What makes monks competitive with Paladins, if they are?

[MaxWilson]

Creating this thread for a tangent from the Paladin thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620272-Paladin-abilities-overpowered-What-do-you-think&p=24759495#post24759495).

Gtdead wrote: Sorry for turning the discussion back to monk, but I actually have a lot of trouble understanding what are these amazing features that make people think he is so good, especially when compared to Paladin.

The only thing he has going for himself is Ki Empowered Strikes in an edition where Magic Items are not a certainty. I consider this a weak argument considering that even with spending resources on Flurry, monk doesn't even deal double the at will damage of other martials against physical resistance at lvl 6 and that's the peak of his damage output.

Also if we continue this argument and assume that mundanes will never get magic weapons, then we should really just forget about martial classes all together. 3.5e casters have nothing on 5e casters that way.

The defenses are mediocre. 18 AC at lvl 8. Whoop dee doo. Hardly better than casters.
Their damage is so low that common sources of retributive damage do more damage than monk attacks. What is he going to do against a fire shield?

Monk has a strong trick against BBEGs at low levels. He isn't good against swarms of weaker enemies. And as the game progresses, CON saves become more common and his mobility becomes irrelevant because other classes start getting tricks too (find steed for example).

Diamond Soul isn't comparable to Aura of Protection in the slightest. One is a personal buff for a class that hits like a wet noodle and the other is an aoe buff originating from a class with very high nova damage and extending to classes that have to maintain concentration.

I kind of like Way of the Shadow, even if it can't capitalize on the advantage generation due to low damage but I like the utility it brings with pass without trace, silence and later invisibility. I have a shadow with a hexblade dip in the works that scales kind of well into higher tiers of play based on the stealth capabilities of the subclass. Scouting, finding targets, casting hex, initiating combat hopefully with surprise. It's nuanced but at least Shadow can pull it off. I would never try it with any other monk.

For myself I'll just say they fill different roles. Paladins are good at tanking, melee nova, and healing. Monks vary but Shadow Monks for instance are good at scouting, enabling party stealth, single target control (stunning, which leads to grappling as a followup, without the usual grappling problem of not having enough free hands), and winning archery duels. Different example: Elemental Monk is strong against mobs especially in Tier 3+ (just when Monk ranged damage normally starts to fall behind) and can control single-target enemies too, while still being good at winning archery duels and decent at scouting. Monks can be fairly tanky for short periods of time (and 14th+ level monks are quite good at tanking while 18th+ level monks are SUPERB tanks) but they tend to be skirmishers instead, winning by attrition instead of by novas.

It's not a matter of one of them being "so good". Apples and oranges really. But I think a multiclassed Paladorc or Paladorlock does have a broader niche, is more likely to be voted MVP of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 party than a pure Monk is. For single-classed paladins I guess Tier 2 is probably the sweet spot, but it depends on how the DM approaches magic weapons and weapon-resistant monsters.

@Gtdead, against Fire Shield the monk can shoot arrows from her bow (depending on race but IME longbow from Wood Elf).

Also @Gtdead, why do you want the monk to deal double damage with ki empowered strikes? Wouldn't that be quadruple damage once you factor in weapon resistance? Are you really saying that triple damage after factoring in weapon resistance is not enough to impress you?

[Yakmala]

I like playing Paladins. I like playing Monks. I've played both to relatively high levels (and at least one Monk to 20).

With that out of the way...

Monks are not tanks. Monks are not Novas. But they do their jobs very well. They are fantastic skirmishers, they get to their target, do damage, apply debuffs and get out. They are much harder to take down than most realize. They can usually get out of range of melee, can deflect missiles are immune to poison and disease, have proficiency in all saves and have evasion. I've seen a party get hit by three meteor swarms in a single round. Half the party went down, the rest were badly hurt... Except for the Monk, who took zero damage. And Long Death Monks? I saw one get shoved all the way through a prismatic sphere one way, and then dragged back through it a second time. They were down a few Ki points but lived through the experience.

I hear a lot of talk about Stunning Strike being ineffective at higher levels due to BBEG's with big Con saves, legendary saves, etc. There's no denying this makes it more difficult, but it only has to land once and the enemy is screwed. Monks at higher levels have a big pool of Ki that they get back on short rest. They have multiple chances each turn to land the stun. If they were smart enough to pump their Wisdom, they will land it eventually. There is no class better for stripping a high level creature of its legendary saves than a Monk. And that doesn't just help the Monk, it helps the entire party. And once that Stun does land, the creature is incapacitated until the end of the Monk's next turn. That's a long time in the average fight.

[jaappleton]

Monks are immensely self sufficient. They can be incredibly effective regardless of magic items. However, since their AC is dependent purely on their stats, their ASIs are largely spoken for before Tier 3 (Variant Human aside).

They also get some top tier subclass capstones, for sure.

[Waazraath]

snip

Solid analysis I think. Maybe part of the discripantie in power that some observe is in the fact that the paladin's features are just there, you don't have to do anything with it you use them (aura's) or are pretty obvious as when to use them (LoH, smite). Monk requires a bit more tactics I think, how to move, when to spend ki on what feature (dodge, disengage, flurry, stun), and when you can duke it out with foe and when to move (cause, as somebody mentioned, monk isn't a tank), and its role really depends more on subclass than the pally's does.

Having said that: I think paladin are one of the strongest classes in the game, so I'd put them a bit above monks, but this is in an edition where all classes are in the same 'tier' (using 3.5's tier system) so the differences aren't that big.

[Gtdead]

@Gtdead, against Fire Shield the monk can shoot arrows from her bow (depending on race but IME longbow from Wood Elf).

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.



Also @Gtdead, why do you want the monk to deal double damage with ki empowered strikes? Wouldn't that be quadruple damage once you factor in weapon resistance? Are you really saying that triple damage after factoring in weapon resistance is not enough to impress you?

I meant after the resistance is calculated. Against a monster with resistance at lvl 6, a monk with flurry deals 7~ dpr more than a fighter against 15 AC (common mage AC, 2 dex + mage armor, not saying that mages usually have resistance, just a target AC I consider basic). And that's a use of Ki vs standard GWM fighter. (Without flurry it's something like 2.) If you see it as a percentage, it's a 50% increase, which isn't what I consider respectable under all these assumptions.

[RogueJK]

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.

Monks are generally weaker against enemies that require ranged attacks to take down (such as enemies with melee-reactive defenses like your example of a caster with Fire Shield, as well as other stuff like distant ranged enemies or flying enemies).

But then, most Paladins are as well.

And that's totally okay. Not every character is going to be great at everything. That's why you have a party. The Monk/Paladin isn't operating by himself.

There are still ways that they can contribute to party victory, like mopping up minions, or making (suboptimal) ranged attacks themselves, or in the case of that Fire Shielded caster perhaps closing with the caster and then using the Help action to generate Advantage for the attack roll of one of your allies with better ranged options.

[Sigreid]

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.





Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

[MaxWilson]

I meant after the resistance is calculated. Against a monster with resistance at lvl 6, a monk with flurry deals 7~ dpr more than a fighter against 15 AC (common mage AC, 2 dex + mage armor). And that's a use of Ki vs standard GWM fighter. (Without flurry it's something like 2.) If you see it as a percentage, it's a 50% increase, which isn't what I consider respectable under all these assumptions.

As I calculate it, a GWM Fighter with Str 20 by level 6 attacks twice at +3 for (2d6+15)/2, which is 10.03 DPR against AC 15.

A Dex 18 monk (because he's had one fewer ASI than the Fighter, and presumably spent his feat on Mobile or Defensive Duelist or something instead of an attack feat) attacks three times at +7 for d6+4 per hit. (Normally he could use a staff, but ki-empowered strikes only works with unarmed strikes, not weapons, if you're not a Kensei.) Against AC 15 that's 15.15 DPR, rising to 20.20 DPR if he Flurries.

What assumptions are you making differently that lead you to compute less damage advantage for the monk?

In any case, I'd say that doing 50% more damage than a GWM Fighter (and twice as much damage as the cantrip caster) without even spending ki, and twice as much if you do spend ki, is more than respectable for someone who isn't even primarily a damage-dealer (didn't spend feats on it).


Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

Spoken truly.

[Unoriginal]

Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Monks are slippery. Sure they don't have the highest AC nor the highest HPs, but they can make themselves scarce if necessary and otherwise can stay close while making themselves harder to hit.

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

Monks are unusual. Most of what Ki does is not hindered by the typical protections against magic, and most foes lack the tools to counter the enlightenment-granted powers of the Monk.

Monks are relentless. To be the enemy of a Monk means being hit from any angle available, while they make it hard for you to retaliate, until your health is shaved down to nothing. And the more allies the Monk has, the more the potency of their Stunning Fist is multiplied.

Monks are awesome.

[king_steve]

I think one thing that comes up a lot when talking about Monks is that they are a bit MAD and often need to spend their ASIs on stats. However, if your playing with rolled stats instead of the standard array or point buy, IME they do a lot better and have a bit more freedom with the ASIs.

The same could be said of a Paladin, since they’ll want multiple stats (unless they’re dipping into hexblade warlock, then they can focus on just CHA/CON), but I think if your playing with rolled stats, Monks do pretty well if you have the right distribution.

I guess you could boil this down to, I think that Monks are often viewed in a negative light if they’re stats are lower compared to other classes, but they perform better with higher (rolled) stats.

IME as a DM, I’ve only had one PC monk so far and I wouldn’t say they were any less effective in the party than the Paladin in that group. But we were playing with rolled stats.

[MaxWilson]

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, (A) can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

I wish (A) were true, but Stillness of Mind is written with that awkward action requirement, which the worst fear and charm effects always deny you--it's a chicken and egg problem, not in the monk's favor. I wish Stillness of Mind were a reaction instead of an action (should probably houserule that).


I think one thing that comes up a lot when talking about Monks is that they are a bit MAD and often need to spend their ASIs on stats. However, if your playing with rolled stats instead of the standard array or point buy, IME they do a lot better and have a bit more freedom with the ASIs.

The same could be said of a Paladin, since they’ll want multiple stats (unless they’re dipping into hexblade warlock, then they can focus on just CHA/CON), but I think if your playing with rolled stats, Monks do pretty well if you have the right distribution.

I guess you could boil this down to, I think that Monks are often viewed in a negative light if they’re stats are lower compared to other classes, but they perform better with higher (rolled) stats.

IME as a DM, I’ve only had one PC monk so far and I wouldn’t say they were any less effective in the party than the Paladin in that group. But we were playing with rolled stats.

Good point.

[stoutstien]

paladin tend to pick a primary role and stick to that from the start to when ever the game ends where the monk's primary role changes as they level up but they have ways of emulating different roles for at least a few rounds. they are not the best at at any one task but they are hard to be put in a position where they can't do something that is helpful.

[Gtdead]

Monks are generally weaker against enemies that require ranged attacks to take down (like your example of a caster with Fire Shield, or other stuff like a distant ranged enemy or a flying enemy). But then, most Paladins are as well.

And that's totally okay. Not every character is going to be great at everything. That's why you have a party. The Monk/Paladin isn't operating by himself.


Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

I get that single characters can't do everything, but as you see, there is a common theme with the monk being a skirmisher, monk surviving when others die, monk going solo. This creates a dissonance. Is he an addition to the party, or is he something else. Can he perform when there isn't an obvious target for him to stun, or he just stays away and adds negligible dpr.

If he is good solo, but has to weight his options to help the party, then he has a fundamental problem.
Paladin on the other hand helps the party by default and can then weight his options. This is already a stronger position by design.

I can see the value of a monk when both sides can't engage. It was discussed in another thread and had to do with engaging from extreme range, where Max Wilson talked about Shadow Monk and I agree with that. This is an uncommon situation though.

[Unoriginal]

paladin tend to pick a primary role and stick to that from the start to when ever the game ends where the monk's primary role changes as they level up but they have ways of emulating different roles for at least a few rounds. they are not the best at at any one task but they are hard to be put in a position where they can't do something that is helpful.

Yeah, it's hard to have a situation where the Monk's presence isn't useful.


I get that single characters can't do everything, but as you see, there is a common theme with the monk being a skirmisher, monk surviving when others die, monk going solo. This creates a dissonance. Is he an addition to the party, or is he something else. Can he perform when there isn't an obvious target for him to stun, or he just stays away and adds negligible dpr.

If he is good solo, but has to weight his options to help the party, then he has a fundamental problem.
Paladin on the other hand helps the party by default and can then weight his options. This is already a stronger position by design.

A monk doesn't need to go solo.


The main advantage of the Monk is that in most situations they can throw a wrench is whatever the enemies are attempting. If that involves doing something the rest of the group isn't doing, so be it, but that still needs to be done.

It's not a straightforward class, to be sure, but it's still a potent one.


Gotta ask how a Monk's DPR is negligible, though. A mid-level Monk can inflict each turn damage comparable to 3rd-4rth level spells without issues.


I wish (A) were true, but Stillness of Mind is written with that awkward action requirement, which the worst fear and charm effects always deny you--it's a chicken and egg problem, not in the monk's favor. I wish Stillness of Mind were a reaction instead of an action (should probably houserule that).


Fair, but I must say I haven't seen that affect much.

What's your opinion on the rest of the things I said, just to know?

[RogueJK]

Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Don't forget Bonus Action Dash for 1 Ki point too.

A Monk with Mobile is seriously fast and slippery, able to Move 50-70 feet per round with normal movement, or 100-140 feet in a round with Bonus Action Dash, or even 150-210 feet with a Dash+Bonus Action Dash if needed.

And as long as they're not Double Dashing, they can avoid OAs from enemies by tossing out attacks along the way thanks to Mobile.

It's hard to fully appreciate until you've actually seen it/played it in person.

[Foxhound438]

It's not a matter of one of them being "so good". Apples and oranges really. But I think a multiclassed Paladorc or Paladorlock does have a broader niche, is more likely to be voted MVP of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 party than a pure Monk is. For single-classed paladins I guess Tier 2 is probably the sweet spot, but it depends on how the DM approaches magic weapons and weapon-resistant monsters.

"apples and oranges" is my thought exactly. Measuring a monk with the paladin ruler is going to make monk look pretty bad, with only a couple things being toss ups in terms of what's better (diamond soul vs aura of protection). At the same time, measuring the paladin on the monk ruler is going to make paladins look slow, stiff, and vulnerable in many regards, and he has to spend a spell slot to comprehend languages! Pathetic!.

On those multiclasses, those can pick up some things that make them better than a paladin at the things monks are good at, but it's never going to be quite the same. You can do something kind of like stunning an enemy by casting hold person on them, but it's going to be on a better save for those dangerous casters. You can pick up eldritch blast to deal with enemies that are far away, but enemies that make smart use of cover might still throw a wrench in your plans. On top of that, every level you take in sorcerer or warlock is putting you further away from the good top end paladin things, like improved divine smite or find greater steed.

And as a side note, I think that paladins can get some of that attacking debuffing utility that monks are generally great at by using the special smite spells, and with access to misty step on several of the oaths, they can have respectable mobility as well. It's just that every time they do those things they're sacrificing a lot of damage, and I hardly ever see any paladin players besides myself do that. Guess it comes down to what we value as players.

[Gtdead]

As I calculate it, a GWM Fighter with Str 20 by level 6 attacks twice at +3 for (2d6+15)/2, which is 10.03 DPR against AC 15.

A Dex 18 monk (because he's had one fewer ASI than the Fighter, and presumably spent his feat on Mobile or Defensive Duelist or something instead of an attack feat) attacks three times at +7 for d6+4 per hit. (Normally he could use a staff, but ki-empowered strikes only works with unarmed strikes, not weapons, if you're not a Kensei.) Against AC 15 that's 15.15 DPR, rising to 20.20 DPR if he Flurries.



I actually did make a mistake and calculated against 14 AC for fighter.

PAM/GWM with 4 STR, GWF 23.82, 11.91 against resistance
Monk fists at +4 DEX (again accounting for crit/crit miss) is 15.15 or 20.20

So it's 3.25 and 8.3 respectively, not ~2 and ~7

[Unoriginal]

I actually did make a mistake and calculated against 14 AC for fighter.

PAM/GWM with 4 STR, GWF 23.82, 11.91 against resistance
Monk fists at +4 DEX (again accounting for crit/crit miss) is 15.15 or 20.20

So it's 3.25 and 8.3 respectively, not ~2 and ~7

That's a rather not negligible DPR, IMO.

[Gtdead]

Yeah, it's hard to have a situation where the Monk's presence isn't useful.

Gotta ask how a Monk's DPR is negligible, though. A mid-level Monk can inflict each turn damage comparable to 3rd-4rth level spells without issues.


The example was as a longbow user. That's magic missile damage upcasted to lvl 2 in this specific example or single target SG.
Also in melee he can inflict damage comparable to 3-4th AoE spells. It's quite an important distinction. Cause the other spells he has to compete with are in the vein of Conjure Animals since there aren't many good single target spells.

[Foxhound438]

That's a rather not negligible DPR, IMO.

I would agree with this. Even ignoring the resistance part, you're doing about 90% the damage of a moderately optimized DPR/Tank build. Granted that goes up more for the fighter if they're using something like precision attack, but not to the point where the monk is "negligible" in any case.

[Unoriginal]

The example was as a longbow user. That's magic missile damage upcasted to lvl 2 in this specific example or single target SG.

Not sure I understand what you man, sorry.



Also in melee he can inflict damage comparable to 3-4th AoE spells. It's quite an important distinction. Cause the other spells he has to compete with are in the vein of Conjure Animals since there aren't many good single target spells.

So you're saying the Monk isn't competing against single target spells? Or that the Monk is better at damage dealing than them?

[Droppeddead]

Monks are immensely self sufficient. They can be incredibly effective regardless of magic items. However, since their AC is dependent purely on their stats, their ASIs are largely spoken for before Tier 3 (Variant Human aside). [quote]
Very true. If you roll for stats you won't have this problem, though.

[quote]They also get some top tier subclass capstones, for sure.
Also true. On the other hand they get a 14th level ability that is better than a lot of other classes' capstones.

[MaxWilson]

. What's your opinion on the rest of the things I said, just to know?

You mean this?


Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Monks are slippery. Sure they don't have the highest AC nor the highest HPs, but they can make themselves scarce if necessary and otherwise can stay close while making themselves harder to hit.

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

Monks are unusual. Most of what Ki does is not hindered by the typical protections against magic, and most foes lack the tools to counter the enlightenment-granted powers of the Monk.

Monks are relentless. To be the enemy of a Monk means being hit from any angle available, while they make it hard for you to retaliate, until your health is shaved down to nothing. And the more allies the Monk has, the more the potency of their Stunning Fist is multiplied.

Monks are awesome.

Pretty mainstream opinion except for the conclusion, which is clearly a subjective value judgment (and that's fine). I have no beef with any of those claims except the Stillness of Mind one, which I called out previously.

Is that an answer to the question you were asking?

[stoutstien]

As someone who likes monks I can see that currently there is not a lot of options for players who want to play a monk focused on dealing damage other than 4E. *New splat book might change that*

The new unarmed fighter styles might be a new avenue depending on new variant class options. If they do present a fighting style feat I could see a monk getting good milage out of that extra d4 on grappled foes. I personally would even let the initial d4 that's applied on the grapple check to be improved by martial arts.

[MaxWilson]

Also true. On the other hand they get a 14th level ability that is better than a lot of other classes' capstones.

Yes, and their 18th level ability is also capstone-worthy. High level monks are considerably tougher than Barbarians. (And Long Death monks are just out of this world when it comes to toughness.)

[Gtdead]

Not sure I understand what you man, sorry.

My argument was countered using a monk that shoots a longbow. To which I responded that this makes him a class that has to weight his options between controlling the caster with stun strike and the like, or doing negligible damage with the longbow.

An ASI starved monk with a longbow deals magic missile damage, not 3-4 level spell damage.




So you're saying the Monk isn't competing against single target spells? Or that the Monk is better at damage dealing than them?

I'm saying that the available spells for single target damage in the levels you mentioned are the likes of Conjure Animals. Concentration effects that last for a lot of rounds. IIRC wizard doesn't have single target nuking spells in these levels like scorching ray for example.

However,

Monk's damage is 2x(1d8+mod) + 2x(1d6+mod). In this particular case it's 32 dpr reduced by AC. This is fireball level damage, but fireball is aoe. So no, monk can't compete with that. Fireball ends encounters at lvl 5, monk ends a single target at best.

[Gryndle]

what makes paladins competitive with paladins? Nothing.

The D&D classes and party concept are not designed to be competitive; they are designed (in theory) to be complimentary. It isn't "what can the monk do better THAN the paladin"; rather it is "what the monk can do better WITH the paladin". It is a group game, a team "sport" of imagination.

In my current game, I am playing a kensai monk. The group is now 13th level, and is a gwm dragon totem barbarian from some 3rd party book, an ancients paladin, a hexblade and an arcane trickster rogue. We are light on healing but high on damage output, when we work together as team.

I scout ahead (best perception, alert feat), the trickster takes care of any traps I find. In battle the barb takes the point and the pally supports him, and those two dish out some serious damage. The hexblade and the trickster are versatile in that they can melee, cast spells or make ranged attacks with almost equal efficiency. They are pretty versatile in tactics and ability.

My job as the monk is to use that crazy mobility to be where ever the group needs me. I move around, deal out some hits and try to lock things down with stunning blow when I can.

I can be defense-keeping the others from getting cornered or flanked. Or I can be offense and lock down an annoying ranged critter or caster.

If I get in over my head and cant get out immediately, I use my ki to dodge instead of Flurry (yes, we can do that) allowing me to off-tank for a bit. Or if a fight turns into a real melee I move around to provide my allies with flank, or setup the rogue's sneak attack, or stun enemies to either make them easier to take out or limit their damage output.

As a monk, I don't do the high burst damage of the paladin or the gwm barbarian, or even the rogue. But my AC is right there with the big guys, my mobility is crazy good, and the passive defensive abilities (immune to poison and disease, evasion, missile deflection, still mind, etc.) of the monk at this level make me pretty durable in my own way.

When I set up that rogue to get his sneak attack, I feel like part of that damage is mine. When I stun a target the others try to capitalize on that and nuke it down, and part of that damage is mine too.

In short, I don't compete with the paladin (or any member of the party). As a monk I play the roles of scout and skirmisher, and limited crowd control; all with the purpose of helping the others do what they do, only better. I don't get the big damage rolls, that's not my job. My job is to help the other guys get those big rolls. I get a lot more satisfaction out of affecting the tactical picture any way.

[Foxhound438]

As someone who likes monks I can see that currently there is not a lot of options for players who want to play a monk focused on dealing damage other than 4E. *New splat book might change that*

The new unarmed fighter styles might be a new avenue depending on new variant class options. If they do present a fighting style feat I could see a monk getting good milage out of that extra d4 on grappled foes. I personally would even let the initial d4 that's applied on the grapple check to be improved by martial arts.

I don't think I would like all monks to be reliant on grappling to be good, as that means they only become more MAD and lose all the benefits of their high mobility.

I would prefer to just have a damage feat that monks can actually use. Doesn't have to be "GWM but applied to unarmed strikes", maybe something like an extra damage die for hitting multiple times? But that's getting into the weeds of homebrew more than actual things we might get any time soon.

[Unoriginal]

Is that an answer to the question you were asking?

Indeed, thanks.



Monk's damage is 2x(1d8+mod) + 2x(1d6+mod). In this particular case it's 32 dpr reduced by AC. This is fireball level damage, but fireball is aoe. So no, monk can't compete with that. Fireball ends encounters at lvl 5, monk ends a single target at best.

How many encounters do Fireball ends at lvl 5?

[MaxWilson]

My argument was countered using a monk that shoots a longbow.

What argument? What counter? You just asked a simple question (what to do vs. Fire Shield) and got a simple answer (shoot them). You didn't make an argument.

It's not like 2x d8+Dex is bad damage either, for Tier 2. It's mediocre in Tier 3 but many games never get that far, and by then the monk has their 11th level subclass shtick anyway.

[Gtdead]

How many encounters do Fireball ends at lvl 5?

Any encounter where the difficulty stems from the quantity of monsters instead of the quality.


What argument? What counter? You just asked a simple question (what to do vs. Fire Shield) and got a simple answer (shoot them). You didn't make an argument.

You are right, I assumed the implication is obvious for a class that is defined by stunning strike but rereading my posts, it's not at all. To give it form then: "Monk is a controller and mages are the prime targets to control/kill. By design he is weak to retribution effects due to the low damage/attack. A fire shield counters him, how is he going to deal with this situation, where he can't even perform his main function. If he, as a melee frontliner, has trouble killing even controlled casters in this situation, who is going to kill them?". I'm making a big deal out of fire shield because I see it as a hard counter that needs to be addressed by the party. A lot of DMs have trouble with monks and it's not an easy class to counter when your BBEG gets stunned, but that spell can mess things quite a bit.

Anyway, people talked about the skirmisher playstyle, so I got my answer and moved on. Then I saw your edit and answered.

[stoutstien]

I don't think I would like all monks to be reliant on grappling to be good, as that means they only become more MAD and lose all the benefits of their high mobility.

I would prefer to just have a damage feat that monks can actually use. Doesn't have to be "GWM but applied to unarmed strikes", maybe something like an extra damage die for hitting multiple times? But that's getting into the weeds of homebrew more than actual things we might get any time soon.

They don't necessarily need high strength thanks to SS and as I said it's an option not necessarily optimal. If you want to pump out damage a a monk use a early printing of 4E with bonus action water whip.

[x3n0n]

My impression is that an un-tuned base Monk (point-buy 16/16 dex/wis) who just takes alternating Dex/Wis ASIs and uses a d6/d8 versatile weapon is competitive for damage with other martials that don't invest in a bonus action attack through tier 2, while having access to Stunning Strike, which is the base feature for tier 2. (Similar thoughts to Aura of Protection, in that it is a major feature that is dependent on the secondary stat of a MAD class.)

Patient Defense is also unusual in giving a reliable way to impose disadvantage on basically all incoming attacks while preserving much of your offensive output (in tier 2 and later; in tier 1, you would be trading off a lot of your opportunities to deal damage).

Early tier 3 is a lull unless your subclass has a great feature there. Then Diamond Soul at 14 changes your game entirely, and your party can rely on you to stay up and able to help (even non-Long-Death Monks).

In tier 4, you get Empty Body; as mentioned already, I think it would be above average as a lv20 capstone.



Paladins get built-in healing, spellcasting, burst damage, and Aura of Protection. Their features directly and visibly support the party in combat (and immediately afterward), often with minimal active investment. The corresponding Monk needs to use other tools to do the same.



