D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Todd Roybark]

With no Ki, they litterally have nothing to fall back on

Except a bonus action Martial Arts attack, Unarmored Movement, Stillness of Mind, Evasion,
Immunity to poison, and eventual proficiency in all saving throws.

Sure, sure, you will probably argue that all monk abilities are poor, even the abilities other classes get like Evasion or immunity to poison or disease

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.

So just the monk...no other class?
Is the above quote a statement born of calm, collected, reasoned analysis or born from emotion?
Frankly, for as much as certain persons have attempted to dismiss the credibility of others by calling them "emotional" a pathetic tactic fit for cretins...it seems that those that smelt it, are actually the ones dealing the excess emotion...and probably the other fouls stench's emanating from this thread.

Pure DPS is a poor metric for class efficiency. Take a subclass like the Long Death monk, in a group devoted to Overkill DPS, this often means that instead of the monk being set up to kill an enemy and get sweet sweet Temp HP equal to their monk level +Wis modifer..the monk gets nothing.

Feed the Monk...Temp HP on a monk is better then Temp HP on a Fiend EB Warlock.
Temp HP means the monk can Temp HP tank.

A rogue commits overkills quite a bit. One does not need 17 damage to kill a goblin.
A monk can through smart play, deal just enough damage...which is all one needs and more efficient.

Getting a Critical Hit with Inflict Wounds on a creature with 3 HP left, in the vast majority of cases, is not going to make the monster more dead.

 

[Helldritch]

Monk throwing two daggers 2d6+8 = 15 AC: 16 (17 if wisdom is 16)
Shortbow Rogue with sneak attack 4d6+4 = 18 AC: 16
Sword and Board Fighter/Paladin, with no resources 2d8+12 = 21 AC: 20
Dual-Wielding Hunter Ranger 2d6+1d8+12 = 23.5 AC: 17 (but would probably fall back to shield for AC 19 and would be using a rapier, not short swords)
Greatsword Fighter/Paladin, with no resources 4d6+8 = 24 AC :18
Monk without Ki does 2d8+1d6+12 = 24.5 AC: 16 (or 17 if wisdom is 16)
Warlock EB+AB+Hex 2d10+2d6+8 = 26 AC: 14
Archery Hunter Ranger with Hunter's Mark 3d8+2d6+8 = 28.5 AC: 17

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

(Edited the quote to add the possible AC and removed those spending resources).

Thank you to have proven my point. At AC 16, and at level 5 the average mook will hit you more than 50% of the time (55% to be exact). Most CR 3 mook will have +5 to hit (if not higher). Your character is beaten, no resource and really good only when in melee. You are taking a big risk just staying in LOS. In such scenarios my players invariably switch to weapon and shield all the time. And the groups are 6 players each! Less damage done, but a lot less taken.

I'll give you that Warlocks and Rangers might still have their Hex and Hunter's mark, but even then, it is not a sure thing as they might have failed a concentration check. In a four man party, having a melee type characters out of melee might spell your doom as the squishies will not be protected from getting over run by enemies.

The squishies will use trees as cover or corridor corners to get cover. Enhencing their AC. Without these possible covers, our monk has the lowest AC of all melee characters. Easier to hit and already wounded going in hand to hand will not be the monk's first choice. We both know that. This is what I have seen players do at my table every single time this has happened (and I do let them have short rests, 2 per days, so if the monk is not careful, he might fall in the "no resources" scenario) and at many other tables. Yes the monk is a skirmisher.

It is because of this fact that monks are less used in general. With such an inefficient fall back option, and the risk of being hit very real a Ki-less monk is worst than any other melee type and the monk is not a good ranged character...

Except a bonus action Martial Arts attack, Unarmored Movement, Stillness of Mind, Evasion,
Immunity to poison, and eventual proficiency in all saving throws.
Sure, sure, you will probably argue that all monk abilities are poor, even the abilities other classes get like Evasion or immunity to poison or disease

Not at all. In fact, I do love the monk. I do not blind myself to its shortcomming as some others in this thread are doing.

So just the monk...no other class?
Is the above quote a statement born of calm, collected, reasoned analysis or born from emotion?

Yep, it is pretty much only the monk. Druid is a close second but the cantrip fall back is still goodish...
My comments are not born of emotion. I am never a player. I am a DM to the core. I have two groups and help at other tables once in a while at our hobby store. I have seen scenarii as I described a lot (too often dare I say?). The monk is really dependent on short rests. Even the warlock is not as vulnerable as the monk when it does not get short rests. The warlock can always EB his enemies and push them back. 20 feet might not seems a lot but it makes closing the distance pretty hard without taking a double move. The monk to be effective in melee without taking too much risk needs his Ki. The fall back option is subpar compared to anyone else.

Frankly, for as much as certain persons have attempted to dismiss the credibility of others by calling them "emotional" a pathetic tactic fit for cretins...it seems that those that smelt it, are actually the ones dealing the excess emotion...and probably the other fouls stench's emanating from this thread.

Not from me. I am actually defending the monk. I am saying that with short rests, the monk is a great class. Do not take my criticism of the short fall of the monk for an emotionnal response. I enforce the 6-8 encounters per day with 2 or 3 short rests so that monks can shine too. And monk is pretty popular at my table just because I do not gimp them by denying them short rests as I have seen a lot in real life and the many comments/threads on this forum (and not just this thread. A lot of people are arguing that the short rest mechanic is ruining pace and narrative...go and check them.)

Pure DPS is a poor metric for class efficiency.

Unfortunately, it seems that it is the only one that people care about. So we're stuck with this. Wether we like it or not. AC is also taken into account.

Take a subclass like the Long Death monk, in a group devoted to Overkill DPS, this often means that instead of the monk being set up to kill an enemy and get sweet sweet Temp HP equal to their monk level +Wis modifer..the monk gets nothing.

