Is it just me or does Monk suck...again?

[MustacheFart]

Just got my copy of the 5th ed PHB yesterday and I've been reading over the different classes.

The monk one seems...dissappointing. It appears that they gave them a lot of what they had in 3rd ed but took away stuff as well (which really shouldn't have happened because they sucked even with what they had) but didn't give them that much in return.

For instance, their flurry is now two bonus action attacks which must be unarmed (not even monk weapon accord to how it is written). They only get two regular attacks. The Open Hand archetype doesn't seem like it adds much. The Shadow hand or whatever seems like cool but once again mostly fluff. The elemental one is interesting but if you're a class focusing on martial arts do you really need so many elemental attacks? Would more utility/buff spells not be a better choice?

It really just seems like they kept some fluff, added some fluff but didn't add much punch (pun intended).

Hell, just looking over the fighter classit would appear that I could make a Champion path Fighter who uses the quarterstaff that would be a better Monk than the Monk class. Great Weapon Fighting & Two Weapon Fighting Styles + Improved critical (18-20) + 4 attacks by 20 to the Monk's 2 (not counting flurry) + that surge ability to attack another 4 times.

I am not expecting the Monk to be super badass but it just feels like it falls short. It is dissappointing because I am starting a game soon and was looking at Monk for character concept. I am finding it hard to resist the call of fighter or even barbarian.

Thoughts?

[MeeposFire]

I think there is a lot in the monk class that is easy to miss. I don't own the book yet so I can only give you a few things I noticed.

1. Monks can attack with a bonus action and I think it is for full damage. Flurry essentially boosts it to two. I don't think the lack of using a weapon for that attack will mean much considering that you were likely using your martial arts damage anyway.

2. You get prof in all saving throws which is nice from what I understand.

I think the monk has better general defenses than the fighter but does not have quite the nova potential due to fighter access to action surge. I think the monk may end up being more versatile in more situations as well. The fighter is mostly a beat them up only type but the monk has some abilities that have some use outside of hitting hard.

Unfortunately without more time I can't give more to answer than that yet.

[Edge of Dreams]

Unarmed strike still gets your full dex or str bonus to damage even on flurry, unlike base twf, and it does scale the die size as well.

Way of Open Hand gets to knock a foe down then continue to attack with advantage, or knock foes across the room to create a nice group for the wizard to AoE.

5e movement rules allow you to move between attacks. Add on the Mobile feat and you can dance across the battle-field slapping down multiple foes.

Deflect Missiles, Stunning Strike, Evasion, proficiency in all saves at 14, all great abilities.

In my mind, Monks are better than they've ever been (excluding 4e, which I consider too different to compare directly).

[Edge of Dreams]

Also it is unfair to compare a fighter's limited use Action Surge to a Monk WITHOUT his limited use flurry. It's like saying a Cleric casting Flame Strike is a better AoE damage dealer than a wizard who has no spells.

And don't forget a level 17 Open Hand Monk can kill you with Quivering Palm no matter how much hp you have.

[akaddk]

Yes, it's just you.

[Noldo]

WOTC clearly decided that Monk's niche is unarmed combat and their abilities, especially flurry are made to reinforce and enable that role. Thus it should not be too surprising if Fighter, the master of weapon combat, surpasses monk in fight with if both are using weapons.

The overall increasea fluidity of 5e combet (move-attack-move) also in itself addresses some problems of the (3e) monk, although that applies to all martial classes.

[MustacheFart]

Also it is unfair to compare a fighter's limited use Action Surge to a Monk WITHOUT his limited use flurry. It's like saying a Cleric casting Flame Strike is a better AoE damage dealer than a wizard who has no spells.

And don't forget a level 17 Open Hand Monk can kill you with Quivering Palm no matter how much hp you have.

Fair enough on the Action Surge vs no flurry. But even with flurry that is two extra attacks versus potentially 4 from the fighter.

Also Quivering Palm does not necessarily kill an enemy. It CAN but it all it really does is:

As written:

The creature must make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, it is reduced to 0 hit points. If it succeeds, it takes 10d10 necrotic damage.

So I don't give that much weight as you don't get it until very high level. What are the odds an enemy will fail a con save at that high of a level? Also you better hope you're face to face with it because if you try to do that cool thing of kill him while he's on the ****ter...good luck. It only reduces him to 0 so he could still survive rather easily.

[MustacheFart]

and it does scale the die size as well.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I am not following.

[Angelalex242]

I think Monks generally are happiest with their elemental powers, doing their best Avatar impression, or their best planeteer impression.

[HorridElemental]

Fair enough on the Action Surge vs no flurry. But even with flurry that is two extra attacks versus potentially 4 from the fighter.

Also Quivering Palm does not necessarily kill an enemy. It CAN but it all it really does is:

As written:

The creature must make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, it is reduced to 0 hit points. If it succeeds, it takes 10d10 necrotic damage.

So I don't give that much weight as you don't get it until very high level. What are the odds an enemy will fail a con save at that high of a level? Also you better hope you're face to face with it because if you try to do that cool thing of kill him while he's on the ****ter...good luck. It only reduces him to 0 so he could still survive rather easily.

Monsters are not PCs, when they hit 0 you either knock them out or kill them (player's choice). 10d10 on a passed save is still pretty intense, if you think the enemy will pass the save wait until you wear it down and then hit with a quivering palm.

[Edge of Dreams]

Can you explain what you mean by this? I am not following.

I mean the damage die for your unnarmed attacks gets bigger as you level up.

[MeeposFire]

WOTC clearly decided that Monk's niche is unarmed combat and their abilities, especially flurry are made to reinforce and enable that role. Thus it should not be too surprising if Fighter, the master of weapon combat, surpasses monk in fight with if both are using weapons.

The overall increasea fluidity of 5e combet (move-attack-move) also in itself addresses some problems of the (3e) monk, although that applies to all martial classes.

To be fair a monk using weapons isn't really much different than one not using weapons. Each does the same damage (due to martial arts) and eventually base damage for them is greater than most other weapons (or all weapons I don't have a copy to look at right now). Only difference may be magic weapons but there may be wys to get that type of bonus damage with unarmed attacks in this edition in which case I don't see any major distinction in damage for unarmed and weapon use.

[Grynning]

I think monks are fairly solid in this edition. They are the only class that can get multiple attacks without dual wielding at early levels, their damage is about on par with the ranger, and their path options let them fill party gaps (open hand for front line warrior, shadow for sneaky guy, elemental for blaster), which I think puts them above the ranger for overall utility. Their movement isn't a wasted feature like it was in 3.5 due to the changes in the action economy, and they are still very survivable (they are the only class that gets proficiency with every saving throw, for instance, which is very relevant now). Still not my first choice when I want to play a melee character, I will take Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian every time just because I like doing tons of damage, but it appeals to people who want to play something a little quirky.

If I had to rank the non spellcaster classes in order for 5E in terms of usefulness, I'd go:
1) Paladin
2) Rogue and Fighter
3) Barbarian and Monk
4) Ranger

[Edge of Dreams]

Another way to think of it is that Monk doesn't suck - the Fighter class is just really freaking strong this edition. No other martial character can beat a Fighter's single-round nova damage potential at level 20 (spending action surge + all your superiority dice with a greatsword can net around 140 damage average if all attacks hit) as far as I know.

Comparing straight damage numbers across different classes is also good way to drive yourself nuts. There's a good reason most classes this edition have some high damage build options and some lower damage options with a lot more utility.

[Surrealistik]

Stunning Strike and Patient Defense spam are _insanely_ good and the former ultimately has higher DCs than maxed out casters. Several DC 20 Con saves made the same turn are pretty likely to result in a failure, even for those monsters with strong Con save bonuses. During the alpha playtest, my Monk managed to turn no-chance encounters vs over-leveled opponents into winnable ones via Stunning Strike stunlock chains. For what it costs, Stunning Strike is definitely overpowered.

Early Monk gets more attacks than anyone.