From what I understand, in high-optimization games, Monks lag other martials in DPR because they don't naturally take advantage of the key feats: PAM, GWM, XBE, or Sharpshooter. In general, they also can't easily convert treasure to improved combat performance, unlike most other classes: no armor, no shield, few weapons, no spell slots, no spellbook. They're also unusually ability-score dependent, not having any non-ASI-bound way to improve their ACs.


I enjoy playing Monks, and I enjoy playing Paladins. Paladins seem to do "their thing" very well, but can't really take on other roles. Monks can shift to fit many different roles, and relatively quickly; however, in the process of shifting, they lose efficacy in their previous role. They can be good at several different things, but are only very good at one thing at a time.

[Sigreid]

I get that single characters can't do everything, but as you see, there is a common theme with the monk being a skirmisher, monk surviving when others die, monk going solo. This creates a dissonance. Is he an addition to the party, or is he something else. Can he perform when there isn't an obvious target for him to stun, or he just stays away and adds negligible dpr.

If he is good solo, but has to weight his options to help the party, then he has a fundamental problem.
Paladin on the other hand helps the party by default and can then weight his options. This is already a stronger position by design.

I can see the value of a monk when both sides can't engage. It was discussed in another thread and had to do with engaging from extreme range, where Max Wilson talked about Shadow Monk and I agree with that. This is an uncommon situation though.

Been in a few groups with monks played by different people and we haven't had a case where the monk wasn't a solid team player.

[Eldariel]

Monk is one of those classes most affected by Tier IME. My experience with Monks is that they:
- Suck on Tier 1. They have lower numbers than most other fighting type classes and they lack Stunning Strike. They have low enough Ki that they can't really do their cool stuff for long. They have reasonable Ki-based DPS but that burns through their uses fast and they are defensively really weak. Way of the Shadow Monk is a bit of an exception: it provides whole party stealth (any class with Pass without Trace is nice) and a lot of powerful magical utility but much like Warlock, suffers of the relative lack of slots (1/SR on level 3, 2/SR on level 4 and those same points are responsible for your offense and defense).

- Work as roleplayers on Tier 2. Their offense caps out on level 5 with Stunning Strike + Extra Attack plus the martial strike die increase making a huge overall difference. Ki is still an issue, and all the more so if trying to stun targets, but the stun is very powerful when it works and on this tier you'll still find enemies without amazing Con-saves. They're still defensively wanting but this is their golden era offensively. Shadow Monk specifically gets that at-will teleportation, which is probably the best ability any Monk gets on any level specifically because it's strong and doesn't have a Ki cost. Great for scouting and for fighting against kity enemies and front-back encounters where enemy has a clear backline you want to get to.

- Become all-rounders in Tier 3. This is where their offense begins to fall off but they get some great defensive options here and finally begin to have enough Ki to keep doing stuff all day. Even the Ways that get offensive stuff here do kinda feel like it doesn't do enough to keep up with what other classes are doing by this point.

- Tier 4 sees them get some immensely powerful abilities though they're a lot wanting offensively at that point (and obviously those great abilities are still overshadowed by 9th level spells).


IMHO the class is overall mediocre specifically due to issues with Ki (if it had like +Wis Ki, that'd be different) as it does basically everything with Ki except oddly Shadow Monk teleport and invisibility. But it does do its stuff pretty well when it has the resources.

My worst experiences with Monks was on level 3. We (Paladin [Vengeance]/Ranger [Horizon Walker]/Monk [Open Hand]/Wizard [War Wizard]/Wizard [Diviner]) had one long day where we first fought goblins and bugbears (actually got ambushed in our sleep and almost wiped), then short rested, and then fought a couple of Bulezaus then a long encounter that started with a couple of Scouts that were reinforced by Babau and cultists and priests and some such on level 3. The Monk simply totally ran out of gas by the time the Babau encounter rolled around and was basically useless in the last fight until he died. The Pally eventually ran out of gas in that encounter as did the Horizon Walker and ultimately only the Wizards survived (even they were low on slots).

Monk was probably the worst class to bring into that particular series of encounters simply because it lacked the gas to engage in such prolonged fights; a Rogue or a Fighter or a Cleric or a Druid or a second Pally would've probably all outperformed Monk by a long shot and perhaps given us a shot at winning that final fight. Of course, we could've won it if I (the Diviner) conserved my Portents better but I had used two to keep our frontline alive and was left with none to suggest that the Babau GTFO (it basically caused that defeat single-handedly and the Pally couldn't run due to their oath).

[bendking]

Monks don't scale nearly as well as Paladins. Past Tier-2 Paladins are way better, so I don't think they compete at that point.
That said, Monks are really strong in Tier-2 due to Stunning Strike, so you could argue they're competitive early to mid-game as skirmishers and disablers.

[Droppeddead]

Monk is one of those classes most affected by Tier IME. My experience with Monks is that they:
- Suck on Tier 1. They have lower numbers than most other fighting type classes and they lack Stunning Strike.
Would you mind elaborating a bit? Because they are able to to do at least one attack of 1D8+Dex and one attack of 1D4+Dex per turn. If they use Ki they can do another 1D4+Dex attack per turn. This is pretty much equivalent to a dual wielder (usually short swords or scimitars at this point) or a Rogue that manages a Sneak attack. It's more than a sword and board fighter can do unless level 5 or using action surge.


- Work as roleplayers on Tier 2. Their offense caps out on level 5 with Stunning Strike + Extra Attack plus the martial strike die increase making a huge overall difference. Ki is still an issue, and all the more so if trying to stun targets, but the stun is very powerful when it works and on this tier you'll still find enemies without amazing Con-saves. They're still defensively wanting but this is their golden era offensively. Shadow Monk specifically gets that at-will teleportation, which is probably the best ability any Monk gets on any level specifically because it's strong and doesn't have a Ki cost. Great for scouting and for fighting against kity enemies and front-back encounters where enemy has a clear backline you want to get to.
Well, Monks damage doesn't cap of until level 17 when they get a D10 for their martial arts die. At level 6 they also get ghost punching and you have the different subclass abilities like Kensei Shot, Radiant Sun bolt and the likes. I agree that shadow monks get some really cool utility spells as well, yes.


- Become all-rounders in Tier 3. This is where their offense begins to fall off but they get some great defensive options here and finally begin to have enough Ki to keep doing stuff all day. Even the Ways that get offensive stuff here do kinda feel like it doesn't do enough to keep up with what other classes are doing by this point.
Again, not sure if I agree. Kensei monks get Sharpen the Blade and Sun Soul gets Radiant fire balls. Yes, not all monks get this but like you mention, the defensive abilities they get are pretty amazing.


- Tier 4 sees them get some immensely powerful abilities though they're a lot wanting offensively at that point (and obviously those great abilities are still overshadowed by 9th level spells).
Well, most things are overshadowed by 9th level spells. ;)


IMHO the class is overall mediocre specifically due to issues with Ki (if it had like +Wis Ki, that'd be different) as it does basically everything with Ki except oddly Shadow Monk teleport and invisibility. But it does do its stuff pretty well when it has the resources.
Not everything, Kensei get Agile parry and Sun Soul get pew pew without Ki cost. Sure there are others but I don't have the books to look it up right now.


My worst experiences with Monks was on level 3. We (Paladin [Vengeance]/Ranger [Horizon Walker]/Monk [Open Hand]/Wizard [War Wizard]/Wizard [Diviner]) had one long day where we first fought goblins and bugbears (actually got ambushed in our sleep and almost wiped), then short rested, and then fought a couple of Bulezaus then a long encounter that started with a couple of Scouts that were reinforced by Babau and cultists and priests and some such on level 3. The Monk simply totally ran out of gas by the time the Babau encounter rolled around and was basically useless in the last fight until he died. The Pally eventually ran out of gas in that encounter as did the Horizon Walker and ultimately only the Wizards survived (even they were low on slots).

Monk was probably the worst class to bring into that particular series of encounters simply because it lacked the gas to engage in such prolonged fights; a Rogue or a Fighter or a Cleric or a Druid or a second Pally would've probably all outperformed Monk by a long shot and perhaps given us a shot at winning that final fight. Of course, we could've won it if I (the Diviner) conserved my Portents better but I had used two to keep our frontline alive and was left with none to suggest that the Babau GTFO (it basically caused that defeat single-handedly and the Pally couldn't run due to their oath).
I'm assuming the Paladin's suicide was some kind of RP choice so I won't comment on that. However, of the classes you mentioned, the Monk is the only one that has resources that recharge on a short rest. I'm not sure I understand how they were the ones running out of gas?

[MinotaurWarrior]

Monks:

T1: consistent DPR.

DPR consistency is one of the features that gets simplified away in DPR calculations. If a monster has 4hp remaining, a level 4 Paladin may be able to overkill it a lot, but his chance of killing it is lower than a level 1, let alone level 4 Monk.

T2+

The ideal environment for a Monk is a party of people who make Attack Rolls fighting three hard/deadly encounters a day, one per short rest, with most of the XP budget spent on a monster with legendary and lair actions.

The closer you are to that, the bigger the Monk > Paladin gap is.

In a party of mostly long rest squishies who don't make lots of attacks, in an adventuring day that's got a lot of mobs that make low accuracy melee attacks, and then one huge fight at the end, the Paladin > Monk gap is bigger.

[KorvinStarmast]

Solid analysis I think. Maybe part of the discripantie in power that some observe is in the fact that the paladin's features are just there, you don't have to do anything with it you use them (aura's) or are pretty obvious as when to use them (LoH, smite). Monk requires a bit more tactics I think, how to move, when to spend ki on what feature (dodge, disengage, flurry, stun), and when you can duke it out with foe and when to move (cause, as somebody mentioned, monk isn't a tank), and its role really depends more on subclass than the pally's does. While I think that you meant discrepancy, I laughed when I tried to visualize what a discripantie is - something in the lingerie section at a department store? :smallconfused:

There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation. It's a team sport.

The D&D classes and party concept are not designed to be competitive; they are designed (in theory) to be complimentary. It isn't "what can the monk do better THAN the paladin"; rather it is "what the monk can do better WITH the paladin". It is a group game, a team "sport" of imagination. Hey, look, another team sport advocate! :smallbiggrin:

As a monk I play the roles of scout and skirmisher, and limited crowd control; all with the purpose of helping the others do what they do, only better. I don't get the big damage rolls, that's not my job. My job is to help the other guys get those big rolls. I get a lot more satisfaction out of affecting the tactical picture any way. Likewise.

Been in a few groups with monks played by different people and we haven't had a case where the monk wasn't a solid team player. I am sensing a trend here.

Monks is that they: - Suck on Tier 1. I disagree. Out of the box, they don't need a feat to get an attack and a bonus action attack. A fighter needs polearm mastery for that. In a featless game the monk has the advantage. A wood elf monk also has long bow ranged attack from level 1, the trick is to get enough dough to buy one. We have found in tier 1 that the monk contributes nicely.

- Work as roleplayers on Tier 2. Their offense caps out on level 5 with Stunning Strike + Extra Attack plus the martial strike die increase making a huge overall difference. Ki is still an issue
At level six, they can kill a Rakshasa thanks to magical attacks. I agree with you on ki as a constraint.

- Become all-rounders in Tier 3. This is where their offense begins to fall off but they get some great defensive options here and finally begin to have enough Ki to keep doing stuff all day. general agreement.

- Tier 4 sees them get some immensely powerful abilities though they're a lot wanting offensively at that point (and obviously those great abilities are still overshadowed by 9th level spells).
Had only a few sessions, one shots, with Tier 4 monks; 9th level spells certainly have a unique place in the game when legendary saves don't render them moot.


But it does do its stuff pretty well when it has the resources. Which brings us back to the short rest game design issue ...

We had a recent fight where the monk stunned three consecutive rounds in a row a CR 6 monster; she and the druid wiped the floor with it, and the druid never wild shaped.

[Eldariel]

Well, Monks damage doesn't cap of until level 17 when they get a D10 for their martial arts die.

Well, technically true but such minor increase is barely worth noting.


Again, not sure if I agree. Kensei monks get Sharpen the Blade and Sun Soul gets Radiant fire balls. Yes, not all monks get this but like you mention, the defensive abilities they get are pretty amazing.

Yeah, some subclasses get some offensive stuff of note but by and large they won't really outperform the base stuff othe Monk.


I'm assuming the Paladin's suicide was some kind of RP choice so I won't comment on that. However, of the classes you mentioned, the Monk is the only one that has resources that recharge on a short rest. I'm not sure I understand how they were the ones running out of gas?

Well, Bulezau have an aura that causes automatic necrotic damage around them so understandably our melee wanted to finish them off fast. Monk in particular was also unable to really stand in melee; he had what, 15 AC (Ghostwise Halfling Monk)? Add to that pretty mediocre HP (14 Con IIRC?) and he was hurting. I actually remembered, it was a Four Elements Monk and I think he had Fist of Unbroken Air (he only used it once and only during a tutorial day of sorts so it slipped my mind: as he died on level 3 never got to really see much of it from him). Pally burnt a smite or two and Monk burnt two flurries, which coupled with a Sleep and some damage spells from the War Wizard took the Bulezau down rather quickly and our Wizards were still well-stocked. The Horizon Walker also had no issues: I think he hadn't burnt a spell slot yet by the final encounter, not that it did us much good (he could've certainly killed the Babau but he got stuck engaging on the other side).Long story short

Anyways, in the second fight the Monk had 1 ki and the Pally 1 smite and both were of course burnt in short order. Ranger and Monk got stuck fighting a set of cultists (I think 8 + a priest and a cult leader) while the Wizards and the Pally engaged two scouts and the Babau. It quickly became apparent that nobody could really damage the Babau after the Pally was out of Smites and it just wasn't going down. Meanwhile the Ranger and Monk were mostly overwhelmed numerically after whiffing a few attacks and while the Ranger took down the acolyte and the big priest, the Monk simply went down to the cultists. One of the Wizards dropped a Sleep there and another dropped some AOE with the ranger on the mop-up duty, but that tied him down long enough that the damage was done.

One of the biggest issues was that the Monk had to melee to do damage and yet they didn't have any native hardiness whatsoever. Patient Defense would cost Ki too. A Fighter or a Cleric or a Barbarian or a Paladin or whatever could have 3 points higher AC at the same time with more HP to boot in the case of the Fighter.


Hey, look, another team sport advocate! :smallbiggrin:

That statement does miss the whole point though: while Monk and Pally do work passably well together, every player can only pick one class and nobody else's class. So you can't really pick "Monk and Paladin", you can only pick "Monk" or "Paladin" and generally speaking for the group you'll be best off making the better choice of the two. Which...depends on the party but in a vacuum I'd say a Pally is wanted more often. It being a team game doesn't diminish the opportunity cost of picking any given class or character.


I disagree. Out of the box, they don't need a feat to get an attack and a bonus action attack. A fighter needs polearm mastery for that. In a featless game the monk has the advantage. A wood elf monk also has long bow ranged attack from level 1, the trick is to get enough dough to buy one. We have found in tier 1 that the monk contributes nicely.

That may well be but I've found them just quite squishy for melee and they need to melee to get use out of their class features. Which is why I'm not too hot on them; their kit is kinda anti-synergistic in this sense, natural melee but without the hardiness of other melee classes.


We had a recent fight where the monk stunned three consecutive rounds in a row a CR 6 monster; she and the druid wiped the floor with it, and the druid never wild shaped.

Yeah, I've had those fights too; we had some huge thingy which ate our Cleric; our Wizard Hypnotic Patterned it and then readied actions + actions ensued with the Monk stunning it and we were able to kill it before it could escape with its meal (it had some 200 HP I think so all those 3 rounds of bruising were needed and didn't even quite suffice).

[KorvinStarmast]

That statement does miss the whole point though The whole point of the game is to play as a team. The question any group of players has is what class each player chooses (if there even is any coordination in that). Once the characters are chosen, the point is to play as a team. Which reminds me to check the team optimization thread again.

Yeah, I've had those fights too; we had some huge thingy which ate our Cleric; our Wizard Hypnotic Patterned it and then readied actions + actions ensued with the Monk stunning it and we were able to kill it before it could escape with its meal (it had some 200 HP I think so all those 3 rounds of bruising were needed and didn't even quite suffice). The kicker being that the save versus stunned or the save versus hypnotic pattern is quite the 'save or suck' for the monster. One of the nice things about the Paladin's smiting is that once the paladin hits, that smite lands. No backsies.

[MaxWilson]

Anyways, in the second fight the Monk had 1 ki and the Pally 1 smite and both were of course burnt in short order. Ranger and Monk got stuck fighting a set of cultists (I think 8 + a priest and a cult leader) while the Wizards and the Pally engaged two scouts and the Babau. It quickly became apparent that nobody could really damage the Babau after the Pally was out of Smites and it just wasn't going down. Meanwhile the Ranger and Monk were mostly overwhelmed numerically after whiffing a few attacks and while the Ranger took down the acolyte and the big priest, the Monk simply went down to the cultists. One of the Wizards dropped a Sleep there and another dropped some AOE with the ranger on the mop-up duty, but that tied him down long enough that the damage was done.

It sounds like some poor tactical decisions were made there. The monk in particular was built to be squishy and slow (AC 15 halfling), and then chose to stay in melee with eight attackers(!) anyway? And it was an Elemonk, but they didn't AoE with Burning Hands or Thunderwave, so might as well not have even been an Elemonk. Should have either engaged the Babau together with the paladin or used an anti-mob AoE against the mob, but choosing to melee the mob was a waste.

And yeah, Babaus are vicious spellcasters despite being only CR 4, so overall I'm not surprised the party did poorly overall, but it also sounds like the monk's and wizards' tactics were not the best.

[RogueJK]

One of the biggest issues was that the Monk had to melee to do damage and yet they didn't have any native hardiness whatsoever. Patient Defense would cost Ki too. A Fighter or a Cleric or a Barbarian or a Paladin or whatever could have 3 points higher AC at the same time with more HP to boot in the case of the Fighter.
...
I've found them just quite squishy for melee and they need to melee to get use out of their class features. Which is why I'm not too hot on them; their kit is kinda anti-synergistic in this sense, natural melee but without the hardiness of other melee classes.


Monks are strikers, like melee Rogues. Monks aren't frontliners, and they're not designed to stand toe-to-toe with the bad guys and slug it out, trading Attacks back and forth*.

(*Some Monks can quasi-tank and stick on the front lines for a time, like Kenseis with their boosted AC, or Long Death Monks with their Temp HP boosts, especially if they make tactical use of the Ki Dodge bonus action. If you want to play a tanky monk, the extra CON and HP of the Hill Dwarf race helps with this, bringing their HP in line with frontliner classes.)

Traditionally, Monks are designed to move it to melee range, get off some damage/effects, then move away.

It's only when they're faced with situations where they can't use their superior mobility to make an end-run around the melee enemies to get to the casters/archers, or when they don't yet have Stun or the Stuns aren't successful, and they don't have another way to mitigate enemy OAs, that this starts to break down a bit. They end up stuck having to either suck up an OA as they retreat from that melee enemy they just struck, or rely on Disengage. And unlike the Rogue, most Monks don't get Disengage for "free" each round. They have to spend extra Ki to enable the Disengage and also miss out on their Bonus Action Attack/Flurry of Blows, which severely cuts down on their number of attacks that round.

This is why the Mobility feat is almost a requirement for some Monks. Mobility solves the problem of those kind of situations, and allows them to take full advantage of their Highly Mobile Striker role, without fear of OAs or "wasting" Bonus Actions and Ki on Disengages.

Even then, Drunken Masters, Sun Souls, and Open Hands have other ways built into their subclasses to shore up this shortcoming, with Drunken Master's free Disengage with Flurry, Sun Soul's ranged attacks, and Open Hand's ability to shove or eliminate the enemy's reactions with Flurry. So Mobility is less necessary for those types of Monks, and they can still be effective without it, though it's still useful even for them.


Based on your story about the Ghostwise Halfling Four Elements Monk, it sounds like you've let a suboptimal Monk, with easily the worst subclass, and that was played even more suboptimally, color your opinion of all Monks overall. :smallwink:

[MaxWilson]

Based on your story about the Ghostwise Halfling Four Elements Monk, it sounds like you've let a suboptimal Monk, with easily the worst subclass, and that was played even more suboptimally, color your opinion of all Monks overall. :smallwink:

To be fair, Eldariel did say that was his WORST monk experience. And he's smart enough not to generalize from one experience. I take that story as an illustration of how bad it can get, not the sole foundation of Eldariel's opinion.

[x3n0n]

it also sounds like the monk's and wizards' tactics were not the best.


was played even more suboptimally, color your opinion of all Monks overall. :smallwink:

To be fair, that is a good point about Monks vs Paladins: a Paladin pretty much just needs to stay upright in melee to help the party. There are not that many bad places on the decision tree.

Comparatively, as a Monk, it's a lot easier to make poor tactical decisions and be punished for them. In particular, ki management is tricky until at least mid tier 2.

For example, going into that last encounter, the lv3 Elemonk needs at least 2 ki to use an AoE; if it's encounter #3 since a short rest, 1 ki per encounter "seemed fine", but only left 1 ki remaining going into this one.

Edit PS: Ghostwise didn't seem like that bad of a Monk race in point-buy; it should be able to get a 16 AC with 16 Wis and 16 or 17 Dex (depending on whether you are taking a half-ASI feat at 4, like Second Chance for a little bit more durability), and you're already as far as a Wood Elf non-Monk by lv2.

[Asisreo1]

To be fair, that is a good point about Monks vs Paladins: a Paladin pretty much just needs to stay upright in melee to help the party. There are not that many bad places on the decision tree.

Comparatively, as a Monk, it's a lot easier to make poor tactical decisions and be punished for them. In particular, ki management is tricky until at least mid tier 2.

Same could be said for fullcasters.

There's alot of good spells, but there's also alot of bad ones, especially at a given moment. Part of being a class with more complexity is understanding that while you have more options, those options cost more than a safer class like barbarian or fighters who can both afford to make rasher decisions with less penalty while their more linear decisions in combat are more straightforward.

[MaxWilson]

Same could be said for fullcasters.

There's alot of good spells, but there's also alot of bad ones, especially at a given moment. Part of being a class with more complexity is understanding that while you have more options, those options cost more than a safer class like barbarian or fighters who can both afford to make rasher decisions with less penalty while their more linear decisions in combat are more straightforward.

Yeah, you haven't seen a poorly-played PC in 5E until you've seen a wizard who blows his 9th level spell slot on Chromatic Orb in the very first fight of the day...

[x3n0n]

Same could be said for fullcasters.

There's alot of good spells, but there's also alot of bad ones, especially at a given moment. Part of being a class with more complexity is understanding that while you have more options, those options cost more than a safer class like barbarian or fighters who can both afford to make rasher decisions with less penalty while their more linear decisions in combat are more straightforward.

Oh, definitely. I just meant that for standard builds of both, below-average tactical decision-making for a Monk is likely to lead to worse results then the same level of tactical expertise when used to play a Paladin (since that's the thread topic).

Monk is still in my top 5 favorite classes to play, I just feel more nervous that I'm going to screw up when I do so. :)

[Deathtongue]

I think you guys are way overrating the monk's usefulness. They're hobbled by a number of common shortcomings that don't show up in Monk Stories or theorycrafting. And while all might not apply to a particular table, a lot of them do apply.

1.) What I think is the biggest weakness of Monks are how they're extremely dependent on frequent short rests to function, especially in T1 and early T2. A monk trying to budget six ki points across two encounters, let alone three encounters, is a pretty daunting task. So you Flurry of Blows'd and threw on some Stunning Strike action for three of the hits. Great! What are you doing for the next seven rounds until your next short rest. If they don't get their frequent short rests, their performance tanks. Warlocks and bards have ways to patch up this weakness, monks have no recourse.

2.) Monks have a big problem with bonus-action clog. The methods that other martials use to patch up holes in their offense or defense (Hex/Hunter's Mark, Hexblade's Curse, Polearm Master, Rage, Bladesong) just isn't very helpful to monks. Which goes along with the next weakness:

3.) Monks are MAD for stats that don't help them patch of their weakness with multiclassing. Unless you're rolling for stats, where are you supposed to get a 13 STR to tag in Barbarian or a 13 CHA to tag in (Hexblade) Warlock or a 13 INT to tag in (Bladesinger) Wizard?

4.) Monks benefit relatively more from games that don't drop magical items -- which describes a minority of home games. Yes, I'm aware that CharOp uses a 'Fox Only, No Items, Final Destination' setup to game balance, but that setup elides just how much worse monks are off when they don't get them. They already have a problem with bonus action clog and can't benefit from the really good magical items aside from Bracers of Armor, Insignia Claws, and Belt of Giant Whatevers (which benefit the GWM-users more than the monks).

5.) Monks are also screwed over by certain encounter setups. They can't do well against hordes of low-CR monsters or a squadron of medium-strength monsters compared to other martials. How exactly is a monk supposed to contribute in the latter half of Storm King's Thunder when you're fighting against bulky hill giants and frost giants, let alone really nasty monsters like fire giants?

IOW:


It's really telling me me that when monks bring up anecdotal evidence about the their usefulness, the story always takes a specific frame:
- There's always conveniently a short rest available. The story is never framed as 'it was the third encounter in twenty minutes and the party was running on empty'.
- It involves a defensively squishy mastermind spellcaster like a beholder or an archmage.
- The squishy mastermind spellcaster has a very specific level of accessibility. They're never a beholder hovering over a bottomless pit or an archmage standing in the middle of a Symbol spell. However, the squishy mastermind spellcaster is not TOO accessible either. The phrases '80 feet away' and 'around a corner' come up a lot. Not so much '30 feet away' or 'riding a flying mount'.
- The encounter setup did not involve significant of medium strength enemies or horde monsters. You will never hear a monk go 'oh man, my character was super useful fighting the fire giant/frost giant team-up'.
- Most notably, the monk's contribution was preventing the squishy mastermind spellcaster from acting. They never set up a crushingly advantageous tactical situation with a clever casting of Sleet Storm or Transmute Rock or the like, it's always some variation of 'then I STUNNED the lich!! Then I stunned them again!'

[Gtdead]

It's also worthwhile to notice that by CR5 and onwards, monsters get a strong boost to CON saves (+4 is common). Most monks won't start by leveling WIS (at least I've never seen anyone advocating for WIS first) so they will need at least 2 Ki per turn to have a better than average chance to stun an enemy.

I don't see the monk being able to stun more than 2 times per short rest on average against any relevant target at late t1/early t2. Streaks are always fun, but they are the exception to the rule. Nor I see the chances getting better with the ever increasing CON stats. The only thing increasing is Ki points to throw on the target. I think it's a big problem if you have similar performance with a pool of 10 Ki as you did back when you had 5. I'm in the process of making an analysis of Ki expenditure on a Level against CR curve. Thankfully, people have already aggregated the data for me and all I have to do is to make the chart :D .

