Is Treantmonk's homebrew "fixed" Monk overtuned?

[Merudo]

Treantmonk recently posted a "fix" to the Monk class (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E59Cp_cK8v8).

These fixes are:


Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)
Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient
Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)
Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based
Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)
Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest
Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


Each of these fixes seem quite reasonable to me, but that's a lot of changes to the Monk. I wonder if Treantmonk overdid it, and made the Monk too strong.

What's your take on this?

[ProsecutorGodot]

My take is that you could add just two changes to Monk and they're fine:
-Martial Arts allows you to use Dexterity in place of Strength for Grapples and Shoves
-If you have no Ki points, you regain 1 after X amount of time or when you roll initiative, stacks with Perfect Self at 20th level.

I like Monks, I think they go under appreciated for what they offer to the party and I think that the fact they encourage thoughtful character building (in distributing ability scores) is something missing from a lot of classes.

I think its pretty over-tuned. I'm not sure he could even convince me half of them are necessary. My criticisms in order:
1) Hit Die size is fine for Monk
2) Seems like a change targeted specifically for multiclassing/feats, which is a big design no-no.
3) Martial Arts never actually scales to 1d12 now, so I don't know what scale he's basing this off. If you absolutely had to make this change, 1d6/1d8/1d10/2d6 is all you need.
4) I want to cut down on Monk Madness too but I don't think this is the way to do it, especially if we're giving free uses of stunning strike and allowing them to wear armor. These changes altogether just mean the Monk will dump Wisdom altogether, which is very off theme.
5) No complaints here honestly, I just think it's unnecessary.
6) Again, we're stacking buffs here. If he's proposing a 3d6 martial arts die he probably shouldn't also lower the cost of the martial arts die based healing.
7) I think Stunning Strike is powerful enough to warrant the opportunity cost it has now, it's without a doubt Monk's most powerful feature and I wouldn't buff it.
8) This is a good change because it makes the ability work how you'd expect it to.
9) Probably not going to be used all that much, more ribbon for the ribbon.
10) Arguably Monk's second most powerful feature, if I were going to buff this one I'd reduce the Ki cost before I'd make it a bonus action.
11) This is, in my opinion, the worst proposed change because it shows he clearly intends for the Monk to dump Wisdom altogether. This shows a clear intent for Monk to go from MAD (3 ability scores) to extremely SAD in the same style that Hexblade encourages for Paladins who suffered from MADness if they wanted to focus on their abilities or spells. I think encouraging opportunity costs is good design and I don't like for homebrew/new content to go out of its way to take away from that. With that said, balance wise +4/+4 as a capstone isn't going to break the game wide open, I just think the design message it sends is terrible.

Final note - My general take is that Treantmonk views 5e from a very different lens than I do, in much of his content that I've looked through I find that we disagree often and I don't think he appreciates the design values of 5e in the same way I do. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion at least.

Personal bias aside, if you're simply looking to change the Monk to be stronger, simpler and generally more effective, they aren't bad changes.

[Rynjin]

Treantmonk recently posted a "fix" to the Monk class (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E59Cp_cK8v8).

These fixes are:


Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)
Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient
Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)
Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based
Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)
Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest
Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


Each of these fixes seem quite reasonable to me, but that's a lot of changes to the Monk. I wonder if Treantmonk overdid it, and made the Monk too strong.

What's your take on this?

As a fellow "Monk guy" from previous editions (though Treantmonk has always been more of a Wizard guy anyway) and someone who was kinda disappointed in 5e's core Monk options I'd say this is less overtuned and more poorly designed. My 2cp.

1.) Hit die change good. Monks are meant to be frontliners, and the game doesn't have the excuse of largely tying hit dice to BaB that Pathfinder and to a lesser extent 3.5 had.
2.) Armorlessness is a key feature of Monk. Instead I'd bring back the scaling from previous editions: Unarmored Defense bonus increases by 1 at 4/8/12/16/20.
3.) Damage die increase good. Brings back the old scaling. Starting at d4 was dumb. Should cap at 2d8 not 3d6 is only criticism.
4.) DC stat calculation change bad. It being based on Wis is fine. If DCs are considered too low to be useful, tweaking the overall scaling would be better instead of it being a largely static DC from 1 to 20.
5.) Step of the Wind buff good. Not sure why Monk was given Cunning Action but worse as a fellow mobility class.
6.) No clue what "Quickened Healing" is.
7.) Stunning Strike usage increase good-ish. Should be unlocked from Ki entirely IMO, just as it always was. Maybe just proficiency bonus uses per Short Rest, hard cap rather than a few free uses and then however much Ki you wanna spend.
8.) Stillness of Mind buff good. A condition purge that doesn't work when you're affected by a condition is dumb.
9.) Sure? Timeless Body is kind of an irrelevant feature at 15 anyway.
10.) Empty Body buff good-ish; might be better to buff the exorbitant Ki cost instead. Or both. Half current Ki cost as Action, current Ki cost as Bonus.
11.) It's a 20th level feature, who cares? A bit of a stat boost is hella boring but not likely to burn the game down.

[Dienekes]

Treantmonk recently posted a "fix" to the Monk class (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E59Cp_cK8v8).

These fixes are:


Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)
Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient
Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)
Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based
Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)
Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest
Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


Each of these fixes seem quite reasonable to me, but that's a lot of changes to the Monk. I wonder if Treantmonk overdid it, and made the Monk too strong.

What's your take on this?

Honestly, looking at all of this, I'd probably still want a Paladin on my team anyway. Ki DC being based off of Dex sticks out to me a little, because as a whole I wish the game moved away from being so SAD to allow different types of equally competitive builds.

But, since the only classes that actually do that are half-casters and Monks are not half-casters. I don't see it as necessarily a balance concern.

[Rynjin]

I also think a big part of the issue with Monk comes from its subclasses anyway, like Four Elements being hot garbage. The base chassis is weak and could use some tweaks, but the fact that a lot of its specialization options suck is the bigger part.

Unless, of course, you're dipping. Which has ALWAYS been the issue with Monk. Grab 1, 2, 4 levels and then GTFO.

[Talionis]

Personally I think Monk could use two more ASI to help mitigate being MAD and allow Monks access to more feats.

[Christew]

It is definitely a lot of changes and significantly increases the power of the monk, but as stated upthread I still don't think I would play it.

Personally, I think monk's issue is less individual mechanics than, for want of a better term, the "thematic trap" it exists in. Monk has an incomparably narrow thematic focus, but is bounded by rogue, fighter, and cleric which each have relatively broad thematic focuses. From a design perspective it is a trap because you: 1) want to illustrate this really specific concept, but 2) can't make it inherently more powerful than, or even really on par with, the base classes it is drawing on. The monk is a class built from other classes and that makes it basically a multiclass which means it's versatility has significant costs.

Honestly, Monk should just not be a core class. Eastern martials arts is comparable to psionics as far as thematic coherence/narrowness goes. Suite of subclasses would have been a better angle if they felt it was necessary.

TLDR: The chassis itself is broken (largely on inception), these kind of cost reduction/output increase tweaks can't address that fundamental issue.

[Hael]

So the big ones I broadly agree with.. that is the martial arts die (it’s pretty ridiculous that an optimally played monk doesn’t use his fists) which gives a bump to the monk chassis notoriously weak dpr in tier2-4 and enables skirmishing. I like the resource fix.. I like the step of the wind fix. The rest are edge cases and wording fixes which is fine.

The ones I don’t like are the hitpoint bump and the KI DC fix. That seems a bit excessive and starts removing choices and encroaches on other classes zones of expertise.

[TyGuy]

All this damage die jumping is triggering my OCD! If not linear increases in die size at least propose a linear increase in d4's! (:

[Rynjin]

All this damage die jumping is triggering my OCD! If not linear increases in die size at least propose a linear increase in d4's! (:

It is a linear increase, at least in terms of how old size increases work. A Medium creature's d6 is a Large creature's d8 is a Huge creature's 2d6 is a Gargantuan creature's 3d6.

[Frogreaver]

TLDR: it's way overtuned


Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)

I like this change. Helps monks melee early.


Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient

Hate this change. It's not thematic and does nothing for a Monk.


Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)

The best comparison to monk is a TWF fighter. Monks already do comparable damage to them. However, monks get much better defensive abilities than such a fighter. 20AC vs 18AC, proficiency in all saves, evasion, high move speed, ability to stunning strike. The TWF will have more hp, some higher burst damage and that's about all he has going for him.


Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based

The main thing this improves is stunning strike which doesn't need a buff.


Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)

With monks high speed, getting a free bonus action disengage can result in too easy of hit and run tactics. I disagree with the change.


Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)

Not sure what this ability is


Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest

Just no. Stunning strike is already the strongest monk offensive feature. There's no need to incentivize it further.


Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)

I'm not sure I understand why it matters that this is done on the start of the turn instead of during your turn.


Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest

Solution in search of a problem. I've literally never heard anyone that plays a monk come back with, you know what the monk needs, an ability that recovers exhaustion on a short rest. That said, the ability is cool and thematic and shouldn't break anything. So let's go for it.


Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action

That ability already tunes too well with Elven Accuracy for any encounter lasting longer than 3 rounds (and it's defensive properties are amazing).


Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con

I dislike the regenerate resource capstones as much as the next guy, but +4 dex +4 con is too much.

[Kane0]

Seems...okay. I dont agree with all of it but its not going to break the game.

Edit: Personally, the changes i'd go with are
a) Start MA die at d6, increasing at normal levels
b) Stunning strike usable Wis mod or prof bonus times per short rest, not fuelled by Ki at all
c) around level 10 or so add the ability when taking the attack action to spend 1 Ki to add MA die to the damage of your attacks (with unarmed and monk weapons) until the end of your turn

Plus maybe allowing monks to use armor if they get the proficiency from race. I'd have to consider that.

[Foxydono]

I hear a lot of people saying te changes are too much, but I dissagree. It is easy to say you don't like change x, or y. Everyone has their own views and ideas and I have yet to find a post that proposed class changes which everyone agrees on.

At the end of the day, is the monk more powerful then a bard, wizard, paladin, fighter? No, but pretty equal if you implement the changes. Making a monk SAD will make him a very dangerous opponent combined with stunning strike. So the changes get a thumbs up from me. It is a power creep, true, but so are many other changes in recent books. For me it would level the playing field.

[Reach Weapon]

6.) No clue what "Quickened Healing" is.

Not sure what this ability is
Quickened Healing (TCoE Optional)
Also at 4th level, as an action, you can spend 2 ki points and roll a Martial Arts die. You regain a number of hit points equal to the number rolled plus your proficiency bonus.


I'm not sure I understand why it matters that this is done on the start of the turn instead of during your turn.
If the effect that is causing you to be charmed or frightened is causing you to loose your action, this change to Stillness of Mind would clearly allow you to use the action you couldn't otherwise use to end that effect.


What's your take on this?
I really dislike some of these proposals (2, 4 & 11) and think several others seem to miss the mark (1 & 9), but mostly I've seen packages of changes I just like so much better.

[Kane0]

If the effect that is causing you to be charmed or frightened is causing you to loose your action, this change to Stillness of Mind would clearly allow you to use the action you couldn't otherwise use to end that effect.

Is that common? I wager its primarily for domonate and other enchantment effects that piggyback additional effects onto the charmed condition the same way conquest paladins do with frightened.

[Jerrykhor]

I agree with 3,5,6,8,9,10.

Making them more Fighter-y is not the solution IMO, so Hit Die should stay D8, and no armour.

Ki DC should stay Wisdom. Paladins are fine with their spell save DC being Charisma instead of Strength.

Step of the Wind is a weird one, nobody uses it so it does need a buff. But people are probably reluctant to use it to save Ki, so giving them a bigger Ki pool might be a solution too. Same goes for Patient Defense, but that one has the problem of being the trade off to Flurry of Blows.

Stillness of Mind sucks, but does it need a buff? Monks get it along with Evasion, while Rogues only get Evasion at the same level. Maybe its meant to be a semi-ribbon.

Perfect Soul should give +4 DEX and +4 WIS.

Monks need a buff at lv11. Every class get a big power bump at that level, while monks currently get a Monastic Tradition feature, most of them are terrible. My suggestion: Flurry of Blows can make 3 unarmed strikes at 11, and 4 strikes at 17.

[Dork_Forge]

-Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)

Not needed, Monks have a lot of defensive tools and them being a d8 like the Rogue fits better, making them a d10 serves as a needless buff that homogenises martials.


-Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient

This looks primarily like a feat or multiclass buff, both of which are bad design and don't help the core Monk


-Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)

Not only does this feel weird, I'm not sure if this is based in 3.5 or something, it's ridiculous. The Martial Arts Die is used for too much, not only does this mean that an 11th level Monk is making Fireball look like chump change, it has spin off effects into other weapons and abilities. Horrendous and way too much.


-Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based

No, too much and takes away from the Monk's identity. It's okay that they need a secondary stat, plenty of other classes and subclasses do.


-Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)

No, this isn't needed. I can see why people compare SotW to Cunning Action, but they are not the same. The biggest thing missed here I think is that the Monk has a core speed boost, in comparative situations the Rogue is having to Dash more often because the Monk's base speed covers a lot of cases Dash would be needed.


-Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)

No, and I think he misunderstands this ability, it's primarily just a way to convert left over Ki into health so it isn't wasted, it's not really intended to be a stand alone healing ability. For the aim of the ability the cost is fine, though the fact he proposed this along with that martial arts die increase is just ridiculous.


-Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest

Why? Just why? Stunning Strike isn't expensive to use to begin with, it's not even like it has the opportunity cost of declaring before you attack. More needless stacking buffs.


-Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)


This isn't particularly bad, I just don't think it's necessary.


-Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest

No... Why cram something like this into a ribbon ability?


-Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action

That's a massive buff, out of line imo for all that you get out of Empty Body.


-Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


Is this instead of the Ki regen? Either way... no

Buffing Con on a Monk isn't thematic, pushing their Dex over 20 isn't needed and just takes a dump on the uniqueness of the Barbarian's ability.



Playing this Monk would be a hot mess of overtuned whilst also draining a lot of flavour and identity out of the class. The fact he thinks these buffs are okay to add altogether (or at all in some cases) really just calls into question his sense of 5e balance.


Here's a standout: Way of the Astral Self at 20th would get to do 5 attacks if Flurrying, for a total of 18d6+25, or an average of 88 force damage. Not Flurrying brings that down to a measily 72.5.

And the problems would start to arise well before it got to Tier 4.

Why not build a Kensei Archer that now does 3d6 weapon damage on top of the SS damage and other boosts?


A Mercy Monk that 'smites' enough that a Paladin blushes, whilst also having their healing role morph from battle medic/emergency heals to deep healing?

[SharkForce]

Not needed, Monks have a lot of defensive tools and them being a d8 like the Rogue fits better, making them a d10 serves as a needless buff that homogenises martials.



This looks primarily like a feat or multiclass buff, both of which are bad design and don't help the core Monk



Not only does this feel weird, I'm not sure if this is based in 3.5 or something, it's ridiculous. The Martial Arts Die is used for too much, not only does this mean that an 11th level Monk is making Fireball look like chump change, it has spin off effects into other weapons and abilities. Horrendous and way too much.



No, too much and takes away from the Monk's identity. It's okay that they need a secondary stat, plenty of other classes and subclasses do.



No, this isn't needed. I can see why people compare SotW to Cunning Action, but they are not the same. The biggest thing missed here I think is that the Monk has a core speed boost, in comparative situations the Rogue is having to Dash more often because the Monk's base speed covers a lot of cases Dash would be needed.



No, and I think he misunderstands this ability, it's primarily just a way to convert left over Ki into health so it isn't wasted, it's not really intended to be a stand alone healing ability. For the aim of the ability the cost is fine, though the fact he proposed this along with that martial arts die increase is just ridiculous.



Why? Just why? Stunning Strike isn't expensive to use to begin with, it's not even like it has the opportunity cost of declaring before you attack. More needless stacking buffs.



This isn't particularly bad, I just don't think it's necessary.



No... Why cram something like this into a ribbon ability?



That's a massive buff, out of line imo for all that you get out of Empty Body.



Is this instead of the Ki regen? Either way... no

Buffing Con on a Monk isn't thematic, pushing their Dex over 20 isn't needed and just takes a dump on the uniqueness of the Barbarian's ability.



Playing this Monk would be a hot mess of overtuned whilst also draining a lot of flavour and identity out of the class. The fact he thinks these buffs are okay to add altogether (or at all in some cases) really just calls into question his sense of 5e balance.


Here's a standout: Way of the Astral Self at 20th would get to do 5 attacks if Flurrying, for a total of 18d6+25, or an average of 88 force damage. Not Flurrying brings that down to a measily 72.5.

And the problems would start to arise well before it got to Tier 4.

Why not build a Kensei Archer that now does 3d6 weapon damage on top of the SS damage and other boosts?


A Mercy Monk that 'smites' enough that a Paladin blushes, whilst also having their healing role morph from battle medic/emergency heals to deep healing?

- there really isn't a major difference between d8 and d10. on average, 1 hit point per level. when I look at fighter and compare to barbarian, the big difference is not the d12 vs d10 hit die, it is the rage, faster movement and brutal critical as compared to getting more attacks, a fighting style, and second wind, being able to use a wider variety of weapons and armour and bonus ASIs. as far as distinctiveness, hit die doesn't do a heck of a lot.

- agree the monk doesn't really need it. disagree that it's particularly a concern. I don't think a lot of class power budget goes into deciding whether they can use armour, only in whether they gain proficiency, and frankly, some monk concepts wear armour.

- it's based on monks dealing reasonably decent damage at low levels and then their damage plateaus and kinda sucks at higher levels (especially at level 11 when most strong damage-dealers get a big spike and the monk gets almost nothing). no idea what you're imagining about fireball though. fireball hits a 20 foot radius. a monk hits one target. these are not a reasonable pair of abilities to compare. I'm not sure this is the way I would've gone myself, but no, it doesn't break anything.

- I actually do agree on wisdom being the attribute for the monk's more spiritual abilities, though.

- step of the wind already costs the monk's damage. dashing takes their already weak damage to being *really* terrible at higher levels (and takes it from being decent to "meh" at lower levels), because now they can't use flurry of blows *or* their free bonus action martial arts attack. there is no need to make it cost ki, they already need ki for every other thing under the sun which means they barely get to actually *be* a monk.

- quickened healing has a crappy ratio, and if you go into a short rest with loads of ki left it's only because you haven't done anything remotely interesting. I'd rather have an ability that, on the rare occasion you can actually afford to use it, is not hot garbage.

- all part of the "hey, wouldn't it be nice if monks could actually ever afford to spend their ki on something other than the absolute highest value option once in a million years" plan. I'm not sure that giving free uses of the high value ability is the best way to accomplish that (I would think giving a few free uses of the lower value options would make more sense), but it's an effort. of course, there *is* a video that explains all of this, which is the subject of this discussion and linked in it, so you *could* get informed *before* giving an opinion about the video you have evidently not watched.

- a number of the status effects that stillness of mind is *supposed* to prevent don't allow you to take your action to use the ability. this is stupid; you can't use your ability to break domination, because you're dominated? well gee, thanks for that! that is totally how I want my resistant to work, that I can't use them because the ability they're supposed to help again makes it impossible to do so. frankly, I suspect for most people, they just kind of assumed the ability actually allows this in the first place, making it not a real buff for many games.

- it's still a ribbon ability. I don't think it has much point, and I don't think it adds much, so frankly, my opinion on this front is largely "meh", but whatever. it's not like this is causing a major crisis here.

- I mean, it's level 18. you're allowed to get awesome stuff. and boy, it sure would be nice if your combat buff doesn't make you sit on your ass in the first and most important round and do nothing useful when you spend 1/5 of your monk allowance that you have to spend to do damn near anything remotely monk-like.

- yes, instead of crappy regeneration. crappy regeneration that only kicks in when you start a fight with zero ki, specifically... not zero to three ki, not 10 ki, but if you have exactly zero and not anything else, you can get back enough to actually feel remotely like a monk for one whole round. the official monk "capstone" is a total stinker. bonus dex and con = highly trained physical body, well, I'm not sure it's the best capstone I could ever imagine, but I'd rather have it than a capstone that requires me to do exactly the thing I never want to do and spend my ki irresponsibly so that I have none left.

72.5 for resourceless damage is not that impressive at high levels (although it isn't resources, since you specified an astral monk). in 3-5 rounds, congratulations, you will have defeated a *single* equivalent CR monster, assuming you somehow didn't miss about 1/3 of the time (that being a reasonably average hit chance). frankly, I don't see a problem with a class that largely doesn't have the incredible burst of other damage-dealing classes nor the incredible utility of spellcasting classes to actually not be a total laughingstock when it comes to dealing damage to enemies. frankly, there are even some creatures as low as CR 7 that your monk would need to spend 2 full rounds (with no missing allowed) to defeat. being able to handle a single equal-CR creature in a 3-5 round fight sounds perfectly acceptable; I mean, the monk contributes about 1 equal CR creature to the number of enemies in a medium fight, why *shouldn't* the monk be able to pull their own weight (hypothetically, that is... again, your damage numbers seem to assume that the monk just never misses anything under any circumstances, so actual damage numbers will be lower, and it may actually take more than the entire fight for the monk to contribute as much to the party side of the equation as they add to the enemy side of the equation).

current monk is terrible at tiers 3 and 4, and frankly isn't that awe-inspiring towards the end of tier 2 either (they're reasonable in tier 1 and low tier 2, I suppose). there is a lot of room to boost them before they become remotely close to being problematic. frankly, the entire *concept* of any of the current non-spellcasting classes being genuinely problematic in tier 3-4 when you have spellcasters walking around with the likes of wall of force, mass suggestion, forcecage, true polymorph, wish, maze, antipathy/sympathy, and so on, is laughably absurd.

heaven forbid the monk's damage can actually defeat one enemy over 4 rounds when the wizard can just crowd control half the enemies on round 1 with a level 5 spell slot, because that would just be *awful*

[TIPOT]

So I generally disagree with most of Treantmonk's thoughts on monks so it's not really a surprise that I disagree with most of the changes.

He seems to want monk to be a super sad dex based class which just not something I want to see? The armour idea is weird too.

For the perfect self capstone shouldn't it at least be +4 dex and +4 wisdom? I think I'd prefer it to be just like +6 to wisdom though, really reflect that wise martial master archetype. Although I'm in favour of massively buffing most capstones tbh.

[Kane0]

What if martial arts and flurry unarmed strikes were added into the attack action instead of needing a bonus action, ala beast barbarian claws?

Would make patient defense and step of the wind both much easier to make use of without making them free.

[Hytheter]

Making Step of the Wind free is a common proposal but IMO it would be better to collapse the two parts of it and make it grant both Dash and Disengage. That makes it a unique and appropriate ability that might actually be worth its ki cost instead of just making it pseudo cunning action.

[stoutstien]

He'd be better off just turning monk into a fighter subclass at that point.

He is trying to fix monks because they don't fit where he thinks they should in the game rather than changing how one would play the class in the first place.

[MoiMagnus]

2) Seems like a change targeted specifically for multiclassing/feats, which is a big design no-no.

I kind of disagree. 5e removed the fact that armour prevents arcane spellcasting, and just did not give any armour proficiency to wizards & co. But if you take the time to become proficient with such armour, you can cast spells without penalties.

Seems reasonable enough for to apply this to Monk: no armour proficiency by default, but if you take the time to have one, you don't lose your class features just because you have it.

Unless what you meant here is that "it makes multiclassing/feats OP for Monk, to the point it is a no-brainer if available", which might be the case and an objection I might agree to.



Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)


Sure. It's nice and it won't break balance. However, I tend to disagree with this change "on top" of all the others.




Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based

I disagree on a fundamental level. Pushing classes toward SADness is not the adequate direction.
However, I would have no problem with "Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Wis/Cha/Int, chosen by the player at character creation".



Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient


As said above, I fear that this might be too much in favour of multiclassing. But I tend to agree with the intend of this change.



Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)

I think the better approach is to have the more items alike Eldritch Claw Tattoo from Tasha, and even version of it with +2 or +3. Martial arts scale correctly with respect to campaign where not magical weapons are given to the players, the problem is that almost no available loot improves them.



Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)


Sure, why not



Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest


Stunning Strike should not be the core of the Monk class. It's already good enough.
Just increase the ki pool if you feel that the monk is lacking Ki.



Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action

I don't have a strong opinion on those



Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con

Meh. I don't like the +4 Dex at all. There are some chances that a high level Monk is Strength-based anyway, using some Giant strength items. And I disagreed on changing Ki to Dex.

What about "Whenever you make an Dex/Str/Con ability check, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10." (similar to the Rogue's Reliable Talent, but on all physical prowess instead of on all proficient skills). Though level 20 is probably too late. The monk is IMO missing some skill-related features.

[Chronic]

I also think a big part of the issue with Monk comes from its subclasses anyway, like Four Elements being hot garbage. The base chassis is weak and could use some tweaks, but the fact that a lot of its specialization options suck is the bigger part.

Unless, of course, you're dipping. Which has ALWAYS been the issue with Monk. Grab 1, 2, 4 levels and then GTFO.

First, 4 elements might be fairly poorly executed design wise and wonky, it's one of the most powerful subclass of the monk. It brings option most other monks haven't, notably the ability to cc and move ennemies at range targeting 2 different save. The utility cannot be understated. And this is before computing things like fly.
Second the base chassis isn't bad. It has one of the best cc ability of the entire game in stunning strike, has excellent mobility (something often overlooked because more often than not people's encounter design is lacking), they also have solid defensive options and being short rest based means that they shine in long adventuring days.
Which doesn't mean they don't have problems, most of their features come online early and the later levels feels lacking. The fact the dev haven't really though of implementing items in line with classic magical weapons for the unarmed attacks is dumb (but is easy to remedy). They are mad but honestly, I think it's good design, it's the sad characters that are the problems imo.

[Dr. Cliché]

Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)

No strong feelings either way on this.



Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient

I think the lack of armour is a key point for Monks, so I'd be against this change.



Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)

I'm fine with this change up until the end. Surely it should be 2d6-->2d8, not 3d6? :smallconfused:



Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based

No, keep it as Wis.



Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)

Absolutely agree.



Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)

I'm less sure about this one. Especially since it's already getting a minor buff in the form of the improved martial arts dice above.

That said, it's also a pretty weak ability and usually not an efficient use of Ki, so maybe?



Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest

I think I understand the intent. The issue, however, is that this will probably just lean Monks even more towards Stunning Strike ("Oh, I've exhausted my free uses for the day, time to move onto my Ki uses . . .")

I think it would be much better to provide free uses of under-used abilities - like Throw Arrows.

That way, Monks can do some cool stuff without 'wasting' Ki that could otherwise have been used to fuel stronger abilities.



Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)

Perfectly good change.



Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest

Also a good chance.



Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action

Not sure about this one. It's already Greater Invisibility but without Concentration and which grants resistance to all non-Force damage.

Than again, Greater Invisibility is a 4th level spell and this is Lv18 so maybe



Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con

Seems like +4 Dex +4 Wis would make far more sense.

[Spiritchaser]

I very much like the resource fix, and scaling DC with Dex seems very logical to me. I’d probably let the player choose, knowing that everyone would pick Dex, but still… Monks in leather armour should definitely be a thing, and I’m “OK” with medium armour. The MA die change feels awkward because it isn’t as “pretty” when looking a progression on the chart, but in gameplay it’ll be fine. At any given encounter that chart isn’t visible.

So, generally I really like these changes.

I’d likely implement all this except the HD increase which may or may not be needed. If the monk still felt weak I could add it in later.

EDIT: I’m not sure how much this is relevant, since I’ve never played at level 20, and likely never will, but I like the idea of the capstone. I’d probably give the player +4 con and then +4 to Dex or Wis (knowing they’d nearly all take Dex)

Dex and wis sounds more reasonable at first, but that’s one heck of an AC bonus. Maybe that’s ok at 20, I really don’t know, but it seems like it would have been too much

[Hytheter]

I kind of disagree. 5e removed the fact that armour prevents arcane spellcasting, and just did not give any armour proficiency to wizards & co. But if you take the time to become proficient with such armour, you can cast spells without penalties.

Seems reasonable enough for to apply this to Monk: no armour proficiency by default, but if you take the time to have one, you don't lose your class features just because you have it.

You know what, I think I actually agree. Why not? Heck, let them wear plate. It would open up Strength monks in a natural way and the AC boost won't last forever. Shields might be stretching it, though, even if I'd love to make a shield bash into a monk weapon. I don't want to ditch Wis altogether like Treantmonk seems to be going for, but I don't see any problem with letting them wear armour. If you want to keep Wis relevant another change I'm fond of is adding Wis mod to ki.

While we're at it, I have a very MAD (raging MAD, even) Paladin/Barbarian/Sorcerer who would love to be able to rage in heavy armour.

[strangebloke]

short answer, yes, long answer, YEEEEEEESSSS

I mean, its not 'broken' but he's clearly comparing unoptimized monk builds against optimized fighter builds while failing to account for ki scaling, and so yes by definition this build is 'overtuned.' An unoptimized idiot monk getting 8d6+12 pretty much every round at level 11 with access to subclass options and stunning strike is pretty absurd. Doubly absurd if you count the Tasha's buffs.

The bigger problem is that some of these changes are actively bad. What does being allowed to use medium armor do for your class identity? Free long rest SS uses or you can use a short rest ability? The free uses scale independent of monk level? What? Step of the Wind is free? Why? Because it needs to be cunning action? Isn't rogue allowed to have nice stuff?

I'm pretty sure this leads to a bunch of stupid optimized "monk" builds that are monk 5/cleric x. I'd go so far as to say that was the intent.

[Kuulvheysoon]

He'd be better off just turning monk into a fighter subclass at that point.

He is trying to fix monks because they don't fit where he thinks they should in the game rather than changing how one would play the class in the first place.QFT


Treantmonk recently posted a "fix" to the Monk class (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E59Cp_cK8v8).

These fixes are:


Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)
Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient
Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)
Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based
Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)
Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest
Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


Each of these fixes seem quite reasonable to me, but that's a lot of changes to the Monk. I wonder if Treantmonk overdid it, and made the Monk too strong.

What's your take on this?
Overall, I don't like most of these. I don't mind a few of them (1, 8, 9, 10), and I could be convinced of Martial Arts being legal with light armor and the MA die being increased (notably to d6 starting at first level, but hitting 3d6 is too far).

Tying Ki to Dexterity just cheapens the entire Monk, imho, and using all of his proposed changes monk to some sort of rogue/fighter hybrid. Give monk bonus ki equal to your Wisdom modifier, and tie Stunning Strike to a non-ki resource usable a specific number of times per SR/LR. That'll handle most of the resource issues.

[jaappleton]

Full Disclosure before my post: Personally, I hold Treantmonk in the highest regards. His understanding of design is top-tier, and I would not hesitate to say he understands 5e better than some of the actual WOTC designers. There are very few people I would recommend listening to regardless of the topic for 5e (typically I'd recommend X for world building and Z for combat design, etc), and Treantmonk is pretty much at the top of that list.

That said...

I do think implementing all these changes to the Monk might be a bit much. Simultaneously, I personally view the Monk as a class that is not well supported in 5e. For many classes, there are magic items which totally enhance or can radically empower them. Holy Avenger, Staff of Power, Rod of the Pact Keeper to name a few.

And I firmly believe Monks don't get nearly as much support on that front as others. Simultaneously, I acknowledge that one key factor of the Monk is that they are supposed to be able to do stuff all on their own merit. That's their thing. They don't need magical items to be able to beat down a dragon, for example. They ARE the living weapon.

......It just never feels that way, does it?

And I think that mindset is really the core of what Treantmonk's fix is trying to accomplish. Monks utilize Ki for so much that it can be very taxing, especially at tier 1 and 2, and they just don't feel as awesome to play as they should.

That last line.... They don't feel as awesome to play as they should.... That goes into a much larger 5e problem, I feel. It takes awhile in 5e before you FEEL like a hero. Or villain, whatever floats your boat. And I think that's what this is addressing, at its very core.

And in that, it does a good job.

[elyktsorb]

Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)
Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient
Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)
Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based
Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost (1 -> 0)
Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)
Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest
Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)
Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con


What's your take on this?

I never found myself needing too much more health as a Monk when I play but I wouldn't say no to d10 over d8 health either.

I don't like giving Monks a reason to put armor on.

I really have no opinion on the damage progression though I do wish it started at d6 and not d4.

This is a very blatant attempt to make Monks not need to put anything into Wis which feels dumb and boring. Not to mention this destroys the entire idea of the Astral Self monk since you'll have to invest in Dex to make your abilities work even though it's supposed to be the subclass where you prioritize Wis.

Can we just rework Step of the Wind entirely? It seems like every Monk Subclass has a way to mitigate this.

Open Hand let's you either Push an enemy 15ft away, knock them prone, or remove their ability to use reactions until the end of your turn, all of which you'd more than likely rather spend 1 Ki on as opposed to Step of the Wind.

Drunken Master gives you the benefit of the Disengage action whenever you Flurry of Blows.

Astral Self has you attacking from out of the enemies melee range.

4Elements technically has Unbroken Air, and Thunderwave, both things that can push enemies away, although both cost more than Step of the Wind so it would be the only one who still really benefits from Step of the Wind consistantly.

Kensai has Agile Parry for +2 AC until the start of your next turn if you make an unarmed attack while holding a Kensai weapon. They would also see use from Step of the Wind I suppose.

Long Death Monk's usually don't care too much about having to disengage though they will get Hour of Reaping to potentially make enemies flee from them instead.

Mercy Monk's can subjegate enemies to the poisoned condition so risking opportunity attacks won't be a huge deal.

And Sun Soul monks are supposed to be at range right?

But yeah, with the amount of speed Monk's have, barring like, trying to outrun a flying creature or something specific, when do you ever burn a Ki point to Dash? And all of them have better options than wasting a Ki point to specifically disengage.

I do not thinking Quickened Healing needs a buff, if anything it may need a nerf.

Stunning Strike doesn't need any buffs.

Stillness of Mind should be usable immediately, I mean it's kind of garbo that it doesn't, so this is the one change I like.

Recover Exhaustion? Sure whatever, like anyone is using Exhaustion anyway. If this came on at like lvl 4 that would be an enticing thing for those Berserker Barbarians.

I don't think it needs to be a bonus action on Empty Body, but I can't see that being a big issue.

Perfect Self should probably just give a flat +6 Ki, regardless of how much you have, heck even let it rollover your maximum amount (but you can't keep over max if you have it at the end of an encounter) whenever you roll initiative. Giving +4 to both Con and Dex seems way too good. I know this is trying to mirror the Barbarian capstone, but I'd rather the Monk have something original, not to mention if he did go from a d8 to a d10 I think this would be overboard. Especially considering this guy wants Dex to govern all the monks ability's.

[Dr. Cliché]

That last line.... They don't feel as awesome to play as they should.... That goes into a much larger 5e problem, I feel. It takes awhile in 5e before you FEEL like a hero. Or villain, whatever floats your boat. And I think that's what this is addressing, at its very core.

And in that, it does a good job.

I guess this is more of an aside, but playing longer campaigns (both as player and DM) I really started to notice the wonkiness of D&D's levelling system.

As you suggest, it can be quite a few levels (often at least Lv5-6) before your class really starts to feel right.

However, as you advance further, you start getting into the territory of demigods, where villains and creatures you once found threatening are now nothing more than ants to be squashed at your leisure. This probably just comes down to personal preference but I'd actually prefer a system where there wasn't such a vast chasm between your starting and finishing strength.

[sethdmichaels]

Personally I think Monk could use two more ASI to help mitigate being MAD and allow Monks access to more feats.

brb, sending this to my DM!

i've seen a lot of monk tweaks and i don't think any of them are super "necessary" though i like the reworks in which monks get "techniques" that allow for customization like Warlock invocations or Battlemaster maneuvers [something like the Swords Bard's Defensive Flourish, for instance, would be a fun part the monk kit). i also like the idea i've seen of adding your WIS mod in ki points. i personally like the flavor of having WIS as a monk focus.

otherwise i don't feel too strongly about Treatmonk's suggested changes here. some of them are pretty strong and some pretty situational but i don't think the monk "needs" any of them nor do i think any of them make the monk wildly overpowered.

the one thing i *really* want for a monk, to keep in the theme of martial arts, is a melee version of the Deflect Missiles. maybe it comes on later, in the levels 6-11 range, but as i'm imagining it:

Deflect Blows

Starting at X level, you can use your reaction to blunt or avert an attack that hits you in melee combat. When you do, you reduce the damage you take from the attack by 1d10+your Dex modifier+your monk level.

If you reduce the damage to zero, you can spend 1 ki point to make one unarmed strike against the creature that attacks you as part of the same reaction.

in addition to giving this feature to all monks, I'd replace the Open Hand monk's not-very-interesting Tranquility feature with the ability to use the Open Hand techniques (knock back/knock prone/remove reactions) with your Deflect Blows unarmed strike (to represent, a la aikido, a throw or control).

[Frogreaver]

My fix for monks would look at the tiers

Tier 1.
Monks need more survivability - either by more hp or the ability to get in and out of melee easily.

Tier 2.
Monks need a little more KI. +1 or +2 Ki here would help.

Tier 3.
Monks could use a slight combat buff. This could take many forms

Tier 4.
By this point you have amazing defenses. Solid Offense. Besides the lack of feat/magical items combos I'm really not sure what's missing at this point. Especially with the precious enhancements.

[Unoriginal]

His understanding of design is top-tier

My feelings about him and his work aside, Treantmonk has proved multiple times that this is not accurate, ESPECIALLY as far as 5e is concerned.

[Sception]

I think it would have been better to also list their criticisms of the monk, as several people in this post clearly haven't watched the video (which, I mean, fair, you shouldn't have to do homework to participate in a forum thread), and don't get what these fixes are even trying to accomplish in the first place, which makes it impossible to judge how successfully accomplish their goals.

The main issues treantmonk identifies are:

1) Monk too fragile, especially early on. Rogues can at least play a ranged game, but monks abilities leave them as melee-locked as paladins while also having significantly less HP and AC for the duration of most campaigns.

2) Monk is too restrictive. Between the MADness and the ban on any armor, no other class goes as far out of its way to put your character in a box, tell you how you're supposed to build and play them, and punish you for any creativity or outside the box character concepts. Yes, classes shouldn't be built to require multiclassing, but they shouldn't be built to /punish/ it either.

3) monk damage output starts out okayish at level one, but falls behind progressively more as levels increase and the only notable increases to monk damage - increasing monk damage die, simply don't do the job here.

4) too many abilities are tied to ki, and the relative strength of those abilities vary too widely, especially in early and mid tiers when ki is aggressively limited. Are you really going to 'step of the wind' when it means giving up one of your precious stunning strikes? Are you going to give up a stunning strike to use flurry of blows and maybe, if you hit, deal a single digit of extra damage? Are you really going to use quickened healing to heal a paltry 8 or 9 hit points at the cost of two stunning strikes? This is arguably the biggest problem with the monk, and plagues its subclasses as well. With the exception of maybe the mercy monk's hands of harm most monks don't get to do cool monk or monk subclass things without gimping themselves because they rely on stunning strike to do the heavy lifting of their offensive contribution and doing anything else means giving up on those stunning strikes.

5) a handful of other relatively minor and straight forward complaints - stillness of mind doesn't work on Dominate Person or Fear, the level 15 ability doesn't actually do anything, etc etc, people mostly get these.


Do we all agree these are problems? Maybe not. But there's a big difference between "I don't think the thing you're trying to fix is a problem" and "I don't think this is the right solution to the problem we both agree is there", and recognizing what the fixes are trying to do is necessary for that.

So then, looking at the specific proposed fixes:



Hit Dice (d8 -> d10)

Straight forward answer to the durability issue, skews towards level one when that issue's at its worst. Sounds fine to me. Monks are supposed to be hearty, and they are a melee class.


Martial arts can be done in light & medium armor, but still isn't proficient

Fix to the anti-creativity, anti-build-options angle. If you agree it's a problem then this is pretty much required. If you don't then you don't.


Martial arts increased (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 -> d6/d8/2d6/3d6)

Answer to damange, and particularly damage scaling issue. An issue that arguably increases as the monk gains levels, hence the non-standard progression. "+1 damage on hits" is not an upgrade that compares to the fighter's third attack or the paladin's improved divine strike or the sneak attack bonus a rogue gets every two levels, or even standard cantrip scaling. Additionally, the old martial arts die might as well have not existed, since most campaigns don't get to a high enough level that it would be better than whatever regular melee weapon the monk will be wielding.

If you don't think the monk has damage output issues, then this will seem like too much. Personally, I kind of feel like it's too little.


]Ki DC goes from Wisdom to Dexterity based

A fix to the build creativity issue by reducing madness. Personally, I do feel like the monk is Excessively MAD, but personally I'd rather see the reverse fix, letting monk use Wisdom as their weapon attack stat. But maybe that's just me. On a power level, it's really no different from battlemaster DCs being based on strength or dex, so afaict objections are flavor rather than power based.

