D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Esker]

Just remember that if you enjoy playing a monk, you are obviously delusional because spreadsheets never lie.

No one is suggesting that there's anything wrong with anyone's subjective experience of fun playing a monk. The only claim being made is that they are mechanically underpowered. It's fine not to care! But saying "that's not important" isn't the same thing as saying the claim is wrong.

It might actually be the case that a more careful analysis reveals that the claim is wrong, and that when you put damage and control together, monks come out ahead of rogues, say. But that needs quantitative analysis to show. it's simply irrelevant to the claim that "monks suck (mechanically)" to point out that mechanics aren't everything. That's absolutely true! But we're talking about mechanics in this particular debate

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why wouldn't average sword damage used by a fighter be the baseline?

Exactly.

Honestly, ask @Treantmonklvl20 for why that specific exemple, but it's a fairly simple combo at least.

Sword and Board or two handed greatsword?

I went sword and board in my example, because the baseline should be in the middle of at will weapon damage before limited resources are used.

I was thinking about magic items. I’m working today so I can’t really dig into the topic too much, but I know there are plenty of magic items I’ve enjoyed on my monk, like beavers of defense, various weapons, items that give flying, etc.


I also have to wonder...how many DMs don’t homebrew items or use 3pp magic items? Outside of AL play, I’ve never seen a 5e DM not do so, but I might be an outlier.

 

[Mistwell]

Why are you using the average score, though? That doesn’t represent what players are realistically doing, because most aren’t going to try to stun big brute types all that often.

So you're saying their ability is useless against brutes, which make up a large portion of most published adventures and most published monsters?

OK. This is not persuading me monks don't suck though. You've reduced their utility even more.

Your argument appears to be along the lines of "Poison damage is awesome because you'd only use it against creatures not immune or resistant to it so we should only judge it based on what it can harm the most." It's kinda a silly position there Doc. If you reduce the utility of something drastically by saying it's only used in even more limited situations, that decrease in utility should be part of the analysis and not "a benefit".

 

[Asisreo]

the AC, HP and resistance of objects are at the mercy of the DM. There's nowhere to turn to tell you 'A Greatsword has AC of X and HP of X, but Resist X to all damage'.

A steel object has a SUGGESTED AC of 19... but the rules don't specify HP. Furthermore, that's for something that 'can't move out of the way', I'm pretty sure if you try to strike someone's weapon they're not gonna stand there letting you move in however you want.

Too much DM variance, and it's a strategy that applies to all characters equally, it's just not useful for any analaysis.

It's also very poor action economy because 'Death is the Best Status Condition'.

You literally use the table in the DMG and nothing else. It's not hard at all nor does it require DM assistance. All objects have a size, otherwize Animate Object's interaction with any object depends on the DM.

 

[Undrave]

You literally use the table in the DMG and nothing else. It's not hard at all nor does it require DM assistance. All objects have a size, otherwize Animate Object's interaction with any object depends on the DM.

All the numbers are 'suggested', not hard rules.

Animate Object has its own objective tables that doesn't actually match with the one in the DMG.

 

[Asisreo]

All the numbers are 'suggested', not hard rules.

Animate Object has its own objective tables that doesn't actually match with the one in the DMG.

There's no difference. The Animate Object spell is a spell that transforms objects into creatures with the stats. Like how you polymorph something.

 

[Mistwell]

There's no difference. The Animate Object spell is a spell that transforms objects into creatures with the stats. Like how you polymorph something.

There is a longer discussion of this topic here. Short answer: there isn't a consensus on if or how it is done. It seems to be a DM call and may involve your opinion on Called Shots in your game. There are also many spells and abilities which specifically involve damaging or taking a held or worn item, and it may be stepping on the toes of those spells and abilities to declare anyone can just do it with any weapon. Some suggest it would involve the AC of the holder, and/or a Dex save from the holder, since spells which attack objects have such restrictions for held or worn objects.

 

[Asisreo]

There is a longer discussion of this topic here. Short answer: there isn't a consensus on if or how it is done. It seems to be a DM call and may involve your opinion on Called Shots in your game.

Is the argument that a DM determines it so it doesn't exist as RAW? I never said it wasn't up to the DM.

What isn't up to the DM is whether you can break an object. You can. There's no debate. The question is what damage will do it and what's the likelihood an attack will connect.

How do people handle being out of line-of-sight out-of-combat, then?

In combat, anyone is fully aware of everything with a roughly 360 degree FoV. Out of combat, where someone is looking is up to the DM.

 

[Mistwell]

Is the argument that a DM determines it so it doesn't exist as RAW?

No. The argument is nobody is sure what RAW is on this topic, given it's explicitly up to the DM to draw on a large variety of rules from different source books which discuss this kind of topic.

What isn't up to the DM is whether you can break an object. You can. There's no debate. The question is what damage will do it and what's the likelihood an attack will connect.

There is debate on if you can attack a held or worn item versus an unattended one. It's the same debate about whether attacking an inanimate dismembered hand laying on the ground is the same as the specific right hand of a living foe who is attacking you. Most DMs don't like called shots in their game, for good reason.

It's also the debate as to whether you can use the "attack an object" rule to subvert specific abilities and spells which do that with significant limitations that you bypass with just an ordinary weapon. For example, if a specific 2nd level spell can attack unattended objects but not held or worn ones, why could your sword do that with no spell? If a third level spell could attack a held or worn object but requires both an attack roll against the foe's AC and they get a Dex save, why would your weapon attack avoid those limits with no spell?

Bottom line, this is a more complicated topic than you're suggesting.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It might actually be the case that a more careful analysis reveals that the claim is wrong, and that when you put damage and control together, monks come out ahead of rogues, say. But that needs quantitative analysis to show. it's simply irrelevant to the claim that "monks suck (mechanically)" to point out that mechanics aren't everything. That's absolutely true! But we're talking about mechanics in this particular debate

And some (many?) of us are saying that much of what a monk brings to the table simply cannot be quantified. I've already mentioned (twice) the group synergy of Stunning Blow. How many times per adventuring day will the monk's extra movement enable it to reach a target in one round changing the course of the battle? What percentage of incoming damage will be ranged and thus be mitigated by Deflect Arrows? What's the exact contribution of getting shoved off a cliff during a fight, taking no damage, and running back up the cliff? How much damage caused by monsters is poison damage?