D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

And this is where I am pushing back from.

I fully and gladly admit that a monk after 11th level is hurting and could use some help. Some gear, some feats, something, because everything after that in the base class is really kind of just mild utility.

But, their damage is not the lowest (on average) compared to all other possible builds. Maybe it is middle of the road, but it is certainly not the lowest.

Their hp is a bit on the low side, but that is helped by some solid defensive options and their mobility which is a viable tactic to consider to help their defenses.

As for things they could get, an item that allows a d4 or d6 extra damage on their attacks would be big. I think by right around 11th level, their dice become d8's so they no longer really benefit from the staff, so getting a set of rare knuckle dusters that add that die of of damage massively jumps up their damage output.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, that 20% number I dropped is getting used a lot, and out of context. Now that I am not on my phone let me post the original and my response from GiTP. To be clear, this was about stunning a beholder and how it is useful. I have changed nothing from Yunru's response




My rebuttal

Possible issue. Stunning strike requires a melee weapon attack. It’s not clear it can be used on the flurry attacks.

 

[Asisreo]

Possible issue. Stunning strike requires a melee weapon attack. It’s not clear it can be used on the flurry attacks.

Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. They just aren't attacks with melee weapons.

Likewise, hitting someone with a bow is a melee weapon attack but is an attack with a ranged weapon.

 

[Esker]

Lol you don’t get to tell people they don’t belong in a thread.

All I'm saying is that your position seems to boil down to "I don't care if the monk falls short mechanically", and that I support your right to hold that position. But I don't really think it's adding anything to the conversation to say that over and over.

 

[Asisreo]

I do not agree. Enlightened Fist felt like a perfectly normal concept for the monk. I never saw anyone say "This doesn't feel like all the others".



I have not heard this argument for other classes. Fighters get a subclass which casts spells. Rogues get a subclass which casts spells. Druids have spell-focused and wildshape-focused subclasses. Wizards have subclasses which enable them to fight in melee. Rangers can focus on beasts or spellcasting. Warlocks can focus on....heck anything! I just don't get this "don't give a class the option to focus on a secondary sub-focus" thing. I've never heard of that as being a theme for the monk - they just look neglected is all.



It doesn't destroy the flaw of the monk it just makes it so they don't have to choose to draw-down their combat abilities in exchange for using a non-combat ability which only their subclass gave them in the first place. By making it all one pool to draw from, they've made non-combat options for the monk something they just don't want to use. I think it's one reason monks are so unpopular.

I just want to re-state. I have no problems with things created to make the class more diverse. If the spell slot idea was balanced with the design choice of monks overall, it's fine. I also don't think the +1 or whatever weapons would be bad, just not as good as just giving them a +1 quarterstaff or spear.

What I'm opposed to is the implied powercreep that buffs imply.

War wizards aren't overpowered, but they definitely added powercreep to the mix, as well as melee cantrips available to wizards. The bladesinger is elf exclusive which is probably my biggest peeve about the class.

I don't think the balance of wizard revolves around them not being in melee, though. It's more of the fact that they can't cast any spell better than any other class (with the exception of rituals) and they are currently the only caster that cannot heal others without their one and only 9th-level spellslot and wish.

 

[Esker]

Possible issue. Stunning strike requires a melee weapon attack. It’s not clear it can be used on the flurry attacks.

Yeah, this works. It's the dumb wording wherein "attack with a melee weapon" means something different than a "melee weapon attack".

 

[FrogReaver]

Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. They just aren't attacks with melee weapons.

Likewise, hitting someone with a bow is a melee weapon attack but is an attack with a ranged weapon.

That quote is quite old as @Yunru hasn't posted here in quite some time. There's no telling if that wording issue was settled at the time it was made. I was only suggesting the reason he would have used different percentages. No idea why you are quoting me like I don't understand that or agree.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All I'm saying is that your position seems to boil down to "I don't care if the monk falls short mechanically", and that I support your right to hold that position. But I don't really think it's adding anything to the conversation to say that over and over.

No, what I’m saying is that “doesn’t reach high end optimization of DPR” is a completely different statement from “falls short mechanically”, and you should stop trying to claim that things “suck” mechanically based purely on numerical analysis. The mechanics of the game aren’t just the raw numbers. Reducing them to that leads to false conclusions.

If you don’t like my arguments, feel free to ignore me.

 

[Esker]

What I'm opposed to is the implied powercreep that buffs imply.

But it would only be powercreep for the game as a whole if it were incorrect that the class as is is underpowered. If an underpowered class is buffed to be more in line with other classes, it's not hurting anybody who doesn't want to play monk, it just makes playing monk a more mechanically viable choice.

Now powercreep within the class of adding a new subclass which is buffed compared to the others is another story. I'm not sure if that's the way to go, vs. revising the base class. But it's the way they went when they introduced Gloomstalker, which my sense is many people were happy to see... and ranger as a whole package is stronger than monk as a base class (despite, like the monk, also having a number of 'ribbon' features where other classes are getting real meat) because it has spells.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, what I’m saying is that “doesn’t reach high end optimization of DPR” is a completely different statement from “falls short mechanically”, and you should stop trying to claim that things “suck” mechanically based purely on numerical analysis. The mechanics of the game aren’t just the raw numbers. Reducing them to that leads to false conclusions.

If you don’t like my arguments, feel free to ignore me.

I'd rather dispute your arguments. It seems you have a thing against any kind of numerical analysis as I think you've been against it in every thread I've ever seen. The game is a game of numbers. Suggesting it can't be analyzed on that basis is flat out incorrect.

 

[FrogReaver]

But it would only be powercreep for the game as a whole if it were incorrect that the class as is is underpowered. If an underpowered class is buffed to be more in line with other classes, it's not hurting anybody who doesn't want to play monk, it just makes playing monk a more mechanically viable choice.

Now powercreep within the class of adding a new subclass which is buffed compared to the others is another story. I'm not sure if that's the way to go, vs. revising the base class. But it's the way they went when they introduced Gloomstalker, which my sense is many people were happy to see... and ranger as a whole package is stronger than monk as a base class (despite, like the monk, also having a number of 'ribbon' features where other classes are getting real meat) because it has spells.

So can we at least agree that against a solo enemy that the monk is better to have in the party than a fighter?