What do people think of the monk and ranger classes?

[holywhippet]

I'm getting ready for my first 5E campaign so I've been looking over the classes. The monk looks like an upgrade over the 3rd edition version. But certain things about it bother me. The class has a d8 hit dice like 3E which I never thought was a good idea. Their damage with unarmed attacks is kind of underwhelming as well. They only start with d4 and work their way up to d10. Actual fighter classes can get weapons that do as much or more damage from the start. I do like that they can use dexterity for both to hit and damage though.

I took a close look at the ranger class because another player was considering between it and barbarian. From what I can see the ranger is a bit overly specialized since they have to pick a favored terrain and monster type. That gives them bonuses, but only when working in their preferred terrain and facing that particular monster type. As soon as you move to a different terrain or face different monsters those bonuses just vanish. Unless you have a good idea that the campaign will be focused on a region and heavy on a particular type of monster it seems to me to be a bad idea to play a ranger. Barbarians on the other hand are straight up good at killing everything pretty much.

[Callin]

Monk is perfectly viable. Use a Shortsword or Spear to start out with and the bonus action attack is icing on a well put together cake. Not all Traditions are made equal though. Open Hand and Long Death are my favorites but Shadow is a well liked one.

As far as Ranger is concerned us the Unearthed Arcana Ranger. Its better put together.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The Monk is a lot of fun. Yes, your base damage die is low, but you make up for it by making more attacks each round than anyone but a high-level Fighter. And your first attack or two each round should be with a spear or quarterstaff for held in two hands for a d8 damage die. And you can attempt a stun on each hit. Yes, your base health is low, but you can Dodge as a bonus action. Or better yet, take Mobility and run back out of range after hitting.

(Note that everyone can use Dex for attack and damage, though, provided they're using a finesse or ranged weapon-- Monks just get the unique ability to use it with their fists and with simple weapons)

The base Ranger gets some crap, but he honestly does a pretty solid job. Favored Enemy/Terrain are fluffy, but they'll come up sometimes, and you still get an extra proficiency on, say, the Barbarian. (To say nothing of spells). The Hunter gets Horde Breaker, one of the best extra-attack abilities in the game, and all Rangers learn Hunter's Mark to add 1d6 damage to all their attacks for an hour at a time. Add in TWF or a feat like Crossbow Expert and the Ranger's damage is quite good, thank you.

[Fishyninja]

Monks are interesting especially when they get to level 5 allowing you note only extra attacks (like the ranger) but stunning strike which is a great controller aspect. Ki also recharges on short rest which means all the bonus actions that Monks can use, regardless of archetype are readily available.

All the monk archtypes including Way of the Long Death allow the Monk to act as a controller and power player and one interesting aspect with Monks and Rangers is that they MC well.

GO on th basis they both use Wisdom. and at level 3 the Ranger allows you to pick skills like Horde Breaker (more attacks are always good) and Colussus slayer (more damage) which is also good.

Yes the Monks damage dice to take a while to upgrade but the monk is not meant to be a front line hitter, they run in, stun enemies, or take out one enemy, or act as a distraction then run out of battle always causing the enemy to change it's priorities allowing the heavy hitters and the ranged attackers to shine.

[MrStabby]

Rangers feel like you have to go a bit too long between the things that excite you as you level up. They are OK... but the latest revision is probably more powerful and feels more fluffy.

The monk is arguably the most tactically powerful class in the game. Certainly as a DM I can see how big an impact they have on a battle, mainly through mobility and stunning strike. The problem is that as a player you only see half of what happens:

Wizard is about to fireball the party but Ninja McPunchyface teleports in and stuns them. The Monk sees they did a modest amount of damage. They never see the fireball that didn't happen. The big effect of the stunning strike is taking enemy actions out of the encounter - by it's very nature its effect is manifest in what you don't see. You are likely to be having a much bigger effect than you give yourself credit for.

[tkuremento]

I like Monk on Lizardfolk because obvious reasons with the wording of their bite :P

I've never really done anything with Ranger, but the new UA seems cool. Being a tree monster seems fun!

[Trum4n1208]

Monk is very good in 5E. I have one in my current game, and while the Monk isn't the heaviest hitter, he's typically the one that carries the day. I believe that player is playing an Open Hand Monk, if that helps.

As for Ranger, the base Ranger in the PHB is okay, leaning a little weak maybe, but not bad. The UA revised Ranger is great fun to play, and is IMO, what the PHB Ranger should have been. If you play Ranger, push for that one.

[jitzul]

I can only speak for monk since I have played it. People on here will say that the monk's low damage does not matter because they are absolute god's when it comes to controlling the battlefield. I would say if you are a open palm or shadow monk then you are only moderately ok at battlefield control. Monk's shine when put against things that have low con saves. But as soon as you are against anything with a halfway decent con save then the monks best feature stunning strike becomes useless. If you aren't playing one of the phb archetypes then the only thing you can do is spend ki on flurry of blows when fighting anything with a decent con score. The thing about monk is that almost all other martial classes have a class ability or feat that can help raise there damage. Monk can't benefit from Sharpshooter or Great weapon. And the only thing that raises damage is one extra attack that cost a resource.

[Lombra]

Monks are a ton of fun, their mobility makes them really useful both to aid an unconcious ally or to rush over a flameskull floating 20ft above the party that is getting burned to death (true story).
I will advise making WIS your highest score followed by DEX and CON. For the complete martial artist feeling dip rogue end expertuse athletics and acrobatics, helps with mobility and eases grapples.

[coredump]

If you are using Fighter tactics with a Monk.... you will not be happy.

Monks hit pretty hard, but not as hard as a dedicated fighter damage dealer
Monks have decent AC, but not as good as a fighter can get

Play to a Monks strengths.... mobility! They move fast, they can jump/fall pretty far and not take damage. By 9th they are running up walls and across water.

Deflect missiles is great, means I can run around, and not worry so much about attracting an archer's attention. (And its *great* for role playing or intimidating....)

Stunning Strike. Your speed lets you get past mooks to the mean old spell caster in the back....then you stun him for a round or two. Fight over.

Can still do decent damage, at level 5 I can do 2D8+1D6+12, and for a Ki point, add another 1D6+4 onto that....and still Stun them.

And we haven't even gotten into the various Monastic Orders....

But everyso often I see someone just run forward and attack....and keep being surprised when the keep dying.

[FinnS]

The only issue I have with the revised Ranger is the new Natural Explorer and, to a lesser extent, Primeval Awareness.
Advantage on initiative, ignore difficult terrain and advantage vs any creature that hasn't acted yet in the first round is too powerful as a first level ability.

My group uses a house rule that brings back picking Favoured Terrains.
There's basically 10 natural terrains.
Mountain, hills, plains/grassland, desert, arctic, urban, swamp, forrest, aquatic and Underdark/underground.
Our house rule is that a Ranger picks a Favoured Terrain at level 1, gains a 2nd when they pick their Conclave at 3rd and then one more on every Conclave level, 7th, 11th and 15th (doesn't include 5th, as that's just the Extra Attack level).
A Ranger only gains his Natural Explorer benefits and can only sense his Favoured Enemies within 5 miles while in a Favoured Terrain.

[GlenSmash!]

[QUOTE=MrStabby;21616942]The monk is arguably the most tactically powerful class in the game./QUOTE]

Big time. Monks can keep baddies perpetually stunned, and have the mobility to counteract the lower hit die. They're one of the best designed classes in my opinion.

PHB Rangers are mostly fine, but the UA definitely improves upon it. I think a Finalized version of the Ranger will move some of its abilities to different levels than they're currently at.

[Specter]

Monk: the most tactically efficient martial.

Ranger: the most efficient martial for horde destruction.

[Specter]

The only issue I have with the revised Ranger is the new Natural Explorer and, to a lesser extent, Primeval Awareness.
Advantage on initiative, ignore difficult terrain and advantage vs any creature that hasn't acted yet in the first round is too powerful as a first level ability.

It's good, but right now rangers don't get the INT and WIS Expertise they used to get. Any cleric with Survival now does it better than the ranger. I'd much rather have the old version.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Don't like them. Monks have no sense (training so hard in your life to just simulate a fighter without weapons but worse) and Rangers look racist since many editions ago (with all that hate to specific races). I can say only one good thing about monks: stunning strike. Rangers are too times trash, one for racists, two for being the most underpowered class. :smallbiggrin:

There only class I dislike more, classes with fanatic and dogmatic moral codes (Yihadi... I mean Paladins mainly fit this "moral-illness" approach). Also Clerics and Druids (at least the one serving gods, like slaves), because you want to have fun at the table not having a stick in... well, you know.

[Ninja-Radish]

Monk is a very good class, every archetype is solid with the exception of the elemental one.

The Ranger in the core book is utter trash. Use the revised version from Unearthed Arcana instead if possible. That version fixes many of the issues that were in the core book version.

[Specter]

Don't like them. Monks have no sense (training so hard in your life to just simulate a fighter without weapons but worse)

Had to correct this for the sake of the new player.

