D&D (2024) Playtest Packet 6: Monk reactions?

[Stalker0]

Okay, so the Fighter drops the shield, pulls out a Greatsword and does 2d6+3 which is 10 damage, and does 3 damage on a miss. Assuming a 60% chance to hit that ends up having monk and fighter look like this

Monk:
1d6+3 x 2 x0.6 = 7.8
1d4 x 0.6 = 1.5
Total = 9.3 damage

Fighter:
2d6+3 x0.6 = 6
3 x0.4 = 1.2
7.2 total.

That is only 33% less damage, and the fighter has the same AC, better hp, second wind AND THE DUELING FIGHTING STYLE.

Yes, with this single combo of handaxe and dagger, at level 1, a monk can make three attacks and that is very powerful. But with anything else not using the weapon mastery, they are going to drop behind. And as the levels climb, they start losing. And... they can't change tactics. Their tactics are baked into the class.

The monk is doing 29% more damage than the fighter (I’m showing it this way because that goes i did it before so just being consistent).

To put it in perspective, the flex mastery gives that dueling fighter with a long sword an effective 1 damage boost (from 9.5 to 10.5, though technically a little bit more with crits). That’s a 10.5% boost to damage, and people are calling flex “garbage”.

So there’s nothing small about a 29% boost in damage.

Now is the fighter more flexible in their combat options, absolutely. I mean they are supposed to be the master of combat, I would hope so.

But people act like this monk is bad at combat at low levels…and that is demonstrably false. It’s not until 5th level or so that you start to see it’s decline.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I at least hope they get unarmed attacks magic items from the start this time.

Agreed. The lack of feats and magic items monks can use is also a big deal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The monk is doing 29% more damage than the fighter (I’m showing it this way because that goes i did it before so just being consistent).

To put it in perspective, the flex mastery gives that dueling fighter with a long sword an effective 1 damage boost (from 9.5 to 10.5, though technically a little bit more with crits). That’s a 10.5% boost to damage, and people are calling flex “garbage”.

So there’s nothing small about a 29% boost in damage.

Okay, so a 29% boost is enough for you to balance the Fighter having the same AC and effectively 288% more hit points (can't forget Second Wind after all)

Is a 16% boost enough for that difference? Because that's a fighter that is dual-wielding like the monk.

And remember, we aren't talking about a generic monk, we are talking about a maximally optimized monk using weapon masteries to make two bonus action attacks. Something that may well be patched and prevented because it is out-of-line. If we go with a more standard monk, say a player who believes that they should be an unarmed combatant and just uses their fists then they are getting numbers of 8% and 0% of a damage boost.

Now is the fighter more flexible in their combat options, absolutely. I mean they are supposed to be the master of combat, I would hope so.

But people act like this monk is bad at combat at low levels…and that is demonstrably false. It’s not until 5th level or so that you start to see it’s decline.

I have not been trying to say that monks are "bad at combat" at level 1. I've been trying to say that monks don't get any real features at level one to balance out what they lose. They are still able to be quite effective as long as they don't get hit. That is my frustration.

Monk damage starts dropping from top of the line to mid-tier between levels 5 and 9, and then by level 11 they are doing FAR too little damage. And yes, the increase of +1 per attack is helping a little with that. But deeper problems remain.

Unarmored Defense and Martial Arts = Medium Armor Proficiency and Dual-Wielding Fighting Style. If a DM allows Fighting Style feats at level one, then literally any class can match the baseline of a monk with their fists. Some of them would exceed the monk easily with that. And, frankly, I don't find Medium Armor Proficiency and Dual-Wielding enough for a class at level 1. Every class that has those features gets more.

And once you hit level two? As currently set up you may get two rounds of combat in a day where you feel like you are doing something the Fighter Dual-wielder isn't doing. This isn't a complaint about damage, it is a complaint about class identity. They need more, because they can't deliver on the class fantasy.

Personally? I'm leaning towards level 1 they get points, Step of the Wind, and a d10 HD. It lets them be far more comfortable in melee, since they will start with 11 hp, and they start off with an iconic part of their kit. Mobility. Wouldn't touch their damage at level 1, just give them something NO ONE else can do.

 

[Clint_L]

Survivability is not even close, even if the monk puts all their resources into patient defence.

Let's put them both up against an orc at level 2. Fighter has AC 18 and a longsword; 23 HP (assuming 16/16 str/con) +8 for second wind, so 31 total. Monk has AC 16, axe, dagger, 15 HP (assuming 16/16/13 dex/wis/con). We'll leave mastery out of it. They'll use all their resources.

The orc will do 3.6 DPR against the fighter, needing about 9 rounds to kill him. The fighter kills the orc on the second round, action surging on the first.