In the same level range (late t1, early t2), WIS tends to be lower (+1 or +2) and since we are comparing them to Paladin, wrathful smite has a better than average chance to stick. Also Paladins are more likely to raise CHA first, especially if they go Hexblade 1 or Conquest, both very common builds.

[x3n0n]

5.) Monks are also screwed over by certain encounter setups. They can't do well against hordes of low-CR monsters or a squadron of medium-strength monsters compared to other martials. How exactly is a monk supposed to contribute in the latter half of Storm King's Thunder when you're fighting against bulky hill giants and frost giants, let alone really nasty monsters like fire giants?

All legitimate points, but I do have a question about hordes of mooks: what martial *does* deal well with them without an AoE? If anything, having the ability to Flurry seems like an advantage there vs having only 2 attacks.

Also, for my education: are there martials in tier 2 that deal a lot more than a Monk without investing in PAM/GWM or XBE/SS? If so, where is the extra damage coming from? (That is, a Monk gets 2 d8 attacks and a d6+mod bonus attack, but can't take -5/+10: is that the only difference?)

If the answer involves a subclass feature (for example, SCAGtrip + War Magic), please call it out.

(This is another case of your complaint, I think: the Monk features prevent adding power from other places. The big 2 melee feats are off the table, and the ranged feats don't fit except on Kensei, and no better there than on a Fighter.)

[Deathtongue]

All legitimate points, but I do have a question about hordes of mooks: what martial *does* deal well with them without an AoE? If anything, having the ability to Flurry seems like an advantage there vs having only 2 attacks.Basically, classes that can spike their defenses for one or more rounds if necessary. So in T1/T2, that would be: Barbarians, Eldritch Knights, Paladins (especially but not solely when Protection from Evil and Good applies), Hexblades, and Bladesingers.

Monks do get bonus action dodge, but their AC isn't all that hot even if they use Patient Defense. And if they do use bonus action dodge, their offense goes down the drain.


Also, for my education: are there martials in tier 2 that deal a lot more than a Monk without investing in PAM/GWM or XBE/SS?Oh, definitely. Those things you just mentioned are just the cherry on top, the things you use to leave monks in the dust if/when magical items drop. For example: a T2 Sword-and-Board Eldritch Knight who wants to spike their offense can just roll Shadow Blade, especially if they dipped into a full-caster class like Bladesinger or Warmage.

Regardless, you can invest in those things, and unlike magical-free campaigns (which are rare IMX, but do exist) I have only seen a tiny smidgeon of games that don't allow the PHB feats. So... why are we talking about options beyond those builds? Just to make the monk look better?

[MaxWilson]

I think you guys are way overrating the monk's usefulness. They're hobbled by a number of common shortcomings that don't show up in Monk Stories or theorycrafting. And while all might not apply to a particular table, a lot of them do apply.

1.) What I think is the biggest weakness of Monks are how they're extremely dependent on frequent short rests to function, especially in T1 and early T2. A monk trying to budget six ki points across two encounters, let alone three encounters, is a pretty daunting task. So you Flurry of Blows'd and threw on some Stunning Strike action for three of the hits. Great! What are you doing for the next seven rounds until your next short rest. If they don't get their frequent short rests, their performance tanks. Warlocks and bards have ways to patch up this weakness, (A) monks have no recourse.

2.) (B) Monks have a big problem with bonus-action clog. The methods that other martials use to patch up holes in their offense or defense (Hex/Hunter's Mark, Hexblade's Curse, Polearm Master, Rage, Bladesong) just isn't very helpful to monks. Which goes along with the next weakness:

3.) (C) Monks are MAD for stats that don't help them patch of their weakness with multiclassing. Unless you're rolling for stats, where are you supposed to get a 13 STR to tag in Barbarian or a 13 CHA to tag in (Hexblade) Warlock or a 13 INT to tag in (Bladesinger) Wizard?

4.) (D) Monks benefit relatively more from games that don't drop magical items -- which describes a minority of home games. Yes, I'm aware that CharOp uses a 'Fox Only, No Items, Final Destination' setup to game balance, but that setup elides just how much worse monks are off when they don't get them. They already have a problem with bonus action clog and can't benefit from the really good magical items aside from Bracers of Armor, Insignia Claws, and Belt of Giant Whatevers (which benefit the GWM-users more than the monks).

5.) (E) Monks are also screwed over by certain encounter setups. They can't do well against hordes of low-CR monsters or a squadron of medium-strength monsters compared to other martials. How exactly is a monk supposed to contribute in the latter half of Storm King's Thunder when you're fighting against bulky hill giants and frost giants, let alone really nasty monsters like fire giants?

IOW:

(A) I feel that the monk recourse here is to make sure you have entertaining things to do without spending ki. For a Shadow Monk, maybe you just have fun teleporting around to kite monsters in the dark, or maybe you play a Goblin so that you can exploit Nimble Escape, or maybe you play an Alert human so that once you have Darkness up you become a tank (2 ki per fight, no further bonus actions needed). Maybe you play a human with Prodigy (Athletics) so you can leverage your Extra Attack into a grapple/prone routine, or shoving. Maybe you take Magic Initiative for Booming Blade and Find Familiar. I acknowledge the constraint but think it's unfair to suggest that a monk has "no recourse." I've had fun with a Defensive Duelist + Prodigy Athletics Elemonk--almost the polar opposite of a typical skirmishy monk, he was basically a sumo wrestler modeled on Wong from Dr. Strange. Sticky and tanky even when not burning ki: e.g. grapple/prone/bonus action elbow smash. (Naturally sometimes the grapple or prone fails, but that's not different from a weapon attack.)

(B) Well, sort of. You don't have to use your bonus action on Martial Arts. If you want a DPR-focused monk, Kensai is okay. Fighter has better DPR but Fighter is like the Punisher: all damage, all the time. Kensai is more like a John Wick action star. If your idea of a good fight is for the action hero to parkour over a wall and shoot a few crossbow bolts, disarming the enemy, then the enemy kicks the crossbow out of his hand too, and they wind up punching each other bloody before action hero regains his crossbow and shoots the enemy in the forehead before jumping off a cliff and landing unharmed, well, that's more of a Kensai than a Fighter.

(C) Good insight, I agree. (This is one of the hidden strengths of the Kensai incidentally: Fighter 1 for Archery is very beneficial for them but doesn't add to their MADness. I can't think of any other good Monk multiclasses that don't add to MADness, except Shadow Monk/Rogue which is obsolete now that Goblin Shadow Monk is a thing.)

(D) I guess I'll take your word for it, arguendo.

(E) Hordes of low-CR mooks? This is where the Tier 3+ Elemonk shines, but I've also seen Shadow Monks do well in this scenario too from Tier 2, especially during a recon-in-force. E.g. Taking out 7 hobgoblins at level 7 solo, with minimal damage to the monk and minimal ki expenditure, is more than I'd expect a Paladin to be able to do. Frost giant/fire giant team-up sounds like a good monk scenario too, frankly. Not sure why you'd say otherwise. Keeping one giant stunned basically cuts the encounter difficulty in half (yes, yes, modulo opportunity cost--point is that it's still good).

[Asisreo1]

It's also worthwhile to notice that by CR5 and onwards, monsters get a strong boost to CON saves (+4 is common). Most monks won't start by leveling WIS (at least I've never seen anyone advocating for WIS first) so they will need at least 2 Ki per turn to have a better than average chance to stun an enemy.

I don't see the monk being able to stun more than 2 times per short rest on average against any relevant target at late t1/early t2. Streaks are always fun, but they are the exception to the rule. Nor I see the chances getting better with the ever increasing CON stats. The only thing increasing is Ki points to throw on the target. I think it's a big problem if you have similar performance with a pool of 10 Ki as you did back when you had 5. I'm in the process of making an analysis of Ki expenditure on a Level against CR curve. Thankfully, people have already aggregated the data for me and all I have to do is to make the chart :D .

In the same level range (late t1, early t2), WIS tends to be lower (+1 or +2) and since we are comparing them to Paladin, wrathful smite has a better than average chance to stick. Also Paladins are more likely to raise CHA first, especially if they go Hexblade 1 or Conquest, both very common builds.
This is probably the biggest misconception about the monk's playstyle.

Many assume that you're married to stunning strike, but you're not. The faster you detach yourself from an only stunning strike gameplay, the better your monk will play.

There are a few monsters with high Con, but they're also fairly obvious. Creatures like Giants, Dragons, Fiends, etc. However, alot of monstrosities like Behirs and Beholders actually have fairly low constitution. Genies, wyverns, vampires, and yuguloths are strong creatures with very basic if not subpar constitution and I can imagine a monk could keep them stunned even a couple levels above their CR belt.

What's more important is how you use your other abilities granted to you via subclasses.

Ohand is the most notable with elemonk coming in a close second. Ohand can force other saves besides just con saves. Most notably, Dex saves which very rarely mix. Going against a Giant? Instead of throwing a stunning strike, why not throw out a Flurry and knock them prone?

Same for the elemonk, although now you can do so at a distance. Why not water whip them?

The shadow monk thrives by forcing even playing fields while being able to run as they like. Cast darkness, attack as you wish, then pull out without needing to disengage. This also forces the enemy into a disadvantage state for all outgoing attacks, too, making it a good spell to either control movement or mitigate damage depending on its usage.

The point is that your best choices in combat ebb and flow, and a monk can't be so dead-set to one option that they jeopardize their victory when they could have guaranteed it with a different move.

If you're certain you're in a situation where burning ki on StunStrike will hurt you more than help, conserve your ki for a different option. Maybe you'll face an enemy later in the day that won't be so hardy or just keep using your Ki for good damage spikes or your other useful abilities.

[Evaar]

We had a Monk join our campaign late. We're in tier 3.

I guess I should say two monks, because his first one died running into a group of hobgoblins. I guess he thought he could handle it, since they were just hobgoblins and we're at high level, but he overextended from the rest of the team and left himself exposed. So he died and was replaced by another monk, same player.

This monk hasn't made the mistake of charging into a group of enemies, but instead he spends a lot of time hiding in the back plinking away with a longbow. His damage is not really significant.

A lot of this is on the player, who seems to be new, even though we're pretty high level. But the class has really done nothing to help him out or give him an indication of what it is he should be doing.

I do wish he would've just landed on Paladin, because at a minimum we could make use of his aura for saves. And he'd have the better armor and hit points to survive that urge to rush in. I'm actually swapping to another melee character who's very reliant on Concentration, so having that around would be super helpful.

[MaxWilson]

We had a Monk join our campaign late. We're in tier 3.

I guess I should say two monks, because his first one died running into a group of hobgoblins. I guess he thought he could handle it, since they were just hobgoblins and we're at high level, but he overextended from the rest of the team and left himself exposed. So he died and was replaced by another monk, same player.

This monk hasn't made the mistake of charging into a group of enemies, but instead he spends a lot of time hiding in the back plinking away with a longbow. His damage is not really significant.

A lot of this is on the player, who seems to be new, even though we're pretty high level. But the class has really done nothing to help him out or give him an indication of what it is he should be doing.

I do wish he would've just landed on Paladin, because at a minimum we could make use of his aura for saves. And he'd have the better armor and hit points to survive that urge to rush in. I'm actually swapping to another melee character who's very reliant on Concentration, so having that around would be super helpful.

What kind of monk is he? Is it too late to switch to Elemonk? Spewing 2-5 Fireballs per short rest is pretty simple to get the hang of, especially when you've got Evasion too. Then he can experiment with variations like running on ahead to try to make monsters attack him (possibly using Patient Defense + Attack to look like more of a threat while still being tanky, and catching missile hits via Deflect Missiles so they have to close to melee range), then Fireballing his own position on round 2 or 3.

Monks are hard to play in a maximally-cunning way but I feel like the Tier 3+ Elemonk is simpler than most.

[x3n0n]

Basically, classes that can spike their defenses for one or more rounds if necessary. So in T1/T2, that would be: Barbarians, Eldritch Knights, Paladins (especially but not solely when Protection from Evil and Good applies), Hexblades, and Bladesingers.

Monks do get bonus action dodge, but their AC isn't all that hot even if they use Patient Defense. And if they do use bonus action dodge, their offense goes down the drain.

Oh, definitely. Those things you just mentioned are just the cherry on top, the things you use to leave monks in the dust if/when magical items drop. For example: a T2 Sword-and-Board Eldritch Knight who wants to spike their offense can just roll Shadow Blade, especially if they dipped into a full-caster class like Bladesinger or Warmage.

Regardless, you can invest in those things, and unlike magical-free campaigns (which are rare IMX, but do exist) I have only seen a tiny smidgeon of games that don't allow the PHB feats. So... why are we talking about options beyond those builds? Just to make the monk look better?

I was honestly asking, so thank you. I was misinterpreting the first point about having multiple enemies that can't be eliminated in one round. My natural inclination as a Monk player is to strike and retreat, using a Mobile-like feature. Admittedly, that does not serve the same purpose as staying in melee and surviving the attacks like your examples. As you said, the Monk can do it by using PD at the cost of ki and the least powerful of his 3 attacks, but that's a real cost.

I'm still not sure about the damage "baseline" examples. I see S&B and think 2 d8 attacks +dueling with 18ish AC, vs 2 d8 attacks + a d6 bonus attack with 18 AC, and it doesn't sound that far off. Of course, once you add a bonus attack or -5/+10 or something like Shadow Blade or a magic weapon, then the Monk falls behind.

In my mind, this is all coming back to the other martials being able to use out-of-class features to improve their performance, and the Monk can't because everything is built into the class, but not at the highest power level: no armor, not much loot, no damage feats, no concentration spells to boost damage.

I do think that some of the combat comparisons get better if you take Kensei and live in a world with few magical weapons, but as you said, most game worlds seem to be awash in them.

[Evaar]

What kind of monk is he? Is it too late to switch to Elemonk? Spewing 2-5 Fireballs per short rest is pretty simple to get the hang of, especially when you've got Evasion too. Then he can experiment with variations like running on ahead to try to make monsters attack him (possibly using Patient Defense + Attack to look like more of a threat while still being tanky, and catching missile hits via Deflect Missiles so they have to close to melee range), then Fireballing his own position on round 2 or 3.

Monks are hard to play in a maximally-cunning way but I feel like the Tier 3+ Elemonk is simpler than most.

I believe the first one was an Elemonk. He didn't make it far, as noted.

This one is an Open Hand, I believe.

[MaxWilson]

I believe the first one was an Elemonk. He didn't make it far, as noted.

This one is an Open Hand, I believe.

He didn't Fireball the hobgoblins that were about to kill him? What a waste of a perfect situation! :(

[MrStabby]

Monks are awesome sometimes... but it is really, really campaign dependant.

If you were to find yourself playing in one of my campaigns a monk would be likely to be a very strong class:

1) I use a LOT of casters. Being able to disrupt is often as good as kill in a lot of situations. The modest damage matters less when HP are correspondingly low. Massive Con saves tend to not be too much of an issue.

2) I vary fights a lot. As in there are very different things withing a broad theme. The ability to pick and get to a priority target is really valuable. Also this tends to mean there are some, but not many archers in a lot of fights. The monk can quite enjoy this.

3) I tend to give out magic weapons late. Rest assured you will be getting value out of your fists counting as magical

4) I tend to load up on terrain and have enemies use obstructions. Being able to run up walls is a big deal.

5) Enemies will try and ambush the party or attack at night. A good wisdom score is very, very nice to have in my campaigns

6) I let players take short rests per day when and where they want to. It helps let short rest classes take control over their resources

7) Enemies will try a fighting disengagement - either high speed or ranged attacks are a big deal

Even with all this in mind I would say paladins are more powerful. They just get more stuff. So much more stuff. Its like if the monk had each Ki ability use their own resource so you could do everything without chosing between them. And they had ki abilities that covered most roles in the game.

So yeah, I would rank the monk above most fighters, all barbarians, all rangers, all rogues (though this is a bit DM dependant as well)... but not above the paladin.

In other campaigns where half the enemies are nothing more than a big sack of HP and attacks that take the attack/multiattack action each turn then the monk drops down the list a bit. In a game where most combat happens inside rooms with minimal furniture and no line of sight beyond about 60ft then the monk will suffer. If the DM hands out magic weapons like halloween candy to anyone that wants them by level 6 then yeah, one of your important abilities will be invalidated. Monks are awesome,but they need the DM to allow them to be awesome.


My (often repeated) theory is that people underestimate the monk as they never see what didn't happen. If you know you counter a fireball... you can imagine what you stopped. If you stun the wizard so they don't cast anything you don't get a feel for the impact you had. Oh, and people obsess over damage at the expense of other things. Oh yes and when people look at damage they tend to look at it per round but without factoring the number of rounds they actually get to do the damage (initiative and getting in range being significant, as well as ability to pass saves on spells like hold person and hypnotic pattern)

[MaxWilson]

My (often repeated) theory is that people underestimate the monk as they never see what didn't happen. If you know you counter a fireball... you can imagine what you stopped. If you stun the wizard so they don't cast anything you don't get a feel for the impact you had.

There's an interesting thought. What if you (as DM) roleplayed Stun a little bit differently?

"The enemy wizard, with tears of shock and pain streaming from his eyes, casts Psychic Screa--no, wait, he doesn't. Instead he vomits all over himself. He's still stunned by Data's Pincers of Power (a.k.a. Stunning Strike). End of turn."

[Frogreaver]

Monk Advantages vs typical paladin:

Ranged Combat
Stealth and Perception
Scouting
Ambushing
Control
Mobility
Effective at breaking concentration
Very Strong vs Dex saves


All a monk needs to be competitive with a Paladin is to find times when such abilities and combinations of these abilities matters.

[Edea]

The thing about Paladins is that they shine brightest when the feces are already hitting the fan. This leaves a very strong impression on people who see them in action, and frankly they're easy-to-use.

Monks are much better at trying to stop the feces-fanning from happening in the first place, but doing so is far less glamorous (and more tactically challenging), so they tend to be seen as ineffective.

I feel the monk's main problem is that short rests are BADLY handled in 5e. I'd like to test just having their Ki replenish whenever the DM calls for initiative (or after five minutes pass, a la 4e), see if they're over-the-top OP when you incorporate that change or if it even 'fixes' anything about them RE:perceived problems.

[MrStabby]

There's an interesting thought. What if you (as DM) roleplayed Stun a little bit differently?

"The enemy wizard, with tears of shock and pain streaming from his eyes, casts Psychic Screa--no, wait, he doesn't. Instead he vomits all over himself. He's still stunned by Data's Pincers of Power (a.k.a. Stunning Strike). End of turn."

That sounds very cool actually. With a little metagaming and some understanding of the likely course of a fight you can even just make it their action fails. They cast a spell and it does nothing but the spell slotis wasted (metagaming being casting a lower level spell then, and the understanding of the fight means you can do it when there is no likely difference that taht missing spell slot would make to the outcome). I can see that making monks feel a lot cooler.

I might have to steal that.




The thing about Paladins is that they shine brightest when the feces are already hitting the fan. This leaves a very strong impression on people who see them in action, and frankly they're easy-to-use.

Monks are much better at trying to stop the feces-fanning from happening in the first place, but doing so is far less glamorous (and more tactically challenging), so they tend to be seen as ineffective.

I feel the monk's main problem is that short rests are BADLY handled in 5e. I'd like to test just having their Ki replenish whenever the DM calls for initiative (or after five minutes pass, a la 4e), see if they're over-the-top OP when you incorporate that change or if it even 'fixes' anything about them RE:perceived problems.

I think paladins are as challenging as monks to get the most out of, just when you play them badly they end up still being awesome whereas if you play a monk badly it ends up being dead.

With a paladin you have to juggle more resources. When to use channel divinity, when to use lay on hands, what spells to prepare for the upcoming day? How many spell to use on divinations to understand what to prepare? Will there be bigger fights sooner or later so what should my resource usage profile look like? With monks it maters where you stand - who can reach you as you are not that tanky. With a paladin it isn't more important per se, but itis more specific - blocking access to your more delicate party members, getting your aura in the most useful place, closing in on the priority targets. A monk is fast enough to fix most positioning errors with their next movement.

[shipiaozi]

1. Most players don't build monk correctly, monk should multiclass into warrior and hexblade, use armor+ staff of power

2. Monk have Stunning Strike, by far the best control method in 5E

3. One archetype of monk have the best surival ability in lv11, make monk the best non-caster class in battle with high difficulty

[noob]

1. Most players don't build monk correctly, monk should multiclass into warrior and hexblade, use armor+ staff of power

2. Monk have Stunning Strike, by far the best control method in 5E

3. One archetype of monk have the best surival ability in lv11, make monk the best non-caster class in battle with high difficulty

There is no notion of should multiclass: multiclassing is an optional rule and the gm picks if it is allowed or not.
Classes should work great without multiclassing due to it being optional.
Stunning strike is great but suffers from three limitations
1: The range is short so if you face overwhelming encounters each day(ex: 4 titans) you expose yourself and one day you will get unlucky with your stuns and get walloped by titans.
2: It is a constitution saving throw meaning that a lot of big monsters are very tough against it and some gms loves them a lot.(it is like ooze, hydra, golem, bigger ooze, giant plant monster, a team of nova damage inflicting wizards sometimes instead in which case you are finally happy to have it but you had 4 encounters where it was a waste of ki points)
3: You can stun only one target at once per hit. (so you stun like 6 targets in one turn at most and it costs 6 ki for stunning 6 targets)

So not the best form of control: for it to be the best you would need extra options. (like how a wizard or bard have multiple control options due to having multiple control spells)

About the staff of power yes you are happy if you get it and can multiclass but otherwise it is not because multiclassing is an optional rule the gm gets to pick or not.

What is great about a monk is that due to being dexterity based it gets a good initiative but even then they do get not the greatest initiative.

[MeimuHakurei]

Monks aren't even any good with multiclassing - it doesn't provide any synergy if you multiclass into it and it doesn't gain anything extra if it dips into anything. Any improvements a multiclass makes are by swapping out the Monk's crap features with better ones where the Monk itself doesn't provide anything. But if you want to market the monk as a mobile skirmisher, you should compare it to other classes that perform a comparable role:

-Gloomstalker Rangers
-any kind of Rogue (particularly Arcane Trickster)
-any kind of Warlock (particularly Hexblade)

Gloomstalkers have a passive, nonmagical invisibility, a devastating fight opener, can more conveniently pick out targets via having powerful ranged options (It's very much competitive with a Fighter) and its spells offer a decent battlefield control, even if not as strong as a full caster.

Rogues get a free version of something the Monk has to spend resources on and is not reliant on its bonus action for damage, meaning they can use Cunning Action more liberally. Additionally, the spells of the Arcane Trickster cover a few holes (control, utility and something survivability) the Rogue would usually have.

Hexblade Warlock gets an incredibly potent at-will damage option that can be augmented to a decent control option, proficiencies to armor up, short rest control/utility options far more potent and versatile than the monk and whatever else they want out of their invocations.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monks are much better at trying to stop the feces-fanning from happening in the first place, but doing so is far less glamorous (and more tactically challenging), so they tend to be seen as ineffective. If I put this into LoL MOBA terms; Monks are a more high skill quotient character than paladin. It requires a bit more player skill to play a Monk well.

[Valmark]

Monks aren't even any good with multiclassing - it doesn't provide any synergy if you multiclass into it and it doesn't gain anything extra if it dips into anything. Any improvements a multiclass makes are by swapping out the Monk's crap features with better ones where the Monk itself doesn't provide anything.

That's untrue- without thinking about it, a single level in monk can get a druid (preferably Moon) Wisdom to AC not only giving them the best AC they can have without a DM giving them a wooden half-plate (and if they have 16+ Dex even the half-plate is beaten) but also Wisdom to the animal form's AC (or elemental).

For a Moon that is a pretty good dip, and still worthwhile for any other druid.

I am assuming a druid that maxes their Wisdom.

[Amnestic]

1. Most players don't build monk correctly, monk should multiclass into warrior and hexblade, use armor+ staff of power


If you need to multiclass*, use armour** and get a staff of power*** to "build it correctly" then that's poorly designed a class. Full stop.

*a variant rule
**which is directly against a monk's themes and features.
***which is a Very Rare magic item and requires multiclassing into sorc/wiz/warlock, making you even more MAD then monks already are.


That's untrue- without thinking about it, a single level in monk can get a druid (preferably Moon) Wisdom to AC not only giving them the best AC they can have without a DM giving them a wooden half-plate (and if they have 16+ Dex even the half-plate is beaten) but also Wisdom to the animal form's AC (or elemental).

For a Moon that is a pretty good dip, and still worthwhile for any other druid.

I am assuming a druid that maxes their Wisdom.

Monk armour can't be used with shields. You'd need a +5 wis and +4 dex modifier to match the medium armour+shield AC as a druid (15+2+2), and that's not counting any +1 armour or shields that they might pick up very reasonably around tier 2.

[Eldariel]

It sounds like some poor tactical decisions were made there. The monk in particular was built to be squishy and slow (AC 15 halfling), and then chose to stay in melee with eight attackers(!) anyway? And it was an Elemonk, but they didn't AoE with Burning Hands or Thunderwave, so might as well not have even been an Elemonk. Should have either engaged the Babau together with the paladin or used an anti-mob AoE against the mob, but choosing to melee the mob was a waste.

And yeah, Babaus are vicious spellcasters despite being only CR 4, so overall I'm not surprised the party did poorly overall, but it also sounds like the monk's and wizards' tactics were not the best.

That fight was just botched up overall, but it also came down to especially the frontline simply lacking resources for the fight. Most of the problems were also due to "scouting failures" (though I don't know if we could've really succeeded in that case) and especially the enemy sequencing. We were initially unaware of the Babau and the cultists. The cultists had a den (basically a cave) and while the group was exploring inside, two possessed scouts (whom we were looking for) attacked the Wizard/Pally team on guard outside (there was also party discord; the Monk's character hook was exploring the unknown nooks of the world and this cave and the altar in front of it was basically exactly that so the Monk 100% wanted to explore while the other Wizard and Pally were not at all interested). Since they were the people whose defection we were supposed to study, I got outside and Suggested one to essentially answer any questions we asked him for his patrons.

Then we took down the other Scout and inside, the Monk + Ranger team found the cultists, and quickly dispatched the two they saw but with more coming they had to retreat to the mouth of the cave. Now, Wizards + Pally dealt with the Scouts and the Monk/Ranger team stood just outside the exit of the cave to cut down the (individually feeble) cultists as they came out. But it was at this point that the Babau showed up and of course we had no idea how tough it was; just that it was a demon needing Smiting. So the other Wizard cast Fog Cloud while my Wizard maintained Concentration on the Suggestion and the Babau Heat Metal'd the Paladin forcing us to focus on just damaging it to make it drop Concentration while we interrogated the Suggested Scout in lieu of the battle.