Feed the Monk...Temp HP on a monk is better then Temp HP on a Fiend EB Warlock.
Temp HP means the monk can Temp HP tank.

A rogue commits overkills quite a bit. One does not need 17 damage to kill a goblin.
A monk can through smart play, deal just enough damage...which is all one needs and more efficient.

Getting a Critical Hit with Inflict Wounds on a creature with 3 HP left, in the vast majority of cases, is not going to make the monster more dead.

So? Who cares about overkill? It happens all the time. You know that to get an overkill, you have to have short of making a kill a first? The hobgoblin has 11 hp and you only did 10? When the barb hits the poor sod with a crit from his two handed sword, you will get quite an over kill. I fail to see the logic in their. Long Death monk are exactly doing what they should do. Find and kill those enemies that are about to die. Nothing is new under the sun here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(Edited the quote to add the possible AC and removed those spending resources).

I see you left the Warlock with hex and the Ranger with Hunter's mark. Guess spells aren't resources.

And (which makes this awesome) since you took out the PAM Fighter and the Barbarians, if we agree spells are resources, that puts the monk on the top.

Going to be interesting to see how you square this.

Tanget: Ranger is not going to be using a Rapier unless they are variant human and took Dual-Wielding, because they kept pace with the +4 ASI. Rapier's aren't light weapons. Unless you are saying they bought a shield and Rapier to switch to when they are low on hp?

Thank you to have proven my point. At AC 16, and at level 5 the average mook will hit you more than 50% of the time (55% to be exact). Most CR 3 mook will have +5 to hit (if not higher). Your character is beaten, no resource and really good only when in melee. You are taking a big risk just staying in LOS. In such scenarios my players invariably switch to weapon and shield all the time. And the groups are 6 players each! Less damage done, but a lot less taken.

I'll give you that Warlocks and Rangers might still have their Hex and Hunter's mark, but even then, it is not a sure thing as they might have failed a concentration check. In a four man party, having a melee type characters out of melee might spell your doom as the squishies will not be protected from getting over run by enemies.

Ah, you left them on purpose because of long duration.

Also, let us take your numbers real quick. In order

Warlock AC: 14
Shortbow Rogue AC: 16
Archery Hunter Ranger AC: 17
Monk AC: 17 (Wisdom has been 16 every single time we've discussed this)
Dual-Wielding Hunter Ranger AC: 17 (but would probably fall back to shield for AC 19 and would be using a rapier, not short swords)
Greatsword Fighter/Paladin AC :18
Sword and Board Fighter/Paladin AC: 20

So, monk was potentially top damage, and for AC at 17 they are nearly as good as everyone else. I note that the entire line up has either Half-Plate or Full Plate (750 and 1500 gp respectively) so, my Monk is certainly wealthy with all that change in his pocket, since everyone has been given their best mundane gear possible.

To take your math, that is 1-11 missing, which is 55. So the Monk only has a 45% chance of being hit. And this is the end of the road, I've been doing great, and am only now starting to feel hurt. I probably have more hp left than the Greatsword fighter, who is pulling out his shield.

Also, being in LOS isn't risky at all. I still have deflect missiles. With only a 45% chance to hit, and the ability to cancel a single ranged attack, unless you are dropping spells on my head or focusing fire with 3 or more mooks, I'm very likely to be perfectly fine.

But, all of this is ignoring something, you said I proved your point? Was it this point?

"the base attack of the monk isn't on par with the base attacks of any other classes. "

Because I disproved that point. The Base attack of the monk is on par. Their AC is right near par unless your party is swimming in wealth by level 5.

What you are trying to prove now is that their AC is too low to take advantage of their base attack. Which is being done by first putting them after all their resources have been spent, and assuming they are injured to some degree.

The squishies will use trees as cover or corridor corners to get cover. Enhencing their AC. Without these possible covers, our monk has the lowest AC of all melee characters. Easier to hit and already wounded going in hand to hand will not be the monk's first choice. We both know that. This is what I have seen players do at my table every single time this has happened (and I do let them have short rests, 2 per days, so if the monk is not careful, he might fall in the "no resources" scenario) and at many other tables. Yes the monk is a skirmisher.

It is because of this fact that monks are less used in general. With such an inefficient fall back option, and the risk of being hit very real a Ki-less monk is worst than any other melee type and the monk is not a good ranged character...

You seem to assume that, but I wouldn't say I agree. Because the monk is a skirmish fighter, they should be going in, picking off a weak enemy and getting out.

I'm wondering why everyone in your games doesn't use shields and cover all the time. You are putting such a high value on the ability of a fighter to stop using their normal load out and switch to shield and sword between fights. Everyone is doing it. So, why aren't they just building to be shield users from the start?

Also, your talk of LOS makes me think your games feature lots of ranged attacks. Are they all spells? Because the monk's deflect arrows and AC mean that they are actually the safest in that situation. In fact, a forest with a bunch of archers trying to kill you? That is a monk's playground. Because the enemy will tend to spread out to target the party, meaning the monk can pick them off one by one.


But frankly, if this is your best argument for the monk's shortcomings, I've got some bad news for you. Even if they are at 1/3 their hp, 0 ki and still forced to fight on for whatever reason you want to make sense. They can have access to better range.

I was trying to not use the Elf ability to use a longbow (which jumps the monk back up to 17 damage) but I don't need to. All of your players should use a Kensei then.

Not only do they have the ability to use longbows but they can do so with the Kensei Shot Bonus action, meaning they deal +2d4 damage, taking that 17 to 22 damage. Back to better than anyone else with a shield.

Oh, and they can do agile parry too. So by swapping one of their attacks from a staff to a punch, which changes their damage to 23.5 (a loss of only a single point) and gives them +2 AC, putting them at 19, inline with the rangers.


Sure, I had to go to a subclass, but since you insist +2 AC to get 19 is the most powerful defensive tool anyone could have, and that everyone switches to shields when they get low on health, if they don't have viable ranged attacks. Well, play an elf monk. Play a kensei monk.

