Why does monk exist

[Miffles]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

[GraakosGraakos]

Except stunning strike, flurry, all the open hand stuff, etc...

[Specter]

Classes aren't meant to have all unique features. They are just types of characters with abilities assigned to them. Paladins could be Fighter/Clerics, Rangers could be Rogue/Druids, and so on.

But to answer your question, their role is to be a skirmisher, mainly.

[Steampunkette]

Because Snake Eyes.

Monks were introduced into the game a LONG time ago as an unarmed fighting character for games set in mythical southeast Asian reimaginings and people liked it. Eventually they became a staple of the game, with monasteries scattered across the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk to bring the "Cool Ninja" into core gameplay.

[Lalliman]

Monks are skirmishers and battlefield controllers. The rogue may have similar mobility and better damage if they get all their sneak attacks, but they can't do crowd control or attack multiple enemies in one turn. The fighter is better at direct combat, but doesn't have the monk's mobility, and once again they can't stun.

As to why the class exists? Because they existed in previous editions. It is indeed a weirdly specific class that probably could've been implemented as a fighter subclass. Instead it exists as a separate class for the sake of continuity. But it brings some mechanics to the table that aren't easily obtainable otherwise, so it's not like it's dead weight.

[Fishyninja]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class
A somewhat bizarre question, going that basis you might as well state thy have barabarians as tanky characters ebcasue fighters, clerics and paladins can do that too.


Except stunning strike, flurry, all the open hand stuff, etc...
Mainly thse reasons here as well as deflecting missiles, wall running, being a Ninja, Aang from Avatar, Battle Master or Necro-Monk (based on archetype).


Classes aren't meant to have all unique features. They are just types of characters with abilities assigned to them. Paladins could be Fighter/Clerics, Rangers could be Rogue/Druids, and so on.

But to answer your question, their role is to be a skirmisher, mainly.
As well as a skirmisher Monks are ideal for crowd control and great of mook murdering.

Example run in to the bigger character attack them with stunning strike, if it hits move away without invoking an attack of opportunity allowing you to then take on some of the smaller mooks. Or they are could at focusing a lot of damage on character at a time.

A monk is as versatile as you want them to be. I always used to go in stun the casters or bigger characters (allowing the other characters {especially Rogues}) to gain advantage and then he would harrass the minions keeping them away from the other focussing on the big guy.

Also the monk has some very good survival skills such as deflect missle and slow fall I feel 2 very underated abilities.

[Millstone85]

This thread now has a duplicate. How would that happen?

[Fishyninja]

Could have been a lag when OP submitted the thread, I have posted in the duplicate to notify them.

[Naanomi]

While there is a lot that a monk can do in unique combinations; but movement speed and stunning strike are the two 'crunchy' defining parts that are hard for other classes to replicate

[djreynolds]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

But can that rogue take on multiple opponents? No effectively.

Can that fighter stealth? Sure, can he throw off charm or fear with an action? Does he have magic fists? Can he stun? No.

[solidork]

To execute a character type that is not sufficiently covered by any of the other classes.

[Stan]

Beyond roles, I think

Rangers exist because of Aragorn and LoTR. (Drizzt cam much later but did impact the class.)
Paladins exist because of the Arthurian and Carolingian tales, especially the grail quest.
Monks exist because of a TV show (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/).

[Foxhound438]

To execute a character type that is not sufficiently covered by any of the other classes.

^ it's pretty much this. Sure, you could argue that "unarmed fighter" could have been a fighter archetype rather than its own class, but at that point so could ranger, barbarian, paladin, and maybe even rogue, while sorcerer, bard, and warlock could be wizard variants, and druids could be a cleric archetype. And at that point we only have 3 base classes.

[djreynolds]

What does the OP want?

That's the question really.

Take a level or 2 of rogue, can still sneak attack with a dagger.

[Fishyninja]

What does the OP want?

That's the question really.

Take a level or 2 of rogue, can still sneak attack with a dagger.
I'd argue that's not entirely the question.

The question primarily is 'Why be a Monk when you can be x Class?'

[Lord Raziere]

The question primarily is 'Why be a Monk when you can be x Class?'

Because I want to be a kung-fu badass who goes "your kung-fu is weak, you need weapons and armor to fight me and therefore you have already failed." I want to meditate on the mysteries of the universe, catch flies with chop sticks because I can, and punch the BBEG in the face with my bare fists, and generally be a badass who gets all his strength from the inside because that is what counts.

To me, its like not even a question, why wouldn't I? I can be anything from Sun Wukong, to Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan to a street brawler to a ninja, to Real Batman, to a Jedi, to Fist of the North Star. Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.

[Fishyninja]

Because I want to be a kung-fu badass who goes "your kung-fu is weak, you need weapons and armor to fight me and therefore you have already failed." I want to meditate on the mysteries of the universe, catch flies with chop sticks because I can, and punch the BBEG in the face with my bare fists, and generally be a badass who gets all his strength from the inside because that is what counts.

To me, its like not even a question, why wouldn't I? I can be anything from Sun Wukong, to Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan to a street brawler to a ninja, to Real Batman, to a Jedi, to Fist of the North Star. Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.
I feel this is the most appropriate response
*bows*

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

Well, my monk/cleric, specifically, is part monk because I wanted an unarmored healer who can weave in and out of the thick of battle to assist her fellow party members (whether by healing, living long enough to contribute, or hitting stuff good). So some of it's flavor, some of it's mechanics, just like any other class. The bonus unarmed strike, for example, came in handy early on fighting something with a high AC we were rolling poorly against—two rolls for me meant another chance to actually hit it.

[djreynolds]

I'd argue that's not entirely the question.

The question primarily is 'Why be a Monk when you can be x Class?'

How about? What did he expect out of the class? And what was his dislikes?

And then we can give him/her ideas how better to use the monk in the given party.

Or multiclass options? Or a different class entirely?

[Fishyninja]

That seems fair.

[djreynolds]

That seems fair.

Your monk is kicking butt and digging graves.
Please use a quarterstaff or spear for few levels, 1d4 punches suck.

[Deleted]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

The Monk is actually better designed than the Fighter. While the Fighter can do 1 thing rather well (and really only jumps out ahead at level 11+), the Monk can be built to do multiple tho he and can be do more than one thing at one time.

With all the specific classes running around, one could ask why the fighter exist. Everyone has specific fluff that you can then modify later with a subclass... The Fighter doesn't start with specific fluff.

The fighter cpuld be a soldier, a mercenary, a rogue, a ranger, a paladin...

[Cazero]

With all the specific classes running around, one could ask why the fighter exist. Everyone has specific fluff that you can then modify later with a subclass... The Fighter doesn't start with specific fluff.

The fighter cpuld be a soldier, a mercenary, a rogue, a ranger, a paladin...
...That's the point. Making classes for everything is an exercise in futility wich creates wonky balance and power creep. You have to make a broad class at some point. The fighter is this for martials.

[Honest Tiefling]

Because what appeals to one doesn't always appeal to another, even with similar tastes. Some people vary between sorcerers and wizards, as both are casters. I personally fall into the camp of wizardy, while others greatly prefer sorcerers. The two are very similar in many ways, but even slight differences can affect if someone enjoys it or not.

Paladins have divine powers, which would be hard to slot onto a martial chassis. The monks have ki, which is also hard to balance. Hence why I feel it is reasonable for both to be seperate classes, given their mechanics would be difficult to bring into line with other fighter archetypes. Also, monks are traditionally unarmored or have light armor, which is also hard to shove onto an armored chassis.

Bring on the variety!

[NorthernPhoenix]

From a tactical war-game mechanics perspective you really only need 3 or 4 classes.

The monk (and many other classes) exist to allow the player to play a fantasy archetype with mechanical support.

[Deleted]

...That's the point. Making classes for everything is an exercise in futility wich creates wonky balance and power creep. You have to make a broad class at some point. The fighter is this for martials.

You don't have to make a broad class at any point if you don't want to. The issue that the fighter causes is because it is a broad class that gets broad things... While in a game based around specific classes that get specific things. The same issue comes up with other classes, and always has, and whenever you make everyone specific or everyone general then you will achieve a balance that is real and isn't just people pretending it's there.

Either way, specific or general, I'm on board but I would like the game to pick one or the other and not both (because weird stuff happens).

[Madbox]

Monks are there because unarmed, lightly armored or armorless fighters are a common archetype that would not work in 5e without their own class.

The damage for an unarmed strike is a pathetic 1+Str, and cannot be upgraded to do magical damage. So let's say we make a fighter subclass that gets a damage die for unarmed strikes. They still suck, because enemies that resist nonmagical damage are common enough. So we make those punches magical around the same level where damage resistance might start coming into play. We'll ignore that this clashes with fighter fluff, since magic powers is the Eldritch Knight's schtick. And let's give them an unarmored defense as well.

Great, now what? They now have as many features as the other fighter subclasses, but suck in comparison. All of their subclass features make them as good as a battlemaster without manoeuvers. So we need more stuff to tack on to make this viable, which would make this the single most complex subclass in the game. Or, we spin it off into its own thing.

Unarmed fighters are really only viable as their own class.

[Deleted]

Monks are there because unarmed, lightly armored or armorless fighters are a common archetype that would not work in 5e without their own class.

The damage for an unarmed strike is a pathetic 1+Str, and cannot be upgraded to do magical damage. So let's say we make a fighter subclass that gets a damage die for unarmed strikes. They still suck, because enemies that resist nonmagical damage are common enough. So we make those punches magical around the same level where damage resistance might start coming into play. We'll ignore that this clashes with fighter fluff, since magic powers is the Eldritch Knight's schtick. And let's give them an unarmored defense as well.

Great, now what? They now have as many features as the other fighter subclasses, but suck in comparison. All of their subclass features make them as good as a battlemaster without manoeuvers. So we need more stuff to tack on to make this viable, which would make this the single most complex subclass in the game. Or, we spin it off into its own thing.

Unarmed fighters are really only viable as their own class.

See, you say that, but that isn't true. If the fighter was properly designed (why is their subclass at level 3?) and more flexible for such a generic class, you wouldn't have a need for another class.

My build a martial is far from perfect, but it's a good proof of concept that such a thing can work within the 5e structure.

[BillyBobShorton]

I never really got the 5e monk either until I saw a player (whom I I helped optimize his monk build) use him in action in a session I ran. They are absolutely devastating.

Not gonna go into specifics of rogue features vs monk features(rogues are also stellar), but a goddam wall-running, teleporting, uber fast, yet slowfalling ninja with martial arts and a buncha other tricks up his sleeve is beyond epic.

Plus, no other class gets dex and wis saves (2 most common/important) as a base feature.

They are similar-"cousins" maybe or a hybrid of a fighter and a rogue, but dofferent enough that they each hold their own.

And no, "everything a monk can do, so can a rogue" is a false statement and honestly, IMO, the wrong way to look at classes, builds, character creation, immersion, and the game in general. Go play Skyrim or WoW.

[Tanarii]

Plus, no other class gets dex and wis saves (2 most common/important) as a base feature.

Monks start with Str and Dex. Later on they get all saves.

In comparison:
Rogues start with Dex and Int, and later on get Wis.
Fighters start with Str and Dex, and later on get Indomitable.
Barbarians start with Str and Con, and later on get Danger Sense and Feral Instinct.
Paladins start with Wis and Cha and later on get stackable and shareable Cha to all saves.
Rangers start with Str and Dex and Hunters later on optionally ... Steel Will?

Looks like the only Martial gets a 'special defense' short end of the stick is the Ranger. But the point that made me start typing this is Monks don't start with Dex and Wis, and Rogues also later on have Dex and Wis. So Monks are not singular in that regard.

[Beleriphon]

See, you say that, but that isn't true. If the fighter was properly designed (why is their subclass at level 3?) and more flexible for such a generic class, you wouldn't have a need for another class.

My build a martial is far from perfect, but it's a good proof of concept that such a thing can work within the 5e structure.

Its level 3 because to 1 to 3 are supposed to be the learn your class levels. Most of the classes don't have subclasses start until level 3, or at least not have their subclass abilities come online until then.

The fighter is very generic and flexible. The issue is that it's a broad archetype of a particular type of character, that is the character that is the master of weapons and armour, not the master of kung fu face punching. Even in classical Chinese fantasy stories the guy in with the sword, and the kung fu master are different. The monk and the fighter represent those differences.

[King539]

Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.

Isn't that Quivering Palm?

[KorvinStarmast]

Stan is correct in terms of where monks come from: Kwai Chang Caine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/), and I think a little bit of Bruce Lee. The 1970's martial arts craze (movies and TV) was really fun as a new kind of action hero besides soldiers, cowboys and hard nosed detectives. I was a teenager during that era, and practiced Tae Kwon Do for two years under a Korean instructor. It's neat how that trope has grown and gotten even better over the years.

That said, monk is an acquired taste. Of all of the editions that have monk, I find the 5e the best effort so far.

As most people have pointed out, the combat role is hit and run/skirmisher, but what I have always found intriguing is the exploring and role playing of the monk. This is where being a fan of Kwai Chang Caine has tended to inform my monks over the years. For me, each monk has more or less been a pilgrim, a wanderer in search of enlightenment ... who now and again has to kick someone's butt and dodge all of that dangerous stuff that shows up in a dungeon and dragons adventure.

(One of the worst beat downs our party ever got in 1e was from a team of evil monks ... OMG, they kicked our butts).

[Deleted]

Its level 3 because to 1 to 3 are supposed to be the learn your class levels. Most of the classes don't have subclasses start until level 3, or at least not have their subclass abilities come online until then.

The fighter is very generic and flexible. The issue is that it's a broad archetype of a particular type of character, that is the character that is the master of weapons and armour, not the master of kung fu face punching. Even in classical Chinese fantasy stories the guy in with the sword, and the kung fu master are different. The monk and the fighter represent those differences.

Which doesn't actually answer anything. The "simple" class(es) need 3 levels to learn but Cleric, Warlock, Wizard, and Druid all need 1 or 2?

If you want to punish people who don't play casters, why even have them in the game? Just call it for what it is.

See, you are also just making stuff up. The fighter, because of its generic nature, can be a martial artist. It isn't that hard to make a truly generic martial.

