D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Asisreo]

What do you mean, experimentation and playtesting? How should the experiment be set up? Are we going to instruct 20 tables to run randomly-selected hardcover adventure from level 1 to 11 and then chart turn-by-turn details? This isn't a reasonable request as it is.

Yes. It is. We're here, spending time punching numbers into calculators just to see who gets the biggest one.

We shouldn't be lazy then pretend we have the full picture. If we're here spouting about the fact that the data is incomplete, we should at least put in the effort to do it.

And it should run the full scope of levels with a variety of DM's, adventures both homebrewed and official, as well as explicit records when a houserule comes into effect. Otherwise, they must be ran RAW.

It's not easy, but data collection almost never is. We'll need a large enough sample size to come up with a reasonable assessment. It's a project that may even take years, but we want to be thorough, do we not?

 

[Esker]

The Pontiac Aztek has 93.5 cubic feet of cargo capacity.

The Bugatti Veyron has 1.3 cubic feet of cargo capacity.

HA! By the power of maths, I have now conclusively shown that not only is the Aztek OP, but it is nearly 72 times the car that the Bugatti is.

How you like dem apples, car nerds?

As I've said many times, there are all kinds of metrics one can use. Criticizing the metric being used doesn't lead to 'math is irrelevant in this discussion'.

 

[Dausuul]

Do you want me to get you tables of tables of average saving throws and then put together plausible DC progressions of Stunning Strike? Something like rows of levels that compared average monster ACs and saving throws versus their likelihood of being stunned if Stunning Strike is used 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 times?

We can do that. If you have an objection to my proposed experiment (i.e. it doesn't account for mixed encounters of medium and low CRs) let me know.

There are basically three components to consider: The impact of a stun (both in granting the party advantage and in denying the monster an action), the likelihood of a stun attempt succeeding, and the number of attempts the monk can make. If we can come to an agreement on how to crunch those numbers, I think that's a fair experiment.

I will add that, in my belief, Stunning Strike plus base DPR accounts for most of a monk's combat contribution, and if they come up short after taking that into account, I will concede the class is underpowered. I can't speak for anybody else, but that would be enough to convince me.

My proposed framework for estimating the impact of stun would be:

1. DPR increase to the party from attacking with advantage. The stun lasts until the end of the monk's next turn; a monk making 3 attacks would average 1 attack with advantage on the same turn as the stun, plus 3 attacks on their next turn. Then we have the other PCs; shall we say two PCs using Treantmonk's "warlock with hex" baseline damage and a base 60% chance to hit? (I figure the rest of the party is doing stuff that doesn't involve an attack roll and won't benefit.)
2. The monster's DPR is reduced to zero for the round. We'll need a ratio to convert "monster damage prevented" to an equivalent of "PC damage inflicted." I'm okay with just doing this 1-for-1, but open to suggestions if you think that's not a valid ratio.

Then we have the likelihood of a stun attempt succeeding. For this, I'd go with picking a target CR based on the monk's level (e.g., "monk level plus 2"), then finding the average Con save of monsters with that CR and comparing it to the expected save DC for a monk of that level. I expect that a monk will start with 16 Wisdom and invest in Dexterity first, so the monk's save DCs will be (11 + prof bonus) for most of their career.

Finally, number of attempts. The DMG guideline* is ~7 encounters per day, ~2 short rests per day, which means the monk has (level x 3) / 7 ki points per encounter. We should assume the monk will use their ki in the most efficient way; i.e., the only time a monk will ever use ki for something other than Stunning Strike is if that something provides more value to the party than SS. For this calculation, this means we can simply assume all ki is spent on Stunning Strike (no Flurry, no spellcasting, etc.).

We will also need a value for the number of rounds in a typical encounter, since the monk's ki must be spread across those rounds. Shall we say 5? Open to suggestions here.

Taking all this into account, the monk's "augmented DPR" would be:

Base DPR for a regular attack with Martial Arts
+
(chance to stun) x (DPR equivalent value of successful stun) x (stun attempts per encounter) / (rounds per encounter)

How does all that sound? Am I missing anything? Assumptions you think are unreasonable?

*Note that my position assumes the monk gets the expected two short rests per day. For scenarios where the monk gets less than 2, I will concede the argument immediately.

