log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Monks are great at single targets.

Monks stink at multiple targets until high level or conserving ki.

The ki dependency hurts flavor though
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Monks are great at single targets.

Monks stink at multiple targets until high level or conserving ki.

The ki dependency hurts flavor though

But that job is not to be underestimated.

Shutting down an enemy priority target, buys the whole team an entire extra rounds worth of pain (and denies the priority target a round themselves).

Ditto legendary monsters. Failing a save vs Stun = 1 burnt legendary resistance (every single time!). Seeing as a Monk can force 4 such saves in a single turn, that's a fantastic way to soften up the legendary for your casters to make short work of.
 

Disappointing to see that this thread has been dragged down into a pointless discussion of how Monk mechanics work, like every other thread which attempts to actually analyze the issues around the design of the Monk. We all know, at this point, what the Monk is good and what it isn't, and it's all beside the point, because it's the concept and the extremely narrow design that's the issue that the OP was trying to discuss, rather than to re-iterate "Monks are good at single-target!" for the four hundredth time.
 

Mind of tempest

Adventurer
But that job is not to be underestimated.

Shutting down an enemy priority target, buys the whole team an entire extra rounds worth of pain (and denies the priority target a round themselves).

Ditto legendary monsters. Failing a save vs Stun = 1 burnt legendary resistance (every single time!). Seeing as a Monk can force 4 such saves in a single turn, that's a fantastic way to soften up the legendary for your casters to make short work of.
but it should not be its only function as otherwise, you start to feel like the sidekick to the casters which is not fun.

Disappointing to see that this thread has been dragged down into a pointless discussion of how Monk mechanics work, like every other thread which attempts to actually analyze the issues around the design of the Monk. We all know, at this point, what the Monk is good and what it isn't, and it's all beside the point, because it's the concept and the extremely narrow design that's the issue that the OP was trying to discuss, rather than to re-iterate "Monks are good at single-target!" for the four hundredth time.
I do honestly wonder what the problem is as it turns up endlessly what force compelled people to not improve a thing and to get lost in the one thing it can do?
 

I did above using average rolls.

If anything, the 'rolls' favored the Fighter (he hit with all 4 attacks vs AC 18 at disadvantage at +8, including 1 with Sharpshooter 'on' at only +3, only needing to use 2 x superiority die on Precise shot in the process, leaving him 2 extra die to use on Pushing attack.

If anything he rolled really well!

We also presumed that the Fighter was only stunned on the final attack, and did not adust the monks DPR on account of making 4 attacks with advantage (and the higher crit chance).
Once again: We're not talking about a PvP-style alpha strike against an encounter with a single, low-hp target in.

We're talking about contributions to the party over multiple, varied encounters over the course of an adventuring day.

Now the monk can definitely contribute: I do not believe that the monk is a bad class. Their tactical ability to shut down individual casters is very good, particularly if the rest of the party can keep the rest of the encounter from dogpiling them while they're out of position.
Monks have very good synergy, particularly with Paladins and Rogues.

But the contribution is still probably less than the consistent, high, safe, damage output by the optimised Fighter.
 

but it should not be its only function as otherwise, you start to feel like the sidekick to the casters which is not fun.


I do honestly wonder what the problem is as it turns up endlessly what force compelled people to not improve a thing and to get lost in the one thing it can do?
It's like almost like many of these posters literally don't understand the difference between:

"There are conceptual and design issues or peculiarities with this class that are worth discussing, regardless of whether it's mechanically functional or 'fun for me!'."

"MONK SUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!! ITS RUBBISH!!!! FACE ME AND PROVE ITS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORTH!!!!" < WWF-style posing and jeering >

To me, these are very different things. Maybe I'm just weird.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
It's like almost like many of these posters literally don't understand the difference between:

"There are conceptual and design issues or peculiarities with this class that are worth discussing, regardless of whether it's mechanically functional or 'fun for me!'."

"MONK SUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!! ITS RUBBISH!!!! FACE ME AND PROVE ITS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORTH!!!!" < WWF-style posing and jeering >

To me, these are very different things. Maybe I'm just weird.
Maybe, just maybe, people understand the difference and just don't agree with you.

For me the only measure of a class effectiveness? Is it fun to play. Do other people have fun playing? Answer is yes to both of those.

Is it focused on taking out 1 bad guy? Yes! Taking a single opponent out quickly is a very effective strategy. Feel free to add thoughts on what you would do to improve the monk but most of it (after a vague suggestion that you wanted a supernatural fighter) has just been pissing on other people's opinions that the monk is fine as designed.

When you do that people are going to push back. Add some specific ideas on what to change and people might try to build on what you said.
 

Once again: We're not talking about a PvP-style alpha strike against an encounter with a single, low-hp target in.

We're talking about contributions to the party over multiple, varied encounters over the course of an adventuring day.

Yeah I did that too. A few posts up.

You're one step behind on this thread.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
But that job is not to be underestimated.

Shutting down an enemy priority target, buys the whole team an entire extra rounds worth of pain (and denies the priority target a round themselves).