You could make the fighter specific to an ideology and give it specific features that reflect that... You know, since everyone else (martial and partial casters) are like that. Making the fighter a generic class around with specific classes causes issues and is one of the reasons we have an unbalanced game and there are soooooooo many fighter changes and fixes.

I'm not saying specific classes are better than generic or vice versa... But some consistency would go a long way in fixing some problems with this class and game.

[Beleriphon]

Which doesn't actually answer anything. The "simple" class(es) need 3 levels to learn but Cleric, Warlock, Wizard, and Druid all need 1 or 2?

Because those classes generally have abilities that are core to the D&D conceits that need to be active at level 1, or shortly there after. Again, you'll note I say most abilities start come online at level 3, including the classes you mention.


If you want to punish people who don't play casters, why even have them in the game? Just call it for what it is.

See, you are also just making stuff up. The fighter, because of its generic nature, can be a martial artist. It isn't that hard to make a truly generic martial.

I'm not making stuff up, that's literally the reason we've been provided by the design team about why the fighter is the way it is. You might not like it, but that's the reason. I also don't see how the fighter vs monk is punishing somebody for choosing to play one of those instead of say a wizard. The fighter's abilities for the first three levels are basically hit it with a sword, just like the rogue is try to sneak attack it, and the wizard is use a cantrip. Remember the subclass abilities for wizards come online a bit earlier, but they don't get new spells until level 3.

As for the reason for why the monk and fighter are different is quite frankly because they represent two different archetypes. The monk is the kung fu master, and the fighter is the master-of-arms. The fighter because of its relatively generic nature can be any kind of armed combatant, while the monk is always going to be the kung fu master. And due to the way unarmed combat works in D&D currently means that only the monk is good at it. Whether that's good or bad is a question of preference.


You could make the fighter specific to an ideology and give it specific features that reflect that... You know, since everyone else (martial and partial casters) are like that. Making the fighter a generic class around with specific classes causes issues and is one of the reasons we have an unbalanced game and there are soooooooo many fighter changes and fixes.

I'm not saying specific classes are better than generic or vice versa... But some consistency would go a long way in fixing some problems with this class and game.

What class? The monk or the fighter? I'm a fan of the fighter, the only one that really seems lackluster is the champion subclass and even then its very good at fightering. The eldritch knight and the battlemaster both have fairly specific designs that do specific things, and aren't generic.

[TentacleSurpris]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

because they were a fan favorite in 1e DND and so they've been carried forward.

And stunning fist is something that Rogues and Fighters can't do.

[georgie_leech]

See, you say that, but that isn't true. If the fighter was properly designed (why is their subclass at level 3?)

TIL the Rogue, Ranger, and Monk are all poorly designed because they get their subclasses at level 3.

[Naanomi]

From a tactical war-game mechanics perspective you really only need 3 or 4 classes.

The monk (and many other classes) exist to allow the player to play a fantasy archetype with mechanical support.
In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon

[KorvinStarmast]

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon Um, that's how the game was originally built.
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric ... and then Thief. (Which later became Rogue).
All else were subclasses of that.
Ranger and Paladin: sub of Fighting Man.
Druid: sub of Cleric
Assassin: Sub of Thief
Illusionist: sub of Magic User (Strat Review #4)
Monk: sub of Cleric (BlackMoor, page 1)
Warlock: didn't exist.
Sorcerer: didn't exist
Bard: as someone pointed out earlier, was the first attempt at a prestige class and it was in interesting if difficult attempt. (Strat Review #6)

That's the Pre 1e AD&D framework. Having played through that, and with it, I find the current model to work just fine since the attempt it made, however successful or not, for each class to have a distinct "feel" so that there is some overlap, but nothing is "that same as that class."

[Tanarii]

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon
To me, that would feel far more like D&D than having separate classes does. Edit: I should say, it would feel more like 'traditional D&D'. Separate classes for them also feels like D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

To me, that would feel far more like D&D than having separate classes does. Edit: I should say, it would feel more like 'traditional D&D'. Separate classes for them also feels like D&D.
Yeah, but we're old. :smallbiggrin:
Ahem, could you please pass the Geritol? :smallcool:

[Desamir]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

Monks are significantly more mobile than fighters, have many more defensive abilities than rogues, and have some of the best repeatable crowd control in the game (Stunning Strike).

A monk's primary role in combat is to shut down critical or hard-to-reach targets.

[Naanomi]

Druid: sub of Cleric
Druid always felt pretty distinct from cleric to me, even from the beginning. In any case, by ADnD both Druid and Cleric were clearly defined in their own terms separate from the 'subclass' style system

[Bohandas]

Um, that's how the game was originally built.
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric ... and then Thief. (Which later became Rogue).
All else were subclasses of that.
Ranger and Paladin: sub of Fighting Man.
Druid: sub of Cleric
Assassin: Sub of Thief
Illusionist: sub of Magic User (Strat Review #4)
Monk: sub of Cleric (BlackMoor, page 1)
Warlock: didn't exist.
Sorcerer: didn't exist
Bard: as someone pointed out earlier, was the first attempt at a prestige class and it was in interesting if difficult attempt. (Strat Review #6)

That's the Pre 1e AD&D framework. Having played through that, and with it, I find the current model to work just fine since the attempt it made, however successful or not, for each class to have a distinct "feel" so that there is some overlap, but nothing is "that same as that class."
is a subclass the same as a kit or a variant class?

[BladeWing81]

Because I want to be a kung-fu badass who goes "your kung-fu is weak, you need weapons and armor to fight me and therefore you have already failed." I want to meditate on the mysteries of the universe, catch flies with chop sticks because I can, and punch the BBEG in the face with my bare fists, and generally be a badass who gets all his strength from the inside because that is what counts.

To me, its like not even a question, why wouldn't I? I can be anything from Sun Wukong, to Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan to a street brawler to a ninja, to Real Batman, to a Jedi, to Fist of the North Star. Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.

a Boxer like Hajime no Ippo with a Dempsey roll or a Jojo character with Hamon or a stand making jojo poses.

[Beelzebubba]

Stan is correct in terms of where monks come from: Kwai Chang Caine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/),

I don't think so - that TV series only got made because of the huge number of cheap, awesome, badly-dubbed martial arts movies of the late 60's (http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=Martial+Arts&decade=1960).

I remember watching those on weekend afternoons as a kid in the early 70's. Those were a staple of the nerd / gaming crowd. The Kung Fu TV series was pretty boring and mainstream in comparison.

I mean, check THIS out:

https://youtu.be/IAidqFI3P00?t=55s
https://youtu.be/IAidqFI3P00?t=55s

[Citan]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class
Sorry, the only thing you should have realized is that you still didn't know jack about the class.

Seriously, how can you even expect that a class is useless without actually trying to play its fortes?

[Matticusrex]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

[jitzul]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

One of the reasons I've grown to dislike monk even though it was my first character ever. Stunning strike is so good it's to the point where I felt like not using it was wasting my only important role to the party. Most of the time I felt less like kenshrio fighting raoh and more like daredevil trying to fight thanos. Honestly I would love to see a variant monk that has stunning strike either removed or nerfred with either a one per round limit or increased ki cost. I know people on these forums will go on and on about how drop dead amazing the monk class is but my experience with it made me a hate a class I thought I would love.

[Citan]

Plus, no other class gets dex and wis saves (2 most common/important) as a base feature.


Monks start with Str and Dex. Later on they get all saves.

In comparison:
Rogues start with Dex and Int, and later on get Wis.
Fighters start with Str and Dex, and later on get Indomitable.
Barbarians start with Str and Con, and later on get Danger Sense and Feral Instinct.
Paladins start with Wis and Cha and later on get stackable and shareable Cha to all saves.
Rangers start with Str and Dex and Hunters later on optionally ... Steel Will?

Looks like the only Martial gets a 'special defense' short end of the stick is the Ranger. But the point that made me start typing this is Monks don't start with Dex and Wis, and Rogues also later on have Dex and Wis. So Monks are not singular in that regard.
Yeah they are singular, because they are the only ones that end with all saves. :)
STR saves, although rarely targeted, can be devastating on classes which rely on speed and evasion because these save or suck spells generally apply grappled/restrained condition. ;)
CHA saves govern some nasty spells also.
and CON, although just a bit less important for a non-caster, still makes you suffer or not some very nasty effects.


As for the reason for why the monk and fighter are different is quite frankly because they represent two different archetypes. The monk is the kung fu master, and the fighter is the master-of-arms. The fighter because of its relatively generic nature can be any kind of armed combatant, while the monk is always going to be the kung fu master. And due to the way unarmed combat works in D&D currently means that only the monk is good at it. Whether that's good or bad is a question of preference.

I think you nailed it pretty good there.

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.
Wut?
I didn't pay attention to Mystic (yet), but saying that Monks are basically only good for stunning is a sad and very limitative view of them.

Any Monk will fare better than any other pure martial (barring EK/AT with Haste or Fly) at moving around/above obstacles (including crossing a pool of water ;)).
Monks are all around sturdier than Fighters (except EK when using Shield) in the end because of 20 AC, proficiency in all saves and especially good DEX and WIS saves, not including Evasion, potential Diamond Sould reroll and potential bonus action Dodge.
They are also better than Rogues for these reasons, although Rogue has the great Uncanny Dodge (barring maybe an AT using Mirror Image + Blur on himself).

And each archetype provides solid abilities. Sure you have much lesser number of "spelllike" abilities than even a third-caster.
But each can be used in different ways, so it's just up to you to be creative about it.

You could certainly reproduce the same kind of abilities with other classes, but it would require multiclass involving Fighter, Rogue, and at least one caster class.

[MrStabby]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

Kind of yes and no...

Monks have loads of good abilities, some pretty unique to monks - like ability to use dex for some weapons, unarmoured defense etc.. But for abilities that use Ki? Yeah, I use the others - bonus movement or dodge is good but stunning is just superb. Thinks like flurry of blows just don't seem as good as stunning.

I think shadow has better options than open hand. It has spells that are situationally useful. They are not ALWAYS great but as a set of tools they add a lot to the character.

[Haldir]

To execute a character type that is not sufficiently covered by any of the other classes.

This is blatantly false. The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class. It deserves to be an archetype, at best. At worst it's a trap class, and always has been.

[mephnick]

The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class.

Man...you're going to have to explain that one.

[Sigreid]

Didn't we have this exact thread a few weeks ago?

[Gryndle]

I cant imagine that anyone who has played a monk or seen one played in an actual ongoing game can believe the monk is a trap class, at least not in 5E. I have to beleive there is some trolling going on here.

Most of the posters here have answered the OP question quite well in a serious tone, so here is my answer, given in the same spirit that I believe the question was asked: Why does the monk exist?

Well, you see, one night Daddy monk and Mommy monk were up late drinking sake' and ugglies got bumped. Approximately nine months later Baby Monk was born. and Baby Monk's first words were -"I exist. the why does not matter. Get over it."

[MrStabby]

This is blatantly false. The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class. It deserves to be an archetype, at best. At worst it's a trap class, and always has been.

Really? How so?

If I want to play a nimble and acrobatic martial class able to control the battlefield and with exceptional mobility then maybe I could make a bad monk from a fighter class. When I enjoy the extra features like being able to use a quarterstaff for this or having proficiency in all saves and with a decent enough armour class on top then I just cant see how to do this with a fighter.

There may be occasional early levels where a battlemaster looks OK, well level 3 or 4 before the monk far surpasses their control ability. You can take feats to catch up with monk speed and a fighting style to partially offset the lack of unarmoured defense or you can use a fighting style to up your weapon damage to the level monk dice scale to, you can use feats to cover off some of the extra saves monks get and so on. But you can't to all of this on the same character. If you want a decent fraction of this stuff you really need monk to pick it up. Then there are abilities to run up walls and the subclass abilities which just take these things out of reach.

I might be wrong - happy to be shown otherwise. Show me what you can do at level 10 to surpass a monk.

[Lombra]

Didn't we have this exact thread a few weeks ago?

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Monks are very unique, useful, and funny in this edition. They suffer at low levels (but which martial character doesn't?) But once they pass 5th they become a blast. I'm currently playing a level 6 shadow monk tiefling which is very far from optimized (16 DEX 14 WIS) but it's mobility and control options are a lot of fun, plus it deals a lot of damage: a constant 2d8+1d6+3DEX basically equals a fighter's damage output with the option of an extra 1d6+DEX.

[Sigreid]

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Thought it seemed familiar...

[Citan]

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Monks are very unique, useful, and funny in this edition. They suffer at low levels (but which martial character doesn't?) But once they pass 5th they become a blast. I'm currently playing a level 6 shadow monk tiefling which is very far from optimized (16 DEX 14 WIS) but it's mobility and control options are a lot of fun, plus it deals a lot of damage: a constant 2d8+1d6+3DEX basically equals a fighter's damage output with the option of an extra 1d6+DEX.
Hey, if you don't mind and have it close to your hand, could you please post the link here?

Maybe it would be good for OP to go check this other thread if the starting question was similar. :)

[KorvinStarmast]

is a subclass the same as a kit or a variant class? No, a sub-class in original D&D (starting with Greyhawk and paladins) was a special class you could play, based on the basic class, that called for some higher stats to permit entry. For example, the Druid required a Cha and Wis minimum score. Paladin required a high charisma. The Assassin and Monk also had minimum score requirements (Blackmoor sup).

Characters with a wisdom score of not less than 15. who also have a strength score of not less than 12 and a dexterity score of not less than 15 may elect to become monks. (Blackmoor page 1, TSR, 1975)
That approach changed over time, although in AD&D 1e most of the sub classes had barriers to entry in the form of minimum score requirements.

Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to magic-users, although not overly so. Clerics have more and improved spell capability. Fighters are more effective in combat and have other new advantages as well. Still, magic-users are powerful indeed, and they have many new spells. None of these over-shadow thieves. All recommended sub classes -- druids, paladins, rangers, illusionists, and assassins, as well as the special monk class of character, are included in order to assure as much variety of approach as possible. (PHB p 7, TSR, 1978, AD&D 1e)

To be a monk a character must have the following minimum ability scores: strength 15, wisdom 15, dexterity 15, and constitution 1 1. Monks never gain any experience points bonuses. Dexterity gives them no armor class adjustment (page 30, 1e PHB) The AD&D 1e monk's barrier to entry was dice rolls not making the cut. :p
The 'kit' idea came in 2e (and it wasn't a bad idea, IMO).

