D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Except that's not what I was doing.

And, FWIW, as has been repeatedly stated by many people, Monks aren't just good at one thing, they are good at a constellation of things.

Whether or not those are "buttons you like to mash" is really up to you.

That Monks happen to have many excellent options that aren't captured in a DPR analysis (such as stunning strike) should say something about the efficacy of DPR analysis as a dispositive tool.

 

[Mistwell]

That's not an attack, that's an effect that does damage. A feature that activates on an attack would not activate on their aura. Not just features that activate on attack actions, but features that activate on attacks, period. Not all attacks are from the attack action.

Unless a barbarian that activates their aura is a candidate for an invisibility spell to break, which isn't what I'd consider RAW.

This is pretty silly semantics. Barbarians can do magical damage. That was your point, right? I fail to see, for the point you were making, how deciding if it's an "attack action" or "a duck" is meaningful provided it does magical damage, right?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And, FWIW, as has been repeatedly stated by many people, Monks aren't just good at one thing, they are good at a constellation of things.

They're not though. That's the thing. They're sub-par to okay at a constellation of things, and good at one thing. I mean sub-par when I say it - i.e. slightly below what you'd expect. Their damage is unimpressive. Their mobility is not really remarkable (and mobility is questionable in how good it actually is in 5E anyway, if it's not teleporting - the more I play 5E the less I see non-teleport mobility actually helping). Their defenses are okay - they don't have great AC or HP, but they have some tricks and can burn Ki to put Disadvantage on melee attackers.

That Monks happen to have many excellent options that aren't captured in a DPR analysis (such as stunning strike) should say something about the efficacy of DPR analysis as a dispositive tool.

Yawn. You're the only one here you is even pretending people think DPR is everything. Nobody thinks that. It's a ridiculous thing people bring up to try and make out that other criticism of a class isn't valid.

It's just like you bringing up two arguments that don't even really contradict each other and then trying to imply that because there's this vague sense of potential contradiction, people's arguments are random nonsense. But that's actually a totally irrational and illogical approach. It has no substance whatsoever.

Stunning Strike is easily calculated into DPR anyway, because it gives them Advantage and auto-crits. It's wrong to say it can't be captured.

The big problem that you also face with this argument is that the other "DPR" and so on doesn't capture is the big flaw Monks have - their limited Ki pool. Which requires an hour to come back (with the bizarre extra requirement that the Monk must specifically meditate for 30 minutes during that, not sure what that's about). It's a problem that goes away at high levels, but for what people play in, it remains a problem.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yawn.

Given that your posts are neither humorous nor serious, just dismissive, I don't see the need to further engage.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is pretty silly semantics. Barbarians can do magical damage. That was your point, right? I fail to see, for the point you were making, how deciding if it's an "attack action" or "a duck" is meaningful provided it does magical damage, right?

I imagine they were referring to attacks specifically because the monk makes the actual attacks magical, which means all their damage is magical.

 

[Esker]

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

For a quick comparison, let's look at level 5, since that should be a comparative spike for monk, since they get extra attack, whereas rogue just gets another d6. We'll assume 8 rounds per short rest, which has been the standard in this discussion.

Let's assume the monk is using all ki on flurry of blows. Since the monk is using all their ki to attack, they are not going to be able to use Patient Defense or Step of the Wind, so let's assume their subclass features are used to help them survive (e.g., via Drunken Technique, or Open Hand Technique taking away the enemy's reaction). Of course neither of these are available on non-Flurry turns. We could try to model occasional advantage from an open hand monk also knocking an enemy prone, but for simplicity I'll instead try to lowball the proportion of the time the rogue has advantage. The monk boosts DEX at 4th.

On the other side, let's take an elf arcane trickster using a rapier with booming blade, getting advantage from a familiar half the time (that's a bit low, in my experience, but we want to lowball this a bit to compensate for the monk also occasionally having advantage). They take elven accuracy at 4th which also boosts DEX. The rogue's bonus action is free, so they can disengage every round.

Monk:

2 staff attacks at 65% to hit: 2 * (4.5 + 4) * 0.65 + 2 * 4.5 * 0.05 = 11.5 expected damage
Unarmed strike at 65% to hit: (3.5 + 4) * 0.65 + 3.5 * 0.05 = 5.05 expected damage
Second unarmed strike: (5/8) * 5.05 = 3.16 damage averaged over rounds
Total: 19.7

Rogue:

1 rapier attack,
* 65% to hit half the time, 96% to hit half the time (with elven accuracy), for 80% on average
* 5% chance to crit half the time, 14% chance to crit half the time, for 10% on average
* Expected damage: (2*4.5 + 3*3.5 + 4) * 0.80 + (2*4.5 + 3*3.5) * 0.10 = 20.8

So they're roughly on par at 5th (a relatively favorable level for the monk), since a swing of 1.1 DPR is easily within approximation error.

However, when not attacking in melee, the rogue has the clear edge: they are a 2nd level spellcaster, with 3 spell slots per day (we could likely do more damage with a swashbuckler, two more skill proficiencies, and expertise in two skills, and also have the ability to do nearly the same damage at range. If the monk has to attack at range, they are making two shortbow attacks for d6+4.

On survivability, the rogue has a damage reduction ability (uncanny dodge) which likely prevents more damage than Slow Fall, Deflect Missiles, and the monk's +1 AC combined, and can disengage every round, whereas the monk can only do so 5/8 of the time.

Furthermore, the rogue is some of the time doing some "soft control" via booming blade (or is doing another 2d8 damage).

