Everybody loves Monks

[animorte]

Yeah, you read that right. Why does everybody love monks so much?

There is a lot of disagreement about the viability of the Monk class, all of its subclasses included, no matter how varied they may be.

The name of the post is as such for no reason other than the impressive amount of times the conversations of monks tend to take over threads more often than any other class. Even though the majority of analysis on them is negative, we just can't seem to help ourselves. Make this (y)our Monk thread!

So here it is, tell me what you love most about monks? (not just that you love detailing their deficiencies)

[strangebloke]

Customizable play that can be altered heavily depending on the situation.

Need to tank? Patient defense lets you do that efficiently in a pinch.
Need to get all the way across the map? You're there.
Just want to deal damage? Yeah, that's fine too. Flurry or Dedicated Weapon, either works fine.
Single-target lockdown? Best in the business if you have the ki for it (and the enemy has a bad con save)

You're not constrained by your build. As long as you have ki, you can be whatever you like. Tashas really helped them in this regard and opened up things like archery a lot more.

Then too the subclasses are pretty flavorful and strong. The good ones anyway. Astral Grappler is dope. Shadow monks are just insane at their given role. Kenseis make insane high level archers. Mercy Monk heals really well and can absolutely flatten enemies.

[Witty Username]

I like the style of Monks. Bare fist martial arts fighter is a fun concept and the kung-fu movie, fighting anime themes make for a fun character. I am not a fan of the mechanics much, but it is fun to play a monk regardless.

[animorte]

For starters, I love Unarmored Defense and the two ability scores that go with it, Dexterity and Wisdom. Both of them require more saves than probably anything else you can find in the game.

[LudicSavant]

Even though the majority of analysis on them is negative, we just can't seem to help ourselves. Make this (y)our Monk thread!

Ah, but how much of that majority of analysis is talking about stuff like MPMM Bugbear Way of Mercy or Shadow Monks with the Tasha's buffs (including access to ways to see through darkness)?

A lot of the things people refer to for Monks sucking is old, or focusing on certain subclasses like Four Elements.

It's kind of like how when people talk about Rangers sucking, they're often not talking so much about the Gloomstalker. You'll get a lot of nods if you say "Rangers suck" but fewer if you say "Gloomstalkers suck."

Like, are there actually people going around saying that Way of Mercy is a bad martial? Genuinely curious.

[animorte]

Ah, but how much of that majority of analysis is talking about stuff like MPMM Bugbear Way of Mercy or Shadow Monks with the Tasha's buffs (including access to ways to see through darkness)?

A lot of the things people refer to for Monks sucking is old, or focusing on certain subclasses like Four Elements.

It's kind of like how when people talk about Rangers sucking, they're often not talking so much about the Gloomstalker. You'll get a lot of nods if you say "Rangers suck" but fewer if you say "Gloomstalkers suck."

Like, are there actually people going around saying that Way of Mercy is a bad martial? Genuinely curious.

I was waiting for you to show up with your legendary renowned input. We appreciate you.

Edit: Yes, seeing this everywhere for most classes is a solid reminder that we have a lot of METAgamers. Another example, Hexblade seems to get over 80% of all Warlock attention, and only because people would rather focus on the class' best melee option instead of utilize the strengths of other things while working around their lack of spell slots.

[Schwann145]

As someone who likes Monks, it's because they're neat and fun with interesting ability choices and good defensive abilities.
However, mechanically, they're poorly designed and one of the (if not *the*) weakest classes in 5e.

I think too often people conflate neat/fun with "good." They're not the same, and people shouldn't make that conflation.

In theory, Ki allows you to cover any number of various roles as they come up. However, the idea of needing "a tank for 1 round," is quite absurd. In addition, keeping up with meaningful DPS means spending your Ki on that every round. You have subpar DPS without spending Ki, so you don't actually have all these extra defense or mobility options unless you hold back on your DPS, and if you're holding back on your DPS, you're making it all that more likely that fights last long enough for party members to die or healers to get over-stretched on their resources.
And insult to injury? You're not even all that good at the things you spend Ki on to be good at them. Rogues get basically the same mobility as Monks, except it's free. Anyone who can cast the right spells also matches Monk mobility, and depending on the spell, for a much better duration (Find Greater Steed, for example).
You're completely locked out of Heavy Weapons and Shields regardless of your subclass.
With very few exceptions, subclass Ki abilities cost too much for their effects and you definitely don't have any to spare.
Your absolute best ability (Stunning Strike) must a) hit, which you get zero bonuses to do one ability to do and it costs Ki, and b) survive a Con save, which is a very very common enemy save.

Anyone being honest about the class will admit it really needs a ground-up overhaul. Tasha's had to go a long way just to make it not utter garbage by basically giving it a bunch of free abilities, but that's a bandaid for a gunshot wound.

But, again, it's a fun class so it gets a lot of love.

[LudicSavant]

Don't get me wrong, I think Monks have their share of design issues and all. I just think it's weird whenever I see someone go "Monks are all terrible" and I always wonder, like, are they including something like Way of Mercy in that?

The Way of Mercy who can give enemies Disadvantage to attacks and checks with no save, on the same single ki point that they use to get flurry of blows, a pseudo smite, a heal, and a Lesser Restoration, at the same time? For 1 ki?

Like, is there actually a contention that these are one of the worst martials? That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely curious.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think the nail was hit right on the head with the idea that older content is fueling this perception. I don't think any of the mainstays of "worst class" discussions have managed to remain in the same state that had some people thinking as much.

4E Monks got a soft patch with Tasha's to let them cast and attack in the same turn, which is good. Ranger, Sorcerer, Barbarian and (to a much lesser extent) Warlock continue to receive incredible subclasses that give variation in both theme and playstyle to them, where their PHB options had a fairly clear "this is the superior choice" subclass.


Like, is there actually a contention that these are one of the worst martials? That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely curious.
At risk of simply changing targets, I think Barbarian's are given the least tools to overcome their inherent weakness as a shoehorned strength based melee martial. Being a big sponge will only carry you through so much. Of course you could always go against the apparent design and focus on dex, and I think the fact that this is sometimes more functional than a Strength Build says more about a fault in the design than as a measure of versatility. With how much emphasis is put into being hyperfocused into Strength, you should be heavily rewarded for that investment, as it stands the reward is minimal and you could be severely punished for neglecting a passable Dex score regardless of your choice between the two.

Monks are a bit more difficult to play (at least in my own experience, you really have to have a good grasp of positioning, resource management and timing when to use those resources) so they probably get attacked more for that when Barbarian's trade almost all versatility for having 1d12 HD and Rage.

I will reiterate though, I think Monk and Barbarian both are significantly improved with new subclasses or alternate class features. Ancestral Guardian might be one of the most under utilized subclasses in my opinion, I'd really like to play one at some point. I'm currently playing an Astral Self Monk in another campaign, absolutely loving that as well.

[Schwann145]

Don't get me wrong, I think Monks have their share of design issues and all. I just think it's weird whenever I see someone go "Monks are all terrible" and I always wonder, like, are they including something like Way of Mercy in that?

The Way of Mercy who can give enemies Disadvantage to attacks and checks with no save, on the same single ki point that they use to get flurry of blows, a pseudo smite, a heal, and a Lesser Restoration, at the same time? For 1 ki?

Like, is there actually a contention that these are one of the worst martials? That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely curious.

I'll say I think Way of Mercy is a fine version of the Monk. I don't have much in the way of complaints about it (save that, even as built, it's still starved for Ki as all Monks are).
But I think when you have to point to very specific subclasses to say, "see, the class isn't so bad" then it's actually pretty telling for how bad the class is.

Out of 10 Monk subclasses, you always talk about WoM Monks to defend them. The 2nd best option is probably Long Death, which is only good at staying alive and not much else. Kensei gets less love than it used to thanks to Tasha's adding the Dedicated Weapon feature but, because of a poor design decision, it's basically an entire subclass dedicated to allowing you to use a "shield." That's it. That's the hype about Kensei. And it's mostly downhill from there for subclass options (with the worst, like Four Elements or Sun Soul, not just being bad, but embarrassingly bad).

[ImproperJustice]

I love Monks. Their fast, mobile, and do cool neat stuff.

I mean, you just feel like there isn’t anything you can’t get too.

Pesky enemy mage in the back?
Go beat them down.
Big scary tank enemy?
Hit and run or Kite and Plink.

Be judicious with Ki, and annoy foes with your many defenses.
You can scout with the Ranger, back up the Rogue, and aid the warrior.

Heck, I even ran a 4 elements Monk all the way to level 15.
I enjoyed the abilities and play style allowed.
Late game being able to fly and hurl a fireball or two was epic. The rest and regain, do it some more.
Run up walls or leap over pits and water whip people and let them fall.

I dunno, compared to Cleric and Sorceror it was still just a fun class.

[strangebloke]

I'll say I think Way of Mercy is a fine version of the Monk. I don't have much in the way of complaints about it (save that, even as built, it's still starved for Ki as all Monks are).
But I think when you have to point to very specific subclasses to say, "see, the class isn't so bad" then it's actually pretty telling for how bad the class is.

Out of 10 Monk subclasses, you always talk about WoM Monks to defend them. The 2nd best option is probably Long Death, which is only good at staying alive and not much else. Kensei gets less love than it used to thanks to Tasha's adding the Dedicated Weapon feature but, because of a poor design decision, it's basically an entire subclass dedicated to allowing you to use a "shield." That's it. That's the hype about Kensei. And it's mostly downhill from there for subclass options (with the worst, like Four Elements or Sun Soul, not just being bad, but embarrassingly bad).

"Starved for Ki" is just so alien to my experience with the monk, I can't relate. I swear everyone must be spamming stun for no reason or something. Or alternately DMs just don't give short rests. Or both, honestly. So many monk features are so efficient in their ki usage its insane. +3 ATK / +3 DMG for every attack for ten minutes for 3 ki? 2 ki for PWT out of combat, where you can almost certainly take a short rest soon after? 2 ki for always-on advantage against all sight-reliant creatures via blindfighting/darkness? Use all excess ki on a mercy monk to heal up before a short rest?

And yeah there are bad subclasses, but, well. Purple Dragon Knight? Champion? Scout? Battlerager? Storm Herald? Old Beastmaster conclave? There are a lot of pretty bad subclasses out there. Mercy is busted. Shadow, Kensei, Death, and Astral are all solid martials. Open Hand has some interesting tricks even if its a bit weak. Even Sun Soul gets fireball on a short rest.

[LudicSavant]

Out of 10 Monk subclasses, you always talk about WoM Monks to defend them.
Interesting. Does the italicized always mean one time I responded to you in another thread within the last 2 days, in which I started by talking about Way of Shadow, and then expanded to other examples?

I think I talked about Long Death, Shadow, Astral, Kensei, and Mercy. Just in that one conversation. Let alone the weirdly italicized "always." LOL.

[Schwann145]

"Starved for Ki" is just so alien to my experience with the monk, I can't relate. I swear everyone must be spamming stun for no reason or something. Or alternately DMs just don't give short rests. Or both, honestly.

Every table will be different, obviously. In my experience, the idea of several hour-long breaks during your average adventuring day is wildly unlikely. If short rests were 15 minutes? Absolutely. But when they take an hour? You just don't have that kind of free time in hostile territory.


Interesting. Does the italicized always mean one time I responded to you in another thread within the last 2 days, in which I started by talking about Way of Shadow, and then expanded to other examples?

I think I talked about Long Death, Shadow, Astral, Kensei, and Mercy. Just in that one conversation. Let alone the weirdly italicized "always." LOL.

Sorry, that was meant to be the "royal you," lol. No fingers were pointed.
In the interest of pointing fingers, however, you did do exactly that in this thread; bank on the WoM. ;)

[Frogreaver]

Starting a monk is rough. You don't have the survivability to melee well. You don't have enough ki to really shine. However, by mid tier 2 all those problems are resolved. These are problems you generally don't have to worry about with Barbarians and Fighters. Rogues also are a bit squishy in the early levels but they get a better cost free mobility feature at level 2 and their ranged damage generally stays better. I think that's why monks get a bad rep. Almost everything they compete with early game is just 'better'.

[LudicSavant]

Sorry, that was meant to be the "royal you," lol. No fingers were pointed. Oh, I see.


In the interest of pointing fingers, however, you did do exactly that in this thread; bank on the WoM. ;)

I mentioned Way of Shadow too, in the very first post.

But anyways. I don't go around saying "Fighters suck, because of Purple Dragon Knight and Champion." I go around saying "Fighters are pretty good, because of Rune Knight and Battle Master." Why would I judge a class by its floor?

[animorte]

Why would I judge a class by its floor?

I believe that would be because people believe the general consensus is that the Monk class has more subclasses on the proverbial floor than every other class.

[Schwann145]

But anyways. I don't go around saying "Fighters suck, because of Purple Dragon Knight and Champion." I go around saying "Fighters are pretty good, because of Rune Knight and Battle Master." Why would I judge a class by its floor?

Except, as I alluded to already, the floor of Monk comes very very early in the subclass choice. Fighters have significantly more subclasses that aren't problematic (for their own, or chassis-based, reasons) than Monks do.

•Mercy is solid.
•Shadow is one of the better options but, if you actually want to use the nifty abilities you went Shadow for, is Ki starved. At least you get your mobility for free, thank goodness, shadows willing. Without that free mobility, you probably couldn't call WoS very good.
•Astral Self is very Ki starved (10 minutes sounds good on paper but in practice it's basically no different than a 1 min buff; good for one combat - if it lasted an hour, then we'd be talking), and promotes build choices that leave you worse off when you're out of Ki (primary Wis instead of primary Dex).
•Ascendant Dragon I can't speak too strongly to, having not tested or seen it in action myself. It seems to be pretty lackluster in terms of effect, IMO, but I like that they do attempt to address the Ki issue by adding "prof bonus/day before ki" to things like it's breath weapon.
•Drunken Master is not much of anything really. You're slightly better at Martial Arts, but not meaningfully so. Also Ki starved.
•Open Hand is Ki starved.
•Long Death, as addressed above, does nothing well except stay alive. You gotta do more than that to meaningfully contribute to a party.
•Kensei, as addressed above, is an entire subclass just for a +2 to AC. (And whomever worded Agile Parry is just... mean. Don't give me a weapon-using monk subclass and then make it so I can't use my weapon!)
•Four Elements is super-Ki starved. Famously so.
•Sun Soul lets you be a Ki starved Monk at 30ft. Or you can drop incredibly weak (or expensive) aoe effects... that target Con saves instead of Ref, so less reliable than what they're copying.

Purple Dragon Knight might be the worst subclass in the entire game, but the 2nd worst subclass for Fighter is better than at least half the dots above, and Fighter is a much better chassis than Monk.

[LudicSavant]

•Kensei, as addressed above, is an entire subclass just for a +2 to AC. (And whomever worded Agile Parry is just... mean. Don't give me a weapon-using monk subclass and then make it so I can't use my weapon!)

Okay first off you're going to forget it even HAS that +2 AC, and start looking at its real features.

Let's take a look at Kensei. We're playing a shooter now. Not one of those lame new school shooters. I mean old school where you run fast, jump good, and catch bullets in your teeth and spit them back out and slaughter demons until they learn to fear you while awesome music plays. That's more like it.

So as a Kensei, you have a reaction that eats big fat chunks of ranged weapon attack damage. It costs zero ki unless you want to get an attack with it too (in which case, it's almost like a ranged version of a Battle Master maneuver that also eats damage). This makes us tanky against ranged attacks. Seriously, that Deflect Missiles can eat 14.5 (average) damage a pop at level 5. That's like ~33% of a Paladin's life bar. At will. And it scales well too, at level 20 it can eat 30.5 (average) damage a pop, so you can have a gigantic boulder hurled at you and it'll just bounce off. And at that same level, you'll also have better AC than a typical archer. And Evasion if they try to throw fireballs at you. And Poison immunity. And great saves all around. And you move twice as fast. And run up walls so people couldn't get to you even if they could run fast. And be able to give yourself Greater Invisibility and Resistance to all damage.

You also can make 3 Sharpshooter longbow attacks a turn thanks to synergy with the Tasha's buffs. At level 11 6. With the potential for a ranged reaction attack for 4. And a Precision-Attack-like mechanic. And a smite-like mechanic.

At level 11, you gain the ability to give yourself a +3 to hit and damage on all of your attacks for an entire combat, as a bonus action. On a Sharpshooter with 3 attacks, a ranged reaction attack, mini-smites, and a precision-attack-like mechanic. All while you're running up the walls and laughing at arrows and fireballs.

At level 17, you get a free reroll every turn, for free. It's not Advantage. It stacks with it. On your Sharpshooter character. With Sharpshooter.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Except, as I alluded to already, the floor of Monk comes very very early in the subclass choice. Fighters have significantly more subclasses that aren't problematic (for their own, or chassis-based, reasons) than Monks do.

Purple Dragon Knight might be the worst subclass in the entire game, but the 2nd worst subclass for Fighter is better than at least half the dots above, and Fighter is a much better chassis than Monk.

If you're rating Champion (which I can only assume is your metric for second worst subclass) over a majority of Monk subclasses, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the reasoning for that type of statement.

Champion is, statistically, barely a subclass. It's simple, which is a strength, but the chances that it does nothing are so high that I'd probably put it below PDK purely off the fact that PDK does give you new options, even if they're terrible in most cases.

Also, "Ki starved" is not a strong argument, more options are more options and in most cases these are potent options. It should be a meaningful decision to make. I feel like you severely overstate what it means to be "ki starved" as well. You list Open Hand as Ki starved, why exactly? The subclass abilities are free rider effects to a base class ability you should be doing semi-frequently anyway, costing only 1 Ki point. If you're basing this off Quivering Palm then you've got 17 Ki points at that level. Are you using Quivering Palm on each target just to waste ki?

[Witty Username]

Quick check, ki fueled strike, would the kensei be using focused aim to trigger it?

Open hand doesn't have a special issue with ki, there are better things to complain about, Open Hand technique being awkward because it only applies on flurry of blows, for example. That and personally not being a fan of either wholeness of body (doesn't compare favorably with second wind in my mind) or Tranquility( feels really weird on a martial character, mechanics wise).

But as I understand it I am in the minority thinking that Four-Elements is one of the better monks. Er, quick ranking
Mercy
Kensei
Shadow
Four-elements
Open Hand
Drunken master
Astral
Sun soul

[LudicSavant]

Quick check, ki fueled strike, would the kensei be using focused aim to trigger it?

Anything that uses ki as part of your Action triggers KFA. So Deft Strike or Focused Aim would both qualify, lending you options.

And for Kensei, KFA = a Sharpshooter attack. On a class that has the ability to pump their accuracy into the sky, is hard to hurt from far away, and kites fast (and up walls or running on water or the like).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Quick check, ki fueled strike, would the kensei be using focused aim to trigger it?

Looks like it, that would be the only way a Kensei is getting 3 longbow attacks at this level. Take the attack action, spend a Ki point for focused aim on at least one attack and now you can longbow attack as a bonus action.

I hadn't realized how generous the wording on Ki Fueled Attack is, having skimmed it so long ago I continued to assume that the action had to spend ki on its own.

[Kane0]

I've never considered monks all that weak, just a little slow to start and reliant on short rests in order to play smoothly. Played in a party with the likes of the fighter and warlock they should feel right at home.

Now there is some serious variance between subclasses and some other concerns like stat balancing and ki rationing but I dont think those are really dealbreakers.

[LudicSavant]

Looks like it, that would be the only way a Kensei is getting 3 longbow attacks at this level. Take the attack action, spend a Ki point for focused aim on at least one attack and now you can longbow attack as a bonus action.

I hadn't realized how generous the wording on Ki Fueled Attack is, having skimmed it so long ago I continued to assume that the action had to spend ki on its own.

Deft Strike also activates KFA.

The wording is indeed quite generous. Absolutely any use of a ki that happens during your Action does it, allowing you to use a Monk weapon instead of your Martial Arts for your bonus attack. This is a benefit for all Monks, but it's especially good for Kensei with their Sharpshooter attacks with a bevy of accuracy buffs that stack with Advantage.

Another generous wording is Sharpen the Blade. It can be used on magic weapons, as long as they don't have a bonus to both attack and damage rolls. It totally works on stuff like Dragon Wing Bow and the like. It also will work on weapons buffed with spells like Holy Weapon.

Another neat thing about the Kensei is that they're more SAD than usual for Monks, since Stunning Strike is not your main schtick. Just shooting demons in the face to doom music while moving like you're speedrunning the dungeon.

[Schwann145]

Let's take a look at Kensei. We're playing a shooter now. Not one of those lame new school shooters. I mean old school where you run fast, jump good, and catch bullets in your teeth and spit them back out and slaughter demons until they learn to fear you while awesome music plays. That's more like it.
Fair enough. I will readily admit that a Ranged Kensei is significantly better than a Melee Kensei, especially after Tasha's.
I still say you're dramatically downplaying the expense of this character.


So as a Kensei, you have a reaction that eats big fat chunks of ranged weapon attack damage. It costs zero ki unless you want to get an attack with it too (in which case, it's almost like a ranged version of a Battle Master maneuver that also eats damage). This makes us tanky against ranged attacks. Seriously, that Deflect Missiles can eat 14.5 (average) damage a pop at level 5. That's like ~33% of a Paladin's life bar. At will. And it scales well too, at level 20 it can eat 30.5 (average) damage a pop, so you can have a gigantic boulder hurled at you and it'll just bounce off. And at that same level, you'll also have better AC than a typical archer. And Evasion if they try to throw fireballs at you. And Poison immunity. And great saves all around. And you move twice as fast. And run up walls so people couldn't get to you even if they could run fast. And be able to give yourself Greater Invisibility and Resistance to all damage.
Yes, these are all things that Monks do. None of it has anything to do with Kensei. I personally think you're overhyping Deflect Missiles here. Yes, it does what you say it does, but (at least in my experience) being attacked with physical ranged weapons outside of either specific enemy types (giants throwing boulders for instance) or the first round of an ambush tends to be rather uncommon. Highly situational ability is highly situational.


You also can make 3 Sharpshooter longbow attacks a turn thanks to synergy with the Tasha's buffs. At level 11 6.
Yes, at the per-round cost of a Ki.


With the potential for a ranged reaction attack for 4.
For the cost of another Ki. And again, very unlikely.


And a Precision-Attack-like mechanic.
Yet another Ki.


And a smite-like mechanic.
Not actually sure what you're referring to here. Sharpshooter?


At level 11, you gain the ability to give yourself a +3 to hit and damage on all of your attacks for an entire combat, as a bonus action.
For the cost of three Ki. And we haven't even touched spending ki on movement or defense, as necessary.


On a Sharpshooter with 3 attacks, a ranged reaction attack, mini-smites, and a precision-attack-like mechanic. All while you're running up the walls and laughing at arrows and fireballs.

At level 17, you get a free reroll every turn, for free. It's not Advantage. It stacks with it. On your Sharpshooter character. With Sharpshooter.
GWM/SS really are crazy-good feats that single-handedly carry builds, aren't they? ;)


Yes, if you want to spend Ki like there's no tomorrow, a Kensai who specifically uses ranged weapons and the sharpshooter feat is pretty dang good.
You're garbage the moment you run out of Ki. And as most Warlocks like to complain about - there is just never a short rest when you need one. :P

[Evaar]

Anything that uses ki as part of your Action triggers KFA. So Deft Strike or Focused Aim would both qualify, lending you options.

And for Kensei, KFA = a Sharpshooter attack. On a class that has the ability to pump their accuracy into the sky, is hard to hurt from far away, and kites fast (and up walls or running on water or the like).

That Ki-Fueled Attack feature really is sneaky with how many monks it quietly buffed.

So by the time you're 6, you could expect 6 bonus action sharpshooter attacks per short rest. Seems pretty reliable.

[ProsecutorGodot]

]Yes, these are all things that Monks do. None of it has anything to do with Kensei. I personally think you're overhyping Deflect Missiles here. Yes, it does what you say it does, but (at least in my experience) being attacked with physical ranged weapons outside of either specific enemy types (giants throwing boulders for instance) or the first round of an ambush tends to be rather uncommon. Highly situational ability is highly situational.
Your experience doesn't match mine, Deflect Missiles is a consistent safety net for a Monk to have and it sees regular use at our table.

