D&D 5E Monks Suck

[doctorbadwolf]

If you want to use that as a standard, I've literally rewritten abilities for every single class in the entire game. I did a massive sweep about a year ago, rewriting stuff I had seen that I didn't like or altering capstones.

For example, I gave Rogues and Bard the ability to put Expertise in any tool set. And I altered the cleric's level 10 ability. Changed rage progression, altered the fighter capstone and I think I changed something else but I'd have to go check. But, Monks were generally fine, so I never changed them.

This discussion got me rethinking some things I hadn't considered before. Like the fact that many charm effects prevent you from taking actions. I had never gotten a charm effect to stick on a monk (high wisdom generally, plus I don't typically use charms on my players) so it was a niche situation for me.

Love how literally having an idea to change a single ability means you’ve somehow admitted the class sucks or something.

Like...the rules are made up and the points don’t mean anything, folks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't want humans with halloween masks.

Oh THAT argument.

/yawn

 

[Helldritch]

If you want to use that as a standard, I've literally rewritten abilities for every single class in the entire game. I did a massive sweep about a year ago, rewriting stuff I had seen that I didn't like or altering capstones.

For example, I gave Rogues and Bard the ability to put Expertise in any tool set. And I altered the cleric's level 10 ability. Changed rage progression, altered the fighter capstone and I think I changed something else but I'd have to go check. But, Monks were generally fine, so I never changed them.

This discussion got me rethinking some things I hadn't considered before. Like the fact that many charm effects prevent you from taking actions. I had never gotten a charm effect to stick on a monk (high wisdom generally, plus I don't typically use charms on my players) so it was a niche situation for me.

Don't get me wrong here. I do respect your opinion. But it seems that we are both saying the same thing but with different lenses. It is like me saying this is green and you saying no this is a mixture of blue and yellow. We might not wholly agree on what makes the monk the second last choice but we both admit that there is something "fishy?" about it that puts the class in a bad light when it should not.

 

[Orius]

Of course the Monk sucks, that's the class's niche. To have a bunch of cool looking crap it can't use properly.

I was reading a Dragonsfoot topic or old school blog or something the other day about how 1e Monks sucked, this topic is about 5e Monks sucking, and let's not get started on the 3e Monk. Monks sucking has probably become a sacred cow by now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Don't get me wrong here. I do respect your opinion. But it seems that we are both saying the same thing but with different lenses. It is like me saying this is green and you saying no this is a mixture of blue and yellow. We might not wholly agree on what makes the monk the second last choice but we both admit that there is something "fishy?" about it that puts the class in a bad light when it should not.

I mean, if you want to take a level 7 ability that no one has talked about in over 40+ pages of thread that I agreed needed changed, and compare it to the constant accusations of low damage, low AC, and worthlessness in general... sure? Go nuts man. (To put the worthlessness in perspective, in another thread I've got someone trying to argue the monk can't possibly replace the rogue, because the rogue can get expertise in Thieve's tools, and no one else can do that.... for a class that is supposedly so terrible, people sure do have to stretch really hard to make it so)

But, the change is really minor that I'm making, partially inspired by seeing someone in a reddit thread mentioning they thought that was how the ability worked and me thinking, "huh, yeah, I can see it" and just adding the text to make it so.

 

[Ancalagon]

I will say, that 11+ level is simply not a good space to be debating class balance.... for or against. Statistics have consistently shown that the vast majority of campaigns don't play in these spaces...many dnd players will never see an 11th level class in actual play.

I concur. I have been playing D&D for almost 30 years now. one campaign has seen play above level 9. (2nd ed, gnome thief/illusionist soooo much fun ). I'm currently in a pathfinder campaign at level 9 that is going strong, and if we reach level 10 it will be the second time I've reached this level in my life.

It bears mentioning that this 2nd ed campaign started as a high level campaing.

EDIT: I'm wrong, I played a PBP game here at level 11 (12?) but it fizzled out, alas. I'm not sure if that even "counts"...

I also feel that 1st level analysis is not the best point either. A lot of classes haven't gotten their "class stuff yet"...and 1st level is often seen as a training level, so I too would leave this out of the analysis. I think levels 2-8 is probably the best region to debate the worth of a class...and 6th to me is the pinnacle...that's when all the classes have generally gotten their "meaty next tier abilities".

I would say level 3-9, but I broadly agree.