And then ask why the heck your value as a class is being discussed at how you do when you are stripped of resources and left over half dead to keep fighting. That isn't a "shortcoming" of the class, that is a scenario designed to be lost.

 

[Helldritch]

Is that it? Play the Kensai? If a class is good only because of one subclass you proved nothing at all. And yet, when it suits you, you bring shadow monk and yaddi yadda. We go for general circumstances, not optimal or entirely detrimental ones save for the fact that you are out of resources.
You keep saying that the wisdom is a sure 16.
Here is the array 15,14,13,12,10, 8.
Human. 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9. With one ASI it 18, 15, 13, 12, 9, with two ASI, Dex will be pumped to 20. So nope, at 5th level the human is at 16 AC, not 17. Only a race with +2 to dex and +1 to wisdom will be able to have that sweet 17 AC.

Again, you oppose white room numbers to actual facts. How many tables are crying that monks are weak? Too many to my tastes. This is simply because the monk is so dependant on short rests that most of his power is in the DM's hands. DM's agency is so prevalent for the monk that if the DM does not follow the encounter guidelines, the monk is in peril. This is a fact. Denying it is only putting your head in the sand. If the DM follows the encounter guidelines, the monk is quite fine. I have said that again and again. You seem to think that I think monks suck, it is simply not true. I merely state that monks are too dependent on the DM following encounter guidelines. In fact, it is the only class that suffers from this.

You also bring Missile deflection. It does not work with ranged cantrips and it works only once (unfortunately, I would have liked to see it as a shield of some sort where the damage negated can carry over to other missiles...)

When it suits you, the monk is a front liner because its AC is good. When it does not, the monk is a skirmisher so the monk will only pick weak targets... You want the monk to be so good that you use a different lens each time for each argument. If the monk were that good, you would not need to.

You also seem allergic to the weapon and board fallback tactic. Why is it so? This is a perfectly valid tactic that is used when things get rougher than usual. The scenario where the entire group is out of resources do not happen often, I'll give you that. But the scenario where the group goes with 3 or 4 encounters without rest is a pretty common one. And on this scenario, the other classes usually still have some resources but the monk, does not. The weapon and board tactic is, unfortunately, unavailable to the monk. Again, this leave the monk in a bad spot as when a monk is out of ki, it can't do its shenanigans and this makes players unhappy. When you make a character, you want to be able to use its feature most of the time. The low level monk can't do that if it does not have its short rests. Even at (relatively) high level, the problem persist.

As for the monetary aspects...
Most players will have money to get plate by level 4. Either by selling unwanted magical objects or by capturing one and refitting it during downtime (either paying for the refit or doing it themselves). The monk's money, usually goes into various potions, unless you have a magic store where you can buy magic items that are permanent. This is something that is not in every campaign nor every tables. And if you have a permanent magic item store, the monk will buy stuff that will help him. Depending on the price, it also means that most of his money is stashed somewhere as he need to save money to buy a protection ring, an amulet or what the player wants the most in this campaign.

Whether you like it or not, there are some problems with the monk. Do they make the monk an unplayable class? Of course not! Monk is one of the most played class at my table. Especially because I strictly follow encounter guidelines and allow short rests. In fact, I have more trouble seeing sorcers and warlocks at my table. And I am not a sugar DM. I have seen more TPK in 5ed than in all the other editions combined. It is just that from what I have seen at other tables, on this forum and in surveys, the monk's short comming are not helping.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Is that it? Play the Kensai? If a class is good only because of one subclass you proved nothing at all. And yet, when it suits you, you bring shadow monk and yaddi yadda. We go for general circumstances, not optimal or entirely detrimental ones save for the fact that you are out of resources.

I brought up the Kensei because you seemed determined that no matter what I showed, that the AC was the problem.

Originally it was the damage. Their base attacks were too low. And as soon as I showed that in melee they weren't it was that melee was far too dangerous for a monk on their last legs, so they would never use that damage. While a fighter in that same scenario would pull out a shield and magically be safe. So, I pointed out, hey there is a monk that can do that.

I mean, let us be real for a second. We have Sun Soul Monk which operates at range. Four Elements Monk is ki-heavy, and the worst subclass. Open Hand and Drunken Master Monks are best in melee. Kensei can do either Melee or Ranged. Shadow has teleporting if they are in the right environment (which still lowers their damage to the same as the longbow elf monk).

That is half of the subclasses doing decently. And, we are ignoring the fact that if the Monk has used all their ki, with their normal mobility and hit-and-run tactics, they likely have more than half their hp, not less. The drunken Monk for example gets a free disengage when they flurry, and the Open Hand can shut off reactions if they hit with their flurry. Both of them can damage focus, then get out, avoiding retaliation.

You keep saying that the wisdom is a sure 16.
Here is the array 15,14,13,12,10, 8.
Human. 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9. With one ASI it 18, 15, 13, 12, 9, with two ASI, Dex will be pumped to 20. So nope, at 5th level the human is at 16 AC, not 17. Only a race with +2 to dex and +1 to wisdom will be able to have that sweet 17 AC.

You are picking the worst possible way to build the monk, then saying the monk is bad.

Yes, the monk is likely to pick a +2/+1 race. Wood Elf is amazing for the monk. Not only giving them better AC, but giving Longbow proficiency for this inevitable time when they are going to be out of Ki, low on HP and it is too dangerous to go into melee.

Or, if I must go human, I go variant human, and grab a feat that will buff my scores, to get that 16/16

Is the Monk MADer than other classes? Sure, but since this is bog standard stuff to just take one of the many races that can do this, I do not see how this is an unreasonable standard.