On a tangent, whoever said 'paladins are fine with cha based spell DCs' - I have to ask how many paladins in your campaign bother with spells that allow DCs at all? Most paladins I've played or seen played avoid save DC spells like the plague and use all their slots on divine smites or buff & healing spells specifically to avoid the save DC issue, unless they're conquest paladins, which are kind of 'the exception that proves the rule' with how badly they want their hexblade dips.


Step of the Wind now has no Ki cost

An answer to the 'ki abilities have wildly different strengths, nobody's going to step of the wind at the cost of stunning strike' problem, and I largely agree with it. Yeah, monks get extra move, but it isn't /double/ regular movement, so enemies can still follow up and hit them if they can move at all (and if they can't the monk's extra movement doesn't matter). At its very worst monk skirmishing with 'free' step of the wind is still no more difficult to pin down than any ranged character. And with how much the monk values their bonus actions, even ki-free this would still come at a greater cost to them than cunning action does to rogues. IMO this is the biggest no brainer change on this list and it's something I implemented in my own games a long time ago.


Quickened Healing cost reduced (2 -> 1)

Quickened Healing heals so little, even with TM's increased monk die size, that it's hardly worth even a /single/ ki point, even with the other changes. Unlike step of the wind, though, this really can't be free, so 1 ki point is the best place to put it, unless you're going to divorce it from ki altogether.


Stunning Strike has additional free uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest

What several people aren't getting about this one is that the point isn't to make stunning strike stronger, but rather to relieve the pressure it puts on ki that otherwise prevents monks from using any of their many other ki abilities without effectively nerfing themselves.

Personally, though, I would removing stunning strike from ki altogether, because this proposed solution just lets stun-spamming monks spam stun more without actually changing the marginal utility comparison between other ki abilities and just more stunning strike. Give stunning strike it's own pool. Prof uses per long rest, or a flat two uses per short rest. Or if you want it to be tied to ki, then nerf stunning strike - maybe make it an action for a single attack - so it's more in line with other ki abilities.


Stillness of Mind can always be used at start of turn even if action wouldn't be normally available (it still costs your action)

obvious and largely uncontroversial type 5 change


Timeless Body recovers 1 exhaustion on short rest
Empty Body uses a bonus action instead of action
Perfect Self gives +4 Dex and Con

Less obvious and more controversial type 5 changes.

I can't work up the energy to care much about these since the game just isn't played at these levels. That said, the new capstone, while it actually functions /as/ a capstone in a way the published monk capstone doesn't, feels like it falls into that build pidgeon-holing type ability that other changes were trying to move away from.
[/LIST]


Overall, I hardly feel these changes are op or overtuned, but while I agree with some of the problems they're trying to address, I'm not convinced they're all the best ways to do so, particularly the extra stunning strike uses.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I kind of disagree. 5e removed the fact that armour prevents arcane spellcasting, and just did not give any armour proficiency to wizards & co. But if you take the time to become proficient with such armour, you can cast spells without penalties.

Seems reasonable enough for to apply this to Monk: no armour proficiency by default, but if you take the time to have one, you don't lose your class features just because you have it.
Firstly, I think the previous edition penalty was removed in favor of simplicity rather than any design intention. Secondly, it also features arcane casters (EK and AT) who start with armor proficiency.

It's unusual for a class to bring up restrictions or permissions for features they don't have as part of the main class abilities. Barbarian is probably the only one with it's rage restrictions. That may have been kept because it's thematic and simple to remember.


Unless what you meant here is that "it makes multiclassing/feats OP for Monk, to the point it is a no-brainer if available", which might be the case and an objection I might agree to.
I would certainly consider stopping after I get stunning strike, if it scales with proficiency you'd have plenty of uses. This redesign is very front loaded.

[Foolwise]

In the video, Treantmonk explains that every other martial class gets a nice ability at lvl 15 and casters unlock new spells, but the monk is left with nothing at 15. A ribbon ability that has no real mechanical usage. He then gives Timeless Body the ability to recover 1 level of exhuastion after a short rest... so it now has a use for a mechanic most tables don't even use. His change doesn't match the reasoning he used to make the change.

Further I don't believe I have ever seen anyone support the monk capstone. It is universally panned, tmk. Makes me wonder why it can't be moved to Timeless Body. Thematically it fits. If the monk no longer requires food or water, the reasoning for that ribbon is because their ki never truly runs dry at that level.

I would also reword it so the monk's ki refills to 5 whenever it is below 5 when initiative is rolled. And perhaps increasing it to 10 at level 20. Now Timeless Body has a real mechanical use. And would improving the ki regen from 5 to 10 be sufficient as a new capstone for Perfect Self? Kinda feels the way WotC is going from Tasha's with later abilities improving upon earlier ones. Would it be game breaking if a monk can spam 10 ki every fight at lvl 20?

[Frogreaver]

I think it would have been better to also list their criticisms of the monk, as several people in this post clearly haven't watched the video (which, I mean, fair, you shouldn't have to do homework to participate in a forum thread), and don't get what these fixes are even trying to accomplish in the first place, which makes it impossible to judge how successfully accomplish their goals.

The main issues treantmonk identifies are:

1) Monk too fragile, especially early on. Rogues can at least play a ranged game, but monks abilities leave them as melee-locked as paladins while also having significantly less HP and AC for the duration of most campaigns.

Correct problem. Not sure the solution is correct.


2) Monk is too restrictive. Between the MADness and the ban on any armor, no other class goes as far out of its way to put your character in a box, tell you how you're supposed to build and play them, and punish you for any creativity or outside the box character concepts. Yes, classes shouldn't be built to require multiclassing, but they shouldn't be built to /punish/ it either.

Incorrect problem.


3) monk damage output starts out okayish at level one, but falls behind progressively more as levels increase and the only notable increases to monk damage - increasing monk damage die, simply don't do the job here.

Monk Damage grows also by how often they can use flurry of blows and stunning strike (grants advantage for themselves and team). It's only when those abilities damage contributions are ignored that someone walks away saying monks do way to little damage.


4) too many abilities are tied to ki, and the relative strength of those abilities vary too widely, especially in early and mid tiers when ki is aggressively limited. Are you really going to 'step of the wind' when it means giving up one of your precious stunning strikes? Are you going to give up a stunning strike to use flurry of blows and maybe, if you hit, deal a single digit of extra damage? Are you really going to use quickened healing to heal a paltry 8 or 9 hit points at the cost of two stunning strikes? This is arguably the biggest problem with the monk, and plagues its subclasses as well. With the exception of maybe the mercy monk's hands of harm most monks don't get to do cool monk or monk subclass things without gimping themselves because they rely on stunning strike to do the heavy lifting of their offensive contribution and doing anything else means giving up on those stunning strikes.

Situational tactics would indicate that while some abilities are normally stronger than others that this isn't true in all circumstances. Thus, knowing the times the generally inferior abilities are actually stronger really matters. For example, if an ally is downed and it's your turn right before him, then yes you should heal him and that's likely the strongest possible thing you could have chosen to do.


5) a handful of other relatively minor and straight forward complaints - stillness of mind doesn't work on Dominate Person or Fear, the level 15 ability doesn't actually do anything, etc etc, people mostly get these.

Stillness of mind doesn't have to negate everything that has the word fear or charm in it to be useful.


Do we all agree these are problems? Maybe not. But there's a big difference between "I don't think the thing you're trying to fix is a problem" and "I don't think this is the right solution to the problem we both agree is there", and recognizing what the fixes are trying to do is necessary for that.

Disagreeing about the problem is really much worse than disagreeing about the solution. That someone highly esteemed is identifying problems where they don't exist is actually a much bigger issue.

[Foolwise]

Answer to damange, and particularly damage scaling issue. An issue that arguably increases as the monk gains levels, hence the non-standard progression. "+1 damage on hits" is not an upgrade that compares to the fighter's third attack or the paladin's improved divine strike or the sneak attack bonus a rogue gets every two levels, or even standard cantrip scaling. Additionally, the old martial arts die might as well have not existed, since most campaigns don't get to a high enough level that it would be better than whatever regular melee weapon the monk will be wielding.

If you don't think the monk has damage output issues, then this will seem like too much. Personally, I kind of feel like it's too little.

One solution brought up earlier in the thread (@Jerrykhor) was to increase the monk's FoB to 3 unarmed strikes at 11 and 4 strikes at 17. I don't know the math, but this feels better thematically for a monk while keeping their damage output in line with other martials without having to upscale their MA die. Plus, it is often remarked that an optimized monk build doesn't use unarmed attacks at higher levels and I assume this change would rectify that.

[Witty Username]

For those that don't know Quickened healing is an alternative feature from Tasha's.
It allows you to heal yourself for your martial arts dice as an action for 2 ki as written.

[strangebloke]

I think it would have been better to also list their criticisms of the monk, as several people in this post clearly haven't watched the video (which, I mean, fair, you shouldn't have to do homework to participate in a forum thread), and don't get what these fixes are even trying to accomplish in the first place, which makes it impossible to judge how successfully accomplish their goals.


Ah, no. I am aware of the content of his video. I think most of us are.

I just pretty basically disagree with him about a lot of his analysis. Monks aren't that fragile. They have competitive AC throughout the entire game and are at most 0-1 AC behind GWF/TWF fighters while being consistently 1 ahead of rogues. They've got lower HP than some but in exchange they have high movement speed, which allows them to pick their fights more judiciously. No, I'm not talking about spamming SOTW every turn, I'm talking about attacking on the fringe of combat rather than being forced to plow into the center. The fact that some players choose to use their extra speed to plow EVEN FURTHER into the center makes monk look really weak, but that's on the players, not the class. Their damage isn't that bad. Ignoring GWM, they are pretty competitive without using FoB until 11th level. 11th level is hilariously late into the game, and by that point monks can pretty much spam FOB with impunity which brings their damage back up to par.

I do think monks are weaker than fighters, but its a lack of support for their intended playstyle (no feats, few/rare magic items) and a lack of flexibility rather than anything else. This becomes obvious when you realize that a Tasha's monk with sharpshooter and no subclass deals comparable to a battlemaster for all the levels people actually play at.

Treantmonk is a smart guy. He knows a lot. But he's wrong about monk. Monk could use some buffs, but these changes go too far. Not WAY too far, but I would definitely say they're overtuned.

[Kuulvheysoon]

The main issues treantmonk identifies are:

2) Monk is too restrictive. Between the MADness and the ban on any armor, no other class goes as far out of its way to put your character in a box, tell you how you're supposed to build and play them, and punish you for any creativity or outside the box character concepts. Yes, classes shouldn't be built to require multiclassing, but they shouldn't be built to /punish/ it either.While I'll give him the MADness, I absolutely disagree with the thought that no other class goes out of it's way to punish you for not playing how they want. One word: Rogue (and, to a lesser degree, Barbarians by locking you into Strength and Paladins by locking you into melee).

Want to use your fancy longsword to SA? No, sorry, it has to be one of a few select weapons. IF you want to move outside those, too bad, your main damage schtick is completely useless. From the Base Monk, only Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement are tied to wearing armor. The latter makes sense, given the name and the fact that it lets you walk on water later. The former is along the same lines as SA; attack how we want you to, or suffer. You can absolutely play an armored monk- take the Unarmed Fighting style and you'll deal more damage with your fists at lower levels, even. Is it as good? No, of course not, you're purposefully playing against type. But that's the only thing that it shuts down.


4) too many abilities are tied to ki, and the relative strength of those abilities vary too widely, especially in early and mid tiers when ki is aggressively limited. Are you really going to 'step of the wind' when it means giving up one of your precious stunning strikes? Are you going to give up a stunning strike to use flurry of blows and maybe, if you hit, deal a single digit of extra damage? Are you really going to use quickened healing to heal a paltry 8 or 9 hit points at the cost of two stunning strikes? This is arguably the biggest problem with the monk, and plagues its subclasses as well. With the exception of maybe the mercy monk's hands of harm most monks don't get to do cool monk or monk subclass things without gimping themselves because they rely on stunning strike to do the heavy lifting of their offensive contribution and doing anything else means giving up on those stunning strikes.I do agree, and I'm of the opinion that Stunning Strike should be on it's own pool of uses. That leaves a lot more ki for the other abilities (though I'm also a proponent of more ki in general).


A fix to the build creativity issue by reducing madness. Personally, I do feel like the monk is Excessively MAD, but personally I'd rather see the reverse fix, letting monk use Wisdom as their weapon attack stat. But maybe that's just me. On a power level, it's really no different from battlemaster DCs being based on strength or dex, so afaict objections are flavor rather than power based.

I'd agree with reversing the trend, letting monks base their Martial Arts off of Wisdom instead of Strength/Dexterity would be a far better fix than tossing monks onto the Dex-SAD train that Treantmonk seems insistent upon.

[Dienekes]

Ah, no. I am aware of the content of his video. I think most of us are.

I just pretty basically disagree with him about a lot of his analysis. Monks aren't that fragile. They have competitive AC throughout the entire game and are at most 1-2 AC behind STR GWF/TWF fighters while being consistently 1-2 ahead of rogues. They've got lower HP than some but in exchange they have high movement speed, which allows them to pick their fights more judiciously. No, I'm not talking about spamming SOTW every turn, I'm talking about attacking on the fringe of combat rather than being forced to plow into the center. The fact that some players choose to use their extra speed to plow EVEN FURTHER into the center makes monk look really weak, but that's on the players, not the class. Their damage isn't that bad. Ignoring GWM, they are pretty competitive without using FoB until 11th level. 11th level is hilariously late into the game, and by that point monks can pretty much spam FOB with impunity which brings their damage back up to par.

I do think monks are weaker than fighters, but its a lack of support for their intended playstyle (no feats, few/rare magic items) and a lack of flexibility rather than anything else. This becomes obvious when you realize that a Tasha's monk with sharpshooter and no subclass deals comparable to a battlemaster for all the levels people actually play at.

Treantmonk is a smart guy. He knows a lot. But he's wrong about monk. Monk could use some buffs, but these changes go too far. Not WAY too far, but I would definitely say they're overtuned.

I think a part of the issue, and why I said I'd still rather have a Paladin, is that if we accept that the Monk has it's own unique playstyle of dashing in and out of combat to hit the fringes I just don't see that as an effective playstyle. I don't think I've ever seen such a method do much more than bloat out the game.

If there is a high priority target that needs to be taken down, it will pretty much always be in the back where a Monk would quickly get themselves surrounded if they make a dash for it. And if there is not a high priority target, that requires the quick nuclear strike, then having a character that can sit and take the damage from your own high priority allies is just tactically a better tool to have.

To make the most of the Monk's preferred playstyle of hit and run on the edges of combat it requires having the high priority targets just left open for such an attack, which is just playing the enemy kind stupid. I'm not saying it won't or will never happen over the course of a game. But that seems very niche of a style to build your character around.

[Foolwise]

Ah, no. I am aware of the content of his video. I think most of us are.

I think it is pretty clear from the replies that many posters in this thread did not watch the video. Pretty much any reply that didn't understand the reason for the Stillness of Mind rewording or didn't know what Quickened Healing is are the easiest to spot. Other posts are harder to quantify, but I got the impression most did not click on the video link.

[Witty Username]

So I noticed a comparison with Paladin and Monk on the subject of MADNESS and Save DCs.
This is not an accurate comparison do to the specific abilities of Paladin. Yes they benefit from cha but they don't need to invest in it too be effective, +3 to saving throws is plenty effective, many spells and abilities like bless and divine smite aren't effected by Cha. Your AC, damage and ability effectiveness aren't tied to cha.
Meanwhile, the monk is dependent on Wis for core abilities, like AC and Stunning strike.
This means a monk is much more likely to neglect feats, rely on optimal races, and have optimization issues.

This is the difference between benefiting from a secondary stat and MAD.

[strangebloke]

I think a part of the issue, and why I said I'd still rather have a Paladin, is that if we accept that the Monk has it's own unique playstyle of dashing in and out of combat to hit the fringes I just don't see that as an effective playstyle. I don't think I've ever seen such a method do much more than bloat out the game.

If there is a high priority target that needs to be taken down, it will pretty much always be in the back where a Monk would quickly get themselves surrounded if they make a dash for it. And if there is not a high priority target, that requires the quick nuclear strike, then having a character that can sit and take the damage from your own high priority allies is just tactically a better tool to have.

To make the most of the Monk's preferred playstyle of hit and run on the edges of combat it requires having the high priority targets just left open for such an attack, which is just playing the enemy kind stupid. I'm not saying it won't or will never happen over the course of a game. But that seems very niche of a style to build your character around.

Movement is incredibly useful in general, it doesn't have to be married to something like "rushing down a high priority target" or "running in and hitting and running out of reach." You get to select targets more freely, you get to have more control over positioning, you get in to deal damage on turn 1 more consistently. Losing even a single round's worth of damage is very significant over the course of an adventuring day. IMO people only undervalue monk's movement because of how many extraordinarily strong ranged options there are in this game, which allow you even more freedom with positioning and movement.

Also paladin is just busted lol. IMO, not a good measuring stick.


So I noticed a comparison with Paladin and Monk on the subject of MADNESS and Save DCs.
This is not an accurate comparison do to the specific abilities of Paladin. Yes they benefit from cha but they don't need to invest in it too be effective, +3 to saving throws is plenty effective, many spells and abilities like bless and divine smite aren't effected by Cha. Your AC, damage and ability effectiveness aren't tied to cha.
Meanwhile, the monk is dependent on Wis for core abilities, like AC and Stunning strike.
This means a monk is much more likely to neglect feats, rely on optimal races, and have optimization issues.

This is the difference between benefiting from a secondary stat and MAD.

I don't think monks (or anyone) needs higher AC than 18, and the beauty of stunning strike is that if they save you can just use it again. IMO both Paladins and Monks are a little MAD but paladins get less flack for it because they're much stronger overall. Wizards, Sorcerers, Monks, and Paladins all are heavily incentivized to have multiple stats over 16.

[Dienekes]

Movement is incredibly useful in general, it doesn't have to be married to something like "rushing down a high priority target" or "running in and hitting and running out of reach." You get to select targets more freely, you get to have more control over positioning, you get in to deal damage on turn 1 more consistently. Losing even a single round's worth of damage is very significant over the course of an adventuring day. IMO people only undervalue monk's movement because of how many extraordinarily strong ranged options there are in this game, which allow you even more freedom with positioning and movement.

Also paladin is just busted lol. IMO, not a good measuring stick.

Yeah I think here's where our disconnect is then.

Ranged options are here and better than the Monk. Since I've always had a ranged character in the group, that yeah, overshadow what the Monk's whole purpose is. So... that just enforces my point here, doesn't it? The Monk has a niche role that is better handled by focusing ranged or just not using the Monk.

As for Paladins, I think they're the only martial class that gets close to keeping up with casters come T3. And they're still behind, but they're the closest. So, that is the measuring stick for me. If I could buff all the martials to that level I would in a heartbeat. It is the only good measuring stick.

[strangebloke]

Yeah I think here's where our disconnect is then.

Ranged options are here and better than the Monk. Since I've always had a ranged character in the group, that yeah, overshadow what the Monk's whole purpose is. So... that just enforces my point here, doesn't it? The Monk has a niche role that is better handled by focusing ranged or just not using the Monk.

But this is my point: The problem lies not with the monk as a class, but with the system as a whole. Ranged options are so good in 5e that they remove most reasons for playing a melee character. To have the safety and consistency of a ranged build a melee build has to invest a lot in movement and defense; a ranged character has to invest nothing to keep up in DPR with a melee character.

If you compare the monk to other melee characters (even specialists like the barbarian) the monk looks fine even better than most. Also! Monks can use a bow very well, but this isn't talked about because of thematic reasons.


As for Paladins, I think they're the only martial class that gets close to keeping up with casters come T3. And they're still behind, but they're the closest. So, that is the measuring stick for me. If I could buff all the martials to that level I would in a heartbeat. It is the only good measuring stick.

The strength of characters in t3 depends a lot on DM-specific things like magic items and number of short rests and encounters per long rest. I would say Paladins are better than most if not all casters in t3 at my table but I've only had four campaigns get that far.

[jaappleton]

My feelings about him and his work aside, Treantmonk has proved multiple times that this is not accurate, ESPECIALLY as far as 5e is concerned.

Interesting.

In my experience he's been pretty spot on, but I fully admit I have not watched every video of his.

Do you have some examples?

[Dienekes]

But this is my point: The problem lies not with the monk as a class, but with the system as a whole. Ranged options are so good in 5e that they remove most reasons for playing a melee character. To have the safety and consistency of a ranged build a melee build has to invest a lot in movement and defense; a ranged character has to invest nothing to keep up in DPR with a melee character.

If you compare the monk to other melee characters (even specialists like the barbarian) the monk looks fine even better than most. Also! Monks can use a bow very well, but this isn't talked about because of thematic reasons.

This is backwards. The system is what all classes must be judged by. If a class doesn't function as intended because of how the system is designed, then it is the class that is flawed and should be restructured to work within that system.

In terms of dealing consistent damage, ranged builds beat the Monk. In terms of taking up space and surviving Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins do that job better than the Monk.

We're left with a class that's core design is just passed over by better, easier options and that is the fault of the Monk.

Now, you may have a point with bow-Monks. I've never seen one used. But I will also sorta point out that if the optimal way to play a class is to not play it as class fantasy is pushing you toward, that is also a problem with the class design. Just a different one that I don't think we're really talking about here.




The strength of characters in t3 depends a lot on DM-specific things like magic items and number of short rests and encounters per long rest. I would say Paladins are better than most if not all casters in t3 at my table but I've only had four campaigns get that far.

I don't think you can have it that the Paladin is overpowered and should not be a benchmark, while also taking the point that power doesn't actually matter because it's all DM dependent anyway.

But I will say, while yes, the DM can assuage issues with the game. We can still see what is easiest or hardest to account for, and what the DM must do in order to design encounters to make all classes feel useful and not have their moments stolen by other classes. In my experience Monks are very difficult to try and get them to feel powerful, unless I purposely play the enemies as being kinda dumb.

Also in my experience, T3 to T4 casters that know what they're doing are about the easiest to make feel powerful. Even when the enemy is taking precautions against them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Interesting.

In my experience he's been pretty spot on, but I fully admit I have not watched every video of his.

Do you have some examples?

If memory serves his tier list of feats was particularly off in some places. At the very least, it's the video of his I remember disagreeing with most.

He's also made several threads on this forum, and after receiving some criticism, vanishes from the thread or disregards it. This might be unfair of me to use this as my own reasoning to say his design understanding isn't as high as is hope, but I value a willingness to accept criticism or at least acknowledge it a great deal. If your methods involve ignoring it or insisting that your methods are correct without acknowledging criticism, I think you have a better idea of what you want for 5e design rather than what the editions actual design goals are.

I think he has a fairly cohesive stance on what he wishes 5e was like and can put that into practice well, but in my opinion it has some conflict with my understanding of the current design of 5e. Again, that's my opinion of this.

[Abracadangit]

Monk threads really ought to have their own catchy theme song, at this point.

"Misplayed or misdesigned? Loved or maligned?
All the commenters are seeing red!
Too weak or OP? Blame Hit Dice or ki?
It's time for... dun dun dun... a monk thread!!"

(Someone can do better than this, I'm sure.)

Having played a couple of monks myself at different level ranges, I agree with a lot of Treantmonk's points, though I feel like he even leaves out a couple of issues that plague the monk from an overarching, "class feel" standpoint.

1) One of the oft-mentioned issues monks have is that they don't really have a great niche in combat like everyone else does, and then the oft-mentioned counterpoint is that they're a kind of melee support, using stuns to set enemies up for teammates. When I played a monk and stunning strike actually worked (which wasn't terribly often), I still didn't really feel like a "support." I know, I know, by slapping a crippling condition on an enemy, I am literally "supporting" my teammates, but still -- if my character got zapped from the party for some reason, it didn't feel like encounters were going to be any harder for them, except maybe losing some not-huge DPR. Non-healing & non-buff support has a wonky role to play in D&D, and monks are sitting right there in the thick of it, since it feels like so much of what they're supposed to be contributing is stunning strike.

2) One of the nice things about playing a martial in D&D is you don't have to bookkeep all that much, usually. Ok, Barbs have a set number of rages per day, but once you flip it on, it's on for basically the whole encounter (unless your DM doesn't let you bite your own hand for 1 piercing in the event you can't hurt/be hurt by anyone for a round). Fighters have to count Surge and Second Wind, okay, but they get all those passives from Fighting Styles and feats. Rogues get sneak attack once a turn, every turn, no questions asked. And then there's the Monk. You gotta bookkeep those points, and once you're out of them, all the cool stuff you can do grays out on your menu. Yeah, I know they can ALWAYS bonus action unarmed strike when they want. That's pretty lukewarm. So they're a martial with no spell slots, who doesn't have much cool to do once their one resource runs out. Meh.

3) The Monk's class thesis feels all over the place. Sometimes it's about martial arts, sometimes it's about movement, sometimes it's about turning into a kind of quasi-Buddha. I'm not saying EVERYTHING in a class needs to point in one direction, but Monks in particular have a tough job because they're every kung fu martial arts trope scrunched into one class, with subclasses for variety. I don't think this is WotC's fault or a design flaw, but some things in the core Monk chassis need to be parceled out to specific subclasses, to allow more room for the core chassis to express whatever the core thesis is. WHAT that thesis is feels like fodder for a whole other thread.

I respect Treantmonk's work here, but I think if the monk is to be well and truly fixed, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. In 8th Ed or whenever they finally decide to give all the martials maneuvers because the 4e-phobia has subsided, Monks will get their own special pool of Monk-exclusive maneuvers (called "Techniques" or whatever), and then they'll ALSO have ki points to fuel the more mystical abilities. Monks will get their Technique Die back at the beginning of every turn, which will be used to fuel the core Monk tricks like Flurry of Blows and Patient Defense, and then ki points will be used for Diamond Soul, adding cool flourishes or counters to core Techniques a la Deflect Missiles, and other flashy, spell-mimicking abilities. And ki will come back on short/long rest or whatever. Come back to this post when it happens, you saw it here first.

Also, controversial hot take: instead of debating how to fix Stunning Strike, how about we get rid of it? Seriously. I get it, it's a legacy thing from older editions. But who fantasizes about playing a martial artist so they can, er, "hit the enemy so hard that they, like, stop moving for a couple of moments." Maybe give it to the subclass who's all about conditioning their body to superhuman levels, that makes sense, right? They have fists like sledgehammers, so when they hit someone, they punch so hard that it knocks the wind out of them. But for normal, base monks? They need some kind of attack modifier ability a la smite, sneak attack, rage bonus damage, etc. that isn't save-or-fail. I hit the enemy? Good, now I get to apply X thing. Letting an enemy roll a saving throw just kills it. To which the immediate response is "So you're advocating stunning strike SHOUDLN'T force a saving throw? That's broken as heck." To which I say, you're right, but then let's just toss Stunning Strike away somewhere, for that one hypothetical subclass, and figure out a NEW thing they can do, because this one is too finicky, too swingy, and I don't know what it does to promote the core Monk thesis or fantasy.

"Dun dun dun... Monk Threeeeaaaaad!!"

[Unoriginal]

Do you have some examples?

Most famous is his dismissal of the 5e Monk because it does not match the DPR of a GWM Fighter, and the questionable calculations he showed in the same video.

In general he has repeatedly shown he only considers martials as worthwhile when the can match the DPR of a GWM Fighter.

Otherwise... do you consider claiming that a build does X, only for the build to not do X, or to claim that a build is great at Y when it could do better/the same with a much simpler build to be a problem of system mastery?


If your methods involve ignoring it or insisting that your methods are correct without acknowledging criticism, I think you have a better idea of what you want for 5e design rather than what the editions actual design goals are.

I think he has a fairly cohesive stance on what he wishes 5e was like and can put that into practice well, but in my opinion it has some conflict with my understanding of the current design of 5e. Again, that's my opinion of this.

A fair assessment, IMO.


But who fantasizes about playing a martial artist so they can, er, "hit the enemy so hard that they, like, stop moving for a couple of moments."

*Raises hand*

[Reach Weapon]

Is that common? I wager its primarily for domonate and other enchantment effects that piggyback additional effects onto the charmed condition the same way conquest paladins do with frightened.

Stillness of mind doesn't have to negate everything that has the word fear or charm in it to be useful.
Common tends to be pretty DM dependent, but for a significant portion of players having a feature not do what they want once, especially in a high stakes scenario, is more than enough fuel.
The word charmed appears throughout enchantment spells. Sleep (1st-lvl), for instance, doesn't affect creatures immune to being charmed, so one might argue Stillness of Mind should allow Monks to just wake. Whereas Crown of Madness (2nd-lvl) where the charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose does raise the question specifically.


We're left with a class that's core design is just passed over by better, easier options and that is the fault of the Monk.
Is it? I don't know that the class is exactly to blame for common methods of comparison not being good at quantifying it's strengths, guides not doing a good job of selling or detailing it's playstyle, parties not being designed or played to best exploit it talents, or how players approach it. Sure, easier is a huge virtue for many, but 5E as it is commonly played is exceedingly forgiving of suboptimal builds and unskilled game choices.


If there is a high priority target that needs to be taken down, it will pretty much always be in the back where a Monk would quickly get themselves surrounded if they make a dash for it. And if there is not a high priority target, that requires the quick nuclear strike, then having a character that can sit and take the damage from your own high priority allies is just tactically a better tool to have.
Movement generally means the Monk can be where they are best utilized, and away from positions that are less tenable.
It has other effects, but stunned creatures automatically fail Strength and Dexterity checks.
Exposing your party to friendly fie seems like a suboptimal strategy.


Disagreeing about the problem is really much worse than disagreeing about the solution. That someone highly esteemed is identifying problems where they don't exist is actually a much bigger issue.
Missing problems is also something of a big deal. An 11th level ability to use Stunning Strike to deliver a concussive blow as an option (target CON or INT) would be a solid boost for Monks.

[AHF]

Most famous is his dismissal of the 5e Monk because it does not match the DPR of a GWM Fighter, and the questionable calculations he showed in the same video.


His baseline is a warlock casting basic eldritch blast cantrip every round not a GWM Fighter.

I agree with those who said it appeared a large number (but definitely not all) of responses to this thread appeared not to have watched the video. Between his recent video on monks for his tier list and this video it gives a good breakdown of his issues with the class. I agree with most of what he says.

For his fix, I think it is better than the baseline Monk (in that a middle of the road player can more easily replicate the impact provided by a middle of the road build from other classes). I have a few quibbles such as the switch from Dex to Wis on features and the stunning strike not divorcing itself from ki (seems likely to result in more spamming of stunning strike) but overall I’d be happy to let a player try it or a variant of it out at the table. I don’t think even with all these things that it is overtuned in a way that it would step on the toes of or overshadow a full caster, Paladin, Fighter, etc.

His biggest complaint with the Monk class is how many base features and how many subclass features require Ki to be used and I do think he identifies a huge issue with the class. Whether this is the right fix to that and other issues is probably the better focus but I am in the group of people who think a fix is needed.

[Unoriginal]

His baseline is a warlock casting basic eldritch blast cantrip every round not a GWM Fighter

Why would he dismiss the Monk's damage, then? 1d8+2 is more than 1d10.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why would he dismiss the Monk's damage, then? 1d8+2 is more than 1d10.

But not more than 1d10+Cha (ranged, at that).

Then again, I think that eldritch blast is bad game design, so...

[strangebloke]

This is backwards. The system is what all classes must be judged by. If a class doesn't function as intended because of how the system is designed, then it is the class that is flawed and should be restructured to work within that system.

In terms of dealing consistent damage, ranged builds beat the Monk. In terms of taking up space and surviving Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins do that job better than the Monk.

We're left with a class that's core design is just passed over by better, easier options and that is the fault of the Monk.

Now, you may have a point with bow-Monks. I've never seen one used. But I will also sorta point out that if the optimal way to play a class is to not play it as class fantasy is pushing you toward, that is also a problem with the class design. Just a different one that I don't think we're really talking about here.

The bolded bit is the part I disagree with. That's not a real role most of the time. Generally, the role of melee is to rush forward and "tank" by taking hits nobody else in the party could have ever been hit by. This is the point that was ignored in the previous "hard to target" thread. Monsters will attack whoever is easiest to target, but if everyone is impossible to target, the monster can do nothing. It's better to just hang back and let the ranged characters force the enemies to come to you (since they're almost always melee) but the melee characters have to rush in and TANK.

Basically, what I'm saying is that outside of a few specialized builds, melee characters are just less good, but people play them anyway because... what did you call it? The fantasy archetype? Yeah. That. People want to be knights and proud warriors, and warrior-wizards. "The Archer" is a niche archetype by comparison. Do you doubt me? Go through your average DND book and see how many PCs using bows are depicted. I count 6-7 in my phb, or about one every fifty pages.

Monks could/should be stronger, but saying that they're outclassed by ranged options just highlights how stupidly good those are. Ranged builds aren't a fair point of comparison because they're strictly better than everything. If you compare monks to their melee peers, they're completely fine.

Do they need some buffs? Sure, maybe a bit. I just don't think this much. They need more support and flexibility (an extra ASI at 10 would be nice, thanks)


I don't think you can have it that the Paladin is overpowered and should not be a benchmark, while also taking the point that power doesn't actually matter because it's all DM dependent anyway.
All I'm saying is that IME Paladins are one of if not the strongest class in the game, while acknowledging that's dependent on my style.

But I will say, while yes, the DM can assuage issues with the game. We can still see what is easiest or hardest to account for, and what the DM must do in order to design encounters to make all classes feel useful and not have their moments stolen by other classes. In my experience Monks are very difficult to try and get them to feel powerful, unless I purposely play the enemies as being kinda dumb.

Also in my experience, T3 to T4 casters that know what they're doing are about the easiest to make feel powerful. Even when the enemy is taking precautions against them.

I think the relevant question for monks isn't "do you leave high priority targets without support" and more "how many short rests do you typically get."

Lots of folks don't do short rests at all.

[Dienekes]

The bolded bit is the part I disagree with. That's not a real role most of the time. Generally, the role of melee is to rush forward and "tank" by taking hits nobody else in the party could have ever been hit by. This is the point that was ignored in the previous "hard to target" thread. Monsters will attack whoever is easiest to target, but if everyone is impossible to target, the monster can do nothing. It's better to just hang back and let the ranged characters force the enemies to come to you (since they're almost always melee) but the melee characters have to rush in and TANK.

Basically, what I'm saying is that outside of a few specialized builds, melee characters are just less good, but people play them anyway because... what did you call it? The fantasy archetype? Yeah. That. People want to be knights and proud warriors, and warrior-wizards. "The Archer" is a niche archetype by comparison. Do you doubt me? Go through your average DND book and see how many PCs using bows are depicted. I count 6-7 in my phb, or about one every fifty pages.

Monks could/should be stronger, but saying that they're outclassed by ranged options just highlights how stupidly good those are. Ranged builds aren't a fair point of comparison because they're strictly better than everything. If you compare monks to their melee peers, they're completely fine.

Do they need some buffs? Sure, maybe a bit. I just don't think this much. They need more support and flexibility (an extra ASI at 10 would be nice, thanks)


I think this goes to just us playing the games very differently. In the games I've seen it's generally pretty normal for the attacking creatures to try and engage up close with the backline as their primary method of attack. Range is powerful, but suffering Disadvantage on all your attacks is pretty brutal. And as such a useful frontline (that almost always take the Sentinel feat, because of course they do) become a tool of pretty extreme importance at least in T1 and T2 play. By T3 teleportation and flight starts becoming a lot more prevalent which does dramatically decrease the effectiveness of the tanks. And we have to get into a whole other debate about role scaling and the mess of higher level play. But I'll drop that topic for now.

While racing off to go deal with the threat is usually considered unoptimal because well... it's usually suicidal. True story here, the last monk I played a game with did not stay back to protect the squishies with the rest of the party, went in to deal with the threat and got knocked unconscious and dragged away for dinner. Because that was a dumb plan.

That said, I will agree that the tank role in pure theory craft seems pretty bad. In wide open fields with no doorways or terrain or anything to manage the flow of the enemies the tank's only real purpose is to just run forward and die.

So for me when I see the Monk I'm left with a class that's primary job is done more effectively by the ranged focused characters. Which we're in agreement about. But doesn't really do the one thing that the melee focused builds can do pretty well.

So in my opinion, the solution here is either fix them up so they can do the frontline job. Or you have to make them so much better at the agile striker to be comparable with the archers. Considering they are by nature taking much more risk to accomplish this than the archer is.



All I'm saying is that IME Paladins are one of if not the strongest class in the game, while acknowledging that's dependent on my style.

I think the relevant question for monks isn't "do you leave high priority targets without support" and more "how many short rests do you typically get."

Lots of folks don't do short rests at all.

Yeah the issue with the Rest mechanic is, in my opinion, one of the more glaring flaws in the game.

[Unoriginal]

But not more than 1d10+Cha (ranged, at that).

Then again, I think that eldritch blast is bad game design, so...

Basic Eldritch Blast does not add CHA to damage.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Basic Eldritch Blast does not add CHA to damage.

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.

[Frogreaver]

His baseline is a warlock casting basic eldritch blast cantrip every round not a GWM Fighter.

Doesn't he include hex in that as well?

[stoutstien]

Doesn't he include hex in that as well?

Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

[Amechra]

But who fantasizes about playing a martial artist so they can, er, "hit the enemy so hard that they, like, stop moving for a couple of moments."

Pressure-point strikes are a pretty martial-artist-y thing. You aren't hitting them hard, you're hitting them in just the right spot to exploit weaknesses and shatter bones.

I'd honestly be pretty happy if all Monks got Hands of Harm (and the relevant upgrades) from the Way of Mercy instead of Stunning Strike. Or, at least, I'd be happy about it if immunity to being poisoned weren't so ridiculously common.

[Hael]

Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

Yea but then he also includes flurry of blows as an infinite resource as well. It's not a terrible dpr assumption and it does show that there is a scaling problem (and his fix just puts it barely ahead of nonsubclass hex+EB).

My experience with monks is that they have a lot of negative rounds as well (unless they are the Kensai ranged build) whereas EB is almost always guarenteed damage (to multiple targets) with very little negative damage issues as well (overkill damage)

[Unoriginal]

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.


Doesn't he include hex in that as well?


Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

So, the "basic Eldritch Blast every round" that Treantmonk uses as comparison for DPR, including at-will DPR, is an Eldritch Blast from a Warlock who 1) made an Invocation choice investment to make EB better 2) is using a 1rst level, 1-hour-long, Concentration-using spell to make EB better 3) has a DM with generous, not-how-the-book-describes-the-spell rulings concerning said 1rst level spell?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Yea but then he also includes flurry of blows as an infinite resource as well.

...Yeah, he either does not know how the game work, or how math does.

[mr_stibbons]

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.

He absolutely takes it into account. The full baseline is "Warlock using eldritch blast and hex, starting with 16 Cha, taking agonizing blast at level 2 and increasing Cha at level 4 and 8". And sure, there are other ways to build warlock, but that's the kind of build that shows up in every "beginner's guide to building 5e warlocks" ever. It's not using any obscure optimization tricks or creative strategies, and doesn't require any optional rules. That's why it's a baseline.

Now, it's at low levels it's a bit unfair, you really can't assume hex stays up in all combats at level 1, but optimizing dpr at level 1-2 is kinda pointless. At higher levels, 5+, I think it is pretty useful as a damage benchmark. The thing is, the bench line isn't a character that has been super optimized for damage-it has no subclass, no race, 1 cantrip, 1 spell known and 1 eldritch invocation. It has a lot of space to pick up other tools, be that survivability, mobility, lockdown spells, utility effects or yet more damage. If your level 5+ character can't easily beat a warlock a lightweight investment in damage per round, it's safe to say that you are not doing good dpr. The fact that many martial builds have trouble beating this thing at level 11 is an indictment of how messed up high level play is.

[Abracadangit]

*Raises hand*

To be fair, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. MOST people like the idea of Stunning Strike. Heck, I LIKE the idea, I just don't know that it syncs with the ideal core thesis of the monk. But right now, their thesis IS to stun people. So there we go.


Pressure-point strikes are a pretty martial-artist-y thing. You aren't hitting them hard, you're hitting them in just the right spot to exploit weaknesses and shatter bones.

I'd honestly be pretty happy if all Monks got Hands of Harm (and the relevant upgrades) from the Way of Mercy instead of Stunning Strike. Or, at least, I'd be happy about it if immunity to being poisoned weren't so ridiculously common.

It's true that pressure points are a martial artsy thing -- but are they core monk? I feel like in most kung fu media, pressure points are the purview of either a) the old master who disables opponents with a touch, or b) the cold, calculating, tactical type, who strikes at soft spots/nerve centers to bring about pain or paralysis. I know there are some wuxia protagonists that do pressure point stuff, but my point is it feels like it's supposed to be in a subclass somewhere, instead of "The Thing Monks Are All About."

Right, something like Hands of Harm! More riders to Flurry of Blows that don't end up costing us more ki, but lets us buy more for the points we're already spending.

