Stunning Strike and Quivering Palm: Maybe they aren't OP

[Easy_Lee]

I used to think that SS and QP were too powerful. SS is similar to Hold Monster, but at a much lower level, for a lower cost, and with no concentration limit. QP is a straight save or die for low cost, with no daily limit beyond short rests. Seems OP, right? Not even casters can do that.

However, I'm starting to rethink whether that's OP. Consider all of the things a wizard can do which an Open Hand Monk cannot. You can do this by totaling up the number of spells which exist on the wizard spell list, but not on the Monk spell list.

Oh wait...monks don't have spells. And stunning or killing individual targets is not always the best solution. Sometimes, you need mass suggestion, or polymorph, or plane shift, or teleportation, etc. Wizards can do all of those things.

So it makes sense to me that, if Open Hand Monks have fewer capabilities, then they ought to get those abilities sooner and / or at a lesser cost.

Open Hand monks are certainly strong compared to other martials. They don't excel in damage, but they're better at controlling or outright killing an individual target than any caster. And some of the other Monk features, such as diamond soul, can't be replicated by casters, either.

Perhaps this is the pattern WotC should have followed for all martials.

[DracoKnight]

This is kind of the Monk's job, though, isn't it? They're mobile and they provide nonmagical battlefield control.

[Easy_Lee]

This is kind of the Monk's job, though, isn't it? They're mobile and they provide nonmagical battlefield control.

Precisely. The difference between them and other materials is that they do it 100% better than casters.

A rogue's job is to scout, disarm traps, open locks, and be hard to hit, right? Except that there are locks which can onlt be opened with knock (in the published adventures), and the effectiveness of stealth depends on the DM. Knock and Invisibility pretty much always work. And who can say that a rogue makes a better scout that a chain pact warlock with his imp?

Barbarians are the kings of single target damage, except that spells can beat that damage a few times per day. And who needs damage when the target just got polymorphed by a wizard, talked out of it with suggestion, or instant killed by an open hand monk?

I don't feel that other martial fill their roles consistently, since casters can beat them at it with spells. But the monk does what it does well, and fills its role better than a caster would. To me, that should be the standard.

[Sir cryosin]

Oh wait...monks don't have spells. And stunning or killing individual targets is not always the best solution.

What are you saying killing is always the solution.





Monks may not be to powerful. But they got that lock down going on and no one is going to escape with him around.

[Easy_Lee]

What are you saying killing is always the solution.

That's fair.

[Sir cryosin]

My old shadow monk was great a few times were the bad guy was supposed to get away. Here was able to find, catch up, and stop them a grapple stunning strike.

[MrStabby]

I think I missunderstand something; I can't see what the point of the thread is.

It almost sound like "classes that have fewer options should be better at that smaller set of options" - which is fine, but not sure this is news to anyone.

Which bit am I missing?

[Easy_Lee]

I think I missunderstand something; I can't see what the point of the thread is.

It almost sound like "classes that have fewer options should be better at that smaller set of options" - which is fine, but not sure this is news to anyone.

Which bit am I missing?

Compare and contrast that with knock and invisibility vs a rogue's ability to open locks or sneak. Knock and Invisibility work every time. Open lock and stealth, though they can be used at will, have a significant chance of failure and only work when the DM allows them to.

Also compare and contrast with fighter damage vs sorcerer damage. The fighter does more at will damage, but sorcerer blasting is superior when the sorcerer uses his resources.

Now compare a monk to a wizard. The monk has better mobility, saving throws, and is better at locking down a single target. These things are pretty much always true.

[MrStabby]

Compare and contrast that with knock and invisibility vs a rogue's ability to open locks or sneak. Knock and Invisibility work every time. Open lock and stealth, though they can be used at will, have a significant chance of failure and only work when the DM allows them to.

Also compare and contrast with fighter damage vs sorcerer damage. The fighter does more at will damage, but sorcerer blasting is superior when the sorcerer uses his resources.

