D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Helldritch]

@Chaosmancer
Bha! You seem to forget that I don't say that monk sucks, quite the contrary. But they do have their weak points. With no Ki, they litterally have nothing to fall back on and be on par with everyone else. Wizards and other casters can have save cantrips that will work in hand to hand or at the very least distance cantrip that will not be lessened when they run out of spell slot. Other martial have their weapons (which will probably be magical) and a better armor class than the monk. The warlock will spam EB as usual, spell or no spell it changes nothing for this class. The rogue will not even be affected. Only the monk has problem when it is denied short rests. And it is really easy for a monk to burn through Ki at low level, in one fight!

No matter the numbers, no matter the subclass, the monk is entirely at the mercy of the DM style. All other classes have at will power/features that are not reliant on the DM's style or narrative imperiousness.

Again, don't get me wrong, in the right campaign with a DM that respects the DMG guidelines, the monk is great! But as soon as those guidelines are down the drain, so is the monk. Flurry of blow should have been free to do at all times. This would help the monk greatly. Seeing the monk for what it really is, isn't debunking it. I have seen enough monks in trouble at some tables to see and recognize the problems that the monks are suffering. Check my post on page one if you care. Numbers can be tweaked and I don't trust them at all. What I trust is the experience that I have and have seen. Monks are quite fine in my games because I strictly stick to the guidelines in the DMG. But it is not everyone.

If monks were so fine, they would not be second worst in character creation. My guess is that a lot of tables do not apply the DMG's encounter guidelines. This, in turn, puts the monk in a difficult position because the monk needs and requires short rests.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer
Bha! You seem to forget that I don't say that monk sucks, quite the contrary. But they do have their weak points. With no Ki, they litterally have nothing to fall back on and be on par with everyone else. Wizards and other casters can have save cantrips that will work in hand to hand or at the very least distance cantrip that will not be lessened when they run out of spell slot. Other martial have their weapons (which will probably be magical) and a better armor class than the monk. The warlock will spam EB as usual, spell or no spell it changes nothing for this class. The rogue will not even be affected. Only the monk has problem when it is denied short rests. And it is really easy for a monk to burn through Ki at low level, in one fight!

No matter the numbers, no matter the subclass, the monk is entirely at the mercy of the DM style. All other classes have at will power/features that are not reliant on the DM's style or narrative imperiousness.

Again, don't get me wrong, in the right campaign with a DM that respects the DMG guidelines, the monk is great! But as soon as those guidelines are down the drain, so is the monk. Flurry of blow should have been free to do at all times. This would help the monk greatly. Seeing the monk for what it really is, isn't debunking it. I have seen enough monks in trouble at some tables to see and recognize the problems that the monks are suffering. Check my post on page one if you care. Numbers can be tweaked and I don't trust them at all. What I trust is the experience that I have and have seen. Monks are quite fine in my games because I strictly stick to the guidelines in the DMG. But it is not everyone.

If monks were so fine, they would not be second worst in character creation. My guess is that a lot of tables do not apply the DMG's encounter guidelines. This, in turn, puts the monk in a difficult position because the monk needs and requires short rests.

I agree you don't trust numbers at all, because I just (repeatedly) demonstrated that even without Ki the monk was doing fine damage up til level 11. And I've shown fairly often that their AC is decent.

Are they worse without ki? YES! Of course they are, it is their main resource. And yes, they can end up in a situation where a DM denies them short rests and they aren't able to replenish those resources. But I disagree with you that they handle that situation worse than Warlocks or Fighters.

If you are giving the martials magic weapons... give them to the monk too! They can use magic weapons. If the fighter is getting magic armor and a magic weapon, why isn't the monk getting a magic item and a weapon? A warlock with no spells isn't using hex, so their damage drops below a monk's.


I mean, think about this for a second.

"The class doesn't do so well when they have no resources and no magical items like the rest of the party." Does that sound like a problem with the class?

 

[Helldritch]

Even with magic items, the class struggle to cope with the other classes when out of resource. All of them! Two ranged attacks or three melee are not enough to cope and it's even worse at higher level. Magic items or not, the base attack of the monk isn't on par with the base attacks of any other classes. As long as the monk can use Ki, the monk can compete advantageously because he can do so much. The monk does not shine in damage or AC. But with its mobility the monk is the ultimate self tactical position seeker. Without Ki... Well, you know. Even if you won't admit it. There is a reason why the monk is second worst.

And to correct your assertion: "The class does not do well when they have no resource and magical items, unlike the rest of the party."

 

[FrozenNorth]

Monks only have 1 ki per level, and most people play at level 5 or below.

In principle, monks don’t need to patient defense every round, particularly since they are so mobile.

For instance, a monk who runs up to the enemy spellcaster in the back row could use patient defense, but definitely doesn’t have to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We'd best abandon all discussions about class features and balance if that's the standard, because it's a tautology then that every class design --- and every possible class --- is filling its role.

That isn't what "the monk is designed to satisfy people who like the monk" means. It means that the monk's role is to be a fun "I'm gonna play a monk" experience for most people who like the idea of playing a concept covered by the monk archetype in dnd.