 

[Esker]

There are basically three components to consider: The impact of a stun (both in granting the party advantage and in denying the monster an action), the likelihood of a stun attempt succeeding, and the number of attempts the monk can make. If we can come to an agreement on how to crunch those numbers, I think that's a fair experiment.

I will add that, in my belief, Stunning Strike plus base DPR accounts for most of a monk's combat contribution, and if they come up short after taking that into account, I will concede the class is underpowered. I can't speak for anybody else, but that would be enough to convince me.

My proposed framework for estimating the impact of stun would be:

1. DPR increase to the party from attacking with advantage. The stun lasts until the end of the monk's next turn; a monk making 3 attacks would average 1 attack with advantage on the same turn as the stun, plus 3 attacks on their next turn. Then we have the other PCs; shall we say two PCs using Treantmonk's "warlock with hex" baseline damage and a base 60% chance to hit? (I figure the rest of the party is doing stuff that doesn't involve an attack roll and won't benefit.)
2. The monster's DPR is reduced to zero for the round. We'll need a ratio to convert "monster damage prevented" to an equivalent of "PC damage inflicted." I'm okay with just doing this 1-for-1, but open to suggestions if you think that's not a valid ratio.

Then we have the likelihood of a stun attempt succeeding. For this, I'd go with picking a target CR based on the monk's level (e.g., "monk level plus 2"), then finding the average Con save of monsters with that CR and comparing it to the expected save DC for a monk of that level. I expect that a monk will start with 16 Wisdom and invest in Dexterity first, so the monk's save DCs will be (11 + prof bonus) for most of their career.

Finally, number of attempts. The DMG guideline* is ~7 encounters per day, ~2 short rests per day, which means the monk has (level x 3) / 7 ki points per encounter. We should assume the monk will use their ki in the most efficient way; i.e., the only time a monk will ever use ki for something other than Stunning Strike is if that something provides more value to the party than SS. For this calculation, this means we can simply assume all ki is spent on Stunning Strike (no Flurry, no spellcasting, etc.).

We will also need a value for the number of rounds in a typical encounter, since the monk's ki must be spread across those rounds. Shall we say 5? Open to suggestions here.

Taking all this into account, the monk's "augmented DPR" would be:

Base DPR for a regular attack with Martial Arts
+
(chance to stun) x (DPR equivalent value of successful stun) x (stun attempts per encounter) / (rounds per encounter)

How does all that sound? Am I missing anything? Assumptions you think are unreasonable?

*Note that my position assumes the monk gets the expected two short rests per day. For scenarios where the monk gets less than 2, I will concede the argument immediately.

Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[Stalker0]

So I have long thought Monks were weak (and have seen them in actual play at my table), and did take the time to watch the video.

1) So on the defense and offense arguments... I think the math shows this well. Monks are just not good at this. One thing I wish Treantmonk had done was note that disadvantage on attacks is (in best circumstances) about a -5 to attacks....or a +5 to the enemy AC. This means that a 1st level monk using dodge as noted in the video would have an AC of 21....which is no higher than a 1st level defensive minded fighter....and that costs him KI!

I would say that if the offensive baseline is a warlock using hex (a per short rest resource), than probably the fairest comparison would be a monk using 1-2 rounds of flurry of blows, to try and generate the equivalent per short rest expenditure. The fact he showed the baseline combined with unlimited flurry of blows was telling...but a way to seal the deal would be the absolute equivalency to your baseline with 2 flurries.

2) I do think Treantmonk underestimates deflect missiles. One of the things that 5e assumes is that there is a brain behind the table...the DM. Part of a DMs job is to tailor encounters to allow his party to show off every so often. So I would fully expect a good DM running a table with a monk to use ranged attackers and allow the monk to show off his deflect missiles power.

This is why the note about class "uniqueness" is important. If a class has a unique hook...a good dm can use it. But that is also why Treantmonk's points about "the monk is no more good at X than another class" are very important points.

3) So ultimately I think Stunning Strike is the crux of the debate, and is the closest to the "tripping monkey" build he noted for the 3.5 monk.

Now I think he did a good job showing that the chance to stun is not great. That said, if a monk at a table stuns the big bad and lets the party wail on that monster...he will become a legend. No amount of math will change that. So I can understand why people cling to this in their defense of the monk.

