D&D 5E Barbarian vs Fighter vs Monk

[Stalker0]

Is there any way you could add a no-Rage barbarian to the comparisons, just to see how he stacks up when he can't rage, or when he loses his rage?

Done, i add a 3rd analysis for all the classes when they lose their per rest abilities. I also added the 2nd analysis to the OP so everything is found in one place.

 

[Cyberen]

The barb is really impressive !
They seem to be designing it based on Conan (as the Druid is based on Merlin) but I think they've been overdoing the ultimate fighting machine a bit... The defensive boost feels appropriate, but the offensive boost to accuracy seems a bit out of place (feral instinct doesn't give monsters preternatural accuracy, after all). I would go for an extra attack,a la haste.
Rather than a contrived per day limit, I would have rage costing Hit Dice : more organic, more balanced, more interesting.
Concerning the Monk, if someone thinks it has to have a more meaningful impact on combat, I think we could give it extraordinary ki-powered retaliation capabilities (mirroring an attack, aikido style) and the ability for a monk to enter a regenerative trance acting as a short rest (healing HP and ki) in the middle of combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A barbarian with rage truly is a different beast. While he dominated the stats with rage, without it the fighter takes a solid lead.

That's sort of what I expected. Barbs are swingy. They SHOULD be swingy, I think. That's part of the fun of playing one: one minute you're the Hulk, the next minute you're Bruce Banner.

The only curious thing now is if the Barb's rage inspires a trend toward one-encounter days.

 

[Warbringer]

The only curious thing now is if the Barb's rage inspires a trend toward one-encounter days.

Want to make a small wager on that one

 

[I'm A Banana]

Want to make a small wager on that one

Not until the preposed rules making sure the only place you can gain full HP back is in the town is in effect.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Okay. So... let's make him better? Not sure what I'm supposed to say to that. As always, play what you like

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.

And I appreciate you running the numbers.

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".

I agree. I'd like to see a bit higher damage, a lot higher survivability, and a lot of non-combat stuff for the Monk. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

The Monk is a bit of an odd duck from a non-combat perspective, specifically with respect to the common challenges faced in a pulp D&D game and the niche ability packages expected to facilitate success in those challenges.

He primarily wants to be a Rogue stand-in for the infiltration shtick. However, while he possesses focus and breadth in the Stealth/Perception angle, he doesn't come standard with the Thievery/Bluff/Disguise package (while the Rogue does) that promotes success in such challenges. He can't get the group past glyphed/trapped/locked doors/chests; one of the mandatory components of this niche role in a pulp "dungeon" situation/challenge.

He can do the Athletics/Acrobatics (climbing, jumping, swimming, balancing, etc)/Endurance stuff without a problem. Put a mountain in front of him, he can climb it. Need to run all day? No problem. However, when it comes to doing the stuff to facilitate actual group success, he can't bring the breadth and niche functionality of a Ranger or Druid. He can't track, ward campsites, read trail signs, effectively camo a group through hostile, wilderness territory, gather reconnaissance through proxies (animals, nature itself, etc).

He certainly isn't going to be the lynchpin for success in social challenges or even be a momentary "Face" stand-in.

So. He can kind-of be a scout and kind-of be an infiltrator but with severe holes in his game with respect to facilitating group success. He can communicate with anyone (which is useful in the very off-chance that relevant languages aren't covered or an esoteric language is made relevant via specific, GM-engineered adversity with respect to that narrow skill)...but he doesn't have the social skills required to manage a diplomatic effort/parlay with an alien creature/culture that might speak a language esoteric enough that no other PC speaks it. He is, however, self-sustainable such that if you put a physical impediment in his way he (himself) can overcome it through athleticism or endurance.

I've never found that non-combat package nearly enough to warrant a 2nd tier combat position. I'm strongly in the "combat parity (but different stylistically) with the Fighter/Barbarian" camp. I look at the Monk and I see a mystic Swashbuckler with fists/quarterstaff/throwing stars instead of a rapier and wire-work Kung Fu instead of Errol Flynn fancy footwork.

 

[DogBackward]

Done, i add a 3rd analysis for all the classes when they lose their per rest abilities. I also added the 2nd analysis to the OP so everything is found in one place.

Awesome, thanks! The results look to be about what I thought: the Barbarian's only king when he can Rage, and with short rests not being a given after every battle anymore (I didn't like hour short rests at first, but I'm definitely coming around after some thought on the matter), that means he's gotta make sure to Rage at the right moment.

I'm a big proponent of the Monk not being a primary damage-dealer, but a skirmisher and grab-bag of different abilities. That said, the sheer in ability of the Monk to compare at all is a little worrisome. I definitely think the Monk should be third, but the margin is too much at this point, in my opinion.

 

[pemerton]

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.

That could work, though it might make the class more fiddly than D&Dnext seems to be aiming at.

I am one of those who thinks that a monk, to live up to the archetype, should be a first-tier combatant. Whether your image for the monk is Bruce Lee, Jet Li or Marvel Comics's Iron Fist, the monk is always a top-tier fighter who can both dish it out and take it. As others have said, the combat difference should be stylistic (as the OP brings out for fighter vs barbarian).
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] does a good breakdown on the monk's out-of-combat schtick. In basic terms, it's rogue-lite. So you play a rogue for a stealthy guy who can fight a bit, and a monk for a fighting guy who can sneak a bit.

 

[Warbringer]

Not until the preposed rules making sure the only place you can gain full HP back is in the town is in effect.

I hope a "safe place" is more flexible than that