D&D 5E My Response to the "Monk Sucks" thread

[Chaosmancer]

In the last few weeks, Treantmonk posted a video about the inadequacies of the monk class, which was discussed in this forum thread: 5E - Monks Suck

I’ve taken some time to really read through the thread and the video. I’ll admit that before the thread I had generally considered the monk a “poor” class due to my own play experience with them (dming a player who tried a monk). However, after some consideration, I have changed some of my opinions, and wanted to share where I have wound up.

A note on Levels: One key element of my discussion, I am only going to focus on levels 1-10. WOTC data has routinely shown that this is where players play, high level is…for most players, merely a theoretical exercise. Now that does not forgive any bad class designs at high levels, but I commonly see people extending high level issues into more general class problems…which is not productive in discussion as to whether a class is a good fit for the “general table”.

A summary of the argument: Treatmonk’s video makes 4 general points about the monk class. I will be arguing for or against these points.

• Offense: The monk’s offense is poor against a general “baseline” of damage, even with good use of flurry of blows.
• Defense: The monk simply does not have the hitpoints and AC to serve as a frontline class.
• Control: Stunning blow’s success rate is too low to be considered real control, and its effect does not compare to the controls of spellcasters.
• Maneuverability: Because of its weakness in other areas, the monk’s maneuverability does not grant it any real benefit. Further, other characters can gain similar speed through things like mounts.

Offense (Disagree)

I did my own DPS analysis here: 5E - Monk vs Warlock: Checking the Baseline

I’ve also read several other analyses as well. From what I can see, the Monk does plenty of DPS, both with and without flurry of blows. It all comes down to the types of enemies the DM uses, and the frequency of short rests. That as close to a balance we can expect.

A lot of the DPS arguments extend into high levels, and I do think there are some issues there. But looking at the levels of interest, the Monk has no issue.

Defense (Agree)

Treantmonk was right that the Monk’s lack of AC and hit points are a major detriment to tanking damage. The dodge power only really gets the monk back to the baseline, at the cost of very precious KI resources.

I will add one more component that Treantmonk did not discuss. The main frontlines (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger) don’t just rely on “defense” but also on “damage mitigation”. The barbarian straight up reduces damage. The rest have abilities and/or spells that heal damage. Also, there higher hit die allows them to recover more hp on a short rest.

Only the 6th level open hand monk gets such an ability. So not only does the monk take more damage, but it also generates a greater burden on the party’s healing resources because he doesn’t come with his own.

So ultimately, I think this is a key weakness of the monk. My one counterargument is the deflect missiles ability. Treantmonk dismissed this ability a bit, but it’s a great lever for the DM to pull. It’s a way to make the monk “defensively cool”, which is a key aspect of balance. I don’t think it makes up for the general lack, but it’s not a “throwaway power”, the DM can absolutely use it to make the Monk feel special.

Control (Partially Agree)

Treantmonk’s points about the chance of success are correct. Compared to a spell powered by a caster’s best stat…. against a creature’s weaker save (as caster’s will most certainly do), the stun effect is hard to pull off. Further, when you look at the menagerie of conditions spellcasters can pull off, its fair that a simple stun is just decent.

That said, I think he underestimated the power of the “Stun Nova”, which is a repeated argument defender of the Stun use. The ability to apply a stun chance 2, 3, or even 4 times against a key monster is a strength most casters can’t pull off…and players really enjoy it.

Further, players also really like the ability to do full damage AND apply control effects, it works with the battlemaster and it works with the monk.

So ultimately, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I think players overestimate the strength of stunning strike. But ultimately dnd is a game of psychology, and the ability to nova and stun a big bad and let the whole party wail on them…it makes you feel like a million bucks no matter what the math might say.

Maneuverability (Disagree)

I think this is where the white room analysis fails to account for the myriad of things that happen in a Dnd game. Even if we accept that the Monk is not a greater damage dealer (which I am arguing against but let’s assume it for the sake of argument), there are so many more things that happen in a combat than the simple application of damage.

Running past the guards and saving a hostage, getting to the key lever to turn off the trap, racing a lifesaving potion to a fallen comrade…there are many things that a creative player can do with great speed. These are moments where a Monk player feels special, much more than simply “moving up and hitting the monster”.

As to the argument that all players can simply ride horses…. well I think that’s a pretty laughable argument at best. I have never run or played in a game where everyone rode horses all the time, and horses are incredibly impractical in any kind of dungeon setting.

So overall maneuverability is a useful lever to make a character feel special, and the monk has good use of it.

Other Factors

There are a few other factors that are important to an overall assessment of the monk not talked about in the Treantmonk video.