I don't think so - that TV series only got made because of the huge number of cheap, awesome, badly-dubbed martial arts movies of the late 60's (http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=Martial+Arts&decade=1960). OK, the B movies, Bruce Lee stuff, and Kwai Chang Caine all contributed. Fair point. :smallbiggrin:

[Lombra]

Hey, if you don't mind and have it close to your hand, could you please post the link here?

Maybe it would be good for OP to go check this other thread if the starting question was similar. :)

I didn't post in that thread I think and my search-fu (not a term invented by me, pun intended) is weak so I can't find it.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I personally hate monks. I hate their core premise, that though mumbo-jumbo east-asian mysticism and asceticism you can punch to death a man in fullplate with a greatsword before he decapitates you.

No matter how much you practice with you fists, and how in tune with the hokey energies of life and nature [which is somehow different from the arcane and divine energies of life and nature Wizards and Druids wield] you are, if I'm in a full suit of armor I'll be mildly annoyed at your resistance before running your sorry kung-fu-movie-wannabe rear-end through [at the very least, you'd have to hit very hard to knock me on my back, but that assumes you can actually make it past several feet of pointed steel.]

[Haldir]

Really? How so?

If I want to play a nimble and acrobatic martial class able to control the battlefield and with exceptional mobility then maybe I could make a bad monk from a fighter class. When I enjoy the extra features like being able to use a quarterstaff for this or having proficiency in all saves and with a decent enough armour class on top then I just cant see how to do this with a fighter.

There may be occasional early levels where a battlemaster looks OK, well level 3 or 4 before the monk far surpasses their control ability. You can take feats to catch up with monk speed and a fighting style to partially offset the lack of unarmoured defense or you can use a fighting style to up your weapon damage to the level monk dice scale to, you can use feats to cover off some of the extra saves monks get and so on. But you can't to all of this on the same character. If you want a decent fraction of this stuff you really need monk to pick it up. Then there are abilities to run up walls and the subclass abilities which just take these things out of reach.

I might be wrong - happy to be shown otherwise. Show me what you can do at level 10 to surpass a monk.

I'd be happy to write a Monk subclass, but the fact of the matter is the system is designed in such a way to protect the very existence of the Monk, because unlike previous systems, there is no way to get stunning or decent unarmed attacks without being a Monk. With the inclusion of a Stunning Fist feat and reflavoring armor/weapons, it becomes a trivial task. Dex based Fighter (Any) 10, stunning fist, tavern brawler, breastplate reflavored. Going to have higher armor, higher damage, and better HP. Only thing you miss out on is the saves and all dumb ki garbage, most of which a good DM should let you do anyway.

Even with the horrible design protecting the Monk, I can still make a more powerful Monk with Eldritch Knight. War Magic with Blade Ward, True Strike, some sweet sweet SCAG attack cantrips Mage Armor, and I can still play the mysticism crap with the rest of my spell picks. Reflavor any Save or Lose spells to be like Stunning Fist. Probably take Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Two Weapon Fighting style. Gear can include Gloves of Arrow Snatching if your DM is a prick and won't let you just do it.

Edit- If and when this EK Monk gets Haste, it's game effing over.

[MrStabby]

I personally hate monks. I hate their core premise, that though mumbo-jumbo east-asian mysticism and asceticism you can punch to death a man in fullplate with a greatsword before he decapitates you.

No matter how much you practice with you fists, and how in tune with the hokey energies of life and nature [which is somehow different from the arcane and divine energies of life and nature Wizards and Druids wield] you are, if I'm in a full suit of armor I'll be mildly annoyed at your resistance before running your sorry kung-fu-movie-wannabe rear-end through [at the very least, you'd have to hit very hard to knock me on my back, but that assumes you can actually make it past several feet of pointed steel.]

I dont find magic punches any more unreasonable than magic fireballs, magic swords or magic anything else. Also I don't think you need an eastern theme at all. Play the style how you want it.

[MrStabby]

I'd be happy to write a Monk subclass, but the fact of the matter is the system is designed in such a way to protect the very existence of the Monk, because unlike previous systems, there is no way to get stunning or decent unarmed attacks without being a Monk. With the inclusion of a Stunning Fist feat and reflavoring armor/weapons, it becomes a trivial task. Dex based Fighter (Any) 10, stunning fist, tavern brawler, breastplate reflavored. Going to have higher armor, higher damage, and better HP. Only thing you miss out on is the saves and all dumb ki garbage, most of which a good DM should let you do anyway.

Even with the horrible design protecting the Monk, I can still make a more powerful Monk with Eldritch Knight. War Magic with Blade Ward, True Strike, some sweet sweet SCAG attack cantrips Mage Armor, and I can still play the mysticism crap with the rest of my spell picks. Reflavor any Save or Lose spells to be like Stunning Fist. Probably take Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Two Weapon Fighting style. Gear can include Gloves of Arrow Snatching if your DM is a prick and won't let you just do it.

You are still missing out on the mobility. No bonus action dash, no increased movement speed.

[Lombra]

I personally hate monks. I hate their core premise, that though mumbo-jumbo east-asian mysticism and asceticism you can punch to death a man in fullplate with a greatsword before he decapitates you.

No matter how much you practice with you fists, and how in tune with the hokey energies of life and nature [which is somehow different from the arcane and divine energies of life and nature Wizards and Druids wield] you are, if I'm in a full suit of armor I'll be mildly annoyed at your resistance before running your sorry kung-fu-movie-wannabe rear-end through [at the very least, you'd have to hit very hard to knock me on my back, but that assumes you can actually make it past several feet of pointed steel.]

You can easily play a western themed monk (that's how I play mine) but D&D 5th edition isn't very accurate at simulations, which is ok since I like to see it as mostly a game. The monk's unarmored defense flavours his exceptional reflexes and agility, while the unarmed damage describes how good they are at finding the right spot to strike. Obviously IRL a longsword trained fighter would slice a kung fu artist, but that's the beauty of fantasy: it doesn't have to be realistic.

[Tanarii]

I mean, check THIS out:"Old Hedgehog!" I'm dying. :smallbiggrin: Def have to watch that entire thing later.


Yeah they are singular, because they are the only ones that end with all saves. :)Yes I don't dispute Monks get some of the best defenses. I was disputing that they're the only ones to get Dex & Wis, then went off on a tangent.


Didn't we have this exact thread a few weeks ago?

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Thought it seemed familiar...

Hey, if you don't mind and have it close to your hand, could you please post the link here?

I didn't post in that thread I think and my search-fu (not a term invented by me, pun intended) is weak so I can't find it.
Am I the only one that looks at the date in threads & posts? :smallconfused: :smallamused:
(Edit: Sigreid did you just forget to use blue text? Because it sure reads like you're being sarcastic.)

[Lombra]

Am I the only one that looks at the date in threads & posts? :smallconfused: :smallamused:
(Edit: Sigreid did you just forget to use blue text? Because it sure reads like you're being sarcastic.)

Damn I should start reading it too.

[Snails]

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon

IMHO, the designers decided that the flexibility of 3e ended up being way too much of a good thing. That the proliferation of classes, feat, and buffs end up being intimidating to new players, who just want to pick a recognizable archetype out of the PHB on a whim, without feeling like their PC will underperform if they do not crack open 5 different books. I personally love, love, love 3e. But I also recognize it can be pretty harsh on the casual player, who does not keep his or her crunch skills honed by playing every week.

In theory, one can imagine an even more flexible than 3e class/feat system where you build your custom "sub-class" out of a buffet of feat trees. In practice, this would be even harder than 3e on casual players, and thus not an acceptable direction to go.

5e is built such that you can reach all the most popular archetypes by level 3 or 4. Monk and Barbarian are sub-types that are popular. Obviously it is plausible to shove them under the Fighter class. In practice, it would not be any easier on the players, and likely would make all the fightery classes more confusing, not less.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Maybe you could argue that the monk could be replicated to some extent, but you can't make the monk without the monk and not as effective at BEING a monk. It exists because in order to make the character that is the monk, you have to do too much. At what point is it worth t to make a weird combination of classes and such, rather than just make the monk a base class.

Or is the question my philosophical . Like why are we here ?

[2D8HP]

Yeah, but we're old. :smallbiggrin:
Ahem, could you please pass the Geritol? :smallcool:


With mu superior fu I already have Geritol and Centrum Silver, therefore I already win.

Hooray for me!

[Citan]

Even with the horrible design protecting the Monk, I can still make a more powerful Monk with Eldritch Knight. War Magic with Blade Ward, True Strike, some sweet sweet SCAG attack cantrips Mage Armor, and I can still play the mysticism crap with the rest of my spell picks. Reflavor any Save or Lose spells to be like Stunning Fist. Probably take Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Two Weapon Fighting style. Gear can include Gloves of Arrow Snatching if your DM is a prick and won't let you just do it.

Edit- If and when this EK Monk gets Haste, it's game effing over.
I hope this was not one of the argument disputed at length in the "previous thread" mentioned, and that is not a troll either...XD

1. Mage Armor? Equal or Inferior to Monk, depending on whether max only DEX or also WIS. Also confer 4.

2. War Magic + Blade Ward? Strictly Inferior to Monk: the fact it doesn't cost resource is a great point, but you are still doing only one weapon attack. And resistance to physical damage is great, but not being hit in the first place is better. Dodge > Blade Ward.

3. War Magic + True Strike? Getting advantage on one attack per turn is more or less similar to launching 2 attacks per turn. So it's pointless in most situations (especially on a frigging Fighter who gets 3 attacks per Attack, seriously).

4. SCAG cantrips? Advantage Fighter if feats are not allowed (which is rare). Otherwise, moot point: Magic Initiate does not have stat prerequisites, so you can easily pick Sorcerer or Wizard, get a melee weapon cantrip, a ranged cantrip, and Mage Armor.

5. Reflavored "Stunning Strike" spell? Only Hold Person and Hold Monster fit the bill: first is 2nd level spell (so lvl 8 for Fighter), second is 5th level (so not available).
Stunning Strike costs 1 ki, but is appliable without any action economy expense and available from lvl 5 onwards.

6. Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, Two-Weapon Fighting Style: you just took 3 feats to come close, but still inferior Monk: he is naturally proficient with Unarmed Strikes, which go up to d10 size, and AC to 20 with maxed DEX and WIS (which he can do since he doesn't need 3 feats to be functional).

7. Glove of Arrows Snatching: funny how you are forced to rely on magic items to try and make your point. Unfortunately, magic items cannot be brought into discussion, because it's 1) DM dependent 2) Pandora's Box (you should give an item of similar level to Monk).

8. Haste: Haste doubles your movement speed, which is exactly as Monk for most races. +2 AC is a nice touch, as is the "free" Dodge.
So that is the only true edge of your "Monkish Fighter", and still with huge drawbacks: only on level 14, very limited use and autostun on end. Whereas Monk can Dash, Dodge or Disengage for a single ki cost as soon as level 2.

Beyond that, you seem to have forgotten a bit about...

9. Evasion: powerful way to avoid any damage on DEX saves.

10. Diamond Soul: arguably trumps Indomitable at higher levels, but admittedly, it depends much on the kind of encounters you face so YMMV.

11. Empty Body: non-concentration invisibility and resistance to all (except psychic) damage.

12. Tongue of Sun and Moon: often disregarded, but extremely good for scouting or social interaction.

13. Mobility: climbing/running on water/reducing falling damage are all things that EK could do only by investing precious spell known and slots. These are free for Monk.

14. All the various unique abilities from Ways...

Yeah, clearly, Fighter can make a better Monk than Monk himself... :smallconfused:
(Sometimes I'm amazed by the kind of crazy things people dare write XD)

[Snails]

At what point is it worth t to make a weird combination of classes and such, rather than just make the monk a base class.

For 3e, I think the answer is: At the point where you need more than one 3e-style "feat tree" to create your archetype, in terms of how it varies from the classic "wear armor, hit things" fightery guy. That is basically how 3e did it.

(I would note that Arcana Unearthed decided to split the fightery classes into Heavy Fighter and Light Fighter, which reduced the class choices while recognizing that the All In One Fighter class was impossible.)

Of course, 5e has given up on feat trees, and created classes with a selection of sub-classes that are supposed to get you close enough to all the more popular archetypes.

[Haldir]

I hope this was not one of the argument disputed at length in the "previous thread" mentioned, and that is not a troll either...XD

1. Mage Armor? Equal or Inferior to Monk, depending on whether max only DEX or also WIS. Also confer 4.

2. War Magic + Blade Ward? Strictly Inferior to Monk: the fact it doesn't cost resource is a great point, but you are still doing only one weapon attack. And resistance to physical damage is great, but not being hit in the first place is better. Dodge > Blade Ward.

3. War Magic + True Strike? Getting advantage on one attack per turn is more or less similar to launching 2 attacks per turn. So it's pointless in most situations (especially on a frigging Fighter who gets 3 attacks per Attack, seriously).

4. SCAG cantrips? Advantage Fighter if feats are not allowed (which is rare). Otherwise, moot point: Magic Initiate does not have stat prerequisites, so you can easily pick Sorcerer or Wizard, get a melee weapon cantrip, a ranged cantrip, and Mage Armor.

5. Reflavored "Stunning Strike" spell? Only Hold Person and Hold Monster fit the bill: first is 2nd level spell (so lvl 8 for Fighter), second is 5th level (so not available).
Stunning Strike costs 1 ki, but is appliable without any action economy expense and available from lvl 5 onwards.

6. Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, Two-Weapon Fighting Style: you just took 3 feats to come close, but still inferior Monk: he is naturally proficient with Unarmed Strikes, which go up to d10 size, and AC to 20 with maxed DEX and WIS (which he can do since he doesn't need 3 feats to be functional).

7. Glove of Arrows Snatching: funny how you are forced to rely on magic items to try and make your point. Unfortunately, magic items cannot be brought into discussion, because it's 1) DM dependent 2) Pandora's Box (you should give an item of similar level to Monk).

