D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Perfect example of the limitations of white room analysis. That doesn’t factor in the benefit your teammates get.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because rogues have class features that applies to ranged weapons and have a lower ability score dependence.

Rogues aren't the best archers nor is it easy. But the style is available without wasting class features. A monk is as good an Archer as an elf wizard (bad) unless they take kensai.

Monks shouldn't go archery except when the have to.

They tend to be better at it than strength based fighters and Rogues once they get multiple attacks.

White room theory crafting fails monks hard and they're also what I consider an advanced class.

I made my one sing, I've seenfilliw up Monks suck except for one player who knew what to do.

Disclosure I think mine was a wood Elf fist monk with 18 dex and wisdom iirc.

 

[Asisreo]

I agree, bards' built-in damage capabilities are awful, but they have options that let them be decent at damage if they choose to (though I would contend that's the wrong priority for most bards). A lore bard who takes the moderately armored feat, picks spirit guardians and spiritual weapon at 6th, and spends most of their actions dodging, for example. Or for single-target, a swords bard who takes PAM and uses a spear or quarterstaff with dueling style. And on top of that, they're full spellcasters; so as a whole it's not close. Any bard can induce opportunity attacks that wouldn't otherwise happen with Dissonant Whispers, for example, or create large added damage by polymorphing an ally into a giant ape (bonus points if that ally is a monk!), or cast Animate Objects for ~45 damage as a bonus action, etc.

A 4-elemonk can do better damage than any of the other subclasses of monks. Also gives them AoE.

Kensei can benefit from SharpShooter and do tremendous damage.

You can optimize a monk for damage and come out very well.

In fact, if the BM fighter is allowed to have the GWM feat, the monk should be allowed the Martial Adept feat and the ability to use Disarming or Distracting to do even more than before.

 

[Minigiant]

There seems to be three primary "camps" of people that don't like Monks (to overgeneralize, there is some overlap):

I'm in the "monk class is built like crap and need overhaul camp."

The class should not default to only skrimisher. It's the only class will one base combat role.

Monks shouldn't go archery except when the have to.

They tend to be better at it than strength based fighters and Rogues once they get multiple attacks.

White room theory crafting fails monks hard and they're also what I consider an advanced class.

I made my one sing, I've seenfilliw up Monks suck except for one player who knew what to do.

Disclosure I think mine was a wood Elf fist monk with 18 dex and wisdom iirc.

That's the problem.

If a class is stuck in one niche, it better be well above the rest in that niche.
If monks can only be skrimishers, it should be better than good at it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Fair enough, I don't think there's much more to say. I think my post is as serious in it's point as others here, though.

 

[Agamon]

Anecdotal evidence: I've had 2 monks in my campaigns. The first died a level 1 death. The 2nd is in the current game and is the superhero of the group, doing far more than his share of damage (the fighter is the king of rolling 1s this campaign, so it's evening out, over all) and he's incredibly difficult to hit.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm in the "monk class is built like crap and need overhaul camp."

So, let me ask you a question in all seriousness.

You notice that there are people that do like the Monk? Perhaps you do not read the other comments on this thread where people say, "I like monks," but at least you can sense that these people are somewhere out there.

So you know for a fact that there are people that like the way that the Monk is built.

Knowing this, and here is my question, why would you want to take away a class that you do not like from the people that do enjoy it, just to make it more like the eleven (twelve, including artificer) classes that already exist?

It's great that you have strong opinions about the Monk; you can recognize that other people enjoy the class and don't want it rebuilt in your image, right?

To use an analogy- maybe you really thought the Pontiac Aztek was the greatest car ever. That's a fine opinion to have! It's a different car than an Audi S5 Cabriolet. Perhaps you think that the S5 Cabriolet doesn't have the great styling or luggage capacity of the Aztek. That's an opinion!

But to continue to say, "I think that the only thing that can save the Cabriolet is to make sure it's not a convertible, so it's more like the Aztek" is to entirely miss the point of why people like what they like.

 

[Undrave]

Yea, Monks start at the same AC heavy armor wearers do (provided 16 dex/16 wis).

Which means you've got no leeway to make different flavours of monk MAD means you can only build one way of you're easy picking.

It's almost like monks get compared to the damage of a GWF, the AC of a plate and shield fighter, the hp of a Barbarain, the mobility of a rogue (or is it a horse), the saves of a paladin and somehow not being able to do better than all that combined at once makes a monk suck?

They should be good at ONE of them. They are not.

The problem with Monks is I see people play them as a Tank, and not as a Striker

They're not that great as striker either. Barbarian and Paladin are both tanks that can lay down the hurt at the same time. And the Paladin can heal.

