D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Micah Sweet]

Is that your experience in play? Because it doesn’t match mine at all.

Not always, but I'm skeptical of any ability that prevents your enemy from taking effective actions, on either side of the screen. DMs need to have fun too, and monster abilities are meant to be used.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think being one-trick pony is fair criticism. If you have one ability that is really good and everything else is kinda meh, it leads to just constantly spamming that one ability and that's really not fun gameplay.

I’ve never seen a monk actually played as a one trick pony.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not always, but I'm skeptical of any ability that prevents your enemy from taking effective actions, on either side of the screen. DMs need to have fun too, and monster abilities are meant to be used.

Lots of effects in the game do the same effective thing. (Deny actions) The monk does it while punching.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think being one-trick pony is fair criticism. If you have one ability that is really good and everything else is kinda meh, it leads to just constantly spamming that one ability and that's really not fun gameplay.

But as noted, they are not.

Monks aren't one-trick ponies, and it's weird to see that particular criticism leveled against them; even stranger when someone argues that they suck because you'll anger they DM because they are too powerful.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But as noted, they are not.

Monks aren't one-trick ponies, and it's weird to see that particular criticism leveled against them; even stranger when someone argues that they suck because you'll anger they DM because they are too powerful.

I was really not so much making that claim than pointing out that the both avenues of criticism you cited were not necessarily so contradictory.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

This is a prime example of the myopia I referenced above.
How is a Rogue a better archer then a Monk?
How is the Rogue applying Sneak Attack on those ranged attacks?
What are the opportunity costs to the Rogue solely being an archer?

In my experience Hide and Glide Archer Rogues are typically not using Uncanny Dodge very much, and are thus not spreading out HP loss between members of the PC group.

If on encounter 1 of an Adventuring Day, the tank of a 5 person group losses 50% of their HP while the rest of the group is unscathed...the result is likely to be either a Short Rest is taken, or other resources are expended. A Fighter out of Hit Dice for Short Rests is in a dreadful pickle.

If on encounter one of an Adventuring Day, all 5 members take 10% of their HP Maximum in damage..the group is likely just moving on to encounter 2.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But as noted, they are not.

Monks aren't one-trick ponies, and it's weird to see that particular criticism leveled against them; even stranger when someone argues that they suck because you'll anger they DM because they are too powerful.

I don't like stun-lock. I don't find it fun as a player or a GM. I don't like it on the monk. Otherwise, I find the monk a lot of fun to play, and if they are underpowered, it's not by much.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's not - but if your character can't do good damage, it better offers some decent healing/support/control on the battlefield. The Monk, unfortunately, is a poor controller as well.

See I disagree.

The Monk is an excellent controller. I've seen plenty of DMs running Monks cry when their uber baddie/ caster or boss monster gets Stun spammed and then murdered by the rest of the party without firing a shot.

Personally I don't like that design choice. I actually HR'd monks unarmed damage die up 1 step (1d10 becomes 2d6), and increased Stunning Fist to 2 Ki (and placed a 1/turn limitation on it).

That gives a slightly more consisently higher DPR, and takes Monks away from being one trick ponies (and encourages other uses of Ki other than Stun spamming).

I also let Monks gain a Fly speed = to their land speed when using Step of the Wind from 9th level onwards.

That last bit is 'because Wuxia.'

 

[Micah Sweet]

See I disagree.

The Monk is an excellent controller. I've seen plenty of DMs running Monks cry when their uber baddie/ caster or boss monster gets Stun spammed and then murdered by the rest of the party without firing a shot.

Personally I don't like that design choice. I actually HR'd monks unarmed damage die up 1 step (1d10 becomes 2d6), and increased Stunning Fist to 2 Ki (and placed a 1/turn limitation on it).

That gives a slightly more consisently higher DPR, and takes Monks away from being one trick ponies (and encourages other uses of Ki other than Stun spamming).

I also let Monks gain a Fly speed = to their land speed when using Step of the Wind from 9th level onwards.

That last bit is 'because Wuxia.'

I like absolutely everything about those changes. Consider them stolen for my table!

 

[Asisreo]

I'm not so sure that true:

1. If where using the -5/+10 feats the monk will lose hands down. But as this is "controversial" lets not;

The kensei monk can get a -5/+10 feat easily while still having other monk shizz.

2. The BM fighter can use a maneuver or 2 to maximize damage that's going to add 2d8 to every hit (and it's never wasted as the BM can choose to apply the maneuver after the hit) - The BM gets 4 of these per short rest - that's enough.

A monk can apply a debuff with the potential of more than just 2d8 damage. Which he can always choose to spend after attacks land.

4. The fighter can't stun, but he can knock prone - maintaining advantage - assuming he needs to.

Knocking an enemy prone makes it harder for your ranged attackers to get a good hit in. It's also something they can end at the start of their turn with movement. Prone is nowhere near as good as stun.

I don't think the Monk is as clearly ahead as you are saying here.

I think a misconception is that we show the strengths of a monk and somehow it's being perceived as them being the strongest martial class to have graced the history of TTRPG's. Monks aren't the messiah, no class is, but we're arguing that if a player actually learns how to play monk with more brain activity than "fist-man do the stunning strike haha," they're worthy of a moniker:

Doesn't suck.