D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Asisreo]

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.



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.

It's actually extremely easy:

A weapon attack lets you choose 3 targets: a creature, a location, an object. There is absolutely no other bounds to that. That's by design. You can attack the torch out of somebody's hands.

It's not called-shots, it's basic targetting. "I want to attack the sword he's wielding" "roll your attack roll." Not hard.

A spell can't do it because spells can't do it. Except certain spells like Disintegration, so it's not like it's impossible for a spell to destroy a worn or carried object.

I'll say that fighters and barbarians should be destroying essential enemy equipment often.

It doesn't matter how much HP the DM can give to them if they're not following the suggestion, it'll break eventually assuming they aren't changing their own rules behind the screen or pretending they made up their mind.

There's no mistaking these truths:

Objects can be attacked while worn
Objects have an AC and HP
Most weapon attacks can target objects

 

[Asisreo]

There's no other way to conclude this discussion other than:

Some people think monks suck

Some people think monks don't suck

The data about why monks suck or don't suck doesn't exist.

This discussion is inconclusive until scientific evidence is provided.

 

[Mistwell]

It's actually extremely easy:

If everyone disagrees with you, by definition it's more complicated than claims that it's easy and obvious.

I've given you good reasons why people disagree with you. Refusing to address those issues and just again repeating it's simple and not controversial is unhelpful.

Do it however you want of course in games you DM, but do you really think ignoring objections people present and fiating "It's extremely easy!" is persuasive?

 

[Asisreo]

If everyone disagrees with you, by definition it's more complicated than claims that it's easy and obvious.

I've given you good reasons why people disagree with you. Refusing to address those issues and just again repeating it's simple and not controversial is unhelpful.

Do it however you want of course in games you DM, but do you really think ignoring objections people present and fiating "It's extremely easy!" is persuasive?

Simplicity has nothing to do with whether a bunch of overthinking rpgoverstack and enworld people agree with me. It's simple because the process is

1. Name target
2. Roll attack roll
3. Roll damage if hit

That's all it's ever been. Telling me that people can't comprehend a simple task as making attacks with objects that has literally the same procedure as making attacks with creatures just make me wonder if those people skipped over the word and maybe feel a pang of pity.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Agreed.

A weapon attack lets you choose 3 targets: a creature, a location, an object. There is absolutely no other bounds to that. That's by design. You can attack the torch out of somebody's hands.

It's not called-shots, it's basic targetting. "I want to attack the sword he's wielding" "roll your attack roll." Not hard.

A spell can't do it because spells can't do it. Except certain spells like Disintegration, so it's not like it's impossible for a spell to destroy a worn or carried object.

I'll say that fighters and barbarians should be destroying essential enemy equipment often.

Thati s LITERALLY the definition of called shots. It's a called shots to a weapon. Called shots aren't raw, and called shots do not interact well with HP.

Furthermore, the Battlemaster has a specific Disarming Maneuver. If you let everybody do it easily then that devalues that maneuver compared to others. If you let EVERYBODY do it, it's not actually an advantage for the Monk.

And finally, you run into the biggest problem with called shots: If they're too easy, everybody would be doing it! Why waste my time attacking the bigger AC of the Hobgoblin Warrior when his weapon only has an AC of 16?! If destroying weapons left or right was easy, then the NPC would be doing it ALL THE TIME... and now you end up punishing weapons using classes because it means they have to spend a SIGNIFICANT piece of their alloted ressources to constantly repair or replace their gear in ways that aren't actually well described into the rules. Do people just break gear like it's made of glass all over the place in your games?! It's a ludicrous concept if you ask me.

On the other hand, if the action is too hard, it's a pointless action that's just going to waste your turn and you're better off attacking.

That's why this sort of thing is usually limited to ability where picking them is an opportunity cost.

 

[Asisreo]

Thati s LITERALLY the definition of called shots. It's a called shots to a weapon. Called shots aren't raw, and called shots do not interact well with HP.