Not actually sure what you're referring to here. Sharpshooter?
Deft Strike.

For the cost of three Ki. And we haven't even touched spending ki on movement or defense, as necessary.
3 ki at 11th level, only a third of your total pool. You still have plenty of Ki left.

You're garbage the moment you run out of Ki. And as most Warlocks like to complain about - there is just never a short rest when you need one. :P
You're still a max dex ranged character, if you say a Monk with no ki is garbage then a Battle Master Fighter is garbage a lot more often. Which, it should go without saying, Battle Master's are rarely garbage.

You must see fairly infrequent short rests at your own table to have put Ki on such a pedestal like this. It's a quick refilling resource, the effects you spend it on are powerful, you should be spending it.

[Kane0]

Im curiois now, could someone compare an arcane archer with no shots vs an archer kensei with no ki

[LudicSavant]

Your experience doesn't match mine, Deflect Missiles is a consistent safety net for a Monk to have and it sees regular use at our table.

Deft Strike.

3 ki at 11th level, only a third of your total pool. You still have plenty of Ki left.

You're still a max dex ranged character, if you say a Monk with no ki is garbage then a Battle Master Fighter is garbage a lot more often. Which, it should go without saying, Battle Master's are rarely garbage.

You must see fairly infrequent short rests at your own table to have put Ki on such a pedestal like this. It's a quick refilling resource, the effects you spend it on are powerful, you should be spending it.

Agreed.


Fair enough. I will readily admit that a Ranged Kensei is significantly better than a Melee Kensei, especially after Tasha's.
I still say you're dramatically downplaying the expense of this character.

And it seems everyone else who has commented on the matter (like ProsecutorGodot and Strangebloke) has said your experience with ki scarcity doesn't match theirs. If indeed it even is experience (since it kinda seems like you didn't know Kensei archers were even a thing before a few minutes ago, because you were just calling it an entire class for +2 AC).


Yes, these are all things that Monks do. None of it has anything to do with Kensei. I personally think you're overhyping Deflect Missiles here.
Of course it has something to do with Kensei. Kensei lives at range and is a priority target. Deflect missiles narrows the options for dealing with them even further than "kiting archer running up walls" already is. So do other things, like Evasion.

They're hard to hurt with melee attacks (or target with them in the first place). They're hard to hurt with ranged attacks. They're hard to hurt with saves. They're hard to hurt with control. All of this is true even before they touch a single ki point.


And we haven't even touched spending ki on movement or defense, as necessary.
As opposed to, say, a Fighter archer who can't move more than 30 feet a turn, can't run on walls, has lower AC, no deflect missiles, no evasion, etc. Let alone have the privilege of being able to spend ki for even more mobility and defense.


Not actually sure what you're referring to here. Sharpshooter?
Deft Strikes.


GWM/SS really are crazy-good feats that single-handedly carry builds, aren't they? ;)
No. Accuracy bonuses carry those feats. So getting things like that at-will reroll are a big deal.


You're garbage the moment you run out of Ki.
With zero ki, you're more mobile, harder to hurt, and still have the ability to attack with Kensei's Shot, and a reroll (those things take no ki).

And you have more than enough ki to spread throughout combats. But you just say "costs a ki" to every ability that costs a ki as if that's somehow an argument on its own. Like, if you used the same argument style for the Battle Master, you'd just say "costs a maneuver" to every subclass feature. :smallsigh:


Im curiois now, could someone compare an arcane archer with no shots vs an archer kensei with no ki

That would be a kinda weird comparison, because an Arcane Archer has just 2 Arcane Shots, while a Monk has... well, a lot more ki than that.

[Kane0]

That would be a kinda weird comparison, because an Arcane Archer has just 2 Arcane Shots, while a Monk has... well, a lot more ki than that.

Well AA fighter and Kensei monk are both short rest based classes, and fighter is largely considered to have a solid core chassis wheres monks appear to be getting criticised for being ki hungry and subpar without said ki. So lets test it.

I would myself but im supposed to be working for the next few hours.

[Unoriginal]

Monks are awesome. You can punch a god in the face and have the god back down.


As for why you have so many people saying the Monk does poorly in analyses, I don't think it's a question of older content coloring the perception.

I think that, simply put, Monks are *hard* to calculate.

A Monk isn't efficient by virtue of doing a ton of damage. A Monk is efficient by virtue of doing some damage at the right place at the right place, with some curveballs in the mix, and also avoid some damage at the right time and at the right place. a Monk is efficient by virtue of being able to shortcircuit enemies' classic toolkits, and also being able to look at whatever weird stuff the enemy throw at them and go "nope, not me."

A caster? Meet Stunning Strike. A dragon with Multiattack? Meet Patient Defense. Water, smooth walls, poison, long falls? Not an obstacle past a certain level, and that even without any Ki.

A Monk could run up a waterfall, jump back down with a drop kick, and inflict massive damage without taking much (or even any) themselves, for example.


But, the question is: how do you quantify that? How do you do a calculation for efficiency that relies so much on context? When positioning, enemy capacities and the like are important factors, that's a *ton* of variable to take into account.

So white room theorycrafters just don't try, most of the time.

Most of their works for the Monk are limited to damage dealing/taking comparisons with other classes against featureless hypothetical silhouettes with the barest of stats.

And due to that, they then declare the Monk does poorly and doesn't have enough ki. What those theorycrafters say then get repeated by others, especially when it matches anecdotes they witnessed or other bias.

Needless to say, the performance of the Monk is quite different in actual adventuring situation, where they get to face Hydras and Demons and mad kings and hobgobins rather than perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum.

[Chaos Jackal]

It's worth pointing out that the typical ki point dumps of monks are generally considered to be Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike, the former being seen as required for monks to have competitive damage and the latter being, in many ways, the defining feature of the class, their single-target lockdown ability.

Now, I am not fond of monks. They have problems, and though not the worst class in the game they aren't exactly stellar either.

But the ki issues in particular are generally an earlier level thing, and it is, in part, fueled by trying to stack other effects alongside the aforementioned flurries and stuns. However, kensei archers specifically don't flurry or stun all that much, so they won't be spending ki there. Their ki expenditure doesn't have to put up with using both class and subclass features, so their ki won't instantly disappear because they tried to do five things in two rounds.

[Hael]

My point with monks is that they are likely the most unforgiving class in the game. Its not that you cant make good (but maybe not broken) builds (eg the kensei archer, vision based shadow monks, way of mercy etc). Its just that the immense majority of game players won’t use the class correctly in anything that looks like a difficult combat and are also at great risk of creating party threatening errors.

Moreover, what they are good at, changes every level. The things that you were good at in tier 1, are not going to be necessarily true in tier3.

To see how complicated it can get, take stunning strike for instance. One of the most intricate abilities in the game from a decision tree standpoint. Why? Well to begin with many people spam it, without much thought and often in a way where if the die roll is bad, they are in a seriously compromised position. Another problem is that when its really good, (eg in tier2), the ki opportunity cost is high and your wisdom and dex are likely low. When it starts getting affordable (late tier2/early tier3) and your wis/dex scale up, all of a sudden you start hitting nasty con saves and legendary resistances. There is a point where it ceases to be something that reliably hits, and where it might take several turns of high ki usage to actually get something out of it.

So to really be optimal, you need to know what cc your party has, what sort of con saves the creature you are fighting has, how much ki you have and what you might still need to use resource wise, what the likelihood of having a short rest soon is, how much more damage is necessary to kill, what your position is (eg do you need a cc to not get caught out of position) etc.. So, yea, really not new player friendly.

[Tanarii]

My experience was players love monks because they have decent survivability and offense as long as they have some room to maneuver, they have some cool tricks up their sleeves, and they can go all day long as long as short rests are available.

They are in the same category as the Ranger and Rogue, scout/skirmisher. Compared to a ranger they need to skirmish more to survive, but don't have a LR resource dependency. Compared to a Rogue they're a tad more survivable, and get powerful short rest dependent abilities.

[Zetakya]

The fact that a Monk who is completely naked still has 100% of their combat capability is a much-underestimated feature. Nobody else is as unaffected by the loss of gear as a Monk. This can put you in some strong situations.

Also I feel like Monks are one of the better martial classes for still having things to do outside of their martial niche. You can be a stealthy scout monk. You can be a high class socialite monk. You can be an academic monk, or a religious one. That makes for an engaging class to play.

[stoutstien]

I like monks because their effectiveness grows as challenges get more diverse and deadly.

[Skrum]

They fill a very particular archetype of character that captures a lot of imagination. I would *very much like* to play Goku, Ryu, Ip Man, Daredevil, etc.

I also love the way monks blend weapon and unarmed attacks. That absolutely brilliant, from a narrative perspective. It's the way a real fight would look.

So I keep coming back to monk. And then get disappointed/frustrated that monk largely can't fill mechanical expectations.

[Tanarii]

You can be a high class socialite monk. You can be an academic monk,
You can, but you won't have the Charisma or Intelligence to be an outstanding (adventuring) one.

You'll still be better than the common person and worse than a dedicated NPC. But among adventurers, you'll lack the ability scores (and proficiencies unless you pick the right background) compared to e.g. Cha-casters, Wizards, EKs, and especially ATs.

[tokek]

My point with monks is that they are likely the most unforgiving class in the game. Its not that you cant make good (but maybe not broken) builds (eg the kensei archer, vision based shadow monks, way of mercy etc). Its just that the immense majority of game players won’t use the class correctly in anything that looks like a difficult combat and are also at great risk of creating party threatening errors.



I actually think this is part of why some players love monks, the class rewards system mastery and paying close attention to the how the terrain of the encounter is described. A good monk player uses the terrain as if it was their ally and thinks in three dimensions.

I do agree that if the player just wants to do "walk up to enemy, hit enemy, my turn is turn over" then its the wrong class for them and it will feel weak. There is a tendency for white room analysis to do this on the basis of "we can't know for sure what the terrain will be" and therefore white room analysis makes monk look weaker than it is in real play.

[Chronos]

I think that the fundamental problem with monks is that they're a solution in search of a problem. Their whole point is that they're good at unarmed combat. But... why? Why not just be some other kind of martial and use a weapon? Being good at unarmed combat (or combat with easily-improvised weapons like long sticks or threshing flails) makes sense, in a society where weapons are restricted only to the elite class (which is, in fact, a description of the societies where most unarmed martial arts were developed), but most D&D games aren't such societies. In D&D worlds, weapons are cheap, accessible, and abundant.

[da newt]

Ludic - Could a Kensei Archer be built better than your Samurai Archer from the Eclectic built post? Is the Kensei the best subclass for a dedicated archer?

I like the idea of a goblin SS for the free BA hide, but the loss of EA might make the cost greater than the benefit.

[strangebloke]

Ludic - Could a Kensei Archer be built better than your Samurai Archer from the Eclectic built post? Is the Kensei the best subclass for a dedicated archer?

I like the idea of a goblin SS for the free BA hide, but the loss of EA might make the cost greater than the benefit.

Not Ludic, but when I've run the numbers, it seems like Samurai is solidly ahead of the kensei in damage. The monk gets ahead in other areas though as you'd expect. At high levels you're a lot stronger defensively and have way more mobility.

[Hawk7915]

I have found monks enjoyable as a DM and a player this last two years. Inarguably, Monk is the weakest class post-Tasha's, but there's a few things I've found really helps them sing:

1. My playgroup grants a level 1 bonus feat. This is ostensibly equal for everyone and if you were going for high-OP Monk is still bad, but no one appreciates a bonus feat like a Monk. In the campaign I'm DMing, it helped the party Monk cap his Dex by 4th; for the Monk I'm playing it let me do all sorts of skill monkey stuff and weave Crusher into my build by 4th while maintaining 16 WIS and 16 DEX.

2. We play exclusively online with maps posted into Google Slides or hosted on Inkarnate. This is a huge departure from table play for one big reason - map size. At a table, it wasn't uncommon for a battlefield to cap out at 60' just because it was hard to fit much bigger on a table (and hard as a DM to make on a budget). Online, maps are frequently 100-300', which lets the Monk's incredible mobility make up for their reduced damage, armor, and defense compared to a Barbarian or Fighter. Sure, that GWM Barbarian deals massive damage - but he's gonna spend half the combat dashing. The Monk can bonus action dash and still make an attack and then be all set to unload some major attacks the following round.

3. The Logistics of online play also mean that the party frequently gets short rests just for the difficulty of pausing fights or dungeons "in danger" with shorter, more frequent sessions - and any style with an above-average number of Short Rests helps the Monk.

4. Online "Ki Issues" are the death of this class, but in practice for most of the (good) subclasses it isn't too bad at level 4+ and is a non-issue by late Tier 2. There are for sure some subclasses (Four Elements) that never escape these issues, but for most Monks they have enough Ki to feel like they can contribute in a cool, decisive way once per encounter which is all I'm tending to look for.

5. Finally, it's important to note that the floor and ceiling are pretty close in 5E. I know numerically, Sharpshooter and GWM blow every other martial out of the water, but in practice the game isn't a statistics simulator its a roleplaying game and in practice, Monk and Fighter don't feel that far apart and none of them feel like they're playing a different game compared to Wizards and Clerics (caveat - currently DMing for level 9 players which is high as I've ever played 5E or even 3.5 E; I have no doubt casters get really nuts in T3 and T4 and the gulf widens).

[strangebloke]

Every table will be different, obviously. In my experience, the idea of several hour-long breaks during your average adventuring day is wildly unlikely. If short rests were 15 minutes? Absolutely. But when they take an hour? You just don't have that kind of free time in hostile territory.

I missed this earlier, and wanted to get back to this.

If you're a DM, do NOT do this. I know that there's no way to play DND 'wrong,' but like.... look. The game was designed with short rests in mind. If you deny access to short rests, its obvious that the class most dependent on them is going to suffer the most. If you find that monks are too weak, its really hard to say that its a flaw of the system when your DM is ignoring guidance about how many short rests are available per day. You're supposed to have two.

Ignoring this messes with more than just monks. Hit Dice don't get used, warlocks almost never get to cast, fighters turn into one-shot wonders.... its pretty bad, and massively favors what are pretty much the strongest classes in the game already, wizards and paladins.

As to how to justify taking a short rest, well, its not that hard, really. There are a lot of solutions. I run with long rests as a week and short rests as eight hours and it works really well. You can buy scrolls of catnap. You can retreat from the dungeon for an hour, then raid again. You can throw a number of smaller encounters at the party before they get at the dungeon. You can just sidestep the whole thing and triple all SR resources while removing short rests.

It's a little bit of work, but man, people who refuse to engage with how the system is designed have no business complaining about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Its just that the immense majority of game players won’t use the class correctly in anything that looks like a difficult combat and are also at great risk of creating party threatening errors. OK, high skill coefficient class (using a League of Legend term here). I tend to agree.

Moreover, what they are good at, changes every level. The things that you were good at in tier 1, are not going to be necessarily true in tier3.
Yes!

To see how complicated it can get, take stunning strike for instance. I boost wis to 18 before Dex. We had a thread about that a while back. :smallwink:

...you need to know ...not new player friendly. Fair point.

I actually think this is part of why some players love monks, the class rewards system mastery and paying close attention to the how the terrain of the encounter is described. A good monk player uses the terrain as if it was their ally and thinks in three dimensions. Yes.
And falling isn't that big of a deal after a while.

[Cikomyr2]

Best Swashbuckler idea:

Make a CHA-based Kensai monk who uses a Rapier.

Now he can dash, jumps on chandeliers, punch bad guys, have a goddamn cape and disguise, and go "Ah-HA!"

[Demonslayer666]

I like monks because I really like Martial Arts. I watched the movie Shogun at a young age and Japanese history and culture fascinated me. I took a little Taekwondo, and I love marital arts movies (Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Jackie Chan, etc.). I'm pretty good with nunchucks. I own the Best of Dragon Magazine with the "He's got a lot to Kicks About" article that made monks in AD&D quite good. It was a blast to play something so different from the run-of-the-mill classes.

Edit: Best part of playing a monk in D&D though, you always have your weapons.

Monks are cool. But to be honest, I like ninjas better.

[T.G. Oskar]

It's strange that I feel like I have to defend the Sun Soul Monk, considering that it's getting placed below Four Elements which is generally considered trash.

Even without the buffs from Tasha's, Sun Soul has some interesting features:
Most people dismiss Radiant Sun Bolt because of its range (30 feet). Conisder that it's essentially the same damage as a thrown dagger at first, which evolves into a thrown javelin, which eventually deals more damage than all thrown weapons available - reasonable to say that only a Heavy Crossbow can reliably beat the damage dealt. Not just that, it hits for as many attacks you got, and you only burn Ki if you spend it to make that extra attack - which means you're not spending it on Flurry, because you're close. Finally, you can use it to switch-hit: go either Melee first and Ranged second, or viceversa. And finally, it's Radiant damage, which is hardly resisted and actually bypasses magical resistance very early on. If you consider Radiant Sun Bolt as a thrown weapon, you'll see that some of its flaws are minimized. It *does* mean that you're left without a very reliable ranged attack for anything beyond short range (i.e., Radiant Sun Bolt has a fixed range, rather than a short/long range), but it is nonetheless a solid alternative.
Searing Arc Strike is weird, I give you that, but it's an area attack. It's probably one of the moves that'll leave you more Ki starved (a complaint that I'm hearing in this thread a lot), but that's based on the damage opportunity cost - i.e., how many Ki do you need to spend to deal meaningful damage. You're already spendinjg 2 Ki for 3d6 fire damage on a 15-foot cone in addition to the damage you already dealt with your Attack action; any extra Ki is spent on increasing that damage, up to half your Monk level (you end up with 10 points to spend, meaning you can heighten that move to 9th level effectively; that's 11d6 fire damage in a 15-foot cone). If you have enemies in the right spot, you can deal a pretty reasonable amount of damage - emphasis on "right spot", but the Monk is a specialist on getting into that "right spot".)
Searing Sunburst is often derided for requiring Ki to be effective and requiring a Con save. The second one, IMO, is the legitimate concern, but see it as it is - a 150-ft. radiant Fireball at-will. Using the 2d6 version requires no Ki, meaning you can literally spam it at your leisure - at a range that most melee characters find difficult to reach. (It's the same range as a Heavy Crossbow's short range, BTW). Not just that, it has a respectable 20-feet radius sphere AoE. Again, it's meant to take enemies from afar, and specifically enemies that are traditionally frail. Not just that, the only cover that protects you is total cover that is opaque - meaning, a glass wall won't protect you even if it counts as total cover, let alone something like...what, Forcecage? Again, the legitimate concern is its Con save requirement, since a successful save negates all damage - thus, someone with a good Con save will shrug off the effects most of the time. Spending Ki on it increases the damage, but also risks wasting it, meaning there's a huge opportunity cost on it.
Finally, Sun Shield is mostly free damage if you get hit. And a huge light source. You're painting yourself as a target, sure. It's also another reaction that you can use against melee attacks, just like Deflect Missiles is a defense against ranged attacks; it's not mitigation, but it's a counter. The damage could be better (5 + Wis, meaning at best 10 points of retributive damage), which is what really kills it, since it's gained extremely late in the game.

Between Searing Arc Strike and Searing Sunburst, you can see Sun Soul is essentially the area specialist for Monks - either you strike from up close or from afar. What makes people reticent (and, I presume, the comparison with Four Elements more relevant) is that it feels like a fifth leg to the Four Elements Monk, except your choices are fixed to those presented on the subclass. This is a false dichotomy in that you don't have to burn as much Ki to use your subclass features as you'd need for a Four Elements Monk; Radiant Sun Bolt and Searing Sunburst don't require Ki to use, instead only requiring them to empower, and the only feature that resembles a Four Elements power is Searing Arc Strike (even in terms of Ki cost, though it has a much higher ceiling).

Sun Soul does have a few missed opportunities in synergies. For starters, unless you consider Searing Arc Strike as a spell, you can't qualify for Spell Sniper - and even then, unless your DM allows, you can't use Spell Sniper to increase the range of Radiant Sun Bolt to a respectable 60 feet. (You could also get a free cantrip from it, though it has to require an attack roll; good for snatching something like Thorn Whip?). Likewise, it also suffers a bit from not benefitting that much from Elemental Adept, since only one attack deals fire damage. (Not that it needs it so much.) Finally, something like Sun Shield could've had proficiency bonus added to the damage, making it more effective (that'd be at best 16 points if you max Wis, 17 with an Ioun Stone of mastery). It's definitely not an option like Way of Mercy, for one, which is pretty awesome, but it's not trash as most people point it out.

Maybe it's just because some other options are seemingly more effective when seen in isolation.
The biggest offender here is Radiant Sun Bolt vs. Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. You have a cantrip that, without much effort, deals more damage than RSB, at triple the range (90 feet vs. 30 feet), and you only need to take one more level of Warlock to add Charisma to damage. It scales a lot more favorably, and RSB never truly scales up as it should, as by the moment it deals damage identical to EB + AB, the latter has four shots to the former's two (or three if you spend Ki). In contrast, you're playing as a Warlock, which is arguably one of the classes most reliant on short rests (even more so than Monk!)
Searing Arc Strike and Searing Sunburst can be compared to the Four Elements Monk taking Sweeping Cinder Strike at 6th level and Flames of the Phoenix at 11th. Both are functionally similar, except you can only trigger the latter as actions, and only by spending Ki. At best, it's a way to show how Four Elements Monk should have a considerable buff, since not even having Burning Hands as a BA after an Attack action or a washed-down radiant Fireball at-will makes the subclass better.
Sun Shield can be compared to certain reaction-triggered retributive features, such as the Acnestral Guardian's Vengeful Ancestors or the Oath of Redemption's Rebuke the Violent (without considering Oath of Redemption's capstone which doesn't even require a reaction to trigger!) In this case, I'd say that WotC understated what it means to have an at-will reaction that deals damage compared to a reaction that can only be triggered when entering a stance (Vengeful Ancestors, which can only be triggered in a Rage) or once per short rest (Rebuke the Violent). Again, its biggest failure is that it doesn't deal more damage.

This is, at best, the minimum required to absolutely make Sun Soul redundant, and it requires a ton of navigation. (Not something impossible, mind you, but it does require a specialized build). This is without counting how to build the Sun Soul itself.

Now: Tasha's gave a lot of benefits to Monks, in particular giving (as mentioned earlier) "soft patches" to many of the subclasses - in particular, Four Elements sneaking an attack with a monk weapon by spending even more Ki, plus giving them shortbows and (potentially, if an Elf) longbows as monk weapons to trigger that. In the interest of fairness, other than a potentially dubious reading, Tasha's doesn't benefit Sun Soul Monks, since Ki-Fueled Attack doesn't trigger on either Radiant Sun Bolt (you're already getting that benefit) or Searing Sunburst - that is, of course, unless you spend at least 1 Ki point on improving it, but that depends on whether you'd consider triggering Ki-Fueled Attack as part of a Stunning Strike (since you're not spending Ki to trigger the action, but improving it). At best, this only affects Searing Sunburst, since it's the only move that requires spending your action and nothing else. Thus, the idea that Tasha's didn't help Sun Soul Monks at all is accurate, depending on the reading. (In fact, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons helped Sun Soul Monks a lot more, if only because of the Dragonhide Belt - which, to be honest, benefits ALL Monks since it gives them a 1/day Ki recharge feature in addition to the boost to Ki save DC.)