Then we used the Fog Cloud to avoid its nastier spells but basically this tied down the Wizards' Concentration and the Paladin (had I known how hard it was and that the Babau didn't have Magic Resistance, I would've simply given up my Concentration and burnt my second Suggestion on it) and it engaged us martially. At this point the cultists, who were far more numerous than we'd imagined, poured out from the cave (the Ranger and the Monk tried to take them down on the door but simply ran out of OAs and were unable to stem the tide) alongside the acolyte and the cult leader. And of course, with a horde of slow-to-kill cultists between them, the Monk couldn't reach the priority targets and had to focus on cutting down the Monks and the Ranger picked melee too; but poor attack rolls meant they missed a couple of rounds in a row. I dropped my last 1st level spell in Sleep there but that only delayed the inevitable. They were able to down the Acolyte and most of the Cultists but the Ranger was never able to disengage and we didn't really have anyone else to take on the cultists anyways since most of our spell slots were spent and my Wizard was specifically built with no damage spells (it was a character trait) while the other Wizard basically only focused on single target damage (again, a character trait).

At that point I had to leave the game and let others play it through and they never used my Suggestion and the Babau simply ended up out-enduring the party with the Pally and the Monk falling first (the Pally's vow involved never leaving a demon alive so retreat was not an option and the other Wizard was his brother, which curtailed any disengage attempts) and then the Ranger. Ultimately the Wizards did manage to escape (I don't know how, I wasn't there at the time) but the fight was lost and much of it could've been avoided had the enemies not dropped in slowly; that gave us terrible positioning and disastrous tactics and switching roles would've cost us a whole full turn's worth of two characters' actions, which was deemed too steep a price in a situation where we just need to kill a crapton of small fodder. It was simply a marathon trading of at-wills with most resources just not having enough impact.

Like I mentioned, the elemonk just didn't have Ki to use their abilities in that fight: he was down to 1 ki point when it started (and the big ticket enemies would've resisted his biggest attacks anyways). But suboptimal too, probably yes.


Monks are strikers, like melee Rogues. Monks aren't frontliners, and they're not designed to stand toe-to-toe with the bad guys and slug it out, trading Attacks back and forth*.

(*Some Monks can quasi-tank and stick on the front lines for a time, like Kenseis with their boosted AC, or Long Death Monks with their Temp HP boosts, especially if they make tactical use of the Ki Dodge bonus action. If you want to play a tanky monk, the extra CON and HP of the Hill Dwarf race helps with this, bringing their HP in line with frontliner classes.)

Traditionally, Monks are designed to move it to melee range, get off some damage/effects, then move away.

It's only when they're faced with situations where they can't use their superior mobility to make an end-run around the melee enemies to get to the casters/archers, or when they don't yet have Stun or the Stuns aren't successful, and they don't have another way to mitigate enemy OAs, that this starts to break down a bit. They end up stuck having to either suck up an OA as they retreat from that melee enemy they just struck, or rely on Disengage. And unlike the Rogue, most Monks don't get Disengage for "free" each round. They have to spend extra Ki to enable the Disengage and also miss out on their Bonus Action Attack/Flurry of Blows, which severely cuts down on their number of attacks that round.

This is why the Mobility feat is almost a requirement for some Monks. Mobility solves the problem of those kind of situations, and allows them to take full advantage of their Highly Mobile Striker role, without fear of OAs or "wasting" Bonus Actions and Ki on Disengages.

Even then, Drunken Masters, Sun Souls, and Open Hands have other ways built into their subclasses to shore up this shortcoming, with Drunken Master's free Disengage with Flurry, Sun Soul's ranged attacks, and Open Hand's ability to shove or eliminate the enemy's reactions with Flurry. So Mobility is less necessary for those types of Monks, and they can still be effective without it, though it's still useful even for them.


Based on your story about the Ghostwise Halfling Four Elements Monk, it sounds like you've let a suboptimal Monk, with easily the worst subclass, and that was played even more suboptimally, color your opinion of all Monks overall. :smallwink:


To be fair, Eldariel did say that was his WORST monk experience. And he's smart enough not to generalize from one experience. I take that story as an illustration of how bad it can get, not the sole foundation of Eldariel's opinion.

Yes, there's a lot to that particular example and most of it is not on the Monk class but the part about the class I do want to complain about is that it's very resource intensive and poorly suited for heavy melee where there's no real backline (or the backline is simply unreachable due to 8 bodies in-between). The Babau was an exposed "backline" but with the party having no magic weapons, it was also a "backline" with over 160 EHP and 16 AC aside from against the Ranger who could've done a number on it (resistant to both, fire and mundane weapons which were what we had available).

In a brawl where you simply either do nothing or trade blows (which were in fact most of our encounters in that game; the first fight had a bunch of Goblins and a Bugbear and Worgs now that I think about it; the second had nothing but Bulezaus; and the third is what I described) a low level Monk just doesn't get to enjoy their stay. Kiting doesn't work if the rest of the party can't kite and if their best way to damage enemies is to fight in melee, they have to expose their comparatively squishy behind to do that, which just works poorly if there are lots of things looking to hit you in melee.

While there was a lot wrong with that Monk in particular, I have a hard time seeing any level 3 Monk with 1 ki point left shine in this particular type of scenario. Of course, the other victim of attrition was the Pally. The Wizards, thanks to their 5 slots and Arcane Recovery, still actually had a very decent amount of resources left (the War Wizard had burnt a couple of slots and the Diviner both Portents, wastefully I might add, and a bunch of 1st level slots) as did the Horizon Walker. The Pally though didn't really have much beyond their Fighting Style and basic attacks and same with the Monk. A class that has better at-will (e.g. Rogue) or a class that has more resources (Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer) would've likely served much better in the same role.

Of course, that's also one single scenario and campaign: it highlights a Monk's failings but it also didn't really do justice to their strengths (in part due to how the campaign was structured). Like I said, worst experience: I'm aware that other kinds of Monks and even Elemonks can shine even on low levels in the right kinds of scenarios (and when played well) but I do feel like the resource attrition and melee squishiness is a very real issue which is why I rate them poorly compared to most classes on Tier 1, which is where I feel like their advantages don't really make up for their disadvantages (though Shadow Monk is quite solid IME, though even one of those might've had trouble shining in this scenario).

[shipiaozi]

If you need to multiclass*, use armour** and get a staff of power*** to "build it correctly" then that's poorly designed a class. Full stop.

*a variant rule
**which is directly against a monk's themes and features.
***which is a Very Rare magic item and requires multiclassing into sorc/wiz/warlock, making you even more MAD then monks already are.



Monk armour can't be used with shields. You'd need a +5 wis and +4 dex modifier to match the medium armour+shield AC as a druid (15+2+2), and that's not counting any +1 armour or shields that they might pick up very reasonably around tier 2.

Monk's themes and features are weak under feat rule, stunning strike is almost the only thing that matter.
A lot of classes need multiclass, including wizard and sorcerer, they are fine.

[Valmark]

Monk armour can't be used with shields. You'd need a +5 wis and +4 dex modifier to match the medium armour+shield AC as a druid (15+2+2), and that's not counting any +1 armour or shields that they might pick up very reasonably around tier 2.

Forgot about shields. Yes, that makes it not so good for non-Moon druid (still, you can't count on tipically metal armor being found in a non-metal version) but still remains absolutely valid for Moons.

[shipiaozi]

Monks aren't even any good with multiclassing - it doesn't provide any synergy if you multiclass into it and it doesn't gain anything extra if it dips into anything. Any improvements a multiclass makes are by swapping out the Monk's crap features with better ones where the Monk itself doesn't provide anything. But if you want to market the monk as a mobile skirmisher, you should compare it to other classes that perform a comparable role:

-Gloomstalker Rangers
-any kind of Rogue (particularly Arcane Trickster)
-any kind of Warlock (particularly Hexblade)

Gloomstalkers have a passive, nonmagical invisibility, a devastating fight opener, can more conveniently pick out targets via having powerful ranged options (It's very much competitive with a Fighter) and its spells offer a decent battlefield control, even if not as strong as a full caster.

Rogues get a free version of something the Monk has to spend resources on and is not reliant on its bonus action for damage, meaning they can use Cunning Action more liberally. Additionally, the spells of the Arcane Trickster cover a few holes (control, utility and something survivability) the Rogue would usually have.

Hexblade Warlock gets an incredibly potent at-will damage option that can be augmented to a decent control option, proficiencies to armor up, short rest control/utility options far more potent and versatile than the monk and whatever else they want out of their invocations.

None could provide 10 stunning strike per short rest or the ability to absord tons of damage

[moonfly7]

Monk's themes and features are weak under feat rule, stunning strike is almost the only thing that matter.
A lot of classes need multiclass, including wizard and sorcerer, they are fine.
Not sure where your pulling this from friend. The most powerful characters I've ever had the pleasure of playing with, playing as, and running a game for, were monks.
I Had a monk in a game I DMed who basically accidentally made his AC really high at first, decided to make it his thing, and eventually we just tacked "The Invincible" on to his name after he was literally surrounded on all sides by enemies at one point, took the dodge bonus action, and not a single one could hit him.

I've had the joy of creating a character whose backstory intertwined with a monk who was easily the best fighting support a player could have. Man swayed through combat like a dancer and made a ton of dicey fights possible via well timed attacks and strafing runs.

I'm the same game I saw a player for the first time make 4 elements monk look useful and effective. She was the only reason we killed a werewolf in a surprise encounter, and covered the single target monk role as our other was a skirmisher. Both monks often outclassed me, the Barbarian, in damage dealing in a round, and I'm not bad as a tank or heavy hitter.

Lastly, my most effective character by far was a half insane hillbilly kinsei monk named Magichands Jimmy who would dash across the battlefield stabbing ankles and applying swift uppercut to the groin. This tiny greasy maniac dealt the death blow on a dragon, and most of the damage.

I have never played with a monk who I felt like only contributed to a fight because of a single feature. As multiple people noted the monk is a more tactically minded class, whereas classes like the Pally and barbarian are more wack in stab. It's possible that if you have problems seeing the monk as useful beyond its best attack upgrading feature that you just prefer the straight damage variety if class. Which is fine, I love wackin and stabbin, nothing wrong with not enjoying the monk play style. But it isn't dependant on just that class feature, and it definitley isn't weak or inferior to the paladin like others up thread have mentioned. They're just different.

[Gtdead]

If I put this into LoL MOBA terms; Monks are a more high skill quotient character than paladin. It requires a bit more player skill to play a Monk well.

Why? Because of kiting? Or there is some super difficult decision making to do in order to function at his peak?

These are for paladin. I will let you make a case for monk.

Needs metagame knowledge to function at peak, has to choose how to spend resources in combat. Smite is the only simple active ability to use, but it's very inefficient. The player needs to understand the game to know if he should use heroism or shield of faith for example or if smite is better than divine favor.
One of the most discussed classes (the other is wizard) as far as builds are concerned because it has great multiclassing potential and every subclass has a distinct specialization. Building a Vengeance as you would build an Ancient already weakens your character by a lot.
He has to trade his attack action for pretty much everything else he gets to do (except smite). Has opportunity costs to consider.
Long rest resources to manage, except the Channel Divinity.
Positional play is important to him and kiting is heavily discouraged by design. He needs to consider this in the build process.
Paladin can top several numerical contests (damage/survivability/mobility) by using the same build. It's solely up to the player to figure out how.

Skill cap in any RTS or RTS inspired game is defined by actions per minute and difficulty of said actions (skill shots for example). I think it's fair to define skill cap in DnD as options per turn and difficulty of choosing the right option.

I'm very interested to see why you think monk has a high skill cap. I don't want to list my reasons that he is abysmally low skill capped because it will look like an attack ^^

[Deathtongue]

(A) I feel that the monk recourse here is to make sure you have entertaining things to do without spending ki. For a Shadow Monk, maybe you just have fun teleporting around to kite monsters in the dark, or maybe you play a Goblin so that you can exploit Nimble Escape, or maybe you play an Alert human so that once you have Darkness up you become a tank (2 ki per fight, no further bonus actions needed). Maybe you play a human with Prodigy (Athletics) so you can leverage your Extra Attack into a grapple/prone routine, or shoving. Maybe you take Magic Initiative for Booming Blade and Find Familiar. I acknowledge the constraint but think it's unfair to suggest that a monk has "no recourse."The thing is, other classes have these options as well. Eldritch Knight can Fog Cloud + Darkness, so can a Hexblade and Bladesinger and a Ranger and Arcane Trickster. Most any these classes can also just snag Expertise some other route.


(B) Well, sort of. You don't have to use your bonus action on Martial Arts.
It's not just Martial Arts, though the problem shows up pretty early. Here are the list of things Monks have to spend their bonus action/action on, contributing to action clog:
All Monks: Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, Step of Wind, Martial Arts, Stillness of Mind, Empty Body.
Shadow Monk: All of the Shadow Arts spells, Shadow Step, Cloak of Shadows
4E Monks: A lot. Way too many of them. Most notably Water Whip.
Sun Soul: Radiant Sun Bolt, Searing Arc Strike, Searing Sunburst.
Kensei: Kensei's Shot, Sharpen the Blade
Drunken Master: None, thankfully.

But that's my point. Monks are already really greedy with their bonus actions and they have a devil of a time patching it up with multiclassing options. So you, a Bladesinger 2 / Kensei 12 with a DEX of 20 and a WIS of 18 was lucky enough to get a Flametongue shortsword and a Headband of Intellect. Imagine, having a 3d6+8 attack and an ongoing AC of 23, before Shield. Awesome, cool, it's now round four and you haven't made a Flurry of Blows or Martial Arts attack yet because your first three rounds were spend activating your Flametongue, going into Bladesong, and activating Sharpen the Blade.


(C) Good insight, I agree. (This is one of the hidden strengths of the Kensai incidentally: Fighter 1 for Archery is very beneficial for them but doesn't add to their MADness. I can't think of any other good Monk multiclasses that don't add to MADness, except Shadow Monk/Rogue which is obsolete now that Goblin Shadow Monk is a thing.)I don't think it's a strength of the Kensai, since the Kensei actively discourages you from using a weapon in order to use its features. You can't use Flurry of Blows with a magical weapon and if you want to use Kensei Parry -- which is the only good feature Kenseis get until L11 -- you can only take one weapon attack. If I got a badass magical item drop like a Flametongue or a Sunblade in T3, I'd be wishing I played a Bladesinger or a Sorceradin or a Fighter. Not a Kensei.


(E) Hordes of low-CR mooks? This is where the Tier 3+ Elemonk shines, but I've also seen Shadow Monks do well in this scenario too from Tier 2, especially during a recon-in-force.What do you mean, minimal ki point expenditure? Flames of the Phoenix requires 4 ki points to do 6d8 damage (average 28, save for half) damage, that's a third to a fourth of your ki points in one round! WYD for the other rounds?

Shadow Monks are especially problematic, because their spells (mostly Pass Without Trace) require a pre-combat expenditure you can't even make up with frequent short rests. I sure love playing a L8 Shadow Monk and only having 6 ki points to spend across five rounds of combat!


Frost giant/fire giant team-up sounds like a good monk scenario too, frankly. Not sure why you'd say otherwise. Keeping one giant stunned basically cuts the encounter difficulty in half (yes, yes, modulo opportunity cost--point is that it's still good).Assuming the monk's stunning strike actually goes through (and with the giant's high AC and CON saving throws, this is dicey) the monk doesn't do enough damage to chew through a giant's hit points with the resources they have. A L10 monk with 20 DEX / 16 WIS has a Stunning Fist DC of 14 and an attack bonus of +8. Unless you want to blow all of your ki points in one or two rounds, your odds of actually stunning a Stone Giant with a particular attack are 15% per attack -- or 50% in a round. That's great, you just blew half of your ki points in one round to have a 50% chance to stun one stone giant. And this is just a stone giant; it gets worse for the monk as the game goes on,

[Deathtongue]

I think it's fair to define skill cap in DnD as options per turn and difficulty of choosing the right option.

I'm very interested to see why you think monk has a high skill cap. I don't want to list my reasons that he is abysmally low skill capped because it will look like an attack ^^By that definition, monks have a very high skill cap. Monks tank in performance if they run out of ki points and are subject to bonus action clog, so to avoid those two outcomes monks have to:

A) Have a good feel for getting short rests and budgeting their ki points. A lot of non-powergamer monk players just burn through their ki points adding some Kensei extra damage spice to their attacks or going On Tilt with Stunning Strike, because they would rather be effective NOW rather than delay gratification and budget their points. Unfortunately, unlike Warlocks and Fighters, they don't have a fallback option and the design of a 5E D&D campaign makes it unclear how many short rests they should be getting. There's a reason when people tell monk stories, they never start with 'it was the third encounter of the day and I was running on empty'. Even though that's one of the most common cautionary tales of, say, a wizard not budgeting their spell slots.

B) You have to be aware enough of the metagame to know whether you'll hit a hard wall of bonus action clog. All of those options a Shadow Monk / Barbarian can do looks cool (Grapple a prone target! Rage! Teleport from shadows! AND Flurry? Nice!) until you do an action budget and realize you'd be better off playing something like a single-classed Open Palm monk.

[MrStabby]

By that definition, monks have a very high skill cap. Monks tank in performance if they run out of ki points and are subject to bonus action clog, so to avoid those two outcomes monks have to:

A) Have a good feel for getting short rests and budgeting their ki points. A lot of non-powergamer monk players just burn through their ki points adding some Kensei extra damage spice to their attacks or going On Tilt with Stunning Strike, because they would rather be effective NOW rather than delay gratification and budget their points. Unfortunately, unlike Warlocks and Fighters, they don't have a fallback option and the design of a 5E D&D campaign makes it unclear how many short rests they should be getting. There's a reason when people tell monk stories, they never start with 'it was the third encounter of the day and I was running on empty'. Even though that's one of the most common cautionary tales of, say, a wizard not budgeting their spell slots.

B) You have to be aware enough of the metagame to know whether you'll hit a hard wall of bonus action clog. All of those options a Shadow Monk / Barbarian can do looks cool (Grapple a prone target! Rage! Teleport from shadows! AND Flurry? Nice!) until you do an action budget and realize you'd be better off playing something like a single-classed Open Palm monk.

But is this any different to a paladin? A paladin can hit 10 or more different uses for their bonus action by 10th level, not even including anything they might have from a subclass. Is a monk actually going to feel their set of choices is harder to make?

[Deathtongue]

But is this any different to a paladin? A paladin can hit 10 or more different uses for their bonus action by 10th level, not even including anything they might have from a subclass. Is a monk actually going to feel their set of choices is harder to make?Yes. If a paladin doesn't have the bandwidth to use Polearm Master or Wrathful Smite because there are other demands on their bonus action for that round, their offense and defense can still remain respectable. A Battlemaster Fighter who couldn't activate Barbarian Rage because they wanted to activate their Sunblade first can still use Action Surge and Precision Attack to make their offense meaningful that first round.

Monks have low damage per hit and no easy way to raise that within their class without sacrificing bonus actions or ki points. Their default use for their bonus action (Flurry of Blows) already practically doubles their damage per round so if you're using something like Hexblade's Curse or Hunter's Mark to increase their damage, it takes them 2-3 rounds to catch up on damage.

[patchyman]

Monks are much better than Paladins at “Kung fu fighting”
(though Paladins can make up some of the difference by using smites)
Monks are also “fast as lightning”
(even compared to a Wood Elf Dex paladin build)
Also worth noting that to my knowledge, Paladins have never inspired a decent rap album.

[MrStabby]

Yes. If a paladin doesn't have the bandwidth to use Polearm Master or Wrathful Smite because there are other demands on their bonus action for that round, their offense and defense can still remain respectable. A Battlemaster Fighter who couldn't activate Barbarian Rage because they wanted to activate their Sunblade first can still use Action Surge and Precision Attack to make their offense meaningful that first round.

Monks have low damage per hit and no easy way to raise that within their class without sacrificing bonus actions or ki points. Their default use for their bonus action (Flurry of Blows) already practically doubles their damage per round so if you're using something like Hexblade's Curse or Hunter's Mark to increase their damage, it takes them 2-3 rounds to catch up on damage.

I think it is a mistake to think of combat purely as damage. If a Paladin doesn't spend a bonus action on it then their control becomes non-existant. Only looking at a bonus action for a damage boost is selling both classes short. This is especially true when comparing a class that will use their bonus action to add control to a class that will use it to add damage. If you do that then of course there is a difference.

And is flurry of blows really the monk default use of a bonus action? Generally I see people prefer to use their Ki on stunning strike and just use the martial arts option to conserve Ki. Flurry only adds 33% on that (and at low levels not even that).

[stoutstien]

I think it is a mistake to think of combat purely as damage. If a Paladin doesn't spend a bonus action on it then their control becomes non-existant. Only looking at a bonus action for a damage boost is selling both classes short. This is especially true when comparing a class that will use their bonus action to add control to a class that will use it to add damage. If you do that then of course there is a difference.

And is flurry of blows really the monk default use of a bonus action? Generally I see people prefer to use their Ki on stunning strike and just use the martial arts option to conserve Ki. Flurry only adds 33% on that (and at low levels not even that).

Depends om subclass. Open hand and drunken get a lot out of flurry.

I'm really looking forward to the new option for a ba attack whenever a monk spends ki. It's something I've added already but it's nice for officially they are adding options.

[x3n0n]

But is this any different to a paladin? A paladin can hit 10 or more different uses for their bonus action by 10th level, not even including anything they might have from a subclass. Is a monk actually going to feel their set of choices is harder to make?

It's not necessarily that it's that much harder IME, but that the penalty for getting it wrong feels much worse. Without ki, the base class and most of the subclasses don't give you much guidance as far as "what should I do now?" Resorting to ranged feels bad if you're not a Kensei or a longbow Elf, and staying in melee with small hit dice and no shield puts you at risk. (As mentioned a few times, Kensei can fake having a shield, and the Mobile and Defensive Duelist feats offer options, but they're not in the base class.)

By comparison, a tier 1/2 Paladin with no resources remaining feels a lot like a subclass-less Str Fighter, so at least you can stand around in melee and not die as quickly.

[Unoriginal]

Depends om subclass. Open hand and drunken get a lot out of flurry.

I'm really looking forward to the new option for a ba attack whenever a monk spends ki. It's something I've added already but it's nice for officially they are adding options.

Speaking of new options, did WotC say anything about the goodies Monks will get from the Tasha's?

[Deathtongue]

I think it is a mistake to think of combat purely as damage. If a Paladin doesn't spend a bonus action on it then their control becomes non-existant. Only looking at a bonus action for a damage boost is selling both classes short. This is especially true when comparing a class that will use their bonus action to add control to a class that will use it to add damage. If you do that then of course there is a difference.The reason why I focused on damage is because most martials can a snag bonus action option that isn't gated by some resource like spell slots or short rests. And of course Dead is the best status condition to inflict. But if we want to look at what a character can do with their actions/bonus actions BESIDES damage, monks still get left in the dust. What makes the monk look especially bad compared to a Paladin is that paladins don't have to choose between control and damage. Even if their Wrathful Strike / Ancient's Ensnaring Strike doesn't work, they can still do good-to-great damage for the round. Their choices aren't 'damage' or 'control', it's 'mega-damage' or 'damage AND control'.


And is flurry of blows really the monk default use of a bonus action? Generally I see people prefer to use their Ki on stunning strike and just use the martial arts option to conserve Ki. Flurry only adds 33% on that (and at low levels not even that).Dead is the best status condition and Stunning Strike is really dodgy, especially in T2/early T3 before you can devote WIS to bump up your DC. So, yes, Flurry of Blows or Martial Arts is the best default option, especially because monk damage is pretty awful without it. I sure love doing 2d6+12 damage in a round as a level 10 monk with a +1 shortsword because I had to use my ki points/bonus action on something else. You know, when a cleric with Spirit Guardians could be PASSIVELY doing 4d8 damage in a round to multiple enemies. Or a barely-optimized rogue could be doing 6d6+1d8+5 damage.

[x3n0n]

Speaking of new options, did WotC say anything about the goodies Monks will get from the Tasha's?

No details yet, but they've said than nearly all of the UA subclass concepts were retained, so I think we will get subclasses resembling Mercy and Astral Self.

Also, the Class Feature Variants UA was exceptionally popular, so some subset of those options will probably make it. (IIRC, Monk weapon selection, new ki uses, and bonus unarmed strike when spending ki on your action.)

The other interesting tidbit WRT Monk is that there will be class-affiliated magic items for all of the classes.

[Amnestic]

Speaking of new options, did WotC say anything about the goodies Monks will get from the Tasha's?

I hope they've buffed the class feature variants - Distant Eye and Quickened Healing as they are in the UA are...really not good at all.

[stoutstien]

Way off tangent but the tattoos alone will help address the discrepancy in high magic games for monks.

[RogueJK]

Depends om subclass. Open hand and drunken get a lot out of flurry.


As does any Monk with Mobility, when needing to move past multiple enemies in one turn. Toss one melee attack at each enemy, and it negates their ability to OA you as you pass. Great for escaping a mob, or squirting through the enemy's defensive line to get to the squishies at the rear. Plus, you're still contributing damage (or even Stuns if you want to spend the extra Ki), as opposed to simply using Disengage.

[MaxWilson]

I just want to note that in the Tactical Challenge #4 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620817-Tactical-Challenge-4), ongoing right now, if the party had a Shadow Monk instead of a Paladin the challenge would be completely straightforward. Drop Silence on the BBEG and then Stun her to disrupt the ritual.

It's still pretty straightforward anyway, but the paladin is basically irrelevant to all of the suggested solutions.

[elyktsorb]

I just want to note that in the Tactical Challenge #4 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620817-Tactical-Challenge-4), ongoing right now, if the party had a Shadow Monk instead of a Paladin the challenge would be completely straightforward. Drop Silence on the BBEG and then Stun her to disrupt the ritual.

It's still pretty straightforward anyway, but the paladin is basically irrelevant to all of the suggested solutions.

Well technically you don't need both of those. If the ritual required verbal components, silence immediately stops it and makes it so it would have to be started again. Likewise stunning the caster would also stop it without casting silence. So if you had a class that could do either of those you'd be game, which is a fair amount of classes besides Shadow Monk.

[Deathtongue]

As said earlier in the thread, Monks Are Good! Stories always seem to stick to the template (and honestly, more like a script) of them targeting some squishy backline BBEG with a very specific level of accessibility. That is not so accessible that a Barbarian/Fighter could zip to them and gank them after an Action Surge, but not SO inaccessible that only a Bladesinger with Investiture of Stone or Fly or True Seeing could get to them.

[MaxWilson]

Well technically you don't need both of those. If the ritual required verbal components, silence immediately stops it and makes it so it would have to be started again. Likewise stunning the caster would also stop it without casting silence. So if you had a class that could do either of those you'd be game, which is a fair amount of classes besides Shadow Monk.

