D&D 5E (2014) Are monks very samey?

[Sunseeker]

But barbarians and paladin can choose different weapons, armor, and weapon styles.

These are largely visual effects. You still hit things with a stick, sometimes it's a bigger stick, sometimes it's a blunt stick, but it's still a stick. Sometimes you wear armor made from cows, sometimes you wear armor made from dragons, sometimes you wear armor made from metal.

The end result is a AC of X and a weapon damage of 1dX or 2dX+mod. If weilding a mace is what makes your paladin so different from everyone else's then I suspect there is far more to it than the fact that your paladin wields a mace. I suspect you are RPing up the personal value of that mace to your character. Maybe its a defining feature of where your paladin was trained, maybe it's the symbol of his people or his god, but I think you're being disingenuous if you're going to argue that your paladin is "totally different!" because of a mace.

Once a monk is out of ki, it's punch x3 over and over. Sure at low level you might get to pick weapon as your unarmed strike is weak. But you lose a lot of the incentives as you level and the class drops off in power if you don't follow conventional styles.

That's pretty much how all the melee classes play though. Once a paladin is out of spell slots, no more smite. Once a paladin is out of channel, no more heals, once a barbarian is out of rage, once a battlemaster is out of superiority dice, etc...

But I'm nontraditional in build too. And a lot of the monk seems to allow variation very early and coalesce into one style due to no support for any thing else and heavy reliance on FoB and Martial Art unarmed strikes.

From playing a monk, I really disagree with this assessment.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The question sounds weird which all their class features and options. But members of the class look very similar throughout most of play from the outside. They heavily nudge to the same ability scores and combat styles. There is little encouragement for weapon or armor so you can't differentiate that way without a hit. And although the subclasses grant options, at low to mid levels you lack the ki to do them often. Then with the way the monk's martial arts and ki abilities are written, fewer feats work wit it.

Although it is understandable. You don't want to go too far from tradition in the PHB and balancing to one style is easier. But after the latest survey results article and the Modifying Classes article, you can see a slight desire for other options.

So what's your opinion? Are monks samey? Would you have preferred more combat options (at the cost of being less focused). If yes, would type of monk combat style would you want? A weapon monk? Power strikes? Ki blasts? Suplexes and piledrivers? Submission holds? Flaming uppercuts?

I've only seen the Shadow Monk in play, but since his most commonly-used ability to a subclass feature with no ki cost (Shadow Jump) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that other monks would not play the same way, low ki notwithstanding. There would be similarities (he likes to jump off high places, using his Monk resistance to fall damage), but other monks would have difficulty getting UP high buildings until they hit 9th level.

Full disclosure: this particular monk multiclassed to druid at 7th level, so he's not strictly a monk any more, although he doesn't usually use druid abilities except for casting fire spells via a Staff of Flame (not usable by pure monks). It's possible that he'd be more samey if he were a straight monk with no magic items and no xixchil biomodifications. But, still. I think Shadow Monks are distinct.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My main PC in our main campaign is a shadow monk. I've also played an elemental monk in some one-offs. They play pretty differently. Also, while ki is a resource that can run out, I usually can go a few combat encounters before doing so. And it regens on a short rest.

In fact, many times my ki isn't used for a subclass specific ability, but usually on one of the main abilities, like dodge or step of the wind or flurry of blows. Heck, I can't tell you how many times my shadow monk (you'd think rogue type character) was the main frontline guy. Between high AC due to WIS and DEX, and dodge? I was near unhittable. An excellent PC to get the attention of the big bad while the other PCs did their thing.

 

[kerbarian]

For me, I think the sameness comes in the physical description more than anything mechanical. If I think about a character, the most basic sketch of what they look like comes from race, armor, and weapons. Monks will generally all be unarmored, and they'll all spend at least some time attacking with the same weapon (unarmed strike). So when I think about what they'd look like in combat, there's definitely a bit of sameness.

However, monks are also very flexible in their weapon choices. You can fight with a quarterstaff, unarmed, or with twin short swords, and it's mechanically the same (after a few levels). So you can get some visual distinctiveness there without having to build around it.