I'm quite sure that anyone who already has a bias against Monks won't feel convinced by it, but I'll leave some final thoughts about Sun Soul Monks (and, really, Monks in general). If your issue is with Monks in general, not even claiming that the Way of Mercy is a great subclass will help - meaning, that won't help Sun Soul Monks either. The Monk's chassis is a lot more different than the Fighter's chassis - if your concern is that you can't use Heavy weapons or Shields, for one, then you're not playing the right class. (And that's fine!) That said, the Fighter's chassis isn't better than the Monk's - a Fighter only has FOUR class features on its chassis, and depends GREATLY on its subclass. (As mentioned earlier, Arcane Archers suffer a LOT when they lose their Arcane Shots, of which they have only two, and the Battlemaster also suffers greatly when they lose all their Superiority Dice - the latter just has slightly more punch to it, but you could easily spend your Superiority Dice so fast you end up with less than a Champion Fighter. Does anyone complain when that happens?) What Monks do have is a ton of features that seem to have no synergy, and a resource in which they rely a LOT, which suffers from not having enough short rests. (Except at level 20, when they can recover 4 Ki points if you start with none at the beginning of every battle.) As mentioned before, the Monk's chassis expects some knowledge of what you're going to do, and that is doubled with what you get from the subclass you choose. WoM is wonderful because it synergizes with what you already do - you add healing or damage + debuff to your normal punching routine, and you get these benefits when you use Flurry of Blows, which you already expect to do, so you save on Ki. Astral Self is also great because, even if it's a buff to many of the things you do, it's a buff that requires roughly the bare minimum of Ki to expend. Spending 1 Ki to increase your reach by 10 feet and deal force damage with your unarmed strikes is a win-win in any situation. (Not just that - getting to use Wisdom for your Strength saves means you don't need Strength at all, particularly when you get proficiency with it later on!) These are good because they play with the Monk's own strengths. Sun Soul, on the other hand, plays with giving Monk more options - and, unlike the Four Elements Monk, not all of them are reliant on spending your Ki. To state a point: WoM Monks can't use their monk weapons to use their features, and Astral Self Monks can't use monk weapons with their Astral Selves, period. This means they'll be pretty miffed on ranged attack options. At best, Kensei Monks are still the best ranged Monk options overall, but they don't play well with area of effect. Four Elements Monks rely greatly on their Ki to do so. Sun Soul Monks are best played if you see the Monk as someone who can reach that good spot and unleash AoEs.

I'll go with this tangent to end. Monks are superb scouts (again, a reason why people love Shadow Monks!). Against a strong opponent, they may have a chance as long as their Ki is decently high enough: Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strike, Step of the Wind and Patient Defense work wonders on them. Sun Soul Monks have a set of tools they can use against small groups of enemies, something that most other scouts can't handle (at least, not casters that are playing as scouts!) Consider that a Sun Soul Monk can probably kite a group just by spamming Searing Sunburst from a distant point (again, 150 feet range) and just relocate. Either the group gets split (divide and conquer), tries to pursue you (you became a very effective lure, since you're way off their typical range), gets routed (probably ending the conflict in the first place), or gets weakened. You could also kite them, since you have a ranged attack and enough mobility to step in and out of cover; by the time they reach you, you can once again fall back into FoB and Stunning Strike. You can even combine RSB and SAS to kite AND strike multiple enemies from out of reach, all while still having enough mobility to get out of their threat. This plays a lot on what Monks do quite well - harass the opponent. Sun Soul Monks just have an entirely different range of options from which they can harass their enemies.

[Amechra]

Best Swashbuckler idea:

Make a CHA-based Kensai monk who uses a Rapier.

Now he can dash, jumps on chandeliers, punch bad guys, have a goddamn cape and disguise, and go "Ah-HA!"

In all honesty, I kinda want to try out a game where you get to pick which mental stat your Monk Nonsense is based off of.

[Pooky the Imp]

I think that the fundamental problem with monks is that they're a solution in search of a problem. Their whole point is that they're good at unarmed combat. But... why? Why not just be some other kind of martial and use a weapon? Being good at unarmed combat (or combat with easily-improvised weapons like long sticks or threshing flails) makes sense, in a society where weapons are restricted only to the elite class (which is, in fact, a description of the societies where most unarmed martial arts were developed), but most D&D games aren't such societies. In D&D worlds, weapons are cheap, accessible, and abundant.

I think this is a good point, and perhaps one of the issues with D&D being a kitchen-sink universe (as some concepts start to look odd and out of place when you remove the cultural context behind them).

It's also something that isn't accounted for all that well mechanically, as a lot of damage buffs tend to come from weapons. And, even if said weapons can be used as Monk Weapons (which don't even work for all attacks), it might result in your character gradually getting further and further from the original concept. Same with sublcasses like the Soulknife - which often find their class weapons outclassed by magic weapons as the game progresses). Now, this is something a good DM might be able to correct but it's still somewhat awkward that the Monk's core mechanics don't offer any help at all. Your attacks are magical at Lv6 . . . and that had better last you for the rest of your career. :smalltongue:



In all honesty, I kinda want to try out a game where you get to pick which mental stat your Monk Nonsense is based off of.

Same, actually.

I quite like the idea of a performer-monk (someone who learned their skills in the circus or something like that). But that really wants Charisma rather than Wisdom as its main mental stat.

[Unoriginal]

I think that the fundamental problem with monks is that they're a solution in search of a problem. Their whole point is that they're good at unarmed combat. But... why? Why not just be some other kind of martial and use a weapon? Being good at unarmed combat (or combat with easily-improvised weapons like long sticks or threshing flails) makes sense, in a society where weapons are restricted only to the elite class (which is, in fact, a description of the societies where most unarmed martial arts were developed), but most D&D games aren't such societies. In D&D worlds, weapons are cheap, accessible, and abundant.

First, it is important to note that factually, most societies in history had some sort of unarmed martial arts. Even in places where the tradition died, you can find evidences of wrestling and striking combat styles, and in many, many places the tradition is still alive.

Now, it is true that unarmed martial arts were more popular in places and times during which access to weapons was restricted (sometime as the weapons were reserved for the elites, sometime as weapons were banned inside the cities, sometime for other reasons), but that does not mean they weren't developed and perfected outside of said times and places. Even treaties about swordfighting, destined for the most we-have-access-to-weapons audience that can be, often had sections or chapters about unarmed combat.

And as this is the historical reality, it also is represented in myths and fictions, where many a mighty hero or villain is also noted to be a great unarmed combatant. Greek, Anglo-Saxon and Indian heroes killed humans and monsters and giants with their bare hands, and archetypal adventurers like Conan and other pulp heroes did the same.

Even in Tolkien's work, it is mentioned that Sauron *wrestled* against Elendil and Gil-Galhad, and that he killed the two great lords with his hands (although they did kill him too in the process).

It is true that most of those examples, historical and fictional, still preferred using a weapon rather than not if a weapon was available, unless they agreed to an unarmed combat competition or if they were showing off. But unarmed combat was still a big thing, and it became even more of a big thing in fiction when the "people fight without weapons" genre became more popular in the last century thanks to movies, comic books and video games.

Now, enters the D&D 5e Monk.

To answer your question as to why someone in the D&D universe would specialize in unarmed martial arts, the answer is: Monks don't do that.

A Monk being good with their unarmed attacks is due to their enlightenment and their training to achieve it. They train their bodies and minds to be in tune with their life force and the universe's, which allows them to pull incredible stunts, they don't specialize in fisticuffs to be better at it than the average person.

Monks can, through their enlightenment, move and react incredibly fast, ignore gravity (to an extent), free themselves from the effects of poison, disease, old age, and mosgainstpowers affecting one's mind, avoid or resist dangerous hazards and attacks, affect creatures which are ethereal or protected against the non-magical, make their own strikes more precise or use them to disrupt other people's life force, and tranport themselves body and soul to the plane of thoughts.

Some paths toward enlightenment also grant limited mastery over elemental or para-elemental forces, the manipulation of the Weave of Magic, the capacity to manipulate life force to remove/inflict physical harm from/to your or others' bodies, the power of summoning powerful body parts from an idealized being, and let you accomplish even crazier physical stunts.

And accessorily it also makes striking with any part of your body as dangerous as a dagger, then a shortsword, then a rapier and eventually a two-handed longsword. Which is pretty practical when you need to chew through adamentine or if you're adventuring.

[Rerem115]

"Starved for Ki" is just so alien to my experience with the monk, I can't relate. I swear everyone must be spamming stun for no reason or something. Or alternately DMs just don't give short rests. Or both, honestly. So many monk features are so efficient in their ki usage its insane. +3 ATK / +3 DMG for every attack for ten minutes for 3 ki? 2 ki for PWT out of combat, where you can almost certainly take a short rest soon after? 2 ki for always-on advantage against all sight-reliant creatures via blindfighting/darkness? Use all excess ki on a mercy monk to heal up before a short rest?

Therein lies the issue; Monks have tremendous endurance, but limited nova potential, especially at low levels.

Shadow Monk, 6th level. Heist style mission with a dose of prison break: local aristocracy had their heir kidnapped and held for ransom in a bandit's hideout. Cast PWT, party sneaks past first line of sentries, but the Paladin who dumped Dex alerts the second string. Quick, brutal combat ensues; no casualties, the main camp isn't alerted...but you burned another 2 Ki points trying to keep the pickets quiet by dashing and stunning. Even worse, you got scratched and dropped concentration.

You're left with 2 Ki, no short rest in sight, and now have to agonize over what to do with what limited resources you've got.

[strangebloke]

Therein lies the issue; Monks have tremendous endurance, but limited nova potential, especially at low levels.

Shadow Monk, 6th level. Heist style mission with a dose of prison break: local aristocracy had their heir kidnapped and held for ransom in a bandit's hideout. Cast PWT, party sneaks past first line of sentries, but the Paladin who dumped Dex alerts the second string. Quick, brutal combat ensues; no casualties, the main camp isn't alerted...but you burned another 2 Ki points trying to keep the pickets quiet by dashing and stunning. Even worse, you got scratched and dropped concentration.

You're left with 2 Ki, no short rest in sight, and now have to agonize over what to do with what limited resources you've got.

You've already kind of hard carried the party up to that point though, so can it really be said that you failed? You'll still be a decent melee combatant and good at stealth.

[JNAProductions]

Therein lies the issue; Monks have tremendous endurance, but limited nova potential, especially at low levels.

Shadow Monk, 6th level. Heist style mission with a dose of prison break: local aristocracy had their heir kidnapped and held for ransom in a bandit's hideout. Cast PWT, party sneaks past first line of sentries, but the Paladin who dumped Dex alerts the second string. Quick, brutal combat ensues; no casualties, the main camp isn't alerted...but you burned another 2 Ki points trying to keep the pickets quiet by dashing and stunning. Even worse, you got scratched and dropped concentration.

You're left with 2 Ki, no short rest in sight, and now have to agonize over what to do with what limited resources you've got.

So... You were the most pivotal person in the encounters up to now, vastly helping the party sneak in and ensuring that no one escaped to alert the rest.

Yes, that should cost you! What did the Paladin or the other party members do? It's their turn to pick up the slack! :P

[Thunderous Mojo]

Every table will be different, obviously. In my experience, the idea of several hour-long breaks during your average adventuring day is wildly unlikely. If short rests were 15 minutes? Absolutely. But when they take an hour? You just don't have that kind of free time in hostile territory.

So we have yet another example of someone whom should have written:
“Monks, suck for me” and stopped short.

Sigh.

I’m not in agreement that monks are the most difficult class to play.
A poorly thought out 1st level Sorcerer is a pitiable thing to witness.

Monks are proficient with simple weapons. Why do people think monks don’t use weapons in 5e? This is such an atavistic view of the class.

[Skrum]

In all honesty, I kinda want to try out a game where you get to pick which mental stat your Monk Nonsense is based off of.

To this subject, wisdom is my least favorite mental stat. I understand how a high and low Cha or Int person would be, in a general sense. But wisdom? It's way more nebulous, IMO. It doesn't inform how I should be playing them in nearly the same way.

[Skrum]

Monks are proficient with simple weapons. Why do people think monks don’t use weapons in 5e? This is such an atavistic view of the class.

Well some people go to monk to fulfill the "unarmed character" archetype, for one. It's also how the class is presented. Their first level ability is "martial arts."

[Skrum]

So... You were the most pivotal person in the encounters up to now, vastly helping the party sneak in and ensuring that no one escaped to alert the rest.

Yes, that should cost you! What did the Paladin or the other party members do? It's their turn to pick up the slack! :P

The difference is no other class both burns through their resources like monk while also being penalized for not having resources. Rangers, for instance, could also be casting PWT. Let's say they spent all their 2nd level slots on it. They'd still arrive to battle with their 1sts, not to mention a very capable martial warrior (bow or sword, whichever) that makes them functional with no spells at all. With their lower base hp, ac, and damage dice, the same can't really be said of the monk.

I *really* want to like the monk. But every time I make one, and look at how few times they can actually use their cool abilities, I scrap the character. It's just too few times, with too weak of a base to fall back on.

[diplomancer]

The difference is no other class both burns through their resources like monk while also being penalized for not having resources. Rangers, for instance, could also be casting PWT. Let's say they spent all their 2nd level slots on it. They'd still arrive to battle with their 1sts, not to mention a very capable martial warrior (bow or sword, whichever) that makes them functional with no spells at all. With their lower base hp, ac, and damage dice, the same can't really be said of the monk.

I *really* want to like the monk. But every time I make one, and look at how few times they can actually use their cool abilities, I scrap the character. It's just too few times, with too weak of a base to fall back on.


You're comparing a Ranger's Spell Slots (a LR resource) to a Monk's Ki, without giving any SRs to the monk; of course he's going to run short.

On the example given, they are already past 2 encounters without a SR; and the Monk's still got 1/3 of his Ki; he's still doing fine for about one encounter or so, but if there are STILL more encounters without SRs, then it's the adventure design that's not according to the standard.

[Tanarii]

You're left with 2 Ki, no short rest in sight, and now have to agonize over what to do with what limited resources you've got.
If the adventure was tailored for 6th level characters, there should be a short rest in sight after about 2 Medium encounters (combat or resource using non-combat). If the expectation is you'll go 3 encounters, they should be Easy one. If the expectation is you'll go 4 or more, they should be below Easy, in other words you should be very over-leveled for the adventure.

If the mission was one you guys picked because sandbox, and you picked something you have a bunch (more than 2) of encounters in a row with no room for a short rest and they're Medium difficulty encounters ... you bit off more than you can chew. In a sandbox, you should only plan on doing things that might result in more than two encounters in a row without a short rest if you're over-leveled for them.

(Caveat: Roughly. For the default level of optimization. If the party CAN handle lots of no rest in sight encounters and you know the game will be like that, pick a no-rest-resources character to play. :smallamused:)

[LudicSavant]

The difference is no other class both burns through their resources like monk while also being penalized for not having resources. Rangers, for instance, could also be casting PWT. Let's say they spent all their 2nd level slots on it.

The level 6 Ranger spending all their 2nd level slots got 2 PWTs.
The level 6 Monk spending ~22% of their ki in a standard adventuring day got 2 PWTs. They still have 14 ki left that day.

Additonally, we can talk about their other 2nd level spells. When the Monk casts Darkvision, they can just do that as part of their morning routine and everyone has that for the whole adventure without impacting the Monk's resources at all. When the Monk casts Silence or Darkness, they get to attach a KFA to it.


You're comparing a Ranger's Spell Slots (a LR resource) to a Monk's Ki, without giving any SRs to the monk; of course he's going to run short.

Yeah, it's quite skewed.

If you're using (according to the DMG) average short rests a Shadow Monk can basically be using their 2nd-level spells all the time. A Ranger certainly cannot.

[Valmark]

Well some people go to monk to fulfill the "unarmed character" archetype, for one. It's also how the class is presented. Their first level ability is "martial arts."

The second half couldn't be more wrong. Weapons are a BIG part of martial arts, both in a general sense and as the monk feature which works with weapons just as well as unarmed strikes.

[False God]

I had a DM who liked to give out really cool gear only to take it away later. This was 3.5, but I started playing more self-reliant characters who didn't need any gear, and the the Monk wasn't great, but it was fun and I didn't have to worry about the DM's giving and taking. The 5E monk is way better and so it just kinda stuck.

[Frogreaver]

The difference is no other class both burns through their resources like monk while also being penalized for not having resources. Rangers, for instance, could also be casting PWT. Let's say they spent all their 2nd level slots on it. They'd still arrive to battle with their 1sts, not to mention a very capable martial warrior (bow or sword, whichever) that makes them functional with no spells at all. With their lower base hp, ac, and damage dice, the same can't really be said of the monk.

I *really* want to like the monk. But every time I make one, and look at how few times they can actually use their cool abilities, I scrap the character. It's just too few times, with too weak of a base to fall back on.

Paladin burn through their resources pretty quick.

[Dork_Forge]

Why do I like the Monk? It's incredibly fun and has features that fundamentally alter how you interact with the world and encounters in a way few, if any, other classes do. Not all of the subclasses are to my taste, but there's enough of them I am interested in that I can make several Monk characters and not be bored.

Mechanically they work well for the most part, at most I'd give them a smidgen more Ki, but that's primarily to help with how it feels in lower levels.

What I don't like is the perception a collective seems to have formed:

- That Monks are all about unarmed strikes but they aren't even that good at it. (They aren't all about them at all, nor is their fiction all about them)

- That Monks have no where near enough Ki/are too weak or useless without Ki (This is usually formed from not getting enough Short Rests, something that would batter Warlocks and Battle Masters too, whilst ignoring the value of the large amount of their class that is Ki agnostic.)

- Monks are bad because they don't do X the best (From a culture of trope-y/meme builds that hyper focus on one thing, the Monk competes well in most areas, and is just naturally designed as more of a jack of all trades than a hyper focused class)

[Amnestic]

- That Monks are all about unarmed strikes but they aren't even that good at it. (They aren't all about them at all, nor is their fiction all about them)


Literally the introductory fluff text is about an unarmed monk, and the art in the PHB is weaponless. No, their fiction isn't "all" about them but pretending like people shouldn't be disappointed or critical of the design choice that their unarmed strikes are strictly the worst option until 11th level* is silly - and even at that level, they might still be outstripped depending on what magic items have become available. Weapons? Plentiful. Unarmed strike support? Not so much.

*potentially 17th post-Tasha's if you've managed to get longsword proficiency from somewhere

[Rerem115]

Paladins can certainly burn through their resources quickly, but their diversified pool prevents them from getting as utterly drained as Monks, especially at low level; they can blow through spell slots, Lay On Hands, and their Channel Divinity, but probably not all of them at once.

Flurry of Blows plus Stunning Strike on each is 5 Ki; your entire pool at 5th level. Granted, if it gets the job done, it's worth it, but until you take a short rest you're tapped, because both class and subclass require Ki to be used.

Short Rest recharge goes a long way to mitigating this, but sometimes there's just going to be times and places where you can't hole up for an hour and meditate, and in my experience, that's where a lot of frustration comes from. You're pushed to take risks by class design/expectations, and level, low Ki games with dense encounters punish you for it.

I still love playing them, mind, but it takes effort to polish them, and a whole lot of thought to make sure your crazy stunts play off.

[Sorinth]

Some of the reasons I like monks

In combat they play very tactically, lots of decisions to make beyond stand there and attack until one of us is dead, and lots of looking for how to use the terrain/environment
I like the sword sage trope, and Monk fits it very well
Self-reliant in a way few others are
Plays in all three pillars (Assuming it's not roll play)

[Dork_Forge]

Literally the introductory fluff text is about an unarmed monk, and the art in the PHB is weaponless. No, their fiction isn't "all" about them but pretending like people shouldn't be disappointed or critical of the design choice that their unarmed strikes are strictly the worst option until 11th level* is silly - and even at that level, they might still be outstripped depending on what magic items have become available. Weapons? Plentiful. Unarmed strike support? Not so much.

*potentially 17th post-Tasha's if you've managed to get longsword proficiency from somewhere

Literally the introductory fluff is one paragraph per subclass, the first is about unarmed combat because the first subclass is Open Hand. The paragraph for Four Elements is about blasting fire, and the one for Shadow explicitly has them using a blade.

The point of unarmed strikes on the Monk isn't to be better than any available weapon, and that wouldn't work unless you severely restricted their already restricted weapons or abandoned a class-wide unarmed strike improvement.

Yes they do less damage than a staff at first, but you can make the bonus action attack and as you become a better Monk they become better than a staff. There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to go, a clear path of improvement. And let's be honest, one point on average lower per die size isn't ruining any damage calculations.

Monks are great at mixing unarmed strikes with normal combat, they're the only ones that get a built in bonus action attack which uses... unarmed strikes.

Chasing the best damage dice is not always the best design choice.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

In 2e I really liked Monks when we had a realm were they thematically fit, and martial arts was central to the whole world. I also really liked the mechanics of creating different fighting styles that used specific maneuvers; that interaction between the crunch and fluff was great. I remember one character I had that was a Sumo Monk who used to throw his weight around.
5e... Well, we don't have a realm where the monk is a great fit, and to me at least the mechanics aren't as interesting.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Paladins can certainly burn through their resources quickly, but their diversified pool prevents them from getting as utterly drained as Monks, especially at low level; they can blow through spell slots, Lay On Hands, and their Channel Divinity, but probably not all of them at once.

Flurry of Blows plus Stunning Strike on each is 5 Ki; your entire pool at 5th level. Granted, if it gets the job done, it's worth it, but until you take a short rest you're tapped, because both class and subclass require Ki to be used.

Short Rest recharge goes a long way to mitigating this, but sometimes there's just going to be times and places where you can't hole up for an hour and meditate, and in my experience, that's where a lot of frustration comes from. You're pushed to take risks by class design/expectations, and level, low Ki games with dense encounters punish you for it.

I still love playing them, mind, but it takes effort to polish them, and a whole lot of thought to make sure your crazy stunts play off.

It's just as easy to recklessly burn through a Paladin's resources as it is a Monk's, and as you say it's an advantage for the Monk to refresh them on a short rest. If a Paladin expends the majority of their spells lots to Smite they're done for the day with those. No more Bless, no more Aura of Vitality.

About the only resource a Paladin has that's actively difficult to "waste" is Lay on Hands. Don't get me wrong, Lay on Hands is good, but it's just healing, it sits and does nothing unless someone needs to be healed. Your spell slots and Channel Divinity can disappear in a flash, you're only a half caster and have limited spell slots (only 6 spell slots a day at 5th level) and a single use of Channel Divinity. If you expend your resources at the same rate the Monk does (which a Paladin is very capable of doing) you'll run out very shorty after they do and when they get their entire versatile use Ki pool back you only get your Channel Divinity.


Literally the introductory fluff text is about an unarmed monk, and the art in the PHB is weaponless. No, their fiction isn't "all" about them but pretending like people shouldn't be disappointed or critical of the design choice that their unarmed strikes are strictly the worst option until 11th level* is silly - and even at that level, they might still be outstripped depending on what magic items have become available. Weapons? Plentiful. Unarmed strike support? Not so much.
The PHB art also has them with glowy hands, is that a Sun Soul monk readying their Radiant Sun Bolt? It looks like it, so that must be the only possible interpretation. Hold on now though, Sun Soul isn't a PHB subclass, how strange. I can't seem to find a PHB subclass or base class ability that would make them have glowy hands like that...

To make my point clear, lets not make assumptions based on single lines of text and a picture in a book. I'm also aware that this PHB photo is likely a 4E monk casting burning hands, I'm making a bit of hyperbole to demonstrate the point.

Let's also not assume that an incredibly minor decrease in effectiveness between a weapon and unarmed strikes should dictate how the class should be played. To bring Barbarian's back into the comparison, you're given Medium Armor and Shield proficiency despite also being given an unarmored AC. For much of the Barbarian's lifetime the Medium Armor will be a better option. An unarmored feral man or a moderately armored rage filled veteran are both equally emblematic of a Barbarian regardless of which is generally more effective.

[Amnestic]

Yes they do less damage than a staff at first,

No, not "at first". Don't undersell it for what it is. It's for 10 levels, the FIRST ten levels. The first ten levels which seem to be when most people play the game for. If you never exit tier 2, unarmed strikes are always a subpar choice. And if you get longswords (such as if they're a wood elf, the classic monk race), again, it's until 17th level. Calling that "at first" seems pretty disingenuous to me.



The point of unarmed strikes on the Monk isn't to be better than any available weapon, and that wouldn't work unless you severely restricted their already restricted weapons or abandoned a class-wide unarmed strike improvement.
[...]
And let's be honest, one point on average lower per die size isn't ruining any damage calculations.

How do these add up? So a monk doing one damage less on their attack+extra attack isn't ruining any damage calculations, but a monk doing one damage more on their bonus action would? Seems very one-sided in logic.

