D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Esker]

Hahaha!

At +7 to hit vs AC 17 and making 4 attacks on average I hit at least 2 times.

So you can make slightly over 2 saves.

Again, needing an 8+ twice alone means odds are in my favour that you fail.

I get a 57% chance that I fail. And a 75% that you are a turn ahead in the first place, since your bigger initiative bonus is not a guarantee that you go first. So, all together, about 43% that you get a third turn before I've had a second.

 

[Flamestrike]

I get a 57% chance that I fail. And a 75% that you are a turn ahead in the first place, since your bigger initiative bonus is not a guarantee that you go first. So, all together, about 43% that you get a third turn before I've had a second.

Of course, there is also the chance I stun you on my first attack of my attack sequence, meaning you're effectively stunned for nearly 2 of my full attack sequences (advantage greatly ups my DPR), and not just one (which we are giving you the benefit of the doubt for here).

Best case scenario for you, lets say its probably a 50/50 contest then?

Remind me again how Monks suck compared to Fighters?

Because from where I sit, your SS/CE BM Fighter, designed specifically to deal with my Monk (who I posted first) with fantastic Con saves is at best evenly matched with that Monk.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I don’t like monks generally but the image of a duergar monk is really cool.

I actually like the idea of strength monks.

I had designs on one level barbarian for AC from dex and con....high score in str.

Maybe. Half orc going berserk with a loin cloth and short sword and big frozen turkey fists.

 

[Asisreo]

Another factor no-one wants to talk about when it comes to survivability is the extra movement. The defense is that it's presumably either not quantifiable or it's assumed to be a non-factor: which is false.

 

[Mort]

Is it dawning on you yet, that you've created one of the strongest Fighter builds (SS CE Archery BM Fighter), with a Con of 16 and Proficiency in Con saves, and a Monk just matched it with you (likely defeating you)?

This is why 1 on 1 PvPs are silly. the SS CE fighter is great, but in this situation -not so much. Try an Eldritch Knight fighter (the actual tankiest fighter) with sword and shield - monk is not likely to even hit (AC 21 but pumped to 26 as soon as the monk rolls between 21 and 25).

But even that's not the point - Monks are quite good against a single target they want to lock down - IF they are willing to commit all/most of their ki to do so and especially if that single target doesn't have support.

And even more so - the focus really should be how much does the class (here monk, but any class should be analyzed this way) contribute to the success of the group.

 

[Flamestrike]

Try an Eldritch Knight fighter (the actual tankiest fighter) with sword and shield - monk is not likely to even hit (AC 21 but pumped to 26 as soon as the monk rolls between 21 and 25).

Create it Mort, and I'll happily run the Kensai up against it.

 

[Esker]

Of course, there is also the chance I stun you on my first attack of my attack sequence, meaning you're effectively stunned for nearly 2 of my full attack sequences (advantage greatly ups my DPR), and not just one (which we are giving you the benefit of the doubt for here).

We can work out the expected damage boost from the possibility that I'm stunned after one attack. It's not that big.

The chance that the first attack hits and results in a stun is 0.55 * 0.35 = 0.19. That would mean your next three attacks would be made at advantage (80% to hit), for a net damage increase of 25%, or 5.6. 19% of 5.6 is 1.07.

The chance that the first attack doesn't stun and the second attack does is 0.81 * 0.55 * 0.35 = 0.16. In that case you get two attacks at advantage, netting 3.8 damage. 0.16 times 3.8 is 0.6. So you're at an extra 1.67.

Finally, the chance that the first two attacks don't stun and the third attack does is 0.81^2 * 0.19 = 0.12. In that case the last attack is at advantage, for an extra 1.9. 0.12 times 1.9 is 0.2.

So all told, an extra 1.8 damage if we take possible stunned advantage into account. Not enough to down the fighter in round 2. But regardless, if you get that third turn before I get a second, you can do it.

 

[Mistwell]

It really baffles me that this ALWAYS happens:

"Hey, Class X is weak at Y, it should get a buff."
"Shut up! Class X is awesome! I have fun with it! It's perfect! Stops trying to ruin my fun!"

Geez, people, relax. You didn't write the damn game.

Agreed. I am advocating for some pretty minor buffs. Some more feats, magic items, and subclasses tailored towards monks. Is that so outrageous?

Feats: Something in to increase Ki points; possibly something to add damage to monk weapons used other than unarmed attacks
Magic Items: Something to increase damage done by unarmed damage
Subclasses: Something which draws on a pool of power which isn't Ki points but it's own pool

Is this stuff people really don't want?

 

[Mort]

Create it Mort, and I'll happily run the Kensai up against it.

Read the rest of the post.

 

[Flamestrike]

But regardless, if you get that third turn before I get a second, you can do it.

So do you concede that its roughly 50/50 then?

Even against literally the strongest DPR class in the game at that level in a SS/ CE/ Archery BM Fighter (with Con 16, d10 HP and Con save proficiency) barring maybe a Raging GWM Frenzy Barbarian?