Ultimately I agree with Treantmonk that spellcasters can still do it better. That said, few of them can do it 5 or more times every short rest (which is a monk focused solely on stunning can do). So that is a unique element to the monk that other classes don't have.


In summary, I think the monk is a very poor class chassis that clings to a single ability (stunning strike) for any chance at combat effectiveness or unique "cinematic pizzazz". I do think a stunning strike focused monk is workable in a party where the DM is very generous with short rests. However...that's it....and that does not a good class make. The monk is a badly designed class.... it was in 2nd edition, in 3rd, and now again in 5th. They just can't seem to ever get it right.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's 2020 and we're still doing the Oberoni Fallacy.

That's not the Oberoni fallacy. That fallacy is the false statement that role playing and optimisation are not compatible.

I guess 'it's not a game balance problem if you use that optional rule that isn't necessary in 99% of games that don't have a monk' is progress, I guess.

Or a Fighter. Or a Warlock. Both classes are also Short rest dependent alongside the Monk.

Rogues are rest neutral. Barring Arcane tricksters.

Paladins, all other Casters and Barbarians are long rest dependent.

Like, if you're DMing and you're ignoring the DMG, that's on you. Dont point the finger at the rules, when the rules not only expressly give you clear options to for you to use to fit the narrative pacing you choose for your own game, but also actively encourage you to do so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And THAT is a major problem of encounter design I see in many D&D in my area. A lot of DM often forget the goblin's ability to disengage as a bonus action and many others. An encounter with 2 ogres is fine for 4th level characters. But an encounter with 1 ogre, 2 hobgoblins and 4 goblins archers is way more interesting (using XGtE).

And this is also the kind of fights where the monk will shine like a star. He will get past the ogre and the hobgolins to get to the archers. With his missile defense, the goblins will have a hard time getting the monk down and this will free up the caster(s) of the group to do their stuff relatively safe. The more varied your encounters are, the more a monk will be useful. The more you are making monotype encounters, then the more a rogue will shine. Variety of encounters will ensure that both will shine at their time.

Edit: Number of ogres and party level were wrong. Damn big fingers and phone digital keyboards...

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.

Again, your archers are obviously much safer than those in my games. The job of the beefy melees and the support PCs should be to keep the casters and archers from getting ganked. Something the monk is pretty good at even without using Stunning Strike, because they can pretty well always get to whoever they want to target with melee attacks.

Also...you know rangers aren't all archers, right? This is just a tangent, but...you keep implying that they are buy only talking about hunter's mark in a ranged context, and...no. I've been at a lot of AL tables, introduced a lot of people to dnd at library games and home games, and spend a lot of time with the dnd community on twitter, reddit, here, tumblr, and tik tok, and a majority of rangers I've seen are melee focused, or took Defensive so they could switch without losing anything, but spend more time in melee. And I've never seen any data that suggests that most rangers are archers.

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.

The monk is using a secondary resource, and a bonus action. The warlock is using a much, much, more limited primary resource, and no bonus action. Which is giving up more to cast the spell is debatable, but this entire line of argument stems from the absurd claim that Monks have no multiclass synergy, so I don't really care about that.

It may be that I am assuming fewer "solo boss monster" fights. If there are a lot of those, it does improve the monk.

No one but you is talking about solo boss fights.
Just challenging fights.

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.

The warlock can cast 2 spells in any fight, maximum, until level 11. Even at 11, it's 3 spells. The monk can stun up to a number of times equal to their level.

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.

This paragraph tells me that nothing you have to say on the topic can be taken seriously. If your entire calculation is just DPR in an "optimized" party, then...yeah I can't even take that seriously on any level.

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?

Most fights last multiple rounds per enemy. That could be anywhere from 3 to 6 rounds, depending on how big a fight it is.

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?

Or the spellcaster hits the rogue with a couple Scorching Rays, or the lurker gets a Sneak Attack of it's own on the rogue, etc, all to dedicate their Action and Reaction to a chance to hit. It's a bad tradeoff, the vast majority of the time.

I can't help you if you want to say that math isn't an important part of having a debate about whether X < Y.

I don't need your help, bud. No one here needs your help. Your problem here may very well be that you think others need help understanding the game, when in fact we all understand the game just fine.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As I've said many times, there are all kinds of metrics one can use. Criticizing the metric being used doesn't lead to 'math is irrelevant in this discussion'.

