D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Eyes of Nine]

Yes. Me. I've said that I don't rely on those options from the beginning. In fact, I've played with two other monks up to level 10 and they never, not once, ever used stunning strike. They were both Open Hand, too.

Same. I don't say never but neither of my monks used Stunning Strike more than once per 10 combats or less. I do use FoB alot but SS not so much.

 

[Esker]

Depends on the scenario IMO. Asking someone to review hundreds of posts to find a single one for you because you thought someone’s perception was worth disputing doesn’t seem very productive to me. I don’t have a burden to do unproductive things.

If it's a thing that is happening regularly, as opposed to once or twice by one or two people, I would think it wouldn't be a needle-in-a-haystack situation, but sure. You don't need to do it, in that case we also don't need to take your statement as a critique that actually has any force to undermine the critiques of monks.

 

[FrogReaver]

If it's a thing that is happening regularly, as opposed to once or twice by one or two people, I would think it wouldn't be a needle-in-a-haystack situation, but sure. You don't need to do it, in that case we also don't need to take your statement as a critique that actually has any force to undermine the critiques of monks.

The person that said the same thing before me and the 3 people that liked my comment would beg to differ.

But let’s talk about how this scenario ends. Let’s say I go dig up some sting of quotes. Inevitably whatever quotes I bring forward will be disputed. Either they aren’t explicit enough, or they are missing context or etc.

So providing a quote isn’t actually proof. Instead I offer my perception of how the conversation has unfolded (and others apparently agree due to their likes). That’s a statement you should be able to take at face value. Dispute it if you want by providing your perception but don’t demand me to spend my time searching for proof that inevitably won’t be sufficient.

 

[Esker]

And thinking back without looking I think you are the one that did bring the wizard and monk or was it warlock and monk comparison up when I was discussing rogue/monk or fighter/monk And how stunning strike would likely be enough to push them overall ahead of those classes. Suddenly the conversation shifted to full casters doing large aoe control spells vs stunning strike monks and how monks control sucked in comparison.

Now I don’t think you brought that point up with any ill intent but it did end up sidelining there monkish rogue/fighter conversation.

I believe what I said was that a warlock could give up some damage to instead use a control option, just like a monk can give up some damage to instead use a control option, and that if you put the total contribution of the control and remaining damage together, the warlock would come out ahead. If instead we wanted to do a monk/fighter comparison, the foregone damage by not being a fighter is higher, so the bar for control contributed in order to match up is also higher.

The point of bringing this up was to emphasize the importance of taking opportunity cost into account. I think you are doing this responsibly and I'm glad to see it in the conversation. But not everyone is.

 

[Esker]

The person that said the same thing before me and the 3 people that liked my comment would beg to differ.

Except that lots of people in this conversation are engaging in motivated reasoning because, for whatever reason, they have an emotional response to someone criticizing a set of game mechanics. So "likes" isn't really a good measure of the accuracy of a statement.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I know I didn't see every monk.
But based on discussion and campaign recaps I've seen and read, almost every monk player describes the same tactics.

But what are those discussions? With whom?

One thing I find fascinating is the degree to which people believe that their experiences are more universal than are warranted; it's not you (or me), this is a general cognitive bias.

Very few people stop to think, "Wait, perhaps my views are skewed? Perhaps my experience cannot be generalized to everyone? Maybe, even when I seek out information, that information is necessarily going to reflect something other than the unvarnished truth, simply because of the nature of sources I select?"

Too abstract? Well, whenever there are statistics released on anything related to D&D from large sample sizes, there are a large contingent of people here who will reflexively disagree with those statistics because that's not how they play. "No one I know would ever play a champion!" "Everyone I know loves more feats!" "I can't go 5 feet without seeing a druid!" And so on.

Information people like gets assimilated, that which they don't like is discarded; man, I wish there was a term for that.

Anyway, I do not doubt what you are saying. Just like you, I can say that no one uses minis, because all of my campaigns, and the people I know, use ToTM.