Mid to late Monks have the best saves in the game, the ability to reroll saves, the above said spam, Evasion, a bunch of useful immunities, the ability to shake off charm/fear and Flight/Stoneskin without component costs as well as several powerful spells as encounter powers.

The only thing that really disappoints about the Monk is its capstone; laughably pathetic, especially as compared to its peers.

[MustacheFart]

Another way to think of it is that Monk doesn't suck - the Fighter class is just really freaking strong this edition. No other martial character can beat a Fighter's single-round nova damage potential at level 20 (spending action surge + all your superiority dice with a greatsword can net around 140 damage average if all attacks hit) as far as I know.

Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Hell, even the "martial arts" feature of Monk which let's monks do full damage on bonus attacks can be had easily with the fighters style "Two Weapon Fighting" at 1st level. The fighter is mainly what I was pitting the monk against and that class just possessed many of the same features/tricks/abilities as the monk but continues building monumentally beyond that.




Comparing straight damage numbers across different classes is also good way to drive yourself nuts. Very sound logic there, thank you. I've been driving myself nuts.

I've been out of gaming for a while and finally am getting back into it with some friends playing 5th ed. It's going to be a huge party (6+ players) so I hate to be the guy that sucks up a storm.



Still not my first choice when I want to play a melee character, I will take Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian every time just because I like doing tons of damage, but it appeals to people who want to play something a little quirky.

Yeah, it's this same sentiment that has me leery about playing a monk. I was taught to be an optimizer/cheeser/min-maxer/munchiner years ago and I still possess a real urge to do lots of damage as much as I try to resist it lol. My first time playing 5th ed (this coming game with be my second) I played an Actor Charlatan Sorcerer and man the practically free metamagic feats sure made that a crapload of fun. Though admittedly not because of combat as I took Subtle Spell and pretty much ran off with the big loot by myself. I'm in disguise and my own party ties me up with the big bad guy then leaves to deal with something else. Three spells for ultimate victory and loss to everyone else: subtle spell Prestidigitation to get rid of guard, subtle spell reduce person to escape ropes, and fly to leave with the loot lol. Anyway, I went off on a tangent.

I'm actually thinking about multiclassing Barbarian and Monk. The idea appeals to me out of 3.5's retarded class prereqs against such a combo. Also my thoughts are as follows:

3 Barb/17 Monk

Take path of the Totem Warrior Barb and bear totem.

Gain from Barb:
Rage - Extra damage when I attack with Strength.
Resistance (to all but psychic damage when raging)(1/2 damage seems huge to me)
Uncanny Dodge
Advantage on all melee attacks made using strength

I wish you could replace the strength requirement with dex for barbarian. Monk says you can swap strength for dex but I don't think it would work with barbarian abilities that explicitly mention attacking with strength. Anyone know?

Then go Way of the Four Elements with Monk for some casting fun.

The idea being an Aztec/Inca Warrior who completely zens out in battle while using elemental abilities of his God. I dunno.

[Surrealistik]

Barb dip for Uncanny Dodge and Bear Rage (and pretty much exclusively for the Resist All) is always solid; I approve.

Fighter by contrast offers +2 damage to all of your damage rolls (Duelist) plus the Action Surge, so it's basically a question of offense vs defense.

[MustacheFart]

Barb dip for Uncanny Dodge and Bear Rage (and pretty much exclusively for the Resist All) is always solid; I approve.

Fighter by contrast offers +2 damage to all of your damage rolls (Duelist) plus the Action Surge, so it's basically a question of offense vs defense.

Exactly... Man I wish the unarmored defenses stacked. Stupid line in back of phb says you can't get it from two even though one adds wisdom the other adds con.

My thought is with going 2 fighter I draw a lot more attention (in possibly a bad way) when i am nuking using action surge at every chance I get. However, making myself more durable doesn't quite draw the eye or make it unfun for anyone else (as it could be if I am doing far more damage etc). In past experience I've drawn less dm aggro from defensive moves versus overtly offensive ones.

[CyberThread]

The thing about the monk is, if you truely think they need a fix, all you have to do is give them more KI points.

[DireSickFish]

The Monk is great and fills a different role than a fighter as people have said. His mobility is crazy high, especially since he can take disengage and dash actions as bonus actions by spending 1 KI. This makes him very hard to lock down so he can be on top of wizards or other high threats. Or running to whatever McGuffin the DM has on the other side of the battlefield. Oh and at lvl9 you can run up walls and across water, no checks or anything.

Deflect missiles comes online early and helps mitigate ranged damage and potentially deal some of your own. Helpful since you can run around any melee threats already.

As said Stunning Strike and the flurry abilities are good offense. Evasion and stillness of mind give you beef vs spells before proficiency in all saves comes online. Charm and Fear seem to be common as class abilities, have to wait and see how prevalent it is with monsters.

So yeah I think it's a strong chassi, and the strong defense is there in ways other than "more AC" and "more HP". Dex and Wis are the most important stats so you can deal damage, have good AC, and highish saves.

[Surrealistik]

What really pisses me off about the Monk is that WotC unnecessarily nerfed its martial arts damage progression (started at 1d6, went up to 1d12), and made its already underwhelming capstone (Perfect Self used to be spend an action to regain 1 Ki point) into something even weaker.

[MustacheFart]

What really pisses me off about the Monk is that WotC unnecessarily nerfed its martial arts damage progression (started at 1d6, went up to 1d12), and made its already underwhelming capstone (Perfect Self used to be spend an action to regain 1 Ki point) into something even weaker.

Yep, that's why honestly I see no reason to go full 20 monk. If my DM says no to the multiclassing then I'll just dump Monk for fighter or barbarian.

I rolled fairly well just now so hopefully he allows a barb/monk (17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 11). Planning Half Orc for concept reasons which would give him (STR 17, DEX 17, CON 17, INT 12, WIS 17, CHA 11). Boost dex and wis up to 20 with ability bonuses and use one ability bonus to raise str and con to 18s. Then trade in last one for a feat... Should be pretty solid.

[Leon]

Yes, it's just you.

I'd agree with that. Being one who didn't mind the monk in 3.5 as well. Played a few and played with a few and never found them to be lacking.

[Falka]

Just got my copy of the 5th ed PHB yesterday and I've been reading over the different classes.

The monk one seems...dissappointing. It appears that they gave them a lot of what they had in 3rd ed but took away stuff as well (which really shouldn't have happened because they sucked even with what they had) but didn't give them that much in return.

For instance, their flurry is now two bonus action attacks which must be unarmed (not even monk weapon accord to how it is written). They only get two regular attacks. The Open Hand archetype doesn't seem like it adds much. The Shadow hand or whatever seems like cool but once again mostly fluff. The elemental one is interesting but if you're a class focusing on martial arts do you really need so many elemental attacks? Would more utility/buff spells not be a better choice?

It really just seems like they kept some fluff, added some fluff but didn't add much punch (pun intended).

Hell, just looking over the fighter classit would appear that I could make a Champion path Fighter who uses the quarterstaff that would be a better Monk than the Monk class. Great Weapon Fighting & Two Weapon Fighting Styles + Improved critical (18-20) + 4 attacks by 20 to the Monk's 2 (not counting flurry) + that surge ability to attack another 4 times.

I am not expecting the Monk to be super badass but it just feels like it falls short. It is dissappointing because I am starting a game soon and was looking at Monk for character concept. I am finding it hard to resist the call of fighter or even barbarian.

Thoughts?

I'm not exactly sure which are your expectations for a Monk character.

The Monk has never been designed as a front liner or a huge DPS character, so maybe comparing him to the likes of the Fighter or the Barbarian isn't fair. I would compare him with the Rogue, as they are agility-based classes that have a supportish role in the party. They are supposed to be the skill and stealth monkeys.

I doubt that a Champion with a quarterstaff would be that much better. That's just a Fighter with a stick. He doesn't have the same things that makes a Monk... Monk-ish (being extremely mobile, resilient, maneuver-friendly, etc.)