8. Haste: Haste doubles your movement speed, which is exactly as Monk for most races. +2 AC is a nice touch, as is the "free" Dodge.
So that is the only true edge of your "Monkish Fighter", and still with huge drawbacks: only on level 14, very limited use and autostun on end. Whereas Monk can Dash, Dodge or Disengage for a single ki cost as soon as level 2.

Beyond that, you seem to have forgotten a bit about...

9. Evasion: powerful way to avoid any damage on DEX saves.

10. Diamond Soul: arguably trumps Indomitable at higher levels, but admittedly, it depends much on the kind of encounters you face so YMMV.

11. Empty Body: non-concentration invisibility and resistance to all (except psychic) damage.

12. Tongue of Sun and Moon: often disregarded, but extremely good for scouting or social interaction.

13. Mobility: climbing/running on water/reducing falling damage are all things that EK could do only by investing precious spell known and slots. These are free for Monk.

14. All the various unique abilities from Ways...

Yeah, clearly, Fighter can make a better Monk than Monk himself... :smallconfused:
(Sometimes I'm amazed by the kind of crazy things people dare write XD)

I'll address your points in order, except for to talk about Monk's dumb features, which only exist to make a bad idea palatable.

1. This is advantage Fighter, because all of the points I don't put into Wisdom can now go into Con. Meaning higher HP. AND I still have the option of picking up Shield and Absorb Elements if I really care about my defenses.

2. Blade Ward was never posited as better than dodging, just as a spell you can take to get Monk flavor. See point 1 if you think Monk can have better defenses than my fighter.

3. See Point 2, this is merely an example of how the Fighter can have as many attacks as a Monk, but better.

4. Extra Advantage to Fighter, because my (probably) higher INT score opens up the possibility of multi-classing into Wizard, giving me more than ample spells to replicate whatever dumbass monk thing you want.

5. Your ignorance of the spell lists is not a point in your favor.

6. No, with my action surge, war magic, boatload of attacks, and the three feats mentioned I'm well beyond the Monk's capabilities for dealing damage.

7. You'll notice I said that the Monk has special access to things simply to justify its existence. There used to be ways for Fighters to catch arrows and stun people, which is totally and completely fair unless you want protectionist policies for the Monk. I do not. This is merely a suggestion for people whose DMs are turds.

8. Haste is one of the best buffs in the game, and if the Fighter ever gets it, all of the points I just made are amplified by like a million.

[Mortis_Elrod]

For 3e, I think the answer is: At the point where you need more than one 3e-style "feat tree" to create your archetype, in terms of how it varies from the classic "wear armor, hit things" fightery guy. That is basically how 3e did it.

(I would note that Arcana Unearthed decided to split the fightery classes into Heavy Fighter and Light Fighter, which reduced the class choices while recognizing that the All In One Fighter class was impossible.)

Of course, 5e has given up on feat trees, and created classes with a selection of sub-classes that are supposed to get you close enough to all the more popular archetypes.

I agree in regards to 3e but in 5e its costs too much to even sometimes go more than 2 levels in a class, and you have to maintain the reqs for MCing. It delays your progression in terms of abilties and asi's and likely spells. Monk is there so we can play him. We are here because... i don't know but i bet the monk knows. He's got it all figured out.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'll address your points in order, except for to talk about Monk's dumb features, which only exist to make a bad idea palatable.



Yes lets not include the things that make the monk a monk. While we're at it, lets toss away sneak attack and favored enemies,

Let's be reasonable when we make comparisons please.

[Sigreid]

"Old Hedgehog!" I'm dying. :smallbiggrin: Def have to watch that entire thing later.

Yes I don't dispute Monks get some of the best defenses. I was disputing that they're the only ones to get Dex & Wis, then went off on a tangent.






Am I the only one that looks at the date in threads & posts? :smallconfused: :smallamused:
(Edit: Sigreid did you just forget to use blue text? Because it sure reads like you're being sarcastic.)

There was another one that I had commented on, so I was referring to that one. And I was being a little sarcastic, yeah. Part of it is probably my not understanding railing against a class that doesn't appeal to you personally. I mean, I really dislike the warlock and won't play one. Doesn't mean I'm going to start a thread on how it should be something else.

[Gryndle]

I personally hate monks. I hate their core premise, that though mumbo-jumbo east-asian mysticism and asceticism you can punch to death a man in fullplate with a greatsword before he decapitates you.

No matter how much you practice with you fists, and how in tune with the hokey energies of life and nature [which is somehow different from the arcane and divine energies of life and nature Wizards and Druids wield] you are, if I'm in a full suit of armor I'll be mildly annoyed at your resistance before running your sorry kung-fu-movie-wannabe rear-end through [at the very least, you'd have to hit very hard to knock me on my back, but that assumes you can actually make it past several feet of pointed steel.]

but its ok for a wizard or any other caster to use "mumbo-jumbo" to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up?

I find it much more realistic to think a person who has dedicated his life to training, discipline and focus to destroy an armor clad opponent (from Sun Zu "When properly motivated a naked man can utterly destroy a man clad in steel") than a robed bookish nerd to tell reality to reshape itself. but then, I can suspend disbelief enough that BOTH have a place in my game.

[jitzul]

but its ok for a wizard or any other caster to use "mumbo-jumbo" to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up?

I find it much more realistic to think a person who has dedicated his life to training, discipline and focus to destroy an armor clad opponent (from Sun Zu "When properly motivated a naked man can utterly destroy a man clad in steel") than a robed bookish nerd to tell reality to reshape itself. but then, I can suspend disbelief enough that BOTH have a place in my game.

Something i've learned with that type of attitude for monks is that it's easier to suspend disbelief for stuff you've grown up seeing in bedtime stories and movies then stuff from a country on the other side of the world.

That sounded a bit more preachy then I thought it would but you catch the drift. If lotr had a unarmed fighter that could leap over castle walls and knock out giant elephants with a flurry of blows then there would be zero problem with monks.

[Haldir]

Yes lets not include the things that make the monk a monk. While we're at it, lets toss away sneak attack and favored enemies,

Let's be reasonable when we make comparisons please.

I'd rather not argue semantics with you. I have made what any rational person could definitely identify as a Monk, and it does Monk things better than the actual Monk. Knowing all languages and some extra damage resistences are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak, they do not define Monk-ness.

[Tanarii]

I have made what any rational person could definitely identify as a Monk, and it does Monk things better than the actual Monk.Guess I'm not rational, because I don't anything resembling a D&D Monk in your EK. I see an armored fighter with magic spells.

Edit: To be honest I probably am not very rational, but that's beside the point. :smalltongue:

[Snails]

I agree in regards to 3e but in 5e its costs too much to even sometimes go more than 2 levels in a class, and you have to maintain the reqs for MCing. It delays your progression in terms of abilties and asi's and likely spells. Monk is there so we can play him. We are here because... i don't know but i bet the monk knows. He's got it all figured out.

It is unclear to me whether MC works well in 5e, although I think it is a bit less problematic than other editions, overall.

A 2 level dip in a second class seems okay. The delay in ASI is not a crazy high cost to round out your abilities.

[Specter]

Even with the horrible design protecting the Monk, I can still make a more powerful Monk with Eldritch Knight. War Magic with Blade Ward, True Strike, some sweet sweet SCAG attack cantrips Mage Armor, and I can still play the mysticism crap with the rest of my spell picks. Reflavor any Save or Lose spells to be like Stunning Fist. Probably take Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Two Weapon Fighting style. Gear can include Gloves of Arrow Snatching if your DM is a prick and won't let you just do it.

Edit- If and when this EK Monk gets Haste, it's game effing over.

Just by this post, it's telling that you have no idea what 'action economy' or 'adventuring day' are in D&D.

Blade Ward and True Strike? Ha! Nice 'flavor', really.

Setting Haste up costs one action. That's one action not attacking. Haste can be dispelled by any 5th-level mage, making you waste one turn.

Tavern Brawler costs a feat. For something Monk is doing for free.

Ki is a short rest resource. Spells are a long rest resource. So on a day with 2 short rests, at level 20, a monk can stun 60 times, while you can use a 1st-level save-or-suck spell... 11 times. Oh, but you cast Mage Armor, so that's 10.

And by the end of that, you will be proficient in 3 saves... if you use a feat for that. Monk 6. Do we really need to keep going with this?

[Snails]

Knowing all languages and some extra damage resistences are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak, they do not define Monk-ness.

I would say there is a classic design error, whereby things that are unusual are rated more highly than their actual play value. Thus classes that have a grab bag of fiddly little mostly defensive bonuses end up very weak. The 3e Paladin and Monk were victims of this error.

Perhaps the 5e Monk is also a victim. It really depends on how often you find juicy targets for Stunning Fist. Most spellcasters are going to fail that save 50+% of the time. Even most big strong targets are going to fail 25+% of the time, which is not terrible (but not a great expenditure of ki).

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'd rather not argue semantics with you. I have made what any rational person could definitely identify as a Monk, and it does Monk things better than the actual Monk. Knowing all languages and some extra damage resistences are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak, they do not define Monk-ness.

I didn't see where your 'monk' was an unarmed mobile battlefield controller with solid defenses. That's what the monk is. The fighter in my opinion is only an option because some people don't want the attachments of all the other martial types, and thats the real reason why they have action surge and so many extra attacks and etc. because in a world of universe changing magic those things "are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak"

[Citan]

I'll address your points in order, except for to talk about Monk's dumb features, which only exist to make a bad idea palatable.

1. This is advantage Fighter, because all of the points I don't put into Wisdom can now go into Con. Meaning higher HP. AND I still have the option of picking up Shield and Absorb Elements if I really care about my defenses.

2. Blade Ward was never posited as better than dodging, just as a spell you can take to get Monk flavor. See point 1 if you think Monk can have better defenses than my fighter.

3. See Point 2, this is merely an example of how the Fighter can have as many attacks as a Monk, but better.

4. Extra Advantage to Fighter, because my (probably) higher INT score opens up the possibility of multi-classing into Wizard, giving me more than ample spells to replicate whatever dumbass monk thing you want.

5. Your ignorance of the spell lists is not a point in your favor.

6. No, with my action surge, war magic, boatload of attacks, and the three feats mentioned I'm well beyond the Monk's capabilities for dealing damage.

7. You'll notice I said that the Monk has special access to things simply to justify its existence. There used to be ways for Fighters to catch arrows and stun people, which is totally and completely fair unless you want protectionist policies for the Monk. I do not. This is merely a suggestion for people whose DMs are turds.

8. Haste is one of the best buffs in the game, and if the Fighter ever gets it, all of the points I just made are amplified by like a million.

Ok, so what demonstration did you do? Sorry, nothing, apart stressing the fact that you are not interested in having an actual constructive argument founded with facts.
Well, no worries, I'll provide for you.

Defense
1&2. Monk can end with 20 AC, proficiencies in all saves, Evasion, Arrow catching, Slow Fall, without any investment from the player nor any resource cost.

When resources are involved, Monk gets...
- Concentation-free invisibility (meaning advantage on most of his attacks) + resistance to all damage for a measly 4 ki.
- Dodge (disadvantage to attacks against you), Dash (retreat to safe distance = no attack), Disengage (attack and move freely through enemies) as a bonus action for one Ki.
- Reroll on a failed save for one ki.
Which recharge on short rest.
Not including the defensive features you can get with Ways.

Compared to Indomitable (3/long rest), Action Surge (2/short rest, provided you use them on Dodge or similar) and Shield/Mirror Image (provided you go Eldricht Knight, and it's still 4/long rest and 3/long rest unless you blow everything on Shield).

Just because you probably will say "yeah but Shield is better", let's take a comparison at level 4 first (see? I'm nice and all) then at level 20, for a Monk and Eldricht Knight (either DEX or heavy armor).
At level 4, Monk bumps DEX, so has 18, to go with his starting 16 in WIS (easily affordable).

So, Monk has Unarmored = 10+4+3 = 17.
Fighter, to be conservative, has heavy armor, but no shield nor TWF since you are dual-wielding, right? Since you want to "be a Monk" and claim to be as offensive, so you really need the bonus action from dual-wielding and associated Fighting Style. So AC = 18.
When referring to this page (http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/)...
Fighter gets Shield, net +5 to AC. He can use it 3 times per long rest.
18+5=23.
Monk gets Dodge as bonus action, which means putting attacks against him at disadvantage.

Now, let's compare.
Without resource expenditure, an enemy with a +5 to hit (reasonable expectation for enemies of that level IIRC) would have 40% chance to hit Fighter vs 45% to hit Monk.

Now, with expenditure, enemy would have 15% chance to hit Fighter, vs 22% chance to hit Monk.

Big win for Fighter? I'd say quite on the contrary.
Fighter can do this 3 times per long rest. Monk could do that 3 times per short rest and still keep one ki for occasional Flurry of Blows.
On a side-note, a DEX Fighter could do that only 2 times per long rest: he has one slot for Mage Armor. XD



Monk spent all his ASI on WIS and DEX (not talking about the last ASI for now).
So AC = 10+5+5 = 20.
Monk also has Evasion (irrelevant here) and Empty Body.

Fighter maxed his STR, took Dual Wielder + Tavern Brawler. You are still keeping your other hand free for that Unarmed bonus action attack. So AC=19.

Without any resource consumed.
Chance to hit Fighter: 35%
Chance to hit Monk: 30%

With previous expenditure:
Chance to hit Fighter: 10%
Chance to hit Monk: 0,2%

(Well, I don't know how to take the auto-hit from natural 20 into account but the scale between both characters is still of the right magnitude).


Now let's take a true challenging enemy for that level: an Adult Silver Dragon (because emblematic enemy mainly, anyone feel free to propose creatures you will better suited against a 3 or 4-man lvl 20 party).
Dragon has +13 to hit.

Without resource expenditure:
Chance to hit Fighter: 75%
Chance to hit Monk: 70%

With previous resource expenditure:
Chance to hit Fighter: 50%
Chance to hit Monk: 49%

With max resource expenditure (Monk has Empty Body active, Fighter uses Action Surge to cast Blur on himself to impose disadvantage for a minute)
Chance to hit Fighter: 25%
Chance to hit Monk: 49% (unchanged, unless I missed something).

So this is a net win for Fighter, as long as he maintains Concentration on Blur (so you cannot use anything else) and cast Shield every turn you are attacked.
Very net win?
Wait...