Classes sometimes fail at that. I know a lot of people for whom 5e Druids fail at providing them with a good "play a Druid" experience.

Monks, so far as I can tell, only very rarely fail at providing a good "play a fantasy 'monk'" experience.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Monk: 20 (25 when using patient), 22 and 27 if Kensei

Pedantry break!

Giving +5 to AC for Patient Defense (i.e., disadvantage to attackers) is only true if the attacker has about a +10 to hit (or +12 in the Kensei case). With a higher or lower bonus, the equivalent bonus changes.

For example, an attacker with +5 normally needs a 15 to hit AC 20, which is a 30% chance. With disadvantage that becomes a 9% chance to hit, which is approximately the same as needing to roll a 19, which is what they would normally need to hit AC 24, not 25.

Pedantry break time is over. Back to the debate about whether or not monks suck.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Monks only have 1 ki per level, and most people play at level 5 or below.

But MOST people don't even play D&D, so really the average level is almost vanishingly close to 0. So if we're going to generalize, we can safely say that monks have no ki.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That isn't what "the monk is designed to satisfy people who like the monk" means. It means that the monk's role is to be a fun "I'm gonna play a monk" experience for most people who like the idea of playing a concept covered by the monk archetype in dnd.

Classes sometimes fail at that. I know a lot of people for whom 5e Druids fail at providing them with a good "play a Druid" experience.

Monks, so far as I can tell, only very rarely fail at providing a good "play a fantasy 'monk'" experience.

That's a great distinction. A class that maths out well (at least in a white room) might not "feel" at all like the archetype it's meant to represent, or be very fun/interesting to play. Except, I suppose, for people for whom having the best numbers is in itself fun.

Rogue might be a good example. I personally enjoy them, but I've seen players...especially veterans of previous editions...complain that rogues just don't feel very rogue-like.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's a great distinction. A class that maths out well (at least in a white room) might not "feel" at all like the archetype it's meant to represent, or be very fun/interesting to play. Except, I suppose, for people for whom having the best numbers is in itself fun.

Rogue might be a good example. I personally enjoy them, but I've seen players...especially veterans of previous editions...complain that rogues just don't feel very rogue-like.

Yes! I love how the rogue plays in 4e and 5e both, but I totally get why Old Schoolers don’t!

The monk in 5e does a pedal to the metal, full throttle, full-tilt boogie, just incredible job of playing like what the concept implies, for me and most people I’ve ever talked to about playing the 5e monk.

The idea that it “falls short” mechanically is just laughable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Even with magic items, the class struggle to cope with the other classes when out of resource. All of them! Two ranged attacks or three melee are not enough to cope and it's even worse at higher level. Magic items or not, the base attack of the monk isn't on par with the base attacks of any other classes. As long as the monk can use Ki, the monk can compete advantageously because he can do so much. The monk does not shine in damage or AC. But with its mobility the monk is the ultimate self tactical position seeker. Without Ki... Well, you know. Even if you won't admit it. There is a reason why the monk is second worst.

And to correct your assertion: "The class does not do well when they have no resource and magical items, unlike the rest of the party."

Look, I get you hate numbers. But I've shown this is wrong multiple times. Like, I think I've done the math in this thread alone three times.

Until level 11, the monk does fine in terms of damage. I'm just going to post a whole slew of level 5 +4 mod breakdowns. Again.

And you know what, I'll order them by final numbers, lowest first

[EDIT] Monk throwing two daggers 2d6+8 = 15
Shortbow Rogue with sneak attack 4d6+4 = 18
Sword and Board Fighter/Paladin, with no resources 2d8+12 = 21
Dual-Wielding Hunter Ranger 2d6+1d8+12 = 23.5
Greatsword Fighter/Paladin, with no resources 4d6+8 = 24
Monk without Ki does 2d8+1d6+12 = 24.5
Polearm Master Feat Variant Human Fighter/Paladin, 2d10+1d4+12 = 25.5
Greatsword Totem Barbarian with rage 4d6+12 = 26
Warlock EB+AB+Hex 2d10+2d6+8 = 26
Archery Hunter Ranger with Hunter's Mark 3d8+2d6+8 = 28.5
Greatsword Zealot Barbarian with rage 5d6+14 = 31.5


The monk, with no ki, is only beaten in damage by a raging Barbarian, a V. Human polearm class who was able to increase their strength at level 4 while still getting the feat, or a class using a spell.

And the Monk is within 2 pts of average damage of the Totem barbarian, the warlock and the Human.

So. How? How can the monk's "base attack" not be on par with the "base attacks" of every other class. Is every single person running a variant human polearm master with a magic halberd? By "base attack" did you mean to include resources like Rage and Hunters Mark/Hex (which I included, as well as TM's "baseline")


If you are just going to claim that "numbers can be manipulated" again, then show me. Show me how using the same variables I just used, you can manipulate these numbers to put the monk on the bottom. Heck, Rogue sucks so I'll accept dropping it to second place.

Wait... need to edit, just because I know your likely first response will be about AC and how terrible the monk being in melee would be. Monk throwing two daggers from range is the lowest. Dropping the monks damage by an average of 9.5