3e Monks had d20 unarmed strike, yeah, but they also had medium BAB (like the Rogue) which meant that you basically wouldn't hit attacks against anything that wasn't a squishy mage or priest (as you didn't have access to a lot of attack raising stats like a Shortsword +X). The Monk was heavily designed as a melee anti-caster character with a lot of mobility. And people that have played Monks a lot in 3e (I sure did, it was my favorite 'mundane' class and had a couple of Monk characters) know that even though in paper, it looks like a broken class, the execution is kind of meh.

Flurry doesn't do "two bonus actions". You only can do one bonus action per turn. It gives you three attacks at low level, how is that bad?

Regarding your views about the subclasses:

- Way of Shadow is to explore the Monk's stealth component and utility. I can't really see that teleporting through shadows is 'just fluff'. Do you realise the kind of things that you can do with this? :smalleek:

- Way of Elements... What do you mean by 'more utility'? What do you mean, they should cast buffs? You just said that Way of Shadow is just 'fluff', yet it has maybe the best tree for 'utility' based effects... What is your definition of 'utility', exactly? I'm curious.

I don't really like Open Hand either, but it's not even that bad.

[eastmabl]

If I had to rank the non spellcaster classes in order for 5E in terms of usefulness, I'd go:
1) Paladin
2) Rogue and Fighter
3) Barbarian and Monk
4) Ranger

Paladins and Rangers are spellcasters, you know.

[MustacheFart]

Falka, you've posted a lot so I've split it up so I can address it accordingly.


They are supposed to be the skill and stealth monkeys.

And what skill(s) would that be exactly?


I doubt that a Champion with a quarterstaff would be that much better. That's just a Fighter with a stick. He doesn't have the same things that makes a Monk... Monk-ish (being extremely mobile, resilient, maneuver-friendly, etc.)

Well, with two more feats/ability boosts I would argue that the fighter can come closer than you think. You're correct that he doesn't have jumping through shadows or that elemental stuff. I purely meant that a fighter could more aptly use a Monk weapon than a monk. Was funny to me.


3e Monks had d20 unarmed strike, yeah, but they also had medium BAB (like the Rogue) which meant that you basically wouldn't hit attacks against anything that wasn't a squishy mage or priest (as you didn't have access to a lot of attack raising stats like a Shortsword +X). The Monk was heavily designed as a melee anti-caster character with a lot of mobility. And people that have played Monks a lot in 3e (I sure did, it was my favorite 'mundane' class and had a couple of Monk characters) know that even though in paper, it looks like a broken class, the execution is kind of meh.

Since you're comparing the 3e Monk to the rogue I believe it is fair to point out that I never had any trouble hitting anything that, how did you put it, "wasn't a squishy mage or priest" with my 3e rogues. So, even your own comparison displays a deficiency in the monk. Also I would 100% agree with you that the execution is kind of "meh" (as you put it). Thanks for restating my initial, obvious-but-overlooked point. That's what I have been saying. Why should any class's execution invoke a feeling of "meh"? Seems off to me.


Flurry doesn't do "two bonus actions". You only can do one bonus action per turn. It gives you three attacks at low level, how is that bad?

I never said it did. You read what I said wrong. I meant flurry of blows gives you 2 bonus action attacks as in 2 attacks that require a bonus action. I using bonus action as the descriptor/adjective to avoid be overly verbose.


- Way of Shadow is to explore the Monk's stealth component and utility. I can't really see that teleporting through shadows is 'just fluff'. Do you realise the kind of things that you can do with this? :smalleek:

What? Like pop out and get yourself killed by the big bad? Or do you mean scout around, which the rogue (and possibly ranger though haven't read their class yet) could do better?


- Way of Elements... What do you mean by 'more utility'? What do you mean, they should cast buffs? You just said that Way of Shadow is just 'fluff', yet it has maybe the best tree for 'utility' based effects... What is your definition of 'utility', exactly? I'm curious.

Okay now you're jumbling words together to try and make some point. Semantics aside, there is a difference between "buffs" and "utility". Buffs are considered utility but utility doesn't have to be buffs. There's also a huge difference between becoming invisible & popping through shadows and casting buff spells. The former is purely selfish. Sure it could be used to the benefit of the party but not to the degree that buff spells could. They're extroverted and not introverted in a manner of speaking.

I would pick buff spells to jumping through shadows (regardless of the character/class doing it) 99/100. My point was, why give them so many "blasty" spells with the elemental path when they've already got an element of damage (no pun intended), largely invested into by the class--their unarmed attacks? It would be more beneficial to give them more buff or control spells. The wall of fire and stone are nice. The same with stoneskin (or was it barkskin?). However, for the few buff/control spells they have they've given them way more blast spells. I just think the buff/control spells could've been upped.

[MustacheFart]

I'd agree with that. Being one who didn't mind the monk in 3.5 as well. Played a few and played with a few and never found them to be lacking.

No offense but since you didn't mind the widely accepted as bad 3.5 ed Monk class, your opinion is invalidated.

[Merlin the Tuna]

If he resembles the one I played in the final playtest, then probably yes. Giving them more Ki points (and/or shifting to short rests not being an entire futzing hour) will help a lot. At level 8, I had 4 ki points and 6 ways to spend them, which basically meant I could use 1, maybe 2 ki points each encounter and was back to "I move and attack" after that. And most ki tricks would never get used, because extra attacks or advantage on all attacks are way too valuable to not be spending your precious ki on.

Incidentally, Stalker0 has a thread over on ENWorld (link (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?339963-Barbarian-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk)) that dives into an offense/defense comparison between the Fighter, Barb, and Monk. The Monk is nowhere near contention in damage and is comparatively made of tissue paper. They appear to be in a similar boat to 3E, where they're not really capable combatants, but their kit doesn't make them a good sub for a Bard or Rogue on the non-combat side of things either.

[Demonic Spoon]

Interesting math, though his example scenarios very much ignore the monk's strengths - mobility and evasion (e.g. good saves) and things like stunning fist. A straight damage/tanking examination doesn't work so very well for them.


Well, with two more feats/ability boosts I would argue that the fighter can come closer than you think. You're correct that he doesn't have jumping through shadows or that elemental stuff. I purely meant that a fighter could more aptly use a Monk weapon than a monk. Was funny to me.


I am glad that the monk's shtick is more refined than "good at fighting, except with a different set of weapons than the Fighter". I'd argue that the fighter should be better at using a quarterstaff than a monk, even if it is a "monk weapon".

[Falka]

And what skill(s) would that be exactly?


Monks fill the archetype of an agility champion. They can work perfectly fine as scouts in dungeons (much better than a Ranger, for instance). It's far more difficult for a Monk to take damage from a trap. They have a lot of tools to move around in battle. They are at their best when they try to hunt down a target that doesn't tank well, since they can bypass a lot of enemies thanks to their mobility.



Well, with two more feats/ability boosts I would argue that the fighter can come closer than you think. You're correct that he doesn't have jumping through shadows or that elemental stuff. I purely meant that a fighter could more aptly use a Monk weapon than a monk. Was funny to me.

Well, but the Monk isn't about maximising his damage through the use of weapons. It's not exactly his theme. A Fighter who is specialised in the use of a quarterstaff should be better than a Monk fighting with one. But the Monk can defend himself better without using armor. He is faster, etc.

My opinion is that you are not making a fair comparison because everyone knows that the Fighter is really good at fighting, but he can't do much more than that. The Monk can.



Since you're comparing the 3e Monk to the rogue I believe it is fair to point out that I never had any trouble hitting anything that, how did you put it, "wasn't a squishy mage or priest" with my 3e rogues. So, even your own comparison displays a deficiency in the monk. Also I would 100% agree with you that the execution is kind of "meh" (as you put it). Thanks for restating my initial, obvious-but-overlooked point. That's what I have been saying. Why should any class's execution invoke a feeling of "meh"? Seems off to me.