IF characters get hit...
2d8+8: minimum 10, average 17, max 24.
Fighter suffers full damage.
Monk has resistance so suffers half damage: from 5 to 12.

So although the Fighter still has the edge here (as said, better not be hit in the first place), Monk is still standing firm.

Since we are still on the Dragon, why not see the save or suck options?

Frightful Presence (frightened on fail, meaning you are significantly less useful): unless Fighter took Resilient: Wisdom, he won't be proficient. Even if he did, he won't have more than 12 WIS max per your own theory build (bumping CON then INT)
DC = 18.
Monk = 6+5 = +11 bonus. Minimum roll: 7 (70% chance)
Fighter (normal) = +1 Minimum roll: 17 (20%)
Fighter (proficient) = +7. Minimum roll: 11 (50%).
"Yeah, but you forgot about Indomitable!!"
Yeah, but you forgot about Diamond Soul.
Both allow to reroll a failed save and force the second result.
Big difference? Indomitable is 3 per long rest.
Diamond Soul is up to 20 per short rest (let's be nice and agree you use most of your pool on something else, so say 3 per short rest).
Best thing? Monk can end fright with just an action.
Fighter is stuck being frightened until he makes the save, which he may succeed on second, or third turn max by blowing Indomitable.

Breath: either paralyzed for 1mn or 58 average (max 104) cold damage against 20 DC Con save.
Good thing, Fighter is proficient, and I can agree he has 16 CON also (in spite of having maxed STR, bumped INT, taken Dual Wielder, Tavern Brawler and Resilient Wisdom).
Let's be mean to the Monk and say he never bumped his 14 CON.

Chances to fail are nearly the same without resources (+9 vs +8):
Fighter: 50%
Monk: 45%
Difference is, Monk has much better chance on the long run to break on the paralyzing effect compared to Fighter, again because short-rest resource.

As for Cold damage, it's a very net win for Monk thanks to "all damage except psychic" resistance: average 29 instead of 58, max 52 instead of 104.



And Monk being invisible for one minute without any break (except a few spells such as Faerie Fire), there are many occurences where creatures won't even target him in the first place. Which is the best defense overall. XD

I did not even talk about all the occurrences where your character will suffer ranged attacks, which Monk can deflect for those which would actually hit him.
Or all these AOE/single-target DEX save spells which will hurt your Fighter badly, whereas Monk will laugh through (DEX proficient + max DEX + reroll + Evasion = extremely high chance of 0 damage).

And you dare ask if "you think Monk has better defenses"?
I wonder if you actually read the book, not even talking about playing it...

Monk trumps any martial including third-caster and most half-caster (maybe barring Ancients Paladin) as far as defense is concerned, because he gets all in one nice, resource-light package: invisibility which lets him do whatever he wants, proficiency in all saves, resistance to all damage, + extra defensive features that have a very light cost (Dodge and the like).

Even casters will have much difficulty to reach that level of resilience: only ones which come to my mind are Wizards (because free Shield + Blur/Mirror Image, Contingencies, Simulacrums) and Bard (not free Shield but ability to grab all the best defense buffs with Magic Secrets).

Beyond those two, only character that could maybe come close or beat him would be a strange multiclass, and only for 2 fights a day, provided it can even be built: Bear Barbarian X / Ancients Paladin 7+
Or if DM allows it, Chain Warlock 4 with Quasit + Ancients Paladin 8+ / Draconic Sorcerer 3+, starting with just enough STR to multiclass, 16 in CHA and DEX, 14 in CON, bumping DEX ASAP, taking Resilient:CON and Shield Master then ending with +2 CHA or Inspiring Leader.

Now for offense (more quickly, it's very late). XD

Offense
Quoting: "No, with my action surge, war magic, boatload of attacks, and the three feats mentioned I'm well beyond the Monk's capabilities for dealing damage."

Ok...
First, if you use War Magic, it means you cast a cantrip.
So you don't use the great feature that is 4*attacks in an Attack. Congrats for wasting your offensive potential (especially if it was to cast Blade Ward: 1 attack for a level 20 Fighter, you are pretty reliable damage dealer for your group \o/).

Second, Action Surge works 2 turns per short rest. So it's good for nova damage, but far from being a "sustainable" resource.

Third, the three feats make you still completely inferior to Monk if you want to be an unarmed martial: Monk can land 3(d10+5) damage (average 31,5, max 45), +1 with a Ki point (which is, contrarily to Action Surge, a sustainable resource).
You can, at best, land 4*(d8+5)+(1d4+5) damage (average 38+7,5=45,5, max 61). Because you are unarmed for the bonus action attack right? Otherwise why bother with Tavern Brawler feat?

Take chance to hit into account: Monk is invisible so it's auto-advantage for him.
Take Stunning Strike into account: DC will be 8+6+5 = DC 19, pretty hard to beat even if many creatures do have a good Constitution save. And a success means autocrit beyond until the end of your next turn.
So, without luck on Monk side, on a regular turn in which both hit on all attacks, Fighter deals much better damage if he bothers actually using his main feature.

On a turn with Stunning Strike active, Monk will blow his 4 attacks with Flurry of Blows, which will autocrit: 2*((2+2)*(d10+5)) = 8(d10+5): average 84, max 120

Not even accounting for any and all party members that will take advantage of it in the meantime: whatever way you look at it, your Fighter looks miserable aside, even with Action Surge: you would still need to land all attacks to just get close to it (average 83,5, max 99).

"Yeah, but I said I could mimic the paralysis with spells".
Throw your list of spells that can mimic Stunning Strike if you'd like: there are plain inferior in all ways (except targeting another save).
To get one chance at paralyzing your target, you need to use your action and one precious 2nd, 3rd or (my god!!) 4rd slot. And it takes your Concentration so no Blur, no Haste, no Greater Invisibility during that time.

When the Monk really wants to succeed in stunning someone, he can blow up to 5 Ki on his turn to try and land a Stunning Strike. Which he has decent chance to do most of the time because it applies on attacks, and he is good at attacks (barring creatures with blindsight or the like obviously).
The chance of a creature succeeding more than 3 saves in a row is extremely slim. Only creatures with Legendary Actions can do that easily by blowing away their precious resources, which is still a big benefit to the party overall.

Oh and, you forgot all these bits about mobility and stealth, but I guess it is "irrelevant"...

Frankly, your allegations never held in the first place, even remotely. Without feats, the Fighter won't even come remotely close to a Monk.
And with feats, if you really want to be good at damaging people, you have to either take Sharpshooter / GWM OR bump CON and casting stat and multiclass EK11/caster 9).
Taking Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder is smart only if you want to "dual-wield" Sword and Board, which is extremely far from Monk feelings (although this is a very good build for a "Protector" concept, paired with also Shield Master and Sentinel, which is something only Fighter or Rogue could afford usually).

Monk is Monk for a reason. Or rather many, actually.
Either you are a troll (in which case congratulations, considering the time I spent to write a proper answer), or a guy who jumps to conclusion without actually trying to think beforehand, or you are just the kind of player who just never tries to understand mechanics nor do any maths nor try to be tactical and collaborative. Both last cases meaning you are probably making headaches for your fellow players and dm, sadly...

[coredump]

I'd rather not argue semantics with you. I have made what any rational person could definitely identify as a Monk, and it does Monk things better than the actual Monk. Knowing all languages and some extra damage resistences are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak, they do not define Monk-ness.
Tell you what. Instead of listing a string of 'what ifs' and 'could be"'
Post a build. Show us a level 5,10,25 fighter that is s better mink than s monk is.

Because as it stands, you keep double counting. You take credit for potting ASIa in Con instead if Wis, and yet also spend them on feats.
You are somehow casting spells, and getting miltiple attacks.
Etc etc.

So instead, post your build.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Monk is Monk for a reason. Or rather many, actually.
Either you are a troll (in which case congratulations, considering the time I spent to write a proper answer), or a guy who jumps to conclusion without actually trying to think beforehand, or you are just the kind of player who just never tries to understand mechanics nor do any maths nor try to be tactical and collaborative. Both last cases meaning you are probably making headaches for your fellow players and dm, sadly...

Citan doing the math we knew in our hearts but our minds were too busy elsewhere. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Especially since you didn' add ways or monk using his one spare asi on a feat (though, what would a monk need, his body and mind are a temple.)

[Gryndle]

yep, cudos to Citan

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I'm surprised that this obvious Troll thread is still open, mods don't care?

[furby076]

i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

This thread, and every thread like it (they pop up at least weekly) are SNOOORING

[skaddix]

The math is great Citan.

The monk is somewhere between a Fighter and Thief.
The problem with eliminating it is that it greatly bloats either of the classes you would merge it into.

The whole point of subclasses is too modify the base class not overhaul the entire base class.
Funny enough this issue causes the most damage for monks...I am looking at you Element Monk.

But really that is for another time. Sorcerers and Monks could both make the case for more SP or Ki.

[Lombra]

The stunned condition isn't the paralyzed condition (it would be cool) , so no auto crit on a stunned enemy (but advantage to you and the rest of the party for one round), but the analysis of Citan is great.

[Citan]

yep, cudos to Citan


The math is great Citan.

The monk is somewhere between a Fighter and Thief.
The problem with eliminating it is that it greatly bloats either of the classes you would merge it into.

The whole point of subclasses is too modify the base class not overhaul the entire base class.
Funny enough this issue causes the most damage for monks...I am looking at you Element Monk.

But really that is for another time. Sorcerers and Monks could both make the case for more SP or Ki.

Citan doing the math we knew in our hearts but our minds were too busy elsewhere. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Especially since you didn' add ways or monk using his one spare asi on a feat (though, what would a monk need, his body and mind are a temple.)
Thank you guys.
Yeah, I didn't even mention the fact that Sun Soul Monks or 4E Monks are extremely better blasters than EK (9-10 Burning Hands or 5-6 Fireball per short rest if you blew everything on it, so reasonably 2 per short rest).
Or that Quivering Palm trumps in damage nearly all a Fighter could do, since its 10d10 on failed save or outright kill. XD

The stunned condition isn't the paralyzed condition (it would be cool) , so no auto crit on a stunned enemy (but advantage to you and the rest of the party for one round), but the analysis of Citan is great.
Damn, I'm stupid, this is so true. Thanks for correcting me, should have double-checked before writing (for my defense, I was really spent with a long day of working, hazy mind XD).

In case I put some confusion in anyone's mind, Stunning Strike only stuns (per the name) so everything I said about Monk autocritting is pure crap.
Meaning that on a nova turn, without taking special (resource-heavy) abilities into account, Fighter is still leading with a confortable margin. Sorry for that.


Also, to be totally fair (didn't think it through yesterday), it should be noted that on a first turn of big fight, Monk will have to spend his action to activate Empty Body (and do nothing else beyond maybe Dashing/Dodging with a bonus action), while a Fighter could use his whole turn on offense with Action Surge:
- Battlemaster using Precision Attacks will make a big dent in enemy ranks,
- EK could Haste himself to get enough movement to close in (double movement + Dash additional action) and still land his full Attack (and maybe bonus action one). Or make a bonus action attack, cast a Hold Person if appliable (few humanoids high CR creatures no?) with imposed disadvantage, then Attack with auto-crit (that's the source of my confusion ^^).

So as far as nova strike on first turn goes, Monk will ofen find himself behind EK Fighter whether you activate Empty Body or not... At least until you take Way abilities into account
- Quivering Palm is at least as good as 2*Attacks imo for tough guys, in spite of action economy (2 turns), because it's a sure 10D10 and decent chance to kill on a single successful weapon attack. I would understand opposite opinions though.
- Touch of Long Death is like an altered Quivering Palm that allows you to blow just enough Ki to do the job, very ki consuming but also very powerful (20d10).
- Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip have no upper cap of Ki cost, so if you are ready to do this gamble (wouldn't advise it unless it's the finish move XD), you could deal up to 20d10 damage also.
- A well positioned upcast Fireball (which Monk can do easily with 60 feet movement + bonus action Dash) can quickly reduce an opposing crowd by dealing total damage that trumps everything a Fighter could do (barring launching also a Fireball, although with lesser DC usually).

Though this isn't a surprise at all for those who know the classes a minimum. It has long be known that among martials, Fighters usually trump the others on nova, unless these others blow a great chunk of resources on it (like aforementioned 4E/Long Death Monk examples, or Paladin smiting as hard as possible.

Past this particular comparison, mileage will vary wildly depending on party composition and faced enemy because of Stunning Strike.
Everything else stands though. :)

By the way, if you really want the best Monk for nova, it is actually probably Monk 18 / Fighter 2: you lose the ki on Initiative (tougher than what most people could think, but still a variable benefit) but can use Action Surge to...
1. Activate Empty Body and still get a full turn of Attack+Flurry of Blows+Stunning Strike. Enjoy your stun BBEG.
2. Bonus action Dash to position yourself and launch 2 upcast Fireball. Bye bye crowds. :)
3. Bonus action Dash, Attack and activate Quivering Palm then immediately use the other action to trigger death: enjoy eternal rest BBEG, you didn't even have time to suffer.
4. Bonus action Dash, use 2*Water Whip to draw that pesky caster from the comfort of his cover, towards the "loving arms" of your melee pals.
Should be fun times (damn, I really want to play this kind of character now... Anyone running a one-shot high level campaign somewhere? XD)

[Malifice]

I'd rather not argue semantics with you. I have made what any rational person could definitely identify as a Monk, and it does Monk things better than the actual Monk. Knowing all languages and some extra damage resistences are only there to make up for the fact that the concept is inherently weak, they do not define Monk-ness.

Nah dude. You made a claim that Monks are crap compared to Fighters, then when called out on it, you made up a whole head of fictional rules to try and prove yourself right.

It was super weird.

[djreynolds]

Rangers and monks are skirmishers, that is their design.

A monk can use his speed to cover vast distances and soften up the enemy and get out.

And a ranger can do this, especially as the hunter archetype, with TWF or a bow.

Can a fighter do this? Surely with the mobile feat. Can a rogue do this, yes they can. Other classes can fill the role of a skirmisher, barbarians are great at it with speed and lack of armor.

Can a monk tank? Yes, but he will need the mobile feat to disengage, or waste KI on step of the wind or on patient defense. That means do not use FOB unless this is for the kill because it costs KI and a BA.