[Frogreaver]

So, the "basic Eldritch Blast every round" that Treantmonk uses as comparison for DPR, including at-will DPR, is an Eldritch Blast from a Warlock who 1) made an Invocation choice investment to make EB better 2) is using a 1rst level, 1-hour-long, Concentration-using spell to make EB better 3) has a DM with generous, not-how-the-book-describes-the-spell rulings concerning said 1rst level spell?

Am I understanding this correctly?

...Yeah, he either does not know how the game work, or how math does.

If not RAW, it seems at least RAI that hex can concentrated on essentially all day. Why give it up to a 24 hour duration otherwise.

I also don't feel agonizing blast is a stretch as caster warlocks wanting to build for combat nearly always take that invocation.

I don't even mind the combination AB+Hex+EB as that's a pretty low optimization threshold.

The issue I have with the comparison is that alot of what the monk brings to the table offensively is ignored. Stunning Strike is a Debuff that increases your DPR and your teams DPR. That needs accounted for somewhere.

[strangebloke]

I think this goes to just us playing the games very differently. In the games I've seen it's generally pretty normal for the attacking creatures to try and engage up close with the backline as their primary method of attack. Range is powerful, but suffering Disadvantage on all your attacks is pretty brutal. And as such a useful frontline (that almost always take the Sentinel feat, because of course they do) become a tool of pretty extreme importance at least in T1 and T2 play. By T3 teleportation and flight starts becoming a lot more prevalent which does dramatically decrease the effectiveness of the tanks. And we have to get into a whole other debate about role scaling and the mess of higher level play. But I'll drop that topic for now.
yeah this particular debate is going nowhere fast. My personal take is that if you do need a wall character, its pretty easy for an otherwise-ranged character to fill that role. Like say a cleric casting spirit guardians and then dodging/casting spiritual weapon on the next turn.

So in my opinion, the solution here is either fix them up so they can do the frontline job. Or you have to make them so much better at the agile striker to be comparable with the archers. Considering they are by nature taking much more risk to accomplish this than the archer is.
They've got better defenses than most backliners and more consistency than most frontline walls. They deal good damage when compared against most other builds, losing out to the usual suspects. SS archer, GWM warrior, and Eldritch blast with riders. Which yes. Those builds deal insane damage. Thanks, we know.

Monks are fun in that they can play a wide variety of ways depending on the needs of the party in the situation. Sure its not very efficient to run in and patient defense, but you're a pretty effective wall when you do. You can do the striking thing. You can fixate on Stunning to control the battlefield. You can kite if you want. You can just lob arrows down range.

They're fun to play as a result, and most people I've seen use them have really enjoyed it. The problem comes in that they're just slightly undertuned overall, and that their builds are prescribed. You don't actually have to max dex or wis to function, people just do because there's no feats that are actually that good for a monk.

Yeah the issue with the Rest mechanic is, in my opinion, one of the more glaring flaws in the game.
Eh. I think it works well if you treat "short rest" as "after every encounter" and long rest as "next time you get to town." Which admittedly isn't how the game is written.

[Abracadangit]

Eh. I think it works well if you treat "short rest" as "after every encounter" and long rest as "next time you get to town." Which admittedly isn't how the game is written.

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

What makes it so weird is that we do have a few encounter-based ability triggers in 5E, like the Arcane Archer/Battle Master recharging uses if they start a fight with none.

[strangebloke]

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

yeah I've been preaching short rests after every 1-2 encounters for a while now. Works pretty well either under a "long rest is 8 hours, short rest is 10 minutes" paradigm or a "long rest is 7 days, short rest is 8 hours" paradigm (though the latter has a lot of implications to say the least.)

[Unoriginal]

He absolutely takes it into account. The full baseline is "Warlock using eldritch blast and hex, starting with 16 Cha, taking agonizing blast at level 2 and increasing Cha at level 4 and 8". And sure, there are other ways to build warlock, but that's the kind of build that shows up in every "beginner's guide to building 5e warlocks" ever. It's not using any obscure optimization tricks or creative strategies, and doesn't require any optional rules. That's why it's a baseline.

Using any ressource for something disqualify it as a baseline for anything that is supposed to be at-will.



Now, it's at low levels it's a bit unfair, you really can't assume hex stays up in all combats at level 1, but optimizing dpr at level 1-2 is kinda pointless.

You cannot assume Hex stays up in all combats at any level.

Also, this is about analyzing and comparing DPR. All levels are equally relevant, in term of data.



At higher levels, 5+, I think it is pretty useful as a damage benchmark. The thing is, the bench line isn't a character that has been super optimized for damage-it has no subclass, no race, 1 cantrip, 1 spell known and 1 eldritch invocation.

No 5e character has 16 CHA at character creation without having a race, unless the stats were rolled (and as such shouldn't be used for a baseline).

So the character you are talking about:

1) uses the cantrip which deals the most damage in the whole game.

2) has a race chosen in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

3) has spent/is going to spend their first two ASIs in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

4) has invested in an invocation to deal more damage with that cantrip rather than doing something else

5) uses a different, not-at-will, Concentration-using spell in order to deal more damage with that cantrip

6) has a DM whose rulings make using said not-at-will spell easier.

But according to you said character is not super-optimized for damage?


It has a lot of space to pick up other tools, be that survivability, mobility, lockdown spells, utility effects or yet more damage.

A Warlock with that EB-damage-based build with have significantly less space to *use* other tools.

Being able to cast Bigby's Hand as a Fathomless Warlock is far less impressive when you use up your Concentration and your spell slots on Hex like you where already doing before you got your Pact Boon.



If your level 5+ character can't easily beat a warlock a lightweight investment in damage per round,

As demonstrated above, it is not a "lightweight investment".


The fact that many martial builds have trouble beating this thing at level 11 is an indictment of how messed up high level play is.

The fact that martials builds' at-will DPRs are being compared to a not-at-will-ressources-using build's DPR is an indictment of nothing.


Using a damage-focused, not-at-will build's performance as the yardstick for at-will DPR and then acting as if it was a no-investment-or-near baseline everyone should match to get in the Cool Kids' Clubhouse is simply not sound.

This show that Treatmonk either does not understand how methodology and standards for comparisons are established, does not understand 5e as a game/system, is knowingly dishonest by presenting biased datas, or is doing a mix of the three in various proportions. I leave that judgment to each individual.

[Frogreaver]

Let's evaluate how much damage flurry of blows adds (assumes level 5)

Assuming target AC of 15 with +4 Dex bonus and attack bonus of +7. Flurry of blows allows 1 more attack than you would normally make @ 1d6+4 damage. Flurry of blows adds about +5.05 DPR.

For Stunning Strike we will have to assume a party. I'm going to look at a basic Greatsword Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. Each will be using their basic attacks and focus firing the stunned enemy.

When an enemy is stunned I calculate this up to 18.2375 DPR (times the chance you stun with a single stunning strike). This is usually going to average to about +9 DPR, give or take a bit. Of course in parties more optimized for Damage, this number can go up much higher.

So in terms of overall team DPR with a focus fire strategy, stunning strike causes significantly more DPR than Flurry of blows.

[Rynjin]

First, 4 elements might be fairly poorly executed design wise and wonky, it's one of the most powerful subclass of the monk. It brings option most other monks haven't, notably the ability to cc and move ennemies at range targeting 2 different save. The utility cannot be understated. And this is before computing things like fly.
Second the base chassis isn't bad. It has one of the best cc ability of the entire game in stunning strike, has excellent mobility (something often overlooked because more often than not people's encounter design is lacking), they also have solid defensive options and being short rest based means that they shine in long adventuring days.
Which doesn't mean they don't have problems, most of their features come online early and the later levels feels lacking. The fact the dev haven't really though of implementing items in line with classic magical weapons for the unarmed attacks is dumb (but is easy to remedy). They are mad but honestly, I think it's good design, it's the sad characters that are the problems imo.

The problem, as always, comes back to Ki. The class is not mobile, because its mobility is tied to the same resource as its damage. It's likewise not versatile, because that versatility eats away at the singular resource it has to DO anything.

I HATED playing a Four Elements Monk because of how damn expensive everything is. Sun Soul was a bit better, though definitely less "versatile" I'll give you that.




I mean, its not 'broken' but he's clearly comparing unoptimized monk builds against optimized fighter builds while failing to account for ki scaling, and so yes by definition this build is 'overtuned.' An unoptimized idiot monk getting 8d6+12 pretty much every round at level 11 with access to subclass options and stunning strike is pretty absurd. Doubly absurd if you count the Tasha's buffs.

Why is 8d6+12 per round "absurd" in 5e? I'll admit, I'm not the hugest 5e expert, but one thing I do know for a fact: monster HP is exactly the same as it always was. 8d6+12 is 40 damage per round. A CR 11 enemy has around 160 HP on average, with a couple huge outliers (a Roc has...250 for some reason, and a Remorhaz close to 200).

So it would take a solo Monk about 4 rounds to beat down a solo CR 11 enemy. That seems well within the bounds of how long a combat should last. With help, the party could hack one down in about 2 rounds. Seems perfect for an encounter with a single enemy.

Unless most 5e players consider encounters taking close to 10 rounds on average at the mid-levels a feature, not a bug?

[Unoriginal]

So in terms of overall team DPR with a focus fire strategy, stunning strike causes significantly more DPR than Flurry of blows.

Not incorrect, but you're not including several key factors. Among them:

-Is it easier for the Monk's additional attack to land or for the monster to fail their CON saves?

-Does the monster that get focused on has Legendary Resistances?

-How much does the DPR of the Monk help the DPR of the team overall?

-How much more DPR does the Monk add if the SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third?

-How much would the additional DPR from FoB help the group?

-FoB and Stunning Strikes are not mutually exclusive, so long as the Monk has ki:
- How much more likely is it for SS to land if the Monk used FoB ?
- How much additional DPR using both adds to the team's DPR if SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third? On the fourth?

Any of those factors will change the DPR of the Monk and of the team, sometime significantly.

That kind of stuff is a bother to calculate, because all the factors do affect performance in-game. And "the lvl 5 team focus fire on a single opponent with X AC" is seemingly pretty straightforward.

That's why so many people just go for the "featureless white room with best case scenarios" approach, which is much, much easier and also completely unhelpful because so innacurate to what happens with the game.

[Frogreaver]

Not incorrect, but you're not including several key factors. Among them:

-Is it easier for the Monk's additional attack to land or for the monster to fail their CON saves?

I assumed that on average at level 5 you would encounter a Con Save of around +4. Some enemies will be higher and some lower. Yielding about a 50% chance to stun when you use the ability. A intelligent tactical player, may use the distribution to his advantage and use stunning strike on more lower con save enemies and allow allies to use their abilities more to overcome the high con save ones.


-Does the monster that get focused on has Legendary Resistances?

At level 5 it's doubtful you are fighting anything with legendary resistance


-How much does the DPR of the Monk help the DPR of the team overall?

Not really sure what you are asking here.


-How much more DPR does the Monk add if the SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third?

Depends on whether the enemy was already stunned the previous round. *Note that stunning strike lasts until the end of your next turn. The first time you use it you get your remaining attacks at advantage and all your next turns attacks at advantage. But if you stun the enemy again the next round then those attacks were already counted at advantage for the previous stunning strike. So for my calculations the effects of advantage on any remaining attacks this turn were ignored. We could calculate the exact effect here but it would take a very tedious probability calculation that just isn't worth the invested time.


-How much would the additional DPR from FoB help the group?

-FoB and Stunning Strikes are not mutually exclusive, so long as the Monk has ki:
- How much more likely is it for SS to land if the Monk used FoB ?


They aren't mutually exclusive but you don't have the ki at level 5 to even attempt a stunning strike every round. I'm not sure why you would 'waste' Ki on the inferior FoB option in general cases (obvioulsy we can probably come up with some specific enemy where stunning strike is ineffective due to extremely high con saves, immune to stun, etc).


- How much additional DPR using both adds to the team's DPR if SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third? On the fourth?

At level 5 this would take away overall DPR - not add to it.

[Merudo]

I mean, its not 'broken' but he's clearly comparing unoptimized monk builds against optimized fighter builds while failing to account for ki scaling, and so yes by definition this build is 'overtuned.' An unoptimized idiot monk getting 8d6+12 pretty much every round at level 11 with access to subclass options and stunning strike is pretty absurd. Doubly absurd if you count the Tasha's buffs.


Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

[stoutstien]

Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

Mercy monk with a longsword or kensei SS are pretty self contained little kits.

[carkl3000]

Not needed, Monks have a lot of defensive tools and them being a d8 like the Rogue fits better, making them a d10 serves as a needless buff that homogenises martials.



This looks primarily like a feat or multiclass buff, both of which are bad design and don't help the core Monk



Not only does this feel weird, I'm not sure if this is based in 3.5 or something, it's ridiculous. The Martial Arts Die is used for too much, not only does this mean that an 11th level Monk is making Fireball look like chump change, it has spin off effects into other weapons and abilities. Horrendous and way too much.



No, too much and takes away from the Monk's identity. It's okay that they need a secondary stat, plenty of other classes and subclasses do.



No, this isn't needed. I can see why people compare SotW to Cunning Action, but they are not the same. The biggest thing missed here I think is that the Monk has a core speed boost, in comparative situations the Rogue is having to Dash more often because the Monk's base speed covers a lot of cases Dash would be needed.



No, and I think he misunderstands this ability, it's primarily just a way to convert left over Ki into health so it isn't wasted, it's not really intended to be a stand alone healing ability. For the aim of the ability the cost is fine, though the fact he proposed this along with that martial arts die increase is just ridiculous.



Why? Just why? Stunning Strike isn't expensive to use to begin with, it's not even like it has the opportunity cost of declaring before you attack. More needless stacking buffs.



This isn't particularly bad, I just don't think it's necessary.



No... Why cram something like this into a ribbon ability?



That's a massive buff, out of line imo for all that you get out of Empty Body.



Is this instead of the Ki regen? Either way... no

Buffing Con on a Monk isn't thematic, pushing their Dex over 20 isn't needed and just takes a dump on the uniqueness of the Barbarian's ability.



Playing this Monk would be a hot mess of overtuned whilst also draining a lot of flavour and identity out of the class. The fact he thinks these buffs are okay to add altogether (or at all in some cases) really just calls into question his sense of 5e balance.


Here's a standout: Way of the Astral Self at 20th would get to do 5 attacks if Flurrying, for a total of 18d6+25, or an average of 88 force damage. Not Flurrying brings that down to a measily 72.5.

And the problems would start to arise well before it got to Tier 4.

Why not build a Kensei Archer that now does 3d6 weapon damage on top of the SS damage and other boosts?


A Mercy Monk that 'smites' enough that a Paladin blushes, whilst also having their healing role morph from battle medic/emergency heals to deep healing?

I don't care too much about any of this, but if you think it's not thematic for a monk to have high constitution, you have no business talking about monks.

[Merudo]

Answer to damage, and particularly damage scaling issue. An issue that arguably increases as the monk gains levels, hence the non-standard progression. "+1 damage on hits" is not an upgrade that compares to the fighter's third attack or the paladin's improved divine strike or the sneak attack bonus a rogue gets every two levels, or even standard cantrip scaling.

Exactly this.

As is, a Monk using only unarmed attacks will do +3 DPR at level 11 (+4 if using Flurry of Blows).
Realistically, the Monk is using a quarterstaff two-handed, so they actually get +1 DPR (+2 if using Flurry of Blows).

A Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite at this level, increasing their DPR by +9 (+13.5 when using some sort of bonus action attack).
Treantmonk's fix raise Monk DPR by +7.5 at level 11 (+10 when using Flurry of Blows).

It seems very reasonable.

[mr_stibbons]

Using any ressource for something disqualify it as a baseline for anything that is supposed to be at-will.
You cannot assume Hex stays up in all combats at any level.

Also, this is about analyzing and comparing DPR. All levels are equally relevant, in term of data.

No 5e character has 16 CHA at character creation without having a race, unless the stats were rolled (and as such shouldn't be used for a baseline).

So the character you are talking about:

1) uses the cantrip which deals the most damage in the whole game.

2) has a race chosen in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

3) has spent/is going to spend their first two ASIs in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

4) has invested in an invocation to deal more damage with that cantrip rather than doing something else

5) uses a different, not-at-will, Concentration-using spell in order to deal more damage with that cantrip

6) has a DM whose rulings make using said not-at-will spell easier.

But according to you said character is not super-optimized for damage?

A Warlock with that EB-damage-based build with have significantly less space to *use* other tools.

Being able to cast Bigby's Hand as a Fathomless Warlock is far less impressive when you use up your Concentration and your spell slots on Hex like you where already doing before you got your Pact Boon.

As demonstrated above, it is not a "lightweight investment".

The fact that martials builds' at-will DPRs are being compared to a not-at-will-ressources-using build's DPR is an indictment of nothing.

Using a damage-focused, not-at-will build's performance as the yardstick for at-will DPR and then acting as if it was a no-investment-or-near baseline everyone should match to get in the Cool Kids' Clubhouse is simply not sound.

This show that Treatmonk either does not understand how methodology and standards for comparisons are established, does not understand 5e as a game/system, is knowingly dishonest by presenting biased datas, or is doing a mix of the three in various proportions. I leave that judgment to each individual.

Firstly, who said anything about at will? I certainly didn't, and Treantmonk does not compare that baseline to at will damage numbers, he tries to calculate average damage assuming characters are spending all their resources over 8 4 round combats with 2 short rests, as per the DMG. The idea that this is supposed to be At will DPR is a misconception-it's long rest DPR averaged.

Secondly, requiring a race that gives at least +1 to your classes primary stat is a pedantic nitpick, especially in a post-tasha's world, where if you are using those variant rulesany race in the game meets those qualifications. This is character building 101 stuff. There are a negligible number of point-buy characters who do not start with a 16 in their primary attack stat. And sure, maybe you would be better off picking a feat instead of improving CHA, but feats, as people on this forum like to point out, are an optional rule. +4 to you primary stat both times is an entirely reasonable assumption for any character.

Thirdly, a warlock has over their career 4 known cantrips without PotT, 15 known spells plus arcanum, and 8 eldritch invocations. One of each of those is a small investment on the grand scheme of things. Picking those all up as soon as possible is a little aggressive, sure. My position was that the baseline damage is a little high at low levels because of this.

Fourthly, yes, there are better spells for concentration DPR than hex. That's one of the many sources of extra damage I said an optimized warlock could use at higher levels. Yes, said warlock would not be casting hex if they were using those options. However, they could also learn high level spells that don't improve their DPR and still have the option to fall back on hex.

Lastly, every DPR calculation will have assumptions built into it. That's why you shouldn't treat it as the be all and end all. Even very complicated ones assume you do not get knocked unconscious, suffer any debilitating conditions, or lose concentration, yes, because it's impossible to estimate when any of that is going to happen. Also, they tend to ignore overkill, yes, because it's, again, impossible to estimate how often that happens (though the baseline encounter is 1 monster v 4 characters, which makes overkill pretty minimal). By favorable assumptions, you're saying that the warlock is allowed to switch their hex target between two attacks from one cast? (the baseline is not doing anything but hex with their bonus action after all) That's a pretty minor fudge, all things considered until very high levels-your chance of hitting with both rays is already pretty low, much less doing that and killing a target with your first ray.

[Dork_Forge]

I'll be replying to the rest of this thread later, but in the mean time:


I don't care too much about any of this, but if you think it's not thematic for a monk to have high constitution, you have no business talking about monks.

You're not even going to justify why you're dismissing my business talking about a part of the game?

What part of the Monk aesthetic is being a fat bag of hp?

Evasion is thematic.

Unarmoured defense that uses Wisdom to reflect technique is thematic.

Being able to use Dex for things other can only use Str for is thematic.

Getting a Con boost like a Barbarian does is just weird and only justifiable by saying the Monk is a martial.

If you're looking for Monks are super healthy and what not, then look at Diamond Soul and the fact they stop aging, being affected by diseases and poisons.

That 'fix' was a lazy rip from another class that pushes his agenda to decouple Monks from Wisdom.

If you don't like something I said, then present an argument against it, instead of writing off my entire opinion and point of view because you don't like one thing, without considering why I said it.

[strangebloke]

Why is 8d6+12 per round "absurd" in 5e? I'll admit, I'm not the hugest 5e expert, but one thing I do know for a fact: monster HP is exactly the same as it always was. 8d6+12 is 40 damage per round. A CR 11 enemy has around 160 HP on average, with a couple huge outliers (a Roc has...250 for some reason, and a Remorhaz close to 200).

So it would take a solo Monk about 4 rounds to beat down a solo CR 11 enemy. That seems well within the bounds of how long a combat should last. With help, the party could hack one down in about 2 rounds. Seems perfect for an encounter with a single enemy.

Unless most 5e players consider encounters taking close to 10 rounds on average at the mid-levels a feature, not a bug?
CR works differently in this edition. A single CR 11 monster would be considered an entire encounter. So yes, a party of four monks beating the entire encounter to death in 1-2 rounds is absurd.

Granted, this is where the other shoe drops. The CR rules are a joke and lead to absurdly trivial encounters even against inexperienced players with bad builds. But the reason 8d6+12 is absurd is actually because that's a stupidly terrible build that started with 16 DEX and then refused to do anything to improve damage for ten levels. A more optimized monk build with these rules could do something like 75 damage in a single turn without taking any accuracy penalty.

Obviously still subject to accuracy but that's pretty absurd by 5e standards.

Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

I feel like people are going to be tired of me bringing these up, but the long and short of it is that monks do really well against hard targets with elven accuracy given the large number of ways they have to get advantage, and how much of their damage comes from dice (and therefore profits off crits). Granted that even so level eleven tends to be a bad level for most monks, but things brighten a lot at twelve because of how ASI-starved monks are. For some quick examples against an AC 19 enemy:

(for a benchmark) 12th level Fighter with GWF and GWM, assuming you get the GWM BA every turn
4*[2d6+1.4+5+10]*0.30 = 28.08

12th level Astral Self Monk using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6 = 33.4

12th level Mercy Monk with 20 DEX and 18 WIS using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6+4 = 37.4

12th level Drow Shadow Monk with Elven accuracy and Fighter Initiate:Blindfighting using Darkness to create a sphere of advantage/disadvantage and flurry of blows
4*[(2d6+5)*0.875+2d6*.15] = 46.2

12th level Vhuman Kensei with Sharpshooter and Fighting Initiate:Archery spending 1 ki/round for deft strike/ki-fueled strikes and with HTB active
3*[2d6+5+10+3]*0.55+2d6 = 48.25

The Drow Shadow monk is important because all its doing is getting consistent advantage, which is something all monks can do pretty easily with stunning strike or the open hand monk's proning ability.

Now in the interest of playing fair, its obvious that I'm not considering a lot of the fighter's strength here. No action surge or subclasses. The high-AC opponent favors the monks here too. But overall I feel fine calling 2d6 unarmed strike "overtuned." If you run the numbers for action surge it only just edges out the Kensei sharpshooter.


Exactly this.

As is, a Monk using only unarmed attacks will do +3 DPR at level 11 (+4 if using Flurry of Blows).
Realistically, the Monk is using a two handed quarterstaff, so they actually get +1 DPR (+2 if using Flurry of Blows).

A Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite at this level, increasing their DPR by +9 (+13.5 when using some sort of bonus action attack).
Treantmonk's fix raise Monk DPR by +7.5 at level 11 (+10 when using Flurry of Blows).

It seems very reasonable.
Its almost like you're completely ignoring that at least 3 monk subclasses get massive boosts to damage at 11th level, and you're cherrypicking the worst level relative to fighters

[Frogreaver]

CR works differently in this edition. A single CR 11 monster would be considered an entire encounter. So yes, a party of four monks beating the entire encounter to death in 1-2 rounds is absurd.

Granted, this is where the other shoe drops. The CR rules are a joke and lead to absurdly trivial encounters even against inexperienced players with bad builds. But the reason 8d6+12 is absurd is actually because that's a stupidly terrible build that started with 16 DEX and then refused to do anything to improve damage for ten levels. A more optimized monk build with these rules could do something like 75 damage in a single turn without taking any accuracy penalty.

Obviously still subject to accuracy but that's pretty absurd by 5e standards.


I feel like people are going to be tired of me bringing these up, but the long and short of it is that monks do really well against hard targets with elven accuracy given the large number of ways they have to get advantage, and how much of their damage comes from dice (and therefore profits off crits). Granted that even so level eleven tends to be a bad level for most monks, but things brighten a lot at twelve because of how ASI-starved monks are. For some quick examples against an AC 19 enemy:

(for a benchmark) 12th level Fighter with GWF and GWM, assuming you get the GWM BA every turn
4*[2d6+1.4+5+10]*0.30 = 28.08

12th level Astral Self Monk using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6 = 33.4

12th level Mercy Monk with 20 DEX and 18 WIS using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6+4 = 37.4

12th level Drow Shadow Monk with Elven accuracy and Fighter Initiate:Blindfighting using Darkness to create a sphere of advantage/disadvantage and flurry of blows
4*[(2d6+5)*0.875+2d6*.15] = 46.2

12th level Vhuman Kensei with Sharpshooter and Fighting Initiate:Archery spending 1 ki/round for deft strike/ki-fueled strikes and with HTB active
3*[2d6+5+10+3]*0.55+2d6 = 48.25

The Drow Shadow monk is important because all its doing is getting consistent advantage, which is something all monks can do pretty easily with stunning strike or the open hand monk's proning ability.

Now in the interest of playing fair, its obvious that I'm not considering a lot of the fighter's strength here. No action surge or subclasses. The high-AC opponent favors the monks here too. But overall I feel fine calling 2d6 unarmed strike "overtuned."


Its almost like you're completely ignoring that at least 3 monk subclasses get massive boosts to damage at 11th level, and you're cherrypicking the worst level relative to fighters

Slight Quibble. At that Accuracy rating the Fighter would do more DPR without using -5/+10

Major Quibble. That Fighter isn't using any sublcass abilities and most of your monk ones are.

[Kane0]

OK so I guess i'll start with TM's premise and work back from that rather than critique his end result.

1. Lacking defense
2. Features reliance on Ki (which leads to some features being underused)
3. Stillness of Mind doesn't work as intended
4. Some features are mechanically lacklustre
5. Capstone sucks
6. Level 11 and 17 Monk falls behind
7. Martial arts die doesn't always work

Plus things to avoid and things to note:
- Don't overcomplicate, especially with multiple resources to track
- More Ki (fixes early monk and not late monk, which isn't where the problem lies)
- No complete rewrites/redesigns. Small tweaks.
- Don't overtune. Too little is better than too much.
- This isn't ignoring to ignore subclasses, those will be looked at later

TM's actual suggested changes:
1. d10 HP
2. can use light and medium armor
3. MA die starts higher and increases faster
4. DC is dex based
5. Step of with Wind costs 0
6. Quickened healing costs 1
7. Stunning strike uses its own resource
8. Stillness of mind works even if you ordinarily couldnt use it
9. Timeless body reduces exhaustion
10. Empty Body uses bonus action
11. Perfect self increases DEX and CON by 4

So lets go through the first points first
1. I can see the argument here. Monks are typically 1-3 AC and a handful of HP behind other warrior types plus can't use a shield or natively get a fighting style. However on the other hand they do have access to bonus action dodge/disengage/dash, and as they progress also damage mitigation in the form of slow fall, deflect arrows, evasion, purity of body, diamond soul and empty body. Monk bonus speed and stunning strike might also contribute to your longevity.
But on the other other hand again, many of those features come at the cost of Ki expenditure and damage output by conflicting with martial arts/flurry (which makes them unlikely to be used often or at all) and others come along too late to carry much impact.
I think TM has a point, though perhaps not an incredibly strong one. If we can address the monk always being forced to pick between their attacks and their mobility/defense I think that would go a long way to correcting this problem without simply making monks sturdier.

2. I agree. Much like above the Monk is constantly being forced to carefully weigh where his Ki is being used as well as what their BA is going to be used on. Splitting some of these off would help.

3. Fully agreed, I think this was intended to counteract dominations and such as well but the strict wording prevents it

4 & 5. Yes, this is a problem many martials face in Tiers 3 and 4 where their features just... aren't great. I think TM specifically is referring to Timeless body, but i'd call that a ribbon.

6. Monks don't get a big boost to damage output at level 10/11 in the base class, I think the intent was that the subclass does that job sort of like how the Ranger handles it. TM will be looking at subclasses as well so that needs to be taken into account here. But I will agree the MA die increase doesn't do the job on it's own.

7. TM is very right in saying that regular weapon die often match or beat martial arts die until late levels, and even then it's an average of 1-2 damage. Granted the Monk isn't a powerhouse damage machine to begin with (except for pre-extra attack levels) but the base class doesn't have anything there actually boosting damage at all except for MA die.


So in that light, lets take a look at his corrections:
1. This goes straight to problem 1, and it's not bad. Not what I would do myself and I doubt it would make a noticable impact in actual play, but it directly addresses the identified problem and does so without breaching his 'to avoid' items.

2. This also addresses problem 1, however only affects feat/multiclass games unless you start with a race that grants armor proficiency. Honestly this is a pretty minor change but does imply that TM doesn't value Wis in his monks or feels they are too MAD which may be true but not significantly moreso than paladins, EKs, ATs, rangers, non hexblade bladelocks, blade/valor bards, etc

3. This links to problems 6 and 7, maybe 4 too. I agree that it could use a raise but perhaps not as drastic as he suggests. I would just bump it up one die size than it currently is so you start at d6 (at least matching racial natural weapons) and end at d12/2d6 (the best standard weapons you can get). More than that and i'd be cautious of breaching the 'overtuned' note.

4. This doesn't appear to directly correspond to any issue identified to TM. Between this and change 2 it appears to imply that TM doesn't value Wis in his monks or feels they are too MAD. Which may be true but not significantly moreso than paladins, EKs, ATs, rangers, non hexblade bladelocks, blade/valor bards, etc. Regardless, I wouldn't pursue this one.

5 and 6. These appear to points 1, 2 and 4 but don't actually correct 1 in practice. It does reduce Ki reliance but doesn't stop Monks from burning it all on Flurry and Stun.

7. Addresses 2, and likely successfully. I support detaching Stun from Ki entirely. TM mentions that players he has spoken to love burning all their Ki on this, and from a design point of view I think that is against their own best interests to let them do. TM leans on the other side of that fence and wants to leave that gate open, to each their own.

8. plugs straight into 3, nothing more to add here.

9. I don't see this addressing anything other than maybe 4, but as I've said this is a ribbon. Even with this it's still basically a ribbon, so it's a difference without a change and I argue violates the self-imposed 'overcomplicate' rule

10. Addresses 1 and 4 I suppose? It still hits the core monk problem of 'do I bonus action punch or bonus action [anything else]?'

11. It makes the capstone considerably more powerful, but not any more interesting. Still, does what TM wants to achieve and doesn't break any of his rules so sure.


So having said all that, changes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 either hit the mark (more or less) or are inoffensive enough to leave alone or only mildly tweak where I think 4 and 9 don't achieve his own stated goals and should be discarded.
However.
All the above doesn't change one problem with monks that I perceive and TM has not identified: Monks are required to choose between their offense and mobility/defence by means of their BA in a manner that other classes aren't, or at least to the same extent. Even if bonus action dodge, disengage, dash, self-healing and invisibility/damage resistance were all cost 0 you still have to weigh it against attacking and potentially stunning another one or two times, significantly cutting into your combat performance in terms of damage and control.

But all this is just my opinion, take it with just as much salt as you grant TreantMonk.

[carkl3000]

I'll be replying to the rest of this thread later, but in the mean time:



You're not even going to justify why you're dismissing my business talking about a part of the game?

What part of the Monk aesthetic is being a fat bag of hp?

Evasion is thematic.

Unarmoured defense that uses Wisdom to reflect technique is thematic.

Being able to use Dex for things other can only use Str for is thematic.

Getting a Con boost like a Barbarian does is just weird and only justifiable by saying the Monk is a martial.

If you're looking for Monks are super healthy and what not, then look at Diamond Soul and the fact they stop aging, being affected by diseases and poisons.

That 'fix' was a lazy rip from another class that pushes his agenda to decouple Monks from Wisdom.

If you don't like something I said, then present an argument against it, instead of writing off my entire opinion and point of view because you don't like one thing, without considering why I said it.

Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.

[Frogreaver]

Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.

To be fair, that toughness is as much mind as it is body. Wisdom represents the Mental aspect of his toughness. I'd argue that the mental aspect of toughness is more important than the physical aspect in those movies. It's not whether their body can take the punishment, it's whether they can train their mind to allow them to do so.

[strangebloke]

Slight Quibble. At that Accuracy rating the Fighter would do more DPR without using -5/+10

Major Quibble. That Fighter isn't using any sublcass abilities and most of your monk ones are.

Yes, and I acknowledged it. Do you really want to walk through all the decision trees involved in how much damage precision attack adds on average?

Most fighter subclasses don't add much damage, and the ones that do add it with limited resources. Though in the interest of being fair.

12th level Elf Samurai Fighter with SS, CBE, EA, and archery style using fighting spirit and action surge
6*[1d10+5+10]*0.88 = 108.24

That's the absolute upper limit and its admittedly pretty absurd. It's also ALL this character can do, as literally every available feat and ASI has been spent and this burst can only be done once per short rest. With just fighting spirit it falls to 59 damage. Without either it falls to 32.8. so in the first combat of the day you can open with something like (FS+SW)->FS->FS for an average of something like ~75. Then on later encounters if you get a short rest its FS->normal->normal which averages to something like ~41.

[Unoriginal]

To be fair, that toughness is as much mind as it is body. Wisdom represents the Mental aspect of his toughness. I'd argue that the mental aspect of toughness is more important than the physical aspect in those movies. It's not whether their body can take the punishment, it's whether they can train their mind to allow them to do so.

Being able to substitute CON with WIS would be an interesting ability. But it'd need to be lvl 6 or more, 'cause it'd be no good to just make it a "and dip in Monk for this perk" thing.

[SharkForce]

for all those complaining that the monk's problem is that too many other things are too good at its intended niche:

first of all, those other things aren't going to suddenly just vanish. they're here. we're stuck with them. when it comes to hitting important but vulnerable targets, ranged fighters, rangers, wizards, crowd control bards, warlocks, ranged rogues, etc are not going to stop being a thing just because they're better at the job than monks. like it or not, they exist, they aren't going away, and we need to take them into account.

secondly, if there are 10 things that are all about equal and not game-breaking and one thing that doesn't work well then from a game design perspective "we need to redesign the 10 things" is insane. it is an invitation to potentially break many things that are working instead of potentially breaking one thing that already isn't working very well anyways. it involves 10 times the work as a bare minimum, probably more because everything interacts with everything else. if one thing is out of line with the rest, you fix that, you don't make everything else fit the one thing.

simply put, redesigning all the better ways to deal with glass cannon back line enemies is not going to happen, and for good reason, at the very least until the entire game gets a reset with 6e (and who knows when that will be). changing monk to be better at its job so that it can compete with the more effective options is the rational and reasonable solution.

now, I don't know that I'd do everything exactly the way treantmonk has it. but the notion that we should just make the game fit monks instead of making monks fit the game is silly.

[Frogreaver]

Yes, and I acknowledged it. Do you really want to walk through all the decision trees involved in how much damage precision attack adds on average?

Most fighter subclasses don't add much damage, and the ones that do add it with limited resources. Though in the interest of being fair.

I don't expect you to need to work out precisely how much precision attack adds. I would have been happy with some kind of estimate instead of ignoring such an important DPR contributor. Something like I expect to turn 10 misses into hits (pick your number) over the adventuring day, and then 18.5*10 = 185 daily damage from precision attack. 20 Rounds adventure day that translates to +9 DPR and 32 Round adventure day that translates to +6 DPR (rounded)


12th level Elf Samurai Fighter with SS, CBE, EA, and archery style using fighting spirit and action surge
6*[1d10+5+10]*0.88 = 108.24

That's the absolute upper limit and its admittedly pretty absurd. It's also ALL this character can do, as literally every available feat and ASI has been spent and this burst can only be done once per short rest. With just fighting spirit it falls to 59 damage. Without either it falls to 32.8. so in the first combat of the day you can open with something like (FS+SW)->FS->FS for an average of something like ~75. Then on later encounters if you get a short rest its FS->normal->normal which averages to something like ~41.

Sure, that's good burst damage. In a 20 Round adventuring day that translates to +11 DPR. In a 32 Round adventuring day that translates into +6 DPR.

[strangebloke]

for all those complaining that the monk's problem is that too many other things are too good at its intended niche:

first of all, those other things aren't going to suddenly just vanish. they're here. we're stuck with them. when it comes to hitting important but vulnerable targets, ranged fighters, rangers, wizards, crowd control bards, warlocks, ranged rogues, etc are not going to stop being a thing just because they're better at the job than monks. like it or not, they exist, they aren't going away, and we need to take them into account.

secondly, if there are 10 things that are all about equal and not game-breaking and one thing that doesn't work well then from a game design perspective "we need to redesign the 10 things" is insane. it is an invitation to potentially break many things that are working instead of potentially breaking one thing that already isn't working very well anyways. it involves 10 times the work as a bare minimum, probably more because everything interacts with everything else. if one thing is out of line with the rest, you fix that, you don't make everything else fit the one thing.

simply put, redesigning all the better ways to deal with glass cannon back line enemies is not going to happen, and for good reason, at the very least until the entire game gets a reset with 6e (and who knows when that will be). changing monk to be better at its job so that it can compete with the more effective options is the rational and reasonable solution.

now, I don't know that I'd do everything exactly the way treantmonk has it. but the notion that we should just make the game fit monks instead of making monks fit the game is silly.

Its not ten things its literally just sharpshooter, CBE, and eldritch blast, and they have a negative impact on the game beyond simply the monk.

[SharkForce]

Its not ten things its literally just sharpshooter, CBE, and eldritch blast, and they have a negative impact on the game beyond simply the monk.

how is it not other things? is a wizard *not* able to reach those back line enemies and deal with them? is a rogue not dealing perfectly respectable damage without sharpshooter and yet able to reach the back line with ranged attacks? what about a battlemaster fighter that can use a variety of ranged maneuvers to disable without need of sharpshooter, or a bard that adds a few crowd control spells to their selection suitable for disabling back line enemies?

sharpshooter and crossbow expert certainly make some builds even better at the job, but even without them you can get damage and crowd control onto back line enemies that can't handle the pressure, and there are a variety of ways to do it.

the problem is that not only are those other ways generally speaking about as good as a monk in the monk's dream scenario, they're better on the many, many, *many* occasions where they don't get that dream scenario too.

given we have all these ways to reach the back line with much lower risk, shouldn't the monk that generally has to put themselves in danger be better at it?

[Kane0]

given we have all these ways to reach the back line with much lower risk, shouldn't the monk that generally has to put themselves in danger be better at it?


1: Move martial arts and flurry unarmed strikes into the attack action. Now monks can move *and* attack without needing to choose.
2: Allow Step of the Wind to disengage or dash for 0 ki, or *both* plus the jump distance by spending 1 ki. Or some variation along the same lines
3: Switch Quickened Healing and Empty Body to bonus actions

How's that?

[Foolwise]

Quickened Healing is such a poor heal, I doubt it would ever see combat use except in extreme emergencies. So moving it to BA won't matter much as it will mostly be used to burn off extra ki immediately before a rest.

[Kane0]

Quickened Healing is such a poor heal, I doubt it would ever see combat use except in extreme emergencies. So moving it to BA won't matter much as it will mostly be used to burn off extra ki immediately before a rest.

Yes that too, personally i'd probably tack it onto the end of Patient Defense. 1 Ki for one, 2 ki for both same as Step of the Wind change above.

[strangebloke]

I don't expect you to need to work out precisely how much precision attack adds. I would have been happy with some kind of estimate instead of ignoring such an important DPR contributor. Something like I expect to turn 10 misses into hits (pick your number) over the adventuring day, and then 18.5*10 = 185 daily damage from precision attack. 20 Rounds adventure day that translates to +9 DPR and 32 Round adventure day that translates to +6 DPR (rounded)

This kind of analysis is pretty much meaningless though because you're just pulling numbers out of a hat. How many short rests? How many encounters? What's your precision attack strategy? How many rounds per encounter? Anything I picked would be built on things I randomly selected and would be subject to critique. As such, I'd simply rather not. My napkin math was, I think, completely sufficient to demonstrate that allowing a monk to have 2d6 MA damage is kinda nuts at 12th level.


how is it not other things? is a wizard *not* able to reach those back line enemies and deal with them? is a rogue not dealing perfectly respectable damage without sharpshooter and yet able to reach the back line with ranged attacks? what about a battlemaster fighter that can use a variety of ranged maneuvers to disable without need of sharpshooter, or a bard that adds a few crowd control spells to their selection suitable for disabling back line enemies?

sharpshooter and crossbow expert certainly make some builds even better at the job, but even without them you can get damage and crowd control onto back line enemies that can't handle the pressure, and there are a variety of ways to do it.

the problem is that not only are those other ways generally speaking about as good as a monk in the monk's dream scenario, they're better on the many, many, *many* occasions where they don't get that dream scenario too.

given we have all these ways to reach the back line with much lower risk, shouldn't the monk that generally has to put themselves in danger be better at it?