I think that I've adressed the reason why that happens: Monks, unlike Rogues, have little access to items that boost their AB. Rogues can get +5 Shortswords (while Monk Gloves were very inferior) and they are a SAD class (you just pump Dexterity into them to boost both offense and defense) while Monks were super MAD (you needed Wisdom for class features and defense, Str for AB and damage, Dex for more defense, Con to take some hits....)

So you had this strange situation where spellcasters could barely do anything against you (you had SR, huge saves, Evasion) but you couldn't hit anything that had a decent amount of AC (since you couldn't focus on AB, you had a lot of Ability Scores to care about).



I never said it did. You read what I said wrong. I meant flurry of blows gives you 2 bonus action attacks as in 2 attacks that require a bonus action. I using bonus action as the descriptor/adjective to avoid be overly verbose.

No problem. Still, 1d4 + Dex mod (x3) hits harder than a Fighter's 1d12 +3 greatsword. Individually it looks weak, but since AC values are moderate and you can easily focus now on adding Dexterity (since unarmed strikes are considered light weapons), the Monk actually dishes a decent amount of damage.



What? Like pop out and get yourself killed by the big bad? Or do you mean scout around, which the rogue (and possibly ranger though haven't read their class yet) could do better?

Yes, I mean that he can perform very well as the party's scout, or use shadows to easily dodge traps, get into a dark room, etc. It has a lot of posibilities, don't you think? It's basically playing a ninja. You can bypass a lot of enemies and get straight to the evil priest, the bad wizard of the evil group That's something Monks were always good at.



Okay now you're jumbling words together to try and make some point. Semantics aside, there is a difference between "buffs" and "utility". Buffs are considered utility but utility doesn't have to be buffs. There's also a huge difference between becoming invisible & popping through shadows and casting buff spells. The former is purely selfish. Sure it could be used to the benefit of the party but not to the degree that buff spells could. They're extroverted and not introverted in a manner of speaking.

I would pick buff spells to jumping through shadows (regardless of the character/class doing it) 99/100. My point was, why give them so many "blasty" spells with the elemental path when they've already got an element of damage (no pun intended), largely invested into by the class--their unarmed attacks? It would be more beneficial to give them more buff or control spells. The wall of fire and stone are nice. The same with stoneskin (or was it barkskin?). However, for the few buff/control spells they have they've given them way more blast spells. I just think the buff/control spells could've been upped.

I think it's to keep coherence with the "Airbender" (or whatever that series is called) and Shugenja theme. I guess the designers don't want them to look at Way of the Elements as a multiclass Wizard/Druid/support thingie, but to give an option for the Monk to add some AoE to his class features.

[EvilAnagram]

Incidentally, Stalker0 has a thread over on ENWorld (link (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?339963-Barbarian-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk)) that dives into an offense/defense comparison between the Fighter, Barb, and Monk. The Monk is nowhere near contention in damage and is comparatively made of tissue paper. They appear to be in a similar boat to 3E, where they're not really capable combatants, but their kit doesn't make them a good sub for a Bard or Rogue on the non-combat side of things either.

That thread was started and last edited over a year ago... plenty of rules have changed.

[Human Paragon 3]

Incidentally, Stalker0 has a thread over on ENWorld (link (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?339963-Barbarian-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk)) that dives into an offense/defense comparison between the Fighter, Barb, and Monk. The Monk is nowhere near contention in damage and is comparatively made of tissue paper. They appear to be in a similar boat to 3E, where they're not really capable combatants, but their kit doesn't make them a good sub for a Bard or Rogue on the non-combat side of things either.

It seems like the EnWorld thread didn't make use of any of the Monk's special abilities. The only mention of them is that he rounded up the 1 round of survival to 2 because of stunning fist. However, if the monk is able to stun repeatedly, his survivability actually doubles, triples, or more. He also used the weakest version of the monk for taking out gigantic monsters, since most of the open-hand powers are only really useful against medium creatures and/or target con saves. If the fight had been against a swarm of imps or pixies or something, I'm positive the Monk would have performed far better.

[Merlin the Tuna]

That thread was started and last edited over a year ago... plenty of rules have changed.Oh yikes, somebody bumped it the other day and I totally didn't realize that most of the posts were August 2013. Thanks for pointing that out.

Y'all keep mentioning stunning fist -- did they change that from the final playtest to be on-demand rather than on-crit?

[Human Paragon 3]

Oh yikes, somebody bumped it the other day and I totally didn't realize that most of the posts were August 2013. Thanks for pointing that out.

Y'all keep mentioning stunning fist -- did they change that from the final playtest to be on-demand rather than on-crit?

I don't have my book on me, but I believe you just have to spend a Ki point.

[MustacheFart]

I don't have my book on me, but I believe you just have to spend a Ki point.

You are correct. When you land a hit you have to spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning fist.


The issue seems to be a lack of that many ki points. You have a decent amount at higher levels but low to mid you pretty much don't. If you have any extended encounters or just run several back to back you're going to be hurting bad. Sure, before anyone says it, I know that's to be expected given the class theme. However, acceptance of the negative for whatever reason doesn't discount or change the fact that it is something negative.

In other words, clear weaknesses have been pointed out and were met with "well he's a monk".. Okay that's fine but that doesn't change that they're still clear weaknesses so on that merit alone someone could argue that they suck.

I guess the best analogy I can give is it seems that with the 5ed PHB you could easily make Conan (Barbarian) or Achilles/Alexander The Great/Some other famous nonfiction/fiction Warrior (Fighter) but you can't come close to making Chuck Norris, let alone jackie Chan/Jet Li/etc.

My prediction is that in a competitive campaign it will be a multiclass class at best. The level 20 benefit sucks for being the level 20 capstone so there's little reason to not dip 2-3 levels elsewhere such as fighter for a huge boost to offense or barbarian for a huge boost to defense.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's expected that you'll take short rests at some point. The ki points you get are between short rests, so it really doesn't seem that bad to me, and certainly other classes have stuff that they need to recharge with a short rest.

[Edge of Dreams]

Don't trust your playtest memories. Read the phb. Monk gets 1 ki point per level now.

[EvilAnagram]

I think it's to keep coherence with the "Airbender" (or whatever that series is called) and Shugenja theme. I guess the designers don't want them to look at Way of the Elements as a multiclass Wizard/Druid/support thingie, but to give an option for the Monk to add some AoE to his class features.

Yeah, there's a major Avatar vibe with the Way of the Elements, which is fantastic because The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra have some of the best animation and best fight scenes I've ever seen, film or television. Of course, as far as I'm concerned The Way of the Elements is just a cherry on top for a class that triple dips in Dex for AC, melee, and initiative, provides bonuses to evasion and save, let's you roll four d6 attacks that count as magical in a single turn by 6th level, and has plenty of fun stuff besides. All of your points are totally valid.

By level 20, every monk gets two-to-four attacks dealing d10+5 magic damage, an AC approaching plate, can deflect missiles reliably, can't take falling damage, has proficiency on all saving throws, and can completely avoid Dex-based magic. And that's without any of the monastic traditions. Sure, a fighter might be able to do more direct damage, but monks can hold their own and do more besides. There's more to the game than just combat.

[MustacheFart]

yeah the problem is the short rests are an hour. I've got this weird image in my head of a party entering a dungeon, making it through a room, and then taking an hour rest before moving on LOL. Seems absurd.

[MustacheFart]

There's more to the game than just combat.

I've never really understood this argument. Combat is the only thing that you can quantify. Out of combat you can pretty much roleplay anything with anyone.

[Demonic Spoon]

yeah the problem is the short rests are an hour. I've got this weird image in my head of a party entering a dungeon, making it through a room, and then taking an hour rest before moving on LOL. Seems absurd.

Presumably you'd make it through more than one room before a short rest, but anyway - a short rest isn't sleeping, it's just taking a breather. If you just got off a short burst of exercise that leaves you exhausted, or worse you received wounds that you really should tend to (Even if it's just bandaging them), it seems perfectly reasonable to stop for a bit. When the fellowship entered Moria, they most certainly weren't fighting the whole way through.

