D&D 5E Barbarian vs Fighter vs Monk
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Storminator
First Post
I'm not suggesting you run another set of scenarios, but fighting one powerful monster should be in the barbarian's wheelhouse. Taking half damage from large hits is going to help more against one big attack per round. If they fought 3 lower level monsters the fighter might look tougher, as he avoids more hits and the -2 per hit is closer to the half per hit of the barbarian if the attack is smaller.
The big damage of the barbarian is also more likely to generate more wasted damage against multiple targets.
Not sure what's going to help the monk tho. He seems pretty far behind.
PS
The big damage of the barbarian is also more likely to generate more wasted damage against multiple targets.
Not sure what's going to help the monk tho. He seems pretty far behind.
PS
Well, the goal is to replicate the feel of past editions, after all!
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I'm totally for the Monk being worse at fighting a fire giant than a Barbarian or a Fighter. The Monk should be better in non-combat areas overall, though, which should help make up for it. But that's my preference, and I understand that some people want all classes to be equal in combat. That completely goes against my preference, but I do get it. As always, play what you like 
Manbearcat
Legend
I typically try not to spam threads with non-contributory responses to posts but lol to this.
A more contributory response fro me would be to reiterate [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s suggestion that the monk have some sort of ki healing or similar damage mitigation.
Sure, but this monk doesn't look all that strong in those domains either. Slow Fall, Expertise dice on Wis or Dex checks, and the option to spend ki to move further/faster, don't seem to really compensate for being so much worse as a combatant - particularly when the archetype is clearly that of the warrior monk.
I appreciate the OPs work on this, it gives us a good idea of the current state of play.
I would be happy to see a monk become a bit of a 4e style controller in combat. It makes a fair bit of sense for a monk to disarm, knock prone, stun, daze, immobilize, grapple, throw, blind or otherwise hamper an opponent. I think it could add in a lot more martial arts flavor than we have at the moment. Monks in most games feel like boxers, all they ever do is strike. I want to see arm-locks, throws and nerve-strikes come back into the forefront of a monks repertoire.
Although I am roughly familiar with it, I never played D&D before 4e. Can somebody please explain to me what the role of a barbarian was in the past? Were they a damage dealing machine or a defensive character? Since I am more familiar with 4e and other games, I am finding the resistance to weapons when raging thing really unusual. I picture a barbarian dishing out the damage, but not taking it like that. I'm more familiar with games where beserking means you temporarily ignore injury, but really pay for it later on.
I would be happy to see a monk become a bit of a 4e style controller in combat. It makes a fair bit of sense for a monk to disarm, knock prone, stun, daze, immobilize, grapple, throw, blind or otherwise hamper an opponent. I think it could add in a lot more martial arts flavor than we have at the moment. Monks in most games feel like boxers, all they ever do is strike. I want to see arm-locks, throws and nerve-strikes come back into the forefront of a monks repertoire.
Although I am roughly familiar with it, I never played D&D before 4e. Can somebody please explain to me what the role of a barbarian was in the past? Were they a damage dealing machine or a defensive character? Since I am more familiar with 4e and other games, I am finding the resistance to weapons when raging thing really unusual. I picture a barbarian dishing out the damage, but not taking it like that. I'm more familiar with games where beserking means you temporarily ignore injury, but really pay for it later on.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
In general, they've been more offensively focused. Barbarians have generally been lightly armored, but with an innate toughness that compensated for the lack of armor. (See using a d12 for HP and innate damage reduction in 3e, as well as the Con to AC in 4e). I believe in 1e they also had more hit points and higher stats than other characters, and were resistant to lots of magic, but that was balanced(sort of!) by an inability to use magic items. 2e had no barbarians to speak off.
Manbearcat
Legend
I agree with you on Stalker's suggestions. With respect to combat, the monk needs to compete with the combat potency of the Barbarian and Fighter (but differently) via top tier damage, second tier direct survivability numbers (overall, including avoidance/mitigation/resistance, etc), and top tier mobility/skirmishing (which should buff their survivability indirectly into top tier).
I also agree with your second point above.
However, I don't agree that your quip was not contributory enough. I chuckled hard and I'm more than certain that plenty of others did as well!
I was talking about my own post being non-contributory. "Lol" is a pretty lame reason to hit the post button and clutters a thread but sometimes you need to acknowledge a funny, culturally-relevant quip and I can't xp!
Last edited:
I agree as well. I'm not looking for combat parity, but just want to get a rough guage of how much less a monk is than the top tier fighters.
But even so, the analysis should still be taken with caution. I wouldn't take it so much as "the monk is too weak", and take it more as "the monk has a significantly weaker physical defense, when playtesting i need to see if there are other ways i can make up for that...or if it truly is too weak".
Similar Threads
