D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Paul Farquhar]

Goblins and monks are two different creatures.

But neither has any special ability for attacking weapons. In that regard they are the same.

 

[Flamestrike]

The don't need to know the AC and HP, the just need to know that swords are easier to kill than fighters.

Which you cant know.

Lets assume your Goblins somehow know the AC and HP of swords (AC 19 and 10 for a longsword).

How on earth do those goblins know the HP and AC of the guy standing in front of them, and that it is lower or higher than those numbers? He could have an AC of 15 and 8 Hit points. He could have an AC of 20 and 40 Hit points.

If you (as the DM) tried to argue what you're arguing right now, I'd bail on that game man.

 

[Asisreo]

But neither has any special ability for attacking weapons. In that regard they are the same.

What I mean is that their strategies will differ.

 

[Helldritch]

Makes sense... but then the Monk is out of Ki points so if another fight breaks out before he can have a rest it'll probably be more of a pain. 1-on-1 fights are pretty rare, especially against PC, so they don't really tell the whole story.

Also, that's only if the dice roll their average, it's not so much of a curb stomp victory that it doesn't rely on luck. But I guess that luck is equal for everybody.

One on one is exactly what the monk would be seeking and what it is made for. You took fighter, but what about mage? Two attacks one will be a stun for sure. The monk will effectively shut a caster down. That is its purpose! Against multiple enemies, the monk will be a distraction, holding them while other characters will do their stuff. Of course a monk can run out of Ki. But remember that it is a short rest class and a good DM will allow short rests, about 2.5 every day if we assume a 6-8 encounters per day. The fighter has burned through everything too.

 

[Mistwell]

Did you just ignore the parenthetical where I said "because I've done that math already"?

Because, you know what you just did by changing all those numbers to 16's? Reduced everything by the same amount. All of that damage I did at +4 got reduced by the exact same amount.

I also admitted that the Fighter likely has a better con. HP was never once a consideration for me. Yes, Figher has better Hp. Not contesting that. It was the other aspects I was contesting.

So, your objection ignored everything else I did, and made no impact on my analysis... congrats?






The big problem I have with this concept of "average con score" is that it assumes that either A) Monk players are stupid or B) Everything is close to the average.

A stupid, easy example.

The Monk player has two creatures they can attack. The Archmage (CR 12) or the Heavily Armored and Otherworldy general of the Hells, the Eryines (CR 12).

Which one do they stun? Without even knowing there stats, you pick the Archmage. They are more likely to fail the save (+1 Con save) while the Eriynes is likely to succeed (+8 Con save)


Looking at the average is assuming the Monk doesn't try and pick their targets intelligently, and if they do, then it matters a lot more which monster they are fighting than what the average score is.




sigh

But making the argument that poison is a waste of time and a worthless damage type because everything is immune to it is also false. There are creatures that are not immune to poison, and we can't forget that.

Right, we don't forget that. But we do say, "lots of stuff is immune or resistant to poison, it's clearly the worst choice if you have a choice between types of damage to do, and let's all acknowledge it's not a good choice if given a choice."

Right?

Yes, Stunning Strike isn't as useful against a massive brute. But, every class that does saves has pretty close to the monk's numbers, and some of the most dangerous enemies aren't brutes.

If most foes have a good Con score, then stun isn't as useful. That's my point. And for those who have played monks, they should be admitting yes it gets wasted against foes often enough that it's worth talking about. Because you don't get the choice in a lot of battles. And YOU'RE BANKING EVERYTHING ON THIS ONE POWER WITH ONE SAVE TYPE. We were debating if others can "stun" better, and the answer is yes they can. Indeed, they don't need to focus on just Con saves. They can choose other saves as well, like Wisdom saves.

Why is it so controversial to talk about the reality of the game - we all know more foes have better Con scores than other things, because Con is necessary for anyone. We all know it comes up a huge amount of the time. Why are we pretending the monk doesn't have this issue when we all know they do?

Meaning the enemies the monk can stun reliably, are more dangerous, and even against brutes, they have about a 50/50 shot. Which is not terrible for something that is a rider on their normal actions and bonus actions.

They DO NOT have a 50-50 shot against brutes. They have a less than 50-50 shot, which is the post you're responded to. WE CALCULATED THE NUMBERS. The odds are they will fail against foes even weaker than their level, and will very likely fail versus their level or higher. And that's THE AVERAGE. An actual brute is likely even harder than that, because those mage foes are dragging the average down.

 

[Flamestrike]

You took fighter, but what about mage? Two attacks one will be a stun for sure.

Shroedingers Mage is proficient with Con saves and has a Con of 16.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If a monk can attack and break weapons, then the guy with the sword can to. Which means he can cut the monk's fists off.

Doesn’t follow.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which you cant know.

Sure they can. Even if they haven't been in fights with fighters and swords before, they will have leaned it from mummy and daddy goblin. "Always go for the sword, son, they are usually softer than the person behind it".

Lets assume your Goblins somehow know the AC and HP of swords (AC 19 and 10 for a longsword).

My goblins do NOT know hp and AC - neither do the players for that matter, But they do know, because they have experience and training, which targets are usually easiest to kill.

If you (as the DM) tried to argue what you're arguing right now, I'd bail on that game man.

I wouldn't argue that, I would tell you that your monk cannot target a wielded weapon - it was part of the creature. If you wanted to bail on that, then I would say "try not to slam the door on your way out".

 

[Undrave]

The fighter was out of Action Surge and all Superiority dice after his first turn.

I lasted 3 turns with my Ki.

I know, in a one on one fight.

But if both characters were doing this against a similar enemy instead of against each other, the Monk's defence and DPS would drop harder than the Fighter's, and the Fighter would still have more HP than the Monk, especially if they use Second Wind. DPS and Defence is not THAT big of a drop mind you, but the HP difference hurts.

Monks really should have had d10, especially since they can't go all-in on CON without rolling amazing stats. It would give them basically 1 or 2 more points per level, nothing ground breaking, but it would close the gap.

Hmm...

How's that for a baseline? A Sword and Board Fighter with Dueling and no short rest resources left VS a similarly depleted Monk VS a similarly spent Rogue? If all three go into a fight like this, which one is more in trouble?

 

[Flamestrike]

They DO NOT have a 50-50 shot against brutes

Yes they do.

You're forgetting that even though Brutes have (often) decent Con saves, they're likely going to have to pass 2-4 of them in a single turn.