So when I play a monk, I use them to pick off stragglers and/or force stragglers to the big guns.

The tough thing is KI, do I need to use it and its extra cost of a bonus action? No.

I use KI sparingly, I got 2 attacks and a 1d8 HP. I can take a shot if needed. So its okay to use the bonus action just for the 3rd attack and save the KI for another and not use FOB.

Till your fists do 1d8, use a spear/quarterstaff 2-handed and a longbow from distance

Try to pick your fights versus lone opponents and use stealth to gain advantage from hiding, if not save the KI and bonus action for patient defense and step of the wind.

The mobile feat doesn't require a bonus action/KI so this will help out in melee. It is expensive since you want your dex and wisdom maxed, but it will save on KI so you can spend this on FOB and stunning fist.

Monks are very cerebral class. Very fun

[Citan]

Rangers and monks are skirmishers, that is their design.
Monks are very cerebral class. Very fun
Sorry to strip down your post like this but imo this is the (only? ;))essential part (although I don't agree with you on Ranger but that's another topic).

Monk is a great class but deceiptively simple (a bit like Paladin in that regard): burning through your ki like a lava flow is usually a bad idea.
When used wisely, the Monk is extremely efficient in whatever you make him do. :)

[Tanarii]

Rangers and monks are skirmishers, that is their design.Agreed. Along with Rogues. Although 'some combination of tactical battlefield control, mobility, and tactical targeting' is probably a better full description that 'skirmishers', especially for Rangers. Hunter Rangers with their special combat styles for tactical targeting are different from Beastmaster Rangers with their Companion zone control are different from shadow monk zipping around are different from OH monks moving enemies around/proning are different from Assassins setting up Alpha Nova strikes. Etc etc.

[djreynolds]

The term skirmisher is an old military term. And sometimes tough to convey in a 4-5 person party. Stay on the outskirts of battle and squeeze. Press the enemy into into tight formations. Get that archer off in the distance raining hell on the party.

But remember you have the oomph to break up formations as well.

I realize sometimes, from experience, you want to get in there and chop and kick to death everything... and you can. Just don't get caught without KI.

And when low on KI, a high dex and bow are viable options.

The mobile feat is strong than you think, it requires no bonus action and therefore no KI.

It's a fun tactical class

[Theodoxus]

TAnd when low on KI, a high dex and bow are viable options.

I think that's the primary reason I see far more wood elf monks than any other race - yeah, their attribute mods are a big factor, but access to a long bow for ranged fun is the real driver.

A ghostwise halfling with a short bow is a decent compromise if you want the Lucky trait (and who wouldn't :smallwink:) But I've seen all of 1 ghostwise and 7 wood elves that I can recall from various games.

[Lombra]

I think that's the primary reason I see far more wood elf monks than any other race - yeah, their attribute mods are a big factor, but access to a long bow for ranged fun is the real driver.

A ghostwise halfling with a short bow is a decent compromise if you want the Lucky trait (and who wouldn't :smallwink:) But I've seen all of 1 ghostwise and 7 wood elves that I can recall from various games.

Fun fact: you can still use the bonus action attack and flurry if you use a simple ranged weapon, so the shortbow is a good choice if you want to attack two enemies far from each other from one spot, one within range of the bow and one within range of your fists, maybe stunlocking the guy next to you as rounds go by.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Fun fact: you can still use the bonus action attack and flurry if you use a simple ranged weapon, so the shortbow is a good choice if you want to attack two enemies far from each other from one spot, one within range of the bow and one within range of your fists, maybe stunlocking the guy next to you as rounds go by.

true but your fists won't do bu 1+str mod, since you lose martial arts benefits for picking up that shortbow. Instead try throwing weapons, like spear javelin light hammer (cmon nobody is using it) dagger or hand axe.

Edit: Infact pick up sharp shooter, and use the throwing weapons. I believe they all count as 'ranged weapon attacks' unless there was an SA saying otherwise. the last bullet may not apply since they are melee weapons that you can make 'ranged weapon attacks' with but the no disadvantage on max range means you can still launch out daggers without fear of missing and hit people around you with your fists.

Further Edit: Am now making a Ranger/Monk that uses throwing weapons (SA may say no +2 attack rolls but i could grab damage then right?). Jason Stathom style, YOU GET A KNIFE, YOU GET A KNIFE.

Im still going: Monster slayer revised ranger/(insert your favorite here) Monk. Probably open hand for more control and lock down. Be a bounty hunter.

[Specter]

true but your fists won't do bu 1+str mod, since you lose martial arts benefits for picking up that shortbow. Instead try throwing weapons, like spear javelin light hammer (cmon nobody is using it) dagger or hand axe.

Edit: Infact pick up sharp shooter, and use the throwing weapons. I believe they all count as 'ranged weapon attacks' unless there was an SA saying otherwise. the last bullet may not apply since they are melee weapons that you can make 'ranged weapon attacks' with but the no disadvantage on max range means you can still launch out daggers without fear of missing and hit people around you with your fists.

Further Edit: Am now making a Ranger/Monk that uses throwing weapons (SA may say no +2 attack rolls but i could grab damage then right?). Jason Stathom style, YOU GET A KNIFE, YOU GET A KNIFE.

Im still going: Monster slayer revised ranger/(insert your favorite here) Monk. Probably open hand for more control and lock down. Be a bounty hunter.

Monk's unarmed damage is always at least d4. But with a Longbow you wouldn't be able to use your bonus action to attack.

Can't go wrong with Open Hand or Long Death Monk.

[Asmotherion]

Except stunning strike, flurry, all the open hand stuff, etc...

Plus at-will short-range teleports from lv 6 in Shadow Monk's case. Also faster movement speeds than every other class, which, combined with the 5e free spring attack mechanics is gold to say the least. If you count multiclassing (ex Rogue's cunning action) and racial benefits (Wood Elf for example) you can have a spell-free, at-will 120 feet movement speed and still attack as normal.


@OP: Not only do they have very diferent mechanics from other classes, they are also contributing to a whole diferent concept: Martial Arts. Perhaps someone wants his melee character to be less of a monsterous gym addict with titanic biceps, and more of a Ninja-Themed character. Or they may want their character to not use weapons at all, and instead their fists being their main weapons. Plus, with the Sun-Soul variant from SCAG, you can make a DBZ themed character. Nobody can do this better than the Monk, not even the barbarian. Add to that the cool factor of a supernatural-level martial artist, and you have a very nice concept. Not everything is about min-maxing you know. Some people prefear to focus in the RP aspect of the game, optimisation or not.

If there is really a class that is sub-optimal and could have been completelly covered by the Fighter (Eldritch Knight) or Paladin (Ancients), it would be the Ranger. However I am not unhappy they kept it, as it's a nice thematic class, and also a tribute to R.A.Salvadore's Drizzt Do'Urden.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Monk's unarmed damage is always at least d4. But with a Longbow you wouldn't be able to use your bonus action to attack.

Can't go wrong with Open Hand or Long Death Monk.

Well thats just not true. Martial Arts feature is the thing that changes the monks normal unarmed damage into a d4 and increases based off the table. if you can't benefit from martial arts then no d4. even using a longbow you could still flurry (separate from martial arts) for bonus action and a ki point, you're unarmed dmg will be lowered though. I'd probably do this Ranger/Monk build with a Lizardfolk for base 1d6 unarmed strikes (ill just keep chomping) and a cool bonus action healing bite.

[Lombra]

true but your fists won't do bu 1+str mod, since you lose martial arts benefits for picking up that shortbow. Instead try throwing weapons, like spear javelin light hammer (cmon nobody is using it) dagger or hand axe.

Edit: Infact pick up sharp shooter, and use the throwing weapons. I believe they all count as 'ranged weapon attacks' unless there was an SA saying otherwise. the last bullet may not apply since they are melee weapons that you can make 'ranged weapon attacks' with but the no disadvantage on max range means you can still launch out daggers without fear of missing and hit people around you with your fists.

Further Edit: Am now making a Ranger/Monk that uses throwing weapons (SA may say no +2 attack rolls but i could grab damage then right?). Jason Stathom style, YOU GET A KNIFE, YOU GET A KNIFE.

Im still going: Monster slayer revised ranger/(insert your favorite here) Monk. Probably open hand for more control and lock down. Be a bounty hunter.

Well I totally missed that monk weapons are only melee (now that's an unnecessary limitation, plenty of canonic monks train with shortbows and slings), so what I said could apply only to thrown weapons as you say, which is totally cool: two daggers and two fists/round, you would need lots of daggers or magical ones that instantly come back after being thrown.

[Citan]

Further Edit: Am now making a Ranger/Monk that uses throwing weapons (SA may say no +2 attack rolls but i could grab damage then right?). Jason Stathom style, YOU GET A KNIFE, YOU GET A KNIFE.

Hey, could you plz point out the source of what you saying about SA? Never heard about such a frigging overly stupid ruling. If that is true, I really wonder what went through their heads (oh, wait, maybe a Dagger? Hence the hate for throwable weapons?

Anyways, RAW allows Sharpshooter to apply on throwing weapons because Sharpshooter specifies "ranged weapon attack rolls" and "ranged weapon attacks" for the first two bullets. And when you throw a weapon, you "make a ranged weapon attack".

Only the 3rd bullet of Sharpshooter obviously doesn't apply since it targets "attacks made with a ranged weapon" which "melee weapon that can be thrown" are not. :)

[Mortis_Elrod]

Hey, could you plz point out the source of what you saying about SA? Never heard about such a frigging overly stupid ruling. If that is true, I really wonder what went through their heads (oh, wait, maybe a Dagger? Hence the hate for throwable weapons?

Anyways, RAW allows Sharpshooter to apply on throwing weapons because Sharpshooter specifies "ranged weapon attack rolls" and "ranged weapon attacks" for the first two bullets. And when you throw a weapon, you "make a ranged weapon attack".

Only the 3rd bullet of Sharpshooter obviously doesn't apply since it targets "attacks made with a ranged weapon" which "melee weapon that can be thrown" are not. :)

i agree and thats why i would take SS and use the simple thrown weapons on a monk. and im not sure but i remember two conflicting tweets from mike mearls and jeremy crawford about the archery fighting style and thrown weapons and such. the power attack is nice but no really necessary the first two bullets of SS is what i want.

Edit: Meanwhile in a completely unrelated thread. Someone posted some links that had some more links and i found this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/ thank you Maxilian

[Citan]

i agree and thats why i would take SS and use the simple thrown weapons on a monk. and im not sure but i remember two conflicting tweets from mike mearls and jeremy crawford about the archery fighting style and thrown weapons and such. the power attack is nice but no really necessary the first two bullets of SS is what i want.

Edit: Meanwhile in a completely unrelated thread. Someone posted some links that had some more links and i found this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/ thank you Maxilian
Well, this tweet actually legitimates what we say, since it stresses that Archery doesn't work because it "targets ranged weapons". So it stresses the diffference between features that target "ranged weapons" and those targeting "ranged weapon attacks".

All is right and logical: Sharpshooter two first bullets work with thrown weapon, but not the third. Fieeww. XD

[Haldir]

Saying it for the 77th time so you call can understand-

My hatred of the Monk is inherently tied to the special abilities he is given for no good reason other than to justify the monk class.

Yes, I had to change the rules, because the rules of this system were inherently designed to keep Fighter from being Monk, and there is not a single other justification for these rules. That is a basic premise of my argument. Please keep up.

Saying "Your argument relies on you not liking rules, so you had to change some!" is not an argument against me, or even an argument for Monk, you are literally just not paying attention to what I said at this point.

Again, for the peeps in the back- Monk can be, and should be, a figthter subclass. Even without that, I still built an EK that is unarmored, fast, makes more attacks better, and has access to more Monk-ish options with a truncated spell list than any Monk ever written.

[Asmotherion]

Saying it for the 77th time so you call can understand-

My hatred of the Monk is inherently tied to the special abilities he is given for no good reason other than to justify the monk class.

Yes, I had to change the rules, because the rules of this system were inherently designed to keep Fighter from being Monk, and there is not a single other justification for these rules. That is a basic premise of my argument. Please keep up.

Saying "Your argument relies on you not liking rules, so you had to change some!" is not an argument against me, or even an argument for Monk, you are literally just not paying attention to what I said at this point.

Again, for the derps in the back- Monk can be, and should be, a figthter subclass. Even without that, I still built an EK that is unarmored, fast, makes more attacks better, and has access to more Monk-ish options with a truncated spell list than any Monk ever written.
Or you could, you know... leave the monk as he is, and not waste time and energy hating a class... If you don't like the monk as a class, don't play one, simple as that. If you happen to be the DM, just ban the class. Now, go do your fancy Homebrew Monk Archetype for the Fighter, wile people around the world continue playing a perfectly balanced class that is the monk.

Seriously, we already established that you hate the Monk Class-> People explained to you why they disagree with you-> End of the day, you still hate the monk class... Any point in continuing this discussion?

[Haldir]

People seemed to be vehemently missing my point. So if I were to address the OP, I'd say that Monk is a viable option, but not the optimal one. It exists not to fill a gap in the game, but to address the markets desire for cliches. This distinction has been plaguing tabletop D&D melee combat for a generation.

[Specter]

Well thats just not true. Martial Arts feature is the thing that changes the monks normal unarmed damage into a d4 and increases based off the table. if you can't benefit from martial arts then no d4. even using a longbow you could still flurry (separate from martial arts) for bonus action and a ki point, you're unarmed dmg will be lowered though. I'd probably do this Ranger/Monk build with a Lizardfolk for base 1d6 unarmed strikes (ill just keep chomping) and a cool bonus action healing bite.

Yeah, but unless you use armor or something, which we won't, you're good. BUT if you attack with a non-monk weapon, you don't benefit from the bonus attack.

[Citan]

Yes, I had to change the rules, because the rules of this system were inherently designed to keep Fighter from being Monk, and there is not a single other justification for these rules. That is a basic premise of my argument. Please keep up.

Again, for the peeps in the back- Monk can be, and should be, a figthter subclass. Even without that, I still built an EK that is unarmored, fast, makes more attacks better, and has access to more Monk-ish options with a truncated spell list than any Monk ever written.
Lol. You are free to hate Monk, it's your life.