Ditto legendary monsters. Failing a save vs Stun = 1 burnt legendary resistance (every single time!). Seeing as a Monk can force 4 such saves in a single turn, that's a fantastic way to soften up the legendary for your casters to make short work of.

But that job is not to be underestimated.

Shutting down an enemy priority target, buys the whole team an entire extra rounds worth of pain (and denies the priority target a round themselves).

Ditto legendary monsters. Failing a save vs Stun = 1 burnt legendary resistance (every single time!). Seeing as a Monk can force 4 such saves in a single turn, that's a fantastic way to soften up the legendary for your casters to make short work of.

I'm not underestimating it.

I'm saying the Monk doesn't play like modern interpretations of martial artists.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I'm not underestimating it.

I'm saying the Monk doesn't play like modern interpretations of martial artists.
So what would that "modern interpretation" be and what would it look like? Also, why does it matter? I'm not sure there's a "modern" version of any of the classes.
 



Mind of tempest

Adventurer
Maybe, just maybe, people understand the difference and just don't agree with you.

For me the only measure of a class effectiveness? Is it fun to play. Do other people have fun playing? Answer is yes to both of those.

Is it focused on taking out 1 bad guy? Yes! Taking a single opponent out quickly is a very effective strategy. Feel free to add thoughts on what you would do to improve the monk but most of it (after a vague suggestion that you wanted a supernatural fighter) has just been pissing on other people's opinions that the monk is fine as designed.

When you do that people are going to push back. Add some specific ideas on what to change and people might try to build on what you said.
I already did list suggestions on previous pages.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I already did list suggestions on previous pages.
The response wasn't directed at you.

I've been staying out of this for the most part because I think overall the monk is fine. I don't think the Way of the Four Elements is strong enough, but my personal fix would probably just be requiring fewer ki points per spell. Maybe. Not sure. :unsure:

But to the OP, if you want a "plus" thread mark it as such. I'd also suggest you include something other than "monks suck" because that's what people will see and chime in to say that they don't suck for them.

No game can work for everyone. No class will be good enough for every player out there. But if you want real advice post something other then saying effectively "I know you like monks but I don't so we need to change it so that it works for me even if it means it no longer works for you". 🤷‍♂️
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
The mechanical problem is that Monk has too much specificity in the base class (Deflect Missiles, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Stillness of Mind, etc.), and way too much of its power budget baked into Stunning Strike.

To fix it, what I'd like to see is those fixed base class powers become a menu of options (a la Warlock Invocations), with subclass granting more specific options on top of the standard picks. Also, I'd like to see Stunning Strike removed, and have each subclass receive other control or offensive options in its place. (Stunning Strike could become a high level option for Open Hand monks if it needs to be kept around.)

Looking at the broader thematic concerns, I agree with @Ruin Explorer that the monk needs to be a "supernatural martial artist" and less another rehash of David Carradine. Ryu and various Jedi-like concepts could all fit in here, whereas pure brawling martial artists and grapplers should fall under the fighter umbrella.
@vincegetorix 's idea of a gestalt of monk and sorcerer (with appropriate cleanup and slimming down of features) makes a lot of sense here.
 


NotAYakk

Legend
My proposal is to embrace the MAD. Monks are perfecting their selves. Run with it.

Martial Arts (modification)

* You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for Attack rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons. When you strike with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, you can add both your dexterity and one half (rounded up) of your strength bonus to the damage roll instead of your strength or dexterity bonus.

Perfection of Mind and Body (additional class feature)
At level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19 the Monk's efforts to perfect their mind and body pay off. They gain a +1 bonus to their strength, dexterity, constitution and wisdom ability scores. If this would cause their ability score to exceed 20, they can instead assign the increase to any ability score of their choice.

Increases from this feature and from your ability score improvement at the same level (or feats) cannot cause an ability to increase by more than +2; any excess should be reassigned to an alternative ability score.

---

This helps monks scale. A level 20 monk now has +5 dex/str/con/wis over the existing monk, enough to cap many of those stats at 20, plus their usual ASI points.

If they have 20 str/dex, their monk damage is 1d10+8, which is a nice increase. They are encouraged to be not-weak at low levels (12 strength is worth +1 to damage on all of their attacks). If they start with 13 strength, they'll end up with 18 at level 19 for no further investment.

I might also be tempted to nerf stuning strike and give out more toys.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Point but in a real game that fighter is going to be vastly more useful than the Monk.

Easier comparing monk to rogue vs fighter.

And it's the -5/+10 feats doing it, I pointed out they were great in 2014.

Monk holds up well class vs class. If they made a -5/+10 feat for monks fighters would be lol.
Monks have a -5/+10 feat, it's called Sharpshooter. :) Assuming you're playing a Kensei, of course, but monks with Kensei and Tasha's new class features makes a really good archer, since it can get a bonus action bow shot without needing XBE.
 

We're talking about contributions to the party over multiple, varied encounters over the course of an adventuring day.
If we are talking about multiple, varied encounters over the course of a single day, wouldn’t that include a couple of social and exploration encounters? And wouldn’t that favour the monk given that the fighter has virtually no class abilities used in social and exploration encounters?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top