The scenario doesn't say the ritual requires verbal components. Maybe it does, but a DM ruling from @da newt would be needed.

And yes, there have been other suggestions such as "have the cleric cast Silence and the druid wall the BBEG off behind a wall of stone, then kill all of the other monsters before readying actions to kill the BBEG when the wall drops" and "have the cleric use Calm Emotions to neuter any charm effects from the BBEG" and "spam conjured Vrocks and animals into the room while the PCs spam AoEs from outside the room." But I did notice that the Paladin isn't contributing to any of these suggested solutions, whereas the monk definitely would. (In particular, Silence from the monk could counter Dispel Magic from the BBEG which would otherwise counter Conjure Animals, and would do so without costing concentration from the cleric who can therefore concentrate on Calm Emotions or something instead.)


As said earlier in the thread, Monks Are Good! Stories always seem to stick to the template (and honestly, more like a script) of them targeting some squishy backline BBEG with a very specific level of accessibility. That is not so accessible that a Barbarian/Fighter could zip to them and gank them after an Action Surge, but not SO inaccessible that only a Bladesinger with Investiture of Stone or Fly or True Seeing could get to them.

Worth noting that the Barb and the Paladin could reach the BBEG with a round of Dashing, but would then be vulnerable to the Kiss (like vampire charm). They also don't have enough damage output to put the BBEG down in one round of Action Surging.

[Dork_Forge]

Well technically you don't need both of those. If the ritual required verbal components, silence immediately stops it and makes it so it would have to be started again. Likewise stunning the caster would also stop it without casting silence. So if you had a class that could do either of those you'd be game, which is a fair amount of classes besides Shadow Monk.

There really isn't a lot of options for stunned outside of Monk, the spells that inflict it are usually on the higher side and have all of the drawbacks of being spells.

[Deathtongue]

There really isn't a lot of options for stunned outside of Monk, the spells that inflict it are usually on the higher side and have all of the drawbacks of being spells.The problem for the monk is that the effects target CON. For example, say you're a L9 Monk with 20 DEX/16 WIS trying to take down a Frost Giant RIGHT NOW. With an Insignia of Claws, you have a +10 bonus to attack and a DC for Stunning Strike of 15. If you go BEAST MODE with Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike, you have a 25% chance of any individual hit landing a stun, with a 68% chance of sneaking through a stun if you spend 5 ki points. You've spent over half of your ki points to have a 70% chance taking down a Frost Giant out of the fight for one round. Not good.

Like I said, there's a reason why anyone telling a story about how instrumental a monk was vis-a-vis other classes in a situation will, without fail, have these three elements:

A) A very specific level of accessibility. '80 feet behind a backline' and similar phrases come up a lot.
B) Some squishy BBEG mastermind with questionable CON saves, like a Beholder or an Archmage.
C) The BBEG squishy mastermind is the highest threat of the encounter.

[MaxWilson]

The problem for the monk is that the effects target CON. For example, say you're a L9 Monk with 20 DEX/16 WIS trying to take down a Frost Giant RIGHT NOW. With an Insignia of Claws, you have a +10 bonus to attack and a DC for Stunning Strike of 15. If you go BEAST MODE with Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike, you have a 25% chance of any individual hit landing a stun, with a 68% chance of sneaking through a stun if you spend 5 ki points. You've spent over half of your ki points to have a 70% chance taking down a Frost Giant out of the fight for one round. Not good.

Just want to note that 68% chance of taking out the Frost Giant in one round is better than a Paladin would have, and I think better than a wizard would have. I don't know what is making it so imperative to take that giant out RIGHT NOW but the monk seems to be doing okay at it, despite it not being an ideal target.

Also FWIW I think your math is slightly off. With DC 15 vs. a Con save of +8, the chance of landing a Stunning Strike on a hit is 30%, not 25%. +10 to hit vs. AC 15 means an 80% hit rate, so 3.2 chances to stun per round, therefore 4.2 ki spent, not 5. If 5 ki is spent then that means you landed four hits, and in that case the chance of stun is (1.0 - 0.7^4) = 76%.

An Int 18 wizard casting Hold Monster would have DC 16 vs. Wis +3, giving him a 60% chance of success.

Why exactly is it necessary to take this monster out RIGHT NOW? Is somebody else paralyzed? Might be smarter for the monk to grab their body and run/teleport away with it, which guarantees success with minimal ki expenditure.


Like I said, there's a reason why anyone telling a story about how instrumental a monk was vis-a-vis other classes in a situation will, without fail, have these three elements:

A) A very specific level of accessibility. '80 feet behind a backline' and similar phrases come up a lot.
B) Some squishy BBEG mastermind with questionable CON saves, like a Beholder or an Archmage.
C) The BBEG squishy mastermind is the highest threat of the encounter.

That's not the ONLY scenario where monks are valuable, but it is certainly a common scenario in tropetastic D&D including WotC-written adventures, including the AL module which inspired @da newt's Tactical Challenge #4 thread. Note that it's also a good scenario for paladins, because if (C) isn't satisfied (if the threat comes from a small army of mid-CR brutes instead of a singular BBEG) then Divine Smite has very little to offer, and what is the paladin supposed to do then? Your 9th level party isn't fighting a BBEG in a nova fight, it's a Medium fight against 10 Quicklings: what's the paladin going to do?

Every class has things it's good at and things it's bad at. Not being strong at everything isn't a crime.

[Dork_Forge]

The problem for the monk is that the effects target CON. For example, say you're a L9 Monk with 20 DEX/16 WIS trying to take down a Frost Giant RIGHT NOW. With an Insignia of Claws, you have a +10 bonus to attack and a DC for Stunning Strike of 15. If you go BEAST MODE with Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike, you have a 25% chance of any individual hit landing a stun, with a 68% chance of sneaking through a stun if you spend 5 ki points. You've spent over half of your ki points to have a 70% chance taking down a Frost Giant out of the fight for one round. Not good.

Like I said, there's a reason why anyone telling a story about how instrumental a monk was vis-a-vis other classes in a situation will, without fail, have these three elements:

A) A very specific level of accessibility. '80 feet behind a backline' and similar phrases come up a lot.
B) Some squishy BBEG mastermind with questionable CON saves, like a Beholder or an Archmage.
C) The BBEG squishy mastermind is the highest threat of the encounter.

The most important thing about Stunning Strike to me is that it works like a Divine Smite, on the back of a successful hit with no need to declare it beforehand. So if you feel the need to go nova on an enemy, sure you may or may not succeed on the stun, but just by being able to try a stun, you have hit them and inflicted damage.

For the cost part, I'm not really seeing an issue, you described a nova situation and a Monk is a short rest class that functions just fine with zero Ki remaining, meanwhile long rest classes dumping into a nova are putting themselves at a much worse position.

Stunned is a great condition, it can be a gateway to automatically applying other conditions and leads to a much faster death of the afflicted. I really don't see why it's usefulness is restricted to the scenarios you mention, nevermind the usefulness of a Monk as a whole.

Side note: you mention an insignia of claws, but a Kensei Monk is better equipped for landing hits by creating a +3 Kensei weapon, it doesn't help your unarmed strikes, but if you're relying on the BA or Flurry then you're just spamming dice hoping for a high enough roll anyway regardless of item.

[x3n0n]

For the cost part, I'm not really seeing an issue, you described a nova situation and a Monk is a short rest class that functions just fine with zero Ki remaining, meanwhile long rest classes dumping into a nova are putting themselves at a much worse position.

I agree with most of your post, but the "function with zero ki" just came up, and it's not clear to me how well it does. (The exceptions being the Mobile and Defensive Duelist feats, the Kensei subclass, and native longbow users.)

Are there other things I'm not thinking of?

[Frozenstep]

A) A very specific level of accessibility. '80 feet behind a backline' and similar phrases come up a lot.
B) Some squishy BBEG mastermind with questionable CON saves, like a Beholder or an Archmage.
C) The BBEG squishy mastermind is the highest threat of the encounter.

I just wanna say, if you're gonna have a spellcaster as a BBEG (which is, you know, fair. An evil warlock or sorcerer BBEG is a popular trope), it kind of makes sense "80 feet behind a backline" would come up, because a lot of spells come with a max range equal or less then 120 feet.

[Dork_Forge]

I agree with most of your post, but the "function with zero ki" just came up, and it's not clear to me how well it does. (The exceptions being the Mobile and Defensive Duelist feats, the Kensei subclass, and native longbow users.)

Are there other things I'm not thinking of?

I was referring to the core Monk chassis when I said that, without Ki they can still make 3 attacks per turn and have a very high movement speed, that's functioning just fine to me, they're a fast martial that hits things a lot afterall.

If you're looking into subclasses that rely less on Ki, then the Kensei and the Sun Soul are the better choices.

A Monk being without Ki is more of a niche situation from 5th level onwards though, you'd have to be spamming abilities a lot to be frequently without them in anything but the tail end of an encounter.

Edit: please don't mod me, I typoed a word *facepalm*

[MaxWilson]

I agree with most of your post, but the "function with zero ki" just came up, and it's not clear to me how well it does. (The exceptions being the Mobile and Defensive Duelist feats, the Kensei subclass, and native longbow users.)

Are there other things I'm not thinking of?

Prodigy (Athletics) always synergizes well with Extra Attack, and monks don't suffer the usual grappling problem of not having enough hands. (I.e. they lose neither AC nor DPR while grappling.)

Long Death monks have an at-will AoE fear attack that doesn't cost ki.

Shortbows aren't that much worse than longbows.

[thinks] That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[Deathtongue]

Why exactly is it necessary to take this monster out RIGHT NOW?Because if you're not banking on killing/permanently taking out the monster right away, you now need to consider how rounds 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 go. If your L9 Monk has a 78% chance of stunning one of three Frost Giant the first round if they blow all of their ki points -- what are they doing the other combat rounds? Frost Giants have 120+ hit points and a decent AC, this theoretical monk does on a full flurry assortment 4d6+25 damage. By no means awful, but the combat isn't over yet. How are they spending the rest of their four ki points? What if, god forbid, they started combat with only the five ki points because they weren't able to get a short rest after the first encounter?


That's not the ONLY scenario where monks are valuable, but it is certainly a common scenario in tropetastic D&D including WotC-written adventures,I want to know of some other scenarios where monks are valuable, then, in a way that, say, Gloomstalker Rangers or Samurai Sharpshooters are not. Bonus points if it doesn't involve a BBEG Squishy Mastermind.

[Deathtongue]

Side note: you mention an insignia of claws, but a Kensei Monk is better equipped for landing hits by creating a +3 Kensei weapon, it doesn't help your unarmed strikes, but if you're relying on the BA or Flurry then you're just spamming dice hoping for a high enough roll anyway regardless of item.The monk already has enough problems with action clog.

[Dork_Forge]

The monk already has enough problems with action clog.

Action clog? It's a bonus action on a subclass that favours using weapons, losing a BA attack for a turn for a +3 weapon is hardly a problem.

[MaxWilson]

Because if you're not banking on killing/permanently taking out the monster right away, you now need to consider how rounds 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 go. If your L9 Monk has a 78% chance of stunning one of three Frost Giant the first round if they blow all of their ki points -- what are they doing the other combat rounds? Frost Giants have 120+ hit points and a decent AC, this theoretical monk does on a full flurry assortment 4d6+25 damage. By no means awful, but the combat isn't over yet. How are they spending the rest of their four ki points? What if, god forbid, they started combat with only the five ki points because they weren't able to get a short rest after the first encounter?

I want to know of some other scenarios where monks are valuable, then, in a way that, say, Gloomstalker Rangers or Samurai Sharpshooters are not. Bonus points if it doesn't involve a BBEG Squishy Mastermind.

So you've got a 9th level monk, presumably in a 9th level party, fighting 23,000 adjusted XP worth of Frost Giants. (2.5x Deadly encounter.) Monks can do okay in this situation, but there's nothing that puts it in the monk's wheelhouse. In my judgment the monk absolutely should not attempt to stun a Frost Giant NOWNOWNOW--that's poor tactics. It makes more sense for the monk to act as a decoy here: e.g. teleport/run behind the giants, shoot them with a bow a couple of times to annoy them, drop prone just beyond the range from which they could attack you in melee on their next turn. You're trying to tempt them to either throw rocks at you (disadvantage) or waste movement getting into melee range to smash you next turn.

There's relatively little to gain by nova'ing on these giants. Presumably the rest of your party can take care of themselves or you wouldn't be in a campaign where 2.5x Deadly fights are the norm.

[x3n0n]

Prodigy (Athletics) always synergizes well with Extra Attack, and monks don't suffer the usual grappling problem of not having enough hands. (I.e. they lose neither AC nor DPR while grappling.)

Long Death monks have an at-will AoE fear attack that doesn't cost ki.

Shortbows aren't that much worse than longbows.

[thinks] That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Thanks!


I was referring to the core Monk chassis when I said that, without Ki they can still make 3 attacks per turn and have a very high movement speed, that's functioning just fine to me, they're a fast martial that hits things a lot afterall.

I see, thanks. My impression has been that by early tier 2, Monks tend to be 1-4 AC behind other melee martials, with roughly 20% fewer HP, so "staying in melee without dodging" has always seemed overly risky.

My expectations may be miscalibrated by having played (non-Swashbuckler) Rogues, who are "doing it wrong" if their BA isn't protecting them and setting up their next Sneak Attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why? Because of kiting?
Because of thinking. :smallwink: @Deathtongue (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24762393&postcount=77)covered as much detail as necessary in one of the posts.

I don't think a monk can tank like a paladin, and I am now sitting here wondering if putting sentinel on a Monk would be a good use of a feat.

[Evaar]

He didn't Fireball the hobgoblins that were about to kill him? What a waste of a perfect situation! :(

They were holed up in a room under a permanent Anti-Magic Field effect. The DM ruled this meant all magical and magic-like effects are suppressed. Even the Hexblade would not be able to attack using Charisma if attacking while occupying a space in the room.

[MaxWilson]

They were holed up in a room under a permanent Anti-Magic Field effect. The DM ruled this meant all magical and magic-like effects are suppressed. Even the Hexblade would not be able to attack using Charisma if attacking while occupying a space in the room.

Oh, I guess it wasn't a perfect situation then. :)

[x3n0n]

I don't think a monk can tank like a paladin, and I am now sitting here wondering if putting sentinel on a Monk would be a good use of a feat.


FWIW, I had the same thought when I saw the latest version of the Cobalt Soul (different thread), which gets a Riposte-like reaction attack at lv3, and can get an extra reaction by paying ki starting at lv11.

All bad options remaining: "swing at you and miss: reaction attack", "swing at your neighbor: Sentinel attack", "walk away: OA with Sentinel rider". Dodge looks really good there.

[Frogreaver]

Because if you're not banking on killing/permanently taking out the monster right away, you now need to consider how rounds 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 go. If your L9 Monk has a 78% chance of stunning one of three Frost Giant the first round if they blow all of their ki points -- what are they doing the other combat rounds? Frost Giants have 120+ hit points and a decent AC, this theoretical monk does on a full flurry assortment 4d6+25 damage. By no means awful, but the combat isn't over yet. How are they spending the rest of their four ki points? What if, god forbid, they started combat with only the five ki points because they weren't able to get a short rest after the first encounter?

I want to know of some other scenarios where monks are valuable, then, in a way that, say, Gloomstalker Rangers or Samurai Sharpshooters are not. Bonus points if it doesn't involve a BBEG Squishy Mastermind.

It’s easy to cherry pick an encounter to highlight a character as being bad.

The monk In The frost giant fight will in the worst case deliver a basic fighter level of at will damage. Not great but not bad for no resource expenditure.

In the best case he may Be an open hands monk and spend a ki with a fairly decent chance of proning said giant and having allies that can take advantage of that.

Alternatively he may be a shadow monk and use pass without trace to grant the party a surprise round.

Is the paladin, fighter, barbarian, rogue actually doing more in this encounter?

[Unoriginal]

B) Some squishy BBEG mastermind with questionable CON saves, like a Beholder

180 HPs and +4 in CON is squishy?



I don't think a monk can tank like a paladin, and I am now sitting here wondering if putting sentinel on a Monk would be a good use of a feat.

Beau, the monk in the second season of Critical Role, has taken Sentinel at lvl 4 and has been awesome with it.

She also is the closest thing of a tank the team has.

[x3n0n]

Beau, the monk in the second season of Critical Role, has taken Sentinel at lvl 4 and has been awesome with it.

She also is the closest thing of a tank the team has.


Which totally makes sense, since she has the Cobalt Soul subclass from my previous spoiler. Yay reaction attacks!

[Unoriginal]

Which totally makes sense, since she has the Cobalt Soul subclass from my previous spoiler. Yay reaction attacks!

She actually never used the reaction attack thing, because before last week's revision how it worked was very different (both versions of it). Her player outright said that spending her reaction for Sentinel was too worthwhile to keep it to use the old Prenatural Counter feature, IIRC.

The only time in-game it could have been more useful than Sentinel was when they decided to do 1vs1 pitfighting, and she obliterated her opponent by dealing 120 damages in three rounds, with the opponent only getting the chance to act once.

[x3n0n]

She actually never used the reaction attack thing, because before last week's revision how it worked was very different (both versions of it). Her player outright said that spending her reaction for Sentinel was too worthwhile to keep it to use the old Prenatural Counter feature, IIRC.

Hopefully the new one works better, then. It sure looks like it has a lot of synergy with Sentinel.

[MaxWilson]

Because of thinking. :smallwink: @Deathtongue (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24762393&postcount=77)covered as much detail as necessary in one of the posts.

I don't think a monk can tank like a paladin, and I am now sitting here wondering if putting sentinel on a Monk would be a good use of a feat.

Mmmm. Monks already have a good opportunity attack after Stunning Strike comes online, and a lot of their defense comes from imposing disadvantage, which scales better with a higher AC--so my thinking is that if you've got a free feat and you want to tank instead of skirmish, Defensive Duelist is a better use for your reaction than Sentinel is.

I have found vhuman Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist monks to be quite fun and very different from the typical Mobile monk.

[Unoriginal]

Hopefully the new one works better, then. It sure looks like it has a lot of synergy with Sentinel.

Well the capacity to have 1 more reaction by spending 1 ki point is very powerful, so yeah, hopefully she gets to use it.



I Had a monk in a game I DMed who basically accidentally made his AC really high at first, decided to make it his thing, and eventually we just tacked "The Invincible" on to his name after he was literally surrounded on all sides by enemies at one point, took the dodge bonus action, and not a single one could hit him.

Sounds pretty awesome. What did they do to have a really high AC, though?

Like, for example, Beau which I mentioned above got AC 21 (the highest of the group) thanks to 20 DEX, 18 WIS and Bracers of Defense. Are we talking about something in that area?

[KorvinStarmast]

Beau, the monk in the second season of Critical Role, has taken Sentinel at lvl 4 and has been awesome with it. She also is the closest thing of a tank the team has. Nifty. I wonder if our old campaign with my wood elf monk will rise from the dead ...
... Defensive Duelist is a better use for your reaction than Sentinel is.

I have found vhuman Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist monks to be quite fun and very different from the typical Mobile monk. Man, so many good ideas, so little time ... :smallfrown:

[Foxhound438]

No details yet, but they've said than nearly all of the UA subclass concepts were retained, so I think we will get subclasses resembling Mercy and Astral Self.

Also, the Class Feature Variants UA was exceptionally popular, so some subset of those options will probably make it. (IIRC, Monk weapon selection, new ki uses, and bonus unarmed strike when spending ki on your action.)

The other interesting tidbit WRT Monk is that there will be class-affiliated magic items for all of the classes.

If they've spent an entire year on this content and my stand astral self still can't be a boat, I'm gonna be furious.

[Deathtongue]

So you've got a 9th level monk, presumably in a 9th level party, fighting 23,000 adjusted XP worth of Frost Giants. (2.5x Deadly encounter.) Monks can do okay in this situation, but there's nothing that puts it in the monk's wheelhouse. In my judgment the monk absolutely should not attempt to stun a Frost Giant NOWNOWNOW--that's poor tactics. It makes more sense for the monk to act as a decoy here: e.g. teleport/run behind the giants, shoot them with a bow a couple of times to annoy them, drop prone just beyond the range from which they could attack you in melee on their next turn. You're trying to tempt them to either throw rocks at you (disadvantage) or waste movement getting into melee range to smash you next turn.Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.


There's relatively little to gain by nova'ing on these giants. Presumably the rest of your party can take care of themselves or you wouldn't be in a campaign where 2.5x Deadly fights are the norm.What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

[Deathtongue]

Mmmm. Monks already have a good opportunity attack after Stunning Strike comes online, and a lot of their defense comes from imposing disadvantage, which scales better with a higher AC--so my thinking is that if you've got a free feat and you want to tank instead of skirmish, Defensive Duelist is a better use for your reaction than Sentinel is.

I have found vhuman Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist monks to be quite fun and very different from the typical Mobile monk.

Tanking? I disagreed with a lot of points in Treantmonk's video, but one thing he was dead-on about was monks assuming they had access to a lot of resources that they really didn't. In this case, ki points to Stun as an OA, bonus actions to use Patient Defense, and... a free feat?

Okay, you're a VHuman Prodigy monk who took Defense Duelist. What do your stats look like at Level 6-7? 8-11? I'm guessing 16/16, then 18/16? Then for most of T3, 20/16? 18 with disadvantage-on-demand isn't terrible -- not great, but not terrible. But your AC is looking pretty sus in rounds where you don't have disadvantage-on-demand, that is, rounds in which you used your bonus action for anything else. Like Flurry of Blows, Martial Arts, Step of the Wind, quite a few monk subclass features... Defensive Duelist helps, but unlike Shield it's only for one attack. But if you are using your bonus action every round for PD, your offense takes a huge hit. Especially if it's against bruiser monsters who can shrug off monk damage and Stunning Strike.

Granted, I don't want to be too hard on the monk. It's very hard to tank in 5E D&D unless A) your DM is playing along with you (eh, Davey wants to roleplay his sword-and-board paladin a protector, it'd be a jerk move for the monsters to just swarm past him) B) you're playing something overpowered like a Sorceradin or C) you're playing a very specific build like a Ancestors Barbarian + Cavalier Fighter. But this is not good advice. At best it'll lead to your T3 monk doing 2d8+8 damage, 1d8+4 on a OA, getting ignored. More likely it'll lead to your monk getting turned into paste if you catch more than 2-3 attacks and didn't put up Patient Defense.

[MinotaurWarrior]

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
They happen in games where you shouldn't play a Monk or a warlock.


What does a Paladin do when you've got a day with 16 short rests and 16 deadly encounters where the XP budget is spent on solo monsters?

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the points about frost giants turning various party members into pudding is ... spot on. They do damage in great big clumps. I had a level 12 Champion who had some trouble when he had two frost giants all up in his grill ... and this was sword and board with an AC of 24

[Dork_Forge]

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

So not only have you chosen a 2.5x Deadly encounter, you're also choosing a number of encounters per day that favours Long Rest classes, that reads more like bias against the Monk rather than actual deficiancies in the class. In a situation like that why wouldn't the entire party just kite the Frost Giants or avoid them altogether? What are most classes you actually approve of doing in this encounter?

[Unoriginal]

Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.

So your argument is that a Monk can't solo a Frost Giant because the Frost Giant will kill the Monk's teammates if the Monk tries.

Do you apply the same restriction to all characters who have to prove they can solo a Frost Giant in order to prove they are Competitive (TM), or...?


If the 9th lvl Monk is fighting a Frost Giant alongside a party of several equal level adventurers, then the Monk should:

-Get in the Frost Giant's face so that the Giant doesn't throw a rock at the teammates

-Attack the Giant, twice, as they're likely to hit vs AC 15

Then either:

-Use Patient Defense so that the Giant will have an hard time hitting them when retaliating (yes, Monks aren't damage sponges, but they *can* do the Speedy Gonzales Distraction version of tanking).

-Use Flurry of Blows to deal more damages, if there are other people in the team who will come in melee and who can draw aggro.

Alternatively, if the DM uses that optional rule, the Monk can also:

-Get on the Giant's face
-Climb on the Giant

So that the Giant will likely waste their next turn trying to remove the Monk from them.

[OldTrees1]

What does a Paladin do when you've got a day with 16 short rests and 16 deadly encounters where the XP budget is spent on solo monsters?

Oh, Inspiring Leader + Aura of Protection + Aura of Warding for example
Out of combat: The Paladin stands around and gives pretty speeches.
In combat: The Paladin stands around and occasionally hits things with a stick. (I suggest little to no smites)
It is rather impressive how much the Paladin specializes in standing.

But yes, I do see how their example is highly biased towards long rest classes. Paladins are weird in that they specialize in both a no rest style and a long rest style.

[Unoriginal]

Oh, Inspiring Leader + Aura of Protection + Aura of Warding for example
Out of combat: The Paladin stands around and gives pretty speeches.
In combat: The Paladin stands around and occasionally hits things with a stick. (I suggest little to no smites)
It is rather impressive how much the Paladin specializes in standing.

Well it's better than the 3.X version which, according to many DMs, specialized in falling.

[x3n0n]

Tanking? I disagreed with a lot of points in Treantmonk's video, but one thing he was dead-on about was monks assuming they had access to a lot of resources that they really didn't. In this case, ki points to Stun as an OA, bonus actions to use Patient Defense, and... a free feat?

Okay, you're a VHuman Prodigy monk who took Defense Duelist. What do your stats look like at Level 6-7? 8-11? I'm guessing 16/16, then 18/16?

To be fair, Max plays at a table that rolls for stats, making occasional feat-heavy builds more practical. With point buy, I probably wouldn't take that feat combo in tier 2.

I didn't run the numbers, but I'm assuming this is a case of "with PD, you're probably ok for a while and have 2 attacks instead of 3 while doing so; however, using DD means losing any reaction you could use for an OA (and vice versa), and stunning cuts your PD duration a lot".

As others have said, who else is on the team? If all ranged attackers, move-to-range sounds fine. If a teammate is sturdy in melee, maybe you go with the above plan to buy time for squishies, or you start with a "use half of my ki to stun" round, reducing pressure on the melee partner, but making it clear that you can't do that for long. (Maybe they've got a nova ability that can use the stun?) Meanwhile, whoever is not in melee is hopefully supporting you, either with significant ranged damage or with additional control effects (blind, Pattern, or whatever).

I think this is another case of context being relevant: the default (skirmisher) plan isn't always good enough, but it often is. When it isn't, you fall back on a plan that does not play to your strengths as much, but can hopefully play into your teammates' strengths.