Again, you oppose white room numbers to actual facts. How many tables are crying that monks are weak? Too many to my tastes. This is simply because the monk is so dependant on short rests that most of his power is in the DM's hands. DM's agency is so prevalent for the monk that if the DM does not follow the encounter guidelines, the monk is in peril. This is a fact. Denying it is only putting your head in the sand. If the DM follows the encounter guidelines, the monk is quite fine. I have said that again and again. You seem to think that I think monks suck, it is simply not true. I merely state that monks are too dependent on the DM following encounter guidelines. In fact, it is the only class that suffers from this.

Okay, I understand that monks need short rests. I get that. I understand.

But if you are out of resources, nearly out of hp, and still fighting that isn't a problem for just the monk.

That is the part I don't understand why you are insisting the monk is "unique" in this fact. I've never once talked about a class and say "Well, wizards really suffer. If you take away all their spells, build them with low Dex, and put them at half hp, what can they even do?"

The monk is not "in peril" any more than anyone else out of resources and nearly out of hp. And you know what? If they are truly in that situation. Honestly. Then going for the long range, less damage option is perfectly fine. 20 AC is great. I won't deny it. But 20 AC can still be hit. And if you are 5th level and at a 1/3 of your hp? You have about 16 hp. That is one maybe two hits. And sure, the monk would be at 12 hp, and even more at risk. But that risk is fairly proportional. Nobody is doing "good" at that point.

You also bring Missile deflection. It does not work with ranged cantrips and it works only once (unfortunately, I would have liked to see it as a shield of some sort where the damage negated can carry over to other missiles...)

Yes, you are right. Are all your ranged enemies spellcasters? That might explain why you don't see how great Deflect Missiles is

Also, how much focus fire are you doing? You said you have six PCs normally, do you have all six archers focus on one PC? At an average of 7.5 per hit, that could be as much as 45 damage. That nearly kills any member of the party.

So, most DMs spread the attacks out, hitting multiple party members. Which means, against six archers, you might get as many as two focusing on the monk. With about a 50/50 chance to hit, that means it is likely one misses. Which makes it a single ranged attack. Which the monk cancels.

You generally have to attack them three or more times to overcome Deflect Missiles. And any other class that gets hit? They can't do anything about it.

When it suits you, the monk is a front liner because its AC is good. When it does not, the monk is a skirmisher so the monk will only pick weak targets... You want the monk to be so good that you use a different lens each time for each argument. If the monk were that good, you would not need to.

I'm not using a different lense, you seem to refuse to see that a monk can do melee and skirmish at the same time. If you mean "front-liner" like "stand next to as many enemies as possible and draw all their attacks" then, you are right. Monks suck as front-liners. So does most anyone. You'd never tell the rogue to go do that. Or the Cleric.

Do you know how many barbarians I've seen do this, and within a round or two they are telling us they are about to drop? Focused fire from monsters is brutal. If you have low hp, you don't do that. Of course, if you have low Hp, you find a way to heal. Because you are in danger.

You also seem allergic to the weapon and board fallback tactic. Why is it so? This is a perfectly valid tactic that is used when things get rougher than usual. The scenario where the entire group is out of resources do not happen often, I'll give you that. But the scenario where the group goes with 3 or 4 encounters without rest is a pretty common one. And on this scenario, the other classes usually still have some resources but the monk, does not. The weapon and board tactic is, unfortunately, unavailable to the monk. Again, this leave the monk in a bad spot as when a monk is out of ki, it can't do its shenanigans and this makes players unhappy. When you make a character, you want to be able to use its feature most of the time. The low level monk can't do that if it does not have its short rests. Even at (relatively) high level, the problem persist.

So, the fighter hasn't used their second wind, action surge, or battle master superiority dice, but the monk has used all their ki and his below half hp. And they can't be healed by the healers, becuase... I guess the healers are out of spells for the day?

This is why I'm not convinced by your argument. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say the monk damage is bad, but when I show it isn't, you insist that their AC is too low, and that they don't have the option to increase it at the cost of their damage, like the other classes can.

Then it doesn't matter what the monk's damage is, you want to focus on AC. And so, we looked at ways the monk can attack from range and with their mobility and deflect missiles be very safe. And you responded with "see, their damage is bad".

But at the same time. The Greatdsword Fighter is losing damage by swapping gear. And they have to do that between fights. They can't do it mid-fight without sacrificing a turn. So, you expect me to accept that they finished a fight. Were so bad off that they switched to defense mode, but were still pressing on, and then blame the monk class for that fact?

And if you are getting in that situation enough that it is a standard tactic to start turtling... build a turtle to begin with. Don't take GW Fighter, do a defensive fighter with Sword and Board. Your damage will be less than the monks constantly, but when everyone presses on because everyone is hurt, you are still working at the same efficiency.

As for the monetary aspects...
Most players will have money to get plate by level 4. Either by selling unwanted magical objects or by capturing one and refitting it during downtime (either paying for the refit or doing it themselves). The monk's money, usually goes into various potions, unless you have a magic store where you can buy magic items that are permanent. This is something that is not in every campaign nor every tables. And if you have a permanent magic item store, the monk will buy stuff that will help him. Depending on the price, it also means that most of his money is stashed somewhere as he need to save money to buy a protection ring, an amulet or what the player wants the most in this campaign.

Potions are an interesting choice for you to mention. If we assume the Fighter has full plate, can we assume that the monk has 30 basic healing potions? At 60d4+60 that is an average of 135 hp worth of healing.

How many fights do we have to go through for the monk to be out of ki and low on hp at that point?

Or, maybe they do go and buy a cloak of protection. At a max price of 500 they should easily be able to afford it, since the martials are spending between 750 and 1500 apiece. That puts the monk's AC at 18. Or maybe some Bracers of Defense for +2 AC... sounds kind of like a shield. They are Rare though, so it would be on the lower end to get them for 1500. Of course, puts the Monk at 19 AC.

hmmm, it is almost like if you can give the monk a way to use their money to increase their surivability, they can do just as good as the other people using money to increase their surivability.