I've chosen, while playing, to only do unarmed stuff and ignore a weapon option entirely. That was my choice, but it definitely felt bad that I knew I was missing out, even if only slightly, a higher damage dice solely because of 'vibes'. When their art (including their art in Tasha's, in which both pieces of art are depicted as weaponless) shows you unarmed monks it's not unreasonable for players to think their fiction is about being weaponless and then disappointed when the mechanics do not fully support that.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m not in agreement that monks are the most difficult class to play.
A poorly thought out 1st level Sorcerer is a pitiable thing to witness. True.

Monks are proficient with simple weapons. Why do people think monks don’t use weapons in 5e? This is such an atavistic view of the class.

Only a monk can make a dagger do 1d10 damage. :smallsmile:

[Amechra]

I personally enjoy monks because I'm a sucker for kung-fu nonsense. The current Monk is passable at delivering that kung-fu nonsense.

I only really have two complaints:

Monks aren't that great at jumping, thanks to the fact that Strength is otherwise pretty low on the "ability scores I want a good score in" hierarchy. I think they should get the ability to base their jump distance off of Dexterity at some point in their progression.
I hate that I can't mix-and-match kung-fu schools. C'mon, "I go off and study under a wise old master, then come back with a new power" is a thing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I personally enjoy monks because I'm a sucker for kung-fu nonsense. The current Monk is passable at delivering that kung-fu nonsense.

I only really have two complaints:
[LIST=1]
Monks aren't that great at jumping, thanks to the fact that Strength is otherwise pretty low on the "ability scores I want a good score in" hierarchy. I think they should get the ability to base their jump distance off of Dexterity at some point in their progression.
Step of the Wind doubles their jumping distance when used, not a perfect solution but they do have some pretty fantastic jumping skills. Even better, their increased movement speed means that if they do have a passing strength score they can potentially jump farther than most other classes can move in a round.

As a practical example, say the Monk needs to cross a chasm with limited space to move. A Monk of 9th level or higher can use every inch of the cavern to qualify for running long jump and if they step of the wind they're usually clearing at least 20ft, barring the Strength dump point buy Monk. They also don't need to "clear" the distance in a traditional sense, the jump is effectively a shorter distance on both ends since they can start from the cliff face rather than any ledge and end on the opposite face.

[da newt]

Damn it Ludic, I asked you a question and you ignored me. Don't you realize I am the center of the universe, and everyone must cater to my every whim immediately?

Seriously, who makes a better archer? Kensei, Samuri, Warlock ... How would you build the best archer you could?

[Rashagar]

I love monks because of the feel of the class during play. I like tactical play and the monk has so many opportunities for interesting decisions to make during combat.

Now in saying that, I have a game where I'm currently playing a monk, and I do often feel like I'm doing comparatively little damage when put alongside the party's paladin, but that's partly exacerbated by the encounter design of the campaign being a bit off standard (we either have 1 encounter per day, or a quick series of encounters with no opportunity for short rests), and mostly made up for by shining in situations where they struggle. Like stealthy antics, maneuverability, defences, CC, and just generally ignoring game physics.

[LudicSavant]

Damn it Ludic, I asked you a question and you ignored me. Don't you realize I am the center of the universe, and everyone must cater to my every whim immediately?

:smallbiggrin:;


Ludic - Could a Kensei Archer be built better than your Samurai Archer from the Eclectic built post? Is the Kensei the best subclass for a dedicated archer?

I expect there'll be pros and cons to each rather than a clear best.

Samurai is largely a turret. A good turret, but still a turret. Smart enemies can take advantage of sight lines and walls to cut them out of the fight or make them have to take Readied attacks. They also are more vulnerable to things like meteor swarms, other archers, or even people just charging their position with melee characters.

The Kensei Monk is playing an old-school run-n-gun shooter. They can leverage that movement and verticality. And they can just say no to several kinds of enemy offense or control. That's gonna matter when you're getting into the more deadly tactical engagements.

Like, just as an example, say you had an enemy Samurai shooting at the Kensei Monk. The Kensei can easily negate their advantage or (depending on terrain) run and gun behind cover so they have to take readied actions, and throw back their arrows at them. The Samurai just is not going to win that fight against the Monk, even should it turn out they can do a bit more damage against spherical cows.

They will also synergize differently with party compositions. For example, since a Kensei Monk's accuracy bonuses can stack with Advantage (something I noted when comparing the Sam to the Battle Master, too, incidentally).

I'd also have to look into builds. Kensei probably wants to grab dip levels somewhere (either Ranger or Fighter) to get the Archery fighting style, that perma-+2 is just good stuff for a shallow investment. Then they can throw on their Sharpen and their Focused Aim and have more accurate Sharpshooter barrages than most archers have, like, regular barrages.

I don't have as much experience with Kensei as with some of the other Monks. So there's definitely more to look into there.

[LordNibbler]

What I loved about my shadow monk was that he was good at things everyone else was bad at. Our DM loved to pick at the party’s weaknesses and wear us down with tactics and environment. My monk could wreck his plans. Difficult terrain? Party bottlenecked in a canyon? Ranged attacks coming from across a River? Mage hiding behind waves of minions? Party needs to assault a fortified position? Send in the monk. And with the mobility feat, evasion, and (eventually) diamond soul, he was very hard to kill. My monk raised the DM’s blood pressure by at least 15 points.

[animorte]

Ultimately what everybody loves about Monks is that they're legitimately the most fun and reliable class to play.

It's just that without a lot of work, they don't reflect that "on paper."

[CapnWildefyr]

Some practical reasons I like to play monks:
* I roll terribly, so I need as many attacks as I can get :smallbiggrin:
* Stunning is one thing, but don't underestimate knocking people prone, pushing people away, and preventing reactions -- and these are free with FOB hits for WOH monks
* Sun soul does have a really lame 17th level power, but y'know, setting things on fire from a distance as if you were in melee isn't bad, and it scales. Ever fight a mimic? Black pudding? Rust monster? Sure, a 90' range would be awesome but you're a firebender. Too bad they don't add air, water, and earth attack options instead. (Sun Soul, Dirt finger, Water Boy/Girl, Wind Slapper?)
* Never disarmed, never without a magic weapon, able to talk to anyone any time

I do think that with Tasha's they should bump up the base damage die to d6, though. Although monks get more OH attacks, it's just unfair that fighters have an unarmed attack starting at d6. That's like giving everyone GFB or Fire Bolt as a freebie.

[da newt]

thanks Ludic :smallbiggrin:

[Witty Username]

I have personally found that medium encounters tend to not cost resources, hard encounters or higher is when spells and rest features start coming up.
I try to use this in my encounter design, easy encounters are intended to be breather moments rather than proper encounters. Hard is the norm, the goal is to provide challenge, after all. And deadly encounters to test planning as well as tactics.


Quick thing on focused aim archery, the Archery fighting style gets +2 to atk rolls all the time, for free. That does mean for say Ranger vs monk, the Ranger is spending nothing to match a monk spending minimal ki on focused aim.

[Samayu]

I love monks because they're so much fun. When you have a solution for the problem, you are the hero. Like, for example, when you can bypass the army of orcs and take out the mage in the back. And there is versatility. When I play open hand, I switch between stunning and proning, depending on the target. Our critfishing champion loved it when I proned people for him.

In my opinion, the class's biggest downside is there are certain situations where you are not particularly effective. Like when you're clashing with some big (high-CON) threats. So it has high highs and low lows.

[Skrum]

The level 6 Ranger spending all their 2nd level slots got 2 PWTs.
The level 6 Monk spending ~22% of their ki in a standard adventuring day got 2 PWTs. They still have 14 ki left that day.

I've been playing Dnd on and off for 20 years. Not all 5th, obviously, but a lot of it was. And I never, in all my hundreds of adventures, had a DM who was this generous (or mechanical) with rests. Calculating how many resources the monk gets by multiplying by assumed short rests....this is just so far from my game experience. In practice, we rest when it makes sense to do so story-wise. But apparently the monk class was balanced around specifically getting the WoTC-recommended rest times....which brings me full circle back to my criticism: other classes have multiple resources pools that let them do other things even if one thing is tapped. Monk is not like this. They have a single resource, Ki, that powers their entire kit. Use it during stealth, or travel, or whatever, and they show up to the battle with nothing in the tank. The whole rest of the party is ready to go, but not the monk.

This is frankly terrible game design, but that's something of another subject.

[animorte]

The whole rest of the party is ready to go, but not the monk.

That's when it comes down to resource management. Some of the usefulness can come from background, tools, and feats as well.

[Kane0]

Snip

Agreed, ideally i'd like all classes to have a mixture of long and short rest based resources, ideally in only 2-3 pools for ease of tracking rather than everything tracked separately or bundled together.

As a hotfix though, ask your DM for any given short rest based resource if you are allowed to take triple that number and only get it back on a long rest.

[da newt]

Skrum - fair point. I too have not often encountered the DMG suggested 6 to 8 encounters per long rest with 2 short rests between sleeps.

IME it's normally 1-4 encounters per day, and 1 short rest (if the party puts any effort into securing a space and time for it). I have found that my norm DnD day does meet the 'standard' 2-ish fights per rest. This sort of pacing tends to favor the long rest classes (less encounters per day), but it doesn't hinder the short resters (2 fights per nap).

It has been very rare for me to encounter a 4+ combats per day with no short rest opportunity. I've never encountered a DM so stingy w/ short rests but conversely generous with 8 hr rests every night. That would seem targeted to me.

[animorte]

I've never encountered a DM so stingy w/ short rests but conversely generous with 8 hr rests every night. That would seem targeted to me.

That makes a lot of sense. Why give consistent long rests while not also providing for those that benefit from short. Maybe this is a conversation to have with the DM.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've been playing Dnd on and off for 20 years. Not all 5th, obviously, but a lot of it was. And I never, in all my hundreds of adventures, had a DM who was this generous (or mechanical) with rests. Calculating how many resources the monk gets by multiplying by assumed short rests....this is just so far from my game experience. In practice, we rest when it makes sense to do so story-wise. But apparently the monk class was balanced around specifically getting the WoTC-recommended rest times....which brings me full circle back to my criticism: other classes have multiple resources pools that let them do other things even if one thing is tapped. Monk is not like this. They have a single resource, Ki, that powers their entire kit. Use it during stealth, or travel, or whatever, and they show up to the battle with nothing in the tank. The whole rest of the party is ready to go, but not the monk.

This is frankly terrible game design, but that's something of another subject.

I'm going to address the 2 points I've bolded specifically
-Resting is a much maligned part of 5e, that much is true, whether the complaint is how scarce a short rest can be or how magically effective a long rest is at recovering for grievous injury. With that said, in the same way that a player can advocate for a long rest on account of the risk of things, a short rest can be argued for as well and in many cases is not all that difficult to acquire barring dire time crunch. There are spells designed to accomplish resting. Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Magnificient Mansion and Catnap (yea it's not great but it's trying) are all examples of spells designed with the goal of helping a party rest in circumstances where they can't camp out traditionally. You can also attempt to take a short rest through a few skill checks, survival would be a good one for disguising your temporary camp.

-Going a little bit off the first point, Monk's aren't any worse off in this aspect than other non-casting martials. Rogues have zero resources by default, Barbarian's have only one and Fighter's may as well only have one with how limited in use an application Second Wind and Indomitable are when compared to the real standout of Action Surge. Those martial characters are just as "tapped" as a Monk when their resources run dry, I simply don't understand why Monk's are consistently the only one being labeled as such if that label is even deserved at all.

-On the "monk has expended their resources during non-combat pillars of play" bit... I really don't understand that one. If anything, then Monk (and Warlock, for related reasons) are more likely to have regained their resources than a long rest character would. The long rest characters will spend those resources and be without them for the remainder of the day, the Monk can potentially refresh their resources every hour in that period of travel and in the event that you have some time to spare it's much easier to argue for a short rest than a long rest.

Like, a Wizard who uses their spells during exploration or social encounters is also showing up with less to the encounter, why are we saying the Monk is the only one? It's baffling.

[Dork_Forge]

No, not "at first". Don't undersell it for what it is. It's for 10 levels, the FIRST ten levels. The first ten levels which seem to be when most people play the game for. If you never exit tier 2, unarmed strikes are always a subpar choice. And if you get longswords (such as if they're a wood elf, the classic monk race), again, it's until 17th level. Calling that "at first" seems pretty disingenuous to me.

You mean that to begin with it is initially lower than the damage for two handing a staff, then at level 10 catches up? Well that appears to match 'at first' it just doesn't match your inserted level limit for that meaning. There was nothing disingenuous about what I said.

And your whole argument is based around a Monk two-handing a staff, everything else they get is the same or worse than unarmed strikes by 5th level. If there was a slew of weapons available to them (not via a combination of racial proficiency and an Optional Class feature) that did a d8 of damage then sure, but there isn't and you're holding that exception up as the standard unarmed strikes should follow.

Parrying blows with a weapon seems skillful for a Monk, yet if a V Human Monk with Defensive Duelist used a short sword, would that be as unacceptable damage to you? After all, that d6 never improves.

And this is a very passionate argument for 1 or 2 damage on average per hit. Do you really feel like it would make a huge difference, or is this a principle thing for you?


How do these add up? So a monk doing one damage less on their attack+extra attack isn't ruining any damage calculations, but a monk doing one damage more on their bonus action would? Seems very one-sided in logic.

That's neither what I said or meant, so let me try and clarify the thrust of the argument:

Monks are the best are unarmed strikes because they can make a lot of them. That bonus action attack is more valuable for the chance to leverage your dex again than a weapon die, regardless its size.

Additionally: Monks are the best at unarmed strikes, in terms of damage, as standard. There's no other class that natively gets an improvement for them, and the closest is a maneuver that is an Optional Class Feature and requires significant investment (you only get one of them unless you're a champion).



I've chosen, while playing, to only do unarmed stuff and ignore a weapon option entirely. That was my choice, but it definitely felt bad that I knew I was missing out, even if only slightly, a higher damage dice solely because of 'vibes'. When their art (including their art in Tasha's, in which both pieces of art are depicted as weaponless) shows you unarmed monks it's not unreasonable for players to think their fiction is about being weaponless and then disappointed when the mechanics do not fully support that.

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but that feels more like a FOMO problem on your end rather than a class problem. I'm not seeing why you wouldn't feel the same way with anything you chose to play that wasn't absolutely optimal?

The art argument isn't helping your case, and it very much looks like you're cherry picking them:

- The PHB monk looks like Gohan using his signature move from early DBZ, that is not saying anything about unarmed combat, and as already mentioned, could easily be a Sun Soul or something.

- The Tashas options have art that fulfills their fiction, one being a force construct of yourself (sorry, not agreeing that a force construct is 'unarmed') and the other has two abilities that say hand in the name and require you use your hands to use them.

-Then there's the Xanathar's Monk imagery which you skipped over, which features an unarmed Drunken Monk (using bottles for the fiction), a sword wielding Kensei, oh and a staff wielding Sun Soul.

Both the source material and published version of the Monk mixes unarmed martial arts with weapons and supernatural elements. You seem to want them to be really good at one aspect of this, without regard for how they need to fulfill the rest.

But then again, based on this argument it seems like you'd be happy if the Monk just had their Martial Arts Die shunted up a size across its scale, ending in a d12. Something you can ask a DM for, though I have to ask if you have considered the knock on effect of that kind of thing, seeing as the MA die is used by a lot of features?


I personally enjoy monks because I'm a sucker for kung-fu nonsense. The current Monk is passable at delivering that kung-fu nonsense.

I only really have two complaints:

Monks aren't that great at jumping, thanks to the fact that Strength is otherwise pretty low on the "ability scores I want a good score in" hierarchy. I think they should get the ability to base their jump distance off of Dexterity at some point in their progression.
I hate that I can't mix-and-match kung-fu schools. C'mon, "I go off and study under a wise old master, then come back with a new power" is a thing.


I think Step of the Wind is meant to be the patch for the jumping thing, which it does reasonably well, and the second point is a little hard to parse. It seems like you want to be able to dip in and out of subclasses? Grabbing a new trick from a far away master just sounds like grabbing a feat or taking a dip.


which brings me full circle back to my criticism: other classes have multiple resources pools that let them do other things even if one thing is tapped. Monk is not like this. They have a single resource, Ki, that powers their entire kit. Use it during stealth, or travel, or whatever, and they show up to the battle with nothing in the tank. The whole rest of the party is ready to go, but not the monk.

This is frankly terrible game design, but that's something of another subject.

I'm very curious what your experience with Battle Master Fighters and Warlocks is, all of which would suffer in a game that doesn't get adequate short rests.

Though the notion 'out of resources, do worse' is hardly Monk specific, the Wizard has literally nothing but spell casting for main class features, yet you're not complaining they suffer from the same problem?

[Skrum]

I'm very curious what your experience with Battle Master Fighters and Warlocks is, all of which would suffer in a game that doesn't get adequate short rests.

Though the notion 'out of resources, do worse' is hardly Monk specific, the Wizard has literally nothing but spell casting for main class features, yet you're not complaining they suffer from the same problem?

By chance, I was the only one to play a pure BM fighter so far - and I liked it well enough. Besides maneuvers, they still get action surge and second wind (obvi), and I had grabbed polearm mastery. So even without maneuvers I was rocking 20 AC (plate + shield), three attacks a round, and 70-ish HP. I was an orc too, so I had aggressive, which is quite valuable for a melee character. I played this character 1st-8th. I wasn't lighting up any performance charts, to be clear, but he was tough and reliable, and his maneuvers were really strong when I used them. Bait and Switch in particular.

Warlocks do suffer a bit. We actually had a discussion at one point about buffing locks, just because of the lack of short rests. Monk didn't come up because no one played a monk. But then most of the warlocks got their hands on Rods of the Pact Keeper, and it basically sorted itself out. The difference between monk and warlock, IMO, is warlocks can still do very respectable things with their at-will abilities - certainly more than monks can. Their spell slots are the "oh crap" buttons.

[strangebloke]

I just think DMs need to get over themselves and figure out a way to deal with rests. The complaint is that its hard to deal with, but in reality it really isn't, particularly if you're willing to use one of the pre-defined options. Gritty Realism IMX fixes almost every complaint people have with the rest system, they should just use that.

[animorte]

Their spell slots are the "oh crap" buttons.

Truth.

Another thing people who typically play Warlocks don't understand is that the invocations often make up for lack of spell slots by empowering preexisting class features or providing new things to do with other spell-like abilities. Invocations, in my experience, do a very good job of making up for lack of spell slots, if you know what you're doing.

[Skrum]

-Going a little bit off the first point, Monk's aren't any worse off in this aspect than other non-casting martials. Rogues have zero resources by default, Barbarian's have only one and Fighter's may as well only have one with how limited in use an application Second Wind and Indomitable are when compared to the real standout of Action Surge. Those martial characters are just as "tapped" as a Monk when their resources run dry, I simply don't understand why Monk's are consistently the only one being labeled as such if that label is even deserved at all.

The difference, IMO, is what their bases are. Fighters, barbs, rangers, and paladins have better HP and better defense (some combination of AC, damage mitigation, and recovery) and better damage dice (on account of typically using mechanically superior weapons). Not to mention they are far more likely to find useful magic items, but that's very situational.

As for rogues - well first I want to say think I think rogue is the second weakest class in the game, so there's that. But to the topic at hand, rogues having zero resources to manage = rogues have all their abilities, all the time. I.e., when they count on being able to cunning action to keep them safe, they don't need to think not using sneak attack too many times and thus limiting the amount of times they can use cunning action. This is exactly the problem monks have.



-On the "monk has expended their resources during non-combat pillars of play" bit... I really don't understand that one. If anything, then Monk (and Warlock, for related reasons) are more likely to have regained their resources than a long rest character would. The long rest characters will spend those resources and be without them for the remainder of the day, the Monk can potentially refresh their resources every hour in that period of travel and in the event that you have some time to spare it's much easier to argue for a short rest than a long rest.

Like, a Wizard who uses their spells during exploration or social encounters is also showing up with less to the encounter, why are we saying the Monk is the only one? It's baffling.

All of the full casters were clearly budgeted with this in mind. I don't think it's an accident that a lot of utility spells are 1st and 2nd level. At t1 this is must be very carefully managed, but once a caster hits t2 they have higher level slots (and cantrips) for combat, and their low level spells are going to be more utility-oriented. Basically, they can afford to spend the slots casting invisibility or augury because they aren't spending their real combat power. But the monk is always pulling from the same thing. 2 Ki spent on pass without trace is 2 points they don't get to stun or flurry with.

Warlock CAN suffer from this as well - but I think it's not nearly as bad for them. They get invocations and the best blasting cantrip in the game for a reason.

[animorte]

Not to mention they are far more likely to find useful magic items, but that's very situational.

As for rogues - well first I want to say think I think rogue is the second weakest class in the game, so there's that. But to the topic at hand, rogues having zero resources to manage = rogues have all their abilities, all the time. I.e., when they count on being able to cunning action to keep them safe, they don't need to think not using sneak attack too many times and thus limiting the amount of times they can use cunning action. This is exactly the problem monks have.

They get invocations and the best blasting cantrip in the game for a reason.

Finding magic items is just as much to the DM's discretion as should be short rests and the like. Some classes can benefit more from magic items like some can benefit more from short rests.

Your argument for why Rogues aren't the worst (merely the 2nd worst) class could equally be used as the argument for why they comfortably a middle-of-the-road class. They always have all of their resources ALL of the time, not to mention the best OOC utility (2nd only to Bard), for which they almost literally can't run out of resources for, while most others can (even casters).

Warlocks <3

[Dork_Forge]

By chance, I was the only one to play a pure BM fighter so far - and I liked it well enough. Besides maneuvers, they still get action surge and second wind (obvi), and I had grabbed polearm mastery. So even without maneuvers I was rocking 20 AC (plate + shield), three attacks a round, and 70-ish HP. I was an orc too, so I had aggressive, which is quite valuable for a melee character. I played this character 1st-8th. I wasn't lighting up any performance charts, to be clear, but he was tough and reliable, and his maneuvers were really strong when I used them. Bait and Switch in particular.

Warlocks do suffer a bit. We actually had a discussion at one point about buffing locks, just because of the lack of short rests. Monk didn't come up because no one played a monk. But then most of the warlocks got their hands on Rods of the Pact Keeper, and it basically sorted itself out. The difference between monk and warlock, IMO, is warlocks can still do very respectable things with their at-will abilities - certainly more than monks can. Their spell slots are the "oh crap" buttons.

So you built a character that was reliant on short rest resources and used a bonus action attack with a movement buff to compensate..?

Hopefully, you can see the parallel. The only meaningful difference appears to higher AC/HP, which you can compensate for by being a V. Human with Tough.

This very much seems like a table problem I can certainly understand why, but your group not taking enough short rests isn't the fault of the game that expects them, the style of play is clearly disadvantaging multiple classes (or a third of the launch game options).

I'd recommend you suggest to your play group that you all try out a one shot where everyone plays a Warlock (sans the rod) and Monks, but ensure an appropriate amount of short rests are taken. You don't need to take two rests if you aren't having the number of encounters to warrant it, nor do you need to spend resources in every combat to be relevant.

[Skrum]

Finding magic items is just as much to the DM's discretion as should be short rests and the like. Some classes can benefit more from magic items like some can benefit more from short rests.

Truth. My reasoning though is that finding armor or weapons +1, very common items to find or get handed when their are magic items at all, is significantly more likely to benefit a non-monk than a monk. Monks need pretty specific and specialized gear to gain the same type of benefits (which a decent DM will account for, but hey, we all make mistakes).




Your argument for why Rogues aren't the worst (merely the 2nd worst) class could equally be used as the argument for why they comfortably a middle-of-the-road class. They always have all of their resources ALL of the time, not to mention the best OOC utility (2nd only to Bard), for which they almost literally can't run out of resources for, while most others can (even casters).

