D&D 5E (2014) Monks Suck

[Mistwell]

I imagine they were referring to attacks specifically because the monk makes the actual attacks magical, which means all their damage is magical.

True. Of course, that's to make up for the fact the monk is using his fists and feet often (though they can use some weapons), and the barbarian is using a weapon. The barbarian should, relatively quickly, obtain a magic weapon. Right around the time foes are regularly resistant to non magical weapon damage. It's kinda how the game is built.

 

[Mistwell]

Suck? Or are not the best?

They struggle to even hit baseline damage. And they cannot even do that past level 10.

That's "suck". I think that's the right word for it. Pretty much ANY other class can out-damage them if they want to.

I contend that even the word "suck" is just clickbait (and now we've got a 260 post thread going, so I guess that works...). To me "Suck" == "worst damage, or at least below average"

Yes, that is the definition I am using as well. They do below average damage. That's what using Baseline Damage for the analysis is for.

Is monk damage the worst? Or at least below the median line?

Yes.

Let's compare to the Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Wizard, Bard, Paladin - not just the Barbarian, Fighter, Warlock and Rogue.

I'm sure someone has done the math to determine how the monk's optimal DPS/DPR compares to ALL the other classes?

He does that math in the video. With nice color graphs and everything.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Despite the repetitive nature of the arguments (as everyone knows, Monks don't suck ... Rangers suck, and it's much better to suck than to blow ... looking at you Bards), there is an actual issue with Monks.

The vast majority of classes that I can think of have, at a bare minimum, either magic items designed for them (that enhance their particular class abilities) or that are particularly useful to them (such as weapons and armor).

Because monks (with the exception of the Kensai) don't typically use weapons past a certain level, and don't wear armor, and don't cast spells, there aren't a whole lot of magic items that are "for them."

This leads to three outcomes:

1. In a low-magic item, gritty campaign, monks can often shine. The lower the magic, IME, the better the monks play.

2. On the other hand, if there are a surplus of magic items, other characters start to get significant benefits that the monks won't see. 5e might only go to +3, but those are "pluses" that the monk isn't getting.

3. Assuming a standard party division of loot, that might mean the monk ends up with their pick of the best cool items that work for them (since they won't need weapons or armor or anything related to spellcasting), but generally that doesn't make up for the lack of monk-specific items.

This is something that has been brought up before, and it is an issue I have seen; unlike the theorycrafting that goes around and around (comparing "generic monks" to Battlemasters, adding in racial abilities, etc.), this is an issue that comes up a lot in play.

 

[Esker]

Suck? Or are not the best?
I contend that even the word "suck" is just clickbait (and now we've got a 260 post thread going, so I guess that works...). To me "Suck" == "worst damage, or at least below average"

Is monk damage the worst? Or at least below the median line?

They are the actual worst at damage.

Let's compare to the Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Wizard, Bard, Paladin - not just the Barbarian, Fighter, Warlock and Rogue.

Rangers and Druids have quite high damage potential, because Conjure Animals is one of the best damage spells for level in the game, and most ranger subclasses have features that make them quite solid archers. Even a Beastmaster, built carefully, outdamages the monk, as Treantmonk has shown in another video. Bards and Wizards are not direct-damage-oriented classes (although Swords Bards can do ok), but do far better control than monks can hope to do, and do have spell options to let them do excellent damage when they choose to (Animate Objects being a big one). Comparing to rogues is a fairly generous comparison point for the monk, because rogues are not particularly good at damage without multiclassing.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

But if we are using feats and allowing official sources, the Monk falls behind the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Artificer, Cleric, Druid and Warlock for damage if that is the focus of the build.

Is the benefit of the feats because Monks basically HAVE to take the ASIs instead of Feats? Or because there aren't really any cool feats for them (Like a Master of Ki feat that allows them to add their Proficiency bonus to the number of Ki they have after a short or long rest, or something...)?

 

[Esker]

Despite the repetitive nature of the arguments (as everyone knows, Monks don't suck ... Rangers suck, and it's much better to suck than to blow ... looking at you Bards), there is an actual issue with Monks.

Bards are stronger overall than rangers, though it is somewhat apples-to-oranges because they do different things. Rangers are definitely stronger than monks, outside maybe a campaign with no feats and no magic weapons with a decent share of enemies that resist nonmagical damage. But in a campaign with no feats and no magic weapons there's no mechanical reason to play any martial character; clerics are the damage class in that scenario.

 

[Esker]

Is the benefit of the feats because Monks basically HAVE to take the ASIs instead of Feats? Or because there aren't really any cool feats for them (Like a Master of Ki feat that allows them to add their Proficiency bonus to the number of Ki they have after a short or long rest, or something...)?

Both.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bards are stronger overall than rangers, though it is somewhat apples-to-oranges because they do different things.

There are many people here who find this whole exercise an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, either because they do not value DPR in their campaigns, because they do not believe accurately DPR measures the utility that is provided, or because arguments always boil down to someone claiming that their DPR model truly accounts for the "citrus difference" while the other person is like, "No way, Johnny Appleseed."

Anyway, even in these divided times, hopefully we can all agree on a simple truism; Bards should be consigned to the Appendix of the next PHB, and thence to the dustbin.

 

[Asisreo]

I know all that.

When I say uber-boss, Im saying it within the context of the 6 or so encounter adventuring day (2 short rests) which is also the context I use to gauge Monks power.

For example 8th or so level PCs (at an eyeball) dealing with a nest of Hobgoblins with an alliance with a Blue dragon:

E1: 2 Trolls (random encounter on the way there)
E2: 8 x Hobgoblins, 2 x Hobgoblin Captains (guard the entrance)
[short rest]
E3: 2 x Half-[Blue]-Dragon Veterans (add martial advantage as they're Hobgoblin/ Dragons)
E4: Mage [Hobgoblin skin], 2 x Elite Hobgoblins (Re-skinned Knights with martial advantage) 4 x Hobgoblins
[short rest]
E5: Hobgoblin Warlord, Hobgoblin Devastator and 6 Hobgoblins
E6: Young Blue Dragon (tack on 3 legendary actions of search, tail slap and wing buffet, and add 3 legendary resistances, increase HP by 50 percent, increase CR to 11)

Plus a few traps and so forth.

I can see a Monk doing just fine in that adventuring day, stun locking a fair few boss things as he goes and more than pulling his weight.

That's not at all a balanced adventuring day. A balanced adventuring day exp for a typical 8th-level party is 24,000 exp but that adventure has an adjusted exp value of over 40,000 exp. A party's expected to collapse halfway there.

 

[MwaO]

Already done. Here's a straight class rogue that beats the monk numbers levels 1-10 (all of them) comparing to the same baseline I do in my Monk vid. This character is a wood-elf.
View attachment 124230

How are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?