But contrarily to what you said, you failed miserably at trying to demonstrate you build a "better Monk" than PHB with an Eldricht Knight chassis. Even with some rule-bending.

You know, if we enter the realm of rules-bending (which is actually called houserules by the way) I could easily create a "better Fighter" on a Monk chassis.
Except I won't.
But that's beside the point anyways.

You are right in saying that it does not exist as much to fill a gap in the game as to keep some "traditional martial cliche" alive.
But you know what? It's the same with Barbarian, with Ranger, even Rogue.
Everything they can do, a caster can do similarly with spells.

In fact, we could perfectly revert your argument to say that Fighter is a useless class that does not fill a gap but is here to compliment a "traditional cliche": dealing damage? Monk, Barbarian and Rogue are here.
Tanking/Buffing? Enter Paladin. Scouting? Enter Ranger.
Being a gish? Enter Valor Bard, 4E Monk, Paladin, Ranger, etc...

You could say the same about casters. Why would we really need Sorcerers and Warlocks? Metamagics could have been integrated as part of Wizard mechanics, same with Invocations, then any other features could be migrated as Schools...

Druid could have been two different Domains of a Cleric (which would get a larger spell list)...
So in the end only Wizard for representing the arcanic magic, and Cleric for the divine one, should be enough.

See? If you really wanted to just have "classes that fill the gap", you could probably get by with only 3-4 classes, around a dozen archetypes per classes, and slightly rearranged multiclassing rules.

But nobody does argue against that, and nobody asks for that. It's like asking back the frigging over-complexity of past editions.

A class IS inherently a package made of both fluff&mechanics, and you are the only one blinding yourself to this truth. It's part of the reason why it's interesting to play it, and why people choose different classes.

Fighter has always conveyed the image of "armored man swaying (big or not) sword around, possibly with a shield and big muscles".

Which is very different from the image of someone reaching a peak of body mastery through sheer training and willpower, practicing ascetism and the like.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yeah, but unless you use armor or something, which we won't, you're good. BUT if you attack with a non-monk weapon, you don't benefit from the bonus attack.

if you attack with a non monk weapon you lose all the benefits of martial arts not just the bonus attack but i think at this point we are just agreeing at each other, Monk is great. Man I can't wait to play some monk. There's nothing like seeing someone hate what you love for no good reason. Makes me want to make it shine bright, with a soul. Preferably sunny.

[Ziegander]

Troll: Fighters are literally better Monks than Monks lul
Rational Person: Plz explain.
Troll: Runs away, never to return... *eyeroll*

EDIT: Oh, wow. Somehow I missed the epic argument. Sorry.

Rational Person: Plz explain.
Troll: If DMs just let you Dash, Dodge, and Disengage as bonus actions without using any resources or having a class feature for it, if DMs just let you spend your reaction to negate ranged attacks, if DMs just let you do everything Monks can do but without spending resources on it, then Fighters are clearly WAY better Monks than Monks. Psh, Monks are so stupid, I hate Monks. I mean, any DM that doesn't let you make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action, slow fall, walk on water, and stunning fist fools is clearly an ******* and a crap DM, so stop playing with them, stop playing with Monks, and play a Fighter, the clearly superior Monk class.
Me: Blinks. Blinks repeatedly.

[Specter]

Saying it for the 77th time so you call can understand-

My hatred of the Monk is inherently tied to the special abilities he is given for no good reason other than to justify the monk class.

Yes, I had to change the rules, because the rules of this system were inherently designed to keep Fighter from being Monk, and there is not a single other justification for these rules. That is a basic premise of my argument. Please keep up.

Saying "Your argument relies on you not liking rules, so you had to change some!" is not an argument against me, or even an argument for Monk, you are literally just not paying attention to what I said at this point.

Again, for the peeps in the back- Monk can be, and should be, a figthter subclass. Even without that, I still built an EK that is unarmored, fast, makes more attacks better, and has access to more Monk-ish options with a truncated spell list than any Monk ever written.

Dude, you have been S E R V E D. Citan just refuted everything you said.

Monks couldn't be a fighter subclass decently, just like Druids couldn't be Clerics and Barbarians couldn't be Fighters and Sorcerers couldn't be Wizards.

You could have built a decent Eldritch Knight, one that could even stand high on your group, but instead you turned it into a hollow monk shell. Spells are long rest, for the last time.

Your hatred of monk is tied to... your hatred. Or asian prejudice. Guess we'll never know.

You failed. It happens. Now it's just a matter of doing the decent thing (apologizing) or the a-hole thing (masking it). Your choice.

[Lindonius]

People seemed to be vehemently missing my point. So if I were to address the OP, I'd say that Monk is a viable option, but not the optimal one. It exists not to fill a gap in the game, but to address the markets desire for cliches. This distinction has been plaguing tabletop D&D melee combat for a generation.

No we get your point. But seeing as your point is utter bobbins you just got schooled by people who have actually played through the class for real and not just read the Monk pages in the PH and thought "naah that's crap."

Your best course of action now would be to show a little contrition and admit that maybe monks aren't THAT bad, but you still don't like them. Repeating the same old nonsense about there being no place for monk in d&d ad nauseum singles you out as either a troll or a complete bell end.

[Beelzebubba]

People seemed to be vehemently missing my point. So if I were to address the OP, I'd say that Monk is a viable option, but not the optimal one. It exists not to fill a gap in the game, but to address the markets desire for cliches. This distinction has been plaguing tabletop D&D melee combat for a generation.

We totally get your point.

It's just a poorly thought through one, coming from a place that's completely wrong, and all your bolding text and insisting you are the only one making sense doesn't change that.

Switch out the word 'plaguing' and add in 'benefitting' or 'adding all kinds of awesome to' then you will be correct.

[djreynolds]

Every class should have a ranged option, and as a monk you have a whole bunch of thrown and ranged weapons that "KI" off of dex.

I think everyone wants to go through the game with a "one weapon set-up"

A monk should have on his person, a bow or crossbow, a javelin or a spear, a dagger or hand axe, a spear or quarterstaff. Why punch some one, when you can shoot him in the face with an arrow from 300ft. Think tactically.

If you want to play a tactical class, monk is it.

They are not an easy class to play well.

If you want to play an easy class grab a paladin/warlock and you can go through the entire game with a halberd and eldritch blast and conquer the world

Some players do not want to play a paladin or a wizard or use spells, and not because it is easier than to have to track spell slots.

Some players want to play.... me and my fist vs the world

5E allows this, its a choice of style.

[FilthyLucre]

...that "KI" off of dex.

I see what you did there.

[Zalabim]

Again, for the peeps in the back- Monk can be, and should be, a figthter subclass. Even without that, I still built an EK that is unarmored, fast, makes more attacks better, and has access to more Monk-ish options with a truncated spell list than any Monk ever written.
You did no such thing. You made a fighter that is armored, slower, and makes worse attacks than the monk. It was worse than the monk in every demonstrable way. The monk exists as a class because it has almost no features in common with the fighter class. The fighter has heavy armor and martial weapons while the monk has no armor and simple weapons. They're so far apart at a basic level that there's no benefit in combining them.

if you attack with a non monk weapon you lose all the benefits of martial arts not just the bonus attack
Sure, but not forever. Not for any specified time period, in fact. So if you attack while not wielding a non-monk weapon, you can use martial arts once more.

Two-handed weapons require two hands to wield. You only need both hands when you attack with the weapon, not all the time. Bows are two-handed weapons, so as long as you aren't putting both hands on the bow, you can't possibly be wielding it. So pick up anything, a rock, a stick, a handful of sand, anything, so that you can't wield the bow and you can use martial arts when you make your flurry attacks. Darts are one-handed though so as long as you're carrying one, you can't kick people. This strikes me as totally nonsensical, so I just say as long as you're making an attack with a monk weapon, or an unarmed strike, you can use Martial Arts for that attack.

[skaddix]

Its funny to me that the OP is arguing for Monk being put into Fighter or Rogue.
I remember a recent thread on Enworld where posters were arguing that the Fighter is overstuffed.
Because it has to cover far too many niches by encompassing all of nonmagic fighting and even some magic fighting.

Course that is the issue you want to cover the major archtypes with as few separate classes as possible. Too many classes and you might as well not have subclasses but not enough classes and you are bloating classes, invalidating base class features and trying to fit the square peg into a round hole far too much.

So yeah keep the Monk Separate. Its a major archtype and compressing it into probably rogue. I say its swing more into that direction then fighter would require a total overhaul of DnD 5e which aint going to happen. Need a new edition, way too major a change for the inevitable PHB II. I rather they work on other stuff.

Sorcerers and Warlocks need help if you ask me. Rangers need the fixes published. And there is more then a few subclasses that could use some buffs especially in the Fighter Class. They could also use some mods if you ask me. Champion is too simple. Superiority Die don't scale. EKs 1 concentration at a time and slow progression really don't help deliver the fantasy. Monks...well Shadow should be able to sneak attack ala Rogue. And the Element Monk is currently The Last Airbender Movie not the great Animated Show.

[Citan]

Sure, but not forever. Not for any specified time period, in fact. So if you attack while not wielding a non-monk weapon, you can use martial arts once more.

Two-handed weapons require two hands to wield. You only need both hands when you attack with the weapon, not all the time. Bows are two-handed weapons, so as long as you aren't putting both hands on the bow, you can't possibly be wielding it. So pick up anything, a rock, a stick, a handful of sand, anything, so that you can't wield the bow and you can use martial arts when you make your flurry attacks. Darts are one-handed though so as long as you're carrying one, you can't kick people. This strikes me as totally nonsensical, so I just say as long as you're making an attack with a monk weapon, or an unarmed strike, you can use Martial Arts for that attack.
This is an interesting view, but I'm afraid you are taking a far too liberal (frankly, bending and not very far from dishonest ^^) interpretation of what is written.

IMO, "wielding" a weapon is obviously holding it into a hand (or attached to an arm). That is the most coherent meaning considering all the features littered through PHB that rely on, basically, holding this or that kind of weapon (without necessarily requiring an attack) but are using the expression "while you are wielding".

So, that you use two hands to attack with a two-handed weapon is irrelevant: you are still wielding a non-monk weapon.
It is also totally coherent fluff-wise: you cannot expect someone who has trained all life to rely on his own strength, agility and weight to be able to use all his techniques when wielding heavy weight or cumbersome weapons... Especially on a class that usually has high DEX but low STR.

With that said, as a DM, I would certainly allow a character that made a balanced multiclass Monk / Fighter to consider martial weapons as Monk weapons past a certain stage (like Monk 5 / Fighter 5). Because it won't break anything anymore (no 4rd attack, no d10 unarmed strikes, no Empty Body etc), just avoid taking Polearm Master in addition to maybe GWM.
And it's a simple way to reward the player and make him feel his character as "complete" concept-wise.

But it is clearly a houserule whichever way you look at it imo.

[Zalabim]

If I'm going to strictly enforce the rules, then the monk throws the dart, or drops the bow, then makes flurry attacks and finally picks up the bow or dart or draws another dart. It's the same sort of activity, strictly allowable or explicitly how throwing weapons works, that allows spellcasters to cast spells with somatic components in between attacking with a greatsword.

It's not strictly against the rules and it's not unbalanced so I just don't feel any need to be very particular about it. If you can't use martial arts while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, you also can't use martial arts while holding a torch, lantern, sack (with or without a half-brick), candle, 10' pole, crying baby, or ladder. Some of these would be improvised weapons, not monk weapons. All of them would be more of a hassle to carry than a Dart. Basically, you couldn't be Jackie Chan at all. If the rules said Monks cannot be Jackie Chan, I would reject them anyway.

[Citan]

If I'm going to strictly enforce the rules, then the monk throws the dart, or drops the bow, then makes flurry attacks and finally picks up the bow or dart or draws another dart. It's the same sort of activity, strictly allowable or explicitly how throwing weapons works, that allows spellcasters to cast spells with somatic components in between attacking with a greatsword.

Yeah, that work, except that you don't get the Martial Arts bonus action so you would necessarily have to use one Ki for Flurry of Blows.

It's perfectly balanced: Monk is the only one with free, fullpower, built-in weapon attack as bonus action. It is natural that it comes with some requirements. Otherwise it would be unfair to every other class that has to make an investment to get the bonus action (TWF: Fighting Style. Two-handed melee: Polearm Master or GWM. Ranged: Crossbow Expert).


It's not strictly against the rules and it's not unbalanced

Confer just above: it is unbalanced compared to the global game mechanics around the classes. As for being "not strictly against the rules", I'll wait for other's opinions (or official source) on the topic because it's so clear for me that it's not RAW that I don't know how to argument it. XD

Beyond that, do whatever you want in your games. You are the DM. ;)



so I just don't feel any need to be very particular about it. If you can't use martial arts while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, you also can't use martial arts while holding a torch, lantern, sack (with or without a half-brick), candle, 10' pole, crying baby, or ladder. Some of these would be improvised weapons, not monk weapons. All of them would be more of a hassle to carry than a Dart. Basically, you couldn't be Jackie Chan at all. If the rules said Monks cannot be Jackie Chan, I would reject them anyway.
Well, yeah, and I don't see why it should be considered as shocking.
It's how the Monk has been conceived, and it's perfectly explainable fluff-wise: you trained for years with a particular set of weapons to make them as natural as your body parts: you cannot expect to be as good with any kind of thing you hold in hands.
Also, please remember me to never let you nurse any baby: you have awful habits of considering it as an object obviously. XD

[Zalabim]

Yeah, that work, except that you don't get the Martial Arts bonus action so you would necessarily have to use one Ki for Flurry of Blows.
Accepted, as I said flurry and not just any unarmed strikes.


It's perfectly balanced: Monk is the only one with free, fullpower, built-in weapon attack as bonus action.
It's not full power until level 11 though, at which point it's actually stronger than the Short Bow or Dart I'm saying is allowable. If you ended up with a magic weapon instead of something like an insignia of claws, it's never full power. It's also not free when you have to spend Ki to make these bonus action attacks after attacking without using martial arts.


