So does everyone else using Hex or Hunter's Mark. The monk, unlike most other guys, can on the next round throw out 4 attacks, conservatively at 2d6+3, and take down one of those weaker enemies your combats are apperently full of by themselves. I do have such enemies, but they're still very dangerous and they are support for 1-3 bigger, tougher, enemies.
Yes, so does everyone else. But most other classes are not as dependent on their bonus action as the monk is, and the classes that natively get Hex/Hunter's Mark are usually ranged attackers, so are less susceptible to getting hit multiple times, so are more likely to be able to maintain concentration.
LOL wow. So, Hex and Hunter's Mark is basically at-will, but you play down it's utility on the monk. Okay.
And no, it's not basically at-will. The claim is completely bonkers-level absurd. Every class has other stuff to use spell slots for, in and out of combat, and you never get a "basically at-will" number of first level slots.
I didn't downplay its utility on the monk because it used a spell slot --- though I did say that you'll need a few levels to have enough spell slots to consider it "always on". The critique is that using it has a higher opportunity cost for the monk because of how reliant they are on their bonus action. A warlock using Hex+EB (i.e., the "baseline" character) can deploy their bonus action to move Hex around as much as they want, without cutting into their damage. A monk can't.
I really think that you guys are playing a completely different game than those of us who are pushing back here. I haven't figured out entirely what the difference is, but a big part of it has to be combat design, use of terrain as both challenge and opportunity, etc, but...I don't think that's it.
It may be that I am assuming fewer "solo boss monster" fights. If there are a lot of those, it does improve the monk. As for terrain, it seems to me that many of the things I've pointed out (the value of ranged attacks, the rogue's ability to hide for advantage, etc.) are enhanced by interesting terrain. You want to paint me as doing "white room analysis", but I'm not seeing how the arguments I'm making are based on what happens in a white room. If anything, white rooms are terrible environments for rogues and archers, for example.
So, the Monk "sucks" if you assume a CharOp heavy game where things always go the way they're assumed to go in a white room analysis.
What? How am I assuming this? A warlock who uses Hex is really suboptimal. That's why it's a "baseline". They'd be much better off casting real spells --- hypnotic pattern, for example, which they can do about as often as a tier 2 monk can stun something, and the expected value per use (measured in enemy turns denied) is significantly higher, because it's an AoE. Enough higher that the bit of damage the monk is adding on top of their stuns is insignificant in comparison.
Treantmonk's baseline is a super low bar for monk to clear, in other words. And they can't even do that. Bring in actual optimization and the DM may as well not count them as party members when calibrating CRs.
I've run games for optimised characters and for characters built like people, and...no. In either case, I'd consider such a fight a failure on my part, unless it wasn't really there to challenge the PCs significantly.
How long do your fights typically last? Is four rounds a short fight for you? If not, and your standard fight isn't 1-2 monsters, then how is assuming that on average some enemies are going down most rounds unreasonable? Just, like, mathematically?
And that rogue will get attacked in the first round, unless they fail to hit and the enemies don't know they are a threat. And even then, if the enemies have a lurker, then the lightly armored guy hanging back with a bow is a juicy target.
Sure, if the enemies have decent ranged attacks, they might attack the rogue in the first round, and then they will have given up half of that attack's damage (times the chance they get hit) in hitpoints in order to get their sneak attack off. What is that supposed to show? That characters should never do anything that sacrifices defensive opportunities in the interest of offense?