I think monks both could use a buff and are stronger than people realize in practice because of the value associated with consistency. I further think super high DPR ranged builds based on exploiting sharpshooter are their own problem.

Rogues are respectable at range but their damage isn't enough to make monks worthless, indeed, all the really high-damage rogue builds are melee focused. Wizards are good but monks are generally better at dealing with single targets assuming they can get in.


1: Move martial arts and flurry unarmed strikes into the attack action. Now monks can move *and* attack without needing to choose.
2: Allow Step of the Wind to disengage or dash for 0 ki, or *both* plus the jump distance by spending 1 ki. Or some variation along the same lines
3: Switch Quickened Healing and Empty Body to bonus actions

How's that?
I agreed with your analysis of TM's fixes. I think yours are better. My personal changes would be:

start at d6 martial arts and scale off that (so d10 at 11th level)
ASI at 10th level (also fix purity of mind) to free up ASIs and give you more of a chance to pick up utility feats
Patient defense and step of the wind also include one unarmed strike.


Quickened healing is just a way to burn ki before a short rest imo. It's pretty good at what it does.

[Kane0]

I agreed with your analysis of TM's fixes. I think yours are better. My personal changes would be:

start at d6 martial arts and scale off that (so d10 at 11th level)
ASI at 10th level (also fix purity of mind) to free up ASIs and give you more of a chance to pick up utility feats
Patient defense and step of the wind also include one unarmed strike.


Quickened healing is just a way to burn ki before a short rest imo. It's pretty good at what it does.

1. Yes, I don't think anyone here particularly disagrees with that actually.
2. How would you fix purity of body? I think it's fine as a feature, just far too late for then you get it.
3. OK, so that's more or less the same thing but in reverse. Not gonna nitpick.

QH yeah it is, but i'd at least like it to be comparable to Patient Defense in combat (as in do I spend X to prevent incoming damage or around-abouts the same X to recover some i've taken). Kinda like Protection vs Interception style (if the former were usable after the attack roll instead of before).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.

Monks in kung fu movies also can't speak with any creature that has a language, walk on water or supernaturally heal their own wounds, yet 5E monks can do all of these things with ease.

It's almost like it's own thing and doesn't draw from any one source.

[strangebloke]

1. Yes, I don't think anyone here particularly disagrees with that actually.
2. How would you fix purity of body? I think it's fine as a feature, just far too late for then you get it.
3. OK, so that's more or less the same thing but in reverse. Not gonna nitpick.

QH yeah it is, but i'd at least like it to be comparable to Patient Defense in combat (as in do I spend X to prevent incoming damage or around-abouts the same X to recover some i've taken). Kinda like Protection vs Interception style (if the former were usable after the attack roll instead of before).

I've seen an argument that instead of Quickened Healing you just let Deflect missiles become a more general ability called "deflect" that costs a ki but allows you to reduce any damage.

and purity of body isn't the biggest thing, but I do actually like TM's fix there. It makes it feel like a gamebreaking ability and its very flavorful (while not actually being broken)

[Frogreaver]

This kind of analysis is pretty much meaningless though because you're just pulling numbers out of a hat. How many short rests? How many encounters? What's your precision attack strategy? How many rounds per encounter? Anything I picked would be built on things I randomly selected and would be subject to critique. As such, I'd simply rather not. My napkin math was, I think, completely sufficient to demonstrate that allowing a monk to have 2d6 MA damage is kinda nuts at 12th level.

We will have to disagree there. When you ignore big DPR factors simply because you'll have to make some additional assumptions then the end result is meaningless and cannot prove anything related to DPR.

It goes right back to what I say about Monks. They already add alot of DPR via the debuffing properties of stunning strike. But that's always ignored in these discussions because someone might have to make a few additional assumptions.

In practice, both precision attack and stunning strike are going to greatly impact the actual amount of DPR each character contributes to an actual game.

[Kane0]

I've seen an argument that instead of Quickened Healing you just let Deflect missiles become a more general ability called "deflect" that costs a ki but allows you to reduce any damage.

and purity of body isn't the biggest thing, but I do actually like TM's fix there. It makes it feel like a gamebreaking ability and its very flavorful (while not actually being broken)

To avoid going off topic, I might just make a new thread over in homebrew to discuss. I've already had my thoughts on TMs changes.

Edit: here
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636639-Monk-base-class-tweaks

[strangebloke]

To avoid going off topic, I might just make a new thread over in homebrew to discuss. I've already had my thoughts on TMs changes.

fair enough.

[carkl3000]

Monks in kung fu movies also can't speak with any creature that has a language, walk on water or supernaturally heal their own wounds, yet 5E monks can do all of these things with ease.

It's almost like it's own thing and doesn't draw from any one source.

Those are literally all things that have happened in old kung fu flicks.

[KorvinStarmast]

My feelings about him and his work aside, Treantmonk has proved multiple times that this is not accurate, ESPECIALLY as far as 5e is concerned. Indeed.

If memory serves his tier list of feats was particularly off in some places. Not to mention his oral presentation skills are poor: uses too many words and does not focus.

He's also made several threads on this forum, and after receiving some criticism, vanishes from the thread or disregards it. Fair enough, but he's probably budgeting his time in terms of "spend time hear and go down the rabbit hole of an argument or spend time on another video that may get me clicks and maybe make me some money"

I know what I'd probably pick. :smallcool:

[Hytheter]

Being able to substitute CON with WIS would be an interesting ability. But it'd need to be lvl 6 or more, 'cause it'd be no good to just make it a "and dip in Monk for this perk" thing.

I could see 'Wis>Con to HP for Monk levels only' as an ability that would reduce MADness and improve survivability likely more than a Hit Die increase.


1: Move martial arts and flurry unarmed strikes into the attack action. Now monks can move *and* attack without needing to choose.
2: Allow Step of the Wind to disengage or dash for 0 ki, or *both* plus the jump distance by spending 1 ki. Or some variation along the same lines
3: Switch Quickened Healing and Empty Body to bonus actions

How's that?

Yes that too, personally i'd probably tack it onto the end of Patient Defense. 1 Ki for one, 2 ki for both same as Step of the Wind change above.


I like the way you're headed. I'd add Dex to grapple/shove, too.

[Dork_Forge]

I wrote this long as anything reply out once, then my PC crashed and I lost it all, so if my replies seem curt or not particularly elaborative in places... yeah.


- there really isn't a major difference between d8 and d10. on average, 1 hit point per level. when I look at fighter and compare to barbarian, the big difference is not the d12 vs d10 hit die, it is the rage, faster movement and brutal critical as compared to getting more attacks, a fighting style, and second wind, being able to use a wider variety of weapons and armour and bonus ASIs. as far as distinctiveness, hit die doesn't do a heck of a lot.

I do believe hit dice size matters, it's the difference between taking a hit or a failed save that you couldn't have taken before. Monks get Evasion, Diamond Soul, the ability to bonus action dodge, a huge movement bump etc. Adding more hp on top of that isn't needed and does have an impact.


- agree the monk doesn't really need it. disagree that it's particularly a concern. I don't think a lot of class power budget goes into deciding whether they can use armour, only in whether they gain proficiency, and frankly, some monk concepts wear armour.

It's nothing but a MC/feat buff, which are variant rules that shouldn't govern class design.

An armored Monk is a concept for a subclass, not an alteration to the base class, this has the benefits of limited dipping.


- it's based on monks dealing reasonably decent damage at low levels and then their damage plateaus and kinda sucks at higher levels (especially at level 11 when most strong damage-dealers get a big spike and the monk gets almost nothing). no idea what you're imagining about fireball though. fireball hits a 20 foot radius. a monk hits one target. these are not a reasonable pair of abilities to compare. I'm not sure this is the way I would've gone myself, but no, it doesn't break anything.

Monks are one of the best damage dealers in T1, a bonus action attack with modifier is a big deal when everyone is just making a single attack.

Going into Tier 2 they get the same bump everyone else does with Extra Attack, but also get a die size increase.

I used Fireball as a colloqial way of saying a lot of damage. The proposed martial arts die increases, combined with Dex mod and times the amount of attacks a Monk can make is ridiculous.

It gets worse when you start looking at all of the subclass features that use the MA die for damage.

Will it make the game unplayable? No, but the Monk will start to dominate most combats that people aren't burning resources left and right, and even some combats that they do.

Things don't have to break the game wide open to be too much, unnecessary, and bad for the game.


- step of the wind already costs the monk's damage. dashing takes their already weak damage to being *really* terrible at higher levels (and takes it from being decent to "meh" at lower levels), because now they can't use flurry of blows *or* their free bonus action martial arts attack. there is no need to make it cost ki, they already need ki for every other thing under the sun which means they barely get to actually *be* a monk.

Opportunity cost doesn't mean things should be free.

It's an option that's there if they need it, 1 Ki is cheap enough. With their movement speed, in practice they don't need to dash often at all, and if they do then the rest of the party is having a bad time.



- quickened healing has a crappy ratio, and if you go into a short rest with loads of ki left it's only because you haven't done anything remotely interesting. I'd rather have an ability that, on the rare occasion you can actually afford to use it, is not hot garbage.

It's a way to burn excess Ki, it's not intended to be a serious healing ability. Given 2 Ki = 1st level spell roughly, 1 Ki for Quickened Healing is a bit much, even more so if you accept the martial arts die change.


- all part of the "hey, wouldn't it be nice if monks could actually ever afford to spend their ki on something other than the absolute highest value option once in a million years" plan. I'm not sure that giving free uses of the high value ability is the best way to accomplish that (I would think giving a few free uses of the lower value options would make more sense), but it's an effort. of course, there *is* a video that explains all of this, which is the subject of this discussion and linked in it, so you *could* get informed *before* giving an opinion about the video you have evidently not watched.

In reality that will lead to more Stuns overall, from every kind of Monk player. You want players to use other stuff, give them more Ki.

And I know there's a video, you shouldn't need to watch a video to participate in a thread where things have been provided for you, nor do I want to support his channel when I neither like how he handles 5e mechanics, or criticism of his thinking.


- a number of the status effects that stillness of mind is *supposed* to prevent don't allow you to take your action to use the ability. this is stupid; you can't use your ability to break domination, because you're dominated? well gee, thanks for that! that is totally how I want my resistant to work, that I can't use them because the ability they're supposed to help again makes it impossible to do so. frankly, I suspect for most people, they just kind of assumed the ability actually allows this in the first place, making it not a real buff for many games.

No, Stillness of Mind tackles Frightened and Charmed, and it does that effectively, case in point:

It deals with a Dragon's fear.

It deals with a Vampire's Charm.

It may not work with some spells, but frankly so what, I doubt it's intended to and it's a minor ability you gain alongside Evasion.

This highlights a hypothesis I have:

The Monk gets something every level, and even multiple features some levels. So people criticise those things, but don't really think about the fact most classes don't get features that often. Who cares if SoM doesn't take care of things that piggyback on those conditions, it's a bonus feature you got with one of the best defensive features in the game an extra Ki point.

I really think people would complain less if the Monk just got less features.


- it's still a ribbon ability. I don't think it has much point, and I don't think it adds much, so frankly, my opinion on this front is largely "meh", but whatever. it's not like this is causing a major crisis here.


There's no reason for the buff to exist, it's weird to even suggest it tbh.


- I mean, it's level 18. you're allowed to get awesome stuff. and boy, it sure would be nice if your combat buff doesn't make you sit on your ass in the first and most important round and do nothing useful when you spend 1/5 of your monk allowance that you have to spend to do damn near anything remotely monk-like.

Empty Body was already awesome and you're not doing nothing, you're activating a very, very powerful buff. You wouldn't expect spells to do this kind of thing on a bonus action, so why would you expect it from a Monk feature?

And there's plenty of Monk things built into the class for free.


- yes, instead of crappy regeneration. crappy regeneration that only kicks in when you start a fight with zero ki, specifically... not zero to three ki, not 10 ki, but if you have exactly zero and not anything else, you can get back enough to actually feel remotely like a monk for one whole round. the official monk "capstone" is a total stinker. bonus dex and con = highly trained physical body, well, I'm not sure it's the best capstone I could ever imagine, but I'd rather have it than a capstone that requires me to do exactly the thing I never want to do and spend my ki irresponsibly so that I have none left.

It could stand to be more, but the point of it is that you always have Ki available, no matter how many encounters, or how wasteful or nova you went. You will always have Ki.

That is replaced by a knock off of the Barbarian capstone, which achieves nothing similar and bumps Con for no reason other than TM doesn't want Monks tied to Wis.


72.5 for resourceless damage is not that impressive at high levels (although it isn't resources, since you specified an astral monk). in 3-5 rounds, congratulations, you will have defeated a *single* equivalent CR monster, assuming you somehow didn't miss about 1/3 of the time (that being a reasonably average hit chance). frankly, I don't see a problem with a class that largely doesn't have the incredible burst of other damage-dealing classes nor the incredible utility of spellcasting classes to actually not be a total laughingstock when it comes to dealing damage to enemies. frankly, there are even some creatures as low as CR 7 that your monk would need to spend 2 full rounds (with no missing allowed) to defeat. being able to handle a single equal-CR creature in a 3-5 round fight sounds perfectly acceptable; I mean, the monk contributes about 1 equal CR creature to the number of enemies in a medium fight, why *shouldn't* the monk be able to pull their own weight (hypothetically, that is... again, your damage numbers seem to assume that the monk just never misses anything under any circumstances, so actual damage numbers will be lower, and it may actually take more than the entire fight for the monk to contribute as much to the party side of the equation as they add to the enemy side of the equation).

I never said it was resourcless, I said without Flurrying, a Monk has no reason to not use Ki most, if not every round at high levels, that said:

Please point me to a class that does that kind of resourcless damage at those levels? No matter how you dice it, non-nova damage in the 70s is high, especially since it isn't relying on a -5/+10 feat or situational boosts like first round on a Gloomstalker.

I'm not sure if you're holding onto a concept of CR from older editions, there's no reason whatsoever why any class would be expected to solo a creature, well at any time, nevermind one of equivalent CR.

If you hold characters to that standard then Wizards die fast.


current monk is terrible at tiers 3 and 4, and frankly isn't that awe-inspiring towards the end of tier 2 either (they're reasonable in tier 1 and low tier 2, I suppose). there is a lot of room to boost them before they become remotely close to being problematic. frankly, the entire *concept* of any of the current non-spellcasting classes being genuinely problematic in tier 3-4 when you have spellcasters walking around with the likes of wall of force, mass suggestion, forcecage, true polymorph, wish, maze, antipathy/sympathy, and so on, is laughably absurd.

Holding classes to the standard of outlier spells that can only be cast a few times a day, if they're chosen at all is a terrible way to judge base class power.

And you suppose they're reasonable in tier 1 and 2? In Tier 1 they're one of the highest damage dealers, in Tier 2 they are still very competitive without Ki and even more so with. That's before you start going for damage builds.


heaven forbid the monk's damage can actually defeat one enemy over 4 rounds when the wizard can just crowd control half the enemies on round 1 with a level 5 spell slot, because that would just be *awful*


What games are you even playing that you're having PCs fighting an equivalent CR creature solo, or even 1:1 spread out in combat?

And there is a world of difference between control and kill. A Wizard getting Hypnotic Pattern off hasn't ended an encounter. Those creatures still need to be defeated or dealt with in some fashion. Comparing control to killing like that is comparing apples to Volksvagens.


Full Disclosure before my post: Personally, I hold Treantmonk in the highest regards. His understanding of design is top-tier, and I would not hesitate to say he understands 5e better than some of the actual WOTC designers. There are very few people I would recommend listening to regardless of the topic for 5e (typically I'd recommend X for world building and Z for combat design, etc), and Treantmonk is pretty much at the top of that list.


Very surprised you hold in such high esteem, his commentary on classes in 5e has seemed very out of touch, nevermind how he handles criticism on here when he shows up in threads.

I very much believe that he is stuck in a previous edition in his head and not evaluating 5e for the game it actually is.


I think it would have been better to also list their criticisms of the monk, as several people in this post clearly haven't watched the video (which, I mean, fair, you shouldn't have to do homework to participate in a forum thread), and don't get what these fixes are even trying to accomplish in the first place, which makes it impossible to judge how successfully accomplish their goals.

This was very helpful thank you, I don't think the reasoning is actually needed to evaluate the balance of the 'fixes' but seeing the reasoning is helpful and watching a video shouldn't be a requirement of participating in a thread on a text based forum.


1) Monk too fragile, especially early on. Rogues can at least play a ranged game, but monks abilities leave them as melee-locked as paladins while also having significantly less HP and AC for the duration of most campaigns.

Monks can play a ranged game, skirmish etc. but I'm not seeing how they're fragile at all. In practice their AC is going to be higher than a Rogue's and likely higher than non-shield wearing martials, or at least on par.


2) Monk is too restrictive. Between the MADness and the ban on any armor, no other class goes as far out of its way to put your character in a box, tell you how you're supposed to build and play them, and punish you for any creativity or outside the box character concepts. Yes, classes shouldn't be built to require multiclassing, but they shouldn't be built to /punish/ it either.

As others have pointed out, restrictions aren't exclusive to the Monk, both the Barbarian and Rogue force you down certain paths.

Honestly this feels like him not liking it being difficult to MC a Monk in a powerbuild, so 'fixing' that away.


3) monk damage output starts out okayish at level one, but falls behind progressively more as levels increase and the only notable increases to monk damage - increasing monk damage die, simply don't do the job here.

I don't know why he'd think only okayish, it's just straight good in Tier 1 and keeps up in Tier 2 easily, Tier 3 is when straight damage isn't so easy to come by, because the core Monk doesn't focus on that. That said, it's hard to argue a core Monk just buffing Dex is doing bad damage.


4) too many abilities are tied to ki, and the relative strength of those abilities vary too widely, especially in early and mid tiers when ki is aggressively limited. Are you really going to 'step of the wind' when it means giving up one of your precious stunning strikes? Are you going to give up a stunning strike to use flurry of blows and maybe, if you hit, deal a single digit of extra damage? Are you really going to use quickened healing to heal a paltry 8 or 9 hit points at the cost of two stunning strikes? This is arguably the biggest problem with the monk, and plagues its subclasses as well. With the exception of maybe the mercy monk's hands of harm most monks don't get to do cool monk or monk subclass things without gimping themselves because they rely on stunning strike to do the heavy lifting of their offensive contribution and doing anything else means giving up on those stunning strikes.

It's a short rest class with a large resource pool, you can't have a pool that large and then spend resources like a Warlock does slots or a BM does Sup dice.

I think the Monk could benefit from a very small bump of Ki in early levels, his criticism feels like he doesn't like opportunity cost.


5) a handful of other relatively minor and straight forward complaints - stillness of mind doesn't work on Dominate Person or Fear, the level 15 ability doesn't actually do anything, etc etc, people mostly get these.

It's a bonus on the back of Evasion and more Ki, if it didn't exist he'd have nothing to complain about and the Monk would progress fine. It's meant to tackle frightened and charmed, not dominate spells. See the dragon and vampire examples above.


Do we all agree these are problems? Maybe not. But there's a big difference between "I don't think the thing you're trying to fix is a problem" and "I don't think this is the right solution to the problem we both agree is there", and recognizing what the fixes are trying to do is necessary for that.

Yeah, disagree with his problems and the fixes, both alone and even more together.



If memory serves his tier list of feats was particularly off in some places. At the very least, it's the video of his I remember disagreeing with most.

He's also made several threads on this forum, and after receiving some criticism, vanishes from the thread or disregards it. This might be unfair of me to use this as my own reasoning to say his design understanding isn't as high as is hope, but I value a willingness to accept criticism or at least acknowledge it a great deal. If your methods involve ignoring it or insisting that your methods are correct without acknowledging criticism, I think you have a better idea of what you want for 5e design rather than what the editions actual design goals are.

I think he has a fairly cohesive stance on what he wishes 5e was like and can put that into practice well, but in my opinion it has some conflict with my understanding of the current design of 5e. Again, that's my opinion of this.


I agree on how he handles things and I'm sure he has an idea what he wants 5e to be, but frankly it seems so different to what 5e is. He just seems out of touch with the edition, but has very strong opinions coloured by what he wants it to be, and a platform to declare those opinions.



Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

What a ridiculous benchmark, no considerations for losing concentration or not being able to switch target, always assuming a spell is available.


Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.


Yup,grew up on them. Do you think a school kid punches through a pank of wood because they have a high Con?

Do you think they're just... really fit?

The whole point is meant to be that they're well trained in their martial art, if it was just having a high Con, then it'd be more like the Russian from the Punisher, or the Nazi mechanic in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The general health of the Monk is reflected in abilities that deal with their aging, vulnerability to disease and poison, whilst their durability comes from abilities like Evasion that help them not get hurt in the first place.

That said, D&D Monks =/= old kung fu movies, they're their own thing, drawing on a variety of sources.

[Tanarii]

Full Disclosure before my post: Personally, I hold Treantmonk in the highest regards. His understanding of design is top-tier, and I would not hesitate to say he understands 5e better than some of the actual WOTC designers.
Thats ... a wildly inaccurate assessment. His understanding of 5e varies from poor to terrible.

This list of supposed 'improvements' to the monk for 'balance' is just another nail in the coffin he's dug himself into.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The general health of the Monk is reflected in abilities that deal with their aging, vulnerability to disease and poison, whilst their durability comes from abilities like Evasion that help them not get hurt in the first place.

100%, I think a lot of features are often overlooked in how they communicate a class or races aesthetics. It doesn't help though that most of those features are passive ribbons (read: Non-combat abilities) and it's very easy to overlook them at tables that don't interact with them. It also doesn't help when some of them are bad even when they do get used, Ranger and Assassin come to mind.

Monk, however, hits a nice middle point I think where the ribbons fulfill a theme and a handful of them are even useful. Honestly I think if we were grading on thematics Monk gets an undisputable A+, it just took a C+/B- average in other places to get there. I'd go so far as to say that Monk is near the top end of well designed classes in 5e despite some if its noticeable faults.

[Jerrykhor]

Thats ... a wildly inaccurate assessment. His understanding of 5e varies from poor to terrible.

This list of supposed 'improvements' to the monk for 'balance' is just another nail in the coffin he's dug himself into.

Disagree. TM has shown good knowledge on 5e mechanics, its just that people like to point to the outliers and go 'Look at THAT statement, it shows he knows nothing!' Of course, he is only human, and most of what he said are opinions shaped by his experiences. A question like 'What constitutes good DPR?' is often thrown at him, and of course he had to pull out some kind of yard stick for that. TBH i disagree with TM's answer to that, but i also hate questions like that because i simply go by 'feel', its not like i can come up with something better.

I listen to TM not to judge him, but to gain insight into perspective. Internet nerds just like to pass off their opinions as facts.

[SharkForce]

I wrote this long as anything reply out once, then my PC crashed and I lost it all, so if my replies seem curt or not particularly elaborative in places... yeah.

quoting is going to make this get longer and longer, but some quick responses:

- over 20 levels, an increase in hit dice size is expected to come out to 21 hit points of difference. that is, a character with d8 hit die and 14 con will average 143 HP using the no-rolling method, and with a d10 hit die that would be 164 damage.

at level 20, you're looking at *maybe* an extra 2 hits. that isn't nothing, but it sure isn't a huge change.

- many monks don't wear armour. I see no reason to say that all monks never wear armour. as I've pointed out elsewhere, think of batman or shredder, both arguably monks, both wear armour, and they're not the only ones. frankly, if we looked at modern video games or movies that feature ninja, I think we would find that a reasonable proportion will wear cloth armour, possibly supplemented with a few pieces of metallic armour (typically on arms, shoulders, lower legs, etc), and I see no reason to restrict that from someone who wants to be a shadow monk or mercy monk instead of whatever armour-wearing subclass you imagine might some day be introduced.

- monks in t1 are a little bit ahead of "random dextrous person with two short swords" or "random strong person with a greatsword". it is below "rogue with two short swords", essentially equal to "random dextrous person with two short swords and a fighting style", and barely ahead of "raging barbarian with a greatsword" (provided they're not getting advantage). they are also below "eldritch knight with greenflame blade"

that isn't to say it's bad by any means, but it isn't exactly out of the ballpark either.

and frankly, apart from mercy monk, martial arts die doesn't do all that much. I doubt it would make much of a difference outside of damage if it was bigger.

- when you're trying to solve the problem that monk has to blow ki to do anything and everything remotely monk-related, removing ki costs from abilities that don't really need it from a balance perspective and leaving only an opportunity cost is fine. step of the wind is not an ability that needs to have ki spent to balance it, and it helps with the problem that unless you're constantly spending ki, you are basically like a considerably worse fighter with the unarmed fighting style.

- if quickened healing is supposed to be free healing on a short rest, why not just give free healing on a short rest instead of making it conditional on your not having done monk things lately?

- I did say that I don't think adding free stunning blow uses was the best solution; in my opinion, if the problem is that all the monk abilities cost ki leaving only the most optimal uses as the ones you can genuinely afford to spend ki on, it makes sense to give free uses of the non-optimal uses so that you can now feel free to use them. that said, it is still a problem that could use solving, even if this particular solution is not the one I would choose.

and while you don't need to watch the video, if you're going to start saying "this is what treantmonk thinks" then quite frankly I don't see how it is anything less than disrespectful to fail to at least *start* by letting him decide what he thinks instead of assigning it to him.

- again, it is an ability that is supposed to protect you from something, and it can't be used in some fairly common cases where that thing is being used on you. if we were describing some exceptional abilities that were carefully designed to be explicitly effective against targets that are resistant to mind control, then fine, but we're not talking about abilities like that. nothing about "dominate person" suggests that people who have abilities to break out of mind control should not be able to use them. nothing about the fear spell suggests that people who have abilities to break out of fear should be unable to use them.

- as I said, being able to remove exhaustion is such a pointless change that I really don't care one way or the other.

- you are doing nothing. next round you'll be doing something, and you'll be better at it. on round 1, empty body is functionally not really any different than if you were not even in the fight at all.

- except that you don't always have ki available. you don't have ki available during your downtime. you don't have more ki available if you spent your last 2 points on the first round. the existing monk capstone sucks. now, would I be genuinely excited for treantmonk's capstone? no, not really it's pretty good, but kinda boring to be honest, and I'm not convinced it's going to make monk feel particularly awesome. with that said... it's still an improvement.

- actually, how about I list a class that *doesn't* do 72.5 damage without flurrying at level 20: the proposed monk with a 3d6 martial arts die. you aren't perfectly accurate. you will miss. your damage is probably more along the lines of the low to mid 50s per round. except of course on the first round, since they have to set up their ability and can't make a bonus action attack.

and no, that isn't unreasonable. again, being able to kill a single enemy after 4 or so rounds is not going to break anything.

- a specific spell can only be cast 1-2 times per day. when you start looking at how many of those spells that I listed that a wizard can cast per day, it isn't 1-2. they get a pair of level 6, a pair of level 7, a level 8 and a level 9. then they get 3 level 5 spells, plus they can recover another 3.

so all told: up to 6 wall of force, up to 2 mass suggestion, up to 2 forcecage, an antipathy/sympathy that they've had in effect for the last several days, 1 maze, and 1 9th level spell of choice (wish, true polymorph, or whatever you prefer). that's 12 spells that in combination can likely be used to majorly simplify one encounter each (plus the one that's lasting from several days ago), without considering that they can also use lower level spell slots effectively, or have a simulacrum kicking around, etc.

and yes, there is a difference between killing and crowd controlling. the difference is that the wizard beats the crap out of the enemy's action economy immediately while killing a target usually takes multiple rounds unless the entire party gangs up on something. yes, you're going to have to deal with that enemy in a more lasting way eventually. but in the meanwhile, you've gone from one potentially difficult encounter to 2 or more laughably easy encounters, and you did it on the first round. otherwise known as the round that the monk spends using empty body, apparently. too bad the encounter is no longer difficult enough to particularly need empty body to be used any more.

[Rynjin]

Re: Monks with armor: While I don't think it's an invalid idea on its face, I don't think it's something a Monk should be assumed to do baseline. It should be reserved for something like a subclass.

I find the Sohei Monk an interesting archetype in Pathfinder, as an example. I would not want it to be part of the Core Monk experience.

[Zalabim]

I do think that there is a major underlying problem in the monk design in that it optimally works as a holistic character, but the various narrow fantasies of monks, like unarmed only, weapon only, bow only, melee only, elemental only, aren't supported. You will have a little bit of a lot of things and players who don't use them will be less effective in a noticeable way. People play monks like barbarians and paladins (or try to play barbarians like monks, using only unarmed strikes), and are (rightfully) disappointed that the class doesn't work that way. Their exclusive fantasy of the class isn't supported


I think it would have been better to also list their criticisms of the monk, as several people in this post clearly haven't watched the video (which, I mean, fair, you shouldn't have to do homework to participate in a forum thread), and don't get what these fixes are even trying to accomplish in the first place, which makes it impossible to judge how successfully accomplish their goals.

The main issues treantmonk identifies are:

1) Monk too fragile, especially early on. Rogues can at least play a ranged game, but monks abilities leave them as melee-locked as paladins while also having significantly less HP and AC for the duration of most campaigns.

2) Monk is too restrictive. Between the MADness and the ban on any armor, no other class goes as far out of its way to put your character in a box, tell you how you're supposed to build and play them, and punish you for any creativity or outside the box character concepts. Yes, classes shouldn't be built to require multiclassing, but they shouldn't be built to /punish/ it either.

3) monk damage output starts out okayish at level one, but falls behind progressively more as levels increase and the only notable increases to monk damage - increasing monk damage die, simply don't do the job here.

4) too many abilities are tied to ki, and the relative strength of those abilities vary too widely, especially in early and mid tiers when ki is aggressively limited. Are you really going to 'step of the wind' when it means giving up one of your precious stunning strikes? Are you going to give up a stunning strike to use flurry of blows and maybe, if you hit, deal a single digit of extra damage? Are you really going to use quickened healing to heal a paltry 8 or 9 hit points at the cost of two stunning strikes? This is arguably the biggest problem with the monk, and plagues its subclasses as well. With the exception of maybe the mercy monk's hands of harm most monks don't get to do cool monk or monk subclass things without gimping themselves because they rely on stunning strike to do the heavy lifting of their offensive contribution and doing anything else means giving up on those stunning strikes.

5) a handful of other relatively minor and straight forward complaints - stillness of mind doesn't work on Dominate Person or Fear, the level 15 ability doesn't actually do anything, etc etc, people mostly get these.


Do we all agree these are problems? Maybe not. But there's a big difference between "I don't think the thing you're trying to fix is a problem" and "I don't think this is the right solution to the problem we both agree is there", and recognizing what the fixes are trying to do is necessary for that.
I appreciate the time-saving of bringing out the problems he's trying to solve from the video too. It helps clarify some things.

Monk durability. It could stand to be a little better, but that comparison to rogue and paladin is nonsense. The monk is far more free to use ranged attacks than the paladin, and the rogue can only function at range if someone is threatening the target in melee. It is impossible to get sneak attack on a prone enemy otherwise, and there's no reason to not be prone if no one can threaten you in melee.
Monk boxes. Monks aren't especially directed in how to play the character, and kind of rather suffer for this. Monks only work their best when the player is willing to use everything at the monk's disposal, but the monk fantasies are often limited to very narrow slices of the monk abilities. A monk that never uses weapons, or only uses melees suffers a lot more death and disappointment than a wizard who only uses illusions. At least that illusionist wizard can be good at keep themselves safe.
Monk damage. Their direct contribution does slump a bit as they go up in level, but a big part of their scaling is having ki to spend. That can't be completely ignored. I'm stilll of the opinion that the monk could get between 5 and 15 more more attack damage in total without feeling overtuned, just to make players a little more satisfied.
Monk Ki. The only ability that feels overpriced is step of the wind costing both a bonus action and Ki. To compare, a rogue using cunning action to dash or disengage instead of to gain advantage some way loses a slightly smaller amount of average damage than a monk who doesn't use martial arts, so about half as much damage is lost compared to a monk losing a flurry of blows. Nothing else the monk does really lends itself to comparison in the same way. Personally, I'd find some way to step of the wind with only ki and leave the bonus action out of it. Comparing stunning strike and flurry, sure more stuns is better, usually, but there's an upper limit to how many stuns are going to be good, and each individual stun gets better the more attacks and spells are directed at the stunned enemy. Of course that includes your own flurry. Now with focused aim, another comparison becomes evident. 1 flurry, an unarmed attack that has to roll to hit, versus +2 to hit right now when you can have the knowledge that this absolutely will make this attack hit. Focused Aim and Stunning Strike are both "better than Flurry." Plus if you use focused aim during your action, you can use a weapon with ki-fueled attack. If you're fighting at range, this becomes 1 ki when you miss to make one extra attack with your bonus action, and then if that 1 ki also makes this attack hit, great, but maybe a 2nd ki would make that first attack hit too? Worth it.
Monk nuisances. They really are just nuisances. I wouldn't even call out that I'm changing them. Just have the ability work the way the player expects the ability to work barring some extremely specific situation. There is value in not distracting players with little details that they don't already notice.


I don't flat out disagree with all of the proposed changes, but taken as a list, it is absolutely overtuned, particularly in the damage department.

Here's something I've considered in the past. A shadow monk can scout really well, and if I look at level 20, granting advantage for their attacks between empty body and stunning strikes and good preparation, and use opportunist (or deflect missiles) each turn, they deal 48.75 DPR against AC 19. If a thief rogue just hides and shoots their light crossbow every turn, they deal 42.9 DPR against AC 19, but I can adjust that to 5/4 in a 4 round combat due to their extra turn, so 53.625 DPR. That's without ever using stroke of luck. A lot of things could make up that difference. Magic weapons. Stunning strikes. Better subclass abilities? But that's being very simplistic, and very generous, to the monk. Within that context though, the monk making 5 attacks with advantage, that difference is exactly the difference between using a d10 and a d12 for martial arts. Hence my low-end of "could deal 5 more raw damage" I usually translate as scaling up to using a d12 martial arts die. That's totally on the safe end. Then I say up to 15 because that's about how much more damage a monk not making 5 attacks would need to add to match the difference. Finally, a warlock casting eldritch blast with hex and foresight for advantage does 52.65 DPR.

Having already thought that through myself, I see with 3d6 martial arts that shadow monk would deal 73.125 DPR. The assumptions that make a reasonable DPR with 3d6 martial arts is that the monk never has advantage at all, then that'd be 53 DPR. I know which one of those assumptions leads to "better undertuned than overtuned."

On the other end, if monk damage is fine at level 1 then don't boost monk's damage at level 1? How hard is that?


Yea but then he also includes flurry of blows as an infinite resource as well. It's not a terrible dpr assumption and it does show that there is a scaling problem (and his fix just puts it barely ahead of nonsubclass hex+EB).

My experience with monks is that they have a lot of negative rounds as well (unless they are the Kensai ranged build) whereas EB is almost always guarenteed damage (to multiple targets) with very little negative damage issues as well (overkill damage)
If the assumptions used are always either 100% or 0% stunning strike and/or flurry, then there isn't going to appear to be any scaling because the frequency of stunning and flurrying is part of their scaling.

yeah this particular debate is going nowhere fast. My personal take is that if you do need a wall character, its pretty easy for an otherwise-ranged character to fill that role. Like say a cleric casting spirit guardians and then dodging/casting spiritual weapon on the next turn.
My experience is that a cleric isn't an "otherwise-ranged" character, and jumps into the spiritual splat role quite eagerly. Their cantrips are not long-ranged, and wielding a shield limits their ranged weapons but is important to keep around as a "wall".


They've got better defenses than most backliners and more consistency than most frontline walls. They deal good damage when compared against most other builds, losing out to the usual suspects. SS archer, GWM warrior, and Eldritch blast with riders. Which yes. Those builds deal insane damage. Thanks, we know.

Monks are fun in that they can play a wide variety of ways depending on the needs of the party in the situation. Sure its not very efficient to run in and patient defense, but you're a pretty effective wall when you do. You can do the striking thing. You can fixate on Stunning to control the battlefield. You can kite if you want. You can just lob arrows down range.

They're fun to play as a result, and most people I've seen use them have really enjoyed it. The problem comes in that they're just slightly undertuned overall, and that their builds are prescribed. You don't actually have to max dex or wis to function, people just do because there's no feats that are actually that good for a monk.
It feels like there was an absence of any consideration for monks taking feats, or using even using particular items. I kind of like the idea of monks not dallying in generic feats as much. At least not as a matter of course, like the bonus ASI for rogues and fighters imply.


Why is 8d6+12 per round "absurd" in 5e? I'll admit, I'm not the hugest 5e expert, but one thing I do know for a fact: monster HP is exactly the same as it always was. 8d6+12 is 40 damage per round. A CR 11 enemy has around 160 HP on average, with a couple huge outliers (a Roc has...250 for some reason, and a Remorhaz close to 200).

So it would take a solo Monk about 4 rounds to beat down a solo CR 11 enemy. That seems well within the bounds of how long a combat should last. With help, the party could hack one down in about 2 rounds. Seems perfect for an encounter with a single enemy.

Unless most 5e players consider encounters taking close to 10 rounds on average at the mid-levels a feature, not a bug?
That's the same as saying 4 monks can take down a solo CR 11 enemy in one round, and that's just not the assumption that CR is making. Fights aren't supposed to last only one round.

Firstly, who said anything about at will? I certainly didn't, and Treantmonk does not compare that baseline to at will damage numbers, he tries to calculate average damage assuming characters are spending all their resources over 8 4 round combats with 2 short rests, as per the DMG. The idea that this is supposed to be At will DPR is a misconception-it's long rest DPR averaged.
As per a very shallow reading of the DMG that avoids analysis of the math provided and is ignorant of the development history. If one were to actually compare the encounter XP thresholds and the adventure XP tables, one would find that range of 6-8 encounters is only true when all encounters are at the absolute minimum of the threshold for medium encounters, no hard encounters at all. Even then, the only time this allows 8 barely-medium encounters is at exactly level 3. The XP for a hard encounter can always be up to twice as high as this baseline XP, so the real range of medium to hard encounters is from as low as 3 hard to as high as 7 medium.

Personally, I use 20 rounds and 2 short rests when I estimate full, exhaustive adventuring days.


Monks in kung fu movies also can't speak with any creature that has a language, walk on water or supernaturally heal their own wounds, yet 5E monks can do all of these things with ease.

It's almost like it's own thing and doesn't draw from any one source.

The creatures in kung fu movies often have this extraordinary ability, but it isn't limited to monks in their universe. It's called subtitles.

[Hytheter]

The creatures in kung fu movies often have this extraordinary ability, but it isn't limited to monks in their universe. It's called subtitles.

For the first time in my life I find myself wanting to play Monk to 13.

[Rynjin]

That's the same as saying 4 monks can take down a solo CR 11 enemy in one round, and that's just not the assumption that CR is making. Fights aren't supposed to last only one round.

So a typical party of semi-optimized characters cannot 1 round a CR = APL encounter with a single enemy? I'm not 100% sure how accurate that is. A Rogue's damage output with no particular optimization doesn't seem far off that mark. They deal what, 1d8+6d6+4 at minimum? So 29 damage with no magic items, 18 Dex, and no other damage booster whatsoever.

[Unoriginal]

So a typical party of semi-optimized characters cannot 1 round a CR = APL encounter with a single enemy? I'm not 100% sure how accurate that is. A Rogue's damage output with no particular optimization doesn't seem far off that mark. They deal what, 1d8+6d6+4 at minimum? So 29 damage with no magic items, 18 Dex, and no other damage booster whatsoever.

The expectation is generally for a creature of CR X to be able to hold 3 rounds against a group of 4 PCs of lvl X, in a "damage vs damage" slugfest.

Doesn't mean it can't be faster or longer, of course. It's just a rough expectation mostly calculated after the facts.

[Rynjin]

I get that's the baseline game expectation, it's the same in 3.PF as well (even if it is never true at the table). But how well does that hold up in actual play scenarios?

[Unoriginal]

I get that's the baseline game expectation, it's the same in 3.PF as well (even if it is never true at the table). But how well does that hold up in actual play scenarios?

Hard to say, but from what I've seen a solo CR X creature without Legendary Actions or the like being able to handle 2 to 4 rounds of focus fire from a group of X level is not outlandish.

[Sorinth]

Can't say I'm a fan of most of these changes but considering I disagreed with Treantmonk's take on the Monks problems to begin with it's not really surprising.

If you want your Monk to play more like a Fighter then these changes will probably work out well enough for you.