 

[Larac]

I have a "Monk" NPC, he is a bare knuckle fighter, just refluffed the stuff a bit for him.

Seems to be a good fit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For me, I think the sameness comes in the physical description more than anything mechanical. If I think about a character, the most basic sketch of what they look like comes from race, armor, and weapons. Monks will generally all be unarmored, and they'll all spend at least some time attacking with the same weapon (unarmed strike). So when I think about what they'd look like in combat, there's definitely a bit of sameness.

However, monks are also very flexible in their weapon choices. You can fight with a quarterstaff, unarmed, or with twin short swords, and it's mechanically the same (after a few levels). So you can get some visual distinctiveness there without having to build around it.

Monks are also quite good with a bow. Especially wood elf monks--the one kind of elf for whom the weapon proficiency actually matters. They're still not as deadly as Sharpshooter fighters, nor as consistent as rogues, but they do tend to win archery duels due to high shieldless AC and the ability to nullify arrow hits. A monk is never your first choice as an archer, but archery should probably be a monk's first choice when it comes to combat, in this person's opinion. Don't rush into melee just because you want to use your bonus action attack.

 

[Sunseeker]

For me, I think the sameness comes in the physical description more than anything mechanical. If I think about a character, the most basic sketch of what they look like comes from race, armor, and weapons. Monks will generally all be unarmored, and they'll all spend at least some time attacking with the same weapon (unarmed strike). So when I think about what they'd look like in combat, there's definitely a bit of sameness.

However, monks are also very flexible in their weapon choices. You can fight with a quarterstaff, unarmed, or with twin short swords, and it's mechanically the same (after a few levels). So you can get some visual distinctiveness there without having to build around it.

Personally, I don't see the description as all that similar since this is how I picture monks:
You've got your Open Palm monk:

You've got your Shadow monk:

You've got your Four Elements monk:

Yeah, they're all very asian and honestly a lot of westerners have trouble seeing the difference between asian culturalisms, but to me I think the monk subclasses are all pretty clear-cut different, even if they all hit things with their fists.

 

[Minigiant]

For me, I think the sameness comes in the physical description more than anything mechanical. If I think about a character, the most basic sketch of what they look like comes from race, armor, and weapons. Monks will generally all be unarmored, and they'll all spend at least some time attacking with the same weapon (unarmed strike). So when I think about what they'd look like in combat, there's definitely a bit of sameness.

Indeed that was how I was feeling. Martial Arts and Unarmed Defense (monk version) is sorta double edge. It's so good that anything but an unarmed unarmored monk looks good and monk weapons lose their flavor.

However, monks are also very flexible in their weapon choices. You can fight with a quarterstaff, unarmed, or with twin short swords, and it's mechanically the same (after a few levels). So you can get some visual distinctiveness there without having to build around it.

True.
My issue is monks don't get fighting styles nor benefit enough from weapon feats to make those weapon styles matter either. You can't really run the sniping archer, the high damage cleaving heavy weapons warrior, the defensive shield tank, or the polearm zone of death. Martial arts is reflavored Two Weapong Fighting and monks lack the damage buffs other warrior classes have.


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. Even though open hand monks really focus on punching and kicking, Shadow monks have shadow jump to break thinks up. As for elemental monks, they seem to be ki addicts to the point the survey were flooded and new ideas are planned.

 

[Sunseeker]

As for elemental monks, they seem to be ki addicts to the point the survey were flooded and new ideas are planned.

I do agree that Four Elements monks are very ki-reliant, I don't see that as that much of a problem persay, but I wish there were some simple things you could do to fluff it up a bit without always burning as much ki (flame of the fire snake+fury of blows burns 2 ki per turn). I think the cost of the ki-spells is fair, but I'd like there to be a little bit more I could do without having to burn as much ki ever turn.

 

[Celtavian]

The made the ki costs for Elemental Monks way too high. One ability and you're practically done until a short rest at low level. Even at high level you can't do very much before you're out. Doesn't make for a very fun class archetype.