Now compare a monk to a wizard. The monk has better mobility, saving throws, and is better at locking down a single target. These things are pretty much always true.

OK, knock is good but invisibility doesnt work every time. It makes the character invisible not undetectable.

As for open lock and stealth only working when the DM allows it, that is true for everything. Ther is no ability in the game that works when the DM doenst allow it.

[Finlam]

I used to think that SS and QP were too powerful. SS is similar to Hold Monster, but at a much lower level, for a lower cost, and with no concentration limit. QP is a straight save or die for low cost, with no daily limit beyond short rests. Seems OP, right? Not even casters can do that.

However, I'm starting to rethink whether that's OP. Consider all of the things a wizard can do which an Open Hand Monk cannot. You can do this by totaling up the number of spells which exist on the wizard spell list, but not on the Monk spell list.

Oh wait...monks don't have spells. And stunning or killing individual targets is not always the best solution. Sometimes, you need mass suggestion, or polymorph, or plane shift, or teleportation, etc. Wizards can do all of those things.

So it makes sense to me that, if Open Hand Monks have fewer capabilities, then they ought to get those abilities sooner and / or at a lesser cost.

Open Hand monks are certainly strong compared to other martials. They don't excel in damage, but they're better at controlling or outright killing an individual target than any caster. And some of the other Monk features, such as diamond soul, can't be replicated by casters, either.

Perhaps this is the pattern WotC should have followed for all martials.
The monk class really comes together at about 14th level when it gets a massive durability increase via Diamond Soul and they have a significant ki pool to work with. I won't address QP as most campaigns never get that far and I, personally, don't really care about play beyond 15th level. The lack of versatility in the monk class is a balancing factor, one that WotC approached with a heavy, open hand (that left an indelible mark on the monk's face). Monks are extremely limited in combat versatility, in fact, I would go so far as to say that without multiclassing they have one and only one viable strategy: SS till you're broke. Most of their abilities are really cool, but most of them are also extremely situational to the point of being useless in combat. This leaves the monk with very few core abilities that can impact a battle: SS, flurry, catching/redirecting projectiles (highly situational), and their "spend a ki point to pretend you kind of have cunning action" are about all that they get in terms of options within the core class (at least before the last levels of the game).

They do get Evasion and Diamond soul at 7th and 14th which help to compensate for their low HP (about on par with a back-row caster) but they are also forced to be in melee to use flurry or SS (unlike a back-row caster who can kick back in a lawn chair at the start of battle).

Open hand provides the most additional options, and shadow provides a lot of potential for multi-classing, and if WotC hadn't borked up the ki costs, the way of four elements would have added some desperately needed combat and non-combat options to the class. Even with all that, the Open Hand monk is going to vary in effectiveness wildly from table to table depending on if your DM allows their core abilities to be used on any attack or only on flurry attacks and if they believe that flurry attacks can only be performed immediately after the attack action (I've seen each of these points debated multiple times on this same forum in the last month) depending on your DM, your Open Hand monk is either a tiger or a kitten.

The truth of it is that monks don't have damage output, they don't have spells, they don't have versatility (instead they have a bunch of very situational and weirdly restricted abilities), and, just to rub some salt in it, they need DEX, WIS, and CON to be effective. So they're shoe-horned into fighting in melee just to use their limited class features, which pairs well with their low HP and low damage, and they're out of ammo after about the 5th round of combat. If a monk is out of ki or is not using ki, he has no combat options except for a single extra melee attack. Monks don't have a lot going for them without multi-classing.

Enter Stunning Strike: a decent stun effect that requires the caster to hit with a melee attack and then the target to fail a save. At a 60% hit chance and 48% save fail rate (ty Kryx) this means on any given attack roll you can have up to a 29% chance to actually land a successful stun. It's great for fighting one big bad thing, but it quickly falls off in terms of effectiveness against a horde where its low chance of success makes it too unreliable.

If you gave this ability to a fighter, would it be OP? It would be OP as f**k.

