D&D 5E Monks Suck

[DND_Reborn]

You do your examples however you want. I’ll do mine how I want.

LOL whatever.

 

[Stoutstien]

Personally I believe the problem with the monk is based on the

Whether the Monk sucks or not is directly related to the other characters in the party, and if its duties as part of the group are being superceded by another character.

If your group is a Barbarian, Life Cleric, Monk, and Sorcerer... then the Monk has free range to be as awesome as it can be. Cause none of the other three characters are going to be able to do what the Monk does.

But if your party has a Bard, Moon Druid, Dex Fighter, Thief Rogue, and the Monk... then yeah, the Monk will probably be worse by comparison. And perhaps the player playing the Monk should swap over to a heavy armor Paladin so their niche is protected.

I think you hit close to the heart of the issue. The Monk's niche is on demand flexibility which is just not a high priority in the minds of most players. There is a big push for specialization and role fulfillment which leaves the monk as a less desirable pick out side of the "5th man" scenario. No one cares if the monk is 2-3 best at any given task besides recovery because they don't have one thing they can be number 1 at. It's a sentiment that I don't personally agree with but I can understand.

 

[FrogReaver]

LOL whatever.

Let’s try this a different way, does anything significantly change in the comparison whether I add the chance to hit with ASI or assume monster AC scales with it?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bards are prominent in real world history and mythology, and represented in pop culture.

I have no issues justifying that existence. ;-)

Yes, we are all familiar with the usefulness of a Bard in the party.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Pass not going to help you with your you tube clicks.

Hey Mistwell, when did you take over my channel?

Treantmonk: Monks su.....
Monk: [Uses Dash as a bonus action to move 90'] Ka-Pow! Stunning fist!
Treantmonk: ......
Monk: Ka-Pow! Stunning fist
Treantmonk: ........
Monk: Ka-Pow! Stunning fist
Treantmonk: Ha! I made my sa...
Monk: Pow! Pow! Pow! Three more stunning fists!
Treantmonk dies
Monk: Sorry, what were you saying there bro?

Pardon, have you seen my Simulacrum? It hasn't reported recently. Oh bother.

In a featless game there is no problem with monks.

I agree the Monk is much more effective comparatively if we are not using feats. My analysis assumes feats are in play.

He also thinks it's humorous to demean people who don't have system mastery, which is crass.

I don't think I've ever demeaned people. I've demeaned game features, and fictional characters, but I can't recall ever going after an actual person. Can you provide an example? I certainly have never intentionally done so. I agree insulting people for humor is crass.

I will give Treantmonk full props for being a badass at 3.5, but I've found his material for 5E to be lacking. Maybe a notch above most YouTube D&D posters, but his impressive builds mostly come from other people.

This is false. I have done one build done by another person, who requested me to present the build in a video, and I credited them with the build before presenting it. Every other build I've done I've come up with on my own. If you don't like the builds that's fine, but your accusation is false.

Treantmonk's main points is that Monks are bad at tanking, bad at damage, bad at control, and mobility is wasted on them.

Exactly.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree the Monk is much more effective comparatively if we are not using feats. My analysis assumes feats are in play.

It’s not just featless games. It’s really any comparison not involving variant human. At least for the most played levels of 1-10.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't get the versatility argument for the Monk.

The Monk is a skrimisher-striker. And that's it. It's versatile within that role but it only has that role.

A fighter can be an archer, a brute, a skrimisher, defender. or a tank.
A rogue can be a skrimisher, a brute, or an archer.
A bard can be a healer, leader, brute, skirmisher, blaster, controller, plus every version of a skill role from scout to face to sage.

The monk can only be a skrimisher unless it is a kensai. And then it's only opens up the archer role.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

It’s not just featless games. It’s really any comparison not involving variant human. At least for the most played levels of 1-10.

If we are using feats, I can beat the monk damage at those levels with any class. (overall)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't get the versatility argument for the Monk.

The Monk is a skrimisher-striker. And that's it. It's versatile within that role but it only has that role.

A fighter can be an archer, a brute, a skrimisher, defender. or a tank.
A rogue can be a skrimisher, a brute, or an archer.
A bard can be a healer, leader, brute, skirmisher, blaster, controller, plus every version of a skill role from scout to face to sage.

The monk can only be a skrimisher unless it is a kensai. And then it's only opens up the archer role.

Billy the Bard: You, sir, are a skirmisher. Whereas I can be a healer, leader, brute, skirmisher, blaster, controller, plus every version of a skill role from scout to face to sage.

Mads the Monk: That may be true, but no matter how you choose to say it, tomorrow and every day after you will still be a bard.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we are using feats, I can beat the monk damage at those levels with any class. (overall)

Let’s do this! Can you do it without variant human? If so let’s start comparing with rogue.