But when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like it can be solved by DPR analysis.

Look, math is hard. Real math, even harder. It's not like we are trying to understand the difference in the lag effects between fiscal and monetary policy by running multivariate analyses using Minitab ...

...but this is a prime example of GIGO. To briefly go through the ways:

1. Some things are amenable to (relatively) simple analysis. For example, baseball tends to be "easy" to quant because most of it is a series of one-on-one interactions (pitcher, hitter). Other things are harder (like defensive stats in baseball). On the other hand, when you take certain sports, like Basketball or Football, you find that while statistics can be incredibly important, they can't tell you everything in isolation because it's a team game (the "Battier" issue ... or the issue with quantifying the effectiveness of a single offensive lineman). Given that D&D necessarily involves parties of multiple characters interacting, a pure DPR analysis will always fall short. It can be somewhat informative, but never dispositive. Or to use your recent post, it can't answer the X < Y, because it can't account for the synergies that occur due to differing party compositions.

2. A further issue that occurs is the necessary difference between different campaigns and different assumptions. Different campaigns is hard enough (for example, a monk in a social and urban campaign where weapons and armor are not assured will be different than in the recently referenced, "DM SEZ YOU NEVER SHORT RESTS, EVER" campaign). This is further complicated by the nature of the combats. Are they grid or ToTM? Does the DM play the monsters tactically and in waves, or as stupid cannon fodder*. Lots of missiles weapons and low AC? Lots of enemy spellcasters?

3. Then there is the issue of how the player plays the character. DPR doesn't take into account players catering to a class's abilities. "Wait, the monk attacked and destroyed my weapon? What do I do now?" It doesn't measure the "fun" of playing different style. Some people find pure "DPR" and "Tanking" fun, others prefer a tradeoff to allow you to hit and run. It's not right or wrong, it's just different.

4. Which brings up the whole "there's more to the game." DPR doesn't account for all the weird niche abilities that the Monk has. It doesn't take into account the monk not getting hit by missile weapons (let alone flinging them back, if wanted). It doesn't look at the "full picture" of combat, and combat is just one of the three pillars.


Of course, when these issues are raised, and they are, the usual WhiteRoom response is, "Well, okay, but .... in my opinion, the other monk abilities aren't good, or come too late, or aren't useful for other things, or something something, AND WHAT ABOUT THIS DPR?"

Math is a great tool; but that is all that it is. Here, let me put this in the most basic terms I can:

Imagine you are right. Imagine that you have gone ahead, run the Monte Carlo simulation, done a full analysis with all sorts of party members, and determined that Monks lag by .2 DPR behind "other classes."

Well, someone has to lag, right? There will always be a last class. Whether it's the Monk, or the Beastmaster, or the non Pew Pew Pew Warlock, or exhaustion Berserker, or whatever.

And when people come back and say, "Okay, but I still love the class, and the ribbons, and it's the most fun ..." then what? What does it matter? All you have done is gone back to the main distinction- some people like the class for what it is, and they keep telling you that.

So to reiterate:
A. Your math is not good enough; and
B. Once you do get your math good enough, I'll be happy to look at it and say, "You, Esker, you have done good math. Good Esker!" But it won't change my opinion as to the fun I have playing the class.






*How did we agree to attack them?
All at once.
And how did we attack them?
One at a time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Right. Monk detractors dismiss that Stunning Strike is a team buff, ignore anything environmental, and assume weird stuff like first level concentration spells being “basically at-will”.

But this isn’t 3.5. The game isn’t numbers, and the classes aren’t far enough away from eachother in power for these type of analysis to even matter. If we see someone having a hard time playing a monk, we should be looking to provide advice about playstyle, and things to ask the DM about, because the monk is incredibly fun and satisfying for most people who play it.

Yeah, that, too. As I said above, I don't really care if the monk does 5 or 10 or even 20 percent less damage. In actual play the differences don't stand out as making the class feel worthless. Over the past couple of years there have been several monks in our group, and I don't recall any of the players ever feeling badly about their choice.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’ve seen a lot about the baseline chosen. I have no problem with a hex and eb warlock as a baseline. It’s one of the lowest damage combos in the game. In terms of damage there is No feat support, pretty much no multiclass support, etc.

I guess the alternative baseline could be a sword and shield champion fighter. But that’s bottom tier at that point.