But the MAD of the monk ensures a low likelihood of successfully stunning anything and low durability means that they are highly incentivized to find their way off of the frontline as soon as the going gets tough. These problems are both fixed around the same time (within a few levels of diamond soul) allowing the monk to stay on the front lines and deliver stuns effectively while still having some ki for using their other (very limited) class features. At about the same time, spellcasters are getting access to 6th or 7th level spells.

It's like you said, Lee, it's about options. The monks have very limited options and they have a number of systemic weaknesses that are all cleared up at about the same time to make them a functional class in their own right. Meanwhile spellcasters, and even other martials, are fully functional in their own right and only get more options as they go, rather than reaching a point at which they reliably use the options of their their class.

SS is OP in a vacuum, but until high level play it's pretty lackluster for the monk. By the time it's not lackluster and the class has come together, all the other classes have so many more options that it would be very hard to argue that it's still OP.

[MrStabby]

This is quite different to my (DM) experience, but that may come down to encounter style.

I like to have multiple enemies in encounters, generally of some different types. This means it is less frequent that something has awesome con saves. When there are few enemies in a combat then the monk is still good as three+ chanses to stun an enemy will usually take them down, even with proficiency in Con saves.

If I have casters in the encounter it is really hard to stop the monk from busting in and breaking their concentration. Running up walls, dash as a bonus action, shadowmonk teleport etc.. There is almost always something useful for the monk to do in an encounter. Abilities recharging on a short rest means that from about level 6 onwards even a modestly conservative monk will keep in stock of their Ki.

In my campaigns the monk has trivialises as many encounters as the other classes have done put together (ok slightly less, but not by much). Movement to catch people, mobility to be in the right place, stunning enemies, fantastic saves plus their archetype abilities. They are not overpowered, but they are pretty awesome.

[Finlam]

Abilities recharging on a short rest means that from about level 6 onwards even a modestly conservative monk will keep in stock of their Ki.


I think this might be our key difference in our play experience. Generally I find it's when the monk get pretty close to 10 that ki becomes fairly manageable to keep in stock. It's probably just a difference of our average number of encounters between short rests. Personally, I'm very conservative with my resources when I play a monk, but even then I find getting through two deadly encounters or just three normal combat encounters with less than 8 ki is a little rough.

[Sir cryosin]

The monk class really comes together at about 14th level when it gets a massive durability increase via Diamond Soul and they have a significant ki pool to work with. I won't address QP as most campaigns never get that far and I, personally, don't really care about play beyond 15th level. The lack of versatility in the monk class is a balancing factor, one that WotC approached with a heavy, open hand (that left an indelible mark on the monk's face). Monks are extremely limited in combat versatility, in fact, I would go so far as to say that without multiclassing they have one and only one viable strategy: SS till you're broke. Most of their abilities are really cool, but most of them are also extremely situational to the point of being useless in combat. This leaves the monk with very few core abilities that can impact a battle: SS, flurry, catching/redirecting projectiles (highly situational), and their "spend a ki point to pretend you kind of have cunning action" are about all that they get in terms of options within the core class (at least before the last levels of the game).

They do get Evasion and Diamond soul at 7th and 14th which help to compensate for their low HP (about on par with a back-row caster) but they are also forced to be in melee to use flurry or SS (unlike a back-row caster who can kick back in a lawn chair at the start of battle).

Open hand provides the most additional options, and shadow provides a lot of potential for multi-classing, and if WotC hadn't borked up the ki costs, the way of four elements would have added some desperately needed combat and non-combat options to the class. Even with all that, the Open Hand monk is going to vary in effectiveness wildly from table to table depending on if your DM allows their core abilities to be used on any attack or only on flurry attacks and if they believe that flurry attacks can only be performed immediately after the attack action (I've seen each of these points debated multiple times on this same forum in the last month) depending on your DM, your Open Hand monk is either a tiger or a kitten.