Rogues' problem is what they can do all day just isn't very good. Sneak attack flatly does not make up for the lack of extra attack, the weapons that are sneak attack compatible are surprisingly limited (though this is more likely to come up on multiclass characters), they're fragile, and their bevy of skills are extremely contextual. In a skill focused game, rogues would be at least mid-tier. But in my experience, skills are secondary. And oddly....they don't get enough of them? The number crunch of 5e means rogues really only get 2 skills that they're notably good at, their expertise skills. And that's just not that much.

[Schwann145]

Some things to consider:

"Bad" doesn't mean the same thing in 5e as it did in earlier editions. One of the highlights of 5e is that there really are no bad classes anymore. So when someone says Monk is bad, that is saying that they are worse than other class options in comparison - not that they can't play the game or get the job done.
Basically, whatever you want your Monk to do for the party, another class is likely to do it better/more reliably.

On the resting arguments/points, even the published adventures don't tend to follow the DMG guidelines for short rests. If even WotC's published material isn't doing it, it shouldn't be surprising that we pleb homebrew folk aren't typically doing it either.
People who experience 2-3 SRs in a typical adventuring day are, IMO, rarer than they realize (and blessed - must be nice!) :P

Earlier, when I harp on abilities costing Ki, the point isn't that "Monks have resource concerns so they are bad." Everybody has resource concerns.
That's missing the point on purpose.
Monk resources are in competition in a way other classes don't have to deal with. A Battle Master Fighter does indeed have a limited number of Maneuvers they can do, much like a Monk has a limited number of Ki. But the Battle Master doesn't have to sacrifice a Maneuver dice for it's Second Wind, or it's Action Surge. A Monk does have to share it's Ki with everything it wants to do.
And, unfortunately, this is emphasized by the core class's low damage. Monks aren't good DPS without spending Ki. That's notable. Other DPS classes don't have this same issue. Sneak Attack is free. Heavy Weapons are free. Cantrips are free.
So when these comparison discussions happen, and the level 5 Monk is forced to spend 2-3 Ki per round to keep up, that's noticeably expensive. Or when the level 11 Kensei is spending 3 Ki at the beginning of each fight, and then another 2-3 Ki per round, it's still noticeably expensive. The Warlock doesn't have to spend anything to spam good damage via EBs. The Paladin can save those Smites for the best time to use them, like on a crit. The Fighter can rely on it's stronger HD, AC, Fighting Style, weapon options, etc to carry them until it's advantageous to spend their SR or LR resources. Etc.

And as for comparing resources with casters, that's a losing argument. Casters are not one-trick ponies the way a Monk is.
The Monk exists solely to damage enemies. With the singular exception of the Way of Mercy, its class abilities offer nothing else to a party.
The Monk can't manipulate the battlefield, can't make the enemies focus on them, can't heal or cure allies, can't reposition anyone other than themself, etc. They have a single ability to stun which is both hard to land and taps into that singular resource they have to share with their other abilities. Their responsibility to a party is simply, "hit/kill the enemy."
A spellcaster, on the other hand, can fulfill their job with a single dropped spell. Anything after that is a bonus. A well-placed web or wall spell. Removing a curse or fear. Shielding from elemental or environmental hazards. Etc. All of which doesn't get in their way to help deal damage (via cantrips or melee/ranged attacks, depending on which caster we're talking about).
Even outside of combat, a Monk can't really compete. Being Dex/Wis based gives them an ability score edge on things like Perception or Stealth, but the class offers nothing to help in that regard. A Rogue is still fantastically superior for stealth with things like Expertise. A Warlock can send their invisible Imp to scout better than anyone. Etc and so on. (The Monk has to rely on subclass abilities to gain anything for out-of-combat, and Shadow is about the only one that does so.)

[Dork_Forge]

Rogues' problem is what they can do all day just isn't very good. Sneak attack flatly does not make up for the lack of extra attack, the weapons that are sneak attack compatible are surprisingly limited (though this is more likely to come up on multiclass characters), they're fragile, and their bevy of skills are extremely contextual. In a skill focused game, rogues would be at least mid-tier. But in my experience, skills are secondary. And oddly....they don't get enough of them? The number crunch of 5e means rogues really only get 2 skills that they're notably good at, their expertise skills. And that's just not that much.

Sorry, but this doesn't ring true of the Rogue, when you say they're fragile you're taking Uncanny Dodge and Evasion into consideration?

When you talk about skills, you say they only have two good skills, their Expertise skills. Yet at 6th level they gain two more Expertise, and at 11th the lowest number they can roll is a 10 on the die for skills they're proficient in. This isn't considering that they are SAD, allowing them to invest as they see fit in other stats to support skills.

I've also never seen a game where the use of Thieves' Tools, Perception, and Stealth weren't common, if not frequent, and important. Is that not your experience?

[Skrum]

So you built a character that was reliant on short rest resources and used a bonus action attack with a movement buff to compensate..?

Hopefully, you can see the parallel. The only meaningful difference appears to higher AC/HP, which you can compensate for by being a V. Human with Tough.

This very much seems like a table problem I can certainly understand why, but your group not taking enough short rests isn't the fault of the game that expects them, the style of play is clearly disadvantaging multiple classes (or a third of the launch game options).

I'd recommend you suggest to your play group that you all try out a one shot where everyone plays a Warlock (sans the rod) and Monks, but ensure an appropriate amount of short rests are taken. You don't need to take two rests if you aren't having the number of encounters to warrant it, nor do you need to spend resources in every combat to be relevant.

He was literally the first character I made to end my several-year hiatus from Dnd, and when I started playing 5e in earnest. He was fun while he lasted, but like I said, he wasn't lighting up any charts. When I compare him to my current fighter/artificer or pally/sorc (or even ranger/cleric, who died heroically).....yeah it's a pretty sorry build indeed. And yes, I see the parallels lol. It doesn't help me think more of monks!

The format is an non-traditional one - it's a West Marches, "one shot" style where the games last a few hours at most and who's playing and what character they're bringing changes from game to game. The chances of more short rests being added is none; DM's have a hard enough time as it is challenging characters in non-frustrating ways while keeping the games within the allotted time. But you're not wrong about it.

RE: rogues and fragility.

Yeah YMMV. I am personally somewhat low on the rogue over the limitations and general weakness of sneak attack. And yes they do get those abilities, but I still think rogues tend to be closer to combat and thus getting clipped more often. I'm thinking specifically of melee rogues though - I agree that ranged rogues are just fine, toughness-wise.

And good point about their expertise, I forgot they get more at 6.

Considering that, I would probably rank them above barbs. Congrats rogues, you are now the 3rd worst class.

[tKUUNK]

Yeah I love monks.

First though, anyone saying Ki-starvation isn't real, or is strictly the result of poor decisions (poor resource & rest management) ...no. It's real enough to touch, at least til around level 7 or 8, then it eases up quickly with additional levels. This is a legitimate gripe about the class at lower levels. Although in some cases poor decisions DO contribute to burning through ki, there's some truth to the belief that the monk's ability to do...anything....is tied too strongly to a scarce resource.

To those who say "just short rest more!": Yeah, to a point, true. It's just usually not an option when a monk needs it most.

Like when you're the lv6 shadow monk helping a group sneak into (then back out of) a heavily guarded enemy stronghold. You're probably not short resting in the middle of that stronghold. So you've got effectively 2 ki points to work with for any other Cool Monk Stuff along the way. On one hand, that feels fair because you spent 4 ki to avoid a ton of fighting. But at the same level, the druid can burn two lv2 slots for the PWT effect, and have their best spell slots available for the real action. The monk usually seems to be the only one burning their candle from both ends. Yes this is a very specific example, but it's one of many.

HOWEVER...

The monk's insane mobility and all those quirky little passive defenses add up. Played well, they're super tough to stop, cripple, or slow down. It's so much fun. You just look at the battle map each turn knowing you can get anywhere. No, you're not going to lead the DPR chart, but your strategic options are usually wide open every turn. You watch all the DM's deadly AoE effects explode in a state of peaceful detachment.

Monks are kinda just fun to drive. I think that's the joy of playing one.

And if you ever DM for a monk player, make sure to shoot that monk with a crossbow once in a while. It's like watering a plant. Don't wait too long between.

[animorte]

Yeah I love monks.

The monk's insane mobility and all those quirky little passive defenses add up. Played well, they're super tough to stop, cripple, or slow down. It's so much fun. You just look at the battle map each turn knowing you can get anywhere. No, you're not going to lead the DPR chart, but your strategic options are usually wide open every turn. You watch all the DM's deadly AoE effects explode in a state of peaceful detachment.

Monks are kinda just fun to drive. I think that's the joy of playing one.

These are very good points to bring up. Monks do have fewer resources to expend and they do need short rests more. But between that, they have absolutely no need to expend resources to maintain the survivability and mobility that (almost) everybody else does need to expend resources for.

Edit: Adding on to this... I noticed after posting it and rereading that this is the REAL problem with Monks. Their ultimate strengths (while very good) just aren't valued as much.

[Schwann145]

I think it's important to note that Monk movement isn't actually as amazing as people make it out to be, unless they're spending the Ki.
You're only an extra 10-15ft faster than others for 9 full levels. That's good to have, but not particularly amazing.

Rogues can Dash for free every round they want.
Casters have all sorts of options (Misty Step, Longstrider, Levitate, Spider Climb, Find Steed, Haste, etc).

Monks are certainly good at getting around the battlefield, with higher base movement, a resource-costing movement increase, and the ability to run vertically if desired, but they're far from the best at it. Certainly better than a Fighter. Probably better than a Barbarian. Maaaybe better than Paladin or Ranger. It gets iffy after that.

[elyktsorb]

I just think Monks are pretty neat.

After Druid they are the class I think about the most in terms of building characters around. But I just think Monk's have neat things. Though I also heavily bias towards melee fighters in general.

I don't entirely know why I have more fun thinking of stuff to do with a Monk, than say a Fighter or a Barbarian, I just do.

I also have never really felt like I've been short on Ki all that much. But I also never really spend it on dashing or disengaging unless it's like, absolutely essential to do something or not die in a turn.

Mobile alone eliminates the need to spend ki on disengaging, which by itself is probably worth it just for the ki you save for other stuff.

I also just love multiclassing monk, usually for no good reason either lol

[Kane0]

Well AA fighter and Kensei monk are both short rest based classes, and fighter is largely considered to have a solid core chassis wheres monks appear to be getting criticised for being ki hungry and subpar without said ki. So lets test it.

I would myself but im supposed to be working for the next few hours.

Well I got the time to do it anyways!

Variant human using standard array, both start with 16 Dex and Sharpshooter, AA has 14 Int/12 Wis and the Kensei the reverse. 14 Wis with unarmored defense matches the AC of studded leather.
Both take SS with Vuman then max Dex ASAP. AA then takes Mobile and Ken takes Fighting Initiate (Archery Style). Subsequent ASIs can be used on other things like Resilient, Alert, Observant, Lucky, Piercer, Martial Adept, etc.
Both are acting on 0 restable resources. No Action Surge. No Arcane Shots. No Ki.

Level 4:
Pros of AA: +2 higher to Hit, 5 more HP, BA is free
Pros of Ken: +1d4 higher damage per hit, 10' faster, Deflect Missiles and Slow Fall

Level 8:
Pros of AA: +2 higher to Hit, 9 more HP, BA retries a shot
Pros of Ken: +1d4 damage, 5' faster, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Evasion

Level 12:
Pros of AA: 13 more HP and one extra attack, BA retries a shot
Pros of Ken: +1d4 damage, 10' Faster along walls, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Evasion, Poison Immunity

Level 16:
Pros of AA: 17 more HP, one extra attack, BA retries a shot
Pros of Ken: +1d4 damage, 15' Faster along walls, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Evasion, Poison Immunity, Prof in all saves

Level 20:
Pros of AA: 21 more HP, two extra attacks, BA retries a shot
Pros of Ken: +1d4+1 damage, 20' Faster along walls, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Evastion, Poison Immunity, Prof in all Saves, retry a shot for free

So without expending resources, AA starts with better to-hit and gets those crucial extra attacks later on plus faster ASIs for maxing Dex and getting secondary feats, whereas Ken has greater mobility, slightly more per hit damage and much more defensive staying power despite slightly less health. AA also has the retry-attack for the majority of its time compared to Ken getting it as a capstone.

So it depends on what your priorities are. I wouldn't say Ki-less Ken is subpar.

[LudicSavant]

Yeah I love monks.

First though, anyone saying Ki-starvation isn't real, or is strictly the result of poor decisions (poor resource & rest management) ...no. It's real enough to touch

People aren't saying that a Monk can't run out of resources. Just that it's not as extreme as a couple posts made it out to be (which appear to be assuming zero short rests, comparing to long rest classes, and not even using all of the ki for those zero short rests).


The monk's insane mobility and all those quirky little passive defenses add up. Played well, they're super tough to stop, cripple, or slow down. It's so much fun. You just look at the battle map each turn knowing you can get anywhere. No, you're not going to lead the DPR chart, but your strategic options are usually wide open every turn. You watch all the DM's deadly AoE effects explode in a state of peaceful detachment.

This is one of the attractions (though I'd personally rate the Monk's mobility as more "good" than "insane" myself, there are other very mobile characters too).

I've noticed that the people who are especially harsh on Monks also tend to be keen on Barbarians, who are kinda the opposite of Monks. Barbarians are usually easy to stop, cripple, or slow down. They also rarely have much in the way of party support. And they aren't as adaptable to funky tactical situations.

Barbarians want to have a straight slugfest where people walk up to each other and exchange medium-strength melee attacks until one side falls over. But they can start to struggle when you get more towards the Tucker's Kobolds style of play... at which point the Monks might start strutting their stuff. Suddenly they're the one that interrupts the counterspeller, the one who chases down the target you need to catch that's 120 feet away and behind walls, the one who's casually deflecting arrows (and boulders) as the whole party's kiting, etc.

[Witty Username]

Like, a Wizard who uses their spells during exploration or social encounters is also showing up with less to the encounter, why are we saying the Monk is the only one? It's baffling.

Kinda sorta. Wizards are a bit odd in terms of resources. The first thing is a number of the exploration and social effect spells are rituals which won't take spell slots. Second, spells by about 3rd level start to have ridiculous effects in combat. When wizards first get fireball, It will frequently end encounters on the spot. And spells like grease, web, hypnotic pattern and slow can all swing encounters into trivial with a single cast.
And that is not taking into account things like bladesinger which have further resources to extend their day and a decent attack line from attack+cantrip.
The salt in the wound, wizards recover spells on a short rest after all of that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The salt in the wound, wizards recover spells on a short rest after all of that.

I'd say less salt on the wound and more highlighting the double standard considering the primary argument against monks here.

Not all of a wizards best utility spells are rituals either. Invisibility, Fly, Charm Person and Feather Fall just to name a small few.

[Tanarii]

This is frankly terrible game design, but that's something of another subject.
Nope. This is a table pacing problem. The DMG provides suggestions on solutions to your table's pacing problem, and if none of them work perfectly, they certainly give indications on the correct direction.

In this case the game design explicitly has variants to address the edge case of a table pacing problem conflicting with the rest / resource rules.

[Frogreaver]

Nope. This is a table pacing problem. The DMG provides suggestions on solutions to your table's pacing problem, and if none of them work perfectly, they certainly give indications on the correct direction.

In this case the game design explicitly has variants to address the edge case of a table pacing problem conflicting with the rest / resource rules.

IMO it’s more that the designed pacing has far too many encounters for a typical table. 2-4 encounters and 1 short rest would have been a better designed balancing point, IMO.

[Rashagar]

IMO it’s more that the designed pacing has far too many encounters for a typical table. 2-4 encounters and 1 short rest would have been a better designed balancing point, IMO.

In terms of short rest resource pools (uses vs. recovery), is that not functionally equivalent to 6-8 with 2 short rests though? (Or as near enough that makes no odds)

[Frogreaver]

In terms of short rest resource pools (uses vs. recovery), is that not functionally equivalent to 6-8 with 2 short rests though? (Or as near enough that makes no odds)

No. The problem is that most campaigns don’t feature 6-8 encounters in a 24 hour day without it being really contrived.

[Skrum]

No. The problem is that most campaigns don’t feature 6-8 encounters in a 24 hour day without it being really contrived.

Can you imagine a RL person getting into a physical altercation that could result in maiming or death 6-8 times a day?

[clash]

Can you imagine a RL person getting into a physical altercation that could result in maiming or death 6-8 times a day?

That depends. Take any movie where someone is invading an enemy stronghold, when captain America rescues the howling commandos in the first movie for example, and you can easily see 6-8 encounters without batting an eye.

[Frogreaver]

Can you imagine a RL person getting into a physical altercation that could result in maiming or death 6-8 times a day?

whether it mimics real life, that’s not what makes it feel contrived.


That depends. Take any movie where someone is invading an enemy stronghold, when captain America rescues the howling commandos in the first movie for example, and you can easily see 6-8 encounters without batting an eye.

I’m sure there’s examples but Most action and superhero movies don’t feature 6-8 encounters in a single day. Virtually no action or superhero tv series does the same either.

It’s just not something normally in the fiction.

[CapnWildefyr]

And as for comparing resources with casters, that's a losing argument. Casters are not one-trick ponies the way a Monk is.
The Monk exists solely to damage enemies. With the singular exception of the Way of Mercy, its class abilities offer nothing else to a party.
The Monk can't manipulate the battlefield, can't make the enemies focus on them, can't heal or cure allies, can't reposition anyone other than themself, etc. They have a single ability to stun which is both hard to land and taps into that singular resource they have to share with their other abilities. Their responsibility to a party is simply, "hit/kill the enemy."
A spellcaster, on the other hand, can fulfill their job with a single dropped spell. Anything after that is a bonus. A well-placed web or wall spell. Removing a curse or fear. Shielding from elemental or environmental hazards. Etc. All of which doesn't get in their way to help deal damage (via cantrips or melee/ranged attacks, depending on which caster we're talking about).
Even outside of combat, a Monk can't really compete. Being Dex/Wis based gives them an ability score edge on things like Perception or Stealth, but the class offers nothing to help in that regard. A Rogue is still fantastically superior for stealth with things like Expertise. A Warlock can send their invisible Imp to scout better than anyone. Etc and so on. (The Monk has to rely on subclass abilities to gain anything for out-of-combat, and Shadow is about the only one that does so.)

It sounds like you are comparing monks to a superclass of caster. Not every caster class can do everything all at once.

[Rashagar]

No. The problem is that most campaigns don’t feature 6-8 encounters in a 24 hour day without it being really contrived.

I'm not sure I'm following. If 2-4 encounters with 1 short rest is the more realistic expectation for a given adventuring day, then at worst a monk would have to have his ki last 2 encounters (on average). If the game is balanced around 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests then, at best (again on average), their resource pool would still be expected to last 2 encounters, same as the first situation, but at worst would have to last 3 encounters some times. So doesn't that mean that monks perform better all around in a 2-4 encounters + 1 short rest campaign?

Sorry that I'm obviously missing something. Do you mean the 2-4 + 1 short rest format more favours other classes (eg. full casters) than monks, and so monks by comparison feel worse? But, comparing monks in both formats, then monks in the shorter adventuring day would still feel better (less ki constrained) than ones in the longer adventuring day....

[Willie the Duck]

To those who say "just short rest more!": Yeah, to a point, true. It's just usually not an option when a monk needs it most.

This is a good point. It isn't always how much total (resources) per day, but when you can spend it and how big a reserve you can hold. Warlocks level 3-10 have it moreso (because their resources have less granularity) -- you have exactly two main spell slots, and if you run into an encounter that could really use that 3rd slot, it is really noticeable. Doubly so if one of your spells available is a powerful defensive one, such that you'd really like to keep one of those slots unused just in case. Monks have this, including one use of their resource pool being a pretty powerful defensive enhancer. Even if you get the requisite number of short rests per day, there are likely going to be places where you feel ki-constrained with much greater frequency than (for example) a sorcerer or cleric will ever feel constrained in their resources.


Edit: Adding on to this... I noticed after posting it and rereading that this is the REAL problem with Monks. Their ultimate strengths (while very good) just aren't valued as much.

I think that is always going to be primary issue (it certainly has been one in 3 separate editions I've played where the specific implementation of monks have been significantly different, but all had mobility as a key feature). Mobility and disruption are going to be highly effective or wildly ineffective depending on the situations the DM throws the party's way. A combat against something that looks like another band of adventurers might really play to the monk's strengths (get behind their lines, attack/disrupt the enemy squishies, make the melee bruisers decide whether to come and engage, get away alive). A combat against four identical hill giants (or similar), maybe not so much.

[Frogreaver]

I'm not sure I'm following. If 2-4 encounters with 1 short rest is the more realistic expectation for a given adventuring day, then at worst a monk would have to have his ki last 2 encounters (on average). If the game is balanced around 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests then, at best (again on average), their resource pool would still be expected to last 2 encounters, same as the first situation, but at worst would have to last 3 encounters some times. So doesn't that mean that monks perform better all around in a 2-4 encounters + 1 short rest campaign?

‘Perform better than what’ is the relevant question.


Sorry that I'm obviously missing something. Do you mean the 2-4 + 1 short rest format more favours other classes (eg. full casters) than monks, and so monks by comparison feel worse? But, comparing monks in both formats, then monks in the shorter adventuring day would still feel better (less ki constrained) than ones in the longer adventuring day....

As you just noted monks in a shorter adventuring day like the one I described still keep about the same number of encounters between rests. They are just as ki constrained as the 2 short rest long day monk.

One thing I think is worth noting is that randomness of short rests plays a big part. For example. A day could sometimes have 3 encounters before a rest. Is a monk really safe to use all his ki in 2 encounters and risk a third without ki? IMO he still has to conserve ki and conservation leads to unused resources via the next rest refreshing them. Wizards experience this too but short rest frequency makes it more pronounced.

[Rashagar]

‘Perform better than what’ is the relevant question.



As you just noted monks in a shorter adventuring day like the one I described still keep about the same number of encounters between rests. They are just as ki constrained as the 2 short rest long day monk.

One thing I think is worth noting is that randomness of short rests plays a big part. For example. A day could sometimes have 3 encounters before a rest. Is a monk really safe to use all his ki in 2 encounters and risk a third without ki? IMO he still has to conserve ki and conservation leads to unused resources via the next rest refreshing them. Wizards experience this too but short rest frequency makes it more pronounced.

Riiight okay, I get you now thanks. I thought you were saying monks would be better if balanced around the shorter adventuring day, and I really couldn't follow the logic from the post haha!

[Sorinth]

By chance, I was the only one to play a pure BM fighter so far - and I liked it well enough. Besides maneuvers, they still get action surge and second wind (obvi), and I had grabbed polearm mastery. So even without maneuvers I was rocking 20 AC (plate + shield), three attacks a round, and 70-ish HP. I was an orc too, so I had aggressive, which is quite valuable for a melee character. I played this character 1st-8th. I wasn't lighting up any performance charts, to be clear, but he was tough and reliable, and his maneuvers were really strong when I used them. Bait and Switch in particular.

Warlocks do suffer a bit. We actually had a discussion at one point about buffing locks, just because of the lack of short rests. Monk didn't come up because no one played a monk. But then most of the warlocks got their hands on Rods of the Pact Keeper, and it basically sorted itself out. The difference between monk and warlock, IMO, is warlocks can still do very respectable things with their at-will abilities - certainly more than monks can. Their spell slots are the "oh crap" buttons.

I find it somewhat ironic that you spent a feat on PAM for that 1d4 BA attack and ended up satisfied with 2 attacks + BA attack when Monks are getting that out of the box without using Ki. Similarly being very happy with aggressive indicates you believe movement is important, which is something Monks excel at even without Ki usage and doesn't conflict with the BA attack like Agressive does.

[Skrum]

I find it somewhat ironic that you spent a feat on PAM for that 1d4 BA attack and ended up satisfied with 2 attacks + BA attack when Monks are getting that out of the box without using Ki. Similarly being very happy with aggressive indicates you believe movement is important, which is something Monks excel at even without Ki usage and doesn't conflict with the BA attack like Agressive does.

Well the most important factor here is this was the first 5e character I made, before I spent time learning the system. I like the character quite well until he got to t2, and then I began to realize he was mediocre at best (this is all relative though - someone earlier pointed out that there are no actually bad classes in 5e, and this is absolutely true. There's only weak classes compared to even stronger classes).