As they go up in level, both the rogue and the monk fall off compared to the ranger, fighter, and paladin, but in tier 2, the arcane trickster in particular gets some very nice toys in the form of more spells, spell slots (some of which can be used to boost damage if desired), and a nice spell-boosting feature (magical ambush), as well as the bonus feat that all rogues get at 10th. The monk gets more ki, and hit a point when they can flurry every round if they want to, but that has less offensive impact than sneak attack dice. They also get more movement, a poorly designed anti-charm/frightened feature, and a subclass feature, most of which are either a survivability boost (helping them be less behind in that area), a mobility boost, or yet another way to spend ki. Shadow at least gets something neat which doesn't use ki. The monk does get magic fists, which is definitely useful in a campaign where PCs are not getting suitable magic weapons; but that's not the norm IME.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Monks suck at damage.

Suck? Or are not the best?
I contend that even the word "suck" is just clickbait (and now we've got a 260 post thread going, so I guess that works...). To me "Suck" == "worst damage, or at least below average"

Is monk damage the worst? Or at least below the median line?

Let's compare to the Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Wizard, Bard, Paladin - not just the Barbarian, Fighter, Warlock and Rogue.

I'm sure someone has done the math to determine how the monk's optimal DPS/DPR compares to ALL the other classes?

 

[Mistwell]

Monks have nearly the same AC as a Great Weapon Fighter. Depending on subclass they get a similar heal to 2nd wind. They get additional defensive features like deflect missiles and evasion. Their downside is lower hp.

Monks can make better tanks than fighters if they want. Dumping KI into the bonus action dodge instead of dumping ki into flurry of blows allows the monk to be one of the most defensive melee characters in the game. It is at the expense of offense but it's very impressive.

If a fighter is trying to be a tank as their focus, they can tank MUCH better than a monk trying to be a tank as their focus. A fighter has a 21 AC without expending ANY resources. A monk on the other hand will have a 16 Wisdom and 16 Dex at best (because with point buy that's the highest they could get for the two) giving them a 16 AC. A monk could then spend ALL their Ki, sacrificing their stunning strike and many subclass abilities and their bonus action, to get dodge. But dodge is just disadvantage, which translates to about +5. This means if the monk spends all their limited resource Ki, they can only EQUAL an ordinary fighter who did nothing special other than wearing plate and a shield and choosing defensive style. All their other subclass options like from Battlemaster are still available to them.

And that's just an ordinary fighter who did almost nothing to get there. They're not even the best tanks in the game.

And that's not even counting that the monks have the worst Hit Points for a tank in the game - remember you had to spend your best ability scores just to get your AC up to be mediocre.

And that's not even counting they don't have the best or second best or even third best saves in the game.

Sure, monks can deflect ONE ranged arrow (or whatever) per round. How often do foes shoot ONE arrow, and how often is it at YOU? Particularly at mid to higher levels, this is pretty weak. But even if it were not, it's very situational and not really an important part of being a "tank". Nobody is, for example, spending a feat to get spells which deflect arrows, right?

Monks suck as tanks. Almost any other melee class makes a better tank than Monks.

The only way classes get a higher AC than a monk is by using a shield. That's doable but it puts those characters using the shield really far back in offense compared to the monk.

Monks suck at damage. They do less damage than even a fighter using just a sword rather than a two-handed weapon. Particularly since you spent your Ki using the Dodge action which also cost you your bonus action. Without your bonus action, you're completely toast for damage.

 

[Mistwell]

That is exactly the point, no other class fires a Force Damage Heavy Crossbow that does not use ammunition...for "free".

The effectiveness of Hex + EB+EB Invocations has the practical effect of crowding out other action combinations for the Warlock due to basic cost benefit analysis.

The DPS analysis emphasizes individual damage output but ignores a D&D truism:
D&D is a cooperative game, and the group that has the most synergy between their actions tends to get the "best" results.

Whom is generally better at exploiting a foe debilitated by the Hold Person spell, a Fighter or a Monk?
The Monk clearly. The Fighter can use their, likely, only action surge.
The monk can Flurry, the monk can just use the Martial Arts bonus, the monk can even keep the target controlled with Stunning Fist if the save against Hold Person is made.

Factors like this are not given consideration by monk class detractors.
Indeed, it strikes me that monk detractors have such a myopic view of how the game is played, that these considerations do not even occur to them.

The Monk gets a much larger pool of Ki points then the number of uses a Fighter has of Second Wind or Healing Surges....yet the hypotheticals people reference seem to be the Fighter can use these powers all the time.

I think if you wanted to analyze who is better at taking advantage of a control wizards control of the battlefield, you will find on average the fighter, paladin, barbarian, ranger and rogue would all be more effective at that than the monk. We'd need to set up a big series of tests for such a comparison. I am not inclined to do that but if you care to I will try to play along, if time permits.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Suck? Or are not the best?

Of 13 classes in the game, Monks have the lowest potential if damage is being focused on. So literally the worst. I've done builds for every class in the game (multiple for most) and done the damage comparison against a static baseline, and the Monk is the only class I can't beat that baseline consistently with without multiclassing.

Edit: I should add some caveats for transparency. Monks fare better in a feat-less scenario. They also compare better if we do not allow sources past the PHB (as a lot of builds rely on BB/GFB for scaling melee damage). But if we are using feats and allowing official sources, the Monk falls behind the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Artificer, Cleric, Druid and Warlock for damage if that is the focus of the build.