A fighter can't dodge blows and attack at the same time. A fighter can't jump over a house. A fighter can't drop a foe on their butt without expending resources. A fighter can't stun an enemy and make them waste their entire turn. A fighter can't run up walls or across water. A fighter can't be proficient in all saves. A fighter can't put a finger on a foe and kill them. Etc.

[tkuremento]

Rangers look racist since many editions ago (with all that hate to specific races).

Despite the common use of race for RPGs, technically it would be species, right?

[Naanomi]

Monks are well built, fun, and functional. They suffer from a few relatively weak subclass options (though none unplayabley awful); and a bit of a learning curve (they are not quite scouts, DPS machines, maneuverable control types... but some effective blend of those roles that takes a bit to pick up)

Rangers are the worst class of a list of good classes; which leaves them still quite playable but uniquely sometimes feeling lacking. Their spell list is specialized and numerically limited, many of their class abilities are context specific (need to be fighting the right foes in the right place to really shine), and one of their two subclasses (beastmaster) is mechanically 'wonkey' and loses a huge amount of power when your companion dies (in a way no other class or subclass really does). They want to walk the line between skill-monkey and combatant, and don't quite feel like they get either quite right. They also appear to be equally 'ranged combat' and 'melee combat' capable, but in practice there is a big skew towards ranged viability. Hunter Rangers can do some (mostly ranged) tricks that other classes cannot replicate well, which can be fun.

Revised ranger addresses most of these problems adequately.


Despite the common use of race for RPGs, technically it would be species, right?

Though somewhat antiquated by modern linguistic standards, 'race' can refer to 'subspecies', of which some classifications of Humans, Orcs, Elves, etc may qualify (as they can interbreed and produce viable offspring, yet likely have substantial unique genetic characteristics)

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm getting ready for my first 5E campaign so I've been looking over the classes. The monk looks like an upgrade over the 3rd edition version. But certain things about it bother me. The class has a d8 hit dice like 3E which I never thought was a good idea. Their damage with unarmed attacks is kind of underwhelming as well. They only start with d4 and work their way up to d10. Actual fighter classes can get weapons that do as much or more damage from the start. I do like that they can use dexterity for both to hit and damage though.

I took a close look at the ranger class because another player was considering between it and barbarian. From what I can see the ranger is a bit overly specialized since they have to pick a favored terrain and monster type. That gives them bonuses, but only when working in their preferred terrain and facing that particular monster type. As soon as you move to a different terrain or face different monsters those bonuses just vanish. Unless you have a good idea that the campaign will be focused on a region and heavy on a particular type of monster it seems to me to be a bad idea to play a ranger. Barbarians on the other hand are straight up good at killing everything pretty much.

Mathematically the Beastmaster is better dpr than the Barbarian, but that didn't stop anyone from grousing well before now.

Favored monster really doesn't matter, it's a minor perk; favored terrain can easily cover 90% of most campaigns (hint forest for most, underdark for OotA)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Despite the common use of race for RPGs, technically it would be species, right?
And, you know, you can just pick monster types and not have to deal with "hunting sentient creatures" at all.

[tkuremento]

Though somewhat antiquated by modern linguistic standards, 'race' can refer to 'subspecies', of which some classifications of Humans, Orcs, Elves, etc may qualify (as they can interbreed and produce viable offspring, yet likely have substantial unique genetic characteristics)

I mean sure but at the same time, how could the subspecies of a single species be so vastly different? I mean Dragonborn vs Dwarf for instance.

[Naanomi]

I mean sure but at the same time, how could the subspecies of a single species be so vastly different? I mean Dragonborn vs Dwarf for instance.
I doubt they can interbreed, so wouldn't be considered the same species... but in a world with such things being common, one might get used to using that language. Although, do remember that using the term as subspecies, a toy-chihuahua and a wolf-hound are different 'races of dog'... quite the range is possible

[JumboWheat01]

Monks are a very agile combat class. Not the sturdiest around, no, but that's not their shtick. They're about mobility and (eventually) being awesome at avoiding things that require a save. Though as many people will say, avoid making a Four Elements monk. While one can make them work, they are not the easiest or the best things to do so.

And while Monks can take advantage of them as much as anyone else, they aren't as item dependent as other classes, they're more internally focused. That can be appealing.

---

Rangers are an all-right class, by the base book but definitely not satisfying. The UA remake goes a long way into making them a very interesting class, but it may not be allowed at your table. Still, Rangers allow for a lot of RP opportunities, which can make them very interesting characters. Why do you hate your first favored enemy so, for example, is a great and flexible starting point. Monks, as much as we love them, are kind of stuck in their origins.

Rangers also have a lot of equipment flexibility, being able to use all sorts of weapons and wear a wide variety of armor. Helps you customize your character more to your liking. A few Divine spells never hurt anyone either.

[tkuremento]

I doubt they can interbreed, so wouldn't be considered the same species... but in a world with such things being common, one might get used to using that language. Although, do remember that using the term as subspecies, a toy-chihuahua and a wolf-hound are different 'races of dog'... quite the range is possible

I guess but my point was lizard vs mammal really. Sure both animals and invertebrates, but still very different.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Stunning Strike often makes the Monk the MVP of the party. Couple that with all their defensive advantages and traits and you are talking about a character class that can totally nerf hard encounters with stunning strike and survive against all kinds of spells and effects.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Monk's shine when put against things that have low con saves. But as soon as you are against anything with a halfway decent con save then the monks best feature stunning strike becomes useless.

I suppose if you have a monk with WIS 14 or something then this is true. But if you are boosting your WIS, your going to be stunning everything that doesn't have super high Con saves, stuff with "halfway decent con saves" are not going to be saving much against a Monk with WIS 18.

A 9th level Monk with WIS 18 has a DC 16 Con save for its Stunning Strike. It only costs 1 ki and you can spam the hell out of it. Even a creature with a high Con save can be screwed because it can make one or two of the saves but what if it has to make 3 or 4 of the saves in one turn? It will get stunned and it's Gang-Bang City for the rest of the party on it.

The only creatures that don't fear Stunning Strike too much are creatures with really high Con saves like powerful dragons and giants, "halfway decent Con saves" ain't gonna help you.

[Jarlhen]

In my experience the monk is situationally good. Most of the time they're a sub-par damage dealer with low health, decent AC (depending on rolls, or if you point buy), few ki-points. At their best they're able to zip around the battlefield and do some good shutting down of enemies. I don't hate them but I certainly don't share the optimism of many others in this thread.

Thing is, people are always comparing the monk in a vaccuum. Any other melee martial class will grab stuff like Polearm master and/or greatweaponmaster. GWM especially. Ranged classes will grab sharpshooter and/or crossbowmaster. The monk gets nothing out of GWM, CBM, or Shapshooter. I can't remember if there are ranged monk weapons, but most of the times a player will run a monk as a melee character. I believe quarterstaff counts as a polearm, but they already get a bonus attack so it would be for the reaction then. This means that the best a monk can do is the worst any other class can do. They have options to do more damage, the monk does not. I suppose this is supposed to be made up by the Ki abilities. But in my experience the Ki points go quickly and they're only sometimes useful.

The Unearthed Arcana ranger is excellent. It gets solid damage applicable at range. It has a bunch of spells that can control the battlefield same or similar to the monk. It feels less stat dependent, though it depends a lot on how you want to build it. It can make use of any of the martial feats without problem. It gets fighting styles. It gets a ton of situationally useful fluff. Imo the UA Ranger is significantly stronger than the monk throughout a campaign. The monk may have its moments but its lowest level is low than a Rangers average in my experience.

It may be possible to multiclass monk a bit to get it some stuff. Warlock is a classic. Rogue isn't a terrible choice. But the monk without multiclassing is lackluster to me. The ranger is a better choice overall.

[djreynolds]

You cannot compare these types to a typical paladin, fighter or barbarian. These two classes are skirmishers

Are you comparing them to each other, because I find both very similar. Same saving throws for most levels, strength and dexterity.

Both are basically finesse based, wisdom types that can hit in melee or from range. Have great stealth and can easily multiclass with rogue or fighter for a tad more specialization.

Is there a huge difference between an archery based ranger and fighter, not really.

Is there a huge difference between the damage of a TWF ranger or fighter, not really.

IMO, these classes may look "bad" on paper but during game play are actually very useful.

Stealth and perception wise, aside form a rogue and bard, the classes are very good at both just because of their armor selection (or none) and high dex and wisdom. Sure a cleric can have a high perception or survival or stealth score but their dexterity and armor limits them as a scout, unless the cleric is dex based.

My issue with the monk is their AC is lower than a chainmail S&B AC16 till 8th level and by then these types have grab plate and now you are behind that AC20 till 16th level and there is nothing they can do about that.

And I want some special attacks for flying sidekicks and perhaps an increase of AC like old monks got... in addition to dex and wisdom

[Solunaris]

All I know is that one of my friends tells a story of his Monk punching a BBEG in the face, sweeping his feet, and side kicking him off of a cliff. I don't think fighters can do that.

[djreynolds]

A fighter with shield master, 1 level of rogue for expertise, could paint a masterpiece with that big serving dish.