The other difference I saw was that his base performance was good enough that his maneuvers could be appropriately rationed. 20 AC, a bonus action dash, dueling fighting style to boost his spear attacks, and 20 Str made him a respectable combatant. Because of that, I could save his short rest abilities for when they were needed, and I didn't feel like I was *really* holding the character back by not using maneuvers or action surge every round of combat. I really don't see how a monk pulls off something similar.

I also didn't think Aggressive "interfered" with my bonus attack all that much. When I used aggressive, it was because I was more than 30 ft from an enemy. Ergo, it was Aggressive and 2 attacks or 0 attacks. Monks though have flurry, dash, dodging, and disengaging all competing for that bonus action. Disengaging and dodging in particular are serious conflicts.

[strangebloke]

IMO it’s more that the designed pacing has far too many encounters for a typical table. 2-4 encounters and 1 short rest would have been a better designed balancing point, IMO.


No. The problem is that most campaigns don’t feature 6-8 encounters in a 24 hour day without it being really contrived.
If only the DMG had suggested means of altering the resting economy so that you could have fewer combats a day without disrupting the game balance. Something like, short rests being eight hours and long rests being 7 days. That'd be really cool, they could name it gritty realism or something.

Seriously, the DMG gave three fully workable solutions, I've zero sympathy for people who still can't figure this out after six years. At some point I think people just have to admit they're lazy and have put zero effort into actually engaging with the way the game is balanced.


And as for comparing resources with casters, that's a losing argument. Casters are not one-trick ponies the way a Monk is.
The Monk exists solely to damage enemies. With the singular exception of the Way of Mercy, its class abilities offer nothing else to a party.
The Monk can't manipulate the battlefield, can't make the enemies focus on them, can't heal or cure allies, can't reposition anyone other than themself, etc. They have a single ability to stun which is both hard to land and taps into that singular resource they have to share with their other abilities. Their responsibility to a party is simply, "hit/kill the enemy."
A spellcaster, on the other hand, can fulfill their job with a single dropped spell. Anything after that is a bonus. A well-placed web or wall spell. Removing a curse or fear. Shielding from elemental or environmental hazards. Etc. All of which doesn't get in their way to help deal damage (via cantrips or melee/ranged attacks, depending on which caster we're talking about).
Even outside of combat, a Monk can't really compete. Being Dex/Wis based gives them an ability score edge on things like Perception or Stealth, but the class offers nothing to help in that regard. A Rogue is still fantastically superior for stealth with things like Expertise. A Warlock can send their invisible Imp to scout better than anyone. Etc and so on. (The Monk has to rely on subclass abilities to gain anything for out-of-combat, and Shadow is about the only one that does so.)

Mercy is a very effective healer, one of the best, and doesn't have to sacrifice their (very good) healing potential to do so. You can spam short rests and use ki for healing to bring everyone back up to full at effectively no cost. Long Death has a free AOE fear effect they can spam turn after turn. Shadow monk is almost inarguably the best scout in the game because of their combination of free teleportation and (effectively) free PWT. Mercy, Shadow, and Kensei monks are able to do all of the above while also being among the best damage dealing classes in the game when built appropriately, without using very much ki at all. Shadow needs 2 ki to turn on darkness and go into hyper-advantaged state. Kensei needs 3 ki to turn their longbow into a +3/+3 (or better) and has something pretty exactly comparable to BM's precision strik. Mercy just nukes enemies outright.

Tasha's buffs were significant.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Why do people assume that all 6-8 Encounters are combat Encounters?

Why do people assume that all combat Encounters are situations where the opposing forces line up on opposite sides and just try to kill each other?

The DMG has a detailed section on Encounter Objectives.

I think it is fair to say, (yet again), the problem is not the Monk class.
The issue is the set of assumptions that those that are having problems are using in their game.

If a game typically does not use Short Rests, then Triple the Monks Ki points.

Gritty Realism is the worst test, of a monk.
If you are playing in a Gritty Realism game…It is brutal…
..like Josh Brolin’s pronunciation of the word ‘Brutal’ in the recent Dune movie.🃏

[strangebloke]

Gritty Realism is the worst setting for a monk.
If a game typically does not use Short Rests, then Triple the Monks Ki points.

If you are playing in a Gritty Realism game…don’t play a monk.
It is brutal…like Josh Brolin’s pronunciation of the word ‘Brutal’ in the recent Dune movie.

Gritty Realism results in more short rests generally, and monks perform very well in them. The shadow monk in my level 10 gritty realism campaign absolutely dominates the exploration pillar of my campaign. They have to be more judicious when in the dungeon delving component, but its still not that bad.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Check the edit above….Gritty Realism is Brutal for everyone….
Keep in mind, if this icon appears: 🃏=somewhat tongue in cheek portion of a post. 😁

[Dork_Forge]

Well the most important factor here is this was the first 5e character I made, before I spent time learning the system. I like the character quite well until he got to t2, and then I began to realize he was mediocre at best (this is all relative though - someone earlier pointed out that there are no actually bad classes in 5e, and this is absolutely true. There's only weak classes compared to even stronger classes).

This may be the first time I've ever heard a Battle Master referred to as 'mediocre at best'


The other difference I saw was that his base performance was good enough that his maneuvers could be appropriately rationed. 20 AC, a bonus action dash, dueling fighting style to boost his spear attacks, and 20 Str made him a respectable combatant. Because of that, I could save his short rest abilities for when they were needed, and I didn't feel like I was *really* holding the character back by not using maneuvers or action surge every round of combat. I really don't see how a monk pulls off something similar.

Assuming you're talking about level 5, a Monk two handing a staff isn't actually much behind the damage that took a Fighting Style and feat to achieve.

But if you wanted a basic idea of how a Monk 'pulls off something similar' to that build then off the top of my head just a Kensei:

V Human (10 16 14 8 16 8) with Tough and longsword

I'm going to assume a normal stat progression of 18 Str for your Orc, they couldn't actually hit this by 5th level whilst grabbing PAM unless you rolled well or used an alternative generous method. Otherwise we'd be looking at 6th level+, assuming you grabbed a stat bump at 6th, not PAM.

BM: 2d6+12+1d4+6= 27.5 on average, this goes down to 19 on turns where Aggressive is needed

Kensei: 1d10+2d6+12= 24.5 on average, now this is where it gets interesting

The Monk has a significantly higher movement speed, reducing the likelihood they'd have to dash as a bonus, but they also have a much stronger and flexible ranged game as a back up option.

If the Monk isn't pumping their AC the damage gap closes and if the Orc didn't have high stats the damage shifts to the Monk's side with no AC bump and even with it.

Durability wise it's 18AC vs 20, but the Monk will have equal, if not higher, hit points and better defenses overall.


I also didn't think Aggressive "interfered" with my bonus attack all that much. When I used aggressive, it was because I was more than 30 ft from an enemy. Ergo, it was Aggressive and 2 attacks or 0 attacks. Monks though have flurry, dash, dodging, and disengaging all competing for that bonus action. Disengaging and dodging in particular are serious conflicts.

Most of that they aren't doing regularly, and if a Monk needs to Dash then any other melee will probably need to, with a much higher cost.

a higher base movement speed just means you won't have to dash as much, the same is true for the Barbarian to some degree.

[Skrum]

This may be the first time I've ever heard a Battle Master referred to as 'mediocre at best'

Ok mediocre is probably an exaggeration. He was perfectly competent at what he did. But when someone made a warlock/pally with elven accuracy and a dark gift, my poor orc lost some of his shine. I also just got a little bored of playing him, by the time I got to 8th.




Assuming you're talking about level 5, a Monk two handing a staff isn't actually much behind the damage that took a Fighting Style and feat to achieve.

But if you wanted a basic idea of how a Monk 'pulls off something similar' to that build then off the top of my head just a Kensei:

V Human (10 16 14 8 16 8) with Tough and longsword

I'm going to assume a normal stat progression of 18 Str for your Orc, they couldn't actually hit this by 5th level whilst grabbing PAM unless you rolled well or used an alternative generous method. Otherwise we'd be looking at 6th level+, assuming you grabbed a stat bump at 6th, not PAM.

BM: 2d6+12+1d4+6= 27.5 on average, this goes down to 19 on turns where Aggressive is needed

Kensei: 1d10+2d6+12= 24.5 on average, now this is where it gets interesting

The Monk has a significantly higher movement speed, reducing the likelihood they'd have to dash as a bonus, but they also have a much stronger and flexible ranged game as a back up option.

If the Monk isn't pumping their AC the damage gap closes and if the Orc didn't have high stats the damage shifts to the Monk's side with no AC bump and even with it.

Durability wise it's 18AC vs 20, but the Monk will have equal, if not higher, hit points and better defenses overall.



Most of that they aren't doing regularly, and if a Monk needs to Dash then any other melee will probably need to, with a much higher cost.

a higher base movement speed just means you won't have to dash as much, the same is true for the Barbarian to some degree.

At level 5 he would've had 16 str actually, I bumped it at 6th and 8th to get to 20. We use standard point buy.

Funnily enough, it seemed to me my guy got hit less when he had 18 AC lol. Total RNG/confirmation bias, but the armorer who he bought that plate from sold him "cursed armor."

It's good to see that monks can be at least in the ballpark though.

[Dork_Forge]

Ok mediocre is probably an exaggeration. He was perfectly competent at what he did. But when someone made a warlock/pally with elven accuracy and a dark gift, my poor orc lost some of his shine. I also just got a little bored of playing him, by the time I got to 8th.

Uhh, so the Warlock was allowed to choose a DM granted boon as part of character creation? Either this was unbalanced against you or the character creation rules being used are completely removed from what the game expects.



At level 5 he would've had 16 str actually, I bumped it at 6th and 8th to get to 20. We use standard point buy.

Funnily enough, it seemed to me my guy got hit less when he had 18 AC lol. Total RNG/confirmation bias, but the armorer who he bought that plate from sold him "cursed armor."

It's good to see that monks can be at least in the ballpark though.

Okay, so then a Kensei burning no Ki and choosing to focus on AC rather than damage was doing the same damage on average as your BM that was heavily invested in damage. 'At least in the same ballpark' doesn't really seem to accurately reflect that.

I can understand the dice luck, one player in one of my groups rolls incredibly low, eerily consistently, it's like the RNG gods have cursed him lol

[Skrum]

Uhh, so the Warlock was allowed to choose a DM granted boon as part of character creation? Either this was unbalanced against you or the character creation rules being used are completely removed from what the game expects.

Yes we allow people to take dark gifts at level 1, if they are written into the character's backstory. This basically has to pass the "smell test," but our group doesn't have any outright munchkins so it has worked out fine so far. I'm personally not that enthused about dark gifts? I haven't bothered with one.





Okay, so then a Kensei burning no Ki and choosing to focus on AC rather than damage was doing the same damage on average as your BM that was heavily invested in damage. 'At least in the same ballpark' doesn't really seem to accurately reflect that.

I can understand the dice luck, one player in one of my groups rolls incredibly low, eerily consistently, it's like the RNG gods have cursed him lol

I would hardly call taking dueling fighting style "heavily invested in damage." He took dueling and polearm mastery and fought with a spear and shield. His maneuvers were bait and switch, precision strike, riposte, commanding presence, and menacing strike. I think that's a pretty balanced selection of maneuvers. I think he would be best described as a "jack of all trades" using fighter - kinda had something for most situations.

[animorte]

I can understand the dice luck, one player in one of my groups rolls incredibly low, eerily consistently, it's like the RNG gods have cursed him lol

Honestly check to make sure his dice are correctly printed. For those of you that don't know what that means:

The two opposite sides of each die should equal 1 greater than the highest number:
20 + 1 = 21
19 + 2 = 21
18 + 3 = 21
And hence forth...
12 + 1 = 13
11 + 2 = 13
And so on...
8 + 1 = 9
7 + 2 = 9

[Dork_Forge]

Yes we allow people to take dark gifts at level 1, if they are written into the character's backstory. This basically has to pass the "smell test," but our group doesn't have any outright munchkins so it has worked out fine so far. I'm personally not that enthused about dark gifts? I haven't bothered with one.

It really depends on which they took, some of them are more eh or roleplay orientated, but some are straight buffs. If that's available and you just choose to not go for one then that's your prerogative, but it does put you at a mechanical disadvantage when others have more levers to pull in creation than you.




I would hardly call taking dueling fighting style "heavily invested in damage." He took dueling and polearm mastery and fought with a spear and shield. His maneuvers were bait and switch, precision strike, riposte, commanding presence, and menacing strike. I think that's a pretty balanced selection of maneuvers. I think he would be best described as a "jack of all trades" using fighter - kinda had something for most situations.

I would call taking a Fighting Style that is just a flat damage bonus, and taking a feat that is entirely damage orientated 'heavily invested in damage.' You used your only ASI at that point to increase your offense, given how much you could possible invest at that level I'm not sure what there is to disagree with.

Your maneuver list is varied, but if your point was to show you weren't damage orientated 3/5 maneuvers are about, or add, to damage.


Honestly check to make sure his dice are correctly printed. For those of you that don't know what that means:

The two opposite sides of each die should equal 1 greater than the highest number:
20 + 1 = 21
19 + 2 = 21
18 + 3 = 21
And hence forth...
12 + 1 = 13
11 + 2 = 13
And so on...
8 + 1 = 9
7 + 2 = 9

This is on Roll20 for my personal experience with it, with his physical dice providing back up otherwise, it's a full-blown curse!

[LudicSavant]

I would hardly call taking dueling fighting style "heavily invested in damage." He took dueling and polearm mastery and fought with a spear and shield.

To be fair, Dueling and PAM (which provides less non-damage benefits than even a pure +2 stat bump).

But anyways, let's take a look at how much damage that does at level 5.

The Battle Master starts with +3 Strength and takes Polearm Master as their ASI.
The Monk just bumps to +4 Dexterity. They can even grab a half-feat with that (including one that boosts non-combat stuff like Skill Expert), but I'll leave that alone for now.

Subclassless, raceless Monk does 3 attacks for 2d8+1d6+12 (24.5), with +7 to hit. 15.325 DPR vs AC 16.
Battle Master Fighter with Dueling and PAM does 3 attacks for 2d6+1d4+15 (24.5), with only +6 to hit. 13.95 DPR vs AC 16.

Additionally, the Monk is Dex-based, which means they have a better initiative than a PAM-user, which means more damage (because initiative is functionally equivalent to a %chance to get an entire extra turn of action economy over Team Monster. Like, think about how valuable Action Surge is, and that's just 1 action, not a whole turn). They also are a little more mobile, which means they're less likely to lose damage efficiency due to positioning. They also don't ruin stealth for everyone. Even if they are saddled with someone in the party who ruins the chance of surprise, they can at least start a combat personally Hidden.

The Fighter will of course have their reaction attack should enemies just charge them. But the Monk still has half their ASI left. And hasn't picked a subclass yet.

We could also bring races into it. Oh sure, the Fighter could go VHuman, but the Monk could be a damn MPMM Bugbear with +8d6 reach flurries when they win initiative, and lead to the monster dying before the Fighter even gets a turn.

Make of this information what you will.

[Sorinth]

Well the most important factor here is this was the first 5e character I made, before I spent time learning the system. I like the character quite well until he got to t2, and then I began to realize he was mediocre at best (this is all relative though - someone earlier pointed out that there are no actually bad classes in 5e, and this is absolutely true. There's only weak classes compared to even stronger classes).

The other difference I saw was that his base performance was good enough that his maneuvers could be appropriately rationed. 20 AC, a bonus action dash, dueling fighting style to boost his spear attacks, and 20 Str made him a respectable combatant. Because of that, I could save his short rest abilities for when they were needed, and I didn't feel like I was *really* holding the character back by not using maneuvers or action surge every round of combat. I really don't see how a monk pulls off something similar.

I also didn't think Aggressive "interfered" with my bonus attack all that much. When I used aggressive, it was because I was more than 30 ft from an enemy. Ergo, it was Aggressive and 2 attacks or 0 attacks. Monks though have flurry, dash, dodging, and disengaging all competing for that bonus action. Disengaging and dodging in particular are serious conflicts.

I can appreciate that you were still learning and the character wasn't optimized, but it goes to show you how much is really down to expectations. Because from at will abilities alone your basic monk can end up pretty similar to that BM. If that BM's base performance was good enough, then I don't see why a Monk base performance isn't good enough beyond your expectations not being the same. If you take your very basic V. Human Open Hand monk with the Mobile feat and a quarterstaff, the only difference would be trading AC for defensive positioning, and HP for damage reduction abilities. In the end they will be pretty much inline with each other without using SR abilities.

Maybe interfere wasn't the right word but the monk can likely reach your enemy that's beyond 30ft from the enemy without needing a BA dash because of their superior base movement. So they still get their BA attack whereas your BM doesn't for that turn.

[LudicSavant]

If a game typically does not use Short Rests, then Triple the Monks Ki points.

If there are zero short rests, then yeah. Just give them more ki. Or like, an Action they can use to refresh their ki, twice a day.

[Tanarii]

Even if you get the requisite number of short rests per day, there are likely going to be places where you feel ki-constrained with much greater frequency than (for example) a sorcerer or cleric will ever feel constrained in their resources.
This is true when the long-rest caster is full on slots. But when they're almost empty, and the short-rest martial/caster is full again because short rests are easier than long rests, then the long rest caster is going to feel constrained while the long rest caster does not.

Which is exactly what I saw in my campaign where the typical session was 2-3 short rests covering 1-1/3 of an adventuring day, and long rest casters were sucking hind teat by the end of a session if they didn't pace themselves very well. Even more so if they really pushed on with a 4th short rest and another 1-3 encounters.

[Dork_Forge]

This is true when the long-rest caster is full on slots. But when they're almost empty, and the short-rest martial/caster is full again because short rests are easier than long rests, then the long rest caster is going to feel constrained while the long rest caster does not.

Which is exactly what I saw in my campaign where the typical session was 2-3 short rests covering 1-1/3 of an adventuring day, and long rest casters were sucking hind teat by the end of a session if they didn't pace themselves very well. Even more so if they really pushed on with a 4th short rest and another 1-3 encounters.

This seems like a good bouncing point for an observation from both of my groups:

Casters 'feel' like they're contrained/low even when (in my opinion) they aren't really. For the Bard it's when he's used up his more powerful slots and just has a horde of 1st and 2nd level ones left (level 14 (11 Bard/2Warlock/1Sorc) ), for the Druid she tends to feel like she's running low when she's out of lower-level slots, going more by a quantity approach than raw slot power (9th level straight Druid).

I think a core part of things is that the reality for a lot of tables is that casters are more accustomed to having access to, and using, spell slots than Monks are to spending Ki. A Monk out of Ki will generally feel better about things than a caster out of slots.

[Unoriginal]

After 5 pages, it seems that not everybody loves Monks, after all.

As such, I've decided to (re)write a little something.

---------

Whenever someone bring up the Monk in a thread:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULaNvmjZWxg

(Spoken) There it is, the weakest class in the game...

(Spoken) Say, is it getting cold around here? brr...


When a cold wind blows it chills you
Chills you brains and all

But there's nothing in nature that freezes your heart
Like years of playin' martials


It fills you with great annoyance
Like writing "rogue" as "rouge"

And the worst of the worst
The most hated and cursed
Is the class that we call Monk
(yeah)

Unkind to any
And the wrath of many
This is the fifth edition Monk


Oh! There goes Mr. Kung Fu
There goes Mr. BA
If they gave a prize for bein' sh**
The winner would be it

Monk players love its low ki
Cause they think it gives it power
If you bring up flavor, you can bet the thread'll be sour
(yuck!)

(Spoken): Even the Beastmaster players don't like it.


There goes Mr. "fist fight"
There goes Mr. "speed"
The undisputed master of the underwhelming deed

Abilities costs a fortune, especially for subclasses
Those poor Monks live in misery
It's even worse for 4Es
(Please sir, I want some ki)

It must be so lonely
It must be so sad
To go to extremes to convince us it isn't that bad
It's really a victim of the designers' pride
Look close and there must be a sweet niche inside...

(Spoken)Nah!

(Spoken) Uh-Uh!

There goes Mr. Mundane
There goes Mr. MAD

It has no places for feats or fun
Our anger makes that clear

Don't ask the devs for a favor cause its nastiness increases
No nova rounds for those in need
No cheese for optimizers

(Spoken): The Monk's just like RL. It does martials arts just like at the gym, and can't realistically do better.

There goes Mr. Short Rest
There goes Mr. ki pool

Just does damages
Has bad subclasses
And relies on DM's boons

If sucking hard's a way of life
You practice and rehearse

Then all that work is payin' off
Cause the Monk is getting worse

Every day, in every way
The Monk is getting worse!

[Warlush]

The fact that a Monk who is completely naked still has 100% of their combat capability is a much-underestimated feature. Nobody else is as unaffected by the loss of gear as a Monk. This can put you in some strong situations.
This is such a huge deal. If you've ever played OotA you'll feel that pain.

[animorte]

This is such a huge deal. If you've ever played OotA you'll feel that pain.

Yet another thing that people don't really consider when talking about monks.

This is the reason I want the Sacred Vows to return in some facet, perhaps just as stronger background options. Vow of Poverty Monk bring it on.

[Schwann145]

Mercy is a very effective healer, one of the best, and doesn't have to sacrifice their (very good) healing potential to do so.
True, which is why I called it out as the exception. :)


Long Death has a free AOE fear effect they can spam turn after turn.
An AOE fear that friendly fires. Generally a bad strategy to make your allies run in fear along with your enemies.


Shadow monk is almost inarguably the best scout in the game because of their combination of free teleportation and (effectively) free PWT.
Almost inarguably? Allow me to argue. ;)
Without spending any resources - Chainlocks are miles ahead of Shadow Monk scouts. So are Echo Knights. I'd say even the core Rogue does scouting better, and depending on subclass choice goes well above what Shadow can do. If we start considering using resources for scouting, then Druids blow Shadow Monks out of the water, and any casters with the proper divination options do too.
I'd put Shadow Monks on par with Rangers, which sounds way better than it is because Rangers aren't as good at the role as they really should be. ;P


Mercy, Shadow, and Kensei monks are able to do all of the above while also being among the best damage dealing classes in the game when built appropriately, without using very much ki at all. Shadow needs 2 ki to turn on darkness and go into hyper-advantaged state. Kensei needs 3 ki to turn their longbow into a +3/+3 (or better) and has something pretty exactly comparable to BM's precision strike. Mercy just nukes enemies outright.
Gotta hard-disagree here. The way that these Monks keep up in damage is by continually spending Ki every round to do so. Even doing that, they're pretty middle-of-the-pack of the game's damage dealers. Any dedicated DPS thread will show this.


Tasha's buffs were significant.
Definitely agree here though. :)


Subclassless, raceless Monk does 3 attacks for 2d8+1d6+12 (24.5), with +7 to hit.
How does a raceless Monk have a d8 weapon at lvl 5?

[JNAProductions]

How does a raceless Monk have a d8 weapon at lvl 5?

A quarterstaff.

[animorte]

Without spending any resources - Chainlocks are miles ahead of Shadow Monk scouts.

This is why I keep recommending Warlocks to everybody. That's just one of the MANY things they can be built to be exceptional at.

[Tanarii]

A quarterstaff.
Or spear.

Both of which can be used at level 1.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I'm also curious how a Chainlock or a Rogue beats a Shadow Monk. Given that Schwann apparently doesn't know the details of Monks, it's a claim I view with some reservations.

[Schwann145]

A quarterstaff.


Or spear.

Both of which can be used at level 1.

I've been thinking about dual-wielding most of the day, so my brain derped a lil here and assumed 1h weapons. Whoops :smallredface:
Carry on!

[Witty Username]

Complete aside, but I find it neat that the difference between variant human PAM, 16.5 to the non-variant human 13.475 PAM. hilarious.
Edit, hm, my numbers aren't matching. I think it is because I am not factoring crits?

[Dork_Forge]

An AOE fear that friendly fires. Generally a bad strategy to make your allies run in fear along with your enemies.