The base-line Monk (no MC) can do amazing things with status effects

A status effect. Single. It gets stun and that's it.

Using eldritch blast plus agonizing blast plus hex as the baseline is too high a baseline, and DPR wouldn't be everything even if there were a significant gap.

Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Hex isn't some kind of corner case obscure exploit build with complicated multi classing and multiple books... It's LITERALLY the easiest way to have good damage with the Warlock. It's all base PHB stuff that's as obvious as the noon day sun! If you have trouble beating this effortless build (a SAD one with a singular focus on CHA, btw) then you are not good at damage.

High level monks seem to be better off.

Most people play 1-10, probably more 1-6 even. The Monk has too many good abilities that only come online in the back half of their levels. I bet a level 15 monk is great, but I'm not playing that.

I've seen it at level 1. Higher rolled stats reward monks a lot more than say a fighter.

Obligatory: Rolled stats are stupid.

My Shadow Monk has rolled stats and I have 18 in both DEX and WIS (and like...16 in CON? It's ridiculous) at level 6 and I still feel like my contribution in combat is basically nothing. I'm having some fun with the Shadow Monk teleporting but my attacks never seem to amount to much.

And it's almost never necessary. As I said, whatever way you spin it, it's a false role. Monk is, at best the very low-grade superhero, "Stunning Strike Man".

Pretty much. 'lock down 1 guy' is a very narrow role, role that only comes online at level 6, and it's not even like the 4e Avenger who had great damage and would punish opponents who ran away! It's just a gimmick. The Monk wasn't designed with any sort of design goal in mind, just a pile of legacy features haphazardly thrown on a level progression table.

The versatility is great in theory, and it can work in practice, but you run out of juice terrifyingly fast at lower levels, which is where people play most campaigns.

Yup! One of my last fight as a Shadow Monk, an Aboleth took control of our giant warlock NPC ally. He was in difficult terrain so I spent 2 out of my 6 Ki points to drop Silence on his head. This was pretty much my biggest contribution to the fight honestly (I also had awful luck with attacks later on). I just didn't have enough Flurry and Stuns left to make a difference. Sure, I could expends some legendary resistance but nobody in my party actually has save-based effect that actually benefit from me burning those resistances, they can all just make powerful attacks instead for damage.

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'm in a party with a Paladin, Barbarian and Warlock. I probably should have went Cleric but I had just had my Druid killed and didn't want another full caster. The Warlock has Invisibility known and she gained a Flying broom so stealth and mobility aren't THAT important, but it's at least nice to stealth in pair I guess.

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.

No other class is a one-trick pony, and the Monk's one trick isn't actually that great outside specific situations.

 

[Minigiant]

So, let me ask you a question in all seriousness.

You notice that there are people that do like the Monk? Perhaps you do not read the other comments on this thread where people say, "I like monks," but at least you can sense that these people are somewhere out there.

So you know for a fact that there are people that like the way that the Monk is built.

Knowing this, and here is my question, why would you want to take away a class that you do not like from the people that do enjoy it, just to make it more like the eleven (twelve, including artificer) classes that already exist?

I don't want to take away the class from them. I want to add to it so others might enjoy it as well.

It's great that you have strong opinions about the Monk; you can recognize that other people enjoy the class and don't want it rebuilt in your image, right?

I never stated how I would rebuild it so how could they object?

To use an analogy- maybe you really thought the Pontiac Aztek was the greatest car ever. That's a fine opinion to have! It's a different car than an Audi S5 Cabriolet. Perhaps you think that the S5 Cabriolet doesn't have the great styling or luggage capacity of the Aztek. That's an opinion!

But to continue to say, "I think that the only thing that can save the Cabriolet is to make sure it's not a convertible, so it's more like the Aztek" is to entirely miss the point of why people like what they like.

But that's not what I am saying. I'm not saying take off the convertible aspect.
I am saying make it an option.

People clearly want a tank monk or a DPR monk so these should be base options in the class.

 

[Undrave]

So, let me ask you a question in all seriousness.

You notice that there are people that do like the Monk? Perhaps you do not read the other comments on this thread where people say, "I like monks," but at least you can sense that these people are somewhere out there.

So you know for a fact that there are people that like the way that the Monk is built.

Knowing this, and here is my question, why would you want to take away a class that you do not like from the people that do enjoy it, just to make it more like the eleven (twelve, including artificer) classes that already exist?

This is a false argument. No one is saying we want to take it away. We want to make it BETTER. And no one is proposing taking away anything that people already enjoy from it, just buff some aspects of it. You can't make the Monk better by taking features out, just by buffing the features!