Edit: I missed a point I wanted to mention in the late paragraph: it's really easy to make the wrong decision as a Monk and have it matter. (Contrasted with the Paladin, who, as eloquently described above, should do a lot of standing around, and will often contribute useful things by doing so.) If your party is frequently in multi-Deadly encounters, there are lots of opportunities to screw up, but hopefully also to recognize when you made a mistake and try not to make it next time.

[OldTrees1]

Well it's better than the 3.X version which, according to many DMs, specialized in falling.

And late in 3.X you could have a Paladin that specialized in standing while they were falling. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work. Otherwise the frontline simply takes even more damage while the skirmisher is probably not contributing at their maximum capacity, meaning enemy offense gets inadvertedly focused (generally fairly optimal for the enemy) while the party is doing less than their best to reduce enemy offensive potential.

Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

Of course, if the whole party is kite-capable, things change dramatically and suddenly it becomes a winning tactic for so many encounters.

[Asisreo1]

The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work. Otherwise the frontline simply takes even more damage while the skirmisher is probably not contributing at their maximum capacity, meaning enemy offense gets inadvertedly focused (generally fairly optimal for the enemy) while the party is doing less than their best to reduce enemy offensive potential.

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

If you're a skirmisher, you're essentially a backliner. You really shouldn't pretend like you are a frontliner and your teammates shouldn't expect you to be one.

Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

LMoP starts with goblins, who are primarily ranged combatants and particularly low HP high AC.

There is a misunderstanding when it comes to Kiting. A monk can kite for free on plenty of enemies.

Their extra movement allows a monk to hit their full 3 attacks while only taking 1 OA if they back up. In the cases of some brutes, that's roughly a third or a quarter of their overall damage due to multiattack. This is optimal.

[Unoriginal]

Now, just for laugh, let's assume we have a lvl 9 Monk with 20 DEX, 14 WIS and 14 CON.

Let's also assume that due to fascinating but better left unsaid circumstances, the Monk is only using their unarmed strikes.

So we have a lvl 9, AC 18, HP 66, +7 to hit, average 8 damages per hit, 9 ki points, save DC 14.


Generic Frost Giant has 138 HPs, which means that the Monk needs to land 18 hits to kill them. AC 15- 7 = 8= 40% of attack failure, or ~10% with advantage.

Meanwhile, the Monk having 66 HPs, it'd take 3 hits for the Giant to kill them. AC 18-9 = 9 = 45% of attack failure.

In other words, to statistically guarantee 3 hits, the Giant needs to do 6 attacks.

With a CON save at +8 vs DC 14, the Giant only has a 30% chance of failing, meaning that the Monk would need to spend ~3 ki points to achieve one stun.

I'm not great at math, but I'm pretty sure that with 9 ki points, the Monk can get three rounds of Flurry of Blows and 3 rounds of Stun, which would be enough to deal 88 damages before the Giant can do anything. In the next 3 rounds, the Monk would then be able to inflict an additional ~48 damages, for a total of 136 damages, before dying.

So in other words, if that hypothetical no-subclass no feat WIS 14 CON 14 Monk uses a quarterstaff rather than only their unarmed strikes, they CAN beat that Frost Giant alone. In a slugfest.

[Eldariel]

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

If you're a skirmisher, you're essentially a backliner. You really shouldn't pretend like you are a frontliner and your teammates shouldn't expect you to be one.

It's a very different thing to have a party fully kiting (this way, the party is taking minimal ranged damage from enemies while the enemy is taking full damage) or the party partially kiting and partially fighting in melee (melee takes full enemy damage, enemy takes full enemy damage). Partial kiting means the "kiters" basically provide no benefit to the party by kiting (whether they'd be fully ranged or just kiting doesn't make a difference, it just means enemy is attacking others) so they have to have sufficient ranged contributions to make it worth it to the party: that is, their ranged contribution has to be big enough that they wouldn't be better off just being another class instead (one able to better contribute while kiting).

It's also what we mean by kiting. If the Monk is kiting with ranged weapons, they probably aren't as efficient as dedicated ranged DPS or melee DPS (they can't use their biggest class features at range, except maybe Kensei). Thus their contributions are limited. Meanwhile, if they try to kite by getting into melee, landing blows, and getting out, they're putting their resources not only into the melee but also the Disengage action and using their bonus action on that meaning they aren't doing as much as they would be if they could dedicate to melee. The Mobile feat does help out here but there you're talking about a rather big investment (though a good one) for a class that's already ASI-starved. Of course, it's probably still worth it.


As for your example, Monk taking OA and trading 1-for-3 is far from optimal if the enemy gets to land their full attack on someone else too. This just means the enemy is dealing not only their full attack damage to the party but also their OA damage. It's only optimal if nobody is taking the full attack.

[Unoriginal]

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

Unless you play the *only* frontliner it shouldn't be expected that the damage is focused on you alone.

[MaxWilson]

Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your - - - -to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive) and partly thanks to the monk's pre-fight PWT + recon. Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over when the last giant threw down his weapons and resentfully surrendered.

If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.


Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

Monk speed also lends itself to (DMG Disarm + run off with the weapon)-based offense, which is ki cheap or ki-free depending on situation/feats/subclass.

I didn't use that against these Frost Giants but if things had gone differently, it was an option.



Edit: I missed a point I wanted to mention in the late paragraph: it's really easy to make the wrong decision as a Monk and have it matter. (Contrasted with the Paladin, who, as eloquently described above, should do a lot of standing around, and will often contribute useful things by doing so.) If your party is frequently in multi-Deadly encounters, there are lots of opportunities to screw up, but hopefully also to recognize when you made a mistake and try not to make it next time.

So very true. That's one of the nice things about monks. If you're in the mood for Easy Mode play just play a Necromancer or Shepherd Druid. If you're in the mood for Hard Mode but still very impactful play, consider a monk. You'll have lots of post-game insights into what you could have done better.


The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work...

Of course, if the whole party is kite-capable, things change dramatically and suddenly it becomes a winning tactic for so many encounters.

There's also an in-between state where some of the party is just barely fast enough to stay away from the monsters, but not fast enough to contribute to killing the monsters while they run away. This is a scenario where the hypothetical Mobile monk may encourage everyone else to retreat while he holds the monsters off, and then resumes kiting everything to death once the party is 70'+ away from the nearest monster.

So I don't entirely agree that the whole party has to be kiting-capable, as long as they are kiting-cooperative. If the idiot Barbarian insists on meleeing the Black Puddings, kiting won't work for anyone, monk or no monk.

[Asisreo1]

It's a very different thing to have a party fully kiting (this way, the party is taking minimal ranged damage from enemies while the enemy is taking full damage) or the party partially kiting and partially fighting in melee (melee takes full enemy damage, enemy takes full enemy damage). Partial kiting means the "kiters" basically provide no benefit to the party by kiting (whether they'd be fully ranged or just kiting doesn't make a difference, it just means enemy is attacking others) so they have to have sufficient ranged contributions to make it worth it to the party: that is, their ranged contribution has to be big enough that they wouldn't be better off just being another class instead (one able to better contribute while kiting).

It's also what we mean by kiting. If the Monk is kiting with ranged weapons, they probably aren't as efficient as dedicated ranged DPS or melee DPS (they can't use their biggest class features at range, except maybe Kensei). Thus their contributions are limited. Meanwhile, if they try to kite by getting into melee, landing blows, and getting out, they're putting their resources not only into the melee but also the Disengage action and using their bonus action on that meaning they aren't doing as much as they would be if they could dedicate to melee. The Mobile feat does help out here but there you're talking about a rather big investment (though a good one) for a class that's already ASI-starved. Of course, it's probably still worth it.


As for your example, Monk taking OA and trading 1-for-3 is far from optimal if the enemy gets to land their full attack on someone else too. This just means the enemy is dealing not only their full attack damage to the party but also their OA damage. It's only optimal if nobody is taking the full attack.
Here's the thing:

A monk's damage is significant not only because of the actual number, but also because of how safe and consistent the damage is.

Take a paladin NOVA'ing for example. The plan is to get in there and divine smite with everything they have for 2-3 rounds of the fight. Quickly go in-and-out. The problem is for him to do that, he needs to get into melee and he's the most prone to the enemy's counterattacks. That means he's taking the most damage and risks going down, effectively dropping his damage to 0 the next round.

A wizard can cast a large spell but they're prone to ranged attacks and very prone to melee. Even with shield, 18-19 AC alone doesn't really protect you as well in the later tiers.

Its better to remain at range because most creatures rely on melee. Specifically the ones monks are worrying about anyways.

For the enemy, attacking the monk with any ranged damaging option is usually the worst since they have evasion and deflect missile. Meanwhile, the monk is still contributing decent damage.

Plus, if a monk really needs to just go NOVA, take Elemonk's Water Whip and dump all your Ki points into it round 1. At level 9, that's 55 non-resistable damage immediately during the first round, at the cost of all their Ki points, of course.

[noob]

Personally I see a surprisingly high amount of guides advising wearing a bow or a crossbow as a paladin.
So paladins can do ranged fighting if wanted.

[x3n0n]

[about kiting and "partial kiting"]

Thank you!

This helps me understand why people prefer Open Hand to Drunken Master: OH provides an opportunity for moderate control/disruption that benefits multiple party members at minimal ki cost. (Both prone and 15' shove can potentially reduce the pressure on other melee allies, if they can afford to retreat slowly: not as much as a stun, but OH Technique targets other saves and doesn't cost as much ki per attempt.) I find the subclass abilities at 6 and especially 11 anemic, but lv3 is better than I appreciated in context of a party with other frontliners.

[Eldariel]

Here's the thing:

A monk's damage is significant not only because of the actual number, but also because of how safe and consistent the damage is.

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage. Monk isn't particularly good at either. They can spike with Flurry but that isn't quite as efficient as other sources of spiking, and they can deal decent consistent damage but not top tier (aside from Tier 1 where their consistent damage is top tier aside from Vumans, but they can only apply it in melee and there they're extremely vulnerable).

[Unoriginal]

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive). Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over.

I think Deathtongue was implying the Giant would not be distracted and attack the rest of the PCs rather than the Monk.

Not sure why, but that seems to be what they meant.



If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.

100% true. Especially when it's possible for the Monk to beat the Giant in a solo fight by going nova.

[Frogreaver]

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage. Monk isn't particularly good at either. They can spike with Flurry but that isn't quite as efficient as other sources of spiking, and they can deal decent consistent damage but not top tier (aside from Tier 1 where their consistent damage is top tier aside from Vumans, but they can only apply it in melee and there they're extremely vulnerable).

White room scenarios, as our example here, consistently fail to consider the rest of the adventure day. Spike damage will always be much higher valued in these white rooms because there is never an issue with running out of resources in them.

Most definitely the paladin can contribute more than the monk in this encounter. Then he’s out of gas the rest of the day. Though it’s not like the monk is failing to contribute. Stun Granting advantage and denying enemy attacks tends to be a more significant effect than it’s being given credit for here.

[Valmark]

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive) and partly thanks to the monk's pre-fight PWT + recon. Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over when the last giant threw down his weapons and resentfully surrendered.

If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.

Monk speed also lends itself to (DMG Disarm + run off with the weapon)-based offense, which is ki cheap or ki-free depending on situation/feats/subclass.

I didn't use that against these Frost Giants but if things had gone differently, it was an option.
Did you use the tactic were the monk shoots with a bow and drops prone to bait the giants? Because like Deathtongue was saying, the giants don't really have a reason to target the monk. In fact I'd ignore the character that didn't do much to me at all AND is incovinient to attack.

So your argument is that a Monk can't solo a Frost Giant because the Frost Giant will kill the Monk's teammates if the Monk tries.


To be fair, Deathtongue replied to Max who argued that the Monk should contribute by distracting the Giants in that way. Logically one would argue against that.

[Unoriginal]

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage.

This is not factual, though.

Safe damage always has value. Even if the rest of the characters take damage, what matters in an everyone-fights-to-death-or-uncounsciousness struggle is that the enemies' HPs go down to 0 faster than the PCs'. Safe, reliable damage always helps with that.

It's not as flashy as big burst damage, and doesn't make you feel safe like PC protectin capacities, but as long as the reliable damage can be applied it does help significantly.

[Eldariel]

This is not factual, though.

Safe damage always has value. Even if the rest of the characters take damage, what matters in an everyone-fights-to-death-or-uncounsciousness struggle is that the enemies' HPs go down to 0 faster than the PCs'. Safe, reliable damage always helps with that.

It's not as flashy as big burst damage, and doesn't make you feel safe like PC protectin capacities, but as long as the reliable damage can be applied it does help significantly.

Safety doesn't matter as long as someone is taking damage. It doesn't make the party go down any slower. A riskier, higher damage build is preferable unless, again, the party as a whole can avoid hits. Average damage dealer staying alive has no comparative value to the party; what IS important is that the highest offense characters stay alive and get to use their high offense as much as possible. Safety of an individual doesn't matter unless their output is higher than their allies'.

Optimal combat has the highest offense types safe (either due to high defenses or due to others defending them) and the highest defense types splitting enemy offense in such a manner that they don't go down. Monk is neither highest offense nor highest defense so their safety or the lack thereof is mostly irrelevant with regards to optimising the input/output of the party.


Note: Offense isn't solely damage but any but any way of disabling the opposition.

[MaxWilson]

I think Deathtongue was implying the Giant would not be distracted and attack the rest of the PCs rather than the Monk.

Not sure why, but that seems to be what they meant.

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use those against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.


Did you use the tactic were the monk shoots with a bow and drops prone to bait the giants? Because like Deathtongue was saying, the giants don't really have a reason to target the monk. In fact I'd ignore the character that didn't do much to me at all AND is incovinient to attack.

To be fair, Deathtongue replied to Max who argued that the Monk should contribute by distracting the Giants in that way. Logically one would argue against that.

Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

[Valmark]

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use it against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.



Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

Alright, makes more sense then. Wouldn't have run the Giants that way but it's plausible. Either I would have had the Giants get to melee with the monk if they thought it was the only enemy or Ready some throws for the first who moves (though this is also because Ready actions in my IRL group last until your next turn instead of until the end of the round, so they could throw at the monk when he stood up).

Or have the Giants get the **** out of there if they think it's an ambush. But I'd probably make them gang up on the monk (or try to).

[Dork_Forge]

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use those against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.



Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

You've spoke about this in a couple posts now but I've not seen it mentioned so I'll ask, did the Monk use Deflect Missiles to mitigate damage? It looks like the Monk took average damage from the rocks, but I think you rolled dice instead of averages (?) so I thought it best to check.

[MaxWilson]

Alright, makes more sense then. Wouldn't have run the Giants that way but it's plausible. Either I would have had the Giants get to melee with the monk if they thought it was the only enemy or Ready some throws for the first who moves (though this is also because Ready actions in my IRL group last until your next turn instead of until the end of the round, so they could throw at the monk when he stood up).

Or have the Giants get the **** out of there if they think it's an ambush. But I'd probably make them gang up on the monk (or try to).

Just want to note that if the giants had all Dashed over to the monk they wouldn't have gotten ANY attacks that round, and then the Fighter would open up with his crossbow while the Monk would just cast Darkness + Step of the Wind away again next round (moving 65' towards the party this time). Everybody else waits for the giants to Dash close enough to hit them within the Darkness (snakes will have advantage there because of Blindsight). Note that Darkness prevents the giants from getting any opportunity attacks. Anyway, point is that this strategy also doesn't end well for the giants, it just makes the monk spend 3 ki instead of 58 HP.


You've spoke about this in a couple posts now but I've not seen it mentioned so I'll ask, did the Monk use Deflect Missiles to mitigate damage? It looks like the Monk took average damage from the rocks, but I think you rolled dice instead of averages (?) so I thought it best to check.

Yes he did. I believe it was one hit for 31 damage, mitigated down to 8 HP by Deflect Missile (9 on d10 + 5 for Dex + 9 for level = 23 mitigated), then a low-damage hit for 22 HP, and a third lucky hit for another 28. At first I thought the monk was KO'ed but then I checked and found he had 66 HP (Con 14, 7 HP per level + 3 = 7*9+3 = 66). But he withdrew behind cover after that and just shot arrows for the rest of the combat.

[Unoriginal]

Safety doesn't matter as long as someone is taking damage.

Safety does matter ESPECIALLY if someone is taking damage.



It doesn't make the party go down any slower.

It makes the enemy go down faster.



A riskier, higher damage build is preferable unless, again, the party as a whole can avoid hits. Average damage dealer staying alive has no comparative value to the party; what IS important is that the highest offense characters stay alive and get to use their high offense as much as possible. Safety of an individual doesn't matter unless their output is higher than their allies'.

The whole group's safety matter, and the whole group's offensive capacities are important. I don't know anyone who play D&D by having one golden boy carry the team with high offense while the others are just here to keep the golden boy alive.



Optimal combat has the highest offense types safe (either due to high defenses or due to others defending them) and the highest defense types splitting enemy offense in such a manner that they don't go down. Monk is neither highest offense nor highest defense so their safety or the lack thereof is mostly irrelevant with regards to optimising the input/output of the party.


Note: Offense isn't solely damage but any but any way of disabling the opposition.

"Optimal combat" has no bearing on actual combat. It's like the old "I can save you cow as long as it's a perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless space" story.

Maybe "optimally" this is what would happen, but factually what happens is much messier, and a theoretically optimal play does not work in practice when all the factors that made it optimal do not apply.

A Monk is factually reliable, which makes the class more than suitable enough even when compared to classes which perform better in theoretical optimization.

[Eldariel]

Safety does matter ESPECIALLY if someone is taking damage.

Okay, so Monk isn't hit; how does that help the frontline Paladin or Cleric or whatever?


It makes the enemy go down faster.

How? Everyone's unloading their average or their spike damage anyways. How does one character being safe help kill the enemies faster, if that character isn't the highest offensive value one ergo the one enemy most wants to target? Enemies wouldn't want to attack an average damage dealer so the average damage dealer being safe doesn't make the enemy go down any faster since it doesn't increase the damage being dealt.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, so Monk isn't hit; how does that help the frontline Paladin or Cleric or whatever?

The more PCs are staying up, the more PCs the enemies have to handle.



How? Everyone's unloading their average or their spike damage anyways. How does one character being safe help kill the enemies faster, if that character isn't the highest offensive value one ergo the one enemy most wants to target?

I may have misunderstood which point was being debated. Regardless, a character being safe help kill the enemy faster, as they are safe to keep inflicting reliable damage without the party risking to lose their contribution.


Enemies wouldn't want to attack an average damage dealer

Of course they would. Enemies will want to attack all the PCs, at one point or another.



so the average damage dealer being safe doesn't make the enemy go down any faster since it doesn't increase the damage being dealt.

Not losing an average damage dealer means that the average damage can keep being dealt, meaning the enemy goes down faster than if the average damage dealer was taken out and unable to contribute.

If you have 3 characters dealing X amount of damage, and one character dealing Y, you have 3X+Y amount of damage dealt. If one of the character dealing X damage is safe, then you are guaranteed to have at least X dealt. 2X+Y damage dealt due to one of the X-dealing characters being neutralized means the enemy will go down slower than if 3X+Y damage was applied due to the X-dealing character being safe.

[Valmark]

Just want to note that if the giants had all Dashed over to the monk they wouldn't have gotten ANY attacks that round, and then the Fighter would open up with his crossbow while the Monk would just cast Darkness + Step of the Wind away again next round (moving 65' towards the party this time). Everybody else waits for the giants to Dash close enough to hit them within the Darkness (snakes will have advantage there because of Blindsight). Note that Darkness prevents the giants from getting any opportunity attacks. Anyway, point is that this strategy also doesn't end well for the giants, it just makes the monk spend 3 ki instead of 58 HP.



Yes he did. I believe it was one hit for 31 damage, mitigated down to 8 HP by Deflect Missile (9 on d10 + 5 for Dex + 9 for level = 23 mitigated), then a low-damage hit for 22 HP, and a third lucky hit for another 28. At first I thought the monk was KO'ed but then I checked and found he had 66 HP (Con 14, 7 HP per level + 3 = 7*9+3 = 66). But he withdrew behind cover after that and just shot arrows for the rest of the combat.

Yeah, my "try to" was because the monk could just stand up and get out of there. I didn't mean that my tactic would have been better, just that the giant would have acted differently.

Which further proves your point, I think?

[Eldariel]

The more PCs are staying up, the more PCs the enemies have to handle.

I may have misunderstood which point was being debated. Regardless, a character being safe help kill the enemy faster, as they are safe to keep inflicting reliable damage without the party risking to lose their contribution.

Of course they would. Enemies will want to attack all the PCs, at one point or another.

Not losing an average damage dealer means that the average damage can keep being dealt, meaning the enemy goes down faster than if the average damage dealer was taken out and unable to contribute.

If you have 3 characters dealing X amount of damage, and one character dealing Y, you have 3X+Y amount of damage dealt. If one of the character dealing X damage is safe, then you are guaranteed to have at least X dealt. 2X+Y damage dealt due to one of the X-dealing characters being neutralized means the enemy will go down slower than if 3X+Y damage was applied due to the X-dealing character being safe.

This misses the point: enemy attacks anyways. The monk being safe doesn't mean more PCs are staying up, it just means different PCs are staying up. If those different PCs are offensively more valuable than the Monk, them being attacked instead of the Monk is actually detrimental to overall party output. The point where the enemies have to attack "all PCs" is way past the point of near-TPK; if the enemy manages to destroy the whole frontline in a party with a normal frontline, there isn't much left to save or protect and that's the first point where the Monk survivability is a benefit. The survivability of a PC doesn't matter unless they are a PC the enemy would want to attack before other PCs; to win you need to make sure you keep the highest value PCs alive, not the average value PCs. Damage being focused on high value PCs instead of the average value PC (ergo Monk) is at worst detrimental to party survivability.

[Xervous]

Comparing the monk to the wesnoth fencer seems accurate here. High mobility and high consistency on kill confirms, but a suboptimal choice for plugging the frontline (the merit there being when only a monk could move to be that plug, though such times lean towards self sacrifice).

If the enemy can expect to more easily eliminate their opposition by focusing on other party members who have higher threat/durability we’ve got the same problem monks stared down in 3.5e. Safe damage wins a grinder but the whole party is not necessarily safe damage dealers. If there is the assumption that you can rotate your frontline to spread blows across the party’s whole health pool the safe frontline damage dealer is only relevant for plugging doors (or other such comparable situations) as it is never correct to pick them as a target when a non safe character is also targetable and more easily dispatched.

Safety for an individual doesn’t mean much beyond them going unmolested. Orc mook #405 is still going to attack somebody and if given the choice it won’t be the safe, low threat somebody.

[Unoriginal]

This misses the point: enemy attacks anyways. The monk being safe doesn't mean more PCs are staying up, it just means different PCs are staying up. If those different PCs are offensively more valuable than the Monk, them being attacked instead of the Monk is actually detrimental to overall party output. The point where the enemies have to attack "all PCs" is way past the point of near-TPK; if the enemy manages to destroy the whole frontline in a party with a normal frontline, there isn't much left to save or protect and that's the first point where the Monk survivability is a benefit. The survivability of a PC doesn't matter unless they are a PC the enemy would want to attack before other PCs; to win you need to make sure you keep the highest value PCs alive, not the average value PCs. Damage being focused on high value PCs instead of the average value PC (ergo Monk) is at worst detrimental to party survivability.

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act


Comparing the monk to the wesnoth fencer seems accurate here. High mobility and high consistency on kill confirms, but a suboptimal choice for plugging the frontline (the merit there being when only a monk could move to be that plug, though such times lean towards self sacrifice).

What's the wesnoth fencer?

[Xervous]

What's the wesnoth fencer?

Battle for wesnoth is an old turn based strategy game on a hex tile set where a unit’s defenses are dependent on the terrain it occupies.

The one mechanic worthy of note here is the zone of control, if move to a spot adjacent to an enemy unit you lose all remaining movement for that turn. An easy parallel on opp attack screening in 5e. The fencer is a unit that ignores zone of control, allowing it unparalleled mobility in seeking out targets. It has a lower damage but high swing count attack, making it consistent for securing kills, pressuring dodgy units and being hard to pin down when it’s harassing objectives. This is in contrast to a standard infantry unit (Spearman) that has more health (but less low end dodge) and burstier, higher damage output.

Having such a skirmisher is a great tool if you can properly screen your glass party members/units, but you need to have enough baseline throughput or alpha capabilities for the core of the group to win over the opposition. The monk / fencer is an answer in search of a question while a paladin or fighter is a box and checkmark all in one. Niche vs generalist, and it looks like some people here feel monk pays too much for its niche.

[x3n0n]

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

I think the claim is that the 3 PCs probably don't have the same offensive output. If A's damage output is greater than B's or C's, and the boss can only do (multi-)attack with one target per attack, and the PCs all take the same number of attacks to be KOed, you would rather have the boss target B or C, not A. In this (greatly oversimplified) model, hiding C does nothing productive.

[KorvinStarmast]

Battle for wesnoth is an old turn based strategy game on a hex tile set where a unit’s defenses are dependent on the terrain it occupies.

The one mechanic worthy of note here is the zone of control, if move to a spot adjacent to an enemy unit you lose all remaining movement for that turn.
Most Avalon Hill board games had a similar mechanic.


An easy parallel on opp attack screening in 5e. The fencer is a unit that ignores zone of control, allowing it unparalleled mobility in seeking out targets. It has a lower damage but high swing count attack, making it consistent for securing kills, pressuring dodgy units and being hard to pin down when it’s harassing objectives. This is in contrast to a standard infantry unit (Spearman) that has more health (but less low end dodge) and burstier, higher damage output.

Having such a skirmisher is a great tool if you can properly screen your glass party members/units, but you need to have enough baseline throughput or alpha capabilities for the core of the group to win over the opposition. The monk / fencer is an answer in search of a question while a paladin or fighter is a box and checkmark all in one. Niche vs generalist, and it looks like some people here feel monk pays too much for its niche. Interesting point on the monk.

[Eldariel]

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

Depends on the PCs and the boss. If the boss is capable of multitargeting at long range, of course as few as possible. Most bosses though are very limited in that regard though: generally they will have some very avoidable AOE and mostly high powered single target effects.

In this more typical case, if the 2 PCs are better at defeating the boss than the 3rd one, definitely 3 who can equally be targeted. This at least gives the boss the chance to mistakenly attack the lesser threat. OTOH if the lesser threat automatically removes themselves from the threat pool, the PCs are essentially automatically optimising the boss's actions for the boss to defeat the greater threats first and then the lesser threat.

[Xervous]

Most Avalon Hill board games had a similar mechanic.

Interesting point on the monk.

If you are valuing the monk on its mobility it boils down to the lost frontlining throughout being weighted against the potential value of putting the monk in a spot where no other character type could be expected to reach. You’re trading a known quantity for a future possibility.