Rigidity

One real issue with the monk is it is extremely pigeonholed as a class…for no good reason. Why is it so important that a monk can’t wear armor, if he takes the feats or multiclass to get it? Why must the monk use a quarterstaff to do real damage until such a high level?

For example, a rogue could abandon dex, get heavier armor with feats or multiclass, and go for a “brawler” type. Now it may not be optimal, but it’s possible. If you attempted the equivalent with the monk, it would fall off a cliff.

Lack of Combat Options

The older monks were commonly known for “special tactics”. The grapple monk, the trip monk, etc. While the monk can take athletics, without a class use for strength you are not going to see a monk with a lot of strength, and so they will be weak in those areas. A rogue can actually be a better grappler than the monk!

I think this is a key weakness in 5e monk.

Final Thoughts

So overall, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that the Monk class is not as bad as I once thought. There is still much to like about the class. That said, the class is not perfect, and I do think updates (similar to what happened to the ranger) are warranted to fix some of the rough edges. But again…its adjustments, not an overhaul.

This is a very good analysis, but when I got to your rigidity section, I thought you were going to talk about something else, that was very much overlooked in a lot of the monk discussion for a while.


The Monk that boosts AC is also the Monk that boosts damage, and also the monk that has access to high mobility and stunning strike. (has access to, not bumping)

In other words, a lot of the time the monk was being compared defensively to a sword and board fighter with defensive, and offensively to a GW Fighter (usually sans feat, but sometimes with PAM), and while the monk may fall behind both fighters within their speciality it bears remembering that this is the same monk being compared.

They do not need to decide between increasing their defenses and increasing their offense.

Combine that with the fact that the discussion rarely brought in the subclass options (treantmonk ignored the subclasses entirely) which also offer some very solid benefits, and you have a lot more nuance than people were discussing.

 

[Seramus]

Rigidity is the one issue I really struggle with. I like imagining many different builds with each class. The trade offs, the incentives, etc.

Monks are so locked into Dex/Wis it blocks almost every alternative build outside of Tortles.

 

[Undrave]

That's not the monk's role. The monk is a hybrid. A fast moving PC that can replace a rogue, a controller, or melee fighter. Not the best at any of those, but decent and can hold their own in all of those.

As a Monk player myself I never feel comfortable in melee. In a party with a Barbarian and a Paladin, when something hits me... it hits like a friggin' TRUCK because the DM is used to PC with huge HP that can take a hit. I have 18 in both DEX and WIS and I still feel like I'm way too easy to hit, and when it happens I am assured I'll have to spend 2 Hit Dice or more. For ONE hit.

Maybe if the Monk had all the features of 'Mobile' baked into the class it's low HP would make sense, but as it is, it really should have been a D10 class.

This is a very good analysis, but when I got to your rigidity section, I thought you were going to talk about something else, that was very much overlooked in a lot of the monk discussion for a while.


The Monk that boosts AC is also the Monk that boosts damage, and also the monk that has access to high mobility and stunning strike. (has access to, not bumping)

In other words, a lot of the time the monk was being compared defensively to a sword and board fighter with defensive, and offensively to a GW Fighter (usually sans feat, but sometimes with PAM), and while the monk may fall behind both fighters within their speciality it bears remembering that this is the same monk being compared.

They do not need to decide between increasing their defenses and increasing their offense.

Combine that with the fact that the discussion rarely brought in the subclass options (treantmonk ignored the subclasses entirely) which also offer some very solid benefits, and you have a lot more nuance than people were discussing.

The Monk suffers from the 'Jack of All Trade, Master of None' symdrome, and that all these options are based on a SUPER limited ressource. If it was just a matter of stance, it would be different. As it is, you need to spend ki to be any good at what the other guys can be good at effortlessly and at-will. I think the boosts the Monk gets from Ki are over-valued in the class' balance and the Ki-less Monk chassis could use a boost.

 

[Undrave]

Rigidity is the one issue I really struggle with. I like imagining many different builds with each class. The trade offs, the incentives, etc.

Monks are so locked into Dex/Wis it blocks almost every alternative build outside of Tortles.

And apparently their specialty is 'jump in the back line and attack the enemy caster', a SUPER narrow niche that is not always necessary.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Re Defense. A monk's defensive capability is directly linked to their mobility. A monk should rarely be in a position where it can be attacked in melee; if the BBEG melee brute is able to hit you, particularly with multiple attacks, either on your turn or its own, frankly, you're doing monking wrong. A monk's defense is built on not being accessible. You know, like the rogue and arcane spellcasters.

And with Deflect Arrows, a monk is reasonably well protected against ranged attacks.