[SharkForce]

Hard to say, but from what I've seen a solo CR X creature without Legendary Actions or the like being able to handle 2 to 4 rounds of focus fire from a group of X level is not outlandish.

so, quick looking, I'm gonna go with 180ish hit points as a decent estimate for "average" CR 11 creature.

no magic items, target is AC 17 ... party is not expending major resources (it's a medium encounter)...

a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric party can reasonably do:

fighter: ((1d10 + 14) * 3 + 1d4 + 14) * 0.40 = 30 damage per round, ignoring criticals, fighting style, and ignoring expending resources for the moment (polearm and GWM)

rogue: (1d6 + 5) * 0.91 + 1d6 * 0.7 + 6d6 * 0.997 = 7.73 + 2.45 + 20.94 = 31.12 damage per round, ignoring criticals and any subclass or other abilities to improve damage (two short swords, advantage on the first attack, only 1 out of 3 rolls needs to land for sneak attack damage to hit)

cleric: 3d8 + 5 * 0.60 = 11.1 (we'll give a saving throw a worse chance to work than attack rolls, but will assume the cleric is getting wisdom to cantrip damage)

wizard: 3d10 * 0.7 = 11.55 (firebolt, no attribute to damage)

so that's 83.77 damage per round.

assuming the fighter makes an optimal damage build, admittedly.

but it also ignores criticals, fighting style for the fighter, only the rogue ever getting advantage, and only on one attack... neither the wizard nor the cleric have even been willing to expend level 2 or 3 spell slots, which are not a major cost at this point (the cleric could easily add spirit weapon or bless, the wizard could throw in a tasha's hideous laughter for potential advantage on attacks for the fighter and rogue as probably the biggest low-cost damage boost)

frankly, I don't think you're going to find a lot of enemies that are going to make it anywhere close to 4 rounds under these conditions, and while I admit that the fighter using a polearm/GWM build is a bit generous on the DPR front... a bog-standard greatsword with appropriate fighting style (and due to not having 2 feats maxed out strength) is only ~2 less damage per round on average. if the rogue can't get advantage on the main hand attack each round, dpr there drops a little bit to around 27.5)

(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).


so personally, I don't see the 2-4 round assumption here. a particularly tough CR 11 monster is only going to last 4 rounds against a 4-person CR 11 party if they're *really* not even trying (probably because it is entirely kitable or something). or I guess maybe if they're all really bad at dealing damage.

now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

[Sorinth]

(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).

...

now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

Monks are a resource using class so I'm not sure it matters that their damage without using resources is poor, just like it doesn't matter that the Wizard/Cleric damage is even worse unless they use resources.


But honestly the simple answer is the monk trades offence for defence. The fighter in your example is weaker defensively then the monk. Now you could build a fighter to maybe be as good or better defensively then the monk (There's more then just AC to consider), but doing that will bring the damage down to be in line with the monk.

[Dr. Cliché]

Random question - do you think Monks should get to choose a Fighting style like Fighters and such?

Not that they need all the fighting styles but there are some (Blind Fighting, Thrown Weapon Fighting etc.) that seem perfectly suited to them.

As it stands, it's slightly odd that Monks suck at throwing darts (since they can't draw them fast enough without the aforementioned fighting style). It's also odd that a Lv1-4 Fighter can be better at fist-fighting than a Lv1-4 Monk. In fact, the Monk needs to be Lv11 before he exceeds the Fighter in fist damage. :smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

so, quick looking, I'm gonna go with 180ish hit points as a decent estimate for "average" CR 11 creature.

no magic items, target is AC 17 ... party is not expending major resources (it's a medium encounter)...

a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric party can reasonably do:

fighter: ((1d10 + 14) * 3 + 1d4 + 14) * 0.40 = 30 damage per round, ignoring criticals, fighting style, and ignoring expending resources for the moment (polearm and GWM)

rogue: (1d6 + 5) * 0.91 + 1d6 * 0.7 + 6d6 * 0.997 = 7.73 + 2.45 + 20.94 = 31.12 damage per round, ignoring criticals and any subclass or other abilities to improve damage (two short swords, advantage on the first attack, only 1 out of 3 rolls needs to land for sneak attack damage to hit)

cleric: 3d8 + 5 * 0.60 = 11.1 (we'll give a saving throw a worse chance to work than attack rolls, but will assume the cleric is getting wisdom to cantrip damage)

wizard: 3d10 * 0.7 = 11.55 (firebolt, no attribute to damage)

so that's 83.77 damage per round.

assuming the fighter makes an optimal damage build, admittedly.

180/83.77= 2.14 rounds. Depending on the initiative order, it means the monster will have between 2 and 3 turns to act before getting killed.

The assumption holds to scrutiny, I'd say.



(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).

How did the Fighter get +14 to damage in a no-feats scenario?



so personally, I don't see the 2-4 round assumption here. a particularly tough CR 11 monster is only going to last 4 rounds against a 4-person CR 11 party if they're *really* not even trying (probably because it is entirely kitable or something). or I guess maybe if they're all really bad at dealing damage.

I mean, solo vs 4 PCs does indeed advantages the PCs a lot. A CR 11 group of enemy has better chances to last that long.



now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

If you don't mind, let me ask you this, first:

If you took the Fighter, Rogue and Monk vs the monster of your example, with the twist that the attacks were made at disadvantage, how would it modify the situation?

[KorvinStarmast]

The only think I like about Treantmonk's offerings are
1) how his builds in written form walk anyone through how to build a multiclass level by level. That is superior to a lot of the GiTP 'build' offerings that assume a level 20 and build backwards.

2) his (early) emphasis on battlefield control in his spell caster builds. Have not seen any of his stuff lately since I don't need it.

To answer the title question:
Is Treantmonk's homebrew "fixed" Monk overtuned?
It's unnecessary

1. Per Dork_Forge's suggestion, ki points need to be 1 per level + wis modifier.
2. I'd not object to seeing one more ASI at level 10, like a rogue gets.
3. Four Elemental Monk: cut ki cost form 2 to 1 for elemental stuff.

Monk is an enjoyable class, he's offering a fix for what isn't broken. (Beyond 4e being a bit underwhelming)

[Zalabim]

Create a quick monster says ~228 HP and AC 17. Now consider the Roc. That's CR 11, 248 HP, AC 15. With a party of fighter (greatsword FS 3 attacks), rogue (Light crossbow 6d6 sneak attack), cleric (sacred flame +5 wisdom), wizard (firebolt not evoker). If everyone just hits and never has a problem with the creature's 120' flight and Grab+restrain-on-hit talons, they deal 40+30.5+18.5+16.5=105.5 damage. That's 37 damage shy of ending the combat in potentially 2 rounds.

Looking at average damage, it's 31.25+31.08+11.1+13.2=86.63. Ends in 3 rounds, on average, barring an extra 75 average damage.

-----------
Starting at level 1 with the unarmed fighting style, a fighter can punch for 1d8+str, or grapple someone and deal 1d8+str +1d4 automatic damage. If the grapple is held for 3 rounds that's either 4d8+12 (about 20.4) just punching or 3d8+9+3d4 (about 22.8)if the grapple works, or 15.3 if it doesn't). Assuming +5 athletics against +1 for the defender, grapplling works 66% of the time, so about 20.3 damage.

Starting at level 1 with martial arts, a monk can punch for 1d4+dex twice. So over four rounds that's 8d4+24 (about 29.6). If you also want to grapple, and are strict about grapple's special attack not being an attack with an unarmed strike or monk weapon so martial arts doesn't trigger, then assuming +3 athletics against the same +1 for the defender, the monk succeeds 57.25% of the time and still does 22.2 average damage.

[strangebloke]

Monks are a resource using class so I'm not sure it matters that their damage without using resources is poor, just like it doesn't matter that the Wizard/Cleric damage is even worse unless they use resources.


But honestly the simple answer is the monk trades offence for defence. The fighter in your example is weaker defensively then the monk. Now you could build a fighter to maybe be as good or better defensively then the monk (There's more then just AC to consider), but doing that will bring the damage down to be in line with the monk.

Yeah its really telling how people use PAM/GWM fighters and melee rogues who mysteriously have advantage on the first attack to compare against monks who aren't allowed to use any of their 33+ ki points per day on offence. Not saying monks don't need some help but analysis like this is inherently flawed.

also since when was level 11 specifically a reasonable point of comparison?

[KorvinStarmast]

also since when was level 11 specifically a reasonable point of comparison? It's when most campaigns have already ended or are about to end.

[verbatim]

You know what, I think I actually agree. Why not? Heck, let them wear plate. It would open up Strength monks in a natural way and the AC boost won't last forever.

IDK the most 5e-esque way to word this but i think making AC = 10 + pick 2 (strength, dex, wisdom) would also accomplish this whilst increasing the diversity of viable monk builds.

[Willie the Duck]

Previously, I'd had a discussion with a friend about what class to play if you'd rolled all 18s for your stats. Monk was brought up, and his response was, 'Nope. I understand how this benefits the monk, but for me all 18s would not make a monk playable.' I started to argue, but then realized that he was right -- for a certain type of player, there isn't anything you can give a monk (or ranger, or frontline rogue/bard, or sometimes even non-moon druid), short of giving them a whole other class on top of being a monk, that would make the class fun and useful. It's what they might want in that it is 'the martial artist' class, but it's not what they wanted in a martial artist. A rogue is similar. I have had a lot of players who wanted to play 'a rogue,' but it quickly became clear that they wanted to play a dex-based lightly armored frontline fighting character with some decent skill support, not the careful maneuvering for position and exacting management of regular and bonus-action economy character that the 5e D&D rogue actually is. I think any fix, including this specific one*, runs headlong into this basic issue.
*and I think TM is trying to fix the monk for this type of player, as it is mostly increasing the numbers by X, Y, or Z.

For players who like monks (the class mostly as is, not just the concept of a martial arts themed character**), I think the monk is fundamentally fine, if a bit undertuned and/or having a short list of specific problems. As ProsecutorGodot alludes to, grappling and throwing are very iconic monk concepts that MAD and the 5e game system conspire to make monks bad at. Also that most other SR-recharging martials eventually get to get a small amount of their abilities back if they start an encounter with an empty tank and monks should get that as well (although perhaps instead another re-look at how often the party short rests is the real problem to solve). And, as Talionis points out, the Dex/Con/Wis-dependent Monk has a real problem picking up feats, and it'd be nice to solve that issue. Those are about the only things that IMO ought to be fixed for the player that is already putting the class to good use (as Korvin alludes to).
**and it really is too bad that the monk doesn't serve all players who would like to play the martial artist concept, but twisting it to do so probably won't work, and will alter it for those who are playing it for what it is.


My take is that you could add just two changes to Monk and they're fine:
-Martial Arts allows you to use Dexterity in place of Strength for Grapples and Shoves
-If you have no Ki points, you regain 1 after X amount of time or when you roll initiative, stacks with Perfect Self at 20th level.

Personally I think Monk could use two more ASI to help mitigate being MAD and allow Monks access to more feats.

Monk is an enjoyable class, he's offering a fix for what isn't broken. (Beyond 4e being a bit underwhelming)

[Amechra]

It's true that pressure points are a martial artsy thing -- but are they core monk? I feel like in most kung fu media, pressure points are the purview of either a) the old master who disables opponents with a touch, or b) the cold, calculating, tactical type, who strikes at soft spots/nerve centers to bring about pain or paralysis. I know there are some wuxia protagonists that do pressure point stuff, but my point is it feels like it's supposed to be in a subclass somewhere, instead of "The Thing Monks Are All About."

Right, something like Hands of Harm! More riders to Flurry of Blows that don't end up costing us more ki, but lets us buy more for the points we're already spending.

I feel like they should be a core Monk thing, because it's a clean way to give Monks their own "thing" that doesn't overlap with the Fighter or Barbarians. Heck, the fact that they fight with Dexterity kinda points to them being a "precision over power" kinda class.

I personally just really like the "you can buy a damage bump 1/turn → your damage bump also poisons people → your damage bump is free if you're flurrying" progression.

...

To me, one of the annoying parts of the Monk isn't that it's MAD — it's that it's skewed in such an uneven way.

With the Paladin, you want both Charisma and Strength (let's ignore Hexblades for right now). However, you can choose to focus on one stat or the other — you can focus on Strength and Divine Smite, or you can focus on Charisma and bump up your spells and Aura.

With the Monk, every use of Wisdom that the class gives you relies on Dexterity. Stunning Strike? You've got to hit first. Unarmored Defense? Dex+Wis. There are exceptions in some of the subclasses, but pumping up your Dexterity is pretty much always the right choice.

[mr_stibbons]

Previously, I'd had a discussion with a friend about what class to play if you'd rolled all 18s for your stats. Monk was brought up, and his response was, 'Nope. I understand how this benefits the monk, but for me all 18s would not make a monk playable.' I started to argue, but then realized that he was right -- for a certain type of player, there isn't anything you can give a monk (or ranger, or frontline rogue/bard, or sometimes even non-moon druid), short of giving them a whole other class on top of being a monk, that would make the class fun and useful. It's what they might want in that it is 'the martial artist' class, but it's not what they wanted in a martial artist. A rogue is similar. I have had a lot of players who wanted to play 'a rogue,' but it quickly became clear that they wanted to play a dex-based lightly armored frontline fighting character with some decent skill support, not the careful maneuvering for position and exacting management of regular and bonus-action economy character that the 5e D&D rogue actually is. I think any fix, including this specific one*, runs headlong into this basic issue.
*and I think TM is trying to fix the monk for this type of player, as it is mostly increasing the numbers by X, Y, or Z.

For players who like monks (the class mostly as is, not just the concept of a martial arts themed character**), I think the monk is fundamentally fine, if a bit undertuned and/or having a short list of specific problems. As ProsecutorGodot alludes to, grappling and throwing are very iconic monk concepts that MAD and the 5e game system conspire to make monks bad at. Also that most other SR-recharging martials eventually get to get a small amount of their abilities back if they start an encounter with an empty tank and monks should get that as well (although perhaps instead another re-look at how often the party short rests is the real problem to solve). And, as Talionis points out, the Dex/Con/Wis-dependent Monk has a real problem picking up feats, and it'd be nice to solve that issue. Those are about the only things that IMO ought to be fixed for the player that is already putting the class to good use (as Korvin alludes to).
**and it really is too bad that the monk doesn't serve all players who would like to play the martial artist concept, but twisting it to do so probably won't work, and will alter it for those who are playing it for what it is.

I think this does speak to some of the hidden issues with the monk-the class is advertised as every martial arts fantasy you could want to have, but tries to cram that in to a single linear progression. You're only real choice with the class is your subclass, you don't really get to pick your weapon in the base class, just do you want to do piercing damage, bludgeoning damage or do less damage for no good reason. But the fantasy of the martial artist isn't that narrow. People are not wrong for wanting a monk who can stand on the frontline and rely on their evasion to survive, that's a some pretty common imagery of martial artists in fiction. Their should be ways to build the class in that way, or to be a masterful grappler, or to hit and run, or to be a high risk, high reward damage dealer. One of the other common threads of martial arts fiction is that everyone has their idiosyncratic martial arts style that makes them fight differently. Embrace that (and no, the subclasses don't work for this, because all but two subclasses are different flavours of obviously supernatural effects, and Open hand still treads real close to being supernatural at high levels. You are choosing which flavour of supernatural you are, with drunken master as a "not obviously supernatural" option. This is not a problem, but it leaves room for more differentiation of monks based on their mundane fighting styles.)

It's not like this class is recommended for new players anyway, so rather than throwing everything into a linear progression, cut some of the feature bloat and give them some more options to select.

[SharkForce]

180/83.77= 2.14 rounds. Depending on the initiative order, it means the monster will have between 2 and 3 turns to act before getting killed.

The assumption holds to scrutiny, I'd say.



How did the Fighter get +14 to damage in a no-feats scenario?



I mean, solo vs 4 PCs does indeed advantages the PCs a lot. A CR 11 group of enemy has better chances to last that long.



If you don't mind, let me ask you this, first:

If you took the Fighter, Rogue and Monk vs the monster of your example, with the twist that the attacks were made at disadvantage, how would it modify the situation?

- no, it means the monster will last 2.14 rounds assuming the party pretty much does nothing more than "I attack" and "I cast a cantrip". no spells, no action surge, no superiority dice (assuming the fighter has them), no crits, no subclass abilities other than the cleric's ability to add wisdom mod to cantrip damage. in my experience, that is not a reasonable assumption; people won't want to use *all* their resources, and shouldn't be blowing their highest level spell slots or all of their abilities, but they'll probably be spending *something*.

- they didn't get +14 to damage without feats. as I already told you in that post (if you had bothered paying any attention), the no-feats fighter with a greatsword and great weapon fighting style is only 2 points behind on average damage per round. 30 -2 = 28, which is still ahead of the monk (19.95 with no ki, 26.6 with ki), no feats required.

- the claim that you made was that a CR X creature will survive focus fire from the entire party for up to 4 rounds. this was a test to see if that claim holds up. if you think that the premise is bogus, then don't make it in the first place.

- first off, I'm unclear why it should matter what the situation would be if all their attacks were at disadvantage that is certainly not a remotely plausible standard scenario in my experience. secondly, quite frankly... do the math yourself. I'm not your lackey. it's *your* claim, *you* defend it.

regarding other points:

- if monks are a resource-using class, then why is their resource-using damage also still worse than the fighter and the rogue using no resources and barely any strategy? again, 27.5 (rogue, no advantage), 28 (fighter, no feats), 26.6 (monk using flurry of blows to desperately try to keep up). I mean, you'd think that at *least* when they spend resources they'd be looking good, so why aren't they?

- *is* the level 11 fighter that much weaker on defence than the level 11 monk? what makes you say that? the monk would have had 2 ASIs, giving AC 18 assuming they started at dex and wis 16 and put both ASIs into one of those. the fighter can wear platemail which is also AC 18. the fighter also can reroll one save per long rest, has an extra ASI to put towards defence if they want, and can recover 1d10+11 HP every short rest, as a separate resource that they don't need to spend just to meet a baseline towards being a functioning fighter, and while I've said that the d10 vs d8 hit die isn't a major difference, it is still a difference giving the fighter an additional 12 hit points on top of that. furthermore, the fighter doesn't have 2 critically important attributes which means they can afford to have a 16 con while the monk quite possibly had to settle for 14 con. at this point, the only way the monk is defensively stronger is if they're spending resources on patient defense, in which case their damage does indeed plummet... to around 13.3 damage, which to my eye is alarmingly close to "wizard casting firebolt". or I suppose if they are exclusively fighting enemies that force dex saves.

- one person getting advantage on one attack once per round is not that hard to pull off. it isn't particularly unrealistic at all. furthermore, if the wizard and cleric are being compared with no spells, why would we compare the monk that is spending resources to them? but sure, if you want the cleric to have an extra 1d8 + 5 damage on every round and the target to be prone and incapacitated around half the time, you can go ahead and compare your monk with ki expenditures. of course, you might ALSO find that I already DID include ki into the monk's 26.6 damage, and that the result was frankly pretty unsatisfying, leaving the monk *still* behind both the fighter and the rogue even if they aren't expending *any* resources and without getting advantage on *any* attacks.

- I used level 11 because that seemed to be the most recent comparison point people were using. a bit arbitrary, but not particularly more or less arbitrary than other levels.

[stoutstien]

The issue with the monk is their relative power scale in directly tied to how challenging the adventuring day is. Note I said challenge not deadly though monks do fine there as well.

If players can readily expect to grab 1 or 2 of the "big" feats and never have issues targeting or moving around the environment then of course the monk is going to seem anemic. It's a class full of counter tactics to allow them to always be where they want doing what the want but if that's not a problem half their kit goes unused.
Sure they do a little less damage than some others but they also rarely do 0 which is often the case with classes that lack tools if their only good option isn't valid.

[Zalabim]

- first off, I'm unclear why it should matter what the situation would be if all their attacks were at disadvantage that is certainly not a remotely plausible standard scenario in my experience. secondly, quite frankly... do the math yourself. I'm not your lackey. it's *your* claim, *you* defend it.

regarding other points:

- if monks are a resource-using class, then why is their resource-using damage also still worse than the fighter and the rogue using no resources and barely any strategy? again, 27.5 (rogue, no advantage), 28 (fighter, no feats), 26.6 (monk using flurry of blows to desperately try to keep up). I mean, you'd think that at *least* when they spend resources they'd be looking good, so why aren't they?

- one person getting advantage on one attack once per round is not that hard to pull off. it isn't particularly unrealistic at all. furthermore, if the wizard and cleric are being compared with no spells, why would we compare the monk that is spending resources to them? but sure, if you want the cleric to have an extra 1d8 + 5 damage on every round and the target to be prone and incapacitated around half the time, you can go ahead and compare your monk with ki expenditures. of course, you might ALSO find that I already DID include ki into the monk's 26.6 damage, and that the result was frankly pretty unsatisfying, leaving the monk *still* behind both the fighter and the rogue even if they aren't expending *any* resources and without getting advantage on *any* attacks.

- I used level 11 because that seemed to be the most recent comparison point people were using. a bit arbitrary, but not particularly more or less arbitrary than other levels.
Your quick CR 11 defenses example is missing about 20% of the HP that an actual quick CR 11 suggests, which is AC 17 and 228 HP. It then also has no other effective defenses or complications to the fight like every actual CR 11 that has less than the average defense. So that's why "what if the attacks were at disadvantage." It means, "what if the enemy wasn't a half-dead punching bag?" The Roc actually has a defensive CR of 11 (more HP, less AC), and still restrains victims with its talons and has enough flight speed to be a complication. While you did not include crits or fighting style, the fighter's fighting style could just as well be "defensive" and you actually added an extra 5% to every character's accuracy, slightly overshooting the value of critical hits. The roc in my example would well be described as lasting between 2 and 4 rounds in actual play, assuming someone comes up with a way for everyone to actually fight the thing.

A monk with 11 ki, 33 ki over the course of the day, using 2 or 3 ki in 1 out of 5.8333 of a full day's encounter XP, is not "using resources." That monk could also get extra hits with focused aim or try to stun to help the whole party or have a subclass ability that applies. As the monk meets the fighter's AC and has a lot of other abilities besides, the fighter should be dealing more damage than the monk. The rogue has limitations imposed by sneak attack and lower AC.

As I did do the math myself, I can add that a monk against a roc does 29.4 DPR with flurry and can try to stun even though there's only a 25% chance the roc fails its save. If it does work, the monk's next 6 or 7 attacks get advantage, the fighter and wizard get advantage, the cleric lands sacred flame automatically, and the rogue doesn't care because they already had their own advantage. The monk averages 1.995 more damage with each attack, the fighter's turn 8.6875, the wizard's turn 3.8775, and the cleric's turn 7.4. Figure between 32-33 extra average damage if the stun works, working 25% of the time, so about 8 more damage for the whole party. Giving only the monk's personal damage, and only 25% the time, still sees a personal average DPR around 32.5, for a very affordable use of Ki. A roc isn't the worst enemy for stunning strike, but it is a bad one.

Level 11 is fine, without even counting the later subclasses that get free bonus damage at that level.

[Rynjin]

Why would you assume a CR 11 creature has 228 HP? All of the CR 11 creatures I can find:

Behir: 168
Djinni: 161
Efreeti: 200
Gynosphinx: 136
Horned Devil: 148
Remorhaz: 195
Roc: 248

The trend seems to be toward between 150 and 170 HP. The mean HP is 179, which we'll round to 180 for convenience.

Where is 228 being pulled from?

[Zalabim]

Why would you assume a CR 11 creature has 228 HP? All of the CR 11 creatures I can find:

Behir: 168
Djinni: 161
Efreeti: 200
Gynosphinx: 136
Horned Devil: 148
Remorhaz: 195
Roc: 248

The trend seems to be toward between 150 and 170 HP. The mean HP is 179, which we'll round to 180 for convenience.

Where is 228 being pulled from?

The Dungeon Master's Guide. I know it's a rare sourcebook that not everyone has access to.

[Rynjin]

The Dungeon Master's Guide. I know it's a rare sourcebook that not everyone has access to.

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

IIRC, those are the effective numbers. A monster with a (defensive) CR of 11 with the appropriate AC should have that much hp, assuming that they have no other defensive abilities, each of which would raise their effective defensive CR and lower the hit point limit.

[Dork_Forge]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

It's a formula, not a straight hp number, but yes monsters with hp in that narrow range do exist at CR 11:

- The Hungry (225)

- Marid (229)

- Animated Statue of Lolth (230)

The creating monster guidelines are a give and take of different factors, if you're unfamiliar then I recommend reading through them. That said one can hardly be judged harshly for using the edition's DMG as a standard to go by.

[Rynjin]

It's a formula, not a straight hp number, but yes monsters with hp in that narrow range do exist at CR 11:

- The Hungry (225)

- Marid (229)

- Animated Statue of Lolth (230)

Ah, cool. Because I had just gotten done looking through Volo's Guide and had found zero matches so far, combined with the Monster Manual entries above.

So exactly 3 monsters out of I'm guessing 20 or so.

Edit: it's not a matter of "judging harshly", but monster creation guidelines have always been super wack, and I'm more interested in like real use scenarios, where it looks like HP in the 180 to at most 200 range is BY FAR the most common.

[Dork_Forge]

Ah, cool. Because I had just gotten done looking through Volo's Guide and had found zero matches so far, combined with the Monster Manual entries above.

So exactly 3 monsters out of I'm guessing 20 or so.

Edit: it's not a matter of "judging harshly", but monster creation guidelines have always been super wack, and I'm more interested in like real use scenarios, where it looks like HP in the 180 to at most 200 range is BY FAR the most common.

If you want to use straight hp numbers, then for them to be meaningful you need to consider why they are what they are, and quantifying non AC/HP defenses is difficult and not something people using white room numbers like to attempt.


Which is, as pointed out by multiple people I'm sure, but I think recently Stoutstein, when you do nothing but look at damage numbers you ignore the value of a lot of the Monk's kit in actual play.

[Rynjin]

If you want to use straight hp numbers, then for them to be meaningful you need to consider why they are what they are, and quantifying non AC/HP defenses is difficult and not something people using white room numbers like to attempt.


Which is, as pointed out by multiple people I'm sure, but I think recently Stoutstein, when you do nothing but look at damage numbers you ignore the value of a lot of the Monk's kit in actual play.

Well, just going by the Monster Manual ones since those are easiest:

Behir: AC 17, no (relevant) special defenses.
Djinni: AC 17, arguable special defense (fast flight), but no damage reduction capability.
Efreeti: same as above but more HP.
Gynosphinx: AC 17 DR/magic, but not relevant at level 11 due to Ki Strike
Horned Devil: AC 18, absolutely obliterates Monk's damage due to DR/Silver because Ki Strike doesn't scale in 5e for some reason
Remorhaz: no relevant special defenses (though does do retaliatory damage)
Roc: AC 15, no relevant special defenses

Out of 7 monsters in Core, 3 monsters have no special defenses, 3 have arguable special defenses which apply to all melee attackers equally, and one has defenses which unequivocally advantage a weapon user.

[Tanarii]

How did this end up being about solo creatures again? 5 CR 3s have the same difficulty as 1 CR 11. By DMG guidelines that'd be around 500 hps. Admittedly CR 3s usually don't have defensive CR3 and offensive CR3, but neither do CR11. Point is still that the same difficulty encounter with more than one creature, and especially a far more reasonable 3-6 creatures, could easily result in double the hit points to deal with. Which is of course where AoEs start to shine. Clearly we should be talking about why the elemental monk is the best. :smallamused:

[Thunderous Mojo]

He absolutely takes it into account. The full baseline is "Warlock using eldritch blast and hex, starting with 16 Cha, taking agonizing blast at level 2 and increasing Cha at level 4 and 8". And sure, there are other ways to build warlock, but that's the kind of build that shows up in every "beginner's guide to building 5e warlocks" ever. It's not using any obscure optimization tricks or creative strategies, and doesn't require any optional rules. That's why it's a baseline.

If your level 5+ character can't easily beat a warlock a lightweight investment in damage per round, it's safe to say that you are not doing good dpr. The fact that many martial builds have trouble beating this thing at level 11 is an indictment of how messed up high level play is.

This is akin to saying that any Semi Truck that can haul three tractor trailers is a failure unless the Semi Truck can also match the top speed of a McLaren Speedtail.

People, reasonable people, in everyday life, understand that a Minivan and Sportscar are separate classes of cars and have different performance numbers.

Monks and Warlocks are entirely separate classes, yet persons, (the same old persons),...want separate classes to all perform the same.



I don't even mind the combination AB+Hex+EB as that's a pretty low optimization threshold.
That is precisely the point, by second level, a Warlock can by selecting a single Cantrip, a Single Spell, and a Single Invocation have an attack routine that deals effective damage in all 4 Tiers.

This Warlock strategy is so effective, that some people can not ignore 'The Good' of the combo and not play it....hence the perpetual churn of "Warlock choice X should be an Automatic class feature, not a CHOICE/TAX" Threads.

If the Fighter's Archery Fighting Style in addition to the Accuracy Boost, also gave a damage boost at 2nd level, and an additional Extra Attack at 17th level....that would be more comparable to the easy Ramp up DPR of Eldritch Blast.

My observation is the folks that don't like monks, tend to describe their games as "7th level being High Level play", PCs tend to focus Exclusively on either Ranged or Melee combat, and not on being able to be effective at both combat modes, the monk PCs are often described as being under-equipped, and the play seems to take place primarily in Flatland Style two dimensional dungeons.

[SharkForce]

a theoretical CR 11 monster can have whatever HP you want to imagine it has.

an *actual* for-real published CR 11 monster rarely has the amount of HP you're proposing. seeing as how WotC's guidelines can be extremely sketchy at times and they almost never follow them, what kind of idiot would I be if I just followed them blindly myself?

yes, the occasional CR 11 enemy has AC 17 and 230 HP. most of them have significantly less (in a few cases, a LOT less... I think I saw one with around 140 HP, although that was also an outlier I presume).

and practically speaking, against a roc I have serious doubts that the monk is going be averaging nearly 30 points of damage on low-resource mode, considering that requires ranged attacks which the monk is only getting 2 of without spending ki, and with ki you're generally looking at only 3, which will still put it at around 21-22 DPR (assuming that particular monk actually *has* a suitable ranged weapon of some variety, which in my experience is usually not the case).

you are right of course that I accidentally gave an extra 5% to hit, but seeing as I gave it to everyone equally, I frankly couldn't care less. the ratio stands.

a typical CR 11 monster might last 3 rounds against a fairly standard level 11 party that simply does not even care enough to do much of anything in terms of strategy or resource expenditure. more likely it will be less.

unless of course one of them is a monk that can only keep up with consistent damage-dealers by spending resources, which in turn generally means not having much ki for other stuff, to bring this all back into the main subject of this thread.

monks genuinely need a boost. whether the changes TM proposes are the exact boost that they should get, well, maybe not, I don't know. frankly, while I like a few of them several of them aren't really my preferred solution. but monks are not getting a boost into the stratosphere with these changes, they're getting a boost into being able to contribute as much as someone else who fills a similar role.

[Foolwise]

Horned Devil: AC 18, absolutely obliterates Monk's damage due to DR/Silver because Ki Strike doesn't scale in 5e for some reason

Not seeing your reasoning here. A monk's unarmed strikes are magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes. The strikes overcome the Horned Devil's DR because they are now magical for that very reason. Saying otherwise would be the same as telling a player the devil resisted their Flametongue's damage because the blade wasn't silvered.

[Kane0]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

The MM largely missed the memo I think. That or they deliberately went under the mark to play it safe.

[Rynjin]

Not seeing your reasoning here. A monk's unarmed strikes are magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes. The strikes overcome the Horned Devil's DR because they are now magical for that very reason. Saying otherwise would be the same as telling a player the devil resisted their Flametongue's damage because the blade wasn't silvered.

Ah, I misread...I thought it was half damage from non-silver weapons, full stop, but it's actually just DR/Magic OR Silver. What terrible DR.

So mark another one off the list of creatures with special defenses.

[Reach Weapon]

and practically speaking, against a roc I have serious doubts that the monk is going be averaging nearly 30 points of damage on low-resource mode, considering that requires ranged attacks which the monk is only getting 2 of without spending ki, and with ki you're generally looking at only 3, which will still put it at around 21-22 DPR (assuming that particular monk actually *has* a suitable ranged weapon of some variety, which in my experience is usually not the case).
While the readied action rules don't support the maneuver well, the Monk has enough speed that they should be able to climb aboard a gargantuan flyer like a ROC when it attempts any portion of it's melee only routine. Slow fall should keep a victory from going all pyrrhic.

[Zalabim]

a theoretical CR 11 monster can have whatever HP you want to imagine it has.

an *actual* for-real published CR 11 monster rarely has the amount of HP you're proposing. seeing as how WotC's guidelines can be extremely sketchy at times and they almost never follow them, what kind of idiot would I be if I just followed them blindly myself?

yes, the occasional CR 11 enemy has AC 17 and 230 HP. most of them have significantly less (in a few cases, a LOT less... I think I saw one with around 140 HP, although that was also an outlier I presume).
Which is why I talk about an actual published creature. The other creatures at CR 11 are: Fiends that resist nonmagical attacks, Constructs that resist nonmagical attacks, flying spellcasters and summoners, legendary creatures with lairs, and creatures with auras or bodies that make melee attacks against them more difficult. Not exactly simple fights to model.


and practically speaking, against a roc I have serious doubts that the monk is going be averaging nearly 30 points of damage on low-resource mode, considering that requires ranged attacks which the monk is only getting 2 of without spending ki, and with ki you're generally looking at only 3, which will still put it at around 21-22 DPR (assuming that particular monk actually *has* a suitable ranged weapon of some variety, which in my experience is usually not the case).
Quite right, though it's an unwise monk that does not have a suitable ranged weapon. The polearm master fighter, the rogue, the cleric, most of the party is going to find it a challenge to fight the Roc which can swoop down to attack from over 100' in the air. Even if they come up with a solution for the range, the Roc still lives more than just 1 round.


you are right of course that I accidentally gave an extra 5% to hit, but seeing as I gave it to everyone equally, I frankly couldn't care less. the ratio stands.It favors the fighter more and the rogue less, actually. .35 to .65 is not the same ratio as .4 to .7.


a typical CR 11 monster might last 3 rounds against a fairly standard level 11 party that simply does not even care enough to do much of anything in terms of strategy or resource expenditure. more likely it will be less.

unless of course one of them is a monk that can only keep up with consistent damage-dealers by spending resources, which in turn generally means not having much ki for other stuff, to bring this all back into the main subject of this thread.

monks genuinely need a boost. whether the changes TM proposes are the exact boost that they should get, well, maybe not, I don't know. frankly, while I like a few of them several of them aren't really my preferred solution. but monks are not getting a boost into the stratosphere with these changes, they're getting a boost into being able to contribute as much as someone else who fills a similar role.

Math-free unsupported opinions? Bored now.

[SharkForce]

Which is why I talk about an actual published creature. The other creatures at CR 11 are: Fiends that resist nonmagical attacks, Constructs that resist nonmagical attacks, flying spellcasters and summoners, legendary creatures with lairs, and creatures with auras or bodies that make melee attacks against them more difficult. Not exactly simple fights to model.


Quite right, though it's an unwise monk that does not have a suitable ranged weapon. The polearm master fighter, the rogue, the cleric, most of the party is going to find it a challenge to fight the Roc which can swoop down to attack from over 100' in the air. Even if they come up with a solution for the range, the Roc still lives more than just 1 round.

It favors the fighter more and the rogue less, actually. .35 to .65 is not the same ratio as .4 to .7.



Math-free unsupported opinions? Bored now.

- I also used numbers based on published creatures. not sure what your point is. the roc is an outlier on the very high end of CR 11; as was pointed out, only 3 out of ~20 creatures meet that expectation. your actual published creature is not the typical case at all, and makes no actual sense as an example. and frankly, by the time you get to CR 11, resistance to damage is barely even factored into creature HP because while we don't know exactly what magic equipment the party has, it's pretty danged typical to have magic weapons by that point.

- the cleric and wizard are using ranged attacks. the rogue can easily switch to ranged attacks, and can simply hide for advantage instead of making an off-hand attack. damage goes down slightly, but not by much. the fighter can still use a bow, and is indeed suffering the largest decrease in damage... although it is entirely possible the wizard will take pity and give the fighter flight instead, that being the largest increase in DPR available by making an ally fly.

- it doesn't favour anyone more or less. the ratio of damage between the monk, the rogue, and the fighter is the same whether you multiply it by 0.7 or 0.65 (well, actually the rogue does slightly better I think, because with two chances to land sneak, one on the main hand one on the off hand, it is almost like having advantage for that part of the damage, but it isn't by a huge margin. by and large, the numbers tell the same story: monk is way behind for no apparent good reason).

- why would I need to do more math to support my opinion when I've already done the math to support my opinion? monk damage only gets into the same range as other damage dealers when you assume the monk is spending resources and nobody else is. this is a problem. a class that needs to use resources to be effective is fine, but it should be more effective when it uses those resources and less effective only when it doesn't. it shouldn't be spending resources just to (almost) catch up.

[Frogreaver]

- why would I need to do more math to support my opinion when I've already done the math to support my opinion? monk damage only gets into the same range as other damage dealers when you assume the monk is spending resources and nobody else is. this is a problem. a class that needs to use resources to be effective is fine, but it should be more effective when it uses those resources and less effective only when it doesn't. it shouldn't be spending resources just to (almost) catch up.

I'm not as interested in the rest of the debate. But I do want to respond to this.

Monks have more resource than any other class. At level 11 you'll have the opportunity to spend 33 resources. Monks have the spare resources to spend to catch up to other classes and still have plenty enough for the rest of the adventuring day.

Or to put it simply. Not all resources are created equal.

[mr_stibbons]

This is akin to saying that any Semi Truck that can haul three tractor trailers is a failure unless the Semi Truck can also match the top speed of a McLaren Speedtail.

People, reasonable people, in everyday life, understand that a Minivan and Sportscar are separate classes of cars and have different performance numbers.

Monks and Warlocks are entirely separate classes, yet persons, (the same old persons),...want separate classes to all perform the same.


That is precisely the point, by second level, a Warlock can by selecting a single Cantrip, a Single Spell, and a Single Invocation have an attack routine that deals effective damage in all 4 Tiers.

This Warlock strategy is so effective, that some people can not ignore 'The Good' of the combo and not play it....hence the perpetual churn of "Warlock choice X should be an Automatic class feature, not a CHOICE/TAX" Threads.

If the Fighter's Archery Fighting Style in addition to the Accuracy Boost, also gave a damage boost at 2nd level, and an additional Extra Attack at 17th level....that would be more comparable to the easy Ramp up DPR of Eldritch Blast.

My observation is the folks that don't like monks, tend to describe their games as "7th level being High Level play", PCs tend to focus Exclusively on either Ranged or Melee combat, and not on being able to be effective at both combat modes, the monk PCs are often described as being under-equipped, and the play seems to take place primarily in Flatland Style two dimensional dungeons.

What exactly is the monk doing so well that you can excuse it's low damage? Just because something is a different class doesn't make any comparisons irrelevant.

And ultimately, we're talking about the game as written. It's much easier to get everyone on board with buffs to underperforming options than throw nerfs on every powerful option in the game. That just breeds resentment with people who enjoy those options.



I'm not as interested in the rest of the debate. But I do want to respond to this.

Monks have more resource than any other class. At level 11 you'll have the opportunity to spend 33 resources. Monks have the spare resources to spend to catch up to other classes and still have plenty enough for the rest of the adventuring day.

Or to put it simply. Not all resources are created equal.

More resources is a questionable declaration. Monks certainly have a more granular resource pool than any other class in the game, but more resources?. I don't agree. As you say, resources are not created equal. You have to measure them by their impact on the game If a monk had more resources, than a monk spending 33 ki should have more impact on the game than any given full caster blowing all their spell slots and all their secondary resources (CD, wild shape, SP, ect). That's just simply not the case, and it shouldn't be, as the monk does have martial weapon equivalent at will damage.

They're closer to a half caster class, but even then I don't think the comparison is terribly favourable to the monk. Half caster spell slots scale faster than a monk's linear ki progression, and those classes can have additional resource pools on top of their slots, ike CD, Flash of genius, or favoured foe (if you use that rule. PHB ranger is pretty short on extra resources.) I'd rather be sitting on 10 spell slots, 55hp of healing and three CD uses than 33 ki, myself.

[KorvinStarmast]

At level 11 you'll have the opportunity to spend 33 resources. Monks have the spare resources to spend to catch up to other classes and still have plenty enough for the rest of the adventuring day.

Or to put it simply. Not all resources are created equal. Presuming two short rests in an adventure day ... :smallsmile:

[Zalabim]

- I also used numbers based on published creatures. not sure what your point is. the roc is an outlier on the very high end of CR 11; as was pointed out, only 3 out of ~20 creatures meet that expectation. your actual published creature is not the typical case at all, and makes no actual sense as an example. and frankly, by the time you get to CR 11, resistance to damage is barely even factored into creature HP because while we don't know exactly what magic equipment the party has, it's pretty danged typical to have magic weapons by that point.
We are told in the book that resistance to nonmagical attacks at cr 11 is counted as the creature having 25% more hp. We are told in the book that magic resistance, flying with ranged attacks (up to cr 10), and having a large number of saving throw proficiencies all factor into the creature's defenses. You used hp/ac based on real creatures with none of the other abilities from those creatures. Creatures with useless or ignored defenses die faster. Shocking. Still not seeing how every equal cr should die in one round.