[noob]

So in a team of one thief, a magic user and a fighter do not use the monk as a fighter or else you lack a frontline?
Else if you are doing team elusive made out of evasive characters then a monk works well?
It also works when you have already a strong frontline(ex: 1 paladin and 1 fighter) and need someone to reach the backline?
I think monk participation depends a lot of the party.
But now should you compare monks to paladins or to rogues?
Rogues might also fill the stereotypical "kills people in the back lines" role.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, my "try to" was because the monk could just stand up and get out of there. I didn't mean that my tactic would have been better, just that the giant would have acted differently.

Which further proves your point, I think?

Maybe. At this point of my day my brain is 80% busy with work and I can't remember what my original point was, just that I had fun this morning running the practice combat and that the monk almost got splatted. :) I guess if I'm making a point it is that helps when people propose and run concrete scenarios for us to talk about, instead of handwaving at each other in a Schrodinger's vacuum.


Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

If those are option A and option B, it is better to have option (C): one PC who can be targeted by a boss and two more who deal damage from safety, because then the one PC who's eligible to be targeted can focus on defense while the others do damage. This typically results in significantly more favorable HP loss ratios (PCs lose some damage but bad guy loses a LOT of damage), and that is why chokepoints + ranged weaponry is a good combination in 5E.

If the bad guy has a choice between TWO PCs it's much harder to say which is better, because you'd be giving up much more offensive power by setting two PCs on defense. So you look for a way to reduce option A or B to a previously-solved problem by turning them into option C. This may involve pushing, Disengaging, terrain manipulation, etc., or it may turn out to be infeasible in this fight and you just have to tough it out. It depends.


If you are valuing the monk on its mobility it boils down to the lost frontlining throughout being weighted against the potential value of putting the monk in a spot where no other character type could be expected to reach. You’re trading a known quantity for a future possibility.

Yes, but being somewhere no one else can be can have defensive value as well as offensive. Sometimes you're not just trying to reach spots no one else can reach this turn so you can attack--you may be trying to bait the enemy out of position (divide and conquer) so that in future rounds they will lose action economy Dashing when the monk denies them the opportunity to attack him.

I think many players undervalue tactical movement. I've ever seen DMs advocate that e.g. "every boss monster should have some kind of movement-related special ability, because otherwise it just turns into a static slugfest where everybody is standing in one place hitting each other," which tells me that both the DMs and their players are underestimating the tactical value of movement. Even something as dumb-but-Mobile as a Tyrannosaurus Rex becomes significantly more dangerous to a melee-oriented party if the DM uses its 50' movement speed + ability to grapple, and the converse is true for players fighting melee-oriented monsters. (Against ranged attackers movement is still useful but harder to describe in an Internet post, and relies to some extent on availability of partial/total cover in the current terrain.)

Adding for clarity: I'm not saying that high movement speed can suddenly triple a monk's combat potential or anything. A smart, mobile monk has a force multiplier on the order of maybe 1.25x to 2x depending, whereas e.g. Polymorph is a force multiplier on the order of 2x per casting and Planar Binding is a force multiplier on the order of 2x to Arbitaryx. Good movement is not the only force multiplier in the game, but it is definitely a genuine force multiplier that you might as well take advantage of, and taking advantage requires more effort from the player than just pushing the Planar Binding or Polymorph buttons, and sometimes doing harder things is fun. Hence, playing monks is fun even when/if those monks would lose in a cage match to a Moon Druid.

Monks are fun and good enough to be useful in Deadly encounters, and they make good spies ("harmless accountant" secretly a ninja, who BTW can eavesdrop in any language), and it's totally okay if they are not as OP in a fight as a Necromancer with 99 animated skeletons with shortbows.

[Frogreaver]

If the giants start 80ft away the monk is opening the encounter with a short bow while melee allies are throwing a javelin at disadvantage. Really depends on how the giants are played and starting conditions. Also really depends on what spells your casters utilize in the battle - as they are most likely going to be the stars of this show.

Given the right conditions and enemy tactics the monk can easily end up being more valuable than the paladin in this fight.

Personally my monk is staying at range until my melee allies engage the giants. Turn after that I’m charging in with some stuns.

[Witty Username]

My take away is that monk & paladin are difficult to compare because of their different primary roles in parties. Monk would be better compared with rogue or ranger.
That being said glory paladin can do alot of strange mobility things, and a mounted paladin with a reach weapon will be able to use the same skirmishing tactics. Also, the Paladin's imp. Divine smite can make up for not having a magic weapon, another selling point of the monk. Even Stunning strike's control options can be replicated with properly leveraging the Paladin's spell list.
My instincts say monk is overall out performed by paladin.

[Dork_Forge]

My take away is that monk & paladin are difficult to compare because of their different primary roles in parties. Monk would be better compared with rogue or ranger.
That being said glory paladin can do alot of strange mobility things, and a mounted paladin with a reach weapon will be able to use the same skirmishing tactics. Also, the Paladin's imp. Divine smite can make up for not having a magic weapon, another selling point of the monk. Even Stunning strike's control options can be replicated with properly leveraging the Paladin's spell list.
My instincts say monk is overall out performed by paladin.

They do fulfill very different roles and if you want to you can press either into the other's roles, however:

-Improved Divine Smite is the Paladin's tier 3 damage bump, if the rest of their damage isn't magical they are still falling greatly behind what they should be doing damage wise (they should be using Magic Weapon if they don't have an actual item by this point)
-I can't see anything on the Paladin spell list that gives the Stunned condition, do you mean granting advantage and disadvantage?

The Paladin can make up for short comings in the Monk comparison by using spells and that's a great thing, but it should be noted that every spell they cast to compensate is one less Smite or one less spell cast that's more in their wheel house (like Aid).

[Witty Username]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter. More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.
Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).

[Xervous]

Do modules favor paladin or monk from an encounter design standpoint?

[MaxWilson]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter. More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.

Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).

It's absolutely bizarre to me how every time you mention "buy a horse or two" as a solution to mobility, everybody gets all negative about skeptical about whether you're going to be fighting in terrain where horses are even useful, but if it's a summoned steed, somehow that's not an issue?

Find Steed is fundamentally a logistical help: it saves you money on horses, and possibly time spent buying a new horse. In rare circumstances it can help you get a horse in a place where you otherwise couldn't (e.g. at the top of a cliff). Other than that though it's just a regular old horse that anyone could get, even if they're not a paladin.

One note RE: Wrathful Smite, it relies on fear, and fear immunity is much more common than stun immunity. (I.e. Wrathful Smite is still a great spell for its cost, but when you meet a new monster, there's definitely a risk of it being outright immune especially if it's some kind of demonic, undead, or BBEG type and you might want to spend your concentration/bonus action on something else.)

[Dork_Forge]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter.

My point was that trying to fill that roll actively detracts from the Paladin's core functions besides Lay on Hands.


More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.

And the Paladin has no equivalent to a Monk's potential stealth or even aoe capability (Destructive Wave is basically a casting capstone for them), I don't know what you mean by speed bump abilities.


Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).


We heavily disagree on a mount letting the Paladin 'ape' a Monk's mobility, are you just talking about movement speed here? Find Steed doesn't come online until 5th level and then is entirely dependent on the mount being able to fit where the party are going and not getting cut from under the Paladin (or impacted by a different effect). Find Greater Steed covers sturdier and flying mounts, but doesn't come online until 13th level. The basic Monk chassis has a very high standard movement speed, the possibility of double dashing for a ki point and as of 9th level onwards the ability to cross liquids and vertical surfaces. You can go further than that if you consider that the Shadow Monk gets at will teleportation (situational, but normally pretty useful).

A Smite spell requires a bonus action, concentration and has the possibility of being wasted before it takes effect, all to impart arguably a lesser effect that as Max pointed out, the creature is more likely to be immune to.

They're both good at different things, but even if the Paladin is compensating with spells they don't clear cut cover all of the Monk's bases.

I don't know if it's come up in this thread already, but unless you're talking a face Dexadin, the usual Paladin is also pumping less useful stats, having a high Dex and Wis is more far reaching in the game than having a high Str and Cha.

[noob]

Do modules favor paladin or monk from an encounter design standpoint?

You can make team paladin made out of four paladins and team monk made out of four monks and test modules but I fear the best team monk for cheesing through modules might just be rogues gimping themselves by deciding to not be rogues (and win the modules through abusive amounts of stealth "coordinated takeover we kill four of them from behind by surprise then we flee and do that again later").
So I think we should also do team rogue for comparing.

It will also not indicate the average usefulness to the varied parties because dnd players often wants to play the class they want instead of playing team bard each time because bards are super polyvalent.

[MaxWilson]

You can make team paladin made out of four paladins and team monk made out of four monks and test modules but I fear the best team monk for cheesing through modules might just be rogues gimping themselves by deciding to not be rogues (and (A) win the modules through abusive amounts of stealth "coordinated takeover we kill four of them from behind by surprise then we flee and do that again later").
So I think we should also do team rogue for comparing.

It will also not indicate the average usefulness to the varied parties because dnd players often wants to play the class they want instead of playing team bard each time because bards are super polyvalent.

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

[noob]

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

How much of a time limit does the campaigns have?
rogues does not needs recharging.
Also assassin rogues did get something super strong on the first turn when surprising.

[x3n0n]

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

For that matter, since we seem to agree that single-target focused damage is not a strength of Team All-Monks, I'm somewhat enchanted with Team Three Monks and a Rogue.

Shadow (utility as above) +
Elemonk (AoEs) +
UA Mercy (healing and curing) +
Rogue.

(Alert) Shadow + (Alert) Assassin is a fun "Recon in Force" tandem, since they are likely to get surprise when scouting with PWT to get the elusive Assassinate to fire, plus Alert to take advantage of Darkness, and any Rogue can take advantage (pun somewhat intended) of the stunned condition.

Also, Monks don't tend to have much in the way of skills, tools, or Charisma, which the Rogue can have in spades.

The Elemonk and Mercy monk could be a Druid instead and still maintain mobility via Wild Shape (but I liked the Three Men and a Baby joke).

[MaxWilson]

For that matter, since we seem to agree that single-target focused damage is not a strength of Team All-Monks, I'm somewhat enchanted with Team Three Monks and a Rogue.

Shadow (utility as above) +
Elemonk (AoEs) +
UA Mercy (healing and curing) +
Rogue.

(Alert) Shadow + (Alert) Assassin is a fun "Recon in Force" tandem, since they are likely to get surprise when scouting with PWT to get the elusive Assassinate to fire, plus Alert to take advantage of Darkness, and any Rogue can take advantage (pun somewhat intended) of the stunned condition.

Also, Monks don't tend to have much in the way of skills, tools, or Charisma, which the Rogue can have in spades.

The Elemonk and Mercy monk could be a Druid instead and still maintain mobility via Wild Shape (but I liked the Three Men and a Baby joke).

Maybe make it a Fast Hands Healer Thief? Healer Arcane Trickster could work too if you do healing out of combat.

I don't see why you'd leave the other monks behind while scouting though. Pass Without Trace isn't just a self-buff.

[Unoriginal]

If you want more skills to a Monk group and don't mind non-official stuff, Cobalt Soul Monk can work.

[x3n0n]

If you want more skills to a Monk group and don't mind non-official stuff, Cobalt Soul Monk can work.

That's true--a CS could fill the "brainy" Investigation and knowledge role--that could be fun. :)
That still feels like a separate role from the "face", though, and doesn't help much with the "fire a cannon at the single high-value target" role very well.
However, assuming no immunity to necrotic, the Mercy Monk's Hands of Harm can do a number on anybody stunned.


Maybe make it a Fast Hands Healer Thief? Healer Arcane Trickster could work too if you do healing out of combat.

I don't see why you'd leave the other monks behind while scouting though. Pass Without Trace isn't just a self-buff.

All true. I was kind of hoping that I had found a good use for the Assassin. Oh well. :)

The Rogue subclass feels like a tough call. Fast Hands (with Healer) and Use Magic Item feel like they fill gaps, and Second-Story work preserves the "climbing up walls" theme.
On the other hand, Spellcasting fills a lot of gaps too, some of which aren't entirely plugged by giving someone Ritual Caster (Wizard).

I kinda like Magic Initiate: Druid (Guidance, Shape Water or Mold Earth, Goodberry) on the Elemonk; that gets us Guidance, gives a flavorful cantrip for use after we retrain Elemental Attunement, and offers a 3rd source of healing (after Healer Rogue and Mercy Monk) and a way to feed the Rogue after the rest of the team no longer needs food nor water. :)

[Edea]

If a Monk were to become a half-caster, what would their spell list 'sort-of' look like?

I'm sort-of curious how Tasha's is going to alter this discussion, myself.

[Asisreo1]

For those saying that monks don't benefit from magic weapons, its very likely that they will actually bring the most out of magic weapons.

If a monk is given something weak like a +2 dagger that hardly competes with the fighter's greatsword, however if the monk is at least 5th level, the dagger is able to outperform their strongest melee option since it does 1d6+2 rather than a staff's 1d8. Its also capable of being thrown.

Okay, maybe a +2 dagger is rare for a level 5 party to wander by, but the principle remain. A monk that finds a +1 shortsword at level 11 has brought the shortsword's damage farther than any other class could have. Would it be better on a fighter? I actually haven't analyzed that far but my initial reaction is that it wouldn't.

[OldTrees1]

For those saying that monks don't benefit from magic weapons, its very likely that they will actually bring the most out of magic weapons.

If a monk is given something weak like a +2 dagger that hardly competes with the fighter's greatsword, however if the monk is at least 5th level, the dagger is able to outperform their strongest melee option since it does 1d6+2 rather than a staff's 1d8. Its also capable of being thrown.

Okay, maybe a +2 dagger is rare for a level 5 party to wander by, but the principle remain. A monk that finds a +1 shortsword at level 11 has brought the shortsword's damage farther than any other class could have. Would it be better on a fighter? I actually haven't analyzed that far but my initial reaction is that it wouldn't.

Double checking, does this also apply to the monk being given a +2 greatsword? Or are you saying monk can use some magic weapons better and some magic weapons worse? Or are you saying magic weapons improve the most when wielded by a monk? Or some 4th thing?


Sidenote: Rogue makes better use of a +0 dagger than a Monk does. But that is more because Rogues need a weapon (Monks don't) but don't need it to contribute to the damage (Monks do).

[Witty Username]

It's absolutely bizarre to me how every time you mention "buy a horse or two" as a solution to mobility, everybody gets all negative about skeptical about whether you're going to be fighting in terrain where horses are even useful, but if it's a summoned steed, somehow that's not an issue?

Find Steed is fundamentally a logistical help: it saves you money on horses, and possibly time spent buying a new horse. In rare circumstances it can help you get a horse in a place where you otherwise couldn't (e.g. at the top of a cliff). Other than that though it's just a regular old horse that anyone could get, even if they're not a paladin.

One note RE: Wrathful Smite, it relies on fear, and fear immunity is much more common than stun immunity. (I.e. Wrathful Smite is still a great spell for its cost, but when you meet a new monster, there's definitely a risk of it being outright immune especially if it's some kind of demonic, undead, or BBEG type and you might want to spend your concentration/bonus action on something else.)

There is that tiny thing that fear immunity tends to be on undead which tend towards radiant vulnerability and/or called out to take bonus damage from divine smite. So yes, paladin can't frighten them because that are too dead to be afraid.
Also well stun immunity is rare high con saves are not. Being if I remember correctly the highest save monsters have on average, wisdom being a more generally reliable target. Sure 3 ki a turn can make a 1 round stun happen but ki pool will run dry doing that.
As for horse stuff I don't get why people don't like mounts, and most arguments are about dungeon crawls, where mobility is kinda fraught anyways.

My point was that trying to fill that roll actively detracts from the Paladin's core functions besides Lay on Hands.



And the Paladin has no equivalent to a Monk's potential stealth or even aoe capability (Destructive Wave is basically a casting capstone for them), I don't know what you mean by speed bump abilities.



We heavily disagree on a mount letting the Paladin 'ape' a Monk's mobility, are you just talking about movement speed here? Find Steed doesn't come online until 5th level and then is entirely dependent on the mount being able to fit where the party are going and not getting cut from under the Paladin (or impacted by a different effect). Find Greater Steed covers sturdier and flying mounts, but doesn't come online until 13th level. The basic Monk chassis has a very high standard movement speed, the possibility of double dashing for a ki point and as of 9th level onwards the ability to cross liquids and vertical surfaces. You can go further than that if you consider that the Shadow Monk gets at will teleportation (situational, but normally pretty useful).

A Smite spell requires a bonus action, concentration and has the possibility of being wasted before it takes effect, all to impart arguably a lesser effect that as Max pointed out, the creature is more likely to be immune to.

They're both good at different things, but even if the Paladin is compensating with spells they don't clear cut cover all of the Monk's bases.

I don't know if it's come up in this thread already, but unless you're talking a face Dexadin, the usual Paladin is also pumping less useful stats, having a high Dex and Wis is more far reaching in the game than having a high Str and Cha.

By speed bump I meant tanking abilities (it is a reference to one of Roy's cards in the oots board game). Sorry for being unclear.
I am not sure how much aoe potential monk has, although I agree Paladin doesn't have much. Spirit guardians on the Crowns list and the aforementioned destructive wave I think is it unless multiclass sorcerer is on the table but that feels against the spirit of the discussion.

[MaxWilson]

Also well stun immunity is rare high con saves are not. Being if I remember correctly the highest save monsters have on average, wisdom being a more generally reliable target.

Nope, Wisdom and Con are about equally crummy on average (pink and purple lines respectively) before you take immunities into account:

https://i.postimg.cc/3JM87yKH/Overview.png (https://postimg.cc/0rfR0yMt)

Once you take charm immunity into account vs. stun immunity, Con has a significantly higher effectiveness trend line than Wis:

https://i.postimg.cc/x8m9MQ37/ConSaves.png (https://postimg.cc/m1bxW0qN)

https://i.postimg.cc/tRnqLdG5/Wis.png (https://postimg.cc/NLYvXHM9)

and that's BEFORE you account for the ability to effectively impose super-disadvantage on saves by forcing multiple saves per turn, or the fact that Wrathful Smite is affected by Magic Resistance and Stunning Strike isn't.

Source: https://maxwilson.github.io/Simple-SavingThrowGraphsFor5E/ (Using the "Monsters by CR" option, DC 19.)

[Witty Username]

what are the numbers on the left? % chance for successful save? and the bottom CR?

edit: ok, messed around with the site, left is chance of effect landing. looks like stun is about 40% success rate on average, so about 3 ki to call a success. +1 for flurry making for 4 ki a turn. Making for about 1-2 rounds of stun in most combats from the monk (assuming they short rest between combats and use their entire ki pool for combat) with 3/4 rounds at 12/16th level.

[MaxWilson]

what are the numbers on the left? % chance for successful save? and the bottom CR?

Higher line is good--it's the chance the monster will be affected by the given attack (as mentioned, I took this screenshots against a fixed DC of 19). Bottom is CR. If you hover over a dot in https://maxwilson.github.io/Simple-SavingThrowGraphsFor5E/ it will tell you more about specifically what monster is represented by that dot.

You can also filter for specific monster types (undead/fey/fiends/etc.) or sourcebooks (MM, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, etc.).

[Witty Username]

Looking over this, my perception on monk effectiveness may be skewed. I played a monk in a tier 4 game 15 -17th, which ended with a fight with an ancient blue dragon. which would explain my lackluster personal experience with stunning strike based on this since tier 4 looks like the lowest point for monks in that department.

[Dork_Forge]

By speed bump I meant tanking abilities (it is a reference to one of Roy's cards in the oots board game). Sorry for being unclear.
I am not sure how much aoe potential monk has, although I agree Paladin doesn't have much. Spirit guardians on the Crowns list and the aforementioned destructive wave I think is it unless multiclass sorcerer is on the table but that feels against the spirit of the discussion.

Both the Four Elements and Sun Soul Monk have multiple aoe options (I guess you could argue that a 17th Drunken Monk is the melee equivalent of an aoe).

By tanking do you mean durability or drawing aggro?

Durability:

-Bonus Action Dodge

-Kensei AC bump

-Open Hand Wholeness of Body

-Touch of Death and Mastery of Death from Long Death Monk

Though the Monk functions better as a Skirmisher than standing around and taking blows.

[Unoriginal]

Looking over this, my perception on monk effectiveness may be skewed. I played a monk in a tier 4 game 15 -17th, which ended with a fight with an ancient blue dragon. which would explain my lackluster personal experience with stunning strike based on this since tier 4 looks like the lowest point for monks in that department.

Lvl 18 is a pretty huge power up for the monk, so talk about unfortunate timing.

[stoutstien]

Lvl 18 is a pretty huge power up for the monk, so talk about unfortunate timing.
Aye. It might be one of the single largest changes any class gets in 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

Aye. It might be one of the single largest changes any class gets in 5e. It's a nice feature, to be sure.

Beginning at 18th level, you can use your action to spend 4 ki points to become invisible for 1 minute. During that time, you also have resistance to all damage but force damage. Additionally, you can spend 8 ki points to cast the astral projection spell, without needing material components. When you do so, you can’t take any other creatures with you.

[Droppeddead]

Well, technically true but such minor increase is barely worth noting.
Well, it's better than any one-handed weapon any sword and board fighter, pally, rogue or barbarian has access to. Not sure if that's "barely worth noting". Even so, you were still wrong in your claim.


Yeah, some subclasses get some offensive stuff of note but by and large they won't really outperform the base stuff othe Monk.
Pretty much every subclass gets offensive stuff or stuff that can be used to increase you roffensive capabilties.


Well, Bulezau have an aura that causes automatic necrotic damage around them so understandably our melee wanted to finish them off fast. Monk in particular was also unable to really stand in melee; he had what, 15 AC (Ghostwise Halfling Monk)? Add to that pretty mediocre HP (14 Con IIRC?) and he was hurting. I actually remembered, it was a Four Elements Monk and I think he had Fist of Unbroken Air (he only used it once and only during a tutorial day of sorts so it slipped my mind: as he died on level 3 never got to really see much of it from him). Pally burnt a smite or two and Monk burnt two flurries, which coupled with a Sleep and some damage spells from the War Wizard took the Bulezau down rather quickly and our Wizards were still well-stocked. The Horizon Walker also had no issues: I think he hadn't burnt a spell slot yet by the final encounter, not that it did us much good (he could've certainly killed the Babau but he got stuck engaging on the other side).Long story short

Anyways, in the second fight the Monk had 1 ki and the Pally 1 smite and both were of course burnt in short order. Ranger and Monk got stuck fighting a set of cultists (I think 8 + a priest and a cult leader) while the Wizards and the Pally engaged two scouts and the Babau. It quickly became apparent that nobody could really damage the Babau after the Pally was out of Smites and it just wasn't going down. Meanwhile the Ranger and Monk were mostly overwhelmed numerically after whiffing a few attacks and while the Ranger took down the acolyte and the big priest, the Monk simply went down to the cultists. One of the Wizards dropped a Sleep there and another dropped some AOE with the ranger on the mop-up duty, but that tied him down long enough that the damage was done.

One of the biggest issues was that the Monk had to melee to do damage and yet they didn't have any native hardiness whatsoever. Patient Defense would cost Ki too. A Fighter or a Cleric or a Barbarian or a Paladin or whatever could have 3 points higher AC at the same time with more HP to boot in the case of the Fighter.
OK, so stupid tactical choices all round, how is that the fault of the monk as a class?

[Droppeddead]

Monks aren't even any good with multiclassing

You're right, monks are awesome even without multiclassing. But if you do want to throw in a bunch of multiclass you can get a whole bunch of nice features. For example, just a single level of Rogue (because face it, Monk can do without their 20th level) gives you sneak attack, expertise and more skills. Six levels of Rogue and six levels of Shadow Monk gives you an fantastic assassin. If you shift it around, 6 levels of Kensei combined with any number of Gloomstalker levels and you have an awesome hunter of monsters (or anything, really).

[Eldariel]

Well, it's better than any one-handed weapon any sword and board fighter, pally, rogue or barbarian has access to. Not sure if that's "barely worth noting". Even so, you were still wrong in your claim.

Great, yes, that 1 point of damage is very noteworthy when people are hitting for 100+ damage a round.


OK, so stupid tactical choices all round, how is that the fault of the monk as a class?

Because another more martial or more caster or more rogue class instead of the Monk would've likely allowed coming out on top. Monk's running out of steam basically after round 1 of the "hold the fort" was one of the key reasons the Ranger was stuck (alongside poor rolls) and why the swap between the roles would've been so costly. Ironically, the other problem was the Paladin; 3 smites just doesn't get you that far. But at least each of the smites is an autohit for 3d8 (average 13,5) irresistable damage (so more like 27 with the party setup), which is certainly noteworthy in this scenario.

[Xervous]

Perhaps we can consider this from another angle.

A. You’re building a party, planning out the roles. For a non gimmicky group how many party members would be needed for monk to number among them? Does the likelihood of including a monk go up or down as you increase party size?

B. You’re joining a random party that mostly conforms to the standard role stereotypes. What arrangements and group sizes would encourage you to pick monk, what would discourage?

For the trivial case of 1 member custom party monk is a very solid pick. You have good self sufficiency for pillar coverage, successful run-out-of-range defense is a 100% damage mitigation, and you are moderately durable for a brawl. Damage throughput isn’t top tier but it’s consistent and any other class will be forfeiting something from a pillar if they want to stay ahead.

As you add to the party size you first need to keep with somewhat more generalist characters. This swiftly gives way to an array of specialists that tend to sustainable damage throughput, nova / cc potential, exploration and other utility features. I expect brutal combatants in the vein of XBE fighters and Hexadins are in line as options for your throughput. There’s a broad selection of supporting casters with spells for pulling outlier fights down to more manageable odds. So what does the monk figure in as? Scout and stunbot? If you have a suite of specialists checking every desired box, flowing together like a finely crafted jigsaw puzzle, you don’t have a supreme need for a generalist that can stand on its own.

Flip this to the grab bag stereotype party. We’re looking at the low end here. Monk being able to contribute to all manner of things, even if it’s frequently second best, at least ensures the monk won’t be irrelevant. This is not to say it might be sufficient, but if anyone else is dropping the ball you can chip in to move things more towards par.

Anyone care to take a shot at paladin and/or offer up corrections on the above?

[x3n0n]

Anyone care to take a shot at paladin and/or offer up corrections on the above?

First, this seems like a fruitful way to discuss this; thank you.

Second, it sounds like the claim is that the base Monk (played well) is a mostly-self-sufficient generalist, especially with respect to scouting and combat/debuffs against non-flying foes (weaknesses being lackluster Cha skills, lack of AoEs, and lacking "burst" damage). This would make it useful in small parties and parties of unknown composition (both of which may need each member to cover multiple roles), but less useful in parties that can guarantee that all of their roles are covered by specialists. (For example, in a party where the arcane caster is able to reliably inflict significant detrimental conditions, the "stun" capability becomes less useful.)