It is and that is a downside of that specific feature, luckily teamwork is a thing and Monks have a higher speed and other tools to leverage positioning.



Without spending any resources - Chainlocks are miles ahead of Shadow Monk scouts.

By...? Familiar? That limits scouting to 100ft unless additional invocations have been used. Whilst technically 'resourceless' it's a heavy investment in class features because the class is designed to not need as many resources.


So are Echo Knights.

Off the top of my head I'd say that this is only as stealthy as the core Fighter is, it's has lower immediate risk to the party, but is far more likely to be discovered than anything else covered.


I'd say even the core Rogue does scouting better, and depending on subclass choice goes well above what Shadow can do.

Going to need some expansion on this, because it looks like you're relying primarily on Expertise and Cunning Action for this claim? Which don't seem better than a Shadow Monk.


If we start considering using resources for scouting, then Druids blow Shadow Monks out of the water,

Again, citation needed here. Is this about using Wildshape? Not seeing how that's blowing anything out of the water, but open to examples.


and any casters with the proper divination options do too.

Divination isn't scouting, nor is it as reliable as scouting.


I'd put Shadow Monks on par with Rangers, which sounds way better than it is because Rangers aren't as good at the role as they really should be. ;P

Rangers, particularly in a post Tasha's world, are actually really good at scouting. Why do you think they aren't?


Gotta hard-disagree here. The way that these Monks keep up in damage is by continually spending Ki every round to do so. Even doing that, they're pretty middle-of-the-pack of the game's damage dealers. Any dedicated DPS thread will show this.


There's nothing middle of the road about built-for-damage Monks in the grand scheme of things, and Strangeblock in particular has thrown math comparisons for that many times.

And Monks in general are by default some of the best damage dealers for a quarter of the game.


How does a raceless Monk have a d8 weapon at lvl 5?

Two handing a staff

[Schwann145]

Yeah, I'm also curious how a Chainlock or a Rogue beats a Shadow Monk. Given that Schwann apparently doesn't know the details of Monks, it's a claim I view with some reservations.
Chainlocks have a telepathic connection to an invisible flying Imp. How is that not always better than stealthily sneaking into a place yourself?
Rogues, on the chassis alone, get Expertise (and if high enough, Reliable Talent) for a better chance of succeeding on the rolls themselves, Cunning Action for way better movement and faster hiding, and (again, if high enough) Blindsense to see what you otherwise can't see. If we add in subclass abilities, it just gets that much better (Spellcasting/Mage Hand Legerdemain, Fast Hands/Supreme Sneak, Survivalist/Superior Mobility, Ghost Walk, etc and so on).

[animorte]

By...? Familiar? That limits scouting to 100ft unless additional invocations have been used. Whilst technically 'resourceless' it's a heavy investment in class features because the class is designed to not need as many resources.

Heavy? One invocation, Investment of the Chain Master (please read that, find familiar, and the Imp's stats), which you can have all of at level 3, makes this Pact alone nearly comparable to some of the available Patrons.

[Dork_Forge]

Chainlocks have a telepathic connection to an invisible flying Imp. How is that not always better than stealthily sneaking into a place yourself?
Rogues, on the chassis alone, get Expertise (and if high enough, Reliable Talent) for a better chance of succeeding on the rolls themselves, Cunning Action for way better movement and faster hiding, and (again, if high enough) Blindsense to see what you otherwise can't see. If we add in subclass abilities, it just gets that much better (Spellcasting/Mage Hand Legerdemain, Fast Hands/Supreme Sneak, Survivalist/Superior Mobility, Ghost Walk, etc and so on).

High Dex+Prof+PwT means you'll have a hard time failing Stealth checks.

Level 5 Shadow Monk with PwT is going to have a minimum Stealth of 18.

Rogues also don't have 'way better movement' when Monks are moving significantly faster as standard and have the option of moving obscenely fast?

And Blindsense isn't Blindsight, it only tells you if someone you can't see is hiding within 10ft of you, it's... really disappointing.

This isn't a compelling argument for Rogues being better Scouts without resource expenditure. Nor am I seeing how they could be without spending resources on their own subclass abilities.


Heavy? One invocation, Investment of the Chain Master (please read that, find familiar, and the Imp's stats), which you get at level 2, makes this Pact alone nearly comparable to some of the available Patrons.

Please don't tell me to read anything, I am extremely familiar with those things and am an advocate of Chainlocks.

Firstly you're fundamentally wrong, you can't take Investment of the Chainmaster until you have Pact of the Chain, which you can't get until level 3. This is not a good look for someone telling another to go read what they're referring to. (you edited this to correct it, I'm leaving your quote as I actually replied to it).

Secondly, an Invocation is a significant investment for a Warlock that relies heavily on them to compensate for a lack of slots. At the level you can take it, it's half of your invocations and you can only get 6 across your entire progression.

That's not even the only Chain invocation, nevermind anything actually combat relevant or tied to utility.

So yes, a Pact and an Invocation is a heavy investment into scouting.

[tKUUNK]

After 5 pages, it seems that not everybody loves Monks, after all.

As such, I've decided to (re)write a little something.



haha wow. Nice work, love it!

[Schwann145]

It is and that is a downside of that specific feature, luckily teamwork is a thing and Monks have a higher speed and other tools to leverage positioning.
A Monk that is 30ft separated from the rest of the group is a Monk that is likely going to die. This is a great example of why I think Monk speed is overhyped. You're getting +5-15ft extra movement over most everyone else for most of the time. That is definitely not enough to run all over the battlefield like it's your own personal playground. Even spending the Ki for the bonus-action Dash is not going to let you just zip in and out over 30ft+ distances. You can get in and do your action, or you can get in and out, but you can't get in, do your action, and get out again.


By...? Familiar? That limits scouting to 100ft unless additional invocations have been used. Whilst technically 'resourceless' it's a heavy investment in class features because the class is designed to not need as many resources.
I really don't see how, "I choose Imp, which is objectively the best option for all situations, as my Improved Familiar" is in any way a heavy investment. You'll have to explain this one to me.


Off the top of my head I'd say that this is only as stealthy as the core Fighter is, it's has lower immediate risk to the party, but is far more likely to be discovered than anything else covered.
True, the Echo Knight doesn't have any particular ability to be stealthy or perceptive, but the big score here is that the Echo doesn't exist. Best case scenario, the Echo effectively stealths, shows the Knight everything they need to know, and then vanishes without the need to stealth back out again. Worst case scenario, the Echo gets caught and destroyed, and the party is in no danger of being attacked or caught. All without using any resources.


Going to need some expansion on this, because it looks like you're relying primarily on Expertise and Cunning Action for this claim? Which don't seem better than a Shadow Monk.
I explained above in more detail, but I think your argument defeats itself. If a Rogue without subclass is on par with a specialist Monk, how is the Rogue not better? You're going to have a subclass, and even if you don't pick a subclass that's good for scouting in any way, you're still on par with a specialist Monk.


Again, citation needed here. Is this about using Wildshape? Not seeing how that's blowing anything out of the water, but open to examples.
Yes, of course it's about Wildshape. A critter, small bird, etc, can very easily and very obviously scout better than any humanoid because they're going to be ignored.


Divination isn't scouting, nor is it as reliable as scouting.
Of course Divination is scouting. What a silly position to take!
Unless you mean the spell, Divination? I was talking about the school in general. Something like Arcane Eye, a Divination spell, is an outstanding (one of the best, even) scouts.


Rangers, particularly in a post Tasha's world, are actually really good at scouting. Why do you think they aren't?
I don't think they aren't good at scouting. I think they aren't as good as they should be. Scouting is one of those quintessential Ranger roles, and all of the above tend to do it better than the Ranger, which I find unfortunate.


High Dex+Prof+PwT means you'll have a hard time failing Stealth checks.

Level 5 Shadow Monk with PwT is going to have a minimum Stealth of 18.

Rogues also don't have 'way better movement' when Monks are moving significantly faster as standard and have the option of moving obscenely fast?

And Blindsense isn't Blindsight, it only tells you if someone you can't see is hiding within 10ft of you, it's... really disappointing.

This isn't a compelling argument for Rogues being better Scouts without resource expenditure. Nor am I seeing how they could be without spending resources on their own subclass abilities.

•A Shadow Monk using PwT is using resources. To compensate, the Rogue casts Invisibility.
•The level 5 Monk is moving 40ft per turn with 3 opportunities to move an additional 40ft as a bonus action (only 3, because you already spent 2 Ki on PwT). The Rogue can move 60ft per turn, every turn, as long as they want to, with Cunning Action.
•Blindsense isn't Blindsight, true. But it does give you the potential to learn more information than the Monk can.

I stand by my argument for Rogues.

[LudicSavant]

How does a raceless Monk have a d8 weapon at lvl 5?

A quarterstaff or spear wielded in two hands


Yeah, I'm also curious how a Chainlock or a Rogue beats a Shadow Monk. Given that Schwann apparently doesn't know the details of Monks, it's a claim I view with some reservations.

Blindsense to see what you otherwise can't see.

A Rogue's Blindsense doesn't let you see anything. You still get Disadvantage for the enemy being unseen. And you have to practically bump into them to even know their location (and only their location, no other details or benefits).


a telepathic connection to an invisible flying Imp. How is that not always better than stealthily sneaking into a place yourself?

Because a Chainlock imp cannot sneak in the entire party, through a door or even a wall, have everyone pre-buff unnoticed, get Surprise, win initiative, and kill everyone before they get a turn. And then do it for the next encounter too.

Additionally, the chainlock imp is easier to notice than the Shadow Monk, despite its invisibility. It also has only +1 Perception. Eagle-eyed, it is not.

Chainlock imps are fantastic. But acting like they're just categorically bringing more to the scouting game than Shadow Monks is just kinda weird.

[Sorinth]

Some things to consider:

"Bad" doesn't mean the same thing in 5e as it did in earlier editions. One of the highlights of 5e is that there really are no bad classes anymore. So when someone says Monk is bad, that is saying that they are worse than other class options in comparison - not that they can't play the game or get the job done.
Basically, whatever you want your Monk to do for the party, another class is likely to do it better/more reliably.

Monks are in many ways generalists, so they might not do that one thing better/more reliably then a class that's dedicated to it, but unlike many they can switch between roles/jobs quite easily. It's why these white room debates often don't reflect actual play.



Monk resources are in competition in a way other classes don't have to deal with. A Battle Master Fighter does indeed have a limited number of Maneuvers they can do, much like a Monk has a limited number of Ki. But the Battle Master doesn't have to sacrifice a Maneuver dice for it's Second Wind, or it's Action Surge. A Monk does have to share it's Ki with everything it wants to do.

Monks don't have to spend ki or spend a feat to get a BA attack, or to have increased movement, or to reduce damage from falling, ranged attacks, dex spells, or to have immunity to poison. Monk's might only have 1 resource pool but they get a lot of abilities that don't require any resources.


And, unfortunately, this is emphasized by the core class's low damage. Monks aren't good DPS without spending Ki. That's notable. Other DPS classes don't have this same issue. Sneak Attack is free. Heavy Weapons are free. Cantrips are free.
So when these comparison discussions happen, and the level 5 Monk is forced to spend 2-3 Ki per round to keep up, that's noticeably expensive. Or when the level 11 Kensei is spending 3 Ki at the beginning of each fight, and then another 2-3 Ki per round, it's still noticeably expensive. The Warlock doesn't have to spend anything to spam good damage via EBs. The Paladin can save those Smites for the best time to use them, like on a crit. The Fighter can rely on it's stronger HD, AC, Fighting Style, weapon options, etc to carry them until it's advantageous to spend their SR or LR resources. Etc.

As for damage in really depends on the tier, your EB Warlock spending no resources isn't out damaging the Monk in tier 1 or 2. And it's worth noting that for Monks their tier 4 damage boost comes from their subclass which gets ignored in most DPR comparisons.


And as for comparing resources with casters, that's a losing argument. Casters are not one-trick ponies the way a Monk is.
The Monk exists solely to damage enemies. With the singular exception of the Way of Mercy, its class abilities offer nothing else to a party.
The Monk can't manipulate the battlefield, can't make the enemies focus on them, can't heal or cure allies, can't reposition anyone other than themself, etc. They have a single ability to stun which is both hard to land and taps into that singular resource they have to share with their other abilities. Their responsibility to a party is simply, "hit/kill the enemy."
A spellcaster, on the other hand, can fulfill their job with a single dropped spell. Anything after that is a bonus. A well-placed web or wall spell. Removing a curse or fear. Shielding from elemental or environmental hazards. Etc. All of which doesn't get in their way to help deal damage (via cantrips or melee/ranged attacks, depending on which caster we're talking about).
Even outside of combat, a Monk can't really compete. Being Dex/Wis based gives them an ability score edge on things like Perception or Stealth, but the class offers nothing to help in that regard. A Rogue is still fantastically superior for stealth with things like Expertise. A Warlock can send their invisible Imp to scout better than anyone. Etc and so on. (The Monk has to rely on subclass abilities to gain anything for out-of-combat, and Shadow is about the only one that does so.)

Monks offer tons of versatility in the exploration portion of the game. Thinking monks are there to solely damage enemies is no doubt the reason you have a bad opinion of the monk. Just the fact that the Monk doesn't really need money and doesn't need to compete for loot is a pretty big boost to party resources. But that's never considered by people who think all the monk does is punch people therefore DPR tells them everything they need to know.

[Schwann145]

A Rogue's Blindsense doesn't let you see anything. You still get Disadvantage for the enemy being unseen. And you have to practically bump into them to even know their location (and only their location, no other details or benefits).

Because a Chainlock imp cannot sneak in the entire party, through a door or even a wall, have everyone pre-buff unnoticed, get Surprise, win initiative, and kill everyone before they get a turn. And then do it for the next encounter too.

Additionally, the chainlock imp is easier to notice than the Shadow Monk, despite its invisibility. It also has only +1 Perception. Eagle-eyed, it is not.

Chainlock imps are fantastic. But acting like they're just categorically bringing more to the scouting game than Shadow Monks is just kinda weird.

Potentially knowing that Invisible foes are present is significantly better than not knowing this. The Rogue is more likely to stumble onto this info (pun intended ;P ).

Also, it seems you're confusing "ambushing" with "scouting."

[animorte]

Please don't tell me to read anything, I am extremely familiar with those things and am an advocate of Chainlocks.

Firstly you're fundamentally wrong, you can't take Investment of the Chainmaster until you have Pact of the Chain, which you can't get until level 3. This is not a good look for someone telling another to go read what they're referring to. (you edited this to correct it, I'm leaving your quote as I actually replied to it).

Secondly, an Invocation is a significant investment for a Warlock that relies heavily on them to compensate for a lack of slots. At the level you can take it, it's half of your invocations and you can only get 6 across your entire progression.

That's not even the only Chain invocation, nevermind anything actually combat relevant or tied to utility.

So yes, a Pact and an Invocation is a heavy investment into scouting.

Yeah, yeah. Level 3, I caught that right after I posted it! XD

It's an invocation you don't need because at level 3 you automatically have an excellent scout. I'm only saying that at level 3 you can already have the greatest amount of versatility than just about any class in the game if you choose to invest in that specific invocation. Not to mention shapeshifting. Seems worth it to me.

Also the combat utility with it is extremely notable. The familiar gets its own action (anything except attack) so it can easily provide advantage to melee allies, use items, etc. And with the invocation, it can do up to 1d4+3d6+3 as your bonus action. And has your save DC and resistance to all damage if you use your reaction the rare occasion it gets hit.

It also has the absolute best Darkvision in the game with Devil's Sight and 120 ft. Twilight Cleric has 300 ft. Darkvision though (shared even), but not Devil's Sight.

Again, heavy? Oh you bet your fine fanny it's an investment. And not just for scouting.

[Sorinth]

•A Shadow Monk using PwT is using resources. To compensate, the Rogue casts Invisibility.
•The level 5 Monk is moving 40ft per turn with 3 opportunities to move an additional 40ft as a bonus action (only 3, because you already spent 2 Ki on PwT). The Rogue can move 60ft per turn, every turn, as long as they want to, with Cunning Action.
•Blindsense isn't Blindsight, true. But it does give you the potential to learn more information than the Monk can.

I stand by my argument for Rogues.

I don't know many DMs that allow anyone to dash for as long as they want. Also it's a strange take given that monks will end up with a 60ft base movement speed so don't even need to dash.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A Question for Schwann145:

You have argued hard and well, yet your points have been refuted.
Given the cavalcade of responses you have received….
….have you changed you opinions regarding monks?

[animorte]

Because a Chainlock imp cannot sneak in the entire party, through a door or even a wall, have everyone pre-buff unnoticed, get Surprise, win initiative, and kill everyone before they get a turn. And then do it for the next encounter too.

Additionally, the chainlock imp is easier to notice than the Shadow Monk, despite its invisibility. It also has only +1 Perception. Eagle-eyed, it is not.

Chainlock imps are fantastic. But acting like they're just categorically bringing more to the scouting game than Shadow Monks is just kinda weird.

You certainly have a point with sneaking the whole party, up until GenieLock at level 10, which to be fair is a waste of the vessel if that's the only thing you're using it for. That being said, scouting is not always the same as infiltration.

Imps do also have a +5 Stealth on top of the invisibility though.

[Sorinth]

Potentially knowing that Invisible foes are present is significantly better than not knowing this. The Rogue is more likely to stumble onto this info (pun intended ;P ).

Also, it seems you're confusing "ambushing" with "scouting."

You don't need Blindsense to potentially know that an invisible foe is present. Anyone with good passive perception can do that (Or even without good perception if the enemy makes a bad stealth roll). And for scouting I'd take Tongue of Sun and Moon over Blindsense any day (Blindsense is the better ability because of combat, not scouting).

[LudicSavant]

And for scouting I'd take Tongue of Sun and Moon over Blindsense any day

Fully concur. I would much rather see Tongue of the Sun and Moon on a scout's job application than Blindsense.


Imps do also have a +5 Stealth on top of the invisibility though.

Which is still easier to detect than people in a Shadow Monk's scouting party, let alone the Monk themselves.


Also, it seems you're confusing "ambushing" with "scouting."

No. A Shadow Monk can create an entire scouting party and reap the benefits of that -- one of which is ambushes. Another is having a broader scouting kit available on-site.

[Dork_Forge]

A Monk that is 30ft separated from the rest of the group is a Monk that is likely going to die. This is a great example of why I think Monk speed is overhyped. You're getting +5-15ft extra movement over most everyone else for most of the time. That is definitely not enough to run all over the battlefield like it's your own personal playground. Even spending the Ki for the bonus-action Dash is not going to let you just zip in and out over 30ft+ distances. You can get in and do your action, or you can get in and out, but you can't get in, do your action, and get out again.

The Monk doesn't have to be 30ft away from the party at all, You don't have to move all of that distance and stay there. You just need to move far enough to not have them in range then move back what you can. Since the frightened condition prevents monsters moving towards you the concern about being far away from the party isn't much of one.

This is ignoring cheese of just coordinating with your party to close their eyes like you would with an Umber Hulk and giving them a verbal cue to open them at the end of your turn.

The Monk speed bonus starts at +10ft and it looks like you're making the argument that most Monks won't get further than +15ft. This is true, but even ignoring that the classic PHB Monk has a 5ft movement boost of their own, I'm going to point this out:

You're holding the Monk against most played levels, whilst throwing abilities from the entire progression of other classes, the Rogue being the most egregious, but not only, offender. Please try and make your argument as apples to apples as you can.



I really don't see how, "I choose Imp, which is objectively the best option for all situations, as my Improved Familiar" is in any way a heavy investment. You'll have to explain this one to me.

Ahh, you were just talking about an Imp alone. Yeah 100ft limitation on a creature that will only ever have a +5 Stealth is the limit. It's good, but it's not outdoing a PC actually trying to be good at scouting in anything but being lower risk.


True, the Echo Knight doesn't have any particular ability to be stealthy or perceptive, but the big score here is that the Echo doesn't exist. Best case scenario, the Echo effectively stealths, shows the Knight everything they need to know, and then vanishes without the need to stealth back out again. Worst case scenario, the Echo gets caught and destroyed, and the party is in no danger of being attacked or caught. All without using any resources.

I can't think of any dungeon that wouldn't be more prepared for the party's arrival after a spectral version of one of them practically heralded their presence.


I explained above in more detail, but I think your argument defeats itself. If a Rogue without subclass is on par with a specialist Monk, how is the Rogue not better? You're going to have a subclass, and even if you don't pick a subclass that's good for scouting in any way, you're still on par with a specialist Monk.

I never said on par, I said it wasn't better. Just Expertise and Cunning Action isn't good enough to keep up, nor should it be really it's a class vs class+subclass


Yes, of course it's about Wildshape. A critter, small bird, etc, can very easily and very obviously scout better than any humanoid because they're going to be ignored.

Why would they automatically be ignored? Why wouldn't they be preyed upon? Eyed as suspicious by the things that live there that don't normally see them?

Heck, why wouldn't people be concerned about familiars, never mind Wild Shaping?

This is based heavily in assumptions more than the actual ability.


Of course Divination is scouting. What a silly position to take!
Unless you mean the spell, Divination? I was talking about the school in general. Something like Arcane Eye, a Divination spell, is an outstanding (one of the best, even) scouts.

It's a 4th level spell that isn't even a ritual, to move 30ft a turn, that can't open doors or interact with the environment. The invisibility is also moot against any monster with blindsight, which is a fair few of them, or casters using protections against divination.

I personally separate divination from scouting, because one is actually physically going to the location with the chance of interaction and the other isn't. The separation makes sense IMO because few other methods of actual scouting can be 100% shut down by a single spell or magic item.


I don't think they aren't good at scouting. I think they aren't as good as they should be. Scouting is one of those quintessential Ranger roles, and all of the above tend to do it better than the Ranger, which I find unfortunate.

I'm really confused, because in a post Tasha's world a Ranger can have expertise in Stealth and a movement boost of 5-15ft. Both Expertise and movement bonuses you've already praised for the Rogue.

On top of that they have access to Pass without Trace and other useful spells.


•A Shadow Monk using PwT is using resources. To compensate, the Rogue casts Invisibility.

My understanding was that you were saying a resourceless Rogue vs a Shadow Monk, if it was resourcelss vs resourceless then my apologies.


•The level 5 Monk is moving 40ft per turn with 3 opportunities to move an additional 40ft as a bonus action (only 3, because you already spent 2 Ki on PwT). The Rogue can move 60ft per turn, every turn, as long as they want to, with Cunning Action.

What scenario is this that it's out of combat... but they're using their actions for something else? Like I'm not seeing a scenario where this actually matters:

-Stock movement speed 40vs30 Monk wins

-Action dashing 80vs60Monk wins

-Rogue action and bonus action Dashing but the Monk isn't 80vs90 Rogue wins by a whole 10ft doing their best?

If the last scenario has 10ft be the difference between getting caught or not then of course it's worth burning a single Ki to surpass that. And this specific scenario only exists for 5th level. Starting at 6th level a Monk single dashing is equivalent to an average Rogue double dashing.


•Blindsense isn't Blindsight, true. But it does give you the potential to learn more information than the Monk can.

Whilst technically true, sorry, but that ability is so bad that it isn't really going to help you whilst scouting. It's loses a comparison to just the Monk having a higher Wis than the Rogue, which is most likely the case.


I stand by my argument for Rogues.

And I stand by not seeing it, the core class isn't strong enough to stand against core Monk+Shadow.

[animorte]

Concur. I would much rather see Tongue of the Sun and Moon on a scout's job application than Blindsense.

I misunderstand. Tongue of the Sun and Moon aids stealth in what way? I get that you become a cunning linguist at level 13, but otherwise...

[LudicSavant]

I misunderstand. Tongue of the Sun and Moon aids stealth in what way? I get that you become a cunning linguist, but otherwise...

Because you can understand what the people you're spying on are saying.

[animorte]

Because you can understand what the people you're spying on are saying.

Ok, as long as we're on the same page. It just looked as though it was being compared to blindsense, which serves a wildly different purpose. Aka finding other stealthy or invisible folk.

