don't really have anything going for them as anvils that a fighter doesn't have more of. Once contact is made in earnest, the monk transitions to a support role, not a main combatant--but he's good at ensuring that the fight takes place when/where/how you've chosen, and punishing an enemy who refuses to engage him.

Right. The monk is the hammer.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

But I do see what it said in this thread. Some groups don't have the high damage demands which encourage sameness and ki addiction.

Indeed. If most foes are damage sponges of HP, then wanting lots of damage is kinda pushed onto one's character.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Here's a thought:

They're offensively similar, but defensively quite different. Here's the thing about defenses: you can either use them passively (Slow Fall whenever someone happens to throw you off a cliff) or proactively (deliberately fight in slippery slidey terrain with lots of cliffs to fall off of/push people off of). Did you ever see the movie Batman Begins? Offensively, Batman is kind of samey, right? All he ever does is punch people. But he seeks out dark places with lots of vertical surfaces so he can separate his enemies and attack from unexpected angles.

He also works alone. You see much like thing such as disease immunity or resistance to energy drain in 3E, if a monk is getting major use out of heightened mobility, the other players are likely in rough situations where they are boned.

If you want monk passive abilities to be fun, you need to seek out a place with lots of shadows and vertical surfaces to run up/fall down. (Poison gasses are nice too.) Spider Man territory, or Lord of the Rings/Hobbit territory even. On a flat featureless plain like the Mongolian steppes, the only passive ability in play will be monk movement, and it can be negated by enemies simply climbing on a horse. Fight in the mountains instead, and in broken terrain crisscrossed with canyons.

Yeah getting the other players to buy in on that might be a bit harder, kinda like how heavy armor characters often are not so keen on sea voyages.

D&D combat tends to be 2D, perhaps because it's hard to represent contour lines on a grid map, but IMO it's more fun if it's 3D-ish. I've been trying to take a page from video game design and use more Legos recently to represent slopes/mounds/roofs/etc. in my "levels", because a good area should be fun to navigate, and vertical movement is fun!

/Tangent

Yeah, monks are VERY good at getting to hard to reach places that casters LOOOOVE to go to to rain down spells. Rushing in to stun a caster who has revealed himself can make the difference between the group eating one or two fireballs or at the very last causing the caster to reprioritize targets. There is a nasty CR 3 NPC fire caster in the new Princes of the Apocalypse book that is going to place a heightened importance on caster assassination.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Indeed. If most foes are damage sponges of HP, then wanting lots of damage is kinda pushed onto one's character.

This is one reason I object to cheap DM shenanigans like always maxing out enemy HP.

Yeah getting the other players to buy in on that might be a bit harder, kinda like how heavy armor characters often are not so keen on sea voyages.

Different strokes for different folks. I tend to prefer small groups (2-4 PCs) where each PC has a fairly major say in engagement tactics, but I know there are some groups (like one I just quit) where 7 to 10 PCs is common. And yep, Batman tactics won't work well in that kind of a setting, for social reasons if nothing else: that's 6 to 9 people sitting around waiting while you to kill the bad guys.

Yeah, monks are VERY good at getting to hard to reach places that casters LOOOOVE to go to to rain down spells. Rushing in to stun a caster who has revealed himself can make the difference between the group eating one or two fireballs or at the very last causing the caster to reprioritize targets. There is a nasty CR 3 NPC fire caster in the new Princes of the Apocalypse book that is going to place a heightened importance on caster assassination.

Monks are also good at pre-clearing the casters from an area (if you can figure out who they are) before the party comes into range of the spellcasters. Most spells have a range under 120 feet, and a Shadow Monk can move that far without even Dashing.