Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8050444" data-attributes="member: 5889">So I have long thought Monks were weak (and have seen them in actual play at my table), and did take the time to watch the video.1) So on the defense and offense arguments... I think the math shows this well. Monks are just not good at this. One thing I wish Treantmonk had done was note that disadvantage on attacks is (in best circumstances) about a -5 to attacks....or a +5 to the enemy AC. This means that a 1st level monk using dodge as noted in the video would have an AC of 21....which is no higher than a 1st level defensive minded fighter....and that costs him KI!I would say that if the offensive baseline is a warlock using hex (a per short rest resource), than probably the fairest comparison would be a monk using 1-2 rounds of flurry of blows, to try and generate the equivalent per short rest expenditure. The fact he showed the baseline combined with unlimited flurry of blows was telling...but a way to seal the deal would be the absolute equivalency to your baseline with 2 flurries.2) I do think Treantmonk underestimates deflect missiles. One of the things that 5e assumes is that there is a brain behind the table...the DM. Part of a DMs job is to tailor encounters to allow his party to show off every so often. So I would fully expect a good DM running a table with a monk to use ranged attackers and allow the monk to show off his deflect missiles power.This is why the note about class "uniqueness" is important. If a class has a unique hook...a good dm can use it. But that is also why Treantmonk's points about "the monk is no more good at X than another class" are very important points.3) So ultimately I think Stunning Strike is the crux of the debate, and is the closest to the "tripping monkey" build he noted for the 3.5 monk.Now I think he did a good job showing that the chance to stun is not great. That said, if a monk at a table stuns the big bad and lets the party wail on that monster...he will become a legend. No amount of math will change that. So I can understand why people cling to this in their defense of the monk.Ultimately I agree with Treantmonk that spellcasters can still do it better. That said, few of them can do it 5 or more times every short rest (which is a monk focused solely on stunning can do). So that is a unique element to the monk that other classes don't have.In summary, I think the monk is a very poor class chassis that clings to a single ability (stunning strike) for any chance at combat effectiveness or unique "cinematic pizzazz". I do think a stunning strike focused monk is workable in a party where the DM is very generous with short rests. However...that's it....and that does not a good class make. The monk is a badly designed class.... it was in 2nd edition, in 3rd, and now again in 5th. They just can't seem to ever get it right.</blockquote>

Verification