D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Esker]

People call it "moving the goalpost" and arguing "in bad faith" but those are basically buzzwords. The fact that someone can think of a new parameter worth considering, even when the correlation seems weak, means that it wasn't a complete analysis and should be understood well.

They're not buzzwords; they have specific meanings. And as I've said I don't mind people thinking of a new parameter, and enhancing an analysis. What I have a problem with, as far as "moving the goalposts", is when people stake out a position, are faced with data that contradicts their position, and then instead of saying, "I guess I was mistaken. Oh well. I wonder what happens if we look at the bigger picture?" they act like they never took the position they originally took, and then sweep the data under the rug entirely.

Also, you can't prove whether something is good or not. You can prove that they are better or worse in relation to something else, but something being good or bad is an opinion. Being the lowest damage doesn't prove it's bad.

Better or worse in relation to something else is all we're doing. And we're not even doing that with any claim that we have the One True Measure of effectiveness. I absolutely agree that "lowest damage" is not equivalent to "bad". But "lowest damage" together with "a bunch of lackluster other stuff that also is outclassed by other classes" is, if true (and establishing that requires something quantitative), by any reasonable person's defintion of mechanical quality... "bad".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Huh, I would consider dual wield rogues to be below average at damage. At least below average among classes whose main contribution in combat is damage.

I mean, their average is below an optimized average, sure. But like, ever tried to quantify the benefit of doing all that damage (maybe, 10% less per, say, 4 rounds of combat) in fewer turns?

And rogues just kick ass. No spreadsheet is gonna change that, because most people experience their rogue kicking ass in play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree it can be interesting, but it doesn't say too much one way or another about quantitative estimates. Monte Carlo simulations more generally would be an improvement over calculations on a spreadsheet --- for me, the gold standard would be to write down a standardized set of encounters that make up an adventuring day that are varied in terms of difficulty level, whether there are a few powerful monsters or lots of little ones, with a good cross-section of casters and melee brutes, etc., with some rules about how the monsters act, and simulate a few different party comps through those encounters, and see how it turns out (and how many resources they have left at the end). I guess that's more or less what @Asisreo is suggesting, but actually putting that into code in a way that can be automated enough times for the d20 variance to wash out is... pretty intractable.

So, realistically, it seems to me a person has three choices:
1. They can settle for good faith attempts to quantify effectiveness in simpler ways, which necessarily abstract away a lot of detail, but if guided by reasonable estimates and iterated with input from people with lots of different table experiences, is hopefully a decent approximation. Maybe that's computing some averages for benchmark encounters!
2. They can decide none of this matters --- they don't actually care about character's objective power levels and just want to play the game.
3. They can decide they do care about power levels, but reject any attempt to quantify it objectively, and instead 'go with their gut' and express their opinions online as though they reflected a greater reality than someone doing 1.

I personally favor 1, and welcome constructive input from anyone and everyone who has a (realistic) way to refine the estimates. I also have no problem with someone who picks 2 --- D&D is fun in lots of different ways, and plenty of people can have fun without ever getting into the quantitative side of it. I do take issue with 3 though -- specifically the second half of three where they loudly complain and take it personally if people give quantitative measures that conflict with their subjective experience. Note, again, that dismissing quantitative analysis entirely is entirely different from constructively criticizing the specific methodology being used. It's also different from saying that 'mechanical effectiveness' isn't what's important to you. I'm all for trying to improve on methodology, and I also completely respect people with different priorities. But if you actually want to be part of a conversation about mechanics, you need to offer up something constructive; not just say 'spreadsheet, spreadsheet, white room, white room' over and over.

1 isn't especially meaningful to dnd, because DnD is at least as defined by unquantifiables as it is by quantifiables.

Like 1v1s, spreadsheets are interesting, but that is really all they are.

 

[Asisreo]

Assume it's like a long sword though, so it will have +2 and +3 versions which are rarer and rarer with the higher bonuses. Now has it changed the nature of the class, despite having existed in prior versions of the game?

Of course not.

Are you trying to say that's the extent of the "buff."

A monk would have an easier time with a quarterstaff of equal rarity past level 5, though.

At level 5, you attack with the quarterstaff twice but attack with your unarmed strike once unless you spend a Ki point to also use it twice.

It would've been better to have just gotten a +1 quarterstaff past level 5.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm currently playing a kensai monk who never uses either of those terms. She's a swordswoman, who was (is) the only student of an elderly, and stereotypically hermetic/grumpy, master who teaches an ancient style that is no longer in fashion. "Kids these days all want to wear plate!"

For the first two levels she used a wooden sword (refluffed staff) because she hadn't yet earned the right to use a real sword.

Nice. I love that.

 

[Mistwell]

I mean, their average is below an optimized average, sure. But like, ever tried to quantify the benefit of doing all that damage (maybe, 10% less per, say, 4 rounds of combat) in fewer turns?