Whether you like it or not, there are some problems with the monk. Do they make the monk an unplayable class? Of course not! Monk is one of the most played class at my table. Especially because I strictly follow encounter guidelines and allow short rests. In fact, I have more trouble seeing sorcers and warlocks at my table. And I am not a sugar DM. I have seen more TPK in 5ed than in all the other editions combined. It is just that from what I have seen at other tables, on this forum and in surveys, the monk's short coming are not helping.

The Monks shortcomings being running out of their primary resource, being beaten nearly to death, not being healed by their team, and getting no item support whatsoever....

Yeah, I totally see how this is a shortcoming for the monk. With no healing, no money, no friends, and less than half their hp, with no choice but to soldier on, they are in danger of being knocked out. Oh! And they can't be an optimal race choice, and you can't use any subclass abilities.

Color me shocked and amazed.

 

[Helldritch]

You are picking the worst possible way to build the monk, then saying the monk is bad.

I am not picking the worst. I am picking the average build that do not require optional rules. Big difference here.
Unless all monks are V-humans (optional rule) or all Wood elves (Strange indeed and kinda boring if only one race is good at it) then they will have the array that I mentionned.

Okay, I understand that monks need short rests. I get that. I understand..

Good, you finaly admit it. Thank you.

But if you are out of resources, nearly out of hp, and still fighting that isn't a problem for just the monk.

The low hp isn't happening that often in my games. BUT the out of resources for monk is. And not only in my games.
How long is a fight in your games? 3 rounds? Well, with 6 players, the fights are usually about 5 rounds minimum with an average of 7 to 8 rounds. Even in a four man party (the assumed size in 5ed) fights will tend to last from 3 to 4 rounds for average to hard fights. Spending ki in all rounds will leave the monk with no Ki for about half the second fight and if a rest is not possible (which can happen in my games too and for many reasons. though I do try to avoid it), then the monk is forced not to have Ki for an entire fight.

The monk must carefully manage Ki. It is so easy for the monk to be out of Ki that it is the major reason for it to be one of the least played class. When you can use your feature only in one fight, a class is not so fun anymore. That is why pacing and following guidelines for this class is so important.

That is the part I don't understand why you are insisting the monk is "unique" in this fact. I've never once talked about a class and say "Well, wizards really suffer. If you take away all their spells, build them with low Dex, and put them at half hp, what can they even do?"

Not much, but they can take cover and still be optimal while the monk will suffer by being forced to be ranged skirmishers. (yes the sunsoul monk will not be diminished. An exception is not the rule.) And the wizard, at 5th level will not be out of spells and cantrip after only one fight.

The monk is not "in peril" any more than anyone else out of resources and nearly out of hp. And you know what? If they are truly in that situation. Honestly. Then going for the long range, less damage option is perfectly fine. 20 AC is great. I won't deny it. But 20 AC can still be hit. And if you are 5th level and at a 1/3 of your hp? You have about 16 hp. That is one maybe two hits. And sure, the monk would be at 12 hp, and even more at risk. But that risk is fairly proportional. Nobody is doing "good" at that point.

This is where I totally disagree. The monk is even more in peril because the entirety of his power lies in his Ki. Fighter will still have their fighting style, wizards will still have their cantrips and so on. Not the monk. The monk will not even have his flurry of blow available. Yes AC 20 can still be hit. This is stating the obvious. But it is obvious too that an AC 16 will be hit even more often (20% more, you see? I can do math too!)

Yes, you are right. Are all your ranged enemies spellcasters? That might explain why you don't see how great Deflect Missiles is

Also, how much focus fire are you doing? You said you have six PCs normally, do you have all six archers focus on one PC? At an average of 7.5 per hit, that could be as much as 45 damage. That nearly kills any member of the party.

So, most DMs spread the attacks out, hitting multiple party members. Which means, against six archers, you might get as many as two focusing on the monk. With about a 50/50 chance to hit, that means it is likely one misses. Which makes it a single ranged attack. Which the monk cancels.

Hu...? Never did I say that Deflect Missile was bad. I said it should have been a shield that protect for the amount of hp rolled and that excess hp should convey to the next missile. Focus fire will be used against any target if needed. Tactics and circumstances will be what will decide. Spread the damage? Sure, but If I know I can't hit a character easily because the AC is too high, I will try to remove his/her allies first. That means that percieved lower AC will be attacked.

I'm not using a different lense, you seem to refuse to see that a monk can do melee and skirmish at the same time. If you mean "front-liner" like "stand next to as many enemies as possible and draw all their attacks" then, you are right. Monks suck as front-liners. So does most anyone. You'd never tell the rogue to go do that. Or the Cleric.

The cleric of my second group will tell you that he is front liner, a tank and a real good one at that. But that is not the role of the monk, that I agree.

Do you know how many barbarians I've seen do this, and within a round or two they are telling us they are about to drop? Focused fire from monsters is brutal. If you have low hp, you don't do that. Of course, if you have low Hp, you find a way to heal. Because you are in danger.

Same here. That is why many front liners use the dodge action when they can effectively block access to their squishies behind them. Tactics matters a lot at my tables.

So, the fighter hasn't used their second wind, action surge, or battle master superiority dice, but the monk has used all their ki and his below half hp. And they can't be healed by the healers, becuase... I guess the healers are out of spells for the day?

This is why I'm not convinced by your argument. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say the monk damage is bad, but when I show it isn't, you insist that their AC is too low, and that they don't have the option to increase it at the cost of their damage, like the other classes can.

Then it doesn't matter what the monk's damage is, you want to focus on AC. And so, we looked at ways the monk can attack from range and with their mobility and deflect missiles be very safe. And you responded with "see, their damage is bad".

But at the same time. The Greatdsword Fighter is losing damage by swapping gear. And they have to do that between fights. They can't do it mid-fight without sacrificing a turn. So, you expect me to accept that they finished a fight. Were so bad off that they switched to defense mode, but were still pressing on, and then blame the monk class for that fact?