But I love Open Hand monk, as that trip is a dex save and most creatures will fail it.

Their push is fantastic but it is a strength save

IMO for monk or ranger, 1 level of rogue for expertise in 2 skills solves most problems

[jaappleton]

In my opinion, Monk is the only class where its role changes as it levels up. At first, it deals damage. More attacks than anyone. High mobility. Stunning Strike.

Then it shifts because its damage doesn't really increase. It's rather static. Sure, the damage dice goes up... But there's no feats or anything like that to give it another attack, or a Greatweapon Master equivalent.

So it goes from being a melee oriented damage per round class to an enabler. A Monk won't dish out as much damage as a Fighter with GWM, but know what it can do? Stun the enemy so the Fighter can destroy it. Knock an enemy away from the squishy spellcaster. Push an enemy closer to some others so it gets into the blast radius of the spell the Sorcerer is about to use.

More than any other class, the Monk exudes flavor. It oozes out of it, so many different ways it can go and I love every direction.

[Fishyninja]

I can't remember if there are ranged monk weapons
Darts (or Homebrew them to Shruikens if you want the ninja theme)


I suppose this is supposed to be made up by the Ki abilities. But in my experience the Ki points go quickly and they're only sometimes useful.


Flurry of Blows - 2 unarmed attacks as a bonus action.
Patient Defence - Dodge as a Bonus Action
Step of the Wind - Disengage or Dash as a Bonus Action and Jump distance doubled.
Deflect Missles - If you catch the missle you can use a ki point to send it back at an enemy and counts as a monk weapon (therefore another unarmed attack as a bonus strike)
Stunning Strike - No explanation needed.
Diamod Soul - Spend one ki point to reroll a saving throw, that sould be a life saver.
Empty Body - 4 ki = Invisible for 1 minute
Empty Body - 8 ki for a free Astral Projection spell


And this this doesn't include anything from the Archetypes......I would say hardly situational.

To include the skills from the arcthypes I know off:


Way of Open Palm - Quivering Palm 3 ki points for either an insta kill or 10d10 necrtoc damage.
Way of the Shadow - Shardow arts - 2 ki = darkness, darkvision, pass without trace or silence for free
Way of the Long Death - Mastery of Death if at 0hp can use 1 ki to restore self to 1 hp
Way of the Long Death - Touch of the Long Death - expend up to 10 ki points to cause 2d10 damage per ki point or half on a saving throw

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Y
My issue with the monk is their AC is lower than a chainmail S&B AC16 till 8th level and by then these types have grab plate and now you are behind that AC20 till 16th level and there is nothing they can do about that.


Any decently made monk should start with AC 16 at first level, that's with DEX and WIS at 16 from point buy and numerous racial options. By fourth level, you're AC 17 and 8th level you're AC 18 by pumping DEX/WIS. The monk doesn't need super-high AC because he's not a tank. People who play a monk like a tank will only be disappointed. The monk gets into melee like a rogue, does his hits and then gets out of melee range through a variety of class/subclass options like Stunning Strike, Open Hand Technique, etc.

The monk forces opponents to have to move to get to him (if they can) or try ranged attacks on him (good luck) or spells (also tough with his saves, evasion, and spell immunities). If you play a monk properly, he's the character in your party most likely to survive an encounter.

[djreynolds]

The monk forces opponents to have to move to get to him (if they can) or try ranged attacks on him (good luck) or spells (also tough with his saves, evasion, and spell immunities). If you play a monk properly, he's the character in your party most likely to survive an encounter.

Skirmisher, monks use speed and ranger use archery to corral all those mooks into sweet little pockets for casters and tanks and take out the stragglers.

You can stay here and get beat with punches or arrows or squeeze in with the others while the caster lines up a fire ball or lightning bolt and PAM feast on AoOs

[Dr. Cliché]

Flurry of Blows - 2 unarmed attacks as a bonus action.
Patient Defence - Dodge as a Bonus Action
Step of the Wind - Disengage or Dash as a Bonus Action and Jump distance doubled.
Deflect Missles - If you catch the missle you can use a ki point to send it back at an enemy and counts as a monk weapon (therefore another unarmed attack as a bonus strike)
Stunning Strike - No explanation needed.
Diamod Soul - Spend one ki point to reroll a saving throw, that sould be a life saver.
Empty Body - 4 ki = Invisible for 1 minute
Empty Body - 8 ki for a free Astral Projection spell


And this this doesn't include anything from the Archetypes......I would say hardly situational.

Well, it depends what you mean. You have a lot of options, certainly, but many are situational - if only because your Ki points are in short supply.

And, the 'short supply' aspect is really the crux here. Yeah, dodging as a bonus action is useful, but you can only do it so many times. Same goes for stuff like dashing as a bonus action or making a couple of extra weak attacks or throwing an enemy arrow back.

It seems really easy to burn through all your Ki points in just a few rounds without actually accomplishing much extra.

You can save them, sure, but that's where the whole 'situational' aspect comes in:
- Dodaging as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Dashing as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Throwing a missile back is fun . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?

[Specter]

Well, it depends what you mean. You have a lot of options, certainly, but many are situational - if only because your Ki points are in short supply.

And, the 'short supply' aspect is really the crux here. Yeah, dodging as a bonus action is useful, but you can only do it so many times. Same goes for stuff like dashing as a bonus action or making a couple of extra weak attacks or throwing an enemy arrow back.

It seems really easy to burn through all your Ki points in just a few rounds without actually accomplishing much extra.

You can save them, sure, but that's where the whole 'situational' aspect comes in:
- Dodaging as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Dashing as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Throwing a missile back is fun . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?

But that's part of most classes in D&D. If we get too hung up on expending a resource or not, we end up doing nothing (especially Warlock AHEM...)

That's why I say Monk is the most tactically-efficient martial. If you always make good use of your resources when the right time comes, you can be sure to be a pest.

[coredump]

Well, it depends what you mean. You have a lot of options, certainly, but many are situational - if only because your Ki points are in short supply.

And, the 'short supply' aspect is really the crux here. Yeah, dodging as a bonus action is useful, but you can only do it so many times. Same goes for stuff like dashing as a bonus action or making a couple of extra weak attacks or throwing an enemy arrow back.

It seems really easy to burn through all your Ki points in just a few rounds without actually accomplishing much extra.

You can save them, sure, but that's where the whole 'situational' aspect comes in:
- Dodaging as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Dashing as a bonus action is useful . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?
- Throwing a missile back is fun . . . but is it worth using a Ki point this round?

But that same logic means battlemasters are bad, or spellcasters are bad, or any other class with limited resources. Of course you have to pick when to use Ki points, just like my Paladin needs to decide when to Divine Smite....but no one claims Divine Smite is weak because you can't use it every time.

Ki points come back on a short rest, so you usually have about 2 fights per short rest..... once in tier 2 you shouldn't be running out of Ki all that often.

[Dr. Cliché]

But that's part of most classes in D&D. If we get too hung up on expending a resource or not, we end up doing nothing (especially Warlock AHEM...)

The difference with the monk is that *all* his expendable abilities are tied to the same pool.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The difference with the monk is that *all* his expendable abilities are tied to the same pool.
The Monk's pool is also huge, and refills on a short rest. I played a Monk up to 7 and never felt like I was too limited.

[MBControl]

I love the ranger class. It is probably my bias, in that my first character was a ranger, but I love the variety it offers without giving up much in turns of effectiveness. You can be a very able fighter, and that can be ranged or melee. A 2 handed fighting hunter, can start really putting up some big numbers in terms of ATKs, and with a high DEX bonus, can be pretty hard to hit. They are also natural archers, with a ton of spells to enhance your attacks.

Speaking of magic, they are not deep, but for those of us that like versatility, you do get a few very useful spells. Hunter's Mark may be one of the stronger spells for fighters, Pass Without Trace is very great for the party, and you can always chip in with some heals if need be.

You like animals? Great, you can have that too. Even though the original incarnation of the Beast Master is a bit limited in my view, it is clearly a very popular option for the class.

You need stuff stolen, or a stealth scout, or even a "mine sweeper" on the team? Yeah, we can do that too. In a edition where DEX is master trait, the Ranger uses it's benefits to great effect.

The monk I've never played, though I really want to. I see this class a highly flavour based class, ideal for RPers but it helps to be an experienced player that can navigate the nuances of bonus actions and combination attacks. This class too has the ability to string together some very cool attacks, and for those tire of the Paladin/Gladiator style of fighting, this a much more precise and agile option.

As this class gets into higher levels, be prepared to be the last character alive in the party. Monks are designed to resist or ignore a lot of different ways of dying, including starvation, falling, aging, poisons and disease, etc. unless you get hit with a ton of damage, you're probably going to survive.

[Fishyninja]

The monk doesn't need super-high AC because he's not a tank.

Agree woith you 100% on this, however I feel the WOTLD Monk does may them a little tankier again you are nto going to be as good as someone in full plate but you know


But that's part of most classes in D&D. If we get too hung up on expending a resource or not, we end up doing nothing (especially Warlock AHEM...)