Is that a reasonable summary?

[Throne12]

So monk has a special place in my heart it was my first D&D class played. Paladin is my 3rd favorite after cleric. I've played 4 monks and 3 or 2 paladins. For the paladins one was played as a tank. Armored from head to toe dealing crazy amounts of damage with every swing of his sword. And the other one was played as Defender he try and soak up as much damage and using his spells and lay on hands to help the party. Now to monks where shadow monk and I played them like rogues. Then one was a sun soul that I would just stay out of range and pepper enemies and droping aoe. Then I played a open hand to knock down grapple and move the enemy around the battle field a monks extra movement speed is great for dragging enemy's around. So I would push or drag them through spells like cloud of daggers, ect. Or you fighter/paladin/barbarian is happy when you drag that wizard right to there feet.

So I always play my monks are Interrupter. I also like the mage slayer feat on monks. I find out whats the most annoying or problematic thing in a fight and deal with it. Thank to the monks many abilities I can get to the problem and do something about it. Be it stunning or forcing con checks on spells too bring something to the damage dealer. Is the BBEG about to use the mcguffin I can get to it and take it way from them. I love the monk there is just so many things I do in combat other them dealing damage.

[Unoriginal]

First, this seems like a fruitful way to discuss this; thank you.

Second, it sounds like the claim is that the base Monk (played well) is a mostly-self-sufficient generalist, especially with respect to scouting and combat/debuffs against non-flying foes (weaknesses being lackluster Cha skills, lack of AoEs, and lacking "burst" damage). This would make it useful in small parties and parties of unknown composition (both of which may need each member to cover multiple roles), but less useful in parties that can guarantee that all of their roles are covered by specialists. (For example, in a party where the arcane caster is able to reliably inflict significant detrimental conditions, the "stun" capability becomes less useful.)

Is that a reasonable summary?

Thing is, even for those who would agree the claim is accurate, how D&D 5e works makes it so that there are *very* few specialists who won't appreciate having a teammate who can give them backup.

[x3n0n]

Thing is, even for those who would agree the claim is accurate, how D&D 5e works makes it so that there are *very* few specialists who won't appreciate having a teammate who can give them backup.

Agreed. I probably should have separated the claims, but I got over-zealous in trying to make a TL;DR summary (and I may have inadvertently converted a legitimate question of Xervous's into a claim)--my mistake.

To start answering the actual questions posed by Xervous:

Conditions that make me want to add a Monk to the party:

Allies who benefit disproportionately from having advantage on their attacks, like Rogues and crit-fishers
Already having a kiting-capable party, but lacking melee damage
Allies who need gold/treasure to progress
Getting to play when Diamond Soul and/or Empty Body comes online
Lacking good damage capabilities other than nonmagical weapons (especially Kensei)
Lacking a way to disrupt opposing spellcasters (especially Shadow)
Lacking scouting/scrying (especially Shadow)
Lacking Pass Without Trace or Silence (Shadow)
Lots of mooks and needing a tank (Long Death, maybe Kensei)
Fear-resistant allies, like a lv10 Paladin (Long Death)
Starting close to level 11 (Elemonk for lots of Fireballs)

[OldTrees1]

Agreed. I probably should have separated the claims, but I got over-zealous in trying to make a TL;DR summary (and I may have inadvertently converted a legitimate question of Xervous's into a claim)--my mistake.

To start answering the actual questions posed by Xervous:

Conditions that make me want to add a Monk to the party:

Allies who benefit disproportionately from having advantage on their attacks, like Rogues and crit-fishers
Already having a kiting-capable party, but lacking melee damage
Getting to play when Diamond Soul and/or Empty Body comes online
Lacking good damage capabilities other than nonmagical weapons (especially Kensei)
Lacking a way to disrupt opposing spellcasters (especially Shadow)
Lacking scouting/scrying (especially Shadow)
Lacking Pass Without Trace or Silence (Shadow)
Lots of mooks and needing a tank (Long Death, maybe Kensei)
Fear-resistant allies, like a lv10 Paladin (Long Death)
Starting close to level 11 (Elemonk for lots of Fireballs)

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

[Unoriginal]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

A class that isn't desirable for a broad palette of cases isn't desirable by many.

If anything the 3.X Prestige Classes (and non-core classes to an extant) proved that. They only were considered attractive when a) you wanted the special gimmick or b) when someone found a way to broaden the use you got out of it.

[x3n0n]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

Those are not intended as sufficient conditions to guarantee that a Monk is the next thing I would add to the party, but they are all things that would move the Monk "up" my list of "next party member to add".

(I also am not applying them as inverses--for example, "wanting a tank" applies both to Paladin and Long Death Monk when compared to, say, Bard.)

I am less familiar with Paladins overall, but these are some conditions that would encourage me to add one:

Lacking melee burst damage
Lacking a divine caster
Lacking a secondary healer
Lacking Cha skills
Wanting a heavy armor wearer (that is, being ok not having everyone be stealthy)
Needing a melee tank
Wanting Aura of Protection (and who doesn't, other than already having a Paladin?)

I can imagine adding to both lists, but that's what I've got so far.

(Note that Long Death Monk and Conquest Paladin make quite the team.)

[MaxWilson]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

(1) Going to fight a lot of fiends in this campaign so want ability to turn fiends as well as undead.
(2) PCs are going to rely heavily on Polymorph spam and need Paladins/Bards to provide concentration save bonuses to Polymorphed apes.
(3) Ranged damage/spellcasting/summoning/scouting already covered and we want someone who can supply healing + save bonuses.
(4) A melee tank is needed: someone who isn't afraid to stick their head down a dark hole and maybe get it lopped off (or open a mysterious door in a dark hallway, or enter the old crone's hut to have a private word with her).

There are always tradeoffs but when 2-4 of these conditions are fulfilled, that is where I start to feel like a Paladin might be more valuable than a fighter, druid, bardlock or wizard. It's always painful though no matter which choice you end up making.

[OldTrees1]

Those are not intended as sufficient conditions to guarantee that a Monk is the next thing I would add to the party, but they are all things that would move the Monk "up" my list of "next party member to add".

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. If they were both lists of sufficient conditions, that would be easier to direct compare rather than a list of favorable conditions. Still I appreciate the lists.

Comparing your two lists it seems like you are less likely to add a monk than to add a paladin, but you are less familiar with Paladins overall which is evidence against that theory. So I will conclude Monks work well enough for x3n0n. That should be a safe conclusion.

[x3n0n]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. If they were both lists of sufficient conditions, that would be easier to direct compare rather than a list of favorable conditions. Still I appreciate the lists.

Comparing your two lists it seems like you are less likely to add a monk than to add a paladin, but you are less familiar with Paladins overall which is evidence against that theory. So I will conclude Monks work well enough for x3n0n. That should be a safe conclusion.

Yes, that is a safe conclusion. I'd like them even better in a world where I could fit one more ASI/feat while still being able to reach 20 Dex/20 Wis. (I tend to play standard point buy; more generous stat regimes would push me toward Monk even more, relative to other classes.)

I am also not very experienced in D&D, so I hope we continue to get more lists!

Another point to add to my "add a Monk" list: the party is already full of characters that benefit from treasure. The Monk can't make good use of most of it, leaving more for the Wizard or heavy armor user.

I am biased toward the Monk by aesthetics as well. Martial arts and unarmored defense fluff, wuxia wall- and water-running, Timeless Body, the whole thing. Given that, I'm certainly not impartial.

[Witty Username]

You're right, monks are awesome even without multiclassing. But if you do want to throw in a bunch of multiclass you can get a whole bunch of nice features. For example, just a single level of Rogue (because face it, Monk can do without their 20th level) gives you sneak attack, expertise and more skills. Six levels of Rogue and six levels of Shadow Monk gives you an fantastic assassin. If you shift it around, 6 levels of Kensei combined with any number of Gloomstalker levels and you have an awesome hunter of monsters (or anything, really).

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes. unarmored defense is better than rogue normal but also throws of ASI's which blunts the impact of it. So monk is there for movement speed, extra attack and stunning strike and shadow monk.
I would think rogue/ranger would work better for AC, sneaking, skills, and the increased spell list for control and utility options.

kensei+ranger is pretty solid on paper though.

[Amnestic]

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes.

This remains a silly thing in the RAW and I will die mad about it.

That and the fact that stunning strike is such a key feature that a) doesn't come online until level 5 (for some reason) and b) doesn't interact with your subclass whatsoever.

[Sorinth]

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes. unarmored defense is better than rogue normal but also throws of ASI's which blunts the impact of it. So monk is there for movement speed, extra attack and stunning strike and shadow monk.
I would think rogue/ranger would work better for AC, sneaking, skills, and the increased spell list for control and utility options.

kensei+ranger is pretty solid on paper though.

Short Swords are Monk weapons and with 1d6 SA it will end up better then using a quarterstaff but it's not a huge deal. It still falls behind the Kensei until Monk 11 though.

I think the main reason to go Rogue is to grab expertise, and maybe cunning action.

[OldTrees1]

This remains a silly thing in the RAW and I will die mad about it.

That and the fact that stunning strike is such a key feature that a) doesn't come online until level 5 (for some reason) and b) doesn't interact with your subclass whatsoever.

Stunning strike coming online at T2 makes sense. Stunning in T2 is a qualitative improvement on what a Monk can do. It is also a level appropriate threat around T2. In T1 Monk's key offensive feature is their extra attacks. Ideally there would also be level appropriate qualitative improvements in the Monk's threat in T3/T4. It is good to have qualitative improvement rather than just quantitative improvement.

Your other criticisms, and more, stand without question or comment.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Question about stunning strike:

I saw some mention of a spending up to 5 Ki with Flurry to try and force a stun (1 Ki to activate flurry, 4 Ki per hit to force a Stun save). Am I reading things incorrectly? I thought Stunning Strike was only available on melee weapon attacks, so your Flurry of Blows attacks didn't count as stunning strike vectors.

[stoutstien]

Question about stunning strike:

I saw some mention of a spending up to 5 Ki with Flurry to try and force a stun (1 Ki to activate flurry, 4 Ki per hit to force a Stun save). Am I reading things incorrectly? I thought Stunning Strike was only available on melee weapon attacks, so your Flurry of Blows attacks didn't count as stunning strike vectors.

Unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks.
The reference is under the melee attack section pg195. ± a page, AFB.

[Valmark]

Unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks.
The reference is under the melee attack section pg195. ± a page, AFB.

That was errata'd- at least, my copy specifies that unarmed strikes aren't weapons (and so does the errata and the Sage Advice).

Yes, I hate it.

[x3n0n]

Ideally there would also be level appropriate qualitative improvements in the Monk's threat in T3/T4. It is good to have qualitative improvement rather than just quantitative improvement.

On this front, I think Monk does pretty well in T4: Empty Body at lv18 is only one level in and is qualitatively game-changing. Several of the subclass lv17 abilities are also big qualitative leaps, although not all of them are.

I don't think Monk does nearly as well on the first half of T3. Elemonk, Kensei, and Sun Soul have qualitatively new offensive capabilities at lv11. (Not particularly impressed with the save-for-no-effect nature of the Sun Soul one, but it's qualitatively new and is powerful.) While it isn't directly offense, Long Death gets *ridiculously* hard to kill via damage, which can feel like a qualitative change to how you play your offense. I think things can feel pretty dry from lv10ish (or earlier for some players/campaigns) through lv13 if you don't like your subclass feature at lv11. However, I think that Diamond Soul by itself is enough to carry me from lv14 to lv17.

[x3n0n]

That was errata'd- at least, my copy specifies that unarmed strikes aren't weapons (and so does the errata and the Sage Advice).

Yes, I hate it.


Still in the newest SA:

Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?

Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.

The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.

The new thing about Paladins is different, and arguably stupid.

[stoutstien]

That was errata'd- at least, my copy specifies that unarmed strikes aren't weapons (and so does the errata and the Sage Advice).

Yes, I hate it.
didn't they come out after that and clarify that it still is a melee weapon attack because all attacks have to fall into one of four categories? so unarmed strikes count as weapon attacks only in the instance of actually making that attack but are not weapons in other instances such as satisfying necessary spell components for booming blade or fulfilling the requirements for a fighting style. I'm guessing I'm using the same logic as an improvised weapon. They are not weapons but must be treated as a weapon for the attack action.

[Valmark]

Still in the newest SA:


The new thing about Paladins is different, and arguably stupid.
Ooooh that's such an headache. Not that I was going to stop a monk from using Stunning Strike on an unarmed strike.

didn't they come out after that and clarify that it still is a melee weapon attack because all attacks have to fall into one of four categories? so unarmed strikes count as weapon attacks only in the instance of actually making that attack but are not weapons in other instances such as satisfying necessary spell components for booming blade or fulfilling the requirements for a fighting style. I'm guessing I'm using the same logic as an improvised weapon. They are not weapons but must be treated as a weapon for the attack action.

Looks like they have two directly opposite rulings on that because they couldn't be bothered to just call them weapons.

I'm sincerely thinking they were wrong and talked about Improved Divine Smite (which specifies melee weapons).

[Unoriginal]

That was errata'd- at least, my copy specifies that unarmed strikes aren't weapons (and so does the errata and the Sage Advice).

Yes, I hate it.

Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack.

So unarmed strikes work with all features that require a melee weapon attack, but not with the features that require an attack with a weapon.

This comes from how the writing team didn't find a better wording to distinguish "non-spell attack" and "spell attack".



Looks like they have two directly opposite rulings on that because they couldn't be bothered to just call them weapons.


An unarmed strike is made without a weapon, logically. The issue is that they called all attacks not made with spells "weapon attack".

[Valmark]

So unarmed strikes work with all features that require a melee weapon attack, but not with the features that require an attack with a weapon.


Not all, says the paladin (hence why I said I'm thinking they confused Divine Smite with Improved Divine Smite).

[MaxWilson]

An unarmed strike is made without a weapon, logically. The issue is that they called all attacks not made with spells "weapon attack".

Maybe they should have just called them "strikes" and "spell attacks."

[SpikeFightwicky]

Thanks for clearing that up! Yeah the wording is all kinds of muddled. We were using it as if unarmed attacks weren't usable with stunning strike. This actually really helps our monk!

[Unoriginal]

Maybe they should have just called them "strikes" and "spell attacks."

Well the issue is that you need to both distinguish between ranged and melee attacks, and make so that some abilities applies to all non-magic attacks regardless of range. I wouldn't call shooting someone with a bow a "ranged strike", personally.

Maybe they really should have just used "martial attack" and "spell attacks". That way you can say that unarmed strikes are melee martial attack made without a weapon, without any confusion.


Thanks for clearing that up! Yeah the wording is all kinds of muddled. We were using it as if unarmed attacks weren't usable with stunning strike. This actually really helps our monk!

Whoa, no offense to you, but reading about a Monk not being allowed to stun with their Flurry of Blows is almost physically painful.

[stoutstien]

Whoa, no offense to you, but reading about a Monk not being allowed to stun with their Flurry of Blows is almost physically painful.

Unfortunately in my experience it is a fairly common misunderstanding of the rules.

Monk seem to be one of the most common targets of either directly trying to tap down on their core abilities. Some of that done to the recursive language of how attacks are organized in the game but not all of it.

Interfering with SS behind screen because they don't want the monk to spoil encounters is a reoccurring issue that pops up ever once in awhile.

[Unoriginal]

Unfortunately in my experience it is a fairly common misunderstanding of the rules.

Monk seem to be one of the most common targets of either directly trying to tap down on their core abilities. Some of that done to the recursive language of how attacks are organized in the game but not all of it.

Interfering with SS behind screen because they don't want the monk to spoil encounters is a reoccurring issue that pops up ever once in awhile.

There is also the Matt Mercer method of just making boss monsters immune to the stunned condition.

Though to be 100% fair there was two cases (out of three) where the immunity was somewhat explainable, because those two bosses had underlings with AoE stunning screams. Only somewhat explainable because the underlings aren't immune to the stunning screams of the other underlings.

[OldTrees1]

There is also the Matt Mercer method of just making boss monsters immune to the stunned condition.

Though to be 100% fair there was two cases (out of three) where the immunity was somewhat explainable, because those two bosses had underlings with AoE stunning screams. Only somewhat explainable because the underlings aren't immune to the stunning screams of the other underlings.

An alternative is to make the boss monsters have some threat that persists despite being stunned while still rewarding the stun as a deblilitating condition:
1) The underlings are actually threatening (maybe because some are minibosses?)
2) The boss has some actions they can do while stunned
3) The boss's mere presence as nasty effects (auras are a good method)

[Eldariel]

An alternative is to make the boss monsters have some threat that persists despite being stunned while still rewarding the stun as a deblilitating condition:
1) The underlings are actually threatening (maybe because some are minibosses?)
2) The boss has some actions they can do while stunned
3) The boss's mere presence as nasty effects (auras are a good method)

Or ability to shake off iterations of the same effect. Adaptive resistance, if you will. Something like bonus to saves for each previous time they succumbed to the same effect or half duration on each subsequent effect (rounded down to minimum of 0) or immunity for a couple of rounds or whatever.

[Unoriginal]

Or the DM can just accept that the Monk can stun the boss if the boss fails their saves when they don't have Legendary Resistances available.

Some of the bosses being immune is fine, but 3 out of 4 is kinda a lot. Especially when there is little to no in-story reasons for it. Like, it's not the fire-using mage being disadvantaged because the bad guy uses fire Elementals and Salamanders.

[stoutstien]

Or the DM can just accept that the Monk can stun the boss if the boss fails their saves when they don't have Legendary Resistances available.

Some of the bosses being immune is fine, but 3 out of 4 is kinda a lot. Especially when there is little to no in-story reasons for it. Like, it's not the fire-using mage being disadvantaged because the bad guy uses fire Elementals and Salamanders.

Either way it's just a fact of the matter that monks are more reliant on the DM shooting straight than just about any other class.

[Unoriginal]

Either way it's just a fact of the matter that monks are more reliant on the DM shooting straight than just about any other class.

That's just not true though?

All the classes are equally reliant on the DM "shooting straight". Paladins may "mysteriously" always face foes immune to radiant damage, casters may find their spells nerfed after they selected them and changes are not allowed until level up, Rogues may discover that every single NPC in the world have the uncanny ability to always know where they are and automatically know when you're lying, etc.

[stoutstien]

That's just not true though?

All the classes are equally reliant on the DM "shooting straight". Paladins may "mysteriously" always face foes immune to radiant damage, casters may find their spells nerfed after they selected them and changes are not allowed until level up, Rogues may discover that every single NPC in the world have the uncanny ability to always know where they are and automatically know when you're lying, etc.
Depends. For most classes you can tell if someone has fingers on the scale.
I was more suggesting that if a DM didn't want a stun to ruin a certain encounter is a lot easier than slapping radiant resistance ad hoc or hamstringing stealth.

[MaxWilson]

Either way it's just a fact of the matter that monks are more reliant on the DM shooting straight than just about any other class.

Illusionist would like to have a word with you.

[x3n0n]

Depends. For most classes you can tell if someone has fingers on the scale.
I was more suggesting that if a DM didn't want a stun to ruin a certain encounter is a lot easier than slapping radiant resistance ad hoc or hamstringing stealth.

Oh, I missed your point the first time (even though you had mentioned it in an earlier post): if a DM wants to silently fudge hidden rolls to mess with encounter difficulty, the stun saves imposed by the Monk are a high-frequency, high-leverage way to do so.

[stoutstien]

Illusionist would like to have a word with you.
Eh. Illusions are usually a topic covered during session 0 where players shouldn't need toworry about plot armor.

[Unoriginal]

Eh. Illusions are usually a topic covered during session 0 where players shouldn't need toworry about plot armor.

A biased DM/a DM "not playing straight" doesn't care about that.

[stoutstien]

A biased DM/a DM "not playing straight" doesn't care about that.

True. But there is a difference between a DM who is openly doing this and one trying to hide their puppet strings. a DM that allows all NPCs to instantly see through illusions is very apparent where if a monk never seems to be able to land a stunning strike within the first two rounds of big fights isn't so easy to spot.
I don't know much about critical role so I might be wrong in this assumption. as a DM I would be curious if those NPCs would have stun immunity prior to knowledge of knowing there was a monk playing in that campaign.

[Witty Username]

Not all, says the paladin (hence why I said I'm thinking they confused Divine Smite with Improved Divine Smite).

I have a hypothesis that the divine smite wording 'that you add radiant damage the weapon's damage' is the thing they meant. The idea being one could smite with an unarmed strike but couldn't add damage because there is no weapon to add the damage too.
Either way it is a terrible ruling, and if my thought is true a botched attempt at communicating the ruling.

[MaxWilson]

True. But there is a difference between a DM who is openly doing this and one trying to hide their puppet strings. a DM that allows all NPCs to instantly see through illusions is very apparent where if a monk never seems to be able to land a stunning strike within the first two rounds of big fights isn't so easy to spot.

Seems like you're comparing a DM who is bad at cheating with a DM who cheats a little more subtly and concluding that the problem is the monk. Let's say you create a Major Image of a Demon Lord, hoping that it will draw fire. The DM has the bad guy look around and spot you in your (illusory or real) plate armor and attack you instead of the Demon Lord. Did they cheat?

In either case, as a player you're not going to be sure until you've seen repeated patterns: if multiple monsters fail to be stunned despite receiving 12+ Stunning Strikes each, or if multiple opponents fail to react to an illusion in a way that you think is psychologically realistic, you may have a DM who is not playing straight. But it's hard to be sure unless the DM is blatant.

And here's the thing: monks has a bunch of cool things that might make you want to play them. If the DM hates Stunning Strike, you can still play a ninja in different ways: catching arrows, running up walls, disarming enemies and then beating them unconscious bare-handed, terrifying enemies in an AoE while and being a nigh-indestructible Terminator who outright ignores javelins stuck completely through his body and and Tarrasque bites as long as he has ki (Long Death). But if you're playing an illusionist, your whole shtick is fooling enemies, and it only works if the DM cooperates by roleplaying the monsters instead of metagaming. If the DM doesn't play it straight you might as well have been an Evoker or something.

[stoutstien]

Seems like you're comparing a DM who is bad at cheating with a DM who cheats a little more subtly and concluding that the problem is the monk. Let's say you create a Major Image of a Demon Lord, hoping that it will draw fire. The DM has the bad guy look around and spot you in your (illusory or real) plate armor and attack you instead of the Demon Lord. Did they cheat?

In either case, as a player you're not going to be sure until you've seen repeated patterns: if multiple monsters fail to be stunned despite receiving 12+ Stunning Strikes each, or if multiple opponents fail to react to an illusion in a way that you think is psychologically realistic, you may have a DM who is not playing straight. But it's hard to be sure unless the DM is blatant.

And here's the thing: monks has a bunch of cool things that might make you want to play them. If the DM hates Stunning Strike, you can still play a ninja in different ways: catching arrows, running up walls, disarming enemies and then beating them unconscious bare-handed, terrifying enemies in an AoE while and being a nigh-indestructible Terminator who outright ignores javelins stuck completely through his body and and Tarrasque bites as long as he has ki (Long Death). But if you're playing an illusionist, your whole shtick is fooling enemies, and it only works if the DM cooperates by roleplaying the monsters instead of metagaming. If the DM doesn't play it straight you might as well have been an Evoker or something.

Sure a wizard without illusions is still a wizard and a monk without SS is still a monk. Both would suffer in a game with a bad DM. I guess I see monks just being impacted more so from to the loss of SS. An illusionist is still a wizard after all and the class has the smallest impact from subclass pick in the game. Heck if someone wanted to play a wizard without a subclass I don't think it would be that much of a handicap.

[MaxWilson]

Sure a wizard without illusions is still a wizard and a monk without SS is still a monk. Both would suffer in a game with a bad DM. I guess I see monks just being impacted more so from to the loss of SS. An illusionist is still a wizard after all and the class has the smallest impact from subclass pick in the game. Heck if someone wanted to play a wizard without a subclass I don't think it would be that much of a handicap.

The only reason to play an illusionist is to play with illusions, which relies on the DM playing it straight. Are you making the counterclaim that the only reason to play a monk is to stun enemies?

[stoutstien]

The only reason to play an illusionist is to play with illusions, which relies in the DM playing it straight. Are you making the counterclaim that the only reason to play a monk is to stun enemies?
No, but it a large part what makes monks stand out. I can think of a dozen different ways to make a highly mobile striker that is hard to pin down. on the other hand, a highly mobile striker that apply a debilitating condition that only a handful of targets can be expected to have immunity to is unique.
Sure monks have a bunch of other little things that are really cool but they're all very situational. Stunning strike is just that nice option that is almost always applicable. A default effect that is a boon for the entire party. a monk without stunning strike is not suddenly not a monk but it's definitely less of a monk.

So my counterclaim would be that monks are less complete if stunning strike is removed than a wizard losing illusions even if said wizard is an illusionist. At least IR is something to look forward to.

[MaxWilson]

No, but it a large part what makes monks stand out. I can think of a dozen different ways to make a highly mobile striker that is hard to pin down. on the other hand, a highly mobile striker that apply a debilitating condition that only a handful of targets can be expected to have immunity to is unique.
Sure monks have a bunch of other little things that are really cool but they're all very situational. Stunning strike is just that nice option that is almost always applicable. A default effect that is a boon for the entire party. a monk without stunning strike is not suddenly not a monk but it's definitely less of a monk.

So my counterclaim would be that monks are less complete if stunning strike is removed than a wizard losing illusions even if said wizard is an illusionist. At least IR is something to look forward to.

I guess we're talking about different things then. I'm talking about how playing out a class fantasy that requires fooling monsters absolutely requires DM cooperation to not wreck the fantasy. You're pointing out that even after the fantasy is wrecked, you can still adapt and play a regular wizard as a fallback strategy, so mechanically the illusionist isn't that bad even under a cheating DM since he can still Fireball/Planar Binding/etc.

[stoutstien]

I guess we're talking about different things then. I'm talking about how playing out a class fantasy that requires fooling monsters absolutely requires DM cooperation to not wreck the fantasy. You're pointing out that even after the fantasy is wrecked, you can still adapt and play a regular wizard as a fallback strategy, so mechanically the illusionist isn't that bad even under a cheating DM since he can still Fireball/Planar Binding/etc.

I guess we are.

I would agree that in both these situation the player would be restrained conceptually with the wizard feeling more so. Probably due to to lineage that the illusion-based wizards have compared to the relatively young pedigree monks have.

[Unoriginal]

There is no winner to the unfair DM game, no matter which classes are affected or how. A broken clock is broken even if some wheels still turns normally.