[EvilAnagram]

I've never really understood this argument. Combat is the only thing that you can quantify. Out of combat you can pretty much roleplay anything with anyone.

Well, let's say you need to follow someone or eavesdrop or pull of some sort of stealth mission. Way of Shadow monk can do that better than anyone.

Or you need to retrieve a macguffin before the BBEG's spell goes off. Water Whip let's you snatch it mid-battle, letting you retreat.

You're running away and need to stop pursuers? Wave of Rolling Earth will do nicely.

Need to contact aan NPC? Good thing you can astral project your spirit to them.

Or maybe you just need to balance on a rope over a horrible drop. You've got the DEX to pull that off.

You have plenty of out-of-combat potential with monk abilities. They're difficult to quantify, but that doesn't make them meaningless.

[MustacheFart]

Presumably you'd make it through more than one room before a short rest, but anyway - a short rest isn't sleeping, it's just taking a breather. If you just got off a short burst of exercise that leaves you exhausted, or worse you received wounds that you really should tend to (Even if it's just bandaging them), it seems perfectly reasonable to stop for a bit. When the fellowship entered Moria, they most certainly weren't fighting the whole way through.

Oh I am not arguing that at all. It makes perfect sense. I am drawing issue with the book's writing that says a short rest is 1 hour. That's too much.

[Sartharina]

yeah the problem is the short rests are an hour. I've got this weird image in my head of a party entering a dungeon, making it through a room, and then taking an hour rest before moving on LOL. Seems absurd.Really? How long has your forum-browsing session been? An hour's actually not a lot of time. It only seems long when you move at the driven speed D&D allows people to move at by not accommodating confusion, fatigue, distraction, or just moments of idleness.

[MustacheFart]

Well, let's say you need to follow someone or eavesdrop or pull of some sort of stealth mission. Way of Shadow monk can do that better than anyone.

Or you need to retrieve a macguffin before the BBEG's spell goes off. Water Whip let's you snatch it mid-battle, letting you retreat.

You're running away and need to stop pursuers? Wave of Rolling Earth will do nicely.

Need to contact aan NPC? Good thing you can astral project your spirit to them.

Or maybe you just need to balance on a rope over a horrible drop. You've got the DEX to pull that off.

You have plenty of out-of-combat potential with monk abilities. They're difficult to quantify, but that doesn't make them meaningless.

I don't know if I'd say the Way of Shadow monk can do stealth missions better than anyone. That remains to be seen.

Of course there are meaningful things they can do outside of combat. I just meant any other class can do them as well so it's difficult to evaluate. All of the things you've mentioned could be roleplayed out with any character really.

[Sartharina]

I don't know if I'd say the Way of Shadow monk can do stealth missions better than anyone. That remains to be seen.

Of course there are meaningful things they can do outside of combat. I just meant any other class can do them as well so it's difficult to evaluate. All of the things you've mentioned could be roleplayed out with any character really.How can you 'roleplay it out' with any character? Other characters don't have those abilities. Out-of-combat is not freeform.

[MustacheFart]

Really? How long has your forum-browsing session been? An hour's actually not a lot of time. It only seems long when you move at the driven speed D&D allows people to move at by not accommodating confusion, fatigue, distraction, or just moments of idleness.

Hah..that made me chuckle. Yes, in the real world an hour isn't that long but we're talking D&D. I hope you can tell the difference :smallwink:. When a round of combat is 6 seconds an hour is really damn long.

Let's say you're in a dungeon with your party and you clear X number of rooms (whether 1, 2 or 20 it doesn't matter). You're all needing a rest to recharge. You're going to give the enemy an hour to strategize while you're holed off in a room? Given the description of a short rest I think 15 - 20 minutes would have been more applicable.

In reality it's a moot point because most DM's won't punish their parties like that. Most DM's don't want to wipe their parties out so while they party might be actually taking a 1 hour short rest the DM will behave like it was much faster. I was purely arguing as to the logic behind it or lack thereof.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't know if I'd say the Way of Shadow monk can do stealth missions better than anyone. That remains to be seen.
Because he/she can be invisible, teleport from one shadow to another, have darkvision, cast darkness and silence, and have the stealth roll of a monk, all without using spell slots. That's why.


Of course there are meaningful things they can do outside of combat. I just meant any other class can do them as well so it's difficult to evaluate. All of the things you've mentioned could be roleplayed out with any character really.

How can another class use water whip? How can a non-caster class create a wall of earth or astral project? How will a Fighter in full plate fair on a rope? Not everyone can do everything.

[MustacheFart]

How can you 'roleplay it out' with any character? Other characters don't have those abilities. Out-of-combat is not freeform.

See below.


Because he/she can be invisible, teleport from one shadow to another, have darkvision, cast darkness and silence, and have the stealth roll of a monk, all without using spell slots. That's why.



How can another class use water whip? How can a non-caster class create a wall of earth or astral project? How will a Fighter in full plate fair on a rope? Not everyone can do everything.

First, about the scouting thing. I meant can the rogue not equally do it well? I'm sure they can do it very well but I just wasn't sure I would say better than anyone. Also I don't know how encounters are going to fair in 5th ed but in 3.5 once you were high level scouting was stupid and pointless because the bad guy knew you were coming long before you did. A rogue scouting a high levels or a monk for that matter just meant a dead party member.

Now as to the out-of-combat stuff. Yes, I know it's not freeform. :smallsigh: I meant that for all of those situations any class can come up with an applicable alternative. From what I understand, other classes will be able to use wands. That takes care of the magic related out of combat activities mentioned. All of the others could be take care of with a bit of planning. Why does the monk need to balance on the rope? Is he fighting someone on the rope? Can an arrow from the side lines not do the same? Is he trying to cross a chasm? Can the fighter not just use strength to hang from the rope and move across? Why does he have to be in full plate? Can he not be wearing light or medium armor?

Don't get me wrong. They have a lot of flair and fluff to their out of combat activities but so do other classes. That's more dependent on the player(s) than anything. Combat is the only thing that numbers can be put to.

[Sartharina]

See below.



First, about the scouting thing. I meant can the rogue not equally do it well? I'm sure they can do it very well but I just wasn't sure I would say better than anyone. Also I don't know how encounters are going to fair in 5th ed but in 3.5 once you were high level scouting was stupid and pointless because the bad guy knew you were coming long before you did. A rogue scouting a high levels or a monk for that matter just meant a dead party member.

Now as to the out-of-combat stuff. Yes, I know it's not freeform. :smallsigh: I meant that for all of those situations any class can come up with an applicable alternative. From what I understand, other classes will be able to use wands. That takes care of the magic related out of combat activities mentioned. All of the others could be take care of with a bit of planning. Why does the monk need to balance on the rope? Is he fighting someone on the rope? Can an arrow from the side lines not do the same? Is he trying to cross a chasm? Can the fighter not just use strength to hang from the rope and move across? Why does he have to be in full plate? Can he not be wearing light or medium armor?

Don't get me wrong. They have a lot of flair and fluff to their out of combat activities but so do other classes. That's more dependent on the player(s) than anything. Combat is the only thing that numbers can be put to.Wands require money. And those other options may not be applicable to a situation.

As for the rogue - a Rogue has a chance of failure to do what he's trying to do (Albeit a smaller one than the monk's, and he can recover from his mistakes easily) A Monk has limited "Just do it" ability.

[EvilAnagram]

As for the rogue - a Rogue has a chance of failure to do what he's trying to do (Albeit a smaller one than the monk's, and he can recover from his mistakes easily) A Monk has limited "Just do it" ability.

If Warhammer taught me nothing else, it's that eliminating the chance to fail is infinitely better than minimizing it.

[Falka]

Wands aren't even a given in this edition, it's not like you can easily buy them. There is no magic Wallmart.