Called shots are when you target a specific bodypart. It isn't called shots to attack a different creature in a combat. It isn't a called shot to target an object, no matter where it is.

Furthermore, the Battlemaster has a specific Disarming Maneuver. If you let everybody do it easily then that devalues that maneuver compared to others. If you let EVERYBODY do it, it's not actually an advantage for the Monk.

I'm not talking about the monk right now, I'm talking about the fact that you can target a worn or carried object, which you can. I don't really care if the rules devalue something that someone placed value on just because they misinterpreted the rule. It's like saying I devalued the rogue by saying "no, sneak attack activates on advantage, it doesn't give advantage."

And finally, you run into the biggest problem with called shots: If they're too easy, everybody would be doing it! Why waste my time attacking the bigger AC of the Hobgoblin Warrior when his weapon only has an AC of 16?! If destroying weapons left or right was easy, then the NPC would be doing it ALL THE TIME... and now you end up punishing weapons using classes because it means they have to spend a SIGNIFICANT piece of their alloted ressources to constantly repair or replace their gear in ways that aren't actually well described into the rules. Do people just break gear like it's made of glass all over the place in your games?! It's a ludicrous concept if you ask me.

You know what's a ludicrous concept? That I'm supposed to believe that a fireball can complete decimate 20 creatures and turn them into ash but their wooden equipment doesn't even singe. But I'm not bothered by it.

Why wouldn't people do it? They would and should do it. But Goblin Warriors are an exception. Most creature's AC are very low. More than that, most enemies don't wield manufactured equipment.

Would goblins target the torch out of a player's hands? Yes. Seems like a great strategy to me. Would they try to break their sword? No. Not because they can't, but because they're preoccupied with the other 3 scary people watching over them with bloodlust. They also can't afford to waste an action to target an enemy's weapon and not their direct HP. It's especially true when you realize a fighter-type character will probably just have backups on them. Ooh, look, carrying capacity suddenly becomes a thing.

On the other hand, if the action is too hard, it's a pointless action that's just going to waste your turn and you're better off attacking.

Exactly, it's part of a strategy. Pretty sure strategic thinking is enjoyed by some people in this thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

+4 to main stat?! You know that the standard array at level 1 stops at 15? You can't have more than +3. A Monk with the Standard array, assuming a +DEX/+WIS race can have 16 in both WIS and DEX (for an AC of 16) and then +1 to CON. A heavy armoured Fighter can have AC 16, +3 to STR and +3 to CON.

Did you just ignore the parenthetical where I said "because I've done that math already"?

Because, you know what you just did by changing all those numbers to 16's? Reduced everything by the same amount. All of that damage I did at +4 got reduced by the exact same amount.

I also admitted that the Fighter likely has a better con. HP was never once a consideration for me. Yes, Figher has better Hp. Not contesting that. It was the other aspects I was contesting.

So, your objection ignored everything else I did, and made no impact on my analysis... congrats?

First, I do not think 50% of your battles are half your level in CR (in my experience your average combat is around your challenge rating), and I don't think you'd be wasting your stuns on those half-level CR battles either. Do you? I mean let's be realistic here, you only get your level in Ki points per short rests and you're not wasting them on the Orc, you're holding them for the battles which count (particularly if many fail), so let's be realistic here and assume it's foes closer to your level in CR and higher that you'd even want to use a stun on.

Here are your average Con scores for Monster Manual creatures by CR for levels 4 to 12. I think you will find, for the realistic situations where you'd even want to try to stun, that it's going to come out to less than 50% chance of working.

