If you can't figure out how to use them to their fullest potential easily, or the class doesn't have multiple paths to full potential, then it's an issue with the class. The monk is too restrictive with relevant attributes to accommodate a lot of builds the way many other classes can, and playing a cookie cutter monk to get "full potential" also makes me a sad panda.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Monks Suck
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
My main argument is they are underpowered and could use some mechanical boosts. Like some feats tailored to benefit them, and feats which give them more Ki points. They could use some magic items that grant better AC and better unarmed strike damage tailored to them. I think they could use a couple of additional subclasses which don't draw on the same Ki pool as the base class. All of these things could be done without errata on the original class.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
It's not hard to figure a monk out, despite people having an identity crisis with the class.
The monk skirmishes against the enemy, doing decent damage while applying certain effects based on the subclass: Debuffs for the Open Hand, Mobility for the Shadow, and CC and utility for the elemonk.
The monk is also excellent against pesky enemy spellcasters and the only pure martial that have magical attacks.
Maybe I'm weird for understanding that wasting resources on not spending them is worse then spending them all, because they're the same number of points whether you preserve them or not. And when I'm out, I take a short rest, which gives every character an effective doubling of their HP that almost always doesn't see the true light of day.
I'd rather have used all my ki points last round knowing that the fight was probably less worrisome now that I spent that Ki point to do whatever I felt it was important for at the time.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
Think of it this way: let's say the monk can keep up with a fighter toe-to-toe with DPS, everything else withstanding (a buff). Could you give me one reason why I would ever choose to play a fighter if I can do similar damage as a monk with so much more options with bonus actions and evasion and deflect missile?
DeviousQuail
Hero
That video was 29 minutes too long and I don't think it will achieve TM's goal of being a reference for future discussions regarding how much monks suck. He does make plenty of good points that match things I've seen at my table but some need another look (that horse comparison in particular was not well thought out).
The monk design isn't perfect but I've never found it to be unrewarding to play or DM for. I like that it can take on different roles in a pinch and offers exciting moments on a regular basis. Some better magic item and feat support from WotC wouldn't be remiss but those things are easier to homebrew compared to changes to the overall monk chassis.
The only major gripe I have is how difficult it is to build monks that don't invest heavily in Dex, Wis, Con. I can't put my finger on it but the tradeoffs between the three don't feel as impactful or defining as Str/Dex, Con, Cha for Paladins or Str, Dex, Con for Barbarians.
The monk design isn't perfect but I've never found it to be unrewarding to play or DM for. I like that it can take on different roles in a pinch and offers exciting moments on a regular basis. Some better magic item and feat support from WotC wouldn't be remiss but those things are easier to homebrew compared to changes to the overall monk chassis.
The only major gripe I have is how difficult it is to build monks that don't invest heavily in Dex, Wis, Con. I can't put my finger on it but the tradeoffs between the three don't feel as impactful or defining as Str/Dex, Con, Cha for Paladins or Str, Dex, Con for Barbarians.
I've generally seen that's it's rarely the player's fault.
The monk will have trouble when :
1. Short rests are in short supply. The DM is, more often then not, in control of pacing. The players can have input, but often don't.
2. Mobility is not an issue. In many campaigns (often theater of the mind, but sometimes map /grid based as well) positioning, movement, obstacles, etc. are not much of a thing. The charscters mostly stand and fight or move, but without much relevance. The monk will suffer here, as much or more than even the rogue.
3. They take in a role they just don't fit. Monks make terrible tanks, for example, yet if there are 3 characters and the other 2 are squishy - the monk's player may try to tank. This will almost certainly have unsatisfying results. This is closest to your point, but the DM here, should really compensate a bit for lack of roles. At the very least, point out to the players.
I'm sure I'm missing some, but the point is - those are on the DM, not the player.
CubicsRube
Hero
I think one of the things a monk can be satisfying in combat for in fact is its versatility. If you want to be optimal a a certain strategy being a monk is most likely not the right choice.
But if you need to take on enemy casters, monks can be effective at filling that niche. If next fight, you're against a large solo monster, you can trying stunning them and be somewhat effective at this. If you're a 4e monk like my char and you're fighting against large numbers, you have things like shatter and fireball that give you AoE options very few martials have. If yore a shadow monk, you can be godlike at scouting and sneaking, or getting yourself to the bank ranks of a battlefield in an instant.
You'll never be the "best" at any of those things, but you can be thrown into a dozen different fights and have a dozen different answers. It's very difficult to hard counter a monk. And for always having something to do in any combat I'm in and never feeling useless, I rate the monk at 10/10 on the Cubic FUNness scale(TM)
But if you need to take on enemy casters, monks can be effective at filling that niche. If next fight, you're against a large solo monster, you can trying stunning them and be somewhat effective at this. If you're a 4e monk like my char and you're fighting against large numbers, you have things like shatter and fireball that give you AoE options very few martials have. If yore a shadow monk, you can be godlike at scouting and sneaking, or getting yourself to the bank ranks of a battlefield in an instant.
You'll never be the "best" at any of those things, but you can be thrown into a dozen different fights and have a dozen different answers. It's very difficult to hard counter a monk. And for always having something to do in any combat I'm in and never feeling useless, I rate the monk at 10/10 on the Cubic FUNness scale(TM)
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
My two reactions to that were, "Really?" and "Oh, now I think I get it."
The "Really?" was because the 2nd one (no weapons in palace) seems to be all about one particular features, Martial Arts. And the third one (warrior-envoy) was also about features: they can speak any language, they have high Wisdom, and they can defend themselves without having to go around armed and armored.
But the "Oh, now I think I get it" is that I think I have a better understanding what you are talking about. I think you're looking purely at the mechanics, devoid of any connotations attached to those mechanics. So the fact that the Monk achieves its AC without any armor, or can do essentially all of its damage without any weapons, wouldn't be relevant; you're just looking at a straight comparison of AC and DPR.
If that's the approach you're taking with your analysis, then, yeah. But that also feels, to me, like it's leaving out a big part of what the game is all about.
Problem is, the Monk's damage is lackluster (about Treantmonk's baseline damage for levels 1-9 if you go all-in on offense). If you took the Mobile feat instead of boosting Dex, it's even worse.
Adding a minor effect to bad damage doesn't save a class that has poor tanking, no spells, poor utility, and poor control.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
He struggles to make even baseline damage, and by level 11 he doesn't even make baseline damage. He is literally the very definition of not decent damage. Monks are arguably the worst damage dealer in the game except at early levels.
Except every single martial has a subclass for magical attacks.
Similar Threads