[Naanomi]

Also, never dismiss the increased speed's benefit on scouting... the quicker you can jet past guards and the like is the less opportunities they have to notice you; and if you *do* get detected, you can dash back to your party and prepare rather than just die by yourself

[Merlin the Tuna]

Don't trust your playtest memories. Read the phb. Monk gets 1 ki point per level now.I am really surprised to see this model of resource management (once per day, per level) make a return. 3.5E used it for Bardic Music, and it meant that at 1st level you're barely even a Bard but even by mid-levels (6? 8?) it's nearly at-will in practice.

In the 5E Monk's case it doesn't seem quite as silly later on since he can spend multiple ki in a single turn to accomplish something a little more dramatic. You'll never be reaching to the extent of "Oh sure, Inspire Competence on that Appraise check. How am I gonna use 12 songs anyway?" But with short rests as they are (i.e. a lunch break that you might get one of and typically will not take twice), that's pretty sad-looking at low levels.

[EvilAnagram]

I am really surprised to see this model of resource management (once per day, per level) make a return. 3.5E used it for Bardic Music, and it meant that at 1st level you're barely even a Bard but even by mid-levels (6? 8?) it's nearly at-will in practice.

In the 5E Monk's case it doesn't seem quite as silly since he can spend multiple ki in a single turn to accomplish something a little more dramatic. You'll never be reaching to the extent of "Oh sure, Inspire Competence on that Appraise check. How am I gonna use 12 songs anyway?" But with short rests as they are (i.e. a lunch break that you might get one of and typically will not take twice), that's pretty sad-looking at low levels.

Yeah, at low levels it really limits your fun to a couple tricks a day, but by second level your speed increases, at third you get a Monastic Tradition and Deflect Missiles, at fourth you get your first feat/ability improvement, and at fifth you start rocking. I'm talking damage die upgrade, extra attack without spending ki, five ki points per short rest, and Stunning Strike. After fifth level, your capabilities skyrocket.

[Surrealistik]

Later on, you end up with almost more Ki than you know what to do with; stunlocks for days. The most effective way to play the Monk as a rule is to use your Ki to prevent Team Monster from doing anything, and you ultimately end up with more than enough to do just that.

And to be fair, the Monk is pretty front-loaded and has some of the best offensive capabilities in the game at the very beginning.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah, at low levels it really limits your fun to a couple tricks a day, but by second level your speed increases, at third you get a Monastic Tradition and Deflect Missiles, at fourth you get your first feat/ability improvement, and at fifth you start rocking. I'm talking damage die upgrade, extra attack without spending ki, five ki points per short rest, and Stunning Strike. After fifth level, your capabilities skyrocket.

Though at low levels you can still attack twice a turn, every turn, and spend ki for an additional attack. Puts you slightly ahead of the fighter until extra attack kicks in.

[MustacheFart]

And those other options may not be applicable to a situation. That's very convenient for you to say. The same could be said for those monk abilities (ie: water whipping, wall of stone, etc).

The point is they're kitschy tricks. Are they cool sure? Could they come in handy? Possibly. I question how practical they are and how often they can be used. In my experience (over many different table top games not just 3.x dnd), those unique fun little cool things aren't worth the cost as you rarely get to use them or certainly not as much as you had planned. You have to sometimes go out of your way to use them.

I've always preferred more concrete tools at my side--ones that have less variance or dependency on circumstance.

Rogues have spells now. So do fighters. Thus all of these good things previously mentioned in this thread have been way overstated and overvalued.


Another thing to note, is that people keep bringing up how good the monk will be at scouting. Well, that's also assuming your party lets you scout. I've played with groups that will patiently let you scout, I've played with groups that will impatiently let you scout, I've played with groups that get so full of themselves that they just march ahead not letting you scout. I've found the last one to be far more common than the others.

A scout is only good in situations where you can scout while a fighter is good the rest of the time.

Monk feels like a 5th wheel character to me. I suppose someone has got to be but I was hoping for every class to feel like it could hold one of those core spots in a party. I wonder if a standard party would choose a monk over a more core requirement such as a tank (fighter or barb or paladin) if it came down to it.

I will say one thing, they seem to have taken away some of the fame from rogue and given it to the monk. Now they seem like more of a drop in replacement for rogue so I suppose that will up their playability substantially.

[Demonic Spoon]

Rogues have spells now. So do fighters. Thus all of these good things previously mentioned in this thread have been way overstated and overvalued.


No. One of three specific subclasses for those classes have spells.



Another thing to note, is that people keep bringing up how good the monk will be at scouting. Well, that's also assuming your party lets you scout. I've played with groups that will patiently let you scout, I've played with groups that will impatiently let you scout, I've played with groups that get so full of themselves that they just march ahead not letting you scout. I've found the last one to be far more common than the others.

This is a problem with the group, not a problem with the monk.

[MustacheFart]

No. One of three specific subclasses for those classes have spells.

Dur....thanks. :smallsigh: The same is said for the Monk's Elemental Discipline casting such as the Water Whip that was mentioned.





This is a problem with the group, not a problem with the monk.

Damn I saw that one coming a mile away. Almost wrote a catch for that before I made my post. :smallwink: Obviously, it is a problem with the group but it's one that is quite common so that doesn't mean it should be wrote off. Typically it happens because while the scout scouts the rest of the party can't play. That's obviously not true, they could always find something to do but typically in dungeons that's the sentiment.

[Sartharina]

I am really surprised to see this model of resource management (once per day, per level) make a return. 3.5E used it for Bardic Music, and it meant that at 1st level you're barely even a Bard but even by mid-levels (6? 8?) it's nearly at-will in practice.
Want to know what else used this model of management in 3e? Monks, and their Stunning Fist.

[Demonic Spoon]

Dur....thanks. The same is said for the Monk's Elemental Discipline casting such as the Water Whip that was mentioned.


I'm sure you knew that, but your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. "Everyone else has spells, therefore non-spell utility of the monk isn't valid" is wrong if everyone else does not have spells.


Damn I saw that one coming a mile away. Almost wrote a catch for that before I made my post. Obviously, it is a problem with the group but it's one that is quite common so that doesn't mean it should be wrote off. Typically it happens because while the scout scouts the rest of the party can't play. That's obviously not true, they could always find something to do but typically in dungeons that's the sentiment.


I assume it primarily happens because the prospective scout doesn't stop and say that he should be scouting, and the rest of the party doesn't think about scouting because their characters can't really do it.

[obryn]

I dunno, they don't look bad at all to me. Stunning Strike is outstanding (both cheap and powerful), as is Diamond Soul. Patient Defense is great, too; you're going from 3 attacks to 2 for crazy-good defense. They also aren't insanely MAD; they need Dex and Wisdom, basically.

The Open Hand gives you some solid proning/shoving for doing what you were going to do anyway. Quivering Palm is excellent.

Way of Shadow is hard to evaluate, and seems pretty situational, though Invisibility is strong, as a rule.

Way of the Four Elements looks very strong at first blush, with such winners as Hold Person, Stoneskin, and Flight.

What's more, I think the number of Ki Points a monk gets per short rest is pretty fair. It scales up to 20, making them way better off than a high-level Battlemaster. (Their special effects are superior to a Battlemaster's, too.)

I'd think of them more like a 4e-style melee controller than a DPR king. I mean, they're no skeletal horde, but... :smallwink:

[Demonic Spoon]

Way of Shadow is hard to evaluate, and seems pretty situational, though Invisibility is strong, as a rule.


WotS monk can cast Silence. Silence has no save, and can completely ruin the day of hostile spellcasters. I'm imagining something like mage slayer feat > run up to the mage (possibly using the shadow teleport) > cast silence on him. That's pretty strong as well.

[Gettles]

Really? How long has your forum-browsing session been? An hour's actually not a lot of time. It only seems long when you move at the driven speed D&D allows people to move at by not accommodating confusion, fatigue, distraction, or just moments of idleness.

Yeah, but for time to catch your breath an hour is an absurd amount of overkill. If it was 15 minutes (which is the length of half-time for most team sports and thus probably a decent measuring stick for a quick breather) it would be fine but to carve out an safe area for a full hour just seems crazy.

