D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

See, we don't need a full analysis though to show that the monk "as a whole package" is better than the bottom of the heap.

The analysis so far has taken each aspect of the monk and compared it to the best that the role has to offer. But that ignores the strength here.

Yes, you can say that the monk has less AC than an AC focused Fighter. A monk has less debuff and control that a Wizard. A monk has less damage than a damage focused fighter. However, the "step to the right" is also true.

A monk does more damage than an AC focused fighter. A monk has more AC and hp than a wizard. A monk has more debuff and control than a Damage focused fighter.

This is the part that annoys me about the comparison. Anyone sucks if you take the best builds for each section and compare them all simultaneously. But the truth is a monk isn't speccing into all the damage or all the AC, they do both simultaneously.

Yep I’ve noticed this too. When we are talking monk and fighter and I bring up the monks stun the conversation immediately shifts to monk vs wizard. Then when I start talking about the monk having higher dpr than a wizard the conversation goes back to fighter.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I had to rate a monk I’d rate them as mediocre in nearly every category imaginable. They are by no means the best at anything. They aren’t the worst at anything either (besides social pillar).

Monks serve 2 purposes extremely well. They make an excellent rogue replacement for the exploration pillar (shadow subclass). They make an excellent 5th character that can help out where needed at a particular moment.

Want someone to tank for a turn - the monks got it. Want someone to control an enemy a turn - the monks got it. Need some extra damage on this enemy to kill it this turn - the monks got it. Need a scout - the monks got it.

And then there’s the basic multiclass combo of monk/rogue. Which basically fixes any dpr issues you may have had while keeping your monk abilities mostly in tact.

 

[Helldritch]

Nitpick on facts, but this seems wrong.

A monk without ki, by 5th level, has three attacks if they are in melee. Their bonus action Martial arts attack is free, it is unarmed so it is melee only, but this brings me to my second point.

At higher levels, a monk is not left with 1d6+dex for each attack. While Monk weapons do not include ranged weapons (except when they do either via the Variants UA or the Kensei) thrown weapons absolutely are monk weapons. By the time the rogue is dealing 10d6 sneak the Monk can throw two daggers for 1d10+dex each, because martial arts cares about the type of weapon, not the type of attack.

And while that is a relatively short range... We are talking about a high level monk. They have the movement speed to get within 20 ft of an opponent and back out without much threat.

So, A monk with no ki is no worse on damage than a Battlemaster with no superiority dice.

I do not agree. At high level a fighter will have more attacks. Any fighter type will.
But at low and mid level it is even worse, the monk does not do that much damage. It does not have that high of an AC too. All the while, the BM will be in plate (chainmail at the minimum) and with a shield (unless two handed). At higher level, it also means that the BM will have more attacks, better AC (not counting magical items) and better HP. So the monk will be stuck with two attacks unless it takes the risk of going melee with a low AC (no Ki remember?) and relatively low HP compared to a BM (or any fighters for that matter). The monk will, however, have potentialy more attacks than the paladin, ranger and barb but if the paladin and rangers have a shield or an off hand weapon, they can use their bonus action to have exactly the same number of attacks than a monk. And if they are PM, then they can use their bonus action too for better effect. So the monk isn't winning on this side. If Flurry of blow was off the Ki spending, it would be way better.

Because the monk can not rely on the patient defense, it will be stuck with ranged weaponry (unless ready to take a risk). He will then be worst off than the melee characters, archers will have their higher damage with longbows beating what the monk can do. At higher level, the monk will be about the same as an archer. 1d10 +5, but the monk will lack magical bonuses from magic bow and arrows.

The monk will not be able to disengage freely (no Ki...). This means that moving in, attacking and moving out; will produce an OA, which can potentially be lethal to the monk if multiple enemies are in reach and if the monk is less than top HP (which is likely since the monk had no short rest).

I do think that these nit pick on the monk were right.
Don't get me wrong, the monk is a great character. But if the DM do not follow the guidelines, this class is screwed. It relies a lot (and I mean really a lot) on short rests. Without these, the monk is in big trouble in the little dungeon.

If the guide lines are follow. The monk is quite fine. A wee bit lacking on Ki, but adding wisdom to ki is a solution. This is what I do in my games and it works out good.

Doesn't work, they both use your reaction. You'd need to homebrew multiple reactions.

You're right, didn't see that (or was I tricked by a player... bad me for not checking...) (Note to myself, always check twice before believing a player...)

 

[Minigiant]

I keep homebrewing monk subclasses that do exactly that. It seems to me very flavorful for the monk.

Not that I'm unhappy with monks, but if I'm being greedy I'd love to see:

• +Wis mod to Ki pool
• Extra reactions at higher levels
• Patient Defense as reaction instead of bonus action
• Step of the Wind as free action

Personally I'd not make FoB, Patient Defense, and Step in the Wind as a default. There should be at least 5 base Ki features and let a monk choose 3 at level 2. Then let the subclasses boost 1 of them.