That's why I say Monk is the most tactically-efficient martial. If you always make good use of your resources when the right time comes, you can be sure to be a pest.

You beat me too it.


The Monk's pool is also huge, and refills on a short rest. I played a Monk up to 7 and never felt like I was too limited.

And Again beating to the post. I mean if you count shirt rests as being an hour (I'm assuming most DM's following this rule) then after a big battle, take a quick rest. Ki is back also a mention to Coredump as well on this, like they (and specter) said, if you are going to be hung up on using resources then you are not going to be an effective player.

I get what Dr. Cliche is saying in yes generally these abilities are really only use in combat (therefore situational) however to say that a characters combat resources make it a sub-par character seems bizarre to me.

[coredump]

The difference with the monk is that *all* his expendable abilities are tied to the same pool.
No more than the battlemaster and his manuevers, or the wizard and his spell slots.

And Monk has a lot of abilities that don't require Ki, slow fall, deflect missiles, extra movement, bonus attacks, shove/trip, teleport, magic fists, evasion, etc etc

[MrStabby]

The difference with the monk is that *all* his expendable abilities are tied to the same pool.

But you really do get a lot of these Ki points. At level 5 you should be on 5 per short rest - so roughly 15 per day. At two to three combats per short rest (roughly what you want for the 6 to 8 encounters per day). This still lets you spend roughly two Ki per encounter. Whether two stuns, or using the Ki to get into combat a turn earlier through a dash, you get a pretty significant boost.

Every level the pool keeps getting bigger.

At say 7 encounters per day, average of 3 turns per encounter you should be looking at 21 turns of combat on the non epic days. So roughly - unless fights really drag out - you should be looking at having a Ki point to spend on almost every turn through the day by level 7. By managing your Ki better you can even keep some left over for emergencies and nova rounds in tough fights.

Even not using resources the monk is still pretty good.

[jitzul]

Even not using resources the monk is still pretty good.

No just no. Without ki a monk is just a unarmed fighter that can't use any damage boosting feats and is completely useless to the party. Sure a lot of the monks features are cool but only really benefit the monk itself. At the end of the day d&d is still a team game.

[Dr. Cliché]

No more than the battlemaster and his manuevers, or the wizard and his spell slots.


Eh?

Battle Masters have Action Surge and Second Wind - both entirely separate from their Manuver pool.

Also, wizard spells are usually only competing with spells of the same level (as opposed to all spells). In any case, casters also have abilities that are unrelated to their spells.


And Monk has a lot of abilities that don't require Ki, slow fall, deflect missiles, extra movement, bonus attacks, shove/trip, teleport, magic fists, evasion, etc etc

Hence why I specified *expendable* abilities.



I get what Dr. Cliche is saying in yes generally these abilities are really only use in combat (therefore situational) however to say that a characters combat resources make it a sub-par character seems bizarre to me.

It's not that they're combat abilities - it's that they're all competing for the same resources. Dodging as a bonus action is useful, but is it more useful than making 2 extra attacks, taking a dash action etc.? Also, do you really need to Dodge now, or would you be better off saving those Ki points to do one of those (or something else) later?


But you really do get a lot of these Ki points. At level 5 you should be on 5 per short rest - so roughly 15 per day. At two to three combats per short rest (roughly what you want for the 6 to 8 encounters per day). This still lets you spend roughly two Ki per encounter. Whether two stuns, or using the Ki to get into combat a turn earlier through a dash, you get a pretty significant boost.

That's the thing though - 2 Ki really doesn't get you very far. Your abilities are relatively weak and short-lived (most are based on a single action or a single round).



Every level the pool keeps getting bigger.

True, though it still seems pretty small for low-mid level monks.



At say 7 encounters per day, average of 3 turns per encounter you should be looking at 21 turns of combat on the non epic days. So roughly - unless fights really drag out - you should be looking at having a Ki point to spend on almost every turn through the day by level 7. By managing your Ki better you can even keep some left over for emergencies and nova rounds in tough fights.

Out of interest, where do you get the average of 3 rounds per encounter?


Regardless, my main concern is that I've seen people in this thread stating monk Ki abilities as if they were free - e.g. dodging as a bonus action. Yeah, monks can do it, but if they do then it's going to be at the expense of everything else they can do. And even then, going by your averages above, he's still not going to have that about 1/3 of the time.

This is what I mean when I talk about the Monk's abilities being situational. Most of them are useful almost all the time . . . but you don't have the resources to use even one of them all the time - let alone all of them.


Even not using resources the monk is still pretty good.

I think that might depend on what type of Monk it is. :smalltongue:

[Fishyninja]

Even not using resources the monk is still pretty good.

Hear Hear, and again considering many of the Monk's Abilities only cost a single point and a lot of them are extremely powerful and obtainable at lower levels (Stunning Strike and Step of the Wind pop into mind).

Yes, there are arguments that the Monk is a subpar damage dealer fine I'll accept that and it was mentioned that they get nothing out of GWM/PAM or CBM.....fine the monk does not benefit from three of the many feats available it’s not really a problem. Feats that do work well with the Monk would be Magic Initiate (for Shillelagh) and Spear Mastery.

Going back to the OP's point of multiclassing these I am actually planning on this and have made a previous thread about it and yes some of the Ranger's skills are not worth it but getting up to level three is great allowing for Horde Breaker (Extra Weapon attacks for the win!) and Colossus Slayer (Extra 1d8 dam is always good) and you get a couple of spells too, if you are worried about the Monk being Squishy in HP terms, grab Cure Wounds and bob's your uncle. Also, there are the fighting styles do you could pick up Duelling to gain a +2 to damage rolls.

[Specter]

No just no. Without ki a monk is just a unarmed fighter that can't use any damage boosting feats and is completely useless to the party. Sure a lot of the monks features are cool but only really benefit the monk itself. At the end of the day d&d is still a team game.

Well, maybe. But is that fighter without Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable and other subclass resources (maneuvers, spells, etc.)? If yes, then they're in the same boat.

[Sicarius Victis]

No just no. Without ki a monk is just a unarmed fighter that can't use any damage boosting feats and is completely useless to the party. Sure a lot of the monks features are cool but only really benefit the monk itself. At the end of the day d&d is still a team game.

Yeah, without Ki all a Monk has is 3 attacks per round for 1d10+X magical damage each without requiring any equipment, up to 20 AC without requiring equipment, incredible movement speed, proficiency in all saves, the ability to deflect or catch just about any ranged weapon attack, immunity to all disease and poison including poison damage, Evasion, the ability to at-will end any charmed or frightened effects on themself, various subclass features, and a lot more roleplaying features than a Fighter anyways. But yes, without Ki a Monk is obviously nothing more than a weak fighter.

[Dr. Cliché]

Yeah, without Ki all a Monk has is 3 attacks per round for 1d10+X magical damage each without requiring any equipment, up to 20 AC without requiring equipment, incredible movement speed, proficiency in all saves, the ability to deflect or catch just about any ranged weapon attack, immunity to all disease and poison including poison damage, Evasion, the ability to at-will end any charmed or frightened effects on themself, various subclass features, and a lot more roleplaying features than a Fighter anyways. But yes, without Ki a Monk is obviously nothing more than a weak fighter.

Because who even plays the game below lv17?

[Nifft]

Monks are great. 4 Element Monks are a bit behind the curve, but the basic Monk framework is good enough that even they are quite playable, and the other two core subclasses (Open Hand and Shadow) are both fantastic.

Rangers using the UA substitute framework are great. I don't like the core Ranger much.

[Sicarius Victis]

Because who even plays the game below lv17?

Well, if you want to look at it that way, make the attacks 1d6/1d8 instead of 10. Problem solved.

[jitzul]

Look I like the monk class but the way most forum goers talk about the monk you guys conflate the monk to make it seem like a untouchable golden god. Deflect missiles is cool but it's not gonna completely negate a enemy that can shot more then once or multiple ranged enemy's. Diamond soul is sweet but by the time you get it the paladin of the group with 20 cha already had something that gave a +5 to everybody within 10 feet of him for 8 levels. 1d10 three times a round is cool but you get it a level even wotc doesn't really expect you to play. And by then the fighter has had 6 levels of hitting stuff with his magic greataxe or greatsword three times. The monk is fun to play but it's not the best of the best of the best.

[Fishyninja]

The monk is fun to play but it's not the best of the best of the best.

Agreed they are amazing to play and agreed they are not the best (I am not sure any class can claim that title). However, I think most people's intent here are stating that the Monk is not sub-par.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well, if you want to look at it that way, make the attacks 1d6/1d8 instead of 10. Problem solved.

But it also affects some of the other stuff you mentioned (e.g. monks only get proficiency in all saves at lv14, and don't get immunity to poison until level 10 etc.). Even stuff like magic attacks and evasion aren't obtained until lv6/7, respectively.