- the cleric and wizard are using ranged attacks. the rogue can easily switch to ranged attacks, and can simply hide for advantage instead of making an off-hand attack. damage goes down slightly, but not by much. the fighter can still use a bow, and is indeed suffering the largest decrease in damage... although it is entirely possible the wizard will take pity and give the fighter flight instead, that being the largest increase in DPR available by making an ally fly. The cleric's range is 60'. The rogue's range is 80'. The fighter's longbow could be worse than fire bolt. The roc's speed is 120'. But "flying enemy" is supposed to be a solved problem for parties at this level, and it has to come into range eventually, and it still doesn't seem normal for the roc to die in one round.


- it doesn't favour anyone more or less. the ratio of damage between the monk, the rogue, and the fighter is the same whether you multiply it by 0.7 or 0.65 (well, actually the rogue does slightly better I think, because with two chances to land sneak, one on the main hand one on the off hand, it is almost like having advantage for that part of the damage, but it isn't by a huge margin. by and large, the numbers tell the same story: monk is way behind for no apparent good reason). Monk is slightly behind because it is a different class than rogue and fighter with different strengths and weaknesses, and people ignore half of its abilities, and people don't take short rests.


- why would I need to do more math to support my opinion when I've already done the math to support my opinion? monk damage only gets into the same range as other damage dealers when you assume the monk is spending resources and nobody else is. this is a problem. a class that needs to use resources to be effective is fine, but it should be more effective when it uses those resources and less effective only when it doesn't. it shouldn't be spending resources just to (almost) catch up.
That only makes sense if the class is expected to fight without resources. High level characters aren't going to do that, so they can't be balanced as if they will.

[Thunderous Mojo]

What exactly is the monk doing so well that you can excuse it's low damage? Just because something is a different class doesn't make any comparisons irrelevant.

Do you want me to write up 7 years of DM-ing notes? DPR is but one consideration in a Roleplaying game.

The 13th level Monk, in one of my games, does just fine in overall contribution compared to their Hexbow Warlock/Paladin party member that has an Oathbow.

Just like I wouldn't expect a miniature poodle to weigh anywhere close to an Elephant, I don't expect a Monk to spike damage like a Hexblade.

If 7 years into 5e, you can't seem to find value in the monk class, despite attempts to...then the issue lies with the style of game that is being ran.

I'm not saying that as an insult. Certain classes and play-styles fit some games better than others.

A character devoted solely to Melee Attacks, and nothing else...isn't going to fair well in the style of games I run.....a Manticore is going to Spike Throw and Hit and Run that character to death....let alone that combat is a small fraction of my game.

Since I recognize this, I don't denounce GMW builds as not being able to match the baselines of other classes in other segments of the game and thus "suck".

If DPR is the prime overriding concern of your style of game ...instead of altering the whole class...a more measured option,(to my thinking), is to give the monk a damage boosting item such as a Flame Tongue.

It is much simpler to add or remove items from a game as opposed to performing complete class re-writes. When class re-writes fail to please, the campaign itself tends to flounder.

[mr_stibbons]

Do you want me to write up 7 years of DM-ing notes? DPR is but one consideration in a Roleplaying game.

The 13th level Monk, in one of my games, does just fine in overall contribution compared to their Hexbow Warlock/Paladin party member that has an Oathbow.

Just like I wouldn't expect a miniature poodle to weigh anywhere close to an Elephant, I don't expect a Monk to spike damage like a Hexblade.

If 7 years into 5e, you can't seem to find value in the monk class, despite attempts to...then the issue lies with the style of game that is being ran.

I'm not saying that as an insult. Certain classes and play-styles fit some games better than others.

A character devoted solely to Melee Attacks, and nothing else...isn't going to fair well in the style of games I run.....a Manticore is going to Spike Throw and Hit and Run that character to death....let alone that combat is a small fraction of my game.

Since I recognize this, I don't denounce GMW builds as not being able to match the baselines of other classes in other segments of the game and thus "suck".

If DPR is the prime overriding concern of your style of game ...instead of altering the whole class...a more measured option,(to my thinking), is to give the monk a damage boosting item such as a Flame Tongue.

It is much simpler to add or remove items from a game as opposed to performing complete class re-writes. When class re-writes fail to please, the campaign itself tends to flounder.

I want an answer to the question. How is your 13th level monk "doing fine in overall contribution"? It doesn't have to be all about damage, I recognize that. Is is supporting other party members, providing noncombat utility, mitigating incoming damage, what? Don't just aggressively spout generalities at people. What is the monk doing, in-combat or out, that you feel is providing an impact.

[Tanarii]

Presuming two short rests in an adventure day ... :smallsmile:
Or as 8 like to put it, presuming only 2 short rests.

IMX short rest recharge is a benefit, not a detriment. Long rest recharge is the actual costly recharge method at the actual table as opposed to white room. Getting more than 2 short rests per long rest is more common than only getting one. Held true in AL when I played that, and held true IMC as well. In both cases, because a LR occurs at end of session and it's easy to get in more than a full adventuring day in 3-4 hour session.

[MoiMagnus]

Or as 8 like to put it, presuming only 2 short rests.

IMX short rest recharge is a benefit, not a detriment. Long rest recharge is the actual costly recharge method at the actual table as opposed to white room. Getting more than 2 short rests per long rest is more common than only getting one. Held true in AL when I played that, and held true IMC as well. In both cases, because a LR occurs at end of session and it's easy to get in more than a full adventuring day in 3-4 hour session.

I can see that being the case, though it heavily depends on the table.

Slower tables (the kind to have fights that last for more than 1h even when they're simple) might still take a LR at the end of each session, which doesn't allow for a lot of encounters per LR, hence not a lot of SR per long rest.

I certainly remember some posters complaining that warlock was essentially unplayable at their table, as the GM's playstyle meant that no SR was possible between big encounters (the day start with some RP set up and investigation, then you get to the place which is actually relevant to the plot, and you sequence encounters without time for SR up until you win and call it a day, or you retreat and call it a day).

My personal experience is that it is heavily dependent on the remaining of the team. And that if more than 75% of the team has a long-rest-based class (full spellcaster, paladin, etc), which is the case more often than not in my group, SR will naturally reduce in number as the campaign goes. While SR will be much more frequent at more regular tables (so tables with Fighter, Rogue, etc).

[Frogreaver]

Presuming two short rests in an adventure day ... :smallsmile:

Wasn’t that so obvious that it didn’t actually need stated?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Wasn’t that so obvious that it didn’t actually need stated?

In theory, yes.

In actual practice... not so much (at least from my experience).

[ProsecutorGodot]

In theory, yes.

In actual practice... not so much (at least from my experience).

I say it pretty often but it needs repeating, short rest classes need to encourage short rests. They're not going to feel effective of they don't fight for those rests.

In my experience, it's been hard to get the party to agree to a short rest because often they think "I don't get much out of this, if we don't have time to long rest I'd rather not waste time/risk an encounter and just keep trucking"

[KorvinStarmast]

What is the monk doing, in-combat or out, that you feel is providing an impact. I can tell you what a Tier 3 monk did in game that made life easier for our party in the Giants campaign (TftYP): Stunned leaders and that {censored} spell casting cloud giant for long enough that the party was able to get momentum in a few combats. My champion Fighter greatly appreciated that.
In a higher level one shot, monk stuns, Barbarian GWM attacks in a rage with great axe. We seemed to get a lot of crits in that game. Stun lock is a great feature when it works. My monks are also great scouts.

Wasn’t that so obvious that it didn’t actually need stated? A lot of DM's still struggle with short rest rationing. YMMV.

[strangebloke]

I say it pretty often but it needs repeating, short rest classes need to encourage short rests. They're not going to feel effective of they don't fight for those rests.

In my experience, it's been hard to get the party to agree to a short rest because often they think "I don't get much out of this, if we don't have time to long rest I'd rather not waste time/risk an encounter and just keep trucking"

heroic short rests, gritty long rests. Its the only way.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd like to point out the final CR is the average of defensive and offensive CR. A creature with low defensive CR (which doesn't include just HP) presumably has offensive capacity to compensate for it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd like to point out the final CR is the average of defensive and offensive CR. A creature with low defensive CR (which doesn't include just HP) presumably has offensive capacity to compensate for it. Star Spawn Manglers come to mind. (man, those guys are nasty)

[Dork_Forge]

Star Spawn Manglers come to mind. (man, those guys are nasty)

Can confirm, the Bard and Bearbarian/Rogue in one of my games fear them after several encounters. The Paladin is indifferent.

[SharkForce]

We are told in the book that resistance to nonmagical attacks at cr 11 is counted as the creature having 25% more hp. We are told in the book that magic resistance, flying with ranged attacks (up to cr 10), and having a large number of saving throw proficiencies all factor into the creature's defenses. You used hp/ac based on real creatures with none of the other abilities from those creatures. Creatures with useless or ignored defenses die faster. Shocking. Still not seeing how every equal cr should die in one round.

The cleric's range is 60'. The rogue's range is 80'. The fighter's longbow could be worse than fire bolt. The roc's speed is 120'. But "flying enemy" is supposed to be a solved problem for parties at this level, and it has to come into range eventually, and it still doesn't seem normal for the roc to die in one round.

Monk is slightly behind because it is a different class than rogue and fighter with different strengths and weaknesses, and people ignore half of its abilities, and people don't take short rests.


That only makes sense if the class is expected to fight without resources. High level characters aren't going to do that, so they can't be balanced as if they will.

- feel free to go through the list and show which extra defence the vast majority of CR 11 creatures need to justify their substantially lower HP any time. I won't stop you.

- if the roc is attacking, it can fly 60 feet, attack, and then fly away 60 feet. not seeing the problem with 60 foot range here. it's a bird, not an apache helicopter. if it wants to hit you, it has to move close, and then move back. (for that matter, it doesn't have flyby attack, which suggests that it usually wouldn't do that, but even if it does it should be fine). and I never once said one round. I said 4 rounds is laughably absurd, 2 rounds is pretty much where I'd expect things to last. one round, well... it's probably possible, but only if the party is going all out on a medium encounter for some weird reason.

- monk is a little below 75% of a regular boring-ass fighter with a greatsword and no feats, and is also a little below 75% of a regular boring-ass rogue with two short swords (even without getting advantage on one attack). as has been pointed out: which incredible strengths is the monk going to bring to the table? perhaps you're planning to stun that roc with it's +9 con save bonus on your DC 15 saving throw? sure, why not just throw even more resources so that you can catch up to where you should be in the first place, it just sounds *totally* reasonable that in order to keep up with extremely basic damage builds the monk needs to burn through ki on a medium encounter. but sure thing, you go ahead and spend 3-4 ki per round, and need a short rest after 4 rounds of fighting at most while everyone else can comfortably handle these medium encounters without burning out entirely.

- if the monk spending resources was spiking higher than the other classes that aren't spending resources, I would have no problem. but it isn't. by spending ki on flurry, it *almost* (not quite) catches up with some extremely basic damage builds. that is a problem.

@Frogreaver

first off, I don't know that there are a lot of times where I've been able to take a casual one hour break from adventuring that I couldn't have also done a long rest. generally speaking, an hour is a long time if you're in a "dungeon" environment where wandering monsters could be a problem. why are the monsters just letting you rest? if you're not in that sort of environment, then in my experience you rarely need the short rests anyways.

if we had 4th edition's 5 minute short rests, then yeah, monk would have lots of resources, but they don't.

and as far as having "more" resources even if they *do* get those two short rests per long rest... I'm not so sure on that being vastly more than anyone else. a level 11 warlock is getting 9 5th level spells and one 6th level in that time, and while that isn't 33, I have to say that a 5th level spell is worth a lot more than 1 point of ki. converting it to 4 elements monk, that's 72 ki worth plus a level 6 spell slot right there. a level 11 wizard in that same 3-short-rest day is getting 1 level 6 spell, 2 level 5, and 3 each of levels 1-4 and can easily gain back one of those level 5 spell slots. if we were to represent those as ki, then based on 4 elements monk the wizard is getting 18 (3 level 5 spell slots) + 15 (3 level 4 slots) + 12 (3 level 3 slots) + 9 (3 level 2 slots) + 8 (3 level 1 slots plus 1 recovered) = 62, and also a level 6 slot that a 4 element monk can never duplicate. if we instead extrapolate from other subclasses and go with level = ki cost (since almost everyone I know of thinks 4 element monk abilities are over the cost they should be), it would still be 46. (or 45 for the warlock, plus they each get the level 6 spell).

and of course, the wizard has a far wider range of options than any monk when it comes to spells.

now, based on that, I have a *really* hard time looking at that and thinking "oh yeah, the monk sure does get more resources than other resource-based classes". they're well behind a wizard (they're also well behind other full spellcasters, though not quite as much as the one that gets arcane recovery).

and again, this is without considering subclasses or extra abilities that resource-based classes get, which for things that aren't monk frequently add extra resources to spend, but for monks typically just means more abilities that compete for your ki. I mean, how do we count bardic inspiration? I would think each use of bardic inspiration is worth at least 1 point of ki. or wild shape. or ritual spellcasting. or channel divinity. or lay on hands for that matter.

[Witty Username]

I am not sure what people are getting at with white room vs actual play. I have personally found that monks do worse in actual play. I have personally found them to have deficiencies in social and exploration aspects of play, as most of their applicable abilities amount to ribbons and lower tertiary scores due to the Dex, Wis requirements. Not a direct problem, many classes don't do well outside of combat. But they do very well in combat, while monk has issues frequently. Stunning strike is a good example of this, as it has one of the more punishing whiff cases (spending 5 ki to not stun an enemy is straight awful, an not as unlikely as one might think if you only have 16 wis) and because of the ki costs associated the monk needs to be liberal with their ki and plan for short rests between fights, or 1 encounter days (which can be difficult to plan for over the course of play).

[JNAProductions]

I am not sure what people are getting at with white room vs actual play. I have personally found that monks do worse in actual play. I have personally found them to have deficiencies in social and exploration aspects of play, as most of their applicable abilities amount to ribbons and lower tertiary scores due to the Dex, Wis requirements. Not a direct problem, many classes don't do well outside of combat. But they do very well in combat, while monk has issues frequently. Stunning strike is a good example of this, as it has one of the more punishing whiff cases (spending 5 ki to not stun an enemy is straight awful, an not as unlikely as one might think if you only have 16 wis) and because of the ki costs associated the monk needs to be liberal with their ki and plan for short rests between fights, or 1 encounter days (which can be difficult to plan for over the course of play).

Spending 5 Ki means you're level 5+. used Flurry of Blows, and hit with every attack.

Even if the enemy needs to roll a nat 1 to fail that DC 14 Constitution save, that's still close to 1/5 odds of Stunning them. And I struggle to think of a foe you'd face around level 5 that has +12 to Con Saves.

A more reasonable +5 to Con Saves means they need a 9 to pass, or a 40% chance of failure. More than 85% odds of Stunning them.

I'm not saying it can't happen-but it's pretty damn unlikely if you're actually having a fight and not desperately running away while throwing a few punches.

[Frogreaver]

@Frogreaver

first off, I don't know that there are a lot of times where I've been able to take a casual one hour break from adventuring that I couldn't have also done a long rest. generally speaking, an hour is a long time if you're in a "dungeon" environment where wandering monsters could be a problem. why are the monsters just letting you rest? if you're not in that sort of environment, then in my experience you rarely need the short rests anyways.

That's fair. I tend to agree with alot of that. But that's going back to an argument that monks don't get enough short rests in alot of games. I think most of us tend to agree there. But if we are going that route then I'd suggest that monks are likely fine as long as they are getting those 2 shorts rests and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there. In which case i'd suggest that any monk fix really just needs to focus on helping the monk get short rests.

New monk ability - Once per day you may spend 10 minutes (or 1 minute or 5 or whatever) meditating and gain the benefits of a short rest. Something like that goes a lot further toward 'fixing' the monk in a no short rest adventuring day than anything else.


if we had 4th edition's 5 minute short rests, then yeah, monk would have lots of resources, but they don't.

and as far as having "more" resources even if they *do* get those two short rests per long rest... I'm not so sure on that being vastly more than anyone else. a level 11 warlock is getting 9 5th level spells and one 6th level in that time, and while that isn't 33, I have to say that a 5th level spell is worth a lot more than 1 point of ki. converting it to 4 elements monk, that's 72 ki worth plus a level 6 spell slot right there. a level 11 wizard in that same 3-short-rest day is getting 1 level 6 spell, 2 level 5, and 3 each of levels 1-4 and can easily gain back one of those level 5 spell slots. if we were to represent those as ki, then based on 4 elements monk the wizard is getting 18 (3 level 5 spell slots) + 15 (3 level 4 slots) + 12 (3 level 3 slots) + 9 (3 level 2 slots) + 8 (3 level 1 slots plus 1 recovered) = 62, and also a level 6 slot that a 4 element monk can never duplicate. if we instead extrapolate from other subclasses and go with level = ki cost (since almost everyone I know of thinks 4 element monk abilities are over the cost they should be), it would still be 46. (or 45 for the warlock, plus they each get the level 6 spell).

and of course, the wizard has a far wider range of options than any monk when it comes to spells.

now, based on that, I have a *really* hard time looking at that and thinking "oh yeah, the monk sure does get more resources than other resource-based classes". they're well behind a wizard (they're also well behind other full spellcasters, though not quite as much as the one that gets arcane recovery).

Monks get more resources, not necessarily more powerful resources. Everyone agrees there. The power of the resources in question has no bearing on whether it's safe to assume some can be spend in an encounter due to the large amount of weaker resources the monk gets (or should be getting) compared to every other class.


and again, this is without considering subclasses or extra abilities that resource-based classes get, which for things that aren't monk frequently add extra resources to spend, but for monks typically just means more abilities that compete for your ki. I mean, how do we count bardic inspiration? I would think each use of bardic inspiration is worth at least 1 point of ki. or wild shape. or ritual spellcasting. or channel divinity. or lay on hands for that matter.

Congrats on scouring all the classes to find 1 that probably exceed the monk in amount of resources. Speaking of bards/wizards whatever full caster. They would all be worse off without using resources than monks would be without using resources. So I'm really not sure what purpose it serves to bring them into a discussion about monks not doing enough damage compared to martials.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I want an answer to the question. How is your 13th level monk "doing fine in overall contribution"? It doesn't have to be all about damage, I recognize that. Is is supporting other party members, providing noncombat utility, mitigating incoming damage, what? Don't just aggressively spout generalities at people. What is the monk doing, in-combat or out, that you feel is providing an impact.

In a conversion of the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth the monk stunned an aquatic Purple Worm, that also had the Petrifying Secretions power of a Swavain Basilisk from Wildemont. The monk then opened the worms mouth, crawled inside and rescued a party member...all of this occurred underwater.

Well timed usage of Step of the Wind and Stunning Strike has earned the monk the nickname of "Iron Dome Monk".

There are more stories that can be shared. You also might consider reading any one of numerous "Monks Suck" threads available all over the internet...those threads often contain numerous examples of monks being played well.

GitPG has a great thread that was started after Treantmonk's "Monks suck" video.......Treantmonk even posted in it....until posters here cast Banishment on him.

[Hytheter]

Spending 5 Ki means you're level 5+. used Flurry of Blows, and hit with every attack.

Even if the enemy needs to roll a nat 1 to fail that DC 14 Constitution save, that's still close to 1/5 odds of Stunning them. And I struggle to think of a foe you'd face around level 5 that has +12 to Con Saves.

A more reasonable +5 to Con Saves means they need a 9 to pass, or a 40% chance of failure. More than 85% odds of Stunning them.

I'm not saying it can't happen-but it's pretty damn unlikely if you're actually having a fight and not desperately running away while throwing a few punches.

If my stint in competitive Pokemon taught me anything, it's that 85% might as well be zero when you need it the most. :smallamused:

Really though, 15% failure is more likely than you might think, and certainly more than you would want after dumping your entire resource allotment. And that's at level 5 - if you're focusing Dex first then you probably won't increase your Wis until level 11, by which point enemy Con saves will have only increased.

[JNAProductions]

If my stint in competitive Pokemon taught me anything, it's that 85% might as well be zero when you need it the most. :smallamused:

Really though, 15% failure is more likely than you might think, and certainly more than you would want after dumping your entire resource allotment. And that's at level 5 - if you're focusing Dex first then you probably won't increase your Wis until level 11, by which point enemy Con saves will have only increased.

And at level 1 you can have a 16 in Wis and a 16 in Dex.

The Wizard, also at level 5, has 9 slots. (Discounting Arcane Recovery.) The enemy could pass every single save that they force, and unlike the Monk (who slapped out a decent chunk of damage that turn) could have nothing to show for it.

I'm not saying it's impossible-but I am saying that it's not the common occurrence that Witty made it sound like.

[Hytheter]

And at level 1 you can have a 16 in Wis and a 16 in Dex.

Yes, that's the baseline I was assuming. You start with dual 16s, bump Dex at 4 and 8, so Wis doesn't go anywhere until level 12.



I'm not saying it's impossible-but I am saying that it's not the common occurrence that Witty made it sound like.

They didn't say it was common. They said it's "not as unlikely as one might think."

[JNAProductions]

Yes, that's the baseline I was assuming. You start with dual 16s, bump Dex at 4 and 8, so Wis doesn't go anywhere until level 12.

They didn't say it was common. They said it's "not as unlikely as one might think."

Perhaps I'm reading a different tone into it than you are.

[strangebloke]

I'd be really curious to see how many people are basing their entire knowledge of monk off campaigns with zero short rests and players who were relatively unskilled in a group of optimizers.

[Witty Username]

I apologize for implying common, I was unclear. I more meant that it is not a freak occurrence.
15%( the flip side of 85%) is roughly 1/7 ( slightly more than 1/7 I believe). I won't make any assumptions on how many combats a day or session you have, you can work that out yourself.
I will admit my personal experiences with monks were high level play, with large fights and legendary resistance being more of a factor. (Some people would say burning though legendary resistance with stuns is effective, I would disagree, it ends up being a lot of ki and you sacrifice a chunk of your mobility to do it at least from my personal experience).

[Tanarii]

I am not sure what people are getting at with white room vs actual play. I have personally found that monks do worse in actual play. I have personally found them to have deficiencies in social and exploration aspects of play, as most of their applicable abilities amount to ribbons and lower tertiary scores due to the Dex, Wis requirements. Not a direct problem, many classes don't do well outside of combat. But they do very well in combat, while monk has issues frequently. Stunning strike is a good example of this, as it has one of the more punishing whiff cases (spending 5 ki to not stun an enemy is straight awful, an not as unlikely as one might think if you only have 16 wis) and because of the ki costs associated the monk needs to be liberal with their ki and plan for short rests between fights, or 1 encounter days (which can be difficult to plan for over the course of play).
Meanwhile I've never seen monks with issues in actual play. They're strong enough in combat, they are fantastic in exploration due to being Dex and Wis (and almost every monk taking stealth) as long as they stay away from disarming traps, and ... yeah they do almost always suck at social. :smallamused: They also having staying power so they're not either carefully husbanding resources or running on fumes by the end of a session, unlike long rest casters.

Like Warlocks, they're one of the better classes. For roughly similar reasons. Good baseline combat power, some kind of in and out of combat utility, and short rest resources.



I will admit my personal experiences with monks were high level play,
That makes a major difference. Personally I found them fantastic in tier 1 and 2 and good in low tier 3, where most tables game play happens.

[strangebloke]

Meanwhile I've never seen monks with issues in actual play. They're strong enough in combat, they are fantastic in exploration due to being Dex and Wis (and almost every monk taking stealth) as long as they stay away from disarming traps, and ... yeah they do almost always suck at social. :smallamused: They also having staying power so they're not either carefully husbanding resources or running on fumes by the end of a session, unlike long rest casters.

Like Warlocks, they're one of the better classes. For roughly similar reasons.

They also have a few interesting high level class features, which is more than I can say for most other martials. It's still not great but at least diamond soul is a genuinely powerful ability, unlike what most classes get at that level..

[Dork_Forge]

They also have a few interesting high level class features, which is more than I can say for most other martials. It's still not great but at least diamond soul is a genuinely powerful ability, unlike what most classes get at that level..

How dare you mock Blindsense.

[SharkForce]

That's fair. I tend to agree with alot of that. But that's going back to an argument that monks don't get enough short rests in alot of games. I think most of us tend to agree there. But if we are going that route then I'd suggest that monks are likely fine as long as they are getting those 2 shorts rests and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there. In which case i'd suggest that any monk fix really just needs to focus on helping the monk get short rests.

New monk ability - Once per day you may spend 10 minutes (or 1 minute or 5 or whatever) meditating and gain the benefits of a short rest. Something like that goes a lot further toward 'fixing' the monk in a no short rest adventuring day than anything else.



Monks get more resources, not necessarily more powerful resources. Everyone agrees there. The power of the resources in question has no bearing on whether it's safe to assume some can be spend in an encounter due to the large amount of weaker resources the monk gets (or should be getting) compared to every other class.



Congrats on scouring all the classes to find 1 that probably exceed the monk in amount of resources. Speaking of bards/wizards whatever full caster. They would all be worse off without using resources than monks would be without using resources. So I'm really not sure what purpose it serves to bring them into a discussion about monks not doing enough damage compared to martials.

- skipping the first point, doesn't seem like there's much that needs discussing.

- no, they don't get more resources. already calculated it out. all full spellcasters, being genuinely resource-based classes, get far more resources. and yes, they *are* worse even than a monk when not spending resources (well, except for warlocks). but they're also a heck of a lot stronger when they *are* spending resources, and I don't mean stronger than just a monk, I mean stronger than classes that aren't heavily based on resources. and it is most certainly relevant, because people keep on insisting that it's fine for monks to be worse because they're resource-based. well, with pretty much every other "resource-based" class (by which I mean that that rely more on limited resources, since obviously every class has *some* limited resources) they can pull ahead when using resources. why can't the monk? they also are generally far more efficient in how they use resources. why isn't the monk? a wizard can sometimes get by on casting a single spell that might represent less than 10% of their resources in a high level encounter and still contribute effectively. why is it that every time someone talks about monks doing anything it involves blowing half of their short-rest allotment of ki in a single round, and that something they do is stunning a single enemy for 1 round but when we talk about a wizard doing something it costs 10% of their spellcasting resource and they lock down about half of the enemies for the entire fight with a wall of force or something?

there is a disconnect here. if monks are fully resource-based, their weaknesses when they don't spend resources needs to be compensated for with high effectiveness when they do. don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that stunning an enemy isn't good... but when another class can do more with less, I can't help but suspect that the balance point is off.

- what do you mean the "one" class? wizards, bards, warlocks, sorcerers, clerics, druids, and frankly probably paladins too. at certain levels (primarily once they get their 10-charge-per-day spellcasting item) probably artificers as well.

@strangebloke: as to monks getting cool abilities at high levels... the main problem is that mostly they get defensive abilities. now, that's handy for those situations where you've got a powerful wizard standing 20 feet away from their front line supporting with magic, because it means you're getting better at not being killed when you jump on them. unfortunately, it is paired with their offensive capacity having barely improved since they were level 5, so they're also getting comparatively easier to ignore for everything else, which certainly lowers the value of those defensive abilities in a group setting.

if you could put empty body onto a wizard, it would be incredible, because everyone wants to kill the wizard. when you put it on a class that is already low on the priority target list, it's a lot less exciting. I suppose that would make monks quite good for gestalt play with wisdom-based classes if anyone actually ever plays gestalt.

[Unoriginal]

How are Monks "low priority targets"?

Not keeping a Monk busy is how you die.

[KorvinStarmast]

Meanwhile I've never seen monks with issues in actual play. They're strong enough in combat, they are fantastic in exploration due to being Dex and Wis (and almost every monk taking stealth) as long as they stay away from disarming traps, and ...
I tend to give my monks spy/criminal background, and thieves tools proficiencies. Not bad with traps, but not like an expertised rogue. If a bard or a cleric can help out with BI or Guidance, it's handy.

yeah they do almost always suck at social. :smallamused: All of my monks have had low charisma save for one Half Elf Monk who had a 12. She was a bit of a proselytizer ...

They also having staying power so they're not either carefully husbanding resources or running on fumes by the end of a session, unlike long rest casters. That too. And what's interesting to me is how often my monks catch/deflect missiles, and sometimes throw them back. (The latter not as often as the former).
Personally I found them fantastic in tier 1 and 2 and good in low tier 3, where most tables game play happens. Likewise.

[Zalabim]

Here's a thought experiment: What if I actually look at how some characters improve their ability to deal damage as they level. Look at level 5, level 11, and level 17. Target AC remains 15 thoughout. Number of rounds per day remains 20 throughout. Number of encounters remains 6 throughout. Just assume they're fighting more enemies per encounter. Going to look at Fighter, Rogue, and Monk, so not aoe damage.

Fighter: Champion with a greatsword and GWF FS.

5 - +7 to hit, 2d6+4 averages 8.85. 2 attacks per round, 20 rounds, 3 action surges. 8.85 * 46 = 407.1/20 = 20.355 DPR.
11 - +9 to hit, 2d6+5 averages 10.833~. 3 attacks per round, 20 rounds, 3 action surges. 10.833 * 69 = 747.5/20 = 37.375 DPR.
17 - +11 to hit, 2d6+5 averages 12.5833~. 3 attacks per round, 20 rounds, 6 action surges. 12.5833*78 = 981.5/20 = 49.075 DPR.


Rogue: Thief

5 - +7 to hit, 2d6+4 and 3d6 SA averages 17.4225 DPR.
11 - +9 to hit, 2d6+5 and 6d6 SA averages 30.35 DPR.
17 - +11 to hit, 2d6+5 and 9d6 SA averages 43.1525. 6 encounters for Thief's Reflexes. 43.1525 *(26/20) = 56.09825 DPR.


Monk: None. Assuming 1 ki has no less value than 1 unarmed strike.

5 - +7 to hit, 2d8+8 and 1d6+4 averages 16.55. 5.05 unarmed * 15 ki / 20 rounds + base DPR = 20.3375 DPR
11 - +9 to hit, 3d8+15 averages 22.05. (7.35 * 33 / 20) + 22.05 = 34.1775 DPR
17 - +11 to hit, 3d10+15 averages 27.6. (9.2 * 51 / 20) + 27.6 = 51.06 DPR


Bonus Paladin: Because it's not hard. Same gear as Fighter. Assuming all spell slots smite randomly. Harness Divine Power to smite more.

5 - +7 to hit, 4d6+8 averages 16.866~. 8d8 1st level, 6d8 2nd level, 3d8 harness divine power. 17 * 4.5 * (1+0.05/0.65) = 82.38 / 20 rounds = 4.12 + 16.866~ = 20.9866~ DPR.
11 - +9 to hit, 4d6+2d8+10 averages 28.033~. 8d8 1st level, 9d8 2nd level, 12d8 3rd level, 6d8 harness divine power. 35d8 at (1+0.05/0.75) = 168/20 = 36.4333~ DPR.
17 - +11 to hit, 4d6+2d8+10 averages 31.6. 8d8 1st level, 9d8 2nd level, 12d8 3rd level, 15d8 4th level, "6d8" 5th level, 12d8 harness divine power. 62d8 at (1+0.05/0.85) = 295.4/20 = 46.37 DPR.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's a thought experiment: What if I actually look at how some characters improve their ability to deal damage as they level. Look at level 5, level 11, and level 17. Target AC remains 15 throughout. Number of rounds per day remains 20 throughout. Number of encounters remains 6 throughout. Just assume they're fighting more enemies per encounter. Going to look at Fighter, Rogue, and Monk, so not aoe damage. That's a neat comparison, thank you for doing that. The expenditure of one or two ki to stun an opponent makes the next attack sequence eligible for advantage for all of the attacks.
Not sure how to plug that into your model, but it will boost the DPR due to more 'to hit' chances and a bit higher crit chance.

[Tanarii]

I tend to give my monks spy/criminal background, and thieves tools proficiencies. Not bad with traps, but not like an expertised rogue. If a bard or a cleric can help out with BI or Guidance, it's handy.

I meant it's Investigation is Int based and usually Int is the second 'dump stat' for Monks after Cha.

You are correct that actually disabling them is usually Dex (Thieves Tools) and they can be just fine at that. It's finding them and figuring out how to disable them they can be lacking at. Unlike most rogues, who tend to either prioritize Int for traps or at least expertise in Investigation for it.

[mistajames]

Big fan of Treantmonk. His analysis is usually spot-on. I also agree that here are many problems with the Monk class, both conceptually and mechanically (should Monks even be a thing?).

I think Treantmonk's proposed changes fix some of the problems of the monk, but they fail to make the Monk an interesting archetype.

I don't think Monks being MAD isn't that big of a problem. I think that the bigger problem is that the Devs didn't make the choice between a Dex-based monk and a Wis-based monk interesting - Dex-based is just plain better 99% of the time, so you max that first.

This leads into the other issue - build versatility. If you're optimizing a monk, you build them (mostly) the same. It's just not very interesting mechanically. Drastically increasing your martial arts die opens some interesting build space.

Another thing Treantmonk kind of missed with the monk is that they can't get full use out of many common magic items. Unless your DM is tailoring drops to your monk, this is a problem in-game (interesting Monk-tailored items are fairly rare).

1. Of course Monk should have a d10 Hit die. This seems obvious.
2. Martial Arts can be done in Light/Medium Armor. This is extremely common both in fiction and in real life. It opens up a monk to getting access to magic items that are usually not available to them. I know that historically the Monk has needed to be unarmored (and this is the "throwback edition") but a stupid rule doesn't become less stupid because it has a historical basis. Mechanically it's fine, but I might limit it to light armor.
3. I think this scaling is fine. 3d6 is only 10.5 damage on average - hardly gamebreaking. 5.5 average damage at level 17 is far too low to be relevant. Also, I'm generally fine with massively upgrading the power of martials in T3-T4 in general, especially Monks, Rangers, and Barbarians, to keep them in line with casters.
4. Disagree with this change completely. I'd rather make Wisdom a more relevant and viable choice compared to Dex than doing away with MAD entirely. My previous suggestion around the Monk involves giving them something like ProfMod+WisMod Ki points, but allowing them to recover all their Ki by concentrating for 1 minute (making them a bit unique compared to short rest classes). This is potentially interesting design space.
5. Agree. No reason Step of the Wind should cost Ki.
6. I think the Quickened Healing change changes what the ability does. That's twice the healing... does the Monk really need to be able to heal to full every time it takes a short rest?
7. I'd rather fix Ki scaling than give more Stunning Strike uses. I would like for Stunning Strike to be a cool choice to spend ki on, rather than clearly the best choice most of the time.
8. Sure.
9. Sure.
10. Sure. Given you are level 18, in assessing balance, this needs to be weighed against stuff like Wish and Shapechange. This should be good.
11. L20 abilities don't matter. That said, I find +Stats abilities to be very boring.

[Sorinth]

I meant it's Investigation is Int based and usually Int is the second 'dump stat' for Monks after Cha.

You are correct that actually disabling them is usually Dex (Thieves Tools) and they can be just fine at that. It's finding them and figuring out how to disable them they can be lacking at. Unlike most rogues, who tend to either prioritize Int for traps or at least expertise in Investigation for it.

It's worth mentioning that with Evasion, Deflect Missile, Slow Fall, the ability running up walls, and Poison Immunity Monks can often just say F-it and trigger the trap instead of disabling it and not suffer anything for it.

[Tanarii]

It's worth mentioning that with Evasion, Deflect Missile, Slow Fall, the ability running up walls, and Poison Immunity Monks can often just say F-it and trigger the trap instead of disabling it and not suffer anything for it.
That doesn't much help the rest of the party that is depending on someone to do something about a trap in a dangerous high pressure situation. Like combat.

[Sorinth]

Another thing Treantmonk kind of missed with the monk is that they can't get full use out of many common magic items. Unless your DM is tailoring drops to your monk, this is a problem in-game (interesting Monk-tailored items are fairly rare).

I mean if the DM isn't tailoring drops to the PCs the monk has the least amount of problems. Fighters usually specialize with specific weapons via feats, and if the DM isn't tailoring drops or allowing buying of magic items that can be devastating to their build. Either they end up not using a magic weapon, or using the weapon and losing out on the feats. A PAM whose random magic item drop is a +1 battleaxe either gives up on his feat or doesn't have a magic weapon to overcome damage resistance.

[Sorinth]

That doesn't much help the rest of the party that is depending on someone to do something about a trap in a dangerous high pressure situation. Like combat.

Yeah in combat it doesn't help, outside combat when just making your way through the dungeon, or when you need to open the trapped door/chest then the rest of the party can just move to safety and the monk can just trigger the trap and get the loot.

It's for sure not as good as the Rogue with expertise, but it's still something that Monks are better at then most other martials.

[mistajames]

I mean if the DM isn't tailoring drops to the PCs the monk has the least amount of problems. Fighters usually specialize with specific weapons via feats, and if the DM isn't tailoring drops or allowing buying of magic items that can be devastating to their build. Either they end up not using a magic weapon, or using the weapon and losing out on the feats. A PAM whose random magic item drop is a +1 battleaxe either gives up on his feat or doesn't have a magic weapon to overcome damage resistance.

Agree completely, but it's a real problem.

I have had this happen multiple times, with multiple DMs. It is a real downside to using PAM/CBE over other weapons (a non-polearm weapon where you can apply GWM or an enchanted longbow is far more likely to crop up). That said, if you're not using a PAM or CBE Fighter, you're probably going to find some relevant magic weapon in fairly short order if using a published adventure or the DMG treasure tables.

[Unoriginal]

Here's a thought experiment:

[...]

Fighter: Champion

[...]

Rogue: Thief

[...]

Monk: None.

Uhm, why does the Monk not have a subclass, in your thought experiment?

[KorvinStarmast]

I meant it's Investigation is Int based and usually Int is the second 'dump stat' for Monks after Cha.

You are correct that actually disabling them is usually Dex (Thieves Tools) and they can be just fine at that. It's finding them and figuring out how to disable them they can be lacking at. Unlike most rogues, who tend to either prioritize Int for traps or at least expertise in Investigation for it. Fair points all. I know of at least two DMs who combine trap finding and trap disabling with Thieves Tools, but as Chapter 7 and most published modules are put together, INT(Investigation) is how it's supposed to work.

[strangebloke]

- skipping the first point, doesn't seem like there's much that needs discussing.

- no, they don't get more resources. already calculated it out. all full spellcasters, being genuinely resource-based classes, get far more resources. and yes, they *are* worse even than a monk when not spending resources (well, except for warlocks). but they're also a heck of a lot stronger when they *are* spending resources, and I don't mean stronger than just a monk, I mean stronger than classes that aren't heavily based on resources. and it is most certainly relevant, because people keep on insisting that it's fine for monks to be worse because they're resource-based. well, with pretty much every other "resource-based" class (by which I mean that that rely more on limited resources, since obviously every class has *some* limited resources) they can pull ahead when using resources. why can't the monk? they also are generally far more efficient in how they use resources. why isn't the monk? a wizard can sometimes get by on casting a single spell that might represent less than 10% of their resources in a high level encounter and still contribute effectively. why is it that every time someone talks about monks doing anything it involves blowing half of their short-rest allotment of ki in a single round, and that something they do is stunning a single enemy for 1 round but when we talk about a wizard doing something it costs 10% of their spellcasting resource and they lock down about half of the enemies for the entire fight with a wall of force or something?

there is a disconnect here. if monks are fully resource-based, their weaknesses when they don't spend resources needs to be compensated for with high effectiveness when they do. don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that stunning an enemy isn't good... but when another class can do more with less, I can't help but suspect that the balance point is off.

- what do you mean the "one" class? wizards, bards, warlocks, sorcerers, clerics, druids, and frankly probably paladins too. at certain levels (primarily once they get their 10-charge-per-day spellcasting item) probably artificers as well.

@strangebloke: as to monks getting cool abilities at high levels... the main problem is that mostly they get defensive abilities. now, that's handy for those situations where you've got a powerful wizard standing 20 feet away from their front line supporting with magic, because it means you're getting better at not being killed when you jump on them. unfortunately, it is paired with their offensive capacity having barely improved since they were level 5, so they're also getting comparatively easier to ignore for everything else, which certainly lowers the value of those defensive abilities in a group setting.

if you could put empty body onto a wizard, it would be incredible, because everyone wants to kill the wizard. when you put it on a class that is already low on the priority target list, it's a lot less exciting. I suppose that would make monks quite good for gestalt play with wisdom-based classes if anyone actually ever plays gestalt.

At this point, its not even worth arguing with you. It's been shown that

Monk Low-op damage is comparable in T1 and T2 to all other martials
Monk Low-op damage is comparable in T3 to all other martials except GWF martials
Monk High-op damage is comparable through T3 to all other martials (so long as they expend small amounts of limited amounts of resources they should at this point have plenty of.)
Monks also have useful traits that aren't reflected in simple DPR calculations, such as (1) being more consistent than other melee characters because of fast movement (2) being more resilient to saving throw-based threats in general (3) yes, also stunning strike
Though monks have lower defenses than fighters at low level, this only amounts to 1-2 AC and 1-2 HP per level and at high level their defenses aren't bad at all.