Well, yeah, and I don't see why it should be considered as shocking.
It's how the Monk has been conceived, and it's perfectly explainable fluff-wise: you trained for years with a particular set of weapons to make them as natural as your body parts: you cannot expect to be as good with any kind of thing you hold in hands.
It's not about attacking with the thing, in this case, but being able to make unarmed attacks while holding the thing.

Also, please remember me to never let you nurse any baby: you have awful habits of considering it as an object obviously. XD
It's actually a goblin, and "crying baby" is just its current behavior because it's being swung around by a monk. As I have changed the crying baby into a goblin, perhaps I should watch Labyrinth again.

[Sigreid]

To answer OP question as succinctly as possible. Monk exists for the same reason any of the classes, to allow adults, teens and children to engage in a few hours of fantasy fulfillment. Some people read Harry Potter and want to bend the world to their will with a wand and a few silly words. Some people watch the Chop-Saki movies and fantasize about being able to run up walls, jump crazy distances and defeat armed foes with only their fist.

Monks aren't everyone's fantasy fulfillment, but they are for a good number of people.

[toapat]

Monks aren't everyone's fantasy fulfillment, but they are for a good number of people.

While you hit the nail on the head, i do have one issue:

I dont like this current incarnation of monk specifically because it reads in a way that feels like the class was planned out to never receive extra subclasses beyond Open Palm or Shadow.

the subclasses of Monk dont fit the normal theme of other classes in that they improve what you can do with what you have

Kensai (Weapon Master), Sun Soul (Dragonball Fighter), and Basic monk (Bruce Lee) are honestly entirely different character philosophies, while in order to properly support Way of the Four Elements (although the TV show does say this is basically a subclass) would require a 4th "from lvl 1" subclass Just as we see with Warlock and Artificer. the Subclasses primary feature literally is "I know This variety of Kung Fu".

but then you have Tranquility (this subclass will forever be burned into my mind as "Nude Paladin"), Shadow (Ninja), Long death (?), and Open Palm (Kenshiro/Goku/Bruce Lee) (and drunken master (Jackie Chan) but that can go DIAF because its so bad) which are definitely subclasses based on enhancing some aspect of the monk.

I mean, how fun does a Sun Soul/4 Elements build sound? I want to play the Lovechild of Aang and Gotenks because it sounds hilarious.

Personally im just not good enough at 5E homebrew to make a Monk where you both choose what Kung Fu you know (Monastery) and Why you know that Kung Fu (Ascetic Discipline)

[georgie_leech]

While you hit the nail on the head, i do have one issue:

I dont like this current incarnation of monk specifically because it reads in a way that feels like the class was planned out to never receive extra subclasses beyond Open Palm or Shadow.

the subclasses of Monk dont fit the normal theme of other classes in that they improve what you can do with what you have

Kensai (Weapon Master), Sun Soul (Dragonball Fighter), and Basic monk (Bruce Lee) are honestly entirely different character philosophies, while in order to properly support Way of the Four Elements (although the TV show does say this is basically a subclass) would require a 4th "from lvl 1" subclass Just as we see with Warlock and Artificer. the Subclasses primary feature literally is "I know This variety of Kung Fu".

but then you have Tranquility (this subclass will forever be burned into my mind as "Nude Paladin"), Shadow (Ninja), Long death (?), and Open Palm (Kenshiro/Goku/Bruce Lee) (and drunken master (Jackie Chan) but that can go DIAF because its so bad) which are definitely subclasses based on enhancing some aspect of the monk.

I mean, how fun does a Sun Soul/4 Elements build sound? I want to play the Lovechild of Aang and Gotenks because it sounds hilarious.

Personally im just not good enough at 5E homebrew to make a Monk where you both choose what Kung Fu you know (Monastery) and Why you know that Kung Fu (Ascetic Discipline)

You'd probably want to use the Warlock model, where Ascetic Discipline is the Pact source and Kung Fu maneuvers are invocations.

[Ziegander]

Really any caster base works, especially Wizard or Warlock. Wizards choose what spells (kung fu) they know and also what style of spellcasting they know (Arcane Tradition).

[georgie_leech]

Really any caster base works, especially Wizard or Warlock. Wizards choose what spells (kung fu) they know and also what style of spellcasting they know (Arcane Tradition).

Eh... You do kind of run into the problem of potentially relearning your entire moveset every day, including forgetting what you used to do. If you were gonna go for that, I'd say a spells-known caster over the others.

[Yagyujubei]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

you're right after playing a low level monk you might know exactly what they bring to the table all the way up to epic levels

>_>.....

to answer your question though they are a class because WotC made a book with a bunch of classes in it and monk is in there

[toapat]

You'd probably want to use the Warlock model, where Ascetic Discipline is the Pact source and Kung Fu maneuvers are invocations.

I was thinking more of the Monastery would be the Patron equivalent although it would define much more of how you do combat as a classs and Disciplines would be pacts or even a second class of subclass, but maybe turning those into Pacts and gaining invocations would actually work better


Really any caster base works, especially Wizard or Warlock. Wizards choose what spells (kung fu) they know and also what style of spellcasting they know (Arcane Tradition).


Eh... You do kind of run into the problem of potentially relearning your entire moveset every day, including forgetting what you used to do. If you were gonna go for that, I'd say a spells-known caster over the others.

Wizard style monk sounds utterly hilarious."Yesterday i knew how to make a Man's head explode by punching, Today i can Kick that tree to create a sandwich"

[georgie_leech]

I was thinking more of the Monastery would be the Patron equivalent although it would define much more of how you do combat as a classs and Disciplines would be pacts or even a second class of subclass, but maybe turning those into Pacts and gaining invocations would actually work better.

Patron! That's the word I was looking for. I meant it as the being that the Warlock makes a pact with to get their powers.

[MeeposFire]

One could make a fighter type that was based around unarmed fighting but even so the monk would still have a purpose as the fighter would play very differently. The fighter one would likely use armor (unless it got something to compensate) and more importantly would be more directly offensive in terms of dealing damage while the monk would be designed to stil be a skirmisher. They would offer very different tracts for a similar concept but would likely not work with just the fighter alone (I do not think you could fit enough of the skirmisher/controller aspects into the fighter archetype track to make it work as well as the actual monk though I could see fitting enough damage to make a more offensive monk).

[toapat]

Patron! That's the word I was looking for. I meant it as the being that the Warlock makes a pact with to get their powers.

do you think having a Patron (Kung Fu you know), Pact (Discipline/Why you know Kung Fu) and Invocations (What you use kung Fu for) could actually make a monk where kensai, sunsoul, and maybe 4 elements arent just cute subclasses?

[Specter]

do you think having a Patron (Kung Fu you know), Pact (Discipline/Why you know Kung Fu) and Invocations (What you use kung Fu for) could actually make a monk where kensai, sunsoul, and maybe 4 elements arent just cute subclasses?

I think every subclass should be different, and not just a farmer's market of monkness. But that's just me.

[toapat]

I think every subclass shouldn't be different, and not just a farmer's market of monkness. But that's just me.

can you explain what you mean here? also ya it does sound kinda farmer marketty. but i was thinking more like the expanded Invocations UA where different disciplines give different invocations

[georgie_leech]

do you think having a Patron (Kung Fu you know), Pact (Discipline/Why you know Kung Fu) and Invocations (What you use kung Fu for) could actually make a monk where kensai, sunsoul, and maybe 4 elements arent just cute subclasses?

I'd go with Patron/Monastery, Pact/Signature Technique, Invocations/maneuvers myself. Keep the symmetry between power source, focus, and varied abilities.

[raygun goth]

Monks exist because of a TV show (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/).

E. Gary Gygax, "Preface", Oriental Adventures (1st edition, 1986): "In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game."

[Malifice]

E. Gary Gygax, "Preface", Oriental Adventures (1st edition, 1986): "In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game."

Then they put it back into BECMI D&D with the mystic class.

Either in the companion or the master box set. I can't remember which one it was.

[Elderand]

Then they put it back into BECMI D&D with the mystic class.

Either in the companion or the master box set. I can't remember which one it was.

Master set, but it was introduced amongst the various monsters, not among the character classes like the druid was.

[Malifice]

Master set, but it was introduced amongst the various monsters, not among the character classes like the druid was.

I was pretty sure they presented it as a class. An optional one at the very least.

They definitely did in the rules Cyclopedia.

Although I'm really going back a few years now.

[JNAProductions]

Because Monks are cool. I think I might've said that before.

I'm in support of the people saying "Actually make a Fighter that out-Monks the Monk". If you can show us a RAW build-and I'll even let you use UA, if you need to-that is a better Monk than the Monk, then clearly, the class has issues.

I don't think you'll be able to.

[KorvinStarmast]

Heh, Remo Williams (The Destroyer) and Chiun, his Korean mentor, are where Blume got the Monk character from? Cool.

I read the first ten or twelve of those books (Saphir/Murphy) as a teen and enjoyed the heck out of them.

[Beelzebubba]

E. Gary Gygax, "Preface", Oriental Adventures (1st edition, 1986): "In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game."

You rule. Remembering this little factoid for sure.

[Sindeloke]

You know I think Haldir actually has a decent point in there somewhere. Not about the monk being badwrongfun, but about its niche protection being somewhat bad for the game, or at least for other martials.

Which is to say, all other... call them "concept" classes (ie, ones that have specific fluff, not rogue fighter or wizard), have a handful of things they do very well which combine to make a specific package, but if you want to do any of those things in part of a different package it isn't a problem. Wanna be a nature caster without the baggage of Wild Shape, go nature cleric. Wanna be a scout without the baggage of spellcasting or a pet, build a wilderness rogue. Paladins and barbarians are both tanky in different ways, bards and paladins and clerics all buff the party in different ways, warlocks and EKs and paladins all gish differently. But all of those options are all found across several different classes and builds, so you can get different combinations of flavor and have a lot of choices for how to pursue a single particular concept.

But monks have a weird monopoly on unarmed, unarmored combat, and I think it's really wrongheaded. The monk's basic concept for multiple editions has been "highly mobile spellproof crowd control" and it does it quite well in 5e, with stunning strike, diamond soul and ridiculous speed. And you can get all the pieces of it in other classes - battlemasters and casters offer similar crowd control, rogues provide similar mobility, EKs and wild sorcs can build to all but ignore magic - but you need the monk to get it all as a package, so it's a well-designed class with a reason to exist without being restrictive. And none of that really has anything to do with unarmed combat, or deflecting missiles, or not wearing metal pants.

Or to come at it from the other side, the most sophisticated weapon Hercules ever used was a club - mostly he wrestled, bashed and choked things - but in no universe is he a measured, spiritual dude who shrugs off mind control or fights from a place of training and focus. Unarmed combat needs to be viable for barbarians. Batman throws around a lot of gadgets but at the end of the day his favorite weapon is his fist. Unarmed combat needs to be viable for whichever of fighter, rogue or urban ranger that you want to model him as (I've seen convincing arguments for all three), and while we're on superheroes if you want to do Wonder Woman you're going to need unarmed paladins too. You could probably justify Buffy as a monk but Faith does just as much punching in t-shirts and catching incoming objects with none of Buffy's already dubious spirituality and a quarter of her discipline at best.

These aren't weird or unusual archetypes, they're foundational to our modern culture, and acting like the monk has to be the only class that can punch worth a damn in order to justify its own existence is both bad for every other martial and insulting to the monk, who is so much more than his 1d10 fist.

[Specter]

You know I think Haldir actually has a decent point in there somewhere. Not about the monk being badwrongfun, but about its niche protection being somewhat bad for the game, or at least for other martials.

Which is to say, all other... call them "concept" classes (ie, ones that have specific fluff, not rogue fighter or wizard), have a handful of things they do very well which combine to make a specific package, but if you want to do any of those things in part of a different package it isn't a problem. Wanna be a nature caster without the baggage of Wild Shape, go nature cleric. Wanna be a scout without the baggage of spellcasting or a pet, build a wilderness rogue. Paladins and barbarians are both tanky in different ways, bards and paladins and clerics all buff the party in different ways, warlocks and EKs and paladins all gish differently. But all of those options are all found across several different classes and builds, so you can get different combinations of flavor and have a lot of choices for how to pursue a single particular concept.

But monks have a weird monopoly on unarmed, unarmored combat, and I think it's really wrongheaded. The monk's basic concept for multiple editions has been "highly mobile spellproof crowd control" and it does it quite well in 5e, with stunning strike, diamond soul and ridiculous speed. And you can get all the pieces of it in other classes - battlemasters and casters offer similar crowd control, rogues provide similar mobility, EKs and wild sorcs can build to all but ignore magic - but you need the monk to get it all as a package, so it's a well-designed class with a reason to exist without being restrictive. And none of that really has anything to do with unarmed combat, or deflecting missiles, or not wearing metal pants.

Or to come at it from the other side, the most sophisticated weapon Hercules ever used was a club - mostly he wrestled, bashed and choked things - but in no universe is he a measured, spiritual dude who shrugs off mind control or fights from a place of training and focus. Unarmed combat needs to be viable for barbarians. Batman throws around a lot of gadgets but at the end of the day his favorite weapon is his fist. Unarmed combat needs to be viable for whichever of fighter, rogue or urban ranger that you want to model him as (I've seen convincing arguments for all three), and while we're on superheroes if you want to do Wonder Woman you're going to need unarmed paladins too. You could probably justify Buffy as a monk but Faith does just as much punching in t-shirts and catching incoming objects with none of Buffy's already dubious spirituality and a quarter of her discipline at best.

These aren't weird or unusual archetypes, they're foundational to our modern culture, and acting like the monk has to be the only class that can punch worth a damn in order to justify its own existence is both bad for every other martial and insulting to the monk, who is so much more than his 1d10 fist.

That guy just hated a class and took it upon himself to declare it bad and useless. I don't like Warlocks, but I don't make threads about 5e not needing them.

And no one said monk is the only unarmed fighter out there (Tavern Brawler is a feat for a reason), just the best you can make. You can also make a sorcerer in heavy armor by blowing all your feats on that, it just won't be great.

[toapat]

I'd go with Patron/Monastery, Pact/Signature Technique, Invocations/maneuvers myself. Keep the symmetry between power source, focus, and varied abilities.

that makes sense: here is my mockup of Kaio-Ken for said rework i likely will never complete: http://i.imgur.com/kdEw13Z.png