The reason why I bring this up is that low level monks are also the ones with the fewest Ki points (and so much more likely to run out. Hence, I think it's more important to look at what low-level Monks can do without their Ki, as they're the ones most likely to find themselves in that situation. :smalltongue:

[ChubbyRain]

I'm getting ready for my first 5E campaign so I've been looking over the classes. The monk looks like an upgrade over the 3rd edition version. But certain things about it bother me. The class has a d8 hit dice like 3E which I never thought was a good idea. Their damage with unarmed attacks is kind of underwhelming as well. They only start with d4 and work their way up to d10. Actual fighter classes can get weapons that do as much or more damage from the start. I do like that they can use dexterity for both to hit and damage though.

I took a close look at the ranger class because another player was considering between it and barbarian. From what I can see the ranger is a bit overly specialized since they have to pick a favored terrain and monster type. That gives them bonuses, but only when working in their preferred terrain and facing that particular monster type. As soon as you move to a different terrain or face different monsters those bonuses just vanish. Unless you have a good idea that the campaign will be focused on a region and heavy on a particular type of monster it seems to me to be a bad idea to play a ranger. Barbarians on the other hand are straight up good at killing everything pretty much.


The 5e Monk is essentially the 4e Monk in the diguise of a 3e Monk. I'm so glad they kept the 4e Monk (and Rogue) ideologies and put them in this game.

Fun as all hell, even if the individual damage is on the low side.

The monk has a lot of fun features and has become the replacement for the fighter in our games (Cleric, Monk, Rogue, Warlock are our core classes) with some tiny tweaks.

The ranger however... Just play something else. The UA ranger looks nice, cleric can be a ranger, rogue makes for a great ranger, and even the fighter makes a great ranger (scout or monster hunter variants). The PHB ranger is...just so lackluster. It is playable but I always feel like something is missing.

[Sicarius Victis]

But it also affects some of the other stuff you mentioned (e.g. monks only get proficiency in all saves at lv14, and don't get immunity to poison until level 10 etc.). Even stuff like magic
attacks and evasion aren't obtained until lv6/7, respectively.

Of course, if it's just "below 17th level" as you explicitly stated, then that doesn't quite work. But yes, below 14th level they only have as many saves as any other character. Below 10th level, they are also not immune to poison/disease. They're also reliably doing about the same damage as a non-GWM/SS Fighter at those levels, and reliably hitting more often than a GWM/SS.


The reason why I bring this up is that low level monks are also the ones with the fewest Ki points (and so much more likely to run out. Hence, I think it's more important to look at what low-level Monks can do without their Ki, as they're the ones most likely to find themselves in that situation. :smalltongue:

A Monk will reliably match the damage of a Fighter straight from level 1 to level 10, while moving a lot faster than a Fighter beginning at level 2. If they start out using even just a basic quarterstaff, they're even outdamaging them at earlier levels. A Monk's AC can reliably be 16 without any equipment beginning at 1st level, starting 3rd level they can reliably deflect enemy ranged attacks, and at 5th level continue to beat the Fighter in number of attacks, if not in effectiveness per attack. At 6th level all of their unarmed attacks are magic, whereas most Fighters have to rely entirely on the DM to decide to give them magic weapons. In addition, at 6th level, most subclasses give another non-Ki-powered ability. That's all about what I'd consider the "low-level" range. Notice something about what I'd listed? None of it required resource expenditure. Monks are still quite effective without resources, and they only get more powerful when they do have Ki to spend.

[Dr. Cliché]

Of course, if it's just "below 17th level" as you explicitly stated,

I didn't explicitly state 'below 17th level'.

[Sicarius Victis]

I didn't explicitly state 'below 17th level'.

Well...


Because who even plays the game below lv17?

You kind of did.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well...



You kind of did.

That's not explicitly saying it. That's just commenting on the fact that your demonstration example for the Monk had to be at least lv17. Hardly the standard for most games.

[Sicarius Victis]

Well, given that it was an explicit statement that they couldn't be that below 17th level...

But my point was, Monks are still quite usable even when they don't have Ki, at just about any level. 17th+ was just an example of them in their prime.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well, given that it was an explicit statement that they couldn't be that below 17th level...

But that's the point - it wasn't an explicit statement. It wasn't even a statement. :smalltongue:


But my point was, Monks are still quite usable even when they don't have Ki, at just about any level. 17th+ was just an example of them in their prime.

Fair enough.

[Sicarius Victis]

But that's the point - it wasn't an explicit statement. It wasn't even a statement. :smalltongue:

I'll rephrase that: an explicit implication.

Wait, is it still considered an implication when it's all but stated openly? :smalltongue:

[Dr. Cliché]

I'll rephrase that: an explicit implication.

That's a contradiction.

If something is implied then, by definition, it can't be explicit. In order for something to be explicit, it has to be "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt". (Quote is from the online dictionary.)


Wait, is it still considered an implication when it's all but stated openly? :smalltongue:

I believe so, yes.

I'm also reminded of this:

https://youtu.be/FxChP7oux1E?t=164

[Sicarius Victis]

That's a contradiction.

If something is implied then, by definition, it can't be explicit. In order for something to be explicit, it has to be "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt". (Quote is from the online dictionary.)

However, something can be explicitly implied. An implication can be clear and detailed without whoever said it outright stating that's what it is. And when they do that, there really isn't room for doubt.

I give up on trying to make this language make sense.


I'm also reminded of this:

https://youtu.be/FxChP7oux1E?t=164

Good lord, I traded 3.PF for this.

[tkuremento]

That's a contradiction.

If something is implied then, by definition, it can't be explicit. In order for something to be explicit, it has to be "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt". (Quote is from the online dictionary.)



I believe so, yes.

I'm also reminded of this:

https://youtu.be/FxChP7oux1E?t=164


However, something can be explicitly implied. An implication can be clear and detailed without whoever said it outright stating that's what it is. And when they do that, there really isn't room for doubt.

I give up on trying to make this language make sense.



Good lord, I traded 3.PF for this.

Can we stop bickering? :c What would the Monasteries think? D:

[Sicarius Victis]

Can we stop bickering? :c What would the Monasteries think? D:

I'm not bickering, I'm breaking a language. :smalltongue:

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, most classes suffer a little at low levels. A low-level Monk's basic attack routine is on par with a Polarm Master or TWF-er-- swing once for 1d8 and once for 1d4. If feats are on the table, they grab Mobility and retreat back behind the front line every round, protected by a situational-but-solid reaction defense. A Long Death Monk is getting temporary hit points; a Shadow Monk has the most versatile cantrip (Minor Illusion) to play with. You can do one special thing every encounter, which is more than most classes can say. At 6th level, you gain an ability that's either at-will (Shadow Monk's ungodly-amazing teleport, Long Death Monk's giant intimidate) or on a separate pool (Open Hand's self-healing).

Honestly, the biggest limit I felt playing a Monk wasn't Ki points but action economy-- I had almost too many things competing for my bonus action. It makes for the aforementioned tactical play.

[JumboWheat01]

Can we stop bickering? :c What would the Monasteries think? D:

"Look at these foolish people. Language is meaningless when one has true enlightenment."
"What if true enlightenment includes a true understanding of language?"
"...$&*!(@#"

[Dr. Cliché]

"Look at these foolish people. Language is meaningless when one has true enlightenment."
"What if true enlightenment includes a true understanding of language?"
"...$&*!(@#"

Can I sig this? :smallbiggrin:

[JumboWheat01]

I never mind if someone sigs my silliness.

[Sicarius Victis]

You never truly understand a language unless you can break it with a sentence.

For instance, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" happens to be perfectly correct grammar in English.

[Dr. Cliché]

You never truly understand a language unless you can break it with a sentence.

For instance, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" happens to be perfectly correct grammar in English.

I don't think I can match that, but I've always been fond of sentences that are drastically changed by the inclusion of a comma.

"Let's eat, grandpa!"




Anyone remember the topic of this thread?

[Sicarius Victis]

I don't think I can match that, but I've always been fond of sentences that are drastically changed by the inclusion of a comma.

"Let's eat, grandpa!"

How about "I like cooking, my pets, and my family"?


Anyone remember the topic of this thread?

People arguing about whether or not to complain about the Monk and the Ranger, I think? Or something like that?

[Fishyninja]

I leave all alone for less than 3 hours and it's becoming a pedantics arguement! I'm so proud!

[Sicarius Victis]

I leave all alone for less than 3 hours and it's becoming a pedantics arguement! I'm so proud!

I resemble that remark!

But I'm not actually being pedantic, I'm just trying to break languages and/or brains.

[Gwendol]

The ranger is a very good class, played to its strenghts. The UA revision makes the class more appealing, at least for those looking to multiclass, but the original is worth taking a second look at. The ranger is played as a skillful survivalist, with some combat capability. Excellent scouts and ambushers, learn extra languages, divination of sorts, limited spellcasting. The conclaves add an extra dimension, and at least for the beastmaster the UA revision is strongly recommended.

[Sicarius Victis]

The ranger is a very good class, played to its strenghts. The UA revision makes the class more appealing, at least for those looking to multiclass, but the original is worth taking a second look at. The ranger is played as a skillful survivalist, with some combat capability. Excellent scouts and ambushers, learn extra languages, divination of sorts, limited spellcasting. The conclaves add an extra dimension, and at least for the beastmaster the UA revision is strongly recommended.