Disagreeing within any of the above requires ridiculous argument like "oh but I'd never see a highly optimized monk at my table" or "monk is bad in practice because DMs are ***** about giving short rests and magic items they can use." These arguments, though possibly true, are still not really a criticism of the monk as a class.

I do think the monk has some wonky things about it. I would support them having a little higher damage and flexibility overall but that's about it. Some subclasses could probably be reworked as well, particularly the level 11 abilities, but these sorts of minor problems are very common in other classes.

In light of the above, treantmonk's changes go too far.

[Zalabim]

Uhm, why does the Monk not have a subclass, in your thought experiment?
To be unfair enough to the monk so as to forestall any "what about this feat or that subclass" for all of them. I considered writing four elements there. Also, to make any explanation of my process as simple as I can. To see the worst case, most generalizable scenario.

Going down my memory, the open hand monk just performs a little better, then uses quivering palm alternating rounds for the 17. The shadows monk turns some ki into tactical advantage for the whole party instead of raw damage, and gets opportunist at 17. The four elements and sun soul break the "no aoe considered" proviso. The long death monk is practically just as described, albeit with plenty of opportunity for temp hp. The kensei is just always better at fighting. The astral self spends some ki on manifesting, but more than makes up with astral bs like bonus damage and an extra attack. The way of mercy gets a bump at 11 when they constantly flurry and never have to pay for hand of harm.

For all of them, their actual uses of ki need to be a combination of flurry, focused aim, stunning strike, and subclass abilities just to use up all their ki. Flurry of blows is just the stable, given, and expected to be the lowest value use for ki. Focused aim lights up as directly better on 1 in 10 attack rolls if you don't have advantage, for example.

[KorvinStarmast]

In light of the above, treantmonk's changes go too far. As with anything treantmonk publishes about monks, it reflects a lack of understanding of the class, and I'll bet a couple of bucks in Vegas that he's never played one. (Maybe a one shot?)

[Hael]

Here's a thought experiment: What if I actually look at how some characters improve their ability to deal damage as they level. Look at level 5, level 11, and level 17. Target AC remains 15 thoughout. Number of rounds per day remains 20 throughout. Number of encounters remains 6 throughout. Just assume they're fighting more enemies per encounter. Going to look at Fighter, Rogue, and Monk, so not aoe damage.


So what your chart shows is that monks do ok DPR in featless games. The problem is that power attacks, feats that give advantage and the extra bonus attacks are major martial force multipliers. So much so that it can lead to doubling and tripling of total damage at certain lvls. Consider that in featless games fighters are damage capped at lvl 6, which means that each additional class feature (the extra asis) is basically doing nothing for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Consider that in featless games fighters are damage capped at lvl 6 Uh, no. They get third attack at 11 and (if they get that far) fourth attack at 20 (Which IMO ought to come at level 17, but that's a separate topic). And not every fighter is going to, in a featless game, max STR to 20 at level 6. Some may boost a score like Wisdom or Constitution for either improved saves or improved HP and saves ...

[Hael]

I mean damage capped from feats.. In other words each additional ASI they get (which is like a class feature in opportunity cost) is worth zero to them for the purpose of damage.

(edit: The point here is that in featless games, there is a sort of damage cutoff that is imposed which prevents to much class separation. SAD vs MAD isn't that big of a deal). Whereas a martial optimized for damage in a game with feats can continue to take multiple big force multipliers all the way through. So elven accuracy, power attack, a third attack from the BA, an advantage feat (mounted combat, alert, devil sight), a crusher/piercer attack, savage attack, sentinel etc etc
Incidentally, one big optimization you could do for the monk, is to simply allow them to take dex over 20.. So make the cap 24 for them. That would allow them to not fall too far behind in tier 3) )

[Kane0]

I mean damage capped from feats.. In other words each additional ASI they get (which is like a class feature in opportunity cost) is worth zero to them for the purpose of damage.

(edit: The point here is that in featless games, there is a sort of damage cutoff that is imposed which prevents to much class separation. SAD vs MAD isn't that big of a deal). Whereas a martial optimized for damage in a game with feats can continue to take multiple big force multipliers all the way through. So elven accuracy, power attack, a third attack from the BA, an advantage feat (mounted combat, alert, devil sight), a crusher/piercer attack, savage attack, sentinel etc etc
Incidentally, one big optimization you could do for the monk, is to simply allow them to take dex over 20.. So make the cap 24 for them. That would allow them to not fall too far behind in tier 3) )

PAM, GWM, Piercer/Crusher/Slasher, Martial Adept, Savage Attacker, fighting initiate
Elven Accuracy, CBE, Sharpshooter, Piercer, Martial Adept, fighting initiate
Am i missing anything?

You could give monk a decent damage feat is what you could do. Right now Mobile is just about their best choice for feats, maybe defensive duelist? Getting a fighting style is about the best damage increase theyre looking at from feats.

[SharkForce]

At this point, its not even worth arguing with you. It's been shown that

Monk Low-op damage is comparable in T1 and T2 to all other martials
Monk Low-op damage is comparable in T3 to all other martials except GWF martials
Monk High-op damage is comparable through T3 to all other martials (so long as they expend small amounts of limited amounts of resources they should at this point have plenty of.)
Monks also have useful traits that aren't reflected in simple DPR calculations, such as (1) being more consistent than other melee characters because of fast movement (2) being more resilient to saving throw-based threats in general (3) yes, also stunning strike
Though monks have lower defenses than fighters at low level, this only amounts to 1-2 AC and 1-2 HP per level and at high level their defenses aren't bad at all.

Disagreeing within any of the above requires ridiculous argument like "oh but I'd never see a highly optimized monk at my table" or "monk is bad in practice because DMs are ***** about giving short rests and magic items they can use." These arguments, though possibly true, are still not really a criticism of the monk as a class.

I do think the monk has some wonky things about it. I would support them having a little higher damage and flexibility overall but that's about it. Some subclasses could probably be reworked as well, particularly the level 11 abilities, but these sorts of minor problems are very common in other classes.

In light of the above, treantmonk's changes go too far.

I actually don't have a major problem with monk DPR in featless games at low levels. now, that's a pretty narrow situation... I don't know any people who play in featless games, and like it or not feats boost other damage-dealers but not really monks.

{Scrubbed}

now then, looking at the data... I would say that it has been shown that if a monk spends every last shred of their ki on damage at low levels they are about even, they are approximately even at levels 11 and 17 (a comparison at 20 would show the fighter pulling ahead and the rogue would pull ahead further, presumably)... however that only happens at level 11 if they spend almost 2/3 of their ki on it, and at level 17 they're still spending about 40% of their ki on it. this frankly doesn't leave that much for other things until very high levels, and also I would point out that most of what makes a monk a monk costs ki. this is a monk going as far into damage-dealing as they are capable of by spending their generalized "be a monk" resource primarily on one thing that other characters in similar roles don't need to spend resources for at all, while those other characters are getting additional resources for doing their other things (such as they are) without taking away from their primary ability pool. that is: a rogue doesn't have to give up on sneak attack to be allowed to use other rogue abilities, whether they come from class or subclass; that thief isn't crossing off the ability to sneak attack when they dash, disengage or hide as a bonus action, or when they get their extra turn. those things come extra, without forcing you to pay from your basic class pool of resources.

meanwhile, as I've already pointed out, a proper resource-based class has much higher peaks in exchange for a somewhat lower valley.

@unoriginal: high defence. low offensive burst. that makes them low priority. contrast to, say, a wizard or druid; probably concentrating on a spell which means that there is an inherent reward for attacking them. that spell is probably higher impact than whatever the monk is doing, outside of scenarios where the monk has been gift-wrapped a single high value vulnerable target in the back lines (and maybe not even then). meanwhile, their ability to deal with being under pressure is generally significantly lower than a monk. they probably have less HP and armour class, and at high levels will generally have worse saving throws. this is why it is a high value option to find a way to put armour and defensive abilities on a wizard, and why so many optimizers like dipping cleric for heavy armour and shield proficiency, for example, as combined with the shield spell it makes them much tougher, which is quite valuable on a high priority target.

[Hael]

PAM, GWM, Piercer/Crusher/Slasher, Martial Adept, Savage Attacker, fighting initiate
Elven Accuracy, CBE, Sharpshooter, Piercer, Martial Adept, fighting initiate
Am i missing anything?

You could give monk a decent damage feat is what you could do.

I think there might be a few others. Mounted combatant, Alert (for advantage.. eg shadow monks use alert very well), the eldritch feat has a few options as well. The magic initiate feat can be used to give yourself hex for an hour a day. Aberrant dragonmarks... Poisoner. . Likely others i'm not thinking of.

IMO the best damage feat in the game for monks is the mobile feat. Precisely b/c it enables them to actually use their damage, as it significantly reduces the amount of dead turns they get (b/c its hard to dive backlines in confined spaces, or where the enemy is in a tight perimeter), at least for non ranged builds..

But yes, I completely agree that giving monks good damage feats (and magic weapons) would go a long way to fixing some of the problems. I do think they would still need better T3-T4 damage scaling for their martial arts die, but well i'm not about to let perfect be the enemy of progress.

[Dork_Forge]

PAM, GWM, Piercer/Crusher/Slasher, Martial Adept, Savage Attacker, fighting initiate
Elven Accuracy, CBE, Sharpshooter, Piercer, Martial Adept, fighting initiate
Am i missing anything?

Worth noting that a Monk can make use of most of those feats, they're arguably the best users of Crusher in the entire game, due to the sheer number of unarmed strikes they make.

Grabbing Trip Attack from a feat would give a potentially large nova round, assuming they hit with one of their main attacks early on.

A Shadow Monk with Blind Fighting speaks for itself, a Half Drow makes a lot of sense for that anyway, so bring on easily triggered EA.

I believe the Kensei Sharpshooter has already been mentioned (could likely be built to incorporate Piercer too for phat crits).

I'm not sure why people think Monks have poor feat support, just because they can't really use GWM. Whether or not you want to take a feat on your Monk is another question, but one faced by everyone bar the Fighter.

[strangebloke]

PAM, GWM, Piercer/Crusher/Slasher, Martial Adept, Savage Attacker, fighting initiate
Elven Accuracy, CBE, Sharpshooter, Piercer, Martial Adept, fighting initiate
Am i missing anything?

You could give monk a decent damage feat is what you could do. Right now Mobile is just about their best choice for feats, maybe defensive duelist? Getting a fighting style is about the best damage increase theyre looking at from feats.

Elven accuracy too. But the larger problem here is that they don't get any extra feats so such builds are confined to vhumans or come at a high opportunity cost.

Just another reason I run with generous stat outlays and a free feat at first level. :smallwink:

[Dork_Forge]

I actually don't have a major problem with monk DPR in featless games at low levels. now, that's a pretty narrow situation... I don't know any people who play in featless games, and like it or not feats boost other damage-dealers but not really monks.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

now then, looking at the data... I would say that it has been shown that if a monk spends every last shred of their ki on damage at low levels they are about even, they are approximately even at levels 11 and 17 (a comparison at 20 would show the fighter pulling ahead and the rogue would pull ahead further, presumably)... however that only happens at level 11 if they spend almost 2/3 of their ki on it, and at level 17 they're still spending about 40% of their ki on it. this frankly doesn't leave that much for other things until very high levels, and also I would point out that most of what makes a monk a monk costs ki. this is a monk going as far into damage-dealing as they are capable of by spending their generalized "be a monk" resource primarily on one thing that other characters in similar roles don't need to spend resources for at all, while those other characters are getting additional resources for doing their other things (such as they are) without taking away from their primary ability pool. that is: a rogue doesn't have to give up on sneak attack to be allowed to use other rogue abilities, whether they come from class or subclass; that thief isn't crossing off the ability to sneak attack when they dash, disengage or hide as a bonus action, or when they get their extra turn. those things come extra, without forcing you to pay from your basic class pool of resources.

meanwhile, as I've already pointed out, a proper resource-based class has much higher peaks in exchange for a somewhat lower valley.

@unoriginal: high defence. low offensive burst. that makes them low priority. contrast to, say, a wizard or druid; probably concentrating on a spell which means that there is an inherent reward for attacking them. that spell is probably higher impact than whatever the monk is doing, outside of scenarios where the monk has been gift-wrapped a single high value vulnerable target in the back lines (and maybe not even then). meanwhile, their ability to deal with being under pressure is generally significantly lower than a monk. they probably have less HP and armour class, and at high levels will generally have worse saving throws. this is why it is a high value option to find a way to put armour and defensive abilities on a wizard, and why so many optimizers like dipping cleric for heavy armour and shield proficiency, for example, as combined with the shield spell it makes them much tougher, which is quite valuable on a high priority target.

I really don't understand your complaint about them having to spend Ki (which at most tables to be blunt they'd do fine never using Ki), they have a lot of it and are encouraged to use it.

Roughly half of the subclasses enhance Flurry of Blows in some way, incentivising you to use it and giving you more bang for your buck.

If Monks aren't spending a chunk, if not most of their Ki on combat contributions, I'd really have to ask why they aren't. Let's be real, the game focuses more on combat than other pillars, using most of your resources to solve the problem of combat is probably proportionate to how much of the game is combat on average. And with so much Ki with a short rest recharge there's no reason to not blow it.

I think it was yourself that made the spell slot comparison, which is a bit off to say the least. The value of one Ki varies a lot, but tends to always be valuable, and increasing in value as levels increase. Where as spell slots typically become increasingly devalued as difficulty increases and the spells they power age out. You can't make a straight Ki-slot comparison, it just doesn't make much sense.

Comparing Ki to something like Superiority Dice is far more oranges to oranges, and generally the Monk comes off miles ahead there.

[Kane0]

Reaping Mauler
- You can add both your STR and DEX modifiers to your unarmed strike damage rolls
- When you would be able to make an opportunity attack you can instead choose to attempt a grapple on the target
- When you reduce a creature to 0 HP with an unarmed attack, you gain advantage on the next unarmed attack or shove attempt you make before the end of your next turn

Just a thought, spent about 2 minutes on it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Worth noting that a Monk can make use of most of those feats, they're arguably the best users of Crusher in the entire game, due to the sheer number of unarmed strikes they make. A lot of nice points, but Crusher and Blind Fighting didn't show up until Tasha's, so there may be a lag in socializing your valid points. :smallsmile:

Comparing Ki to something like Superiority Dice is far more oranges to oranges, and generally the Monk comes off miles ahead there. I still feel that BM ought to be able to use any maneuver, but can only 'prepare' X amount based on level, like a cleric prepares spells ...
personal opinion. (My mental image is 'they are getting their game face on' or something like that).

[Dork_Forge]

A lot of nice points, but Crusher and Blind Fighting didn't show up until Tasha's, so there may be a lag in socializing your valid points. :smallsmile:
I still feel that BM ought to be able to use any maneuver, but can only 'prepare' X amount based on level, like a cleric prepares spells ...
personal opinion. (My mental image is 'they are getting their game face on' or something like that).

Very good point, it takes a while for the current star of the game to soak in.

Hmm the BM thing is interesting, not my cup of tea personally as I prefer the more trained muscle memory aesthetic, but it does sound nice in my mind for how Arcane Archer shot options should work...

[Unoriginal]

I wish Crusher could apply to more than one attack per turn.

[Dork_Forge]

I wish Crusher could apply to more than one attack per turn.

It would be nice, the Crit condition is a nice benefit for a class that makes a lot of attacks though.

[SharkForce]

I really don't understand your complaint about them having to spend Ki (which at most tables to be blunt they'd do fine never using Ki), they have a lot of it and are encouraged to use it.

Roughly half of the subclasses enhance Flurry of Blows in some way, incentivising you to use it and giving you more bang for your buck.

If Monks aren't spending a chunk, if not most of their Ki on combat contributions, I'd really have to ask why they aren't. Let's be real, the game focuses more on combat than other pillars, using most of your resources to solve the problem of combat is probably proportionate to how much of the game is combat on average. And with so much Ki with a short rest recharge there's no reason to not blow it.

I think it was yourself that made the spell slot comparison, which is a bit off to say the least. The value of one Ki varies a lot, but tends to always be valuable, and increasing in value as levels increase. Where as spell slots typically become increasingly devalued as difficulty increases and the spells they power age out. You can't make a straight Ki-slot comparison, it just doesn't make much sense.

Comparing Ki to something like Superiority Dice is far more oranges to oranges, and generally the Monk comes off miles ahead there.

- half a dozen or more ways to spend ki, and the monk is expected to throw most of it into keeping up with their basic function in combat is my problem. that goes away slightly at the highest levels, but even then nearly half of their ki has to go into flurry just so that they can deal damage in the same neighbourhood as other damage-dealers, and because it also eats their bonus action it also locks out several of their other abilities.

- dunno what you're on about with spells. the value of spells don't decrease, it's just that you have enough of your higher level resources to not need to dip into the low level stuff so much. or in other words, the reason primary spellcasters don't rely on their low level spell slots has little to do with the spells not being good any more and lots to do with the fact that they have so many resources at high level that they don't need to resort to using bless or entangle or tasha's hideous laughter any more.

unless we're talking about sleep, I guess. that one legitimately becomes less valuable as levels increase.

[Reach Weapon]

In light of the above, treantmonk's changes go too far.
I think all that is more indicating the underlying premises may not be well founded, not that the resulting build is overtuned; that would likely involve running numbers on against his proposal.

Of course, as long as I am expounding on distinctions, while tuning is more supported by numbers, it is not synonymous with necessary, good or proper.

[Dork_Forge]

- half a dozen or more ways to spend ki, and the monk is expected to throw most of it into keeping up with their basic function in combat is my problem. that goes away slightly at the highest levels, but even then nearly half of their ki has to go into flurry just so that they can deal damage in the same neighbourhood as other damage-dealers, and because it also eats their bonus action it also locks out several of their other abilities.

Keeping up... in your opinion... In practice I don't think it's necessary at all.

Locks out which abilities though?

Step of the Wind? It's nice to have but you're not doing it regularly.

Patient Defense? This seems a very clear choice, are you tanking? Are you for some reason stuck in range?

Bonus action clog is real, but it's not like they're universally applicable and again, a lot of subclasses have added incentive to use Flurry over another option.




- dunno what you're on about with spells. the value of spells don't decrease, it's just that you have enough of your higher level resources to not need to dip into the low level stuff so much. or in other words, the reason primary spellcasters don't rely on their low level spell slots has little to do with the spells not being good any more and lots to do with the fact that they have so many resources at high level that they don't need to resort to using bless or entangle or tasha's hideous laughter any more.

unless we're talking about sleep, I guess. that one legitimately becomes less valuable as levels increase.

What? So you're arguing 1st level damage spells age well (besides MM)? Or did you happen to choose control spells to avoid that?

Is it bad if a spellcaster has to spend their slots to keep up with damage?

If your answer is going to be about spellcasters doing things other than damage, then maybe apply that same statement to the Monk.

[SharkForce]

Keeping up... in your opinion... In practice I don't think it's necessary at all.

Locks out which abilities though?

Step of the Wind? It's nice to have but you're not doing it regularly.

Patient Defense? This seems a very clear choice, are you tanking? Are you for some reason stuck in range?

Bonus action clog is real, but it's not like they're universally applicable and again, a lot of subclasses have added incentive to use Flurry over another option.





What? So you're arguing 1st level damage spells age well (besides MM)? Or did you happen to choose control spells to avoid that?

Is it bad if a spellcaster has to spend their slots to keep up with damage?

If your answer is going to be about spellcasters doing things other than damage, then maybe apply that same statement to the Monk.

- those are some good examples of where the monk has to make sacrifices where other classes don't.

- 1st level spell slots are used for a lot of things. if some of those things are still valuable at high level, so are the spell slots.

and the key difference between spellcasters and monks is that when spellcasters decide to go big on resource spending, the impact is far above what other classes achieve without resources. even a fireball can pull that off potentially (in a big fight against a group, 8d6 damage to an area, save for half can very easily be measurably several times better than a full attack), but it is far from the only option. if the monk was causing up to 12 people to leave the fight entirely by spending a bunch of ki at level 6 (and possibly causing a chain reaction where even those who don't make their save decide to leave), I wouldn't be calling for change. instead, when they go all out on spending ki, they tend to neutralize one target for one round. that's nice, but it still means they spend a lot more of their resources and get a lot less out of it while being at a much higher risk. of course, I have to say I'm confused why I have to say this *again* since it's hardly the first time I've pointed it out.

[Rynjin]

Part of the issue, at least for me playing a Monk, is that while the Monk does technically provide something to the party other than damage (Stunning Fist)...it's not a particularly interesting role, and doesn't give you anything really in terms of moment to moment decision making.

Of the Monk types I've played, Open Hand is probably the most interesting in terms of getting to do cool stuff round to round but unfortunately suffers from being, like everything else, locked to ki expenditure, and every other one of its class features being kind of trash (especially Tranquility).

Maybe if they got to just do those maneuvers as a Bonus Action (since none are really that impactful on their own) it'd be a different story.

I hear Shadow Monk makes a really good scout, but TBH I don't value scouting that much when done manually. Mostly because every time, in any Edition, someone has gone out on their own to scout ahead they've died (or come close). Our group just shorthands being killed while separated from the rest of the group as "The Rogue's Fate/Curse".

[Frogreaver]

- those are some good examples of where the monk has to make sacrifices where other classes don't.

- 1st level spell slots are used for a lot of things. if some of those things are still valuable at high level, so are the spell slots.

and the key difference between spellcasters and monks is that when spellcasters decide to go big on resource spending, the impact is far above what other classes achieve without resources. even a fireball can pull that off potentially (in a big fight against a group, 8d6 damage to an area, save for half can very easily be measurably several times better than a full attack), but it is far from the only option. if the monk was causing up to 12 people to leave the fight entirely by spending a bunch of ki at level 6 (and possibly causing a chain reaction where even those who don't make their save decide to leave), I wouldn't be calling for change. instead, when they go all out on spending ki, they tend to neutralize one target for one round. that's nice, but it still means they spend a lot more of their resources and get a lot less out of it while being at a much higher risk. of course, I have to say I'm confused why I have to say this *again* since it's hardly the first time I've pointed it out.

I've got to ask, why do you keep going back to comparing monks to full casters instead of their martial counterparts?

[Rynjin]

I'd imagine the best comparison points for Monk are Battle Master Fighter for Open Hand, Rogue for Shadow, and Bladelock(?) for Four Elements and Sun Soul?

Not sure what the schtick is for archetypes like Long Death, or anything post-SCAG I haven't looked in depth at them.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Of the Monk types I've played, Open Hand is probably the most interesting in terms of getting to do cool stuff round to round but unfortunately suffers from being, like everything else, locked to ki expenditure, and every other one of its class features being kind of trash (especially Tranquility).

The free Sanctuary spell from Tranquility helps your scouting, and makes you a good messenger...especially when you have to deliver bad news.🃏
Martial Arts
Unarmored Movement
Slow Fall
Extra Attack
Deflect Missiles (no throwing back)
Evasion
Stillness of Mind
Purity of Body
(This takes us up to 11th level)

None of these features require Ki point expenditure, (except throwing the caught weapon from Deflect Missiles).

A High level monk is immune to Poison and Disease, has Evasion, is proficient in all Saving Throws and can reroll a failed save with a Ki point expenditure.

I've DM'd for two monks so far...the still active Open Hand Monk at 13th level and a 17th level Dwarven Long Death Monk.....the LD Monk was a tough customer....but honestly immunity to one of the most common damage type, (Poison), plus Evasion has meant the Open Hand Monk isn't too far behind in terms of reducing Damage.

Where is this Ki point deficit coming from?

[Rynjin]

From Flurry, which is needed to both deal damage and use any of your Open Hand maneuvers. And Stunning Fist, of course.

Tranquility is garbage because it shuts off after the first combat of the day.

Edit: I should also clarify that this is on top of how niche Sanctuary is as a spell in the first place.

Maybe if Open Hand had ways to deal with threats (besides running away) that didn't break the Sanctuary effect, but they do not.

[Dork_Forge]

- those are some good examples of where the monk has to make sacrifices where other classes don't.

This is an empty statement without back up, what are you even referencing here?

Step of the Wind: The clearest thing to reference would be Uncanny Dodge, which wouldn't be a straight comparison because 1)it's a significantly larger part of a Rogue's kit than SotW is the Monk's and 2) a Rogue will have to dash more often than a Monk, because of unarmored movement. Expeditious Retreat maybe since you referenced classes plural, which is a spell that costs a resource and locks you out of other leveled spells for a turn to achieve being slightly faster than the Monk is normally?

Patient Defense: I can't think of any other feature or spell in the game that allows dodging as a bonus action, so... yeah

Are you instead trying to say that other classes don't need to make that choice in general? I mean every class has choices it has to make... Bard's have to choose between inspiring people or using their subclass features, as do the recent bout of Druids. Is it about choosing to hit something or use a more situational ability?

That one's simple, most classes don't even give you repeatable options for your bonus, and a lot of the ones that do come from subclass minionmancy nowadays.


- 1st level spell slots are used for a lot of things. if some of those things are still valuable at high level, so are the spell slots.

You just completely side stepped a huge swath of spells aging out of usefulness. A problem that is particularly prevalent for known casters that swap their spells out slowly and basically dead spellbook space for a Wizard.


and the key difference between spellcasters and monks is that when spellcasters decide to go big on resource spending, the impact is far above what other classes achieve without resources. even a fireball can pull that off potentially (in a big fight against a group, 8d6 damage to an area, save for half can very easily be measurably several times better than a full attack), but it is far from the only option. if the monk was causing up to 12 people to leave the fight entirely by spending a bunch of ki at level 6 (and possibly causing a chain reaction where even those who don't make their save decide to leave), I wouldn't be calling for change. instead, when they go all out on spending ki, they tend to neutralize one target for one round. that's nice, but it still means they spend a lot more of their resources and get a lot less out of it while being at a much higher risk. of course, I have to say I'm confused why I have to say this *again* since it's hardly the first time I've pointed it out.

Your hypothetical Fireball is catching 12 enemies and no allies? Really? That's so far out of DMG guidance and I'd wager actual table experience for the majority of Fireball users that I have to question why you're even using such a ridiculously large number.

Here are some observations about that last little chunk of argument:

-As already mentioned the example is hyperpole per excellance

-Your example is AOE, something all martials struggle with to varying degrees because it's generally a niche held for casters. That said a Sun Soul Monk at 6th level can do an normal Extra Attack and throw a bonus action Burning Hands out, and a 4E Monk has a few AOE options by this time. As powerful as Fireball? Not at 6th level, but the Monk has two options for that at a level anyone other than a fullcaster can reasonably get such a thing. Monks can't have something like this earlier, their short rest nature means that they'd be able to spam it multiple times across a day. Something most fullcasters wouldn't be able to do as well with a long rest resource.

-You're assuming that one target is stunned, any Monk can attack four enemies in a turn where Ki is available and enemies are in range. You can stun 1-4 targets, you're just assuming single target for some reason.

So you want more impactful things that a Monk at 6th level, for some reason, can do, sure! Keep in mind that Monks can now make a weapon attack as a bonus if they spend Ki as part of their action.

- Silence and Darkness, both potentially potent debuffs

- Hold person and any variety of the several AOE options a 4E Monk has by that point.

- Facetank (Open Hand action heal + Patient Defense)

- Annoy several enemies at once (Drunken Monk running around punching face without provoking OAs with an average speed of 55ft)

- Fear everything within 30ft, at will no ki cost.

- Output normal Flurry damage damage whilst still healing an ally, and poisoning a monster


From Flurry, which is needed to both deal damage and use any of your Open Hand maneuvers. And Stunning Fist, of course.

Tranquility is garbage because it shuts off after the first combat of the day.

Edit: I should also clarify that this is on top of how niche Sanctuary is as a spell in the first place.

Maybe if Open Hand had ways to deal with threats (besides running away) that didn't break the Sanctuary effect, but they do not.

If you were constantly low or out of Ki then were you just not getting short rests? Or were you flurrying every round and trying to stun everything that moved?

What was the encounter trend in terms of difficulty and frequency?

You didn't appreciate being to take care of your own HP to some degree?

[Rynjin]

I played an Open Hand Monk from levels 1 to 8 until they died, in the adventure path (or whatever 5e calls them) Out of the Abyss.

My other party members were an Archer Rogue, a Bard, and a...Cleric I believe? Maybe Druid, because it's what she'd played in the previous campaign and she may have wanted the same character for the new one. It's been a while.

I was the only frontliner.

The maximum amount of Ki I had available at any one time was 8, right before I died. I was essentially expected to be the primary damage role and tank.

This means Flurry was a necessity in most combats.

In the first few levels this was fine. Getting 3 attacks when everyone else was getting 1 is great, and tended to end combats quickly.

As the game went on, it became less impressive. Particularly as, has been mentioned, not every class has a particular use for Short Rests, save to heal. Since I was getting the **** kicked out of me every combat, being the only person in easy attack range, I did end up getting plenty of Short Rests, but at some point something's gotta give. I died, re-rolled as a Quaggoth Barbarian (taking over an NPC from the AP, Prince Derendil) and eventually kinda got sick of 5e as a whole for a good while and dropped out.

Encounter difficulty ranged from "trivial" to "ball busting" and several that should probably have been easier trended towards the latter because the Rogue was a useless POS most of the time. By choice, in most cases "for roleplay".

Later, I played a Sun Soul Monk under a different DM from levels...5 to 9 or so? Seemed fine. Still very ki intensive but at least it felt like every use of Ki had OOMPH for the most part. And it had a free, reliable ranged attack option.

[Zalabim]

So what your chart shows is that monks do ok DPR in featless games. The problem is that power attacks, feats that give advantage and the extra bonus attacks are major martial force multipliers. So much so that it can lead to doubling and tripling of total damage at certain lvls. Consider that in featless games fighters are damage capped at lvl 6, which means that each additional class feature (the extra asis) is basically doing nothing for them.
What the chart hides is that some of that damage is caused by other people taking advantage of the stun condition. The most a monk can deal without subclass abilities by hitting every attack and making a reaction attack, as from Deflect Missiles, is 52.5 damage.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You're on page 7.

I don't flat out disagree with all of the proposed changes, but taken as a list, it is absolutely overtuned, particularly in the damage department.

Here's something I've considered in the past. A shadow monk can scout really well, and if I look at level 20, granting advantage for their attacks between empty body and stunning strikes and good preparation, and use opportunist (or deflect missiles) each turn, they deal 48.75 DPR against AC 19. If a thief rogue just hides and shoots their light crossbow every turn, they deal 42.9 DPR against AC 19, but I can adjust that to 5/4 in a 4 round combat due to their extra turn, so 53.625 DPR. That's without ever using stroke of luck. A lot of things could make up that difference. Magic weapons. Stunning strikes. Better subclass abilities? But that's being very simplistic, and very generous, to the monk. Within that context though, the monk making 5 attacks with advantage, that difference is exactly the difference between using a d10 and a d12 for martial arts. Hence my low-end of "could deal 5 more raw damage" I usually translate as scaling up to using a d12 martial arts die. That's totally on the safe end. Then I say up to 15 because that's about how much more damage a monk not making 5 attacks would need to add to match the difference. Finally, a warlock casting eldritch blast with hex and foresight for advantage does 52.65 DPR.

Having already thought that through myself, I see with 3d6 martial arts that shadow monk would deal 73.125 DPR. The assumptions that make a reasonable DPR with 3d6 martial arts is that the monk never has advantage at all, then that'd be 53 DPR. I know which one of those assumptions leads to "better undertuned than overtuned."

On the other end, if monk damage is fine at level 1 then don't boost monk's damage at level 1? How hard is that?


If the assumptions used are always either 100% or 0% stunning strike and/or flurry, then there isn't going to appear to be any scaling because the frequency of stunning and flurrying is part of their scaling.
This was a long post.


Create a quick monster says ~228 HP and AC 17. Now consider the Roc. That's CR 11, 248 HP, AC 15. With a party of fighter (greatsword FS 3 attacks), rogue (Light crossbow 6d6 sneak attack), cleric (sacred flame +5 wisdom), wizard (firebolt not evoker). If everyone just hits and never has a problem with the creature's 120' flight and Grab+restrain-on-hit talons, they deal 40+30.5+18.5+16.5=105.5 damage. That's 37 damage shy of ending the combat in potentially 2 rounds.

Looking at average damage, it's 31.25+31.08+11.1+13.2=86.63. Ends in 3 rounds, on average, barring an extra 75 average damage.


As I did do the math myself, I can add that a monk against a roc does 29.4 DPR with flurry and can try to stun even though there's only a 25% chance the roc fails its save. If it does work, the monk's next 6 or 7 attacks get advantage, the fighter and wizard get advantage, the cleric lands sacred flame automatically, and the rogue doesn't care because they already had their own advantage. The monk averages 1.995 more damage with each attack, the fighter's turn 8.6875, the wizard's turn 3.8775, and the cleric's turn 7.4. Figure between 32-33 extra average damage if the stun works, working 25% of the time, so about 8 more damage for the whole party. Giving only the monk's personal damage, and only 25% the time, still sees a personal average DPR around 32.5, for a very affordable use of Ki. A roc isn't the worst enemy for stunning strike, but it is a bad one.

Level 11 is fine, without even counting the later subclasses that get free bonus damage at that level.
You replied to the second one. To be clear here, conservative use of SS, against a Con-monster with lower AC like the Roc, takes the monk-only DPR from 29.4 to 32.5, but overall, the stunning strike is worth ~8 damage even counting it fails 75% of the time, and the flurry is worth 7.35 damage.

I think all that is more indicating the underlying premises may not be well founded, not that the resulting build is overtuned; that would likely involve running numbers on against his proposal.

Of course, as long as I am expounding on distinctions, while tuning is more supported by numbers, it is not synonymous with necessary, good or proper.

If I understand the question here:
Treant'sMonk. Assuming free stunning strikes have no less value than Ki.

5 - +7 to hit, 1d8+4, 17.25 average. Plus 5.75*18/20 equals 22.425 DPR.
11 - +9 to hit, 2d6+5, 28.05 average. Plus 9.35*37/20 equals 45.3475 DPR.
17 - +11 to hit, 3d6+5, 41.1 average. Plus 13.7*57/20 equals 80.145 DPR.

And this modified monk will go up in damage again at level 20.

[SharkForce]

I've got to ask, why do you keep going back to comparing monks to full casters instead of their martial counterparts?

you mean apart from all the people who've been saying that monks are a resource-based class and it's not reasonable that they should be compared to fighters and rogues in damage?

simply put: I am putting forward two separate sets of points against two separate sets of arguments. when I compare to spellcasters, it is because I am simply making it plain that monks are not a good resource-using class either. I am not using those points to address their damage problems at all.


This is an empty statement without back up, what are you even referencing here?

Step of the Wind: The clearest thing to reference would be Uncanny Dodge, which wouldn't be a straight comparison because 1)it's a significantly larger part of a Rogue's kit than SotW is the Monk's and 2) a Rogue will have to dash more often than a Monk, because of unarmored movement. Expeditious Retreat maybe since you referenced classes plural, which is a spell that costs a resource and locks you out of other leveled spells for a turn to achieve being slightly faster than the Monk is normally?

Patient Defense: I can't think of any other feature or spell in the game that allows dodging as a bonus action, so... yeah

Are you instead trying to say that other classes don't need to make that choice in general? I mean every class has choices it has to make... Bard's have to choose between inspiring people or using their subclass features, as do the recent bout of Druids. Is it about choosing to hit something or use a more situational ability?

That one's simple, most classes don't even give you repeatable options for your bonus, and a lot of the ones that do come from subclass minionmancy nowadays.



You just completely side stepped a huge swath of spells aging out of usefulness. A problem that is particularly prevalent for known casters that swap their spells out slowly and basically dead spellbook space for a Wizard.



Your hypothetical Fireball is catching 12 enemies and no allies? Really? That's so far out of DMG guidance and I'd wager actual table experience for the majority of Fireball users that I have to question why you're even using such a ridiculously large number.

Here are some observations about that last little chunk of argument:

-As already mentioned the example is hyperpole per excellance

-Your example is AOE, something all martials struggle with to varying degrees because it's generally a niche held for casters. That said a Sun Soul Monk at 6th level can do an normal Extra Attack and throw a bonus action Burning Hands out, and a 4E Monk has a few AOE options by this time. As powerful as Fireball? Not at 6th level, but the Monk has two options for that at a level anyone other than a fullcaster can reasonably get such a thing. Monks can't have something like this earlier, their short rest nature means that they'd be able to spam it multiple times across a day. Something most fullcasters wouldn't be able to do as well with a long rest resource.

-You're assuming that one target is stunned, any Monk can attack four enemies in a turn where Ki is available and enemies are in range. You can stun 1-4 targets, you're just assuming single target for some reason.

So you want more impactful things that a Monk at 6th level, for some reason, can do, sure! Keep in mind that Monks can now make a weapon attack as a bonus if they spend Ki as part of their action.

- Silence and Darkness, both potentially potent debuffs

- Hold person and any variety of the several AOE options a 4E Monk has by that point.

- Facetank (Open Hand action heal + Patient Defense)

- Annoy several enemies at once (Drunken Monk running around punching face without provoking OAs with an average speed of 55ft)

- Fear everything within 30ft, at will no ki cost.

- Output normal Flurry damage damage whilst still healing an ally, and poisoning a monster



If you were constantly low or out of Ki then were you just not getting short rests? Or were you flurrying every round and trying to stun everything that moved?

What was the encounter trend in terms of difficulty and frequency?

You didn't appreciate being to take care of your own HP to some degree?

- uncanny dodge doesn't interfere with a rogue's baseline damage at all. it's a reaction. with that said, it sounds like you *meant* to say cunning action, and I'll continue on that front. simply put, most of the rogue's damage comes from sneak attack dice. they can achieve pretty near full damage with either a ranged or melee attack, no problem. the rogue is perfectly capable of simply shooting an enemy that is out of range for a melee attack, with no need to rely on cunning action (although they certainly do have it available). unarmored movement is not necessary; just shoot the enemy (unless hiding is impossible and there are no allies nearby, but then, the monk should also not be charging ahead of the rest of the party to fight solo either, whether they have faster movement or not).

- other classes don't have to make choices on anywhere near the same level. bardic inspiration is a small fraction of what a bard does. it's a very *nice* small fraction, but it gets heaped on top of a full serving of spellcasting, which as I've already pointed out gives them vastly more resources than monk gets in the vast majority of plausible scenarios.

- most of those level 1 damage spells were *always* pretty useless on a wizard anyways. you probably want one of either burning hands or thunderwave (depending on whether you wanted the knockback or the damage more). with that said, seeing as a wizard can potentially get all the spells anyways, no big deal. clerics and druids don't have to give up anything to know all of their level 1 spells. bards, warlocks and sorcerers can change them out as if they never knew them. not really seeing the problem with level 1 damage spells "aging out". the only class where that has *any* impact whatsoever is a class that has unlimited capacity for learning spells.

- no, the hypothetical actual level 11 ability, mass suggestion, is potentially hitting 12 enemies and no allies. if you're fighting things that run away when you fireball them at level 11, it probably wasn't much of a fight to begin with, but I suppose that is also possible. not a bad use of a level 3 spell slot, really. this isn't about area effect, it's about the supposed superiority that monks enjoy in crowd control because of stunning blow. it isn't terrible, but compared to a class that *actually* gets *real* crowd control it very quickly falls behind.

- oh hey look, even more ways the monk can spend ki even faster and not be able to function! well, that's definitely what monks need and certainly isn't a slap in the face compared to eldritch knight and arcane trickster, both of which give access to more spells and ADD the resources to use them instead of expecting you to give up being a monk so that you can have a subclass. but hey, why don't we just add on top of that the option to not only spend your ki to accomplish anything and everything you want to do, how about we also call for them to drop their damage down so low that it's close to no-subclass-wizard levels?

I mean, really? you think self-healing and dodging is going to face-tank anything? maybe if you're fighting something that is literally as dumb as rocks (like unattended golems), but against any remotely intelligent foe, they'll just ignore your monk. I mean, if you're just healing yourself and dodging, that's pretty much as clear a statement of "I can be safely ignored" that you could make. or, you can fear everything within 30 feet. except that by everything, I mean everything, like your allies. I bet that couldn't go terribly wrong! or dealing a single attack worth of damage to multiple enemies, oh boy that sounds amazing, almost like a fireball except with one quarter of the damage and instead of save for half it's just a straight up miss. wow, so useful! and you only had to go through every single subclass of monk to find a handful of useful options!

but at least with mercy monk, we finally did actually get to a point where there's a monk subclass that isn't built like crap, where you don't have to blow through all your ki just to activate your subclass abilities while ignoring your class abilities because you can no longer afford to use them. it took them 7 years, but indeed, they finally did manage to do a pretty decent job of it for once. mercy monk actually manages to do decent damage and have a subclass that legitimately adds to the things you already do as a monk without expecting you to spend all your ki on the subclass. so I'll give you that. mercy monk is not bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

Encounter difficulty ranged from "trivial" to "ball busting" and several that should probably have been easier trended towards the latter because the Rogue was a useless POS most of the time. By choice, in most cases "for roleplay". *Facepalm* Sorry to hear that, rogue should have been able to help you melt down enemies sometimes. Did the cleric hide behind you?

