D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Guest 6801328]

I got no probs with allowing the Monk to gain bonus Ki via the Wisdom Modifier.

Oh, yeah, that's pretty simple and cool. Monks are already MAD, so it makes sense to give them something extra for embracing the insanity.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah but I've also heard a CRAPTON of people say that the Monk has way too little Ki.

Those people are wrong. Do the math sometime. A monk just using flurry of blows keeps up in damage with pretty much everything except the -5/+10 feats.

 

[Minigiant]

Okaaaay....

I guess I'm still not sure how you're saying this is different from the monk class.

Monks aren't tough
Monks don't use the best weapons nor deal top tiers of damage
Monks don't have the top tier in AC

I mean you can't get a straight answer out of the community. If a monk a warrior, an assassin, a skrimisher, an expert, a debuffer or a mix of these.

Which role(s) does the monk have?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm.. I'd have to see something like that in action...

But I find if you use variant options like cleaving through creatures, etc. in the DMG, fighters do well enough. There is still the issue that fighters are stronger at lower levels and wizard stronger at higher levels, but it isn't as bad as some people complained about in 1E. (Personally, I never found it to be a problem... but whatever).

I do find it odd that Rogues get more out of cleave due to dealing more damage per single hit, but with a little finagling I think it works well enough.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

In my current campaign (now at level 15), two of the players swapped out their characters at around level 6. One was a monk, the other a warlock. What do they have in common? They're short rest classes. The players simply weren't able to use their cool tricks enough because the group found it burdensome to stop for an hour.

I've since switched to 5 minute short rests limited to twice per long rest.

I'd suggest checking that your monk is getting sufficient short rests before rebuilding the class from the ground up.

 

[FrogReaver]

Monks aren't tough
Monks don't use the best weapons nor deal top tiers of damage
Monks don't have the top tier in AC

I mean you can't get a straight answer out of the community. If a monk a warrior, an assassin, a skrimisher, an expert, a debuffer or a mix of these.

Which role(s) does the monk have?

Define top tier damage.

 

[Mort]

In my current campaign (now at level 15), two of the players swapped out their characters at around level 6. One was a monk, the other a warlock. What do they have in common? They're short rest classes. The players simply weren't able to use their cool tricks enough because the group found it burdensome to stop for an hour.

I've since switched to 5 minute short rests limited to twice per long rest.

I'd suggest checking that your monk is getting sufficient short rests before rebuilding the class from the ground up.

I noticed almost the identical thing - When I made short rests easier (5 minutes cap 2 between long rests) warlocks and monks got much better.

Still though - one problem monks have is that they can do lots of cool stuff, but it's fueled by a very limited resource. The monk player, more than even the sorcerer and spell points, has to really learn to conserve resources.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Pretty similar to the option in the DMG:

View attachment 124214

Either option could work.

My bigger issue is, frankly, HP is bloated so much rarely will you kill anything in single shots. So, either way this rare comes up.

Yeah NPC design is 5e’s biggest weakness. Luckily for me, I find it easy to build them as if 5e were more like 4e with different formatting, so I’m able to adjust critters on the fly or plan out cool scenes ahead of time to get good results, but...stock 5e critters are mostly pretty bad.

Whuuuuh?

Not trained for formation combat, sure.

Not trained on a dedicated military site, ok.

But not trained?



The cool thing about monks is that you can invent, as part of their backstory, the reason for their order/monastery/whatever existing.

Maybe they are the select bodyguard of some emperor.

Maybe they have a supernatural mission (a la Iron Fist).

Maybe they hire themselves out as assassins.

Maybe they study combat as artists, just for the sake of perfecting it.

And each of those purposed lives primarily in the subclass, which I like. Other than the fact the subclass come at level 3, but my group usually starts there anyway.

Yeah but that's the point. The Emporer's bodyguards and the Emporer's assassins would NOT have the same features.

Why not?

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, now that we have a summary, let's see...

1. Monk deals poor damage for melee attackers.

No argument here. The monk's baseline damage is strictly inferior to a martial class TWFing, and their resources to buff it are also poor. Laying down pure HP-based smack is not a monk's strong suit.

2. Monks are ineffective tanks and have mediocre to poor defense.

Also no argument. Monks have decent AC, but not great, and between a lowish Hit Die and the need to invest in both Dex and Wis ahead of Con, their hit point pool is just too small to sustain heavy combat. They have some nifty defenses against spells and special abilities, but they are lacking in the basics, and the basics are more important.

3. Monks are not all that great at maneuverability (but at least they're decent here)

Oh, come on. Monks are a damn sight better than just "decent" at maneuverability. Comparing to a character on a horse is absurd--how often do you get to gallop around a dungeon on horseback? Besides, one stray AoE and you are riding a flamebroiled horseburger. Which is noticeably slower than a monk.

Setting that silliness aside, TM cites a number of examples here, but a lot of them rely on subclasses, which means the monk gets to apply a subclass too, which means Way of Shadow and that's all she wrote. Nobody outmaneuvers a Way of Shadow monk. But even for the base class, TM is seriously undervaluing the always-on, zero-cost, unconditional movement buff. You don't have to burn spell slots or Channel Divinity or even your bonus action. You aren't relying on difficult terrain. You're just faster. Over the course of an adventuring day, it adds up.

Plus you get a drastic reduction in falling damage, and at level 9 you can walk up walls and over liquid. At will, zero cost, always on. Very good stuff.

4. Monks are not great at controlling the battlefield (Stunning Strike).

TM has some fair points about the Con save, but those are about the only ones. Stunning Strike does not require an attack roll; when you use it, you've already hit. Yes, you do have to score at least one hit on your turn, but you were going to try to do that anyway, and with 3 attacks per round, you are very likely to connect at least once.

As for the ki limitations, TM is clearly used to playing a "no short rests" game, because the assertion that monks get fewer Stunning Strikes than casters get spells is plainly wrong otherwise. A 5th-level monk has 15 ki points in a "standard" adventuring day; a 5th-level wizard has 10-12 spells (depending on how they allocate Arcane Recovery). And many of those spells are 1st-level; no 1st-level spell is as good as Stunning Strike.

5. Other Monk features don't make up for the deficiencies.

Disagree. Most of the later core features are mediocre to bad, I grant you, but some of the subclasses are very good. Since I went with Way of Shadow above, I'll stick with it here: You get some handy spells including pass without trace, which is the uberspell of stealth, and later on you can turn invisible at will! Opportunist is too high-level for me to care about it much, but it's pretty darn nice as well.

As I said above, I think monks are overspecialized, and they have the same problem as warlocks when the DM doesn't make sure they get a chance for short rests. But within those limits, they are absolutely an effective class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Monks aren't tough
Monks don't use the best weapons nor deal top tiers of damage
Monks don't have the top tier in AC

I mean you can't get a straight answer out of the community. If a monk a warrior, an assassin, a skrimisher, an expert, a debuffer or a mix of these.

Which role(s) does the monk have?

5e doesn't have strict roles? Maybe you're trying to apply a model from previous editions that just doesn't fit?

It's entirely possible that if you white room it to death (or monte carlo sim it to death) you'll find that the monk's combination of offense, defense, and resource replenishment leaves it behind other classes. Ok, so that's possibly an argument for giving it some buffs (something has to be in last place, but maybe it's so far behind it needs some love.)

But that has nothing to do with whether it "serves a purpose" or not. It's fun to play. It kills enemies in a way that feels different from rogues and fighters. What other purpose is there?