But I agree, by around 8th level, they really need Bracers of Defence or Cloak/Ring of Protection to boost AC.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Chaosmancer]

As a Monk player myself I never feel comfortable in melee. In a party with a Barbarian and a Paladin, when something hits me... it hits like a friggin' TRUCK because the DM is used to PC with huge HP that can take a hit. I have 18 in both DEX and WIS and I still feel like I'm way too easy to hit, and when it happens I am assured I'll have to spend 2 Hit Dice or more. For ONE hit.

Maybe if the Monk had all the features of 'Mobile' baked into the class it's low HP would make sense, but as it is, it really should have been a D10 class.

I could see that, but they are supposed to be more like the Rogue anyways.

The Monk suffers from the 'Jack of All Trade, Master of None' syndrome, and that all these options are based on a SUPER limited resource. If it was just a matter of stance, it would be different. As it is, you need to spend ki to be any good at what the other guys can be good at effortlessly and at-will. I think the boosts the Monk gets from Ki are over-valued in the class' balance and the Ki-less Monk chassis could use a boost.

No.

I showed this repeatedly in the last thread. Unless you are talking past level 10, or you are including a -5/+10 feat like GWM then the monk's at-will, no ki damage is comparable to a greatsword wielding fighter, and only a little bit behind that of a PAM Fighter (I think monk was 24.5 and PAM Fighter was 26.5)

I don't know why people have this perception that monk damage is bad at low levels unless they spend Ki. It is just not true unless you are investing a lot into your damage on the other side.

I will agree, every monk except the Kensei needs to spend Ki to have the same defense as the Sword and Board fighter, but you might only be 1 AC behind the Greatsword fighter in plate mail until level 8 (if you focus on Dex) and are equivalent from then on out.

But, if by level 8, I have the same AC and damage output as Generic Fighter in Platemail weilding a Greatsword, with zero Ki spent, then I don't understand how my defense and damage "lags behind" what the fighter can do at-will and effortlessly.

 

[Helldritch]

It is very simple. Psychology. The monk has to spend Ki to do its special abilities. Not the fighter, no the rogue and not even the EB warlock or cantrip using casters. It is not that the monk is weak, it's the perception that Ki is always in short supply, especially if the DM does not allow short rest. I said it in the other thread.

With the monk, it is: "I want to use my cool stuff. But I can't, I have no more Ki."

Not using your cool moves makes you appear weak whatever the numbers are saying, whatever the evidences that are thrown in your face. No cool stuff to do = weak. That this is wrong is of no consequence. It is as simple as that. (I wish I could have explained it this way in the other thread.)

 

[Undrave]

I showed this repeatedly in the last thread. Unless you are talking past level 10, or you are including a -5/+10 feat like GWM then the monk's at-will, no ki damage is comparable to a greatsword wielding fighter, and only a little bit behind that of a PAM Fighter (I think monk was 24.5 and PAM Fighter was 26.5)

I don't know why people have this perception that monk damage is bad at low levels unless they spend Ki. It is just not true unless you are investing a lot into your damage on the other side.

The thing is, the Monk doesn't HAVE the option to invest more into Damage. It has no GWM feat or PAM feat, and barely any magic item support. There's nowhere to go with your Monk's damage.

I will agree, every monk except the Kensei needs to spend Ki to have the same defense as the Sword and Board fighter, but you might only be 1 AC behind the Greatsword fighter in plate mail until level 8 (if you focus on Dex) and are equivalent from then on out.

But, if by level 8, I have the same AC and damage output as Generic Fighter in Platemail weilding a Greatsword, with zero Ki spent, then I don't understand how my defense and damage "lags behind" what the fighter can do at-will and effortlessly.

That Greatsword Fighter only needs to invest in STR to have that AC... The same stat he's using to attack with. Then his second highest stat is probably gonna be CON. Couple that CON with the d10 Hit Die AND the Second Wind feature and the Fighter has a signficantly greater pool of HP to soak up damage with. And then that Fighter can pick whatever he wants as a third stat! Want to be INT focus? CHA focus? WIS focus? Pick whatever... The Monk is railroaded into DEX and WIS and probably will want CON in third place otherwise, to quote someone up there, they fall off a cliff.

The fighter offers more build option, despite not being as flexible at the table, than the Monk, and its subclasses are generally more solid too (some of them are awfully boring though).

The Monk does have the advantage of better saves than the Fighter, but the Fighter gets more Feat with which to mitigate any potential weakness (let's all be honest, you only need 3 good saves, the other three are basically ribbon).

I feel like the Monk feels too much like a Warlock and not enough like an Arcane Trickster or an Eldritch Knight. Their at-will core should be stronger than what it is now.