The biggest issue with the monk isn't the DPR comparison or the HP/AC comparison. It's that fundamentally, 95% of monks play exactly the same. That's why there is so much discussion. Because unlike every other class, the monk can only play one way and excels at it. However when that strategy is unfavorable, the monk kinda stinks and has no way to adjust. Everything is baked in. They can't swap weapons, armor, or spells without losing a ton of effectiveness. Only barbarians are evenly close to being as overspecialized but they can at least pull out a shield.

Monks are fine at what they do. The class is just really inflexible.

 

[FrogReaver]

Personally I'd not make FoB, Patient Defense, and Step in the Wind as a default. There should be at least 5 base Ki features and let a monk choose 3 at level 2. Then let the subclasses boost 1 of them.

The biggest issue with the monk isn't the DPR comparison or the HP/AC comparison. It's that fundamentally, 95% of monks play exactly the same. That's why there is so much discussion. Because unlike every other class, the monk can only play one way and excels at it. However when that strategy is unfavorable, the monk kinda stinks and has no way to adjust. Everything is baked in. They can't swap weapons, armor, or spells without losing a ton of effectiveness. Only barbarians are evenly close to being as overspecialized but they can at least pull out a shield.

Monks are fine at what they do. The class is just really inflexible.

Monks are super flexible...

 

[Minigiant]

Monks are super flexible...

Not really.

95% of monks run player players who know what they are doing use the same tactics. Every single monk except a kensei archer is a skrimisher.

And they all focus on the same ability scores.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not really.

95% of monks run player players who know what they are doing use the same tactics. Every single monk except a kensei archer is a skrimisher.

And they all focus on the same ability scores.

Maybe you just see the wrong player play monks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Probably not. I'd probably try to steer you into the direction of the rogue or fighter, whichever would be more appropriate for a non-monk game. I figure it would be easier to do that than to rewrite all of the monk's lore and rename all of the monk's abilities to make it fit the world.

But if you really, really insisted on playing monk because nothing but the monk would do, I'd try to find out why, and then accommodate as best I could within the framework of the game. Possibly making changes to the lore, or maybe allowing a Fighter to take a Monk subclass, I dunno.

Huh. Okay, your game and all that, I just don’t understand a couple things.

Why would a fighter or rogue work if the concept is a monk (Ie, in this case, an Unarmored duelist who is faster than anyone else and whose faith guides their hand)? Why would we ever be using the names of abilities in character? Why would changing mechanics of the fighter class be easier than describing the character in character without reference to the default lore of the class?

 

[Esker]

Legendary resistance and magic resistance have been brought up. Doesn’t that impact a wizard more than a monk? Doesn’t that make a wizard suck worse in those fights than a monk?

Really depends on level and spell selection, as well as who else is in the party. Spells like Animate Objects and Wall of Force are fantastic damage/control spells that are unaffected by legendary resistance. Wall of Force is perhaps not especially useful in a literal solo fight, but if there are any minions at all, it's great for trapping the big guy until the minions are dealt with. Polymorph, Haste, Greater Invisibility, Fly, etc. can be good to great buff spells cast on the right allies (Polymorph doesn't care who the ally is, but Haste and G.I. need the right PC to really be strong). Grease, Web and Sleet Storm have saves, but they (can) happen repeatedly, and the difficult terrain/obscurement aspect are useful in many circumstances even if nobody ever fails the save. And these are all tier 1-2 --- it gets even better for the wizard when you get into 6th+ level spells.

So if I was making a competence hierarchy vs solo enemies with legendary resistance and magic resistance I would rank it something like:

Fighter
Monk
Wizard

Below level 9 or so, I would agree that wizards are not especially well suited to solo enemy fights with legendary resistance. Of course legendary resistance is also less common below level 9. But after level 9, I'd often rather have Animate Objects, and just pile on the damage, than wait for a monk to burn through legendary resistances (if they can even get to the enemy). This is a scenario where I'd argue it's fair to assume that long rest classes are using their big guns, because it's by definition a "boss fight". Depending on the enemy, letting multiple allies Fly may produce more added value than a monk. Etc.

If I was fighting 8 smaller enemies I would rank something like:

Wizard
Fighter
Monk

Agreed.

If I was fighting 2 enemies without legendary resistance I might rank something like:

Wizard
Monk
Fighter

This is probably the best case scenario for the monk, apart from one low-CON enemy without legendary resistance, but that's not really a fight. I think there are some enemies and some party comps where I might rather have a monk than a fighter there. But look at it this way: if a reference party of four would down each enemy in 2 turns (making the fight a 4 round fight overall), then swapping one of those for a monk could well cause it to take 5 rounds to down both enemies if they're doing less damage than a reference character. Now maybe they make up for that by getting a stun off, and then maybe it's a wash, but it's more uncertain, and requires getting into melee. Whereas a fighter may well be able to pump out three or more times the reference damage for a round and then the reference level thereafter, which could well put the party over the threshold of being able to take down the first enemy in one round instead of two, which means they down the second enemy after three rounds instead of four, which would be worth the equivalent of two stuns.

I'm not necessarily saying this is how it would shake out, but it's the kind of opportunity cost that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the monk's impact.

 

[Esker]

Monks are super flexible...

Yeah, I mean look at how much yoga and tai chi they probably do...