And if you are getting in that situation enough that it is a standard tactic to start turtling... build a turtle to begin with. Don't take GW Fighter, do a defensive fighter with Sword and Board. Your damage will be less than the monks constantly, but when everyone presses on because everyone is hurt, you are still working at the same efficiency.

Why would a monk not be healed if it can be done? Do not take people for morrons. They are not. Neither am I.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. The fall back option of other characters is way better than the fall back option of most monks. And yes they can do it mid fight. Interaction: Ready shield. Action: DODGE! This is done fairly often by any front liner and even some back bencher while they are waiting for a timely heal to come their way.

As for saying the monk's damage is bad. It is bad only when out of Ki. The same goes with its AC. Quote me and the intent of the quote. Not just for proving your point. I still say that monk with their Ki are great. It is when they are out of Ki that they have a big big big problem. And their Ki can be depleted very fast. At low level this means that after the first fight, they might be out of ki for up to two more fights. This put them in their fall back options more often than any other class. The fact that their fall back option is generally worst than any other character does not help them.

And lastly on that part. If the GW fighter has to fall back on the defensive, it means that the party is stretched to its limit. It is a sensible and logical action to take. The monk does not even need the party to be in dire circurmstances to have to get into a fall back plan. The monk does this constantly. This is why a lot of people do not like monk. Ki is in too short supply.

Potions are an interesting choice for you to mention. If we assume the Fighter has full plate, can we assume that the monk has 30 basic healing potions? At 60d4+60 that is an average of 135 hp worth of healing.

How many fights do we have to go through for the monk to be out of ki and low on hp at that point?

Or, maybe they do go and buy a cloak of protection. At a max price of 500 they should easily be able to afford it, since the martials are spending between 750 and 1500 apiece. That puts the monk's AC at 18. Or maybe some Bracers of Defense for +2 AC... sounds kind of like a shield. They are Rare though, so it would be on the lower end to get them for 1500. Of course, puts the Monk at 19 AC.

hmmm, it is almost like if you can give the monk a way to use their money to increase their surivability, they can do just as good as the other people using money to increase their surivability.

If you have such a store in your campaign good for you. My stores are usually limited to expendable items such as scrolls and potions. But yes, with its money the monk will and should buy items to increase its survivability. Not doing it would be bad play.

The Monks shortcomings being running out of their primary resource, being beaten nearly to death, not being healed by their team, and getting no item support whatsoever....

Yeah, I totally see how this is a shortcoming for the monk. With no healing, no money, no friends, and less than half their hp, with no choice but to soldier on, they are in danger of being knocked out. Oh! And they can't be an optimal race choice, and you can't use any subclass abilities.

Color me shocked and amazed.

What utter BS to say. It is not what I said, it is not the conclusion you should reach. Sarcasms and exagerations do not suit you. The monk even at full HP might well be out of Ki. Even after only one fight. And when this happen, its attack, damage and AC become subpar to what the monk is supposed to be. This, again, is the main reason that a lot of players do not like the monk. When you can use your main features for only wo or three fights out of 6 -8, it is not fun. Only the monk is in this predicament. But when the monk has its goodies, boy is it fun to play.

 

[Esker]

Ok, I guess We are doing this?

No magical gear. Just rough math of maxing AC.

Barbarian: Half-Plate for 17/ 19 with shield (lowers damage). 22 if they max stats, 24 with shield (not counting reckless)
Bard: 17 if they max dex or 19 if Valor (Half-Plate)
Cleric: Between 19 or 21 depending on domain (Half or Full Plate)
Druid: 19 (Half-Plate and shield)
Fighter: Between 18 and 21 (Full Plate and Shield with defensive)
Monk: 20 (25 when using patient), 22 and 27 if Kensei
Paladin: Between 18 and 21 (Full Plate and Shield with defensive)
Ranger: Half-Plate for 17/ 20 with shield and defensive
Rogue: 17 if they max dex. Does have a lot of tricks
Sorcerer: 15 if they max dex, 18 for dragons, bumping to 20 and 23 if they use shield
Warlock: 18 if they max dex with armor of shadows. 17/19 if they go hexblade with shield
Wizard: 15 is they max dex, 18 for mage armor, 23 if they use shield

Why are you assuming level 16+ for your defensive analysis, when by your own admission, monks don't keep up offensively after level 11?

Then for your offensive analysis you go back to level 5?

Can we agree to pick a level somewhere in tier 2 and use the same one for both offense and defense, since that seems to be the level range where we disagree how monks fare? (I acknowledge that they are competitive in levels 1-4, and you acknowledge they are not in levels 11+)

I propose using level 8, right around the middle of tier 2, since all characters get an ASI then, so we're not looking at a level where some classes get a big feature and others get a small one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I propose using level 8, right around the middle of tier 2, since all characters get an ASI then, so we're not looking at a level where some classes get a big feature and others get a small one.

How about 10, since everyone has their big subclass upgrade, and anything definitive of their class, by then, and no one has gotten their big tier upgrade yet.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am not picking the worst. I am picking the average build that do not require optional rules. Big difference here.
Unless all monks are V-humans (optional rule) or all Wood elves (Strange indeed and kinda boring if only one race is good at it) then they will have the array that I mentioned.

V. Human
Wood Elf
Kenku
Aarckrocka
Wildhunt Shifter

Is it the majority of races? No, but that is 5 different races, all official without the need of optional rules (unless you count V. Human as optional, even though it is the most commonly used human build out there).

This isn't strange or unusual. Just like giving a barbarian +2/+1 strength/con isn't unusual with only four options that provide that.

Good, you finaly admit it. Thank you.

I never denied they needed short rests. So do fighters. So do warlocks. That is what they are referred to as "short rest" classes. Heck, Druids and wizards need them too.

But okay, congrats. You got me to admit a thing I never denied.