And rogues just kick ass. No spreadsheet is gonna change that, because most people experience their rogue kicking ass in play.

Rogues also have a lot of power out of combat. The kick butt in both exploration and can do the persuasion/deception/intimindation thing if they want. And they have a wider variety of subclasses which draw on different pools of power, like spell slots. They're just a lot more versatile and so it's easier to accept lower damage in exchange for that versatility.

Meanwhile Monks are a melee combat class like a fighter with little outside of combat, and what they do have outside combat draws on the same darn pool of power as their in-combat pool, which is very limited.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel the same way.

I suspectit isdue to the monk being based on

1 weapon style: Unarmed
1 Armor type: Unarmored
1 Stat Combo: DEX/STR

This leaves you with one type of monk: skirmisher.

At least in 4e, monks had the brute option in the DEX/STR monk. It was a tripping build and offered STR as your secondary stat. Every turn chaining knockdown after knockdown.

 

[Asisreo]

They're not buzzwords; they have specific meanings. And as I've said I don't mind people thinking of a new parameter, and enhancing an analysis. What I have a problem with, as far as "moving the goalposts", is when people stake out a position, are faced with data that contradicts their position, and then instead of saying, "I guess I was mistaken. Oh well. I wonder what happens if we look at the bigger picture?" they act like they never took the position they originally took, and then sweep the data under the rug entirely.

The data's out. That's all that matters. Don't worry about people acting like it isn't there. It's probably just their pride. But they don't owe an apology, so you shouldn't expect one, yeah?

Better or worse in relation to something else is all we're doing. And we're not even doing that with any claim that we have the One True Measure of effectiveness. I absolutely agree that "lowest damage" is not equivalent to "bad". But "lowest damage" together with "a bunch of lackluster other stuff that also is outclassed by other classes" is, if true (and establishing that requires something quantitative), by any reasonable person's defintion of mechanical quality... "bad".

Whether a class "sucks" or "doesn't suck" is a testimony to their effectiveness and any claims of evidence should be treated as such. Whether something is lackluster is completely up to the person's perception.

To me, the most hype thing I see on a monk is: deflect missile, Step of the Wind (dodge), and evasion. All low level abilities but they have extreme luster to them. Here's the gameplan: attack, BA dodge and use your unarmored movement to leave. Their OA has disadvantage which is a roughly +4-5 AC increase the rest of the turn plus advantage on attacks. The distance forces them to attack at-range in which they have disadvantage, along with any other enemy, and you can use deflect missile. If they throw an AoE, I have advantage, and if I save (which is likely with dex proficiency), I take no damage at all.

If I'm certain they can't catch-up and their AoE's aren't threatening or dex-based, I can either flurry instead of SoTW or I can just save the Ki.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course not.

Are you trying to say that's the extent of the "buff."

A monk would have an easier time with a quarterstaff of equal rarity past level 5, though.

At level 5, you attack with the quarterstaff twice but attack with your unarmed strike once unless you spend a Ki point to also use it twice.

It would've been better to have just gotten a +1 quarterstaff past level 5.

It's one of the magic items I mentioned earlier in the thread as something I'd like for the game and was included in the objections people made for trying to buff the monk.

So we agree the item isn't a big deal. Cool. Let's talk about a subclass.

I'd like to see a subclass which draws on a pool of power other than Ki. For example, a subclass which gives a small amount of spells, like an Arcane Trickster subclass for rogues. The spells would not draw from Ki, just from spell slots like normal (Enlightened Fist). Or similarly a subclass which draws on a pool like superiority dice which isn't Ki.

Would the existence of such a subclass change the nature of a monk so much that it shouldn't be in the game, even though Enlightened Fist existed in prior versions of the game with nobody claiming it had changed the nature of the monk too much?

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Assume it's like a long sword though, so it will have +2 and +3 versions which are rarer and rarer with the higher bonuses. Now has it changed the nature of the class, despite having existed in prior versions of the game?

There are, unfortunately, quite a lot of odd "gaps" in the DMG magic item tables. A magic item that improves "natural attacks", as they were called in 3E, is but one. Other obvious examples are the missing items that grant a 19 ability score in Dexterity (Gloves of Dexterity), Wisdom (Periapt of Wisdom) and Charisma (Cloak of Charisma) to match the Amulet of Health, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and Headband of Intellect; no items to improve the saving throw DCs of spellcasters other than warlocks (other than Robe of the Archmagi IIRC). One might suggest there might be some game balance reasons for these. YMMV.

This not to say that some "gloves of pummelling +1/+2/+3" isn't a great idea. Or a "robe of ki" that lets you use an action to recover 3/6/9 ki points once per long rest. They're just maybe, y'know, obvious. Let's have 'em. Add 'em to your campaign. Fill your proverbial monk slippers. I'm not really sure we need 40 pages of discussion about who will win as between a monk or a fighter standing in a large white room to settle on that.

If that's what people want to actually want to talk about, the OP was not a way to start that discussion.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar