D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Asisreo]

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.

If you have an uber baddie who could become stun-locked, it wasn't an uber baddie, it was just a high-CR creature you forgot to balance.

At high level, even the formula for balance can be misleading. If you think a single encounter CR 20 pit fiend is a "uber boss encounter" at level 20, you fell into the trap that a medium encounter is a boss encounter. If you want a single, uber, only-one-encounter boss fight at level 20, you'll need to have your entire adventuring day budgeted to the one encounter. No solo boss comes close except for the Tarrasque and Tiamat.

It would take 2 ancient red dragons at once to get this high without using those two.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Monk vs GWF Battlemaster (no feats)
View attachment 124229

Is that a monk with a spear two handed?

 

[Mort]

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.

I actually didn't say monks suck, I said they couldn't beat a fighter at his own game.

And monks have the, very big, issue that while they can do lots of cool stuff - most of it comes from ki which is a very limited resource, especially at low levels. Monks have to be super effective at managing that resource, too much if you ask me (yes spellcasters also have limited resource management but they tend to get more oomph for resources expended). Monks shouldn't require that much more system and resource mastery.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't care for monks, personally. I don't think they suck, though...not mechanically, and not any more than a few other classes I could mention (bard, ranger). They're just not my taste. If I were going to play a monk, I'd need some better weapon proficiencies and more options in combat. So my version of a "Monk That Sucks Less" would look like:

• Start with a race that gives me a larger variety of combat options. Tiefling for the hellish rebuke and darkness. High Elf for the cantrip and weapon proficiencies. Dragonborn for the breath weapon. Basically anything that lets me do more than just "hit it with my fist again and again and again and again and again."
• Add a background that gives more off-the-battlefield options. I'd probably go with Hermit for Medicine and Herbalism Kit, which would let me do a bit of healing. But Charlatan is a good option as well for its social skills, and Criminal is a good choice for the Thieves' Tools and Stealth.
• At 3rd level, I'd avoid Open Hand, and probably go with Four Elements. Or Sun Soul, if my DM allows it.
• When 4th level rolls around, I'd use my first ASI to boost my Dex. But if my DM allows feats, I would go with Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate instead.

This monk would still be dull to play, but at least I could bear to play it for months at a time. YMMV, of course.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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

Mort...you compared a Battle Master Fighter, the Fighter subclass that adds extra dice that can be multiplied on a Critical Hit to a subclass-less monk.

An 11th level BM Fighter can absolutely be a beast against a foe under the effects of a Hold Person.

I will also state, that your perspective seems to be only evaluating DPS.
I was considering scenarios like a monk using an Attack to Grapple a foe under the effects of a Hold Person, (to maintain a degree of control in case the foe makes their Saving Throw vs Hold Peeps), and can still Flurry of Blows and/or Extra Attack for some Crit Damage.

Some of the best usages of Stunning Fist I have seen is where the Monk sets up an automatic failure on a STR or DEX Saving Throw, for their partymates turn.

 

[Mort]

Mort...you compared a Battle Master Fighter, the Fighter subclass that adds extra dice that can be multiplied on a Critical Hit to a subclass-less monk.

An 11th level BM Fighter can absolutely be a beast against a foe under the effects of a Hold Person.

The quote I was responding to expressly stated that a monk was better than a fighter in this situation. Of course I compared the monk to a BM fighter.

I will also state, that your perspective seems to be only evaluating DPS.
I was considering scenarios like a monk using an Attack to Grapple a foe under the effects of a Hold Person, (to maintain a degree of control in case the foe makes their Saving Throw vs Hold Peeps), and can still Flurry of Blows and/or Extra Attack for some Crit Damage.

Some of the best usages of Stunning Fist I have seen is where the Monk sets up an automatic failure on a STR or DEX Saving Throw.

I was responding to the situation presented, And I don't look at strictly DPR - the BM fighter in my group focuses on protection over damage and is very effective. The monk in my group does fine, but there is more work involved and I've had to change a few things (5 minute short rest max 2 between long rests - being the biggest).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They’re not even that low ranked in popularity or usage, so this seems unlikely to me.

