D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Mort]

What's interesting is that this means it isn't a matter of using 4 Ki points every turn to try a stun, we can actually determine how many ki points would be needed to successfully stun on average since it isn't a matter of if the stun happens but when.

So, with a 20% chance of success, it would take only 5 ki points to stun the target. That's 5 ki points, not necessarily 5 attacks since some can miss depending on AC.

Still not conclusive whether the monk sucks or not, but now we get an idea how much Ki would be needed to successfully stun: not alot, actually.

I think people may be wasting their Ki on Flurry too much when Stunning can be more effective if they strategize right.

But that's just my hypothesis.

5 Ki not alot? That's over 50% of a 9th level monks allotment!

 

[Esker]

I've yet to see a champion fighter sword and board mentioned as beating the monks damage.

Champion is one of the worst fighter subclasses, and sword and board isn't particularly well suited to the features they get (or damage, generally, due to lack of feat support). And indeed by a quick back-of-the-envelope estimate, they fall behind the monk for at least a few levels in late tier two, when the monk can be flurrying all the time and the fighter hasn't gotten their third attack yet. But from level 11 on it looks like they're back ahead of the flurry-always monk, though not necessarily by a lot. That said, I haven't factored in indirect damage such as stuns, or shield master prone, etc. Right now the champion is sitting there with their bonus action completely unused except for the occasional second wind.

Though if you just replace the longsword with a spear or quarterstaff and take Polearm Master, it's a different story, though Champion still isn't really adding anything to that over base fighter.

For Paladins are you assuming they get to use all their divine smites? A daily resource.

Speaking of daily resources, how are we measuring a monks at-will damage against a bard? Do the bards get their daily spells? Or are they sticking with at-will damage too?

As you can see, I'm skeptical about ANY class.

At-will damage is the wrong measure, even for damage. At a minimum you should look at either something like 'damage output in a typical adventuring day', though even that undervalues PCs with burst abilities.

I don't think anybody is saying the problem with monks is what they do when they're out of ki, necessarily. The problem is
that (a) in order to make their turns using ki reasonably effective it causes them to spend too much of their time out of ki, and (b) even when they're burning through ki at a fast pace, they're doing less than other characters do when they nova.

 

[Asisreo]

5 Ki not alot? That's over 50% of a 9th level monks allotment!

Yeah, but it's a short rest resource. Let's see, at level 9, a monk would approximately have...either a DC 15 or 16 save. The monster's CON for a 20% chance would need to be...around +10 or +11 con save.

Take that as you will. I want to minimize my assumptions.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not even that. It's like paladin smite, after you hit you can declare you also want to try to stun. You can do it on every hit - as long as you have Ki.

You know darn well what I mean. You must hit with a melee weapon attack. Which in this context will be happening most likely with an attack action. Man, this nit picking is really telling. This appears to be an emotional topic for a lot of people. I don't know why - I am advocating for some feats, magic items, and subclasses for the monk. Why are people reacting like I kicked their puppy?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, with a 20% chance of success, it would take only 5 ki points to stun the target. That's 5 ki points, not necessarily 5 attacks since some can miss depending on AC.

Bad math.

 

[Asisreo]

You know darn well what I mean. You must hit with a melee weapon attack. Which in this context will be happening most likely with an attack action. Man, this nit picking is really telling. This appears to be an emotional topic for a lot of people. I don't know why - I am advocating for some feats, magic items, and subclasses for the monk. Why are people reacting like I kicked their puppy?

I don't think it was nitpicking. He seemed to be coming from a place of genuinely helpfulness.

You said you didn't play monk enough to know stuns didn't take bonus actions and he expanded on that with extra knowledge that you reasonably might not have had.

Or maybe he was out of malice, but he doesn't read like a nitpicker or goalpost mover from his interactions so far.

 

[Asisreo]

Bad math.

It's not.

On average, it would take 5 ki points for a 20% success rate to succeed. Not saying there isn't a deviation, just giving the average. It could obviously be more or less but the math checks out.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's not.

On average, it would take 5 ki points for a 20% failure rate to fail. Not saying there isn't a deviation, just giving the average. It could obviously be more or less but the math checks out.

Ah, averaged over many fights. Gotcha.

 

[Flamestrike]

Do you actually need to max WIS?

Stunning fist DC.

 

[Mort]

You know darn well what I mean. You must hit with a melee weapon attack. Which in this context will be happening most likely with an attack action. Man, this nit picking is really telling. This appears to be an emotional topic for a lot of people. I don't know why - I am advocating for some feats, magic items, and subclasses for the monk. Why are people reacting like I kicked their puppy?

Oh come on,

attack action is a term of art that usually means a full series of attacks (however many you have) which could be confused for saying the stunning attack takes your entire attack action.

I was just trying to clarify - not disagree with you. This thread has too many misunderstandings (intentional or otherwise) as it is.