Later, I played a Sun Soul Monk under a different DM from levels...5 to 9 or so? Seemed fine. Still very ki intensive but at least it felt like every use of Ki had OOMPH for the most part. And it had a free, reliable ranged attack option. One of the things I like a lot about sun soul is that ranged attack.

[Sorinth]

Agree completely, but it's a real problem.

I have had this happen multiple times, with multiple DMs. It is a real downside to using PAM/CBE over other weapons (a non-polearm weapon where you can apply GWM or an enchanted longbow is far more likely to crop up). That said, if you're not using a PAM or CBE Fighter, you're probably going to find some relevant magic weapon in fairly short order if using a published adventure or the DMG treasure tables.

Maybe I misunderstood but wasn't your point that monks suffer more then other classes when using random drops? It's the complete opposite, other classes suffer way more if the only magic items they get come from random drops. Yes the S+B fighter doesn't care if the magic weapon they find is a longsword, battleaxe, etc... even dropping to a 1d6 weapon isn't a huge impact. But the S+B Fighter is almost never used as the comparison point. People want to show monks suck so they use GWM+PAM.

It's not something that shows up in these DPR comparisons but the simple fact is monks will deal their DPR in a more reliable fashion.

[Frogreaver]

you mean apart from all the people who've been saying that monks are a resource-based class and it's not reasonable that they should be compared to fighters and rogues in damage?

No one is saying monks shouldn't be compared to Fighters and Rogues though. The precise claim is that Monks get alot more resources than Fighters/Rogues/Barbarians/Paladins/etc (other martials). Thus, it's not an unreasonable expectation that monks would have to spend some of their resources to do what these classes can do without. I mean that's basic game design stuff - when 2 classes are in roughly the same category (martial in this case) the class with lots of resources should not normally be able to match what the class with less resources can do without those resources.


simply put: I am putting forward two separate sets of points against two separate sets of arguments. when I compare to spellcasters, it is because I am simply making it plain that monks are not a good resource-using class either. I am not using those points to address their damage problems at all.

But no martial should ever be compared to full casters except possibly in the daily single target damage department. It's like comparing an orange to a Volkswagen.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not something that shows up in these DPR comparisons but the simple fact is monks will deal their DPR in a more reliable fashion. THough it's a bit risky due to CON scores often being high on monsters, and CON saves being more often passed, stun lock (two rounds in a row where a blow lands that successfully stuns) means that the Monk can make six attacks without using any more ki, all of which have advantage. To hit chances go up, crit chances go up, and if anyone else in the party is free to attack the creature their attacks are at advantage. (And if that's a rogue, this gets even better!). That's one of the risk/reward for burning a ki point. The other ki point (flurry) is one added attack with unarmed strike, but there's no save against it.

Risk/Reward. (If the team cleric has cast bane on the creature, this becomes an even more attractive prospect, though).

[Segev]

I want an answer to the question. How is your 13th level monk "doing fine in overall contribution"? It doesn't have to be all about damage, I recognize that. Is is supporting other party members, providing noncombat utility, mitigating incoming damage, what? Don't just aggressively spout generalities at people. What is the monk doing, in-combat or out, that you feel is providing an impact.I am playing a rogue 1/shadow monk 6/ranger 1 in a game, and he's contributed as a mighty stealth character since level 4 (when he got into shadow monk). Pass without trace has made it nearly impossible to see him scouting, and made him invaluable in getting the party into position for surprise attacks that we've planned out. Darkness - the DM uses ink blot rules - on cannon balls has blinded enemy ships' gunners. And he's been perfectly decent in fights, even when he hasn't been using his main combat trick of grappling (he's more Strength than Dex). He had what amounted to an unbreakable rapier as his dedicated weapon early on so he could trigger martial arts off of attacks with it and still be using a technically magical weapon. Still uses it because his martial arts die is lower than a d8.

Shadow Step has been invaluable in sneaking around; as long as it's dim or dark and he can see through a window, keyhole, or under a door frame, he can slip in somewhere without even needing to pick the lock.


PAM, GWM, Piercer/Crusher/Slasher, Martial Adept, Savage Attacker, fighting initiate
Elven Accuracy, CBE, Sharpshooter, Piercer, Martial Adept, fighting initiate
Am i missing anything?

You could give monk a decent damage feat is what you could do. Right now Mobile is just about their best choice for feats, maybe defensive duelist? Getting a fighting style is about the best damage increase theyre looking at from feats.
How about...

Block Breaker
You have learned to use martial arts techniques to break through even the hardest of materials.
You gain a martial arts die of 1d4. If you have a martial arts die from another source, it instead increases by one die size (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, and d10 to d12). You may use this instead of the normal damage die when attacking with a monk weapon or an unarmed strike.
You gain 2 ki. This ki stacks with any you have from any other source. It replenishes when you complete a short or long rest.
You may spend 1 ki when making an attack with a monk weapon or unarmed strike to make the attack count as magical, and to deal full damage to objects and ignore their damage thresholds.

[Dork_Forge]

- uncanny dodge doesn't interfere with a rogue's baseline damage at all. it's a reaction. with that said, it sounds like you *meant* to say cunning action, and I'll continue on that front. simply put, most of the rogue's damage comes from sneak attack dice. they can achieve pretty near full damage with either a ranged or melee attack, no problem. the rogue is perfectly capable of simply shooting an enemy that is out of range for a melee attack, with no need to rely on cunning action (although they certainly do have it available). unarmored movement is not necessary; just shoot the enemy (unless hiding is impossible and there are no allies nearby, but then, the monk should also not be charging ahead of the rest of the party to fight solo either, whether they have faster movement or not).

Yes I mispoke, I meant Cunning Action.

So... You're not even comparing abilities you're saying the Rogue doesn't need to depend on a bonus for their full DPR?

What you're missing there is that the Rogue is dependent on landing a single attack, whilst meeting a list of criteria to get their DPR. A Monk that uses their bonus on something else still has two attacks with their action to get some damage or a stun attempt out. The Rogue does not come offer strictly better in this comparison, it's easy for a Rogue to do zero damage, or standard weapon damage.


- other classes don't have to make choices on anywhere near the same level. bardic inspiration is a small fraction of what a bard does. it's a very *nice* small fraction, but it gets heaped on top of a full serving of spellcasting, which as I've already pointed out gives them vastly more resources than monk gets in the vast majority of plausible scenarios.

Bardic Inspiration is the main feature that makes you a Bard and fuels your subclass. You've spent this entire time complaining how a Monk needs Ki to do Monk things (which sorry, no they don't) but a Bard having to choose whether to be a Bard or use their subclass isn't a problem? That doesn't really track.



- most of those level 1 damage spells were *always* pretty useless on a wizard anyways. you probably want one of either burning hands or thunderwave (depending on whether you wanted the knockback or the damage more). with that said, seeing as a wizard can potentially get all the spells anyways, no big deal. clerics and druids don't have to give up anything to know all of their level 1 spells. bards, warlocks and sorcerers can change them out as if they never knew them. not really seeing the problem with level 1 damage spells "aging out". the only class where that has *any* impact whatsoever is a class that has unlimited capacity for learning spells.

Always pretty useless? I must ahve imagined the times those spells were extremely valuable in games like LMoP then...

You said spells don't devalue, I pointed towards damage spells and now you're making excuses why them devaluing doesn't matter.

Known casters swap out their spells one spell at a time, on level up. It's not a quick process if you invested your spells known in doing what you want in earlier levels.


- no, the hypothetical actual level 11 ability, mass suggestion, is potentially hitting 12 enemies and no allies. if you're fighting things that run away when you fireball them at level 11, it probably wasn't much of a fight to begin with, but I suppose that is also possible. not a bad use of a level 3 spell slot, really. this isn't about area effect, it's about the supposed superiority that monks enjoy in crowd control because of stunning blow. it isn't terrible, but compared to a class that *actually* gets *real* crowd control it very quickly falls behind.

So you spoke about Fireball, then directly lead into enemies running away without mentioning mass suggestion, or that any spell other than Fireball was being used, got it.

In one of the parties I DM there's a Glamour Bard, and at least 5 times he has tried to use influencing magic in this campaign and it's just straight up not worked. Why you might ask? There's simply too many avenues for failure:

- Succeeding the throw

- Being immune to, or having advantage against charms/magic effects in general

-The course of action you suggest being directly harmful to them, be it because it'd open them up to the party murdering them or disobeying would lead to their execution by their leader

- And one that comes up a fair bit, the monsters just don't understand you.



- oh hey look, even more ways the monk can spend ki even faster and not be able to function! well, that's definitely what monks need and certainly isn't a slap in the face compared to eldritch knight and arcane trickster, both of which give access to more spells and ADD the resources to use them instead of expecting you to give up being a monk so that you can have a subclass. but hey, why don't we just add on top of that the option to not only spend your ki to accomplish anything and everything you want to do, how about we also call for them to drop their damage down so low that it's close to no-subclass-wizard levels?

Okay enough of this, a Monk has a raft of passive/at will abilities in their core chassis that I believe were listed above by ThunderousMojo, not having Ki doesn't mean you stop being a Monk. That's not even counting at will subclass abilities.

What you just did is akin to saying about a spellcaster, oh look moreways to spend slots so they can't function! They're alternative things to do, which could very well be better than just blindly swinging at the nearest thing in front of you.

You also seem to be utterly ignoring at will or independent resource subclass abilities.


I mean, really? you think self-healing and dodging is going to face-tank anything? maybe if you're fighting something that is literally as dumb as rocks (like unattended golems), but against any remotely intelligent foe, they'll just ignore your monk. I mean, if you're just healing yourself and dodging, that's pretty much as clear a statement of "I can be safely ignored" that you could make. or, you can fear everything within 30 feet. except that by everything, I mean everything, like your allies. I bet that couldn't go terribly wrong! or dealing a single attack worth of damage to multiple enemies, oh boy that sounds amazing, almost like a fireball except with one quarter of the damage and instead of save for half it's just a straight up miss. wow, so useful! and you only had to go through every single subclass of monk to find a handful of useful options!

A lot, if not most, monsters will hit the hostile in front of them, but to clarify you're not walking up to them and doing nothing. At that point why would you be injured to begin with? You get in their face and start slapping them around, possibly even stunning them. Once they start to focus on you, you heal up and dodge to give them a hard target. They try to move away from you? OA stun.

Yes the Fear has a chance of friendly fire, it's a good thing that players and PCs are able to communicate so that they can work to each other's strengths. It'd be real awkward if the Monk player started randomly fearing both sides for no reason after all.

And with the chance to stun and the point is to draw aggro, good thing it didn't take an entire 3rd level slot and friendly fire everyone liek you seem to assume happens with PC abilities!

There's many options available in general in the Monk, my point was to highlight that they have those options, whereas you were just writing off the class.


but at least with mercy monk, we finally did actually get to a point where there's a monk subclass that isn't built like crap, where you don't have to blow through all your ki just to activate your subclass abilities while ignoring your class abilities because you can no longer afford to use them. it took them 7 years, but indeed, they finally did manage to do a pretty decent job of it for once. mercy monk actually manages to do decent damage and have a subclass that legitimately adds to the things you already do as a monk without expecting you to spend all your ki on the subclass. so I'll give you that. mercy monk is not bad.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, the Mercy Monk heavily piggybacks on Flurry, like several other subclasses.

And again with feeling: There's a lot of subclass abilities that are at will.


I played an Open Hand Monk from levels 1 to 8 until they died, in the adventure path (or whatever 5e calls them) Out of the Abyss.

My other party members were an Archer Rogue, a Bard, and a...Cleric I believe? Maybe Druid, because it's what she'd played in the previous campaign and she may have wanted the same character for the new one. It's been a while.

I was the only frontliner.

The maximum amount of Ki I had available at any one time was 8, right before I died. I was essentially expected to be the primary damage role and tank.

This means Flurry was a necessity in most combats.

In the first few levels this was fine. Getting 3 attacks when everyone else was getting 1 is great, and tended to end combats quickly.

As the game went on, it became less impressive. Particularly as, has been mentioned, not every class has a particular use for Short Rests, save to heal. Since I was getting the **** kicked out of me every combat, being the only person in easy attack range, I did end up getting plenty of Short Rests, but at some point something's gotta give. I died, re-rolled as a Quaggoth Barbarian (taking over an NPC from the AP, Prince Derendil) and eventually kinda got sick of 5e as a whole for a good while and dropped out.

Encounter difficulty ranged from "trivial" to "ball busting" and several that should probably have been easier trended towards the latter because the Rogue was a useless POS most of the time. By choice, in most cases "for roleplay".

Later, I played a Sun Soul Monk under a different DM from levels...5 to 9 or so? Seemed fine. Still very ki intensive but at least it felt like every use of Ki had OOMPH for the most part. And it had a free, reliable ranged attack option.

This really seems like a party problem tbh, a Monk can certainly hold the front lines, but you'd really need to build for it instead of fall into that roll.

I'm not sure why you'd ever have trouble convincing them to short rest, CD/Wildshape is a SR resource and Bardic Inspiration becomes one at 5th, the only one I can see posing resistance is the Rogue that seems problematic.

I will throw out there though that with two PCs that potentially had access to healing magic, there was no real reason for you to die outside of massive damage if they still had slots left.

You didn't find being a Monk advantageous in the beginning when everyone was hurting for equipment? Or the self heal useful for keeping yourself alive?

[Kane0]

How about...

Block Breaker
You have learned to use martial arts techniques to break through even the hardest of materials.
You gain a martial arts die of 1d4. If you have a martial arts die from another source, it instead increases by one die size (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, and d10 to d12). You may use this instead of the normal damage die when attacking with a monk weapon or an unarmed strike.
You gain 2 ki. This ki stacks with any you have from any other source. It replenishes when you complete a short or long rest.
You may spend 1 ki when making an attack with a monk weapon or unarmed strike to make the attack count as magical, and to deal full damage to objects and ignore their damage thresholds.

Hmm not bad. The die increase is only +1 average per hit but its better than nothing. 2 Ki is also helpful but doesnt add any new way to output damage faster than monks aready do, and unfortunately the last point is largely useless on a monk after level 6.

[mr_stibbons]

Yes I mispoke, I meant Cunning Action.

Bardic Inspiration is the main feature that makes you a Bard and fuels your subclass. You've spent this entire time complaining how a Monk needs Ki to do Monk things (which sorry, no they don't) but a Bard having to choose whether to be a Bard or use their subclass isn't a problem? That doesn't really track.

Always pretty useless? I must ahve imagined the times those spells were extremely valuable in games like LMoP then...

You said spells don't devalue, I pointed towards damage spells and now you're making excuses why them devaluing doesn't matter.

Known casters swap out their spells one spell at a time, on level up. It's not a quick process if you invested your spells known in doing what you want in earlier levels.

So you spoke about Fireball, then directly lead into enemies running away without mentioning mass suggestion, or that any spell other than Fireball was being used, got it.

In one of the parties I DM there's a Glamour Bard, and at least 5 times he has tried to use influencing magic in this campaign and it's just straight up not worked. Why you might ask? There's simply too many avenues for failure:

- Succeeding the throw

- Being immune to, or having advantage against charms/magic effects in general

-The course of action you suggest being directly harmful to them, be it because it'd open them up to the party murdering them or disobeying would lead to their execution by their leader

- And one that comes up a fair bit, the monsters just don't understand you.

Okay enough of this, a Monk has a raft of passive/at will abilities in their core chassis that I believe were listed above by ThunderousMojo, not having Ki doesn't mean you stop being a Monk. That's not even counting at will subclass abilities.

What you just did is akin to saying about a spellcaster, oh look moreways to spend slots so they can't function! They're alternative things to do, which could very well be better than just blindly swinging at the nearest thing in front of you.

You also seem to be utterly ignoring at will or independent resource subclass abilities.

A lot, if not most, monsters will hit the hostile in front of them, but to clarify you're not walking up to them and doing nothing. At that point why would you be injured to begin with? You get in their face and start slapping them around, possibly even stunning them. Once they start to focus on you, you heal up and dodge to give them a hard target. They try to move away from you? OA stun.

Yes the Fear has a chance of friendly fire, it's a good thing that players and PCs are able to communicate so that they can work to each other's strengths. It'd be real awkward if the Monk player started randomly fearing both sides for no reason after all.

And with the chance to stun and the point is to draw aggro, good thing it didn't take an entire 3rd level slot and friendly fire everyone liek you seem to assume happens with PC abilities!

There's many options available in general in the Monk, my point was to highlight that they have those options, whereas you were just writing off the class.



Lol, a bard without inspiration dice is still a full caster with the bard spell list and great skills. Inspiration die are nice, but they aren't the majority of the classes power. You can be quite effective even when you're out. Comparing them to a monk out of Ki is laughable.

Also, have you considered you're just bad at picking your spells? Going too heavy on low level damage spells or picking more concentration spells than you can actually cast in a day are rookie mistakes. You need to make sure to pick up some low level spells that scale well ahead of time, like shield or grease, not just maximizing your entire spell list for level 1 power. Spells can fall off, but a caster doesn't have spells, they have spell slots. Spell slots stay valuable if you pick your spells well

With suggestion that seems to be a mix of the player being inexperienced with those type of spells (casting it on creatures he doesn't share a language with) and you taking an incredibly harsh interpretation of "obviously harmful act". None of the examples on that spell involve the effected creature making assumptions about what other creatures do in response to the command, only self harm directly caused by that action.

As for the raft of passive abilities, the main complaint is that many of them are situational defences. They are very effective against specific threats, and non of them are do much against an orc trying the hit you with a great axe, the most common type of threat in the game(melee attacks doing B/P/S damage, to be clear). People get salty, because it's not that hard to not run into the specific threats these abilities defend against for 3-4 levels in a row. Archers are surprisingly scarce in the MM, usually only as backup weapons on melee fighters, and not all casters are going to toss fireballs or other dex saves at your face, poison damage might be the most common type of damage in the game, but its very concentrated is specific biomes and groups of enemies. So you do end up running into next to no enemies that could even trigger your special defences, and if you do they have an tendency to quickly learn to not target you with those effects. Then that raft of passive abilities is not seriously impacting combat.

And frankly, stillness of mind doesn't feel great even when you do run into charmed/frightened effects.

Also, what monk subclass has an independent resource supply? The one heal per day open hand gets?

[Kane0]

-Snip-




-Snip-




-Snip-


I created a thread bouncing from this one, would be happy to hear more input!

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636639-Monk-base-class-tweaks

[Thunderous Mojo]

Also, have you considered you're just bad at picking your spells?
http://www.survivinggrady.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Anchorman-Stay-Classy.jpg


As for the raft of passive abilities, the main complaint is that many of them are situational defences. They are very effective against specific threats, and non of them are do much against an orc trying the hit you with a great axe, the most common type of threat in the game(melee attacks doing B/P/S damage, to be clear)

Failing Damage, Poison Damage, and Disease are all also common.

Every Human on the planet alive today, I imagine, would absolutely love to be immune to poison and disease, right now.

Reflex Saving Throws... also very common.
Getting a Bonus Action attack from level 1...not so common.

Every Orc in the 5e Monster Manual has a ranged weapon or a melee weapon that can be used at range. Nothing is stopping an Orc from using their Aggressive Trait to move closer to an enemy, throwing a javelin, and then use their normal movement to close back to their ranks.


..Archers are surprisingly scarce in the MM, usually only as backup weapons on melee fighters,

As a DM, I am not concerned in the least if someone looks up the statistics of a monster, (figuring out what you are fighting is part of the fun)....but as a DM I find sentiments similar to this to be the worst type of Meta-gaming.

If you want to bet your life on the the hypothesis that no Orc, (or any other creature) will ever be encountered with weapons, spells, or other stat block aspects that differ from the books....then I wish you:

Good Luck! Be Well and Good Gaming to You! ✌️🍻

[mr_stibbons]

Failing Damage, Poison Damage, and Disease are all also common.

Every Human on the planet alive today, I imagine, would absolutely love to be immune to poison and disease, right now.

Reflex Saving Throws... also very common.

Getting a Bonus Action attack from level 1...not so common.

{scrubbed}. Sure reflex saves and poison are "common", but that doesn't mean any of them are actually going to show up in any given adventure. They aren't a tenth as common as physical melee damage, and long stretches' of game can go by without any of them targeting a monk PC. That goes double if the GM is openly or subconsciously playing around your immunities, which regretfully can happen.

Fall damage is pretty DM dependent. I've personally been in games from lv 1-9 where you could count on one hand the number of times anyone in the party took falling damage.

And "people in the real world would love this ability" is not a relevant argument about the utility of a game ability. Stop wasting peoples time with these pointless arguments




Every Orc in the 5e Monster Manual has a ranged weapon or a melee weapon that can be used at range. Nothing is stopping an Orc from using their Aggressive Trait to move closer to an enemy, throwing a javelin, and then use their normal movement to close back to their ranks.

As a DM, I am not concerned in the least if someone looks up the statistics of a monster, (figuring out what you are fighting is part of the fun)....but as a DM I find sentiments similar to this to be the worst type of Meta-gaming.

If you want to bet your life on the the hypothesis that no Orc, (or any other creature) will ever be encountered with weapons, spells, or other stat block aspects that differ from the books....then I wish you:

Good Luck! Be Well and Good Gaming to You! ✌️🍻

I'm not betting my life that all monsters are going to show up exactly as they are in published material. I am betting that any given GM is extremely unlikely to have a) homebrewed the majority of the monsters used in their games and b) homebrewed said monsters in a way that breaks with established trends of the published materials. So no, I don't see any problems judging the utility of class abilities based on the trends among monster abilities that I am aware of. So yes, I am comfortable saying stuff like dedicated archers are surprisingly rare, poison is a bad damage type to do because resistances and immunities are common and vulnerability is rare, radiant is a good damage type for the opposite reasons. I wouldn't consider that meta-gaming, just what any player who played long enough would start to pick up on from experience. Any trend has exceptions, after all.

I'd be way more annoyed if a player at the table started spouting the exact stats of a monster, even a common one. But opinions vary.

[Rynjin]

This really seems like a party problem tbh, a Monk can certainly hold the front lines, but you'd really need to build for it instead of fall into that roll.

Problem is, I'm pretty sure you can't build for it at all as a single classed Open Hand Monk. Long Death, maybe, but its abilities are dreadfully boring.

And at the point where you're like, dipping out of Monk at level 3 to become a Barbarian or whatever, you're not a Monk anymore.


I'm not sure why you'd ever have trouble convincing them to short rest, CD/Wildshape is a SR resource and Bardic Inspiration becomes one at 5th, the only one I can see posing resistance is the Rogue that seems problematic.

I didn't, as mentioned, have an issue convincing them to rest when needed.


I will throw out there though that with two PCs that potentially had access to healing magic, there was no real reason for you to die outside of massive damage if they still had slots left.

I got clapped pretty hard, I don't remember by what. But it's not like everybody prepared healing spells in every spell slot, and I don't blame them for not doing so.


You didn't find being a Monk advantageous in the beginning when everyone was hurting for equipment? Or the self heal useful for keeping yourself alive?

From levels 1-3? Sure having unarmed strikes is great. Even if they start at d4 for some ungodly reason.

After that point, people stop "hurting for equipment" and start "benefiting from equipment you cannot", like magic weapons.

The self-heal is such a drop in the bucket thing at most levels it's not really worth talking about in terms of sustain. Once per day you can heal 18-24 damage. Neat, I guess. That removes the damage taken from a single encounter. Maybe. It's too slow to use IN combat in most cases as well.

[Zalabim]

As for the raft of passive abilities, the main complaint is that many of them are situational defences. They are very effective against specific threats, and none of them are do much against an orc trying the hit you with a great axe, the most common type of threat in the game(melee attacks doing B/P/S damage, to be clear).
Monks have a better answer to that than most barbarians, paladins, GWM fighters, and some rogues. Competent ranged attacks and sufficient speed to avoid melee combat for many rounds. That only really helps if everyone is on the same page though. The idea can get shut down when you have a useless rogue begging you to kill yourself defend the frontline so they can do ranged sneak attack damage. Tell that rogue to get up there in melee with you and share the pain help. Whether you're a monk or a paladin, if you're in melee alone you're going to get knocked out before long. In a party like Rynjin's, tell them you've got a sling and you'll see who has to hold the line when the enemy catches up to you.

[SharkForce]

blech, too much to dig through to go back and find the exact posts I want to reply to.

anyways, I'm pretty much done with trying to explain anything in this thread. those who will hear have heard, those who won't are never going to. but I will make 2 quick points before I go:

in terms of resource-based classes:

using the same level 11 comparison point, let's convert paladin spell slots to ki equivalent, since apparently monks are a resource-based class but I'm not allowed to compare them to proper resource-based classes.

4 level 1 spells - 8 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 4 based on shadow
3 level 2 spells - 9 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 6 based on shadow
3 level 3 spells - 12 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 9 based on shadow

so that's either 29 (not that far off of 33 that we were assuming) for the paladin or 19 (not quite 2/3)... except of course that the paladin doesn't have to spend nearly as many resources on damage to keep up with fighters or rogues.

so to be more fair, we should probably *also* remove the 20 ki that the monk is presumed to be spending on damage to keep up from the equation.

and we should probably add lay on hands into the mix, which even if we're being generous in favour of the monk should be worth around a level 1 spell per 10 hit points (so another 10 or 5 points, depending on which subclass we count by). oh, and channel divinity, which can be used to recover spell slots (2 level 2 slots at this point, if I'm not mistaken, making it another 6 or 4 points depending on which monk subclass we're using as a point of comparison). and none of their subclass abilities force them to spend resources from their main class to function.

ranger is a bit harder to quantify so directly, since their abilities tend to be less easy to directly convert to spell levels which have a built-in conversion to ki.

but point being, at our point of comparison level paladin has in the neighbourhood of 45 "ki" equivalent or 28, putting them either very close to monk or quite far ahead, *on top of not *needing* to spend those resources on damage to get to a reasonable baseline value.


and the second point I want to make: we haven't been using exclusively fighter with GWM/PM as our point of comparison. in fact, the only post where it was used, I also included numbers for a regular fighter with no feats and a greatsword, and it's not that far behind (people go really bananas over GWM/PM, but in the DPR comparison without advantage or any other way of improving hit chance, it really doesn't add as much as people think).

and by "not that far behind" I mean "not that far behind GWM/PM fighter", but still well ahead of monk damage unless the monk is spending ki to flurry.

so no, we don't need to compare to a feat-using fighter. we can just use a fighter that has made very minimal optimization decisions: improving their primary attack stat with their preferred weapon, and using that preferred weapon. likewise, we can compare to a featless rogue (which was also in the original post where I started posting numbers). both perform quite a bit better than a monk that isn't spending ki on damage.

we don't need to resort to any sort of tricked-out heavy optimization strategy to do substantially more damage than a monk that isn't spending ki to flurry at all.


that being said, I really can't see how that in any way mitigates the fact that other damage-dealing classes *have* ways to boost their damage through feats, while the monk just doesn't. you can call them whatever you want, but the fact is that they are still there, they're not some super-duper-mega-secret strategy that you have to look up in some obscure rulebook or combine something from 10 different places or require some questionable reading of the rules, they're in the core books, are used in a lot of games, and don't require any wonky interpretations.

anyways, have fun. I'm out.

[Frogreaver]

blech, too much to dig through to go back and find the exact posts I want to reply to.

anyways, I'm pretty much done with trying to explain anything in this thread. those who will hear have heard, those who won't are never going to. but I will make 2 quick points before I go:

in terms of resource-based classes:

using the same level 11 comparison point, let's convert paladin spell slots to ki equivalent, since apparently monks are a resource-based class but I'm not allowed to compare them to proper resource-based classes.

4 level 1 spells - 8 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 4 based on shadow
3 level 2 spells - 9 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 6 based on shadow
3 level 3 spells - 12 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 9 based on shadow

so that's either 29 (not that far off of 33 that we were assuming) for the paladin or 19 (not quite 2/3)... except of course that the paladin doesn't have to spend nearly as many resources on damage to keep up with fighters or rogues.


No one is claiming the monks resources are more valuable than a Paladins, just that he gets more. No one is claiming that that the "value" monks get from resources exceeds the "value" a Paladin gets from resources, just that he gets more resources.

I have no idea what you think this proves, but as far as I can tell it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.

[Kane0]

4 level 1 spells - 8 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 4 based on shadow
3 level 2 spells - 9 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 6 based on shadow
3 level 3 spells - 12 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 9 based on shadow


Oof, the curse of the four elements strikes again.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Oof, the curse of the four elements strikes again.

Ah, WotC valuing combat abilities over utility strikes again. Classic.

[Aimeryan]

Tell that rogue to get up there in melee with you and share the pain help. Whether you're a monk or a paladin, if you're in melee alone you're going to get knocked out before long. In a party like Rynjin's, tell them you've got a sling and you'll see who has to hold the line when the enemy catches up to you.

If your DM plays enemies as dumb brutes who attack the nearest thing then yeah, having more people up front shares that around. If the DM plays enemies as actually having some intelligence it wont matter a bit - they will either gang up on one person up front or ignore the front liners altogether because 5e doesn't make melee naturally 'sticky'. Furthermore, Rogues are not particularly built to soak damage; I would actually go as far to say that your druid/cleric/wizard has more to offer here - albeit, perhaps at the cost of resources.

That said, all of this is poor thinking, as I see it; in 5e you don't try to hold a line up front with characters (which just means you take more damage as a party), you kill/battlefield control/kite the enemy (which if done right means 0 damage to the party). If the Rogue is dealing ranged damage then they are doing their job (preferably taking the hide action to help with this, and even better if haste-readying); if you as someone who has chosen to take a build that makes you take unavoidable damage are finding you are taking too much damage, perhaps the problem is you. That said, see if the casters can help via battlefield control.

[Dork_Forge]

Lol, a bard without inspiration dice is still a full caster with the bard spell list and great skills. Inspiration die are nice, but they aren't the majority of the classes power. You can be quite effective even when you're out. Comparing them to a monk out of Ki is laughable.

It's typically the majority of the subclasses' powers and the core of what makes them a Bard, not generic support caster #3.

I'm not really sure why it's laughable tbh, the core concepts of being a Monk in 5e aren't actually attached to using Ki. Higher movement, better unarmed strikes, hitting more than normal etc. are all baked in and either passive or at will. The people that are saying they stop being Monks when they're out of Ki presumably think being a Monk amounts to Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike, not a core identity I agree with.


Also, have you considered you're just bad at picking your spells? Going too heavy on low level damage spells or picking more concentration spells than you can actually cast in a day are rookie mistakes. You need to make sure to pick up some low level spells that scale well ahead of time, like shield or grease, not just maximizing your entire spell list for level 1 power. Spells can fall off, but a caster doesn't have spells, they have spell slots. Spell slots stay valuable if you pick your spells well

Thanks for personalising what was an abstract conversation. The claim was made that spells don't lose value as levels increase, I pointed to an entire category of spells that lost value.

"Casters don't have spells, they have spell slots" is I assume meant to sound wise, but comes across as counter intuitive nonsense. Casters have both, otherwise they have nothing to cast... For anyone that doens't have access to Shield or a feature that can eat those slots, 1st level slots can easily fall into 'use them because you have them' territory.

I think there's also a misconception that taking 1st level damage spells is maximising level 1 power, 1st level slots remain the bulk of a fullcaster's power until at least 5th level.


With suggestion that seems to be a mix of the player being inexperienced with those type of spells (casting it on creatures he doesn't share a language with) and you taking an incredibly harsh interpretation of "obviously harmful act". None of the examples on that spell involve the effected creature making assumptions about what other creatures do in response to the command, only self harm directly caused by that action.

He was fighting intelligent humanoids, there was no reason to assume they couldn't speak one of his languages (I don't make him declare which he's using), it was worth a try but was certainly a risk and was not restricted to suggestion, as he has an ability that lets him cast Command.

On the obviously harmful part, if the enemies are willing to fight to the death to begin with, it isn't a stretch to assume forcing them to stop and do something else wouldn't also be harmful to them, especially when it was the people fighting them that they'd be turning their backs on. I do not consider Suggestion or its higher level counterpart to be combat appropriate spells for the most part and they certainly won't end a combat for you. They're the spells you cast to avoid combat to begin with.


As for the raft of passive abilities, the main complaint is that many of them are situational defences. They are very effective against specific threats, and non of them are do much against an orc trying the hit you with a great axe, the most common type of threat in the game(melee attacks doing B/P/S damage, to be clear). People get salty, because it's not that hard to not run into the specific threats these abilities defend against for 3-4 levels in a row. Archers are surprisingly scarce in the MM, usually only as backup weapons on melee fighters, and not all casters are going to toss fireballs or other dex saves at your face, poison damage might be the most common type of damage in the game, but its very concentrated is specific biomes and groups of enemies. So you do end up running into next to no enemies that could even trigger your special defences, and if you do they have an tendency to quickly learn to not target you with those effects. Then that raft of passive abilities is not seriously impacting combat.

Sorry, you're claiming that it's common to not encounter falling damage, projectiles, dex saves, or poisons for 3-4 levels in a row? That does not seem to reflect the typical D&D experience as I know it at all. Heck, here's some examples:

-Orc warband encounter at their camp, not all Orcs could close into melee in one turn, so threw Javelins.

- Pit traps

- Dart traps

- Poisoned bolts, like Drow, as well as poison using creatures. The first example in my head is purple worm, but one of my games is higher level.

I think the people criticising these abilities quite frankly need to reread the PHB, as most of them are bonus abilities on the backs of others. Slow Fall comes with the 4th level ASI, Deflect Missiles comes with a subclass, Stillness of Mind comes with Evasion. The opportunity cost of those abilities being there is non existent, because it's very unusual to have abilities at those levels alongside other things to begin with.

And that doesn't address the extremely high passive movement speed and larger than normal attack routine.


And frankly, stillness of mind doesn't feel great even when you do run into charmed/frightened effects.

Then don't use it, Evasion is more than good enough to be the sole 7th level feature.


Also, what monk subclass has an independent resource supply? The one heal per day open hand gets?

Huh, actually yes the abilities I thought were limited are actually at will, which is better than I thought.

Which doesn't make that point, but reinforces that Ki is not the be all end all of a Monk.

QUOTE=SharkForce;25207459]
in terms of resource-based classes:

using the same level 11 comparison point, let's convert paladin spell slots to ki equivalent, since apparently monks are a resource-based class but I'm not allowed to compare them to proper resource-based classes.

4 level 1 spells - 8 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 4 based on shadow
3 level 2 spells - 9 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 6 based on shadow
3 level 3 spells - 12 ki equivalent based on elements monk, 9 based on shadow

so that's either 29 (not that far off of 33 that we were assuming) for the paladin or 19 (not quite 2/3)... except of course that the paladin doesn't have to spend nearly as many resources on damage to keep up with fighters or rogues.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't... how? Is this an assumption where they use the biggest weapon they can to do so again?

And barring an aura... a Paladin is even more resource intensive than a Monk is?

A lot of the mechanical flavour of a Monk is built in, the Paladin without their resources is a bad Fighter for the most part, the only exceptions really being the aura and Improved Divine Smite, which are both fairly up there in terms of actually playing the character.


so to be more fair, we should probably *also* remove the 20 ki that the monk is presumed to be spending on damage to keep up from the equation.

and we should probably add lay on hands into the mix, which even if we're being generous in favour of the monk should be worth around a level 1 spell per 10 hit points (so another 10 or 5 points, depending on which subclass we count by). oh, and channel divinity, which can be used to recover spell slots (2 level 2 slots at this point, if I'm not mistaken, making it another 6 or 4 points depending on which monk subclass we're using as a point of comparison). and none of their subclass abilities force them to spend resources from their main class to function.

ranger is a bit harder to quantify so directly, since their abilities tend to be less easy to directly convert to spell levels which have a built-in conversion to ki.

but point being, at our point of comparison level paladin has in the neighbourhood of 45 "ki" equivalent or 28, putting them either very close to monk or quite far ahead, *on top of not *needing* to spend those resources on damage to get to a reasonable baseline value.

I get why you're trying to make that comparison in the way you are, but let's be blunt here: The value of Ki varies a bit and you picked the bottom of the barrel.


and the second point I want to make: we haven't been using exclusively fighter with GWM/PM as our point of comparison. in fact, the only post where it was used, I also included numbers for a regular fighter with no feats and a greatsword, and it's not that far behind (people go really bananas over GWM/PM, but in the DPR comparison without advantage or any other way of improving hit chance, it really doesn't add as much as people think).

and by "not that far behind" I mean "not that far behind GWM/PM fighter", but still well ahead of monk damage unless the monk is spending ki to flurry.

so no, we don't need to compare to a feat-using fighter. we can just use a fighter that has made very minimal optimization decisions: improving their primary attack stat with their preferred weapon, and using that preferred weapon. likewise, we can compare to a featless rogue (which was also in the original post where I started posting numbers). both perform quite a bit better than a monk that isn't spending ki on damage.

we don't need to resort to any sort of tricked-out heavy optimization strategy to do substantially more damage than a monk that isn't spending ki to flurry at all.

So you don't see the Fighter you need to do this with being a Greatsword user is a little telling? Seriously?

Of all the types of Fighter, you have narrowed it from 'a fighter' to great weapon Fighters.


that being said, I really can't see how that in any way mitigates the fact that other damage-dealing classes *have* ways to boost their damage through feats, while the monk just doesn't. you can call them whatever you want, but the fact is that they are still there, they're not some super-duper-mega-secret strategy that you have to look up in some obscure rulebook or combine something from 10 different places or require some questionable reading of the rules, they're in the core books, are used in a lot of games, and don't require any wonky interpretations.

Shall we revisit the Sharpshooter Kensei?

There are combat feats that apply to the Monk, as have already been covered multiple times in this thread. The only thing the Monk is locked out of is GWM, that's it.

[Frogreaver]

If your DM plays enemies as dumb brutes who attack the nearest thing then yeah, having more people up front shares that around. If the DM plays enemies as actually having some intelligence it wont matter a bit - they will either gang up on one person up front or ignore the front liners altogether because 5e doesn't make melee naturally 'sticky'. Furthermore, Rogues are not particularly built to soak damage; I would actually go as far to say that your druid/cleric/wizard has more to offer here - albeit, perhaps at the cost of resources.

Even against intelligent enemies - For most of the game OA's serve as a perfectly reasonable deterrent to keep enemies from running past you. Couple OA's with positioning such that the melee brute will not have enough movement to move and attack your ranged allies this turn and you've got a very effective method for getting at least some enemies not to ignore the front line.

And if they do want to focus fire a single front line ally, the dodge action (or in the monks case - bonus action) is the perfect answer.


That said, all of this is poor thinking, as I see it; in 5e you don't try to hold a line up front with characters (which just means you take more damage as a party), you kill/battlefield control/kite the enemy (which if done right means 0 damage to the party). If the Rogue is dealing ranged damage then they are doing their job (preferably taking the hide action to help with this, and even better if haste-readying); if you as someone who has chosen to take a build that makes you take unavoidable damage are finding you are taking too much damage, perhaps the problem is you. That said, see if the casters can help via battlefield control.

IMO. Most parties have a few primarily melee characters. Asking players to do nothing except dash away from enemies so you can kite an enemy to death isn't a very cool way to play a game for them. IMO. At some point tactics and optimization should be taking into consideration the people aspect as well as the mechanics aspect.

[Rynjin]

If your DM plays enemies as dumb brutes who attack the nearest thing then yeah, having more people up front shares that around. If the DM plays enemies as actually having some intelligence it wont matter a bit - they will either gang up on one person up front or ignore the front liners altogether because 5e doesn't make melee naturally 'sticky'. Furthermore, Rogues are not particularly built to soak damage; I would actually go as far to say that your druid/cleric/wizard has more to offer here - albeit, perhaps at the cost of resources.

That said, all of this is poor thinking, as I see it; in 5e you don't try to hold a line up front with characters (which just means you take more damage as a party), you kill/battlefield control/kite the enemy (which if done right means 0 damage to the party). If the Rogue is dealing ranged damage then they are doing their job (preferably taking the hide action to help with this, and even better if haste-readying); if you as someone who has chosen to take a build that makes you take unavoidable damage are finding you are taking too much damage, perhaps the problem is you. That said, see if the casters can help via battlefield control.

Limiting the way the game is played to a "one true path" sure does make everything a lot more fun and interesting, yep.

[Segev]

Hmm not bad. The die increase is only +1 average per hit but its better than nothing. 2 Ki is also helpful but doesnt add any new way to output damage faster than monks aready do, and unfortunately the last point is largely useless on a monk after level 6.

Could make it a half-feat that offers +1 to Str, Dex, or Wis, perhaps.

Or an extra bullet point or replace the last bullet point with allowing you to either spend 1 ki to increase the die type again, or increase the die type until the start of your next turn when you spend a ki point.