...and yet, I am reasonably certain that someone out there is buying minis. Because I am familiar with the old saying, "Minis, like cocaine, are god's way of telling you that you have too much money."

TLDR; D&D is nearly 50 years old. 5e has players from 3rd grade through the nursing home, and everything in between. Do not be surprised if everyone is not playing it the same way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But... that's precisely why we need an integrated analysis?

If you want to precisely measure it, I guess, but it takes only a few moments of consideration to realize that their damage is decent until level 11, unless you are including limited resources or the -5/+10 feats. And that their AC is fairly decent compared to every class out there.

Add in the fact that monks don't need to purchase anything (meaning that the 1500 gp the figher spent on plate to equal the monk's AC is still in the monk's pocket for something) and they have the same Spell DC as any half-caster tends to have... and well it is generally easy to see the rough shape of what a full "test every class" set of data would tell us.

I do not agree. At high level a fighter will have more attacks. Any fighter type will.

Stop.

You said "the monk without ki has two attacks".

That is 100% false. A monk without ki has 3 attacks while in melee. Nothing you say about high level fighters or anything else changes that fact. In melee, with zero Ki, a monk can make three melee attacks.

Continue.

But at low and mid level it is even worse, the monk does not do that much damage. It does not have that high of an AC too. All the while, the BM will be in plate (chainmail at the minimum) and with a shield (unless two handed). At higher level, it also means that the BM will have more attacks, better AC (not counting magical items) and better HP. So the monk will be stuck with two attacks unless it takes the risk of going melee with a low AC (no Ki remember?) and relatively low HP compared to a BM (or any fighters for that matter). The monk will, however, have potentialy more attacks than the paladin, ranger and barb but if the paladin and rangers have a shield or an off hand weapon, they can use their bonus action to have exactly the same number of attacks than a monk. And if they are PM, then they can use their bonus action too for better effect. So the monk isn't winning on this side. If Flurry of blow was off the Ki spending, it would be way better.

Okay, so you just threw a whole lot at there with little or no supporting numbers. So, I'm going to have to add in the context myself it seems.

Once again.

Monk

without spending any ki or resources
level 1 does 1d8+1d4+6 = 13
level 5 does 2d8+1d6+12 = 24.5

AC 16/17

BM fighter Longsword+Shield and Dueling Style

Without spending any resources
Level 1 1d8+5 = 9.5
Level 5 2d8+12 = 21

AC 18


BM Fighter Greatsword

Without spending any resources
Level 1 2d6+3 (assuming style is +2 damage on average) = 12
Level 5 4d6+8 = 24

AC 16

So. Zero resources spent. The Monk is doing more average damage than both fighters, and has more AC than the Greatsword fighter. Since we have made this a battlemaster fighter, I'm going to make this an Open Hand monk.

Offense

Spending some ki for Flurry?
level 2 does 1d8+2d4+9 = 18.5
level 5 does 2d8+1d6+12 = 32

Also, since this is an Open hand, if the flurries hit, I can knock prone, push up to 10 ft or remove reactions. This are similar to three seperate manuevers for the battlemaster. So, let us assume the battlemaster used either Manuevering Attack (which allows one ally to move) Tripping attack (knock prone) or pushing attack (push 15 ft)

BM fighter Longsword+Shield and Dueling Style

Level 3 2d8+5 = 14
Level 5 4d8+10 = 28

Action Surge would make that 19 and 38. Action Surge and a die on every attack makes 28 and 56


BM Fighter Greatsword

Level 3 2d6+1d8+3 = 16.5
Level 5 4d6+2d8+8 = 33

Action surge would make that 22 and 46. Action Surge and a die on every attack makes 31 and 64

So, offensively, the monk using a single point of ki is better than the Sword and Board battlemaster using 1 or 2 dice. The S+B can barely catch up if they action surged instead before 5th level, and at fifth Action surge is superior to a single ki point

The GW does better. Behind with 1 die at 3rd, ahead with 2 die at 5th (by a single point on average). Action surging is superior again.


Defensively? Just for giggles.

The monk can bonus action dodge, which is an approximate +5 to AC to any number of attacks.