It's not that the core Ranger is weak, it's just far too DM-dependant. And that's just bad class design.

[MrStabby]

Well there is a lot of content on the PHB ranger that the ranger is OK at, but not good at. For example, Scouting.

The Ranger is good at scouting, but not at good as a rogue or a bard who chooses to be good at it and used their expertise for that purpose. This is even ignoring tools such as arcane eye.

The ranger can track creatures and has some cool tools for that. But again, there is a spell that locates creatures and other classes get it pretty early on.

The ranger is a good survivalist - foraging for food. Druid gets goodberry - and at an earlier level than the ranger. Create food and water is only a 3rd level spell.

[coredump]

Eh?

Battle Masters have Action Surge and Second Wind - both entirely separate from their Manuver pool.

Also, wizard spells are usually only competing with spells of the same level (as opposed to all spells). In any case, casters also have abilities that are unrelated to their spells.



Hence why I specified *expendable* abilities.

That doesn't make any sense. So if we make Slow Fall and Deflect Missile only work 1/Short Rest, thus 'expendable', that makes the monk better??
The monk has lots of very useful features that do not rely on Ki.

Yes, casters have abilities unrelated to their spells.....just like Monks have abilities unrelated to their Ki. That is my point. Its not a bad thing that those Monk abilities are not limited by Short/Long rests. (Limited by Reactions and Bonus actions.)

It's not that they're combat abilities - it's that they're all competing for the same resources. Dodging as a bonus action is useful, but is it more useful than making 2 extra attacks, taking a dash action etc.? Also, do you really need to Dodge now, or would you be better off saving those Ki points to do one of those (or something else) later?
Having additional options....is not a bad thing. Cunning Action doesn't become better if it *only* allows the Hide action. A two weapon rogue can't get his extra attack *and* use cunning action, they both compete for the same 'resource'....but the additional option is very useful.

In reality, the vast majority of Ki points will be spent on FoB and Stunning Strike.... but you also have the *option* to dash or dodge or jump if you need to. Heck my shadow monk can also use Ki to cast spells... more options means more versatility, more potential solutions.

When the Battlemaster decides to Trip... he has to make the same decisions.... is that better than saving for Riposte? Should he try to Frighten instead? Resource management is a part of most classes.

[Arkhios]

What strikes me odd about the general attitude towards monk is as if it was supposed to be something like the best damage dealer ever ... why?

Just because you can attack multiple times?
Why does that have to correlate with high damage?

Monks are better at crowd control than many other melee oriented classes. Crowd control is just about as valuable in combat as damage is, if not even more valuable.

[ChubbyRain]

The ranger is a very good class, played to its strenghts. The UA revision makes the class more appealing, at least for those looking to multiclass, but the original is worth taking a second look at. The ranger is played as a skillful survivalist, with some combat capability. Excellent scouts and ambushers, learn extra languages, divination of sorts, limited spellcasting. The conclaves add an extra dimension, and at least for the beastmaster the UA revision is strongly recommended.

I think the oposite. It's a bad class that needs the DM in order to play to its strengths.

The only other classes that really need this is Fighters and Barbarians, though not to the degree that the ranger needs.

A Monk can be a monk no matter what. A Wizard can wizard no matter what (a proper wizard at least), and a cleric can always cleric.

What a ranger boils down to is tracking/nature skills, nature, and favored enemy type stuff.

Tracking/Nature skills can be covered by goodberry, rogues, or simply putting an item on a creature and casting locate item... Just being proficient in Survival will hit almost all DCs you should be hitting.

Nature... Outlander and Customizable backgrounds give you the fluff. So many classes give you mechanics or fluff that I'm surprised ranger is a class. Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Rogues (expertise Survival), and Paladin all do this just as well as as the Ranger or well enough plus any little bonuses they get for being their own class.

Favored Enemy/Terrain is very DM dependent. Even with how the hunter works, a DM will have to adjust their tactics in order to accommodate the Ranger's Hunter Style.

Yo have a full and complete class, the DM shouldnt have to make too many chouces to fit you into the game. Your class should be self sustained.

The perfect scenario would have been subclasses at level 2 for everyone and putting the Ranger as a subclass for Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.

[Specter]

What strikes me odd about the general attitude towards monk is as if it was supposed to be something like the best damage dealer ever ... why?
Just because you can attack multiple times?
Why does that have to correlate with high damage?
Monks are better at crowd control than many other melee oriented classes. Crowd control is just about as valuable in combat as damage is, if not even more valuable.

This. Everybody can value a Wizard or Druid who can keep foes in a tight place, but when a martial guy can do the same, they're like "but no uber damage for me to impress my friends!!!!! :( "


The ranger is a very good class, played to its strenghts. The UA revision makes the class more appealing, at least for those looking to multiclass, but the original is worth taking a second look at. The ranger is played as a skillful survivalist, with some combat capability. Excellent scouts and ambushers, learn extra languages, divination of sorts, limited spellcasting. The conclaves add an extra dimension, and at least for the beastmaster the UA revision is strongly recommended.

The original ranger is fine until 5th level - I know because I outdamaged the party's fighter and had more skills at that point. After that, there are 3 cold levels that need to be adressed (as I did in the thread in my sig) that would solve all the problems with the class. The new ranger is good too, but it doesn't get the expertise it once did - so any rogue, cleric or druid can be a better ranger than the ranger.

[djreynolds]

The perfect scenario would have been subclasses at level 2 for everyone and putting the Ranger as a subclass for Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.

That is actually a very cool idea.

Even throw in paladin

A barbarian could become a ranger in his tribe and his rage damage would be greater toward his favored enemies, expert tracker. Really cool to become a beastmaster, you know you actually live with wild animals

A fighter could become a ranger an excel at fighting with bow and light weapons, but a fighter could choose any of them

A rogue could become a ranger, and his SA for his favored enemies could be different, very deep stalker

And a paladin of vengeance, could take it one further and become a real hunter

__________________________________________________ __________________

Off topic I like the new ranger archetypes like the guardian... but honestly it seems better fit for a druid or cleric, and I like the horizon walker but it feels like ranger/bard or ranger/wizard prestige class

[Dr. Cliché]

That doesn't make any sense. So if we make Slow Fall and Deflect Missile only work 1/Short Rest, thus 'expendable', that makes the monk better??

Are you sure you're replying to the right person? Because this has literally nothing to do with anything I've said or suggested in this thread. :smallconfused:


The monk has lots of very useful features that do not rely on Ki.

And I was talking specifically about the ones that *do* rely on Ki.



Yes, casters have abilities unrelated to their spells.....just like Monks have abilities unrelated to their Ki. That is my point. Its not a bad thing that those Monk abilities are not limited by Short/Long rests. (Limited by Reactions and Bonus actions.)

But that's the thing - if they're unlimited use abilities, then they're irrelevant to discussions of Ki expenditure.

As I've said multiple times now, I'm talking specifically about abilities that use up resources (not ones that are passive or at-will).



Having additional options....is not a bad thing. Cunning Action doesn't become better if it *only* allows the Hide action.

Either you're strawmanning to an astonishing degree or you're replying to the wrong person again.


A two weapon rogue can't get his extra attack *and* use cunning action, they both compete for the same 'resource'....but the additional option is very useful.

No they don't. Because Cunning Action is usable at-will and has no cost. The rogue can Cunning Action every round of every encounter. In contrast, a monk who tries this with Patient Defence or Step of the Wind will quickly run out of Ki.



When the Battlemaster decides to Trip... he has to make the same decisions.... is that better than saving for Riposte? Should he try to Frighten instead? Resource management is a part of most classes.

But he's not comparing Trip to Action Surge or Second Wind.

[Sicarius Victis]

That is actually a very cool idea.

Even throw in paladin

A barbarian could become a ranger in his tribe and his rage damage would be greater toward his favored enemies, expert tracker. Really cool to become a beastmaster, you know you actually live with wild animals

A fighter could become a ranger an excel at fighting with bow and light weapons, but a fighter could choose any of them

A rogue could become a ranger, and his SA for his favored enemies could be different, very deep stalker

You mean something (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418187-Beastmaster-Barbarian-%28Ranger-replacement-part-1-of-3%29) like (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418276-Wild-Stalker-Rogue-%28Ranger-replacement-part-2-of-3%29) this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418480-Ranger-as-a-Fighter-Subclass-%28Ranger-replacement-part-3-of-3%29)?

Those aren't mine, but I found them to be interesting.

[Squiddish]

Monks are very fun.

And for the people who say they aren't competitive damage-wise, let's look:

1st level: Monk: Bashes the enemy with a quarterstaff (Two handed for 1d8) and as a bonus action kicks, elbows, or even headbutts them (Unarmed strike, 1d4). Average 6-7 damage assuming both attacks hit.
Great Weapon fighter: Smashes them with a maul or slashes with a greatsword (2d6 damage). Average 7 damage.
S&B fighter: Slashes with a longsword (One handed for 1d8) Average 4 damage.

