D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

I am offering a suggestion. Look at the third best. All I'm saying is I don't know what it is, I'm sure someone does, once we know what is 3rd best measure things against that.

“What should we compare against”? The third best!

“What is the third best”? I have no idea!

That’s funny to me.

 

[cbwjm]

“What should we compare against”? The third best!

“What is the third best”? I have no idea!

That’s funny to me.

Glad to brighten your day with a little bit of laughter.

 

[FrogReaver]

Glad to brighten your day with a little bit of laughter.

Oh I’m not done. If the third best is the baseline doesn’t that mean everything but the 2 bettter options is worse.

 

[cbwjm]

Oh I’m not done. If the third best is the baseline doesn’t that mean everything but the 2 bettter options is worse.

Ask the designers of the game, this is their method for balancing options.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ask the designers of the game, this is their method for balancing options.

No it isn’t. As I’ve already eluded:

1. It doesn’t actually work
2. Determining which is 3rd best is nearly impossible.

 

[cbwjm]

No it isn’t. As I’ve already eluded:

1. It doesn’t actually work
2. Determining which is 3rd best is nearly impossible.

Fine. Be like that.

 

[Helldritch]

Ho my GOD! Don't tell me that the designers consider the Monk to be third best!!!!!!
This would mean that the monk is competing against... itself!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

For those that disagree with eb and hex baseline, what is your suggested baseline?

Its a pretty good comparison point: sustainable damage but still involves burning a short-rest resource; just like the monk.

I think the issue is when people stop using it as a point of reference, and start regarding it as a minimum for general use.

When optimising a build, I know Treantmonk uses is as a minimum, which makes sense: the point of optimising/minmaxing is to have a build that performs better than average.
. . . And the Monk as a class is hard to optimise as a build. There are a lot of tactical decisions when in play: you can optimise your performance there. But in the actual character build: there aren't really any feats, or class splashes, or spells you can bring in from elsewhere to boost performance above the baseline like you can with most other classes.
Treantmonk's interest being in optimising builds, it is quite understandable he thinks monks suck, because the class is really resistant to being optimised.

Other people who don't tend to minmax character builds, but enjoy the round-by-round tactical decisions, and the scope that the monk affords them, seem to be having fun playing them, and therefore don't think that they suck.

 

[Flamestrike]

Destroying weapons is an optional rule, as is the basic disarm action.

No it's not. It's literally in the PHB, under combat section 'attack an object'.

And it also says under the 'Making an attack' section of the same PHB:

Making an Attack

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, Spells, Special Abilities, and other Effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your Attack roll.
3. Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Also the RAI:


Unless your attack or spell says otherwise (Eldritch blast cannot target objects for example) you can target an object just fine.

Melee weapon attacks (such as unarmed strikes) can target objects. Both attended objects AND unattended objects.

That's literally from the PHB as RAW.

The AC and HP of the item are listed in the PHB under the combat section also.

Now a DM could rule (and probably should rule) that attacking a held or carried item is an attack roll with disadvantage (your opponent is trying to stop you from damaging it, making it harder to hit than if it was just lying there), but attacking an object is not 'optional' any more than 'Fighters' or 'elves' or 'magic missile' are optional.

 

[Undrave]

Regardless of efficiency of the class, I think it's BS that the Monk can't have a grappler build. If their unarmored AC wasn't tied up in WIS, and WIS was limited to saves and some subclass spell casting, they would get more build options, including a high STR grappler.

Other people who don't tend to minmax character builds, but enjoy the round-by-round tactical decisions, and the scope that the monk affords them, seem to be having fun playing them, and therefore don't think that they suck.

My experience is that your round-by-round tactical decision options run smack into your Ki limit.

The idea of switching from tanking to offensive at a moments notice is fun, but I think the value of the versatility was over evaluated. If this was an intent (and I'm still not sure what the Monk was designed to do in the first place) then the Monk should have used a Stance system instead of spending its limited ressources.

Like, every time you take the Attack Action you can change your stance. You could have the Swooping Crane Stance that gives you +2 to AC (like a shield), or a Striking Tiger Stance that gives you more damage to unarmed damage (say, +2, like a Fighting Style).

I think the reason people can enjoy monk and have fun is that when they work (i.e. when they stun something or deflect a missile) they make a splash and are memorable. Everybody remembers their great memorable moments. The Monk certainly has potential for cinematic ones, there's no denying it. The Monk's problems are not those 'highs', it's the 'lows' between those moments that are lacking. To some people, the highs are enough, to others they just highlight the deficiencies of the lows, and it's just a question of taste what you prefer.