The low hp isn't happening that often in my games. BUT the out of resources for monk is. And not only in my games.
How long is a fight in your games? 3 rounds? Well, with 6 players, the fights are usually about 5 rounds minimum with an average of 7 to 8 rounds. Even in a four man party (the assumed size in 5ed) fights will tend to last from 3 to 4 rounds for average to hard fights. Spending ki in all rounds will leave the monk with no Ki for about half the second fight and if a rest is not possible (which can happen in my games too and for many reasons. though I do try to avoid it), then the monk is forced not to have Ki for an entire fight.

The monk must carefully manage Ki. It is so easy for the monk to be out of Ki that it is the major reason for it to be one of the least played class. When you can use your feature only in one fight, a class is not so fun anymore. That is why pacing and following guidelines for this class is so important.

7 to 10 rounds, depending.

So, again you are going to get me to admit a thing I never denied. Managing ki is important. Kind of like managing your spells. Or your sorcerery points. Or Battlemaster maneuvers.

Was this your big "monks have a problem" thing? That they are a short rest class who has to manage their resources?

This is actually why I like Mobile on the Monk. Not because of the speed increase, but because it helps them manage their resources better by not needing to spend for disengage. Do they need it? Not really. They work okay without it, but it sure is nice.

Not much, but they can take cover and still be optimal while the monk will suffer by being forced to be ranged skirmishers. (yes the sunsoul monk will not be diminished. An exception is not the rule.) And the wizard, at 5th level will not be out of spells and cantrip after only one fight.

Really?

I'm going to ignore the "single fight" part and just look at the 'optimal' play of the wizard.

Assuming mage armor, a dex of +2, and half cover, they have an AC of 17. They use firebolt for 2d10 = 11 damage. So optimal.

Monk, assuming half cover and a shortbow, can have an AC of 17 (assuming your non-variant human with 15 AC) and does 2d6+8 for... 15 damage.


So, the wizard with no spells is being "optimal" but the monk stuck in the exact same situation is doing better, with possibly more AC... and that's a problem? What kind of double standards are these?

What I'm essentially hearing is that you are going to have a monk player who doesn't manage their resources, vs a wizard who has their resources, and so that's why the monk is hurting.

This is where I totally disagree. The monk is even more in peril because the entirety of his power lies in his Ki. Fighter will still have their fighting style, wizards will still have their cantrips and so on. Not the monk. The monk will not even have his flurry of blow available. Yes AC 20 can still be hit. This is stating the obvious. But it is obvious too that an AC 16 will be hit even more often (20% more, you see? I can do math too!)

The monk still has their martial arts. The Dueling fighting style is +4 damage at level five. The monks martial arts is +7.5 on average. The Monk is doing better damage, even using a crappy shortbow than most wizards are with their cantrips.

And if the monk is nearly full hp? Then their superior damage (because yes, using no resources at level 5 they have superior damage to the fighter) is likely to see them through, even if they are getting hit a bit more.

Hu...? Never did I say that Deflect Missile was bad. I said it should have been a shield that protect for the amount of hp rolled and that excess hp should convey to the next missile. Focus fire will be used against any target if needed. Tactics and circumstances will be what will decide. Spread the damage? Sure, but If I know I can't hit a character easily because the AC is too high, I will try to remove his/her allies first. That means that percieved lower AC will be attacked.

I want you to think about this for a second. I'm not going to argue this is anything except a tactical choice for smart monsters, but I want you to think about the pressures this puts on the classes.

If a character can increase their AC above a certain point, the monsters stop targeting them.

This means that the monk is getting the same number of attacks while everyone's AC is about the same, and more attacks when everyone else's AC gets higher. And I bet, since the monk is attacking, and the wizard is hiding, the monk gets even more attacks.

This could very well be why your monks suffer so much. If I knew this was likely, I'd have to use Patient Defense a lot, just to survive getting double the number of attacks my party members do.

Why would a monk not be healed if it can be done? Do not take people for morrons. They are not. Neither am I.

Well, it was the only reason I could think of the monk would be low on HP while the party is still pressing forward.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The fall back option of other characters is way better than the fall back option of most monks. And yes they can do it mid fight. Interaction: Ready shield. Action: DODGE! This is done fairly often by any front liner and even some back bencher while they are waiting for a timely heal to come their way.

Houserule?

Because, by RAW, it takes an Action to don or doff a shield. PHB 146.

If you are letting them dodge and take their action to put on their shield, might be why you see people doing it so much. That's better than the monk's patient defense.

If you have such a store in your campaign good for you. My stores are usually limited to expendable items such as scrolls and potions. But yes, with its money the monk will and should buy items to increase its survivability. Not doing it would be bad play.

And yet, we are supposedly analyzing the monk without this option. Getting hit more matters less if I have enough potions to heal back to full between every fight.

What utter BS to say. It is not what I said, it is not the conclusion you should reach. Sarcasms and exagerations do not suit you. The monk even at full HP might well be out of Ki. Even after only one fight. And when this happen, its attack, damage and AC become subpar to what the monk is supposed to be. This, again, is the main reason that a lot of players do not like the monk. When you can use your main features for only wo or three fights out of 6 -8, it is not fun. Only the monk is in this predicament. But when the monk has its goodies, boy is it fun to play.

Why is an average of 24.5 damage per turn low?

You keep wanting to say that monks have issues when they run out of ki, but that is frankly not true. Their damage is fine without ki. Stellar? No. The best in the game? No. But solid. Solid enough that I have yet to find a class that is able to do more the 2 damage more than the monk on average without using a resource.

Is their AC a bit low? Sure. And, it seems that you target them more often because of it, which likely exaccerbates the problems they have. So, I'd say monks at your table should invest more in the monk subclasses that can deal with ranged attacking and increase their AC, so while they are getting attacked more, they can still contribute.