Challenge Rating 4 (1,100 XP)
Average Constitution Score 14.79
Deadly Encounter Level 2nd

Challenge Rating 5 (1,800 XP)
Average Constitution Score 17.22
Deadly Encounter Level 3rd

Challenge Rating 6 (2,300 XP)
Average Constitution Score 17.06
Deadly Encounter Level 4th

Challenge Rating 7 (2,900 XP)
Average Constitution Score 16.80
Deadly Encounter Level 4th – 5th

Challenge Rating 8 (3,900 XP)
Average Constitution Score 17.58
Deadly Encounter Level 5th

Challenge Rating 9 (5,000 XP)
Average Constitution Score 20.00
Deadly Encounter Level 5th

Challenge Rating 10 (5,900 XP)
Average Constitution Score 18.50
Deadly Encounter Level 6th

Challenge Rating 11 (7,200 XP)
Average Constitution Score 21.33
Deadly Encounter Level 7th

Challenge Rating 12 (8,400 XP)
Average Constitution Score 16.00*
Deadly Encounter Level 8th

The big problem I have with this concept of "average con score" is that it assumes that either A) Monk players are stupid or B) Everything is close to the average.

A stupid, easy example.

The Monk player has two creatures they can attack. The Archmage (CR 12) or the Heavily Armored and Otherworldy general of the Hells, the Eryines (CR 12).

Which one do they stun? Without even knowing there stats, you pick the Archmage. They are more likely to fail the save (+1 Con save) while the Eriynes is likely to succeed (+8 Con save)


Looking at the average is assuming the Monk doesn't try and pick their targets intelligently, and if they do, then it matters a lot more which monster they are fighting than what the average score is.

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".

sigh

But making the argument that poison is a waste of time and a worthless damage type because everything is immune to it is also false. There are creatures that are not immune to poison, and we can't forget that.

Yes, Stunning Strike isn't as useful against a massive brute. But, every class that does saves has pretty close to the monk's numbers, and some of the most dangerous enemies aren't brutes.

Meaning the enemies the monk can stun reliably, are more dangerous, and even against brutes, they have about a 50/50 shot. Which is not terrible for something that is a rider on their normal actions and bonus actions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Ah yes. “It’s used less often against high con targets than against middling to low con targets” totally means “it’s useless against high con targets”.

No.

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?

This. How many damage points is being immune to poison in a fight where the enemy’s poison can take a creature out of the fight for multiple rounds?

How about reach the enemy archer without expending any resources?

I also haven’t seen anyone talk about the benefits of ally buffs that affect every attack. Someone tried to dismiss Bless with a pretty spurious argument earlier, but that’s it.

As a wizard, I’m gonna pick the monk over anyone else to Enlarge, for instance.

But yeah, if you are a DPR tracking player, you may want to stick to CharOp DPR builds. I had fun with a Shadow Monk/Vengeance Paladin, and with a Sun Soul Monk/Hunter Ranger, but there are many much more straightforward ways to stack damage dice up if that’s what you’re in it for.

 

[Undrave]

Did you just ignore the parenthetical where I said "because I've done that math already"?

Because, you know what you just did by changing all those numbers to 16's? Reduced everything by the same amount. All of that damage I did at +4 got reduced by the exact same amount.

I also admitted that the Fighter likely has a better con. HP was never once a consideration for me. Yes, Figher has better Hp. Not contesting that. It was the other aspects I was contesting.

So, your objection ignored everything else I did, and made no impact on my analysis... congrats?

My bad.

Still, my point is that a Fighter doesn't need to commit as much bild point to his AC, without sacrificing damage or HP, than a Monk. A Fighter also has much more build flexibility because it's not as MAD as a Monk. I could easily build a 16 DEX 16 CHA Fighter if I wanted to and would still be able to contribute as much as the Fighter would went 16 STR and 16 CON, and I'd be able to use the Battlemaster's Rally maneuver more effectively.

Monks need to invest in DEX and WIS and can basically spare a +1 to something else and that's all. Maybe STR if they want to grapple a little? Or INT for some lore related check?

 

[Ashrym]

Because it's suboptimal? On the contrary, that's why it's the baseline! It's an easy to put together combo that flows directly from the PHB stuff. Anything better should

Because in game play warlocks don't meet the warlock baseline because hex is the exception instead of the norm. They lose concentration or use it elsewhere.

Using a baseline that exists on paper instead of in play doesn't demonstrate the damage being suggested as the baseline.

A baseline would be typical in game play.