5th level: Monk: 2d8+1d6= ~12 damage
GWF: 4d6=~14 damage
S&B: 2d8=~9 damage

So it seems monk is a bit behind GWF, but ahead of sword and board. Now let's check defense.
1st level: Monk (assuming 16 dex and 16 wis): AC=16
GWF: AC 16, disadvantage on stealth
S&B: AC 18, disadvantage on stealth
5th level: Monk (Has increased either dex or wis by one): AC 17
GWF: No change unless they found plate
S&B: No change unless they found plate
Now monk seems more competitive. It strikes a balance between attack and defense. Mind you, it will be hard pressed to beat plate armor+shield, but few things can. The inability to use magic armor can be a disadvantage at higher levels, though.

Mind you, this is assuming no resource expenditure. If we take into account action surge, it gets complicated.
Other perks of the monk:
Mobility: better than anything else that can't fly.
Deflect missiles: 1d10+dex+monk level is generally more than the damage of any projectile (unless you're being fired at by siege equipment). The only limiting factor of this is that it takes your reaction.
Slow fall: can be handy, and can annoy the DM to no end when you can just nope any non-spiked pit traps.
Stunning strike: Immensely useful.
Subclass features: variable, but generally pretty good.

[Saggo]

Monks are very fun.

And for the people who say they aren't competitive damage-wise, let's look:
In a featless, low-level (level<5) campaign, they're quite competitive. Very similar to how Moon Druids and TWF are extremely competitive at low levels, largely in part to all of them getting some form of an additional attack.

But if you look (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917) at the DPR growth of a Monk, it grows slowly compared to other classes, eventually plateauing when others don't. It loses the competitive edge once you get past roughly 5, depending on your criteria. By level 5, Monk is comparable (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1826558867) to a S&B Battlemaster (34% vs 36% KPR, respectively).

Not that they're useless (far from it), they're just not a high source of DPR.

And you hit on why:


Mind you, this is assuming no resource expenditure. If we take into account action surge, it gets complicated.

[coredump]

Are you sure you're replying to the right person? Because this has literally nothing to do with anything I've said or suggested in this thread. :smallconfused:

And I was talking specifically about the ones that *do* rely on Ki.

But that's the thing - if they're unlimited use abilities, then they're irrelevant to discussions of Ki expenditure.

As I've said multiple times now, I'm talking specifically about abilities that use up resources (not ones that are passive or at-will).

Either you're strawmanning to an astonishing degree or you're replying to the wrong person again.

No they don't. Because Cunning Action is usable at-will and has no cost. The rogue can Cunning Action every round of every encounter. In contrast, a monk who tries this with Patient Defence or Step of the Wind will quickly run out of Ki.

But he's not comparing Trip to Action Surge or Second Wind.

No, I am replying to the exactly correct person.

You are comparing the battlemaster and the monk...

You like the battlemaster because they have a bunch of limited abilities that 'cost' a Superiority die, and they have other abilities (Action Surge, Second Wind) that do not cost a Superiority Die, but can only be used once per short rest.

You dislike the monk because they have a bunch of abilities that 'cost' a Ki point, and they have other abilities (Slow fall, deflect missiles) that do not cost a Ki point, and are not limited, but can be used over and over.

That makes no sense.

We could make the monk more like the Battlemaster by saying it can only deflect X missiles per short rest..... according to your logic, that would be an improvement.

[ChubbyRain]

That is actually a very cool idea.

Even throw in paladin

A barbarian could become a ranger in his tribe and his rage damage would be greater toward his favored enemies, expert tracker. Really cool to become a beastmaster, you know you actually live with wild animals

A fighter could become a ranger an excel at fighting with bow and light weapons, but a fighter could choose any of them

A rogue could become a ranger, and his SA for his favored enemies could be different, very deep stalker

And a paladin of vengeance, could take it one further and become a real hunter

__________________________________________________ __________________

Off topic I like the new ranger archetypes like the guardian... but honestly it seems better fit for a druid or cleric, and I like the horizon walker but it feels like ranger/bard or ranger/wizard prestige class

The Paladin already has a ranger archetype, more or less, so while you could add the ranger you can just work the fluff in that way.

I honestly think classes should be very very general and allow subclasses to distinguish each character.

The Wizard or Warlock are fantastic ways to show this... Though the Warlocks are slightly too locked into their fluff... You can get around that.

But, I think the more distinct classes could be subclasses and you could be more flexible in making characters.

Character flexibility is one of the most important things in a game. Having simple character generation is fantastic, but from there it should be free range. Some very easy options of course, but wide range of options.

[coredump]

In a featless, low-level (level<5) campaign, they're quite competitive. Very similar to how Moon Druids and TWF are extremely competitive at low levels, largely in part to all of them getting some form of an additional attack.

But if you look (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917) at the DPR growth of a Monk, it grows slowly compared to other classes, eventually plateauing when others don't. It loses the competitive edge once you get past roughly 5, depending on your criteria. By level 5, Monk is comparable (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1826558867) to a S&B Battlemaster (34% vs 36% KPR, respectively).

Not that they're useless (far from it), they're just not a high source of DPR.

And you hit on why:

Lets look beyond lvl 5, lets try level 10

Battle master lvl 10, Great sword, GWF, GWM, Str 20, AC 16
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 9 attack actions (action surge), 19 attacks (GWM crit)
19 x 10.667 = 202.7 + 27.5 (Sup Dice) = 230.2 hp damage

Monk lvl 10 qstaff, Dex 20, AC 16
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 8 attack actions, 32 attacks (8 FoB)
(16 x 6.875) + (16 x 6.125) = 110 + 98 = 208 hp damage

I would consider doing over 90% of the damage is being 'competitive'.



But a straight DPR comparison is missing the point. The Monks advantage is not DPR, its mobility and survivability. At this level, he can run across a river, or up a cliff, or along a wall. He can fall 140' without taking damage, Evasion for Dex AoE, 45' movement, Deflect about 20hp of missile damage, and lets not forget..... Stunning Strike.
The monk does pretty good damage, but not top damage. Because his strengths lie elsewhere....

[Saggo]

I would consider doing over 90% of the damage is being 'competitive'.
You're cherry-picking, that's why I used the link for my resource. For example, in one more level, Fighter gets a third attack, favoring it even more and increasing the delta.

I don't call your best being 90% of someone else competitive, but as I said before it all depends on your criteria, it's subjective. I'd argue a Monk is a competitive pick for a party slot, not because their damage is competitive but because their damage is adequate in addition to their other abilities.

The quantitative metric, though, is that Monk DPR is comparable to defensive S&B builds, not offensive builds.


But a straight DPR comparison is missing the point. The Monks advantage is not DPR, its mobility and survivability.
I get it (I did say this doesn't make them useless), but I was responding to an argument made about damage. An ability to ability comparison wasn't the focus.

[Hawkstar]

Mathematically the Beastmaster is better dpr than the Barbarian, but that didn't stop anyone from grousing well before now.
DPR is completely irrelevant. The Beastmaster doesn't feel right in play because of how it controls.

[Rhedyn]

The Ranger in the core book is utter trash. Use the revised version from Unearthed Arcana instead if possible. That version fixes many of the issues that were in the core book version.Rangers require actually knowing what you are doing to work. They are far from garbage.

They get more grief than paladins because a paladin who burns spells smiting is still good while a ranger who ignores his spells is trash.

[ChubbyRain]

Rangers require actually knowing what you are doing to work. They are far from garbage.

They get more grief than paladins because a paladin who burns spells smiting is still good while a ranger who ignores his spells is trash.

They require the DM to throw you a lot of bones, way more than most other bad classes.

A majority of the primary features require DM assistance in order to function. Favored Terrain for instance...

They should have made the ranger more flexible as it is kimda silly they can't adapt to new terrains or favored enemies with a bit of study.


****

The beast master really only compares to Barbarian DPR when the highest of optimization is allowed for the beast master. Moat people don't play high optimizatio and only one exact build.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A majority of the primary features require DM assistance in order to function. Favored Terrain for instance...
They have exactly two ribbon abilities that require DM cooperation. A Ranger with Horde Breaker, Volley, Hunter's Mark and Crossbow Expert will be throwing around excellent DPS (with a unique AoE element) while still having solid skills, excellent stealth, and useful utility spells.

[Dr. Cliché]

You are comparing the battlemaster and the monk...

No, I just corrected your own flawed comparison.



You like the battlemaster because they have a bunch of limited abilities that 'cost' a Superiority die, and they have other abilities (Action Surge, Second Wind) that do not cost a Superiority Die, but can only be used once per short rest.

Thank you for telling me what I like.



You dislike the monk because they have a bunch of abilities that 'cost' a Ki point, and they have other abilities (Slow fall, deflect missiles) that do not cost a Ki point, and are not limited, but can be used over and over.


Thank you for informing me of what I dislike.



That makes no sense.

I agree. So how about not doing it in future?


We could make the monk more like the Battlemaster by saying it can only deflect X missiles per short rest..... according to your logic, that would be an improvement.