But, I want to remind you, this started with you making the claim that the Monks base attack was sub-par. And now we've retreated to a monk using all their resources in the first fight of the day and retreating to fight at range instead of using their base melee damage, because they have low AC and are therefore targeted probably close to twice as often. While Fighters and Paladins are working with expensive armor, have a houserule to make putting on a shield free, and their base abilities are being counted more highly than the monks, despite this not being true.

I will never claim that monks are perfect. They do have problems. But this analysis is not highlighting the actual problems with monks.

Why are you assuming level 16+ for your defensive analysis, when by your own admission, monks don't keep up offensively after level 11?

Then for your offensive analysis you go back to level 5?

For that analysis I was giving everyone max, non-magical AC. Note I put the Barbarian at 24, which can only happen at level 20.

That is because people kept claiming monks always have the worst AC, period. So, I wanted to show that, no, they don't. It happens late game, after their damage has fallen behind, but they can have middle of the road AC with occasional bursts to the highest AC in the game.

Can we agree to pick a level somewhere in tier 2 and use the same one for both offense and defense, since that seems to be the level range where we disagree how monks fare? (I acknowledge that they are competitive in levels 1-4, and you acknowledge they are not in levels 11+)

I propose using level 8, right around the middle of tier 2, since all characters get an ASI then, so we're not looking at a level where some classes get a big feature and others get a small one.

I don't care which levels we choose. I've been saying consistently that a level 5 monk's AC is likely 17. I haven't moved from that position. I was just showing end result ACs with no magical items. (and with the right gear, monk AC can get insane it looks like.)

 

[Esker]

If we can agree to use level 8 as a baseline, and also to use 8 rounds per short rest as a reference point (obviously this number will vary from table to table, but I think it's more useful to assume a DM that roughly follows encounter guidelines), then here are some comparisons between a Kensei monk and a Battlemaster fighter. We'll assume neither is variant human, though that assumption favors the monk a bit, because the Battlemaster arguably gains more from a feat. We'll also assume that both start with two 16s and one 14, and that both bump their attack stat at 4th and 8th so that it is 20 at the point where we are doing the comparison. For the monk, they have 20 DEX, 16 WIS, and 14 CON at the point of this comparison. The Battlemaster has 20 (STR/DEX), 16 CON, and 14 (DEX/STR).

Survivability
----------------
Kensei AC: 20 (assuming agile parry is always used), or ~25 (dodging)
Battlemaster (One-Handed Setup) AC: 20 (plate and shield --- could be 21, but I'll giving them dueling style instead)
Battlemaster (Two-Handed Setup) AC: 19 (plate and no shield, defense style)
Battlemaster (Archery Setup) AC: 17 (half plate or studded leather, no shield)

Kensei HP: 59
Battlemaster (All) HP: 76

Can we combine AC and HP into a single measure of "survivability"? Not in a way that applies across all encounter types, but maybe we can use some reasonable reference enemies. If we assume that, on average, incoming attacks are coming from enemies with CR slightly below the PCs' level, the DMG guidelines say that these monsters should have attack bonuses around +6. I'm by no means married to this assumption, and I didn't cherry-pick it, so if you have another number you think is a better representation, by all means, revise my calculations accordingly.

But with +6, we're looking at a 50% hit rate at AC 17, 40% at AC 19, 35% at AC 20. If you figure about half of incoming attacks' damage is from dice, crits add about another 2.5% of a hit's worth of damage per attack across the board, for 52.5%, 42.5%, and 37.5%.

I'm not sure how to factor in the "relative risk" of being in melee vs at range, here, since it really depends on the party. If the whole party is ranged, then being at range might mean that some monster attacks can't be made at all, but if you're a ranged character in a party with other melee characters, then you avoiding an attack usually means someone else takes it instead. I think all ranged parties are probably pretty rare in practice, so I'm inclined to benchmark based on a party that has two melee and two ranged PCs, and that "redirecting" an attack to a tougher ally is effectively like a bump in AC to 20 or so for that attack. Completely arbitrarily (again, feel free to revise if you think something else is more reasonable), we might say that either being at range or disengaging redirects about half of attacks that might have hit you.

If we replace the PC's AC with 20 for half of attacks, a ranged character with AC 17 essentially bumps their hit rate down to about 45%. A ranged character with AC 19 bumps their hit rate down to about 40%.

What about dodging? Some of the time (again, for simplicity, let's say about half, but as always, feel free to revise with your own estimate), dodging just means your ally takes the attack instead of you. So if your fellow melee ally is AC 20, then when that happens it may not be worth much to the party as a whole that you were able to dodge. But the other half of the time, the chance to hit you goes from 40% to 16%, and the chance to crit for practical purposes essentially disappears. So, on average half of attacks when you dodge have about a 42.5% conversion rate, and the other half have about a 16% conversion rate, for about 29% overall when dodging.

So, at AC 17, if in melee, you can take 1 / 0.525 = 1.90 attacks per hit. At range, that becomes 1 / 0.45 = 2.22. At AC 19 that's 2.35 for melee, and 2.50 for range. At AC 20, 2.67 for either melee or range, to 3.45 if dodging. If we convert everything into effective HP then, using the AC 17 archer as the baseline, then, we get melee AC 19 being worth about 6% more HP, melee AC 20 being worth about 20% extra HP when not dodging, and 55% more when dodging.

So using the archer with 76 HP as the reference, the kensei functionally has about 71 HP when not dodging, and 91 when dodging, the two-handed Battlemaster has about 81 "effective HP", and the one-handed Battlemaster has about 91. Deflect Missiles will boost the Kensei some, as will assuming that dodging redirects fewer attacks than being at range does (probably true, tbh), and we haven't dealt with damage that doesn't target AC, which should also boost Kensei to the extent that save-based damage targets DEX more than CON.

Gotta take an intermission there for now, but will come back to look at offense in another post.

As always, take this with a grain of salt, since I'm making some simplifications for the purposes of quantification --- I'm not claiming this is any kind of "be all end all" analysis by any means, but I do think the general outline of the approach sheds useful insight.