D&D General me finally making the big monk discussion thread

[Mind of tempest]

Its your homebrew: you're the person who knows what they don't like about the Monk, and its up to you to decide what suggestions fit your image of what you want it to be.

ah but that requires ability which I do not have.

My monks standard attacks were....

Dragonslaying Longsword x2, Sword pommel if I was being offensive.

Dragonslaying Longsword, Sword Pommel X2 if I was being defensive.

But almost always it was Move 50' encircling the foes, Magic Longbow X2. My job in the party was picking off the rear line/important folks/casters and running down anyone trying to escape to warn others.

I didn't even have "martial arts" as much as I was a reskinned primitive warrior who was a "skirmisher" rather than stuck in the middle of a melee.

The main thing I felt was stupid about the monk design (actually kensai subclass) was the fact it made you give up a kensai weapon attack in place of an unarmed attack to get the defensive bonus for a round....which seemed kind of odd.

kensai was badly built but it at least works.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

1: The monk CAN be reflavored. I made a Kensei Monk but he's not some shaolin martial artist. He's an elf. Almost everything he does can be explained by "elfiness". Super fun to play too.

2: The monk is not weak. Said elf is wrecking.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

1: The monk CAN be reflavored. I made a Kensei Monk but he's not some shaolin martial artist. He's an elf. Almost everything he does can be explained by "elfiness". Super fun to play too.

2: The monk is not weak. Said elf is wrecking.

flavoured does not feel right with me, it is difficult to explain it feels wrong.

2 it depends on how you do it and if you get a god dm and party if not then it will not be so much plus it feels dull after a while but everything else feels wrong.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

flavoured does not feel right with me, it is difficult to explain it feels wrong.

2 it depends on how you do it and if you get a god dm and party if not then it will not be so much plus it feels dull after a while but everything else feels wrong.

I found my "I rolled a 20 so I guess I'll smite" class and the "I hide and shoot for a sneak attack" class companions to be more one note than my monk...so each table has its own feel I suppose.

 

[Minigiant]

My monks standard attacks were....

Dragonslaying Longsword x2, Sword pommel if I was being offensive.

Dragonslaying Longsword, Sword Pommel X2 if I was being defensive.

But almost always it was Move 50' encircling the foes, Magic Longbow X2. My job in the party was picking off the rear line/important folks/casters and running down anyone trying to escape to warn others.

I didn't even have "martial arts" as much as I was a reskinned primitive warrior who was a "skirmisher" rather than stuck in the middle of a melee.

The main thing I felt was stupid about the monk design (actually kensai subclass) was the fact it made you give up a kensai weapon attack in place of an unarmed attack to get the defensive bonus for a round....which seemed kind of odd.

Kensei being kinda sorta broken by circumventing the main restriction the class was built around is kinda proving the point.

The monk is built around one trope and any attempt to expand it mechanically results in something too weak or too strong.

The Monk shouldhave been designed with flexibility at the start. Doing it at the subclass level with such a rigid base is the problem.

Ki​

Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of ki points. Your monk level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Ki Points column of the Monk table.


You can spend these points to fuel various ki features. You start knowing three such features: Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind. You learn more ki features as you gain levels in this class.

The bolded is the problem. Every monk should not have FOB, PD, and SOTW. There should be 6-7 options and each monk chooses 3. But that requires forethought in game design, a lack of which being problem in D&D for decades.

 

[Mind of tempest]

6-7 options is hardly a choice maybe for the first block but it needs both general talents that are useful and customisation options of which only a few can be chosen for each character.

 

[Ancalagon]

I can't help but wonder if any of the complainers mentioning the lack of flexibility have played a monk.

A frequent complaint in previous threads that for almost any "task", you could come up with an example that "did it better than the monk". A barbarian certainly tanks better than a monk. a paladin has better alpha damage. A rogue sneaks better than a monk (.... a shadow monk is just as good but needs to spend ki). A wizard has better battlefield control than a monk. etc etc etc.

However, the monk can meaningfully participate in almost any activity! If you look at the package as a whole, that flexibility is excellent. They are a bit weak in the social pillar, but their high wisdom does help with insight checks, and (if they are a monk in the "social sense") their position may provide with a little bit of social clout/respect.

 

[Minigiant]

6-7 options is hardly a choice maybe for the first block but it needs both general talents that are useful and customisation options of which only a few can be chosen for each character.

6-7 is fine. Just like the starting fighting styles.

 

[Minigiant]

I can't help but wonder if any of the complainers mentioning the lack of flexibility have played a monk.

The issue with complainers is not that monks are bad or useless.

It's that monks don't play like the images many have of fantasy monks and martial artists.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Kensei being kinda sorta broken by circumventing the main restriction the class was built around is kinda proving the point.

The monk is built around one trope and any attempt to expand it mechanically results in something too weak or too strong.

The Monk shouldhave been designed with flexibility at the start. Doing it at the subclass level with such a rigid base is the problem.

I actually agree with the idea that in a different universe the monk would have been better designed to be more versatile with the base class, however the lack of that design principle doesn't mean the monk is a failed design.

How many different flavors of rogue can you make from the PHB base class options? It's pretty much picking the skill you want to be good at in addition to Stealth. How different would the various paladins feel without their subclasses (and even then I feel paladins of all subclasses play the same on the table). If there is a one-note problem to a class it's NOT the monk, who along with the bard is a very tool-to-fit-the-situation character.

Want them to fill in for a tank? They have Dodge as a bonus action.

Want them to be mobile? They ha e Dash as a bonus action.

Want them to kill something? They have an extra attack more than most characters at their level.

Want them to crowd control? Flurry of blows and multiple stunning strikes and you could conceivably drop a stun on 4 opponents in one turn.

You can even switch these styles up in the same combat on the fly.

Yes, doing these things cost ki, but costing ki is what makes the useful monk not be the broken monk. You get it all back on a shirt rest so as long as your GM keeps to expected rest options in their game you aren't going to be tapped out with nothing to contribute before the halfway point in the adventuring day (unless you choose to).

Also I haven't ever heard of the Kensi being out on the list of overpowered 5e options. It's basically a way to move your monk squarely into the fighter lite role and in that role it can perform well but isn't skewing an encounter the like paladins can when they oneshot a monster designed to battle an entire party or
the barbarian can by rage absorbing hundreds of extra HP of damage leaving the rest of the party unscathed.