I don't know what "logic" you think you are using, but it's certainly not mine.

I'll give you credit though - you certainly go the extra mile when it comes to strawman fallacies. Most people just construct a straw-argument to attack. You, on the other hand, seem to have constructed an entire straw-person - complete with likes, dislikes and some sort of weird logic - for you to then tear down.

Anyway, you appear to have made me redundant to our discussion, so I'm just going to sit back and let you burn your strawman.

[Specter]

They have exactly two ribbon abilities that require DM cooperation. A Ranger with Horde Breaker, Volley, Hunter's Mark and Crossbow Expert will be throwing around excellent DPS (with a unique AoE element) while still having solid skills, excellent stealth, and useful utility spells.

Yep. The only problems the ranger has is that most of his top features are meant for hordes, so they may disappoint when it comes to a tough boss. But since Paladins have this in reverse (good against one, bad against many), it's a fair deal.

And levels 6, 10 and 14 are horribly disappointing. I made a quick fix for that if you agree.

[jaappleton]

Yep. The only problems the ranger has is that most of his top features are meant for hordes, so they may disappoint when it comes to a tough boss. But since Paladins have this in reverse (good against one, bad against many), it's a fair deal.

I've been desperate for a middle ground half caster. One is geared far too much for single targets, the other for large groups, and there's this middle area that gets nothing.

[Dr. Cliché]

I've been desperate for a middle ground half caster. One is geared far too much for single targets, the other for large groups, and there's this middle area that gets nothing.

Out of interest, do you count Warlock as a half-caster or a full-caster?

[jaappleton]

Out of interest, do you count Warlock as a half-caster or a full-caster?

An interesting question. As is? Neither. It's something of its own special thing. It can be build to strongly resemble the AEDU playstyle of 4E, depending on your Invocations. It can be have almost all the Martial prowess of a half caster, capable of some pretty good melee competency with the right Invocations as well, especially if you somehow get Heavy or even Medium armor. But building it that way requires essentially a tax of most of your Invocations slots, and even then, why bother doing that instead of EB... I mean, this has been discussed time and time again, right?

So it can be one. But building it that way requires far too much of a tax. If Blade's had "You get Medium Armor proficiency at lv3", I think it'd go a long way toward helping it. Otherwise, if you want to go Strength, you need Cha, Str, Con and Dex and that's just... That's rough.

[Arkhios]

Out of interest, do you count Warlock as a half-caster or a full-caster?

Not a question directed at me, but I felt I had to respond my own thoughts on the matter.

Warlock is a bit of an oddball when it comes to casters.
I wouldn't count Warlock as either. It's just too different from half- and full-casters entirely.

[JumboWheat01]

Out of interest, do you count Warlock as a half-caster or a full-caster?

3/4-caster, maybe? They are designed around casting (though as this is D&D, it can be tweaked,) but they don't operate around the same basic system that all the full casters use.

That said, the barest definition is that full casters get 9th level spells, which the Warlock DOES get, so I have nothing against them being called full-casters. But they are most certainly not half-casters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

3/4-caster, maybe? They are designed around casting (though as this is D&D, it can be tweaked,) but they don't operate around the same basic system that all the full casters use.

That said, the barest definition is that full casters get 9th level spells, which the Warlock DOES get, so I have nothing against them being called full-casters. But they are most certainly not half-casters.
3/4 caster seems about right, yeah.

[coredump]

You're cherry-picking, that's why I used the link for my resource. For example, in one more level, Fighter gets a third attack, favoring it even more and increasing the delta. Dude, you said they stopped being competitive "after level 5", so I doubled that to level 10 and ran the numbers. Now *you* are cherry picking... if you meant they were not competitive "at level 11", then that is what you should have said.



I don't call your best being 90% of someone else competitive,
What? 90% isn't "competitive"? Do they have to be exactly the same to be competitive? Of course it is subjective, but I don't think I have met anyone that says over 90% is not competitive? ("Did you see that blow out last night? They creamed them, 10-9... it was embarrassing.")




but I was responding to an argument made about damage..So was I, and well past level 5.... they are still over 90% of the GWM greatsword fighter. (At level 9 they are at 92.4%)


So lets check out level 14 (Wanted 15, but the math is easier at 14)
Battlemaster 14, Str 20 GWF GWM Greatsword AC 17 (needs 7+ to hit)
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 9 attack actions (Action Surge), 31 attacks (GWM bonus)
31 x 10.667 = 290.6 + 27.5 = 318.1 hp

Monk 14, Dex 20, Wis 18, AC 17 (needs 7+ to hit) (assume Stunning Strike works 50%-your worksheet says 66%, but I will be nice)
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 8 attack actions, 32 attacks (FoB)
First round, hit two out of 3 attacks, Stun 2, one fails. Average will be in second attack, so next 6 attacks with adv
20 x 6.875 = 137.5 + (12 x 9.1) = 247

So at level 14, you are still above 75% of one of the best damage dealers in the game. Not quite competitive any longer, but still respectable. And with a lot more other features along to compensate.

[Hawkstar]

No more than the battlemaster and his manuevers, or the wizard and his spell slots.The Battlemaster has a few maneuvers drawing on his Superiority dice. He also has Second Wind operating on its own, and Action Surge also its own thing, and Indomitable as its own resource.

The wizard has tiered spell slots, and a few other class features based on school that run on their own resources.

[Saggo]

Dude, you said they stopped being competitive "after level 5", so I doubled that to level 10 and ran the numbers. Now *you* are cherry picking... if you meant they were not competitive "at level 11", then that is what you should have said.

I believe the exact phrase was "[Monk] loses the competitive edge once you get past roughly 5". Level 11 was an example to argue against selectively choosing levels and encounters (cherry picking), that's why I used "for example". I also used a resource that compared across all levels through a full expected adventuring day, using level 5 only as a rough reference point, so not cherry picking. If you're going to throw arguments back, please be accurate.


What? 90% isn't "competitive"? Do they have to be exactly the same to be competitive? Of course it is subjective, but I don't think I have met anyone that says over 90% is not competitive? ("Did you see that blow out last night? They creamed them, 10-9... it was embarrassing.")

As I said and referenced (there's a link) before, the quantitative metric is that Monk DPR is comparable to defensive S&B builds, not offensive builds. So, according to the definition of competitive as provided by Google ("2. as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.") they are quantitatively not competitive with offensive DPR when viewed over a full spectrum of levels.

In that regard, I think it's inaccurate to call their DPR competitive when they're never exceeding an offensively built Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, etc kit after those very few early levels.

If you want to argue that their DPR is perfectly suitable for their abilities and for taking a party slot for dealing damage, then there's no argument, I agree.

[Fishyninja]

They require the DM to throw you a lot of bones, way more than most other bad classes.

A majority of the primary features require DM assistance in order to function. Favored Terrain for instance...

They should have made the ranger more flexible as it is kimda silly they can't adapt to new terrains or favored enemies with a bit of study.


But they do, they get extra favoured enemies at 6th and 14th Level, also with that if you pick humanoids you can pick two types so already you can get up to four favoured enemies to get advantage on tracking and intelligence checks on them.
I know some DM's also homebrew extra damage onto them.


They have exactly two ribbon abilities that require DM cooperation. A Ranger with Horde Breaker, Volley, Hunter's Mark and Crossbow Expert will be throwing around excellent DPS (with a unique AoE element) while still having solid skills, excellent stealth, and useful utility spells.

And that is with standard weaponry as well if you trhow some more esoteric weapons (firearms) into the mix you can get a fairly decent heavy hitter which is mobile and has all the benegits which Grod has mentioned.

[FinnS]

Lets look beyond lvl 5, lets try level 10

Battle master lvl 10, Great sword, GWF, GWM, Str 20, AC 16
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 9 attack actions (action surge), 19 attacks (GWM crit)
19 x 10.667 = 202.7 + 27.5 (Sup Dice) = 230.2 hp damage

Monk lvl 10 qstaff, Dex 20, AC 16
2 encounters, 4 rounds each, 8 attack actions, 32 attacks (8 FoB)
(16 x 6.875) + (16 x 6.125) = 110 + 98 = 208 hp damage

I would consider doing over 90% of the damage is being 'competitive'.



But a straight DPR comparison is missing the point. The Monks advantage is not DPR, its mobility and survivability. At this level, he can run across a river, or up a cliff, or along a wall. He can fall 140' without taking damage, Evasion for Dex AoE, 45' movement, Deflect about 20hp of missile damage, and lets not forget..... Stunning Strike.
The monk does pretty good damage, but not top damage. Because his strengths lie elsewhere....

It's not 90% though. This is where theorycraft fails and why how something works out on paper doesn't translate at the table.
It's not just Crits that give GWM a bonus attack, killing something does too and they get that attack far more often than from a crit.
Then you have AoO. Even just 1 or 2 AoO's from the GWM sets them well above what the Monk will garner.
It's just like theorycraft on Rogue DPR. It always fails compared to what it is at the table because getting to use a second Sneak per round on their reaction can be pulled off quite often.