The Ki options are generally good, but if you take a subclass that gives you more options to spend on (but no extra ressource to spend on them), it becomes incredibly HARD to manage your points effectively.

And for a class that's presented as being all about punching stuff and using your body as a deadly weapon, I feel like it's got a very narrow range of optimal applicaton and a very high skill floor that feels at odd with the fluff.

 

[see]

Then his second highest stat is probably gonna be CON. Couple that CON with the d10 Hit Die AND the Second Wind feature and the Fighter has a signficantly greater pool of HP to soak up damage with.

Don't forget that at 8th level, the greatsword fighter got his third ASI. Since he's not using feats (otherwise he'd grab GWM), he already maxed out his Str at 6th level, so ASI #3 went into Con. The sort of threat the fighter can stand against, the monk is using his ki and movement and bonus action to keep pulling away from, lest he die. Which is fine from one perspective; the monk can do that to keep up, and he can use the ki other ways in different fights.

But the big thing here is that the defense of the monk comes down to, "Monks are fine through Tier 2, if you don't use feats or magic items". That, to me, sure looks like an admission that "Monks lag a bit in Tier 2, unless you're fighting single-BBEGs to stunlock."

 

[Flamestrike]

Don't forget that at 8th level, the greatsword fighter got his third ASI. Since he's not using feats (otherwise he'd grab GWM), he already maxed out his Str at 6th level, so ASI #3 went into Con. The sort of threat the fighter can stand against, the monk is using his ki and movement and bonus action to keep pulling away from, lest he die.

Assuming human, 8th Level:

---------------

Fighter (full plate, Greatsword, GW style, Champion, no feats) S:20, D 13, C18, W10, I 8, Ch 8.

Combat: Init +3, AC 18, HP: 84. Move 30' - Attack +9, 2d6(rr1-2)+5 (x2) -19-20 Crit (Avg damage 27)

Saves: Str +9, Con +8. (Dex +1, Wisdom +0, Int -1, Cha -1)

Skills: Athletics +9, Perception +4 (Passive 14), Insight +4, Intimidate +3, (Stealth +3 - disadvantage), Acrobatics +3, Sleight of Hand +3 from Remarkable athlete)

Special: Action surge, Fighting style (GWS), Improved Crit, Remarkable athlete, Second wind 1d10+8
--------
Monk (Staff, Daggers (shuriken), OHM, no feats) S:10, D 20, C14, W16, I 8, Ch 8.

Combat: Init +5, AC 18, HP: 67, Move 45' Attack +9, 1d8+5 (x2) and 1d6+5, (Avg damage 25.5)

Saves: Str +4, Dex+9. (Con +3, Wisdom +3, Int -1, Cha -1)

Skills: Acrobatics +9, Stealth +9 (Passive 19), Perception +7, Insight +7

Special: Ki (8 ki), Stunning fist (DC 15), deflect missiles, Slow fall, Ki empowered strikes, Evasion, Stillness of Mind, Open Hand technique, Wholeness of Body (heal 24)

------------------

Defensively:

AC is the same. The Fighter has 17 more HP so a slight advantage there. Second Wind is effectively 1 extra lot of 13.5 HP 1/ short rest. The Monk however has Ki Dodge, Evasion, Deflect arrows, Slow fall and Stillness of Mind up its sleeve so that largely cancels that advantage out. Saves are roughly equal, with the Monk exceeding on Dex saves (plus evasion) and slightly better Wis saves, but the Fighter having better Con saves. Result: In a straight up slug fest the Fighter has the advantage, but vs Missile weapons, AoE effects, falling damage and Mental effects and conditions, the Monk has the advantage. - Par.

Skills:

Win for the Monk. The Monk outclasses the Fighter in the most important skill in the game in Perception (unlikely To be surprised) and Stealth (likely to obtain surprise). Athletics and Acrobatics are largely a wash. Result: Monk win.

Offence:

The Fighter does slightly more (1.5) 'at will' damage with an at will 19-20 crit range. He also has action surge 1/ short rest. The Monk has 8 Ki points to flurry (increasing his damage, and triggering OH Technique) and/or to Stun with. Assuming no magic items, the Monk has a huge advantage with Ki empowered strikes defeating resistance to non magical damage that is common at this level. Result Par.

Manoeuvrability:

The Monk is literally 50 percent faster than the Fighter at will, and can spend a Ki point to run along walls and Dash as as a bonus action. Result: Monk win.

Even if you strip out Action Surge, Second Wind, Ki points and Wholeness of Body healing (resource reliant things) the Monk is still ahead.