Come on, don't confuse popularity with people wanting a specific functionality. The idea that most people pick a class because of some nerdy definition of functionality that they've almost certainly never heard of or thought about is tad silly. Especially as it's not even "Tank, DPS, healer" which people might have heard of, but some dubious "versatility" deal which they likely haven't.

The vast majority of people picking classes in D&D are doing so either because those are classes have a concept they like. Whether the class actually works well is like, not even a secondary consideration for most people. Which means it's fortunate that in 5E, most classes, including Monk, work okay.

Every Monk I've ever seen played in 5E, and it is a few, it's been because the player liked the concept. It's the same with most classes. I can't even say it's different for me, and I'm an optimizer. I am constrained by I'm only going to pick classes/subclasses I see as working well, but within that large pool, I actually pick based on the concept.

This actually highlights what is probably 5E's strongest point relative to 3.XE/PF1 and earlier, which is that you can just pick a class and trust that it doesn't suck. This was also true for 4E, but somewhat obscured by various factors (and 4E had the downside that a DM couldn't trust the class not to be broken, whereas with 5E you can reasonably assume that if you don't allow MC'ing, and be pretty much completely certain of it if you don't allow Feats as well).

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.

Exactly. Snarf seems to think he's highlighting a contradiction, but he isn't. Monks are good at one thing, and that thing isn't that great, and the way in which that one thing works is extremely boring for literally everyone involved. If it works, it's just a beat-down on a helpless target, which is effective but not interesting and the Monk is basically relegated to being the guy who hold's another kid's arms whilst some bullies punch him the stomach and then take his lunch money.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you have an uber baddie who could become stun-locked, it wasn't an uber baddie, it was just a high-CR creature you forgot to balance.

At high level, even the formula for balance can be misleading. If you think a single encounter CR 20 pit fiend is a "uber boss encounter" at level 20, you fell into the trap that a medium encounter is a boss encounter. If you want a single, uber, only-one-encounter boss fight at level 20, you'll need to have your entire adventuring day budgeted to the one encounter. No solo boss comes close except for the Tarrasque and Tiamat.

It would take 2 ancient red dragons at once to get this high without using those two.

I know all that.

When I say uber-boss, Im saying it within the context of the 6 or so encounter adventuring day (2 short rests) which is also the context I use to gauge Monks power.

For example 8th or so level PCs (at an eyeball) dealing with a nest of Hobgoblins with an alliance with a Blue dragon:

E1: 2 Trolls (random encounter on the way there)
E2: 8 x Hobgoblins, 2 x Hobgoblin Captains (guard the entrance)
[short rest]
E3: 2 x Half-[Blue]-Dragon Veterans (add martial advantage as they're Hobgoblin/ Dragons)
E4: Mage [Hobgoblin skin], 2 x Elite Hobgoblins (Re-skinned Knights with martial advantage) 4 x Hobgoblins
[short rest]
E5: Hobgoblin Warlord, Hobgoblin Devastator and 6 Hobgoblins
E6: Young Blue Dragon (tack on 3 legendary actions of search, tail slap and wing buffet, and add 3 legendary resistances, increase HP by 50 percent, increase CR to 11)

Plus a few traps and so forth.

I can see a Monk doing just fine in that adventuring day, stun locking a fair few boss things as he goes and more than pulling his weight.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Not much - you can get round it anyway by playing a tortle.

And we all know where playing a tortle monk gets you...

 

[Mistwell]

Thank you for the summary



Let's start the parameters as level 1-10, no variant humans. I'd say the monk is within 10% of any characters damage output, while having equal AC, a higher movement speed, and being able to use a bow. (All things that will tend to increase their actual damage dealt in an adventuring day when compared to any strength based character). In short, I think you are vastly underestimating their damage output.

He isn't. He spells out the math. Worth watching as all I did was summarize the broad points and he gives you the intimate details. It has nice graphs and everything. Monks suck at damage.