The Battlemaster has nothing comparable. The closest two they have is Parry which reduces the damage of a single attack (making it inferior) or Evasive Footwork, which increases AC while moving, meaning it is intended to be used against opportunity attacks. The Monk could just spend the ki to disengage instead though, which just cancels those attacks outright.


So. Superior damage to the Battlemaster with Shield. Superior Defenses to the Battlemaster with greatsword, and comparable damage unless the fighter is using action surge. Which they can do once. Also, while the BM has 4 dice for maneuvers, which is +4d8 total. The monk has between 3 and 5 ki. Which means they can keep up on the damage and the defense for a bit longer.

So. Tell me again how Monks have worse damage and worse AC than any BM Fighter? After all, the Sword and board drops his shield and pulls a second weapon? They lose their +2 to damage on each strike, and their superior AC, and are attacking for only d6+dex mod on their main had and d6 straight in their off-hand.

Lower hp? I'll give that to you.
Surpasssed at level 11? I'll give that to you as well.
But before level 11, the monk is not the inferior melee class.

Because the monk can not rely on the patient defense, it will be stuck with ranged weaponry (unless ready to take a risk). He will then be worst off than the melee characters, archers will have their higher damage with longbows beating what the monk can do. At higher level, the monk will be about the same as an archer. 1d10 +5, but the monk will lack magical bonuses from magic bow and arrows.

A) It isn't much of a risk, it is the same risk as the Greatsword fighter

B) Magic daggers are a thing

C) Monk matches longbow by level 11th in terms of damage dice. They would be less accurate than a dedicated ranged character, but monk at range is still better than a strength fighter or a paladin at range.

The monk will not be able to disengage freely (no Ki...). This means that moving in, attacking and moving out; will produce an OA, which can potentially be lethal to the monk if multiple enemies are in reach and if the monk is less than top HP (which is likely since the monk had no short rest).

1) Why yes, if the monk plays like an idiot and tries to move away from three or more enemies proccing multiple attacks of opportunity, they might be in trouble. Same with literally anyone.

2) Could produce an OA. There are a lot of factors there. Monk could end up killing that enemy, They could be a shadow monk (meaning they can teleport away in dim light). But, they are no worse off than the Paladin, Fighter or Ranger in this same scenario. A Greatsword fighter, low on hp, who runs back into melee is in trouble. And, likely more trouble than the monk, because their inferior movement options mean they likely can't get back out even if they kill the enemy.

Why are you presenting this like a uniquely monk problem?

 

[Esker]

Same. I don't say never but neither of my monks used Stunning Strike more than once per 10 combats or less. I do use FoB alot but SS not so much.

To be fair, clerics tend to look pretty much the same as each other in combat too (spirit guardians, spiritual weapon, turning undead, maybe the occasional blast/dispel magic, and either cantrips or weapon attacks). They differ based on the kinds of situational options they have, but that's about it. And they're an excellent class, if potentially a bit monotonous after awhile (of course, out of combat spellcasting utility helps with that). I wouldn't necessarily be criticizing monks if they had a thing they did and they were really good at that thing, but other than 'running really fast', I'm not convinced that there is a thing, or even an average of various things, that they do really well.

 

[Esker]

Information people like gets assimilated, that which they don't like is discarded; man, I wish there was a term for that.

Hard for me to tell whether the second half of this sentence is sarcastic (guessing yes, and if I'm right about that I'm going to look silly here). But "confirmation bias" is presumably the term you're looking for.

And that's exactly why we need quantitative analysis with transparent assumptions if we want to be able to convey ideas between people with different experiences. Because then someone can look at the assumptions, see if they seem to fit their table, and discount the analysis if they don't and the result is heavily reliant on them. And maybe plug in different assumptions that do fit their table, and see how it turns out there.

 

[Minigiant]

But what are those discussions? With whom?

Here.
Right here.

It's literally dozens of pages of DPR, SS, and mobility discussions.

Everyone is arging about numbers but no one is disagreeing on how monks are played. Except Asisreo.