[MustacheFart]

I'm sure you knew that, but your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. "Everyone else has spells, therefore non-spell utility of the monk isn't valid" is wrong if everyone else does not have spells.



I assume it primarily happens because the prospective scout doesn't stop and say that he should be scouting, and the rest of the party doesn't think about scouting because their characters can't really do it.

1) Are you really going to play in a group that doesn't even have a single spellcaster? Hell, I played in a party of all dwarfs one time but even we had a paladin and I think a cleric. My argument was that now that even martial classes have spells the odds of a spellcaster in the party are almost guaranteed. That will diminish the impact of some of the non-spellcaster stuff a monk can do.

2) Have you ever played a scout and asked the party to let you scout? Stopping and asking typically gets mixed results. It's not simply a matter of "Hey I am going to scout." *everyone else* "Okay we'll wait here". The fact that they can't do it is why they feel like they're not able to play when the scout is scouting. It draws focus away from the group. Anyway, this is old news and not relevant to the discussion anymore.

[obryn]

WotS monk can cast Silence. Silence has no save, and can completely ruin the day of hostile spellcasters. I'm imagining something like mage slayer feat > run up to the mage (possibly using the shadow teleport) > cast silence on him.
There you go then.


Later on, you end up with almost more Ki than you know what to do with; stunlocks for days. The most effective way to play the Monk as a rule is to use your Ki to prevent Team Monster from doing anything, and you ultimately end up with more than enough to do just that.

And to be fair, the Monk is pretty front-loaded and has some of the best offensive capabilities in the game at the very beginning.
And I'll echo the above. I don't think people are giving enough credit to how well a monk can (by appearances) stun-lock the baddies. And if you fail the first time, you get to try again. 20 times.

Merlin the Tuna - there's generalized issues with short rest = 1 hour, but on a per-short-rest basis, the monk actually gets quite a lot of breathing room, it seems to me.

[Demonic Spoon]

1) Are you really going to play in a group that doesn't even have a single spellcaster? Hell, I played in a party of all dwarfs one time but even we had a paladin and I think a cleric. My argument was that now that even martial classes have spells the odds of a spellcaster in the party are almost guaranteed. That will diminish the impact of some of the non-spellcaster stuff a monk can do.


That depends on who the spellcaster is and what spells they happen to have prepared. Furthermore, 5e is pretty good about not having spells obsolete skills.

[obryn]

Actually... I'm going to revise my complaints about DPR a bit, though I have not yet mathed this out.

Acknowledging that nothing does more damage than an Action Surging greatweapon fighter, a meteor swarm, or a skeleton horde...

Monks' individual weapon dice aren't much, but they scale up to d10 eventually. And as every 4e player knows, static modifiers >> weapon dice, most of the time; there's not much difference between a d6 and a d8, when it comes down to it. A monk starts out with 2 attacks for free, or 3 with ki. They move up to 3 attacks per round for free when everyone else has 2, but can push up to 4 with ki. (Granted, these cost bonus actions.) Each of those attacks that hits, adds the monk's Dex bonus to damage along with any other static modifiers - magic monk weapons or whatever.

You're not Action Surging, but these attacks can have some scary riders like Stunning Fist attached.

I'm not an expert, but that sounds pretty solid.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, but for time to catch your breath an hour is an absurd amount of overkill. If it was 15 minutes (which is the length of half-time for most team sports and thus probably a decent measuring stick for a quick breather) it would be fine but to carve out an safe area for a full hour just seems crazy.
I kinda wish there were three rests - 5 or 15-minute Short Rests (Time to shake yourself out and refresh a few class feature abilities, and recover from the mental and physical strain of combat), Hour-long Medium Rests (One hour to spend more than one Hit Die, refresh more class feature abilities, and recover from the mental and physical strain of dungeoneering, and can be interrupted by less than five minutes of interruption), and eight-hour Long Rests (Half-decent night's sleep or idle activity to recover some daily resources. Can be interrupted for less than an hour of interruption), and Eight Hour Secure Long Rests (Good night's sleep to recover all daily resources. Cannot be interrupted - not even to stand watch.)

Because sometimes after clearing out a room, you need to take a moment to clear your head of the eldritch horrors you've been facing by busting out the Gaming Set your Background proficiencies and equipment have somehow given you.

[MustacheFart]

That depends on who the spellcaster is and what spells they happen to have prepared. Furthermore, 5e is pretty good about not having spells obsolete skills.


Fair enough, I can't say one what or the other on that until I have more experience with it.


Man all of this Monk talk especially about shadow monk has made me re-contemplate that path. My wife will be playing with us and wants to play a gnome (snirneflbin 3rd race variant that the PHB is nice enough to mention in a bubble but says nothing about the abilities the give while the two other gnomes contradict that bubble saying they are the only variants of gnome. Great writing there!) Arcane Trickster Rogue.

We're starting off at level 1 and she's pretty green...no very green to dnd. She'll have time to pick it up since 5e seams so streamlined but I almost want to convince her to play a Shadow Hand monk now. There recluse nature (as will all rogue types typically) is right in line with what she wants plus she could still have the tricksy aspect just from being a gnome. Plus it seams simpler to learn. Though in reality I just have an idea for an elemental monk I want to play but I also want to now play a shadow monk too LOL. Would it be lame to show up to a group of 6-7 people with Monk builds for both? lol

[Merlin the Tuna]

Merlin the Tuna - there's generalized issues with short rest = 1 hour, but on a per-short-rest basis, the monk actually gets quite a lot of breathing room, it seems to me.I'm inclined to agree, with the caveat of "after 3rd level or so."

I'm glad they recognized that the steady progression from 2 to 8 in the final playtest was not a good setup. I'm just surprised that they'd fall back on a march from 1-20. From a design perspective, it makes way more sense to me to do a smaller, frontloaded distribution. Making up numbers: start with 3, cap at 10 by 8th level. It'd still show marked improvement, but it'd feel a lot more -- coherent? -- than going from an incredibly tight throttling mechanic to effectively no throttle at all. It'd also be more relevant for the levels of the game that actually get played more often than not.

[EvilAnagram]

Though at low levels you can still attack twice a turn, every turn, and spend ki for an additional attack. Puts you slightly ahead of the fighter until extra attack kicks in.

That's actually still pretty limited at first. You only get one ki point, so one flurry of blows. You still get an offhand, so you're swinging 2d4+dex unless you're using a monk weapon, in which case you're using that weapon, plus offhand strike. At level 5, you get that extra attack and get to start using flurry more regularly, so you can keep the damage up.

[Demonic Spoon]

aI'm inclined to agree, with the caveat of "after 3rd level or so."

I'm glad they recognized that the steady progression from 2 to 8 in the final playtest was not a good setup. I'm just surprised that they'd fall back on a march from 1-20. From a design perspective, it makes way more sense to me to do a smaller, frontloaded distribution. Making up numbers: start with 3, cap at 10 by 8th level. It'd still show marked improvement, but it'd feel a lot more -- coherent? -- than going from an incredibly tight throttling mechanic to effectively no throttle at all. It'd also be more relevant for the levels of the game that actually get played more often than not.

There are other things that you can blow Ki on, though. A Way of the Shadow monk has a few spells they can cast that are 2 ki points per, for example.

[EvilAnagram]

There are other things that you can blow Ki on, though. A Way of the Shadow monk has a few spells they can cast that are 2 ki points per, for example.

And an Avatar monk (which is what I'll be calling the WotE) has some that use 5.

[obryn]

And an Avatar monk (which is what I'll be calling the WotE) has some that use 5.
Yeah, but compared to Stunning Fist, these might be sucker bets, though. It depends how much breathing room you have.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, but compared to Stunning Fist, these might be sucker bets, though. It depends how much breathing room you have.

Probably not the best use when you break it down to pure math, but since when did shooting fire out of your extremities ever have anything to do with math?