The truth of it is that monks don't have damage output, they don't have spells, they don't have versatility (instead they have a bunch of very situational and weirdly restricted abilities), and, just to rub some salt in it, they need DEX, WIS, and CON to be effective. So they're shoe-horned into fighting in melee just to use their limited class features, which pairs well with their low HP and low damage, and they're out of ammo after about the 5th round of combat. If a monk is out of ki or is not using ki, he has no combat options except for a single extra melee attack. Monks don't have a lot going for them without multi-classing.

Enter Stunning Strike: a decent stun effect that requires the caster to hit with a melee attack and then the target to fail a save. At a 60% hit chance and 48% save fail rate (ty Kryx) this means on any given attack roll you can have up to a 29% chance to actually land a successful stun. It's great for fighting one big bad thing, but it quickly falls off in terms of effectiveness against a horde where its low chance of success makes it too unreliable.

If you gave this ability to a fighter, would it be OP? It would be OP as f**k.

But the MAD of the monk ensures a low likelihood of successfully stunning anything and low durability means that they are highly incentivized to find their way off of the frontline as soon as the going gets tough. These problems are both fixed around the same time (within a few levels of diamond soul) allowing the monk to stay on the front lines and deliver stuns effectively while still having some ki for using their other (very limited) class features. At about the same time, spellcasters are getting access to 6th or 7th level spells.

It's like you said, Lee, it's about options. The monks have very limited options and they have a number of systemic weaknesses that are all cleared up at about the same time to make them a functional class in their own right. Meanwhile spellcasters, and even other martials, are fully functional in their own right and only get more options as they go, rather than reaching a point at which they reliably use the options of their their class.

SS is OP in a vacuum, but until high level play it's pretty lackluster for the monk. By the time it's not lackluster and the class has come together, all the other classes have so many more options that it would be very hard to argue that it's still OP.


This screams I haven't played a monk. I will admit that when I was playing a monk I did not have enough ki. But that was because the party would let me rest to get them back.

[Easy_Lee]

I think this might be our key difference in our play experience. Generally I find it's when the monk get pretty close to 10 that ki becomes fairly manageable to keep in stock. It's probably just a difference of our average number of encounters between short rests. Personally, I'm very conservative with my resources when I play a monk, but even then I find getting through two deadly encounters or just three normal combat encounters with less than 8 ki is a little rough.

Level 10 is right around the time when Monk damage starts to fall behind. They have extra attack and a free bonus attack, so they keep up fairly well with a quarterstaff prior to about 11.

[Finlam]

Level 10 is right around the time when Monk damage starts to fall behind. They have extra attack and a free bonus attack, so they keep up fairly well with a quarterstaff prior to about 11.
You don't play monk for the damage. I thought I was talking about ki though...but yea I did see the damage start to fall behind even as overall combat contribution ramped up.

@Sir_cros .... that's all drawn from playing monks in different campaigns up through 16th level... maybe your experience was different? Did you short rest between every combat or fight enemies with low con?

[MrStabby]

I think this might be our key difference in our play experience. Generally I find it's when the monk get pretty close to 10 that ki becomes fairly manageable to keep in stock. It's probably just a difference of our average number of encounters between short rests. Personally, I'm very conservative with my resources when I play a monk, but even then I find getting through two deadly encounters or just three normal combat encounters with less than 8 ki is a little rough.

So average number of encounters: for me it is usually one deadly or very hard and a couple of moderate encounters between short rests (although this is just the way it goes - not always by intent but by plot/how the world works).

I suspect a lot of it may be due to party composition. If you get a slow party - lots of HP and defensive abilities then there are a lot of combat rounds to keep things stunned in, lots of chances for flurry of blows etc.. On the other hand if the party is the monk and a bunch of glass cannons and the combat is all over in three rounds then there is diminished opportunity to use Ki.


Personally I think monk is at its best for levels 6 to 10. It is still awesome at higher levels but level 6+ spells are pretty sexy as well.