The orc will do only 2.25 DPR for the first two rounds against the monk, then 4.5 after that. So they would need 5 rounds to kill the monk; only 4 without patient defence. But the monk doing patient defence for those two rounds would do just 5.85 damage in each of those those first two rounds, then kills the orc on the third.

If the monk uses their resources for flurry, they kill the orc on the second round, just like the fighter, but suffer the same damage to their significantly smaller HP pool.

So if both use their resources, the best case scenario for the monk is winning in two rounds while losing a third of their HP if they win initiative, two thirds if they don't. The fighter also wins in two rounds, losing about 11% of their HP pool if they win initiative, 22% if they don't.

You can see where this is going...what if there are two orcs? If there are two orcs, that's fine - the fighter wins in 5 rounds, losing about 25 HP in the process. The monk is dead in round 3.

 

[Clint_L]

We also can't discuss monks without discussing magic items. Most martial classes have a lot of options of armour, shields, and weapons. Monks have very few options (thank goodness for bracers of defence, at least), particularly for enhancing their DPR. So this just exacerbates them falling behind as they level, especially in a magic heavy campaign.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We also can't discuss monks without discussing magic items. Most martial classes have a lot of options of armour, shields, and weapons. Monks have very few options (thank goodness for bracers of defence, at least), particularly for enhancing their DPR. So this just exacerbates them falling behind as they level, especially in a magic heavy campaign.

Mini-rant

Bracers of Defense have always annoyed the crap out of me since I realized they are essentially shields that cost attunement for classes that can't wear armor.

You can wear armor and have a high ac? Costs you 10 gp to +2 AC

You can't wear armor and traditionally are considered low AC? Well, that's an attunement slot to get +2 AC. I get that it is a shield that leaves both hands free... but the people using it can't use shields in almost all cases. The only one who can is the Barbaria, who generally offers advantage to being hit and doesn't care about AC as much.

 

[Stalker0]

If the monk uses their resources for flurry, they kill the orc on the second round, just like the fighter, but suffer the same damage to their significantly smaller HP pool.

So against an orc the monk hits 65% of the time, criting 5%.

So the damage is:

1d6 + 3, 1d6 +3x2 (with flurry), 1d4 as base damage.

6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05 + 6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05 + 2.5 * .6 + 5 * .05 + 6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05
3.9 + .5 + 3.9 + .5 + 1.5 + .25 + 3.9 + .5 = 11.7 + 1.5 = 14.95

So while on average the monk will need 2 rounds to kill the orc, almost 50% of the time they are killing them in one round, most more often than the fighter can do.

 

[Clint_L]

So against an orc the monk hits 65% of the time, criting 5%.

So the damage is:

1d6 + 3, 1d6 +3x2 (with flurry), 1d4 as base damage.

6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05 + 6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05 + 2.5 * .6 + 5 * .05 + 6.5 * .6 + 10 * .05
3.9 + .5 + 3.9 + .5 + 1.5 + .25 + 3.9 + .5 = 11.7 + 1.5 = 14.95

So while on average the monk will need 2 rounds to kill the orc, almost 50% of the time they are killing them in one round, most more often than the fighter can do.

Yes, I was going with averages. On average, the monk using flurry can do very good damage at low levels. They can almost keep up with a raging barbarian, even. For a couple rounds.

But my post was actually focused on survivability, which you don’t address.

And that’s the issue - the monk has to blow through their resources to be competitive with other martials in one sphere of combat, neglecting the other. Offence or defence. Though even with patient defence their survivability is low - their AC and HP just can’t keep up.

And I was being gentle by using a fighter. It’s worse with paladin or barbarian or moon Druid.

Someone please explain the niche the monk is expected to fill. Why do you want one in your party?

 

[Asisreo]

Survivability is not even close, even if the monk puts all their resources into patient defence.

I'm going to ignore the fact that common sense would say that the monk would kite the orcs with a light crossbow and use the slow mastery to prevent them from coming closer. (Orc's BA move would only give them 40ft and monks can move 40ft naturally).

If I was the monk, I'd use the mace's mastery to save on Ki since in this scenario, its the same thing.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm going to ignore the fact that common sense would say that the monk would kite the orcs with a light crossbow and use the slow mastery to prevent them from coming closer. (Orc's BA move would only give them 40ft and monks can move 40ft naturally).

Truly the playstyle of a Monk.

If I was the monk, I'd use the mace's mastery to save on Ki since in this scenario, its the same thing.

Again, incredibly Monkish to be whacking people with maces.

I feel like this speaks to how Weapon Masteries are not where they need to be that it's better for the Monk in these scenarios to just rely on weapons than their class features. It really needs some sort of "activation" of some sort rather than just "on-hit".