[obryn]

Probably not the best use when you break it down to pure math, but since when did shooting fire out of your extremities ever have anything to do with math?
Oh, agreed - I'm just pointing out that the other abilities are either over-valued, or stunning fist is under-valued. I veer towards the latter interpretation, but it's less ridiculous than the kind of stuff spellcasters get up to. :smallbiggrin:

[Surrealistik]

TBH it's hard to beat out Stunning Strike for a better use of Ki points; every other investment is situational except for Empty Body because dayum is that ability strong.

[Twelvetrees]

I'm just thinking that a Way of Shadow monk fluffed to resemble Quicksilver would be quite fun to play.

[hawklost]

That's actually still pretty limited at first. You only get one ki point, so one flurry of blows. You still get an offhand, so you're swinging 2d4+dex unless you're using a monk weapon, in which case you're using that weapon, plus offhand strike. At level 5, you get that extra attack and get to start using flurry more regularly, so you can keep the damage up.

A Monk does not have any Ki points until lvl 2, but can still do pretty well.

At first level

a Monk can do 1d8+Dex/Str (Staff 2 handed) +(MA)1d4+Dex/Str
A fighter2H = 2d6+dex/str
A fighter can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6(OH).
A Rogue can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6 (OH) + 1d6(SA)

We will give them all a +3 to their stat there

Fighter2h = 8.33+3 = 11.33 - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+.3.5=10
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3 = 13

At lvl 2
Fighter2h = 8.33+3 + (AS)8.33+3 = 22.66 (1 time a day, otherwise 11.33) - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+3.5+(AS)3.5+3 = 16.5 (1 time a day, otherwise 10)
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3+2.5+3 = 18.5 (2 times a day, otherwise 13)

The Monk effectively beats the Fighters damage at first level, and can consistently do more damage at lvl 2. Lvl 3 gets complicated because of the archtypes so I will leave that out.

I am not claiming the Monk is superior all around than a Fighter or Rogue since they get other abilities that take them a different way, but the Monk does better damage than the fighter while the Rogue can (inconsistently) do better damage than both (SA is situation).

[Leon]

No offense but since you didn't mind the widely accepted as bad 3.5 ed Monk class, your opinion is invalidated.

My opinion is as valid as yours. Wide accepted by a group of posters on a forum (any forum, not just this one) doesn't make a class a bad choice for the greater player base

[AuraTwilight]

My opinion is as valid as yours. Wide accepted by a group of posters on a forum (any forum, not just this one) doesn't make a class a bad choice for the greater player base

Yes, your opinion is as valid. It doesn't change, however, that most people feel the Monk is bad in 3.5, and that it is greatly dysfunctional is pretty much mathematically objective.

Now can we not derail the thread into "bluh bluh muh tier system"?

[MustacheFart]

A Monk does not have any Ki points until lvl 2, but can still do pretty well.

At first level

a Monk can do 1d8+Dex/Str (Staff 2 handed) +(MA)1d4+Dex/Str
A fighter2H = 2d6+dex/str
A fighter can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6(OH).
A Rogue can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6 (OH) + 1d6(SA)

We will give them all a +3 to their stat there

Fighter2h = 8.33+3 = 11.33 - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+.3.5=10
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3 = 13

At lvl 2
Fighter2h = 8.33+3 + (AS)8.33+3 = 22.66 (1 time a day, otherwise 11.33) - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+3.5+(AS)3.5+3 = 16.5 (1 time a day, otherwise 10)
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3+2.5+3 = 18.5 (2 times a day, otherwise 13)

The Monk effectively beats the Fighters damage at first level, and can consistently do more damage at lvl 2. Lvl 3 gets complicated because of the archtypes so I will leave that out.

I am not claiming the Monk is superior all around than a Fighter or Rogue since they get other abilities that take them a different way, but the Monk does better damage than the fighter while the Rogue can (inconsistently) do better damage than both (SA is situation).

Hmm... Can you throw the barbarian into that comparison? I suspect with rage at level 1 and advantage on all melee attacks at 2 that they would beat all of them out.



Now can we not derail the thread into "bluh bluh muh tier system"?

Hah, yeah I fed into that somewhat, which is my bad but I was distracted by the fact that he was the first person I've met to genuinely state that the 3.5 monk wasn't bad. I made the thread under the assumption that everyone considered the 3.5 monk bad and that it would be the natural comparison point for the 5th ed monk (since 5th ed is closer to 3.5 then 4th ed).

[Mootsmcboots]

The Monk looks fun. Good flavour, fun abilities. Quivering Palm? A "You'll feel that in a week" strike as my old lady calls it? Yes please.

Dmg out put? I don't care. As long as he's not just a useless meatsack in combat, I'll find my monk's niche.

5e seems to be focusing on narrative, roleplay, and "Theatre of the mind"....you know...actual fun...instead of a math quiz.

[Leon]

Hmm... Can you throw the barbarian into that comparison? I suspect with rage at level 1 and advantage on all melee attacks at 2 that they would beat all of them out.




Hah, yeah I fed into that somewhat, which is my bad but I was distracted by the fact that he was the first person I've met to genuinely state that the 3.5 monk wasn't bad. I made the thread under the assumption that everyone considered the 3.5 monk bad and that it would be the natural comparison point for the 5th ed monk (since 5th ed is closer to 3.5 then 4th ed).

Everyone eh, so you have opinion of all gamers then or just the optimo focused ones? Cos I reckon the greater bulk don't give a brass Razoo about what is optimal.

[MustacheFart]

Cos I reckon the greater bulk don't give a brass Razoo about what is optimal.

You'd be surprised there, twinkie. They 3.5 monk's badness goes far beyond not being optimal. That's the last I'll say on it. Use Google if you feel so inclined.

[obryn]

The Monk looks fun. Good flavour, fun abilities. Quivering Palm? A "You'll feel that in a week" strike as my old lady calls it? Yes please.

Dmg out put? I don't care. As long as he's not just a useless meatsack in combat, I'll find my monk's niche.

5e seems to be focusing on narrative, roleplay, and "Theatre of the mind"....you know...actual fun...instead of a math quiz.
The numbers define the story, though. It's the designers' job to get that right.

If they do it well, hopefully you never need to worry about it. If they do it badly, though, you'll notice.

For the record, though, the monk looks like fun to me. Lots of nice tricks.

[Elderand]

A Monk does not have any Ki points until lvl 2, but can still do pretty well.

At first level

a Monk can do 1d8+Dex/Str (Staff 2 handed) +(MA)1d4+Dex/Str
A fighter2H = 2d6+dex/str
A fighter can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6(OH).
A Rogue can do 1d6+Dex/Str + 1d6 (OH) + 1d6(SA)

We will give them all a +3 to their stat there

Fighter2h = 8.33+3 = 11.33 - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+.3.5=10
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3 = 13

At lvl 2
Fighter2h = 8.33+3 + (AS)8.33+3 = 22.66 (1 time a day, otherwise 11.33) - Still has bonus action though
Fighter = 3.5+3+3.5+(AS)3.5+3 = 16.5 (1 time a day, otherwise 10)
Rogue = 3.5+3+3.5+3.5 = 13.5 (10 if SA can't be used)
Monk = 4.5+3+2.5+3+2.5+3 = 18.5 (2 times a day, otherwise 13)

The Monk effectively beats the Fighters damage at first level, and can consistently do more damage at lvl 2. Lvl 3 gets complicated because of the archtypes so I will leave that out.

I am not claiming the Monk is superior all around than a Fighter or Rogue since they get other abilities that take them a different way, but the Monk does better damage than the fighter while the Rogue can (inconsistently) do better damage than both (SA is situation).

I think your math is off for the 2h fighter. Average of 2d6 is 7 not 8.33. Unless I missed something very obvious.

[hawklost]

I think your math is off for the 2h fighter. Average of 2d6 is 7 not 8.33. Unless I missed something very obvious.

I assume he has the reroll 1/2 on Great Weapon Fighter choice considering he was maximizing the damage. That comes out to 4.16 average instead of 3.5.