[strangebloke]

An AOE fear that friendly fires. Generally a bad strategy to make your allies run in fear along with your enemies.
HoR doesn't force enemies to run away, it prevents them from getting closer to use and making attacks against you. Its fine if there's friendly fire as long as you're positioning well. Done correctly you can lock down an entire room of melee enemies while your ranged allies shoot fish in a barrel.

Almost inarguably? Allow me to argue. ;)
Without spending any resources - Chainlocks are miles ahead of Shadow Monk scouts. So are Echo Knights. I'd say even the core Rogue does scouting better, and depending on subclass choice goes well above what Shadow can do. If we start considering using resources for scouting, then Druids blow Shadow Monks out of the water, and any casters with the proper divination options do too.
I'd put Shadow Monks on par with Rangers, which sounds way better than it is because Rangers aren't as good at the role as they really should be. ;P
How high is the stealth mod on an imp? +5? Just because you're invisible doesn't make you immune to detection and I'd strongly argue that the teleporting monk with 17+ to stealth and +6 perception, moving 100 feet a turn without ki can do better than a large buzzing insect.

And yeah, rangers are also pretty good at scouting, just not as good at shadow monks because of their lack of mobility.


Gotta hard-disagree here. The way that these Monks keep up in damage is by continually spending Ki every round to do so. Even doing that, they're pretty middle-of-the-pack of the game's damage dealers. Any dedicated DPS thread will show this.
Nah. I've done the math, and I can dig it up if you like.

Most DPR specialists have to expend resources to get their big numbers. Battlemasters, Samurai, Warlocks using slots on Hex, etc. The Monk is no different here. But its ridiculous to pretend that Precision Strikes in conjunction with KFA isn't a ludicrously efficient combo, and certain subclass features like Hone the Blade are even more efficient. Darkness with Blindfighting is similarly a stupid combo in terms of the damage you get.

In T1, monk DPR is high enough to never require ki to keep up. They're at the front of the pack with no resources, and get further ahead if they do use them. In t2, they have enough ki to use their abilities consistently if you actually have short rests, and in t3 the primary question becomes how to use up all the ki you have, because you have too much.



Rogues, on the chassis alone, get Expertise (and if high enough, Reliable Talent) for a better chance of succeeding on the rolls themselves, Cunning Action for way better movement and faster hiding, and (again, if high enough) Blindsense to see what you otherwise can't see. If we add in subclass abilities, it just gets that much better (Spellcasting/Mage Hand Legerdemain, Fast Hands/Supreme Sneak, Survivalist/Superior Mobility, Ghost Walk, etc and so on).
A rogue can get +11 on a good day at level 8, and BA dash for 60/70 feet of movement.
A shadow monk can get +16 at level 4, and BA teleport 60 feet for a total of 100 feet of movement.

A few resources expended, sure, but if you're scouting its not usually going to be in a place where a short rest is impossible.

[animorte]

How high is the stealth mod on an imp? +5? Just because you're invisible doesn't make you immune to detection and I'd strongly argue that the teleporting monk with 17+ to stealth and +6 perception, moving 100 feet a turn without ki can do better than a large buzzing insect.

Ok, give me this argument for a level 3 Monk. Imp can do this as soon as you get it at level 3. It takes a VERY long time for a Monk to pull those numbers.

[JNAProductions]

Ok, give me this argument for a level 3 Monk. Imp can do this as soon as you get it at level 3. It takes a VERY long time for a Monk to pull those numbers.

Yeah, you're only rocking +15 at level three. Pass Without Trace, 16 Dex, and proficiency. It doesn't go to +17 till level five.

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah, yeah. Level 3, I caught that right after I posted it! XD

It's an invocation you don't need because at level 3 you automatically have an excellent scout. I'm only saying that at level 3 you can already have the greatest amount of versatility than just about any class in the game if you choose to invest in that specific invocation. Not to mention shapeshifting. Seems worth it to me.

I now realise you were talking about the attacking one weren't you, Investment doesn't really do anything to benefit a scouting Imp unless they needed to swim or get hit by something they're not already resistant to.

If you really want to make a familiar an excellent scout you need to bypass the 100ft limit, which is what the chainlock shines at. But at this point it's two invocations if you want the invocation you were actually talking about and being able to effectively use them at range.


Also the combat utility with it is extremely notable. The familiar gets its own action (anything except attack) so it can easily provide advantage to melee allies, use items, etc. And with the invocation, it can do up to 1d4+3d6+3 as your bonus action. And has your save DC and resistance to all damage if you use your reaction the rare occasion it gets hit.

No matter what the familiar is, no matter who's familiar it is, a familiar that participates in combat is going to end up a dead familiar. There's some strong contenders for surviving a single combat, but this my rule of thumb. Assuming a familiar can spam Help and what not whilst not getting splattered is a faulty assumption that often comes up when advocating them. imo unless the imp is attacking save it, you don't want to have to keep resummoning it.


It also has the absolute best Darkvision in the game with Devil's Sight and 120 ft. Twilight Cleric has 300 ft. Darkvision though (shared even), but not Devil's Sight.

120ft is shared by many races and can be beaten by a Gloom Stalker, but yes the Devil's Sight is notable, it just isn't that likely to be useful.


Again, heavy? Oh you bet your fine fanny it's an investment. And not just for scouting.

I uh... Thank you? I'm not saying it isn't worth the investment, but throwing it out as a 'resourceless' option doesn't feel right when it requires all of that investment and more if it dies.

Again, I like and play chainlocks, I'm not against them.

[animorte]

Yeah, you're only rocking +15 at level three. Pass Without Trace, 16 Dex, and proficiency. It doesn't go to +17 till level five.

Hey not bad. Still don't have all that movement though XD

And pass without trace is almost all your resource as that level. Better be done in less than an hour.

[Schwann145]

I don't know many DMs that allow anyone to dash for as long as they want. Also it's a strange take given that monks will end up with a 60ft base movement speed so don't even need to dash.
Why wouldn't a DM allow that?
As to the speed take, it's including consideration for level and typical play experience. You get +15ft over your first 9 levels, and games tend to end in early-mid tier 3, so seeing a full-speed Monk is unlikely.


A Question for Schwann145:

You have argued hard and well, yet your points have been refuted.
Given the cavalcade of responses you have received….
….have you changed you opinions regarding monks?
Well, my specific opinions regarding Monks are that they are neat and fun but tend to mechanically under-perform compared to other classes.
•There are very specific outliers (Way of Mercy and Kensei who is specifically an archer with the SS feat) who perform significantly better than other Monk options.
•I think, setting the outliers aside, Way of Shadow is the best showing for the class, pretty significantly so. I think the other subclasses are significantly lower value.
•I find that Monks are very strong defensively, which is great for them, (no really, it's great) but it doesn't help proactively. You can't share your defenses with the party, it doesn't help you problem solve, etc (for instance, it's good that you survived the poison, but your immunity did nothing to help you find the poison). Said defensive bonuses also tend to be corner-case based. Your chassis has lower HD and AC options than every other class that is designed/expected to be in the melee, and with Con as a tertiary Monk stat it compounds the weakness.
•I find that people overhype the speed Monks actually have, assuming that 10 or 15 extra feet of movement will carry them much farther than it actually will, or that they will definitely have the Ki and free bonus action to make use of a Dash when that is definitely not certain.
•I am of the opinion that Ki is too relied upon as a resource for most, if not all, of a Monk's proactive abilities, and in only giving the class access to the amount they did, it leaves most versions of the character feeling pulled in too many directions for where to best spend it; ie, they feel "Ki starved," ofttimes.

At the beginning of the thread, I was aware of the Kensei archer but admittedly was not considering it (the fantasy of the Kensei is definitely strongly melee, and it's the go-to consideration I have for the subclass, wishing it were better for said playstyle).
I'm happy to admit that it, as well as most Monks, have improved significantly since Tasha's released. However, everyone else has improved too, so I don't think the gap has closed as much as people would like to think.

So, with the above being my opinions of the Monk, (assuming I'm not forgetting anything, which is certainly possible), I would argue that people have definitely disagreed with my opinion here and there, but I find the idea that my claims have been refuted to be a rather bold one, and one I disagree with.
So since I entered the conversation with the general opinion that "Monks are neat and fun but mechanically lacking," and I still hold that opinion, I'd say I haven't been swayed, no. And I don't find that anyone has refuted any of the points I made here.

[strangebloke]

Hey not bad. Still don't have all that movement though XD

??

By level six the SM can teleport 60 feet as a BA for free? While also being faster than the imp? They can't fly unless they're an aaracockra or winged tiefling but...

[animorte]

??

By level six the SM can teleport 60 feet as a BA for free? While also being faster than the imp? They can't fly unless they're an aaracockra or winged tiefling but...

Reliant 100% on the lighting available. Vs invisibility and flight. I understand that the Imp loses under the right conditions. In my mind it's slower but more reliable overall.

[strangebloke]

Reliant 100% on the lighting available. Vs invisibility and flight. I understand that the Imp loses under the right conditions. In my mind it's slower but more reliable overall.

what kind of environment has no shadows? :smallconfused: Are we all adventuring on the plane of fire now?

[Tanarii]

what kind of environment has no shadows? :smallconfused: Are we all adventuring on the plane of fire now?
You have to be in dim light or darkness and teleport to dim light or darkness. Those are lighting levels for an area. You can't just teleport into a shadow.

Even so, my personal experience as both a DM and player was those aren't uncommon things in typical adventuring environments.

[LudicSavant]

I would argue that people have definitely disagreed with my opinion here and there, but I find the idea that my claims have been refuted to be a rather bold one, and one I disagree with.

I mean, you made claims like this one:

•Kensei, as addressed above, is an entire subclass just for a +2 to AC. (And whomever worded Agile Parry is just... mean. Don't give me a weapon-using monk subclass and then make it so I can't use my weapon!)

And you don't seem to think that claim is true anymore. So if that's not a refutation I'm not sure what you think would be.


•Significantly more HP (possibly even twice as much - d12 vs d8 and 16 Con vs [prob] 12 Con... that's a *significant* difference).

I would assume a Monk wouldn't want to tank Str (but I guess there are a ton of DMs who just let Dex be a true god-stat, so maybe so...). If they choose to, however, sure, Con could be 14.

How does a raceless Monk have a d8 weapon at lvl 5?

I'm concerned because these and other statements seem to indicate unfamiliarity with the class. The way they should invest their stats, the kind of weapons they use, etc. It seems to me like one should focus on learning to maximize a class before making sweeping generalizations about the limitations of one.

[Schwann145]

Really? That's pretty incredible.
{Scrubbed}

For instance making arguments with the implicit assumption that a Monk has as much Ki to spend as if they are guaranteed 2 short rests, when comparing available resources between classes.
Or banking on Kensei being so strong as an archer when we both know Sharpshooter (and, post-Tashas, Ki-Fueled Attack, which is an ability you are not guaranteed to have) is doing the heavy lifting.
And ignoring the part of my post where I admit archers were not on my mind when I first discussed the subclass here. Once upon a time it may have been the case, but since Tasha's has made it possible to make a Longbow into a Monk weapon, yes, Kensei is basically only solid for a "shield" bonus. You can go on all you'd like about Sharpen the Blade but we fundamentally disagree on whether Monk is Ki starved or not, so you'll continue to say it's a great ability and I'll continue to say it's too expensive to be great.

Also, D&D is a roleplaying game. Not a board game. Not a video game. When I'm statting characters, I consider them as people before abilities and numbers. Apparently we differ in this regard as well.

[Witty Username]

Kensei using bow isn't a Tasha's thing, it was an option since the Kensei's inception.

[animorte]

what kind of environment has no shadows? :smallconfused: Are we all adventuring on the plane of fire now?

Lol, there's one! That's a good point, I'll give you that. But dim light and shadows are entirely different things.


You have to be in dim light or darkness and teleport to dim light or darkness. Those are lighting levels for an area. You can't just teleport into a shadow.

Even so, my personal experience as both a DM and player was those aren't uncommon things in typical adventuring environments.

Yeah there's that. But use your imagination:
- Also looking out at a stronghold from the safety of the forest a few hundred yards away. Sure, wait until night. The Imp can go now.
- I've been in rooms a hundred or more feet across that have several sources of light and nothing is close enough to travel like that without just making a break for it.
- Pretty much any large area in the daytime like a courtyard, field, even alleys through town with their shadows.

I mean, being able to teleport that distance at will is pretty awesome and sometimes better, but it's not nearly always available. Where the imp invisibility is (almost).

Ultimately, I'm a player that will take something that I can rely on under almost any circumstances, even if it sometimes takes longer or doesn't provide the same flare. Other times I will take less reliable methods just for the sake of the character's style and the roleplay I'm going for. And that's fun.

[strangebloke]

snip
My dude, this is not how you respond to someone showing you literally backtracking your arguments in realtime and then saying "nobody refuted anything I argued for."

For instance making arguments with the implicit assumption that a Monk has as much Ki to spend as if they are guaranteed 2 short rests, when comparing available resources between classes.
Or banking on Kensei being so strong as an archer when we both know Sharpshooter (and, post-Tashas, Ki-Fueled Attack, which is an ability you are not guaranteed to have) is doing the heavy lifting.
And ignoring the part of my post where I admit archers were not on my mind when I first discussed the subclass here. Once upon a time it may have been the case, but since Tasha's has made it possible to make a Longbow into a Monk weapon, yes, Kensei is basically only solid for a "shield" bonus. You can go on all you'd like about Sharpen the Blade but we fundamentally disagree on whether Monk is Ki starved or not, so you'll continue to say it's a great ability and I'll continue to say it's too expensive to be great.

If you're going to compare Battlemaster sharpshooters to monks, it's really weird to argue that monk sharpshooters are somehow off the table because of 'reasons'. If anything monks come across more favorably if those feats are banned. The biggest reason why they fall off relative to DPR leaders is that most of them can't exploit GWM/PAM/CWE/SS very well. I don't think that many non-GWM non-SS builds compare favorably to the blind fighting shadow monk. Maybe a few jank MC builds like the rogue/BM.
And yeah, Tasha's isn't guaranteed, but nobody's arguing that the non-tasha's monk wasn't weak in some areas. The Post-tasha's monk still isn't overpowered, but its pretty solid compared to other martials.



Yeah there's that. But use your imagination:
- Also looking out at a stronghold from the safety of the forest a few hundred yards away. Sure, wait until night. The Imp can go now.
- I've been in rooms a hundred or more feet across that have several sources of light and nothing is close enough to travel like that without just making a break for it.
- Pretty much any large area in the daytime like a courtyard, field, even alleys through town with their shadows.
I mean you're still faster than the imp, and can dash normally and (eventually) run up walls. Arbitration of stealth is a bit whack, but for most scouting situations I treat it as a holistic "avoid detection" thing. Timing the patrols of the guards, etc. Conversely, think of it this way: If there was a giant invisible bat in your house, you'd know instantly. Flying makes a lot of noise.

But ultimately my argument is more that while a VotM/PotC warlock is a good scout, I don't see them as strictly better.

[LudicSavant]

My dude, this is not how you respond to someone showing you literally backtracking your arguments in realtime and then saying "nobody refuted anything I argued for."

Yeah...



*scrubbed stuff*

For instance

:smallconfused: Mmkay. Let's examine each of the arguments you give as examples.

Number 1

For instance making arguments with the implicit assumption that a Monk has as much Ki to spend as if they are guaranteed 2 short rests, when comparing available resources between classes.

Here's what I actually said.

The level 6 Ranger spending all their 2nd level slots got 2 PWTs.
The level 6 Monk spending ~22% of their ki in a standard adventuring day got 2 PWTs. They still have 14 ki left that day.

At no point did I say that you were guaranteed to get a standard adventuring day, or two short rests. I just said what you get in one. The widely-referred-to concept of a standard adventuring day comes from the DMG, which makes statements such as this one:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445485023299108875/953493512299634708/unknown.png

This concept is commonly used when comparing resource-efficiency over the course of a day. Referring to its use as if it's cheating is... very strange.

Number 2

Or banking on Kensei being so strong as an archer when we both know Sharpshooter (and, post-Tashas, Ki-Fueled Attack, which is an ability you are not guaranteed to have) is doing the heavy lifting.

I said that Kensei can make a good archer using those abilities. I'm not sure what your problem with that is.

Number 3

And ignoring the part of my post where I admit archers were not on my mind when I first discussed the subclass here.

I didn't ignore that part. In fact, I specifically referred to it, when I said you don't seem to think that claim is true anymore. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25397096&postcount=179)

Usually, when someone claims one thing, then retracts that claim based on something someone else said ('reminding' you about the archer), that is generally considered a refutation.

[animorte]

I mean you're still faster than the imp, and can dash normally and (eventually) run up walls. Arbitration of stealth is a bit whack, but for most scouting situations I treat it as a holistic "avoid detection" thing. Timing the patrols of the guards, etc. Conversely, think of it this way: If there was a giant invisible bat in your house, you'd no instantly. Flying makes a lot of noise.

But ultimately my argument is more that while a VotM/PotC warlock is a good scout, I don't see them as strictly better.

Those are all statements that I can agree to, honestly. Very well said.

Although, there is still the Imp's shapechange to take into account. No rules listed against doing both; invisibility requires concentration while shapechange does not. An invisible Rat or Spider make little to no noise, while all 3 of them, including the Raven are much less suspicious creatures than "the giant bat" (haha) of an Imp.

[Dork_Forge]

Those are all statements that I can agree to, honestly. Very well said.

Although, there is still the Imp's shapechange to take into account. No rules listed against doing both; invisibility requires concentration while shapechange does not. An invisible Rat or Spider make little to no noise, while all 3 of them, including the Raven are much less suspicious creatures than "the giant bat" (haha) of an Imp.

To be fair it also says a creature that resembles those creatures, not actually one of those creatures.

[animorte]

To be fair it also says a creature that resembles those creatures, not actually one of those creatures.

Yes, I would agree. If actually seen well enough, the beast form of said creature might be a cause for alarm.

[Witty Username]

And yeah, Tasha's isn't guaranteed, but nobody's arguing that the non-tasha's monk wasn't weak in some areas. The Post-tasha's monk still isn't overpowered, but its pretty solid compared to other martials.


Not this second, anyway. Tasha's did give some nice things, ki-fueled strike I would say I'd the standout in terms of game feel.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Fully concur. I would much rather see Tongue of the Sun and Moon on a scout's job application than Blindsense.

It was an incredibly useful feature when our monk went to scout a dragons lair, they were eventually caught but not before learning important information being spoken in 3 different languages. They only escaped alive thanks to having 70ft of movement and resistance to damage from empty body. They were easily able to outrun any pursuers, double dashing if necessary with mobile making sure no matter which direction they ran they had full movement and easily able to survive any ranged attacks made.

I wouldn't have felt comfortable sending many other classes to do that job. In this particular case the aforementioned Imp scout would have been nearly useless.

[Sorinth]

Why wouldn't a DM allow that?
As to the speed take, it's including consideration for level and typical play experience. You get +15ft over your first 9 levels, and games tend to end in early-mid tier 3, so seeing a full-speed Monk is unlikely.

Because people tend to get out of breath after running. So dashing out of combat isn't going to be something you can do forever.

You seem to have no problem using higher level Rogue abilities like Blinsense, so why is the monk limited to low level abilities?

[Thunderous Mojo]

And I don't find that anyone has refuted any of the points I made here.

I’m not surprised. Those with strongly held preconceptions usually need something much stronger than facts to alter their notions.

The tenacity of misinformation, is a terrible wickedness.

I want to thank you Schwann for providing some conversation fodder.
I certainly hope that at some point in the near future you examine what has been written here, about monks, and re-examine your precepts.

Good Luck, Be Well, and Good Gaming to You!

[ImproperJustice]

Seven pages in and I still love Monks!!

[Frogreaver]

So, which melee monk is actually good? So far the only one I've really seen recomended as very good is the Kensai Archer SS monk.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, which melee monk is actually good? So far the only one I've really seen recomended as very good is the Kensai Archer SS monk.

Did you miss the mention of Mercy back on page 1?

[stoutstien]

So, which melee monk is actually good? So far the only one I've really seen recomended as very good is the Kensai Archer SS monk.

Mercy and astral self do ok. 4e gets some hate but can lay down some hurt with water whip.

[strangebloke]

So, which melee monk is actually good? So far the only one I've really seen recomended as very good is the Kensai Archer SS monk.

Literally every monk is good in melee through t2. They fall behind in t3 but even then shadow, mercy, astral, and kensei monks have the ability to keep up in melee with a sword and board fighter while having comparable defensive ability.

[Amechra]

It depends on what you consider to be "actually good" for melee, honestly, and what levels you're playing at.

[Unoriginal]

So, which melee monk is actually good? So far the only one I've really seen recomended as very good is the Kensai Archer SS monk.

Could you define "actually good", please?

All melee monks are good IMO (so long as they're not built to suck), but I'm sure we can come up with something matching your definition.

[Frogreaver]

Could you define "actually good", please?

All melee monks are good IMO (so long as they're not built to suck), but I'm sure we can come up with something matching your definition.

Let's start simple. How do they stack up to any of the following:

Let's label good as the following level 8 characters:

Variant Human Vengeance Paladin with Polearm Master and Str Boosts (either spear and shield with dueling or halbred/glaive with defense)
Variant Human GWM Wolf Totem Barbarian with Str Boosts
Half-Orc Sword and Shield Dueling Style Battlemaster 6 with 2 str boosts / Genie Warlock 2 (riposte, trip and precision attack)
Half Elf with Booming Blade + Rapier + Elven Accuracy Swashbuckler Rogue

[Catullus64]

So... I have no idea what transpired in the ensuing seven pages of this thread. I'm just going to assume that it was nearly 200 posts of general positivity regarding how Monks are fun.

Monks just overall tick a lot of boxes that are fun for me. They're mobile melee skirmishers, my favorite role. They have impressive combat performance in the early levels, and can be built to fill a lot of unusual roles. Leveling as a Monk is always a fun experience, since each level has something flavorful and neat; no level where all you get is an ASI or a minor numerical upgrade to an existing feature. In the later levels, they have a bunch of interesting utility features and defenses, and are quite difficult to kill.

I have pretty much never had a problem with the size of your Ki pool. Maybe because the games in which I played or played with Monks had good opportunities for short rests; but I was able to do cool stuff in pretty much every encounter.

Lots of really cool subclasses too! I don't think there's really a dud subclass in the bunch. No, not even that one. Shadows is my favorite, but Drunken Master and Mercy have so much cool stuff going on as well.

[Amechra]

Let's start simple. How do they stack up to any of the following:

Let's label good as the following level 8 characters:

Variant Human Vengeance Paladin with Polearm Master and Str Boosts (either spear and shield with dueling or halbred/glaive with defense)
Variant Human GWM Wolf Totem Barbarian with Str Boosts
Half-Orc Sword and Shield Dueling Style Battlemaster 6 with 2 str boosts / Genie Warlock 2 (riposte, trip and precision attack)
Half Elf with Booming Blade + Rapier + Elven Accuracy Swashbuckler Rogue


Let's look at what your third option can pull off:


You have two attacks. One deals 1d8+10 damage, the other deals 1d8+7.
4 times per short rest, you may add +1d8 damage to an attack and give it a rider (knock prone/be scary).
Pulling from the same set of uses, you can spend your reaction to hit someone who attacks you and misses for 2d8+7 damage.
Once per short rest, you can whip out two extra 1d8+7 attacks.


So, on a normal, resource-free turn you're dealing 2d8+17 damage [avg. 26 damage] (since you'll generally have the same accuracy as the Monk, it's safe to look at damage without accounting for accuracy).
If you spend your superiority dice in the most efficient way possible, this goes up to 42 damage, since you're getting off your Riposte attacks. If you want to get off your riders, however, you're looking at 30.5 damage.

Let's compare this to a very simple build:

VHuman Open Hand Monk 8 with Crusher and two Dex boosts

On a resource-free turn, you're hitting for 2d8+1d6+15 damage before accuracy (assuming the use of a quarterstaff) [avg. 27.5 damage]. You also get the sweet, sweet free shove from Crusher.
If you Flurry, you jump up to 2d8+2d6+20 damage [avg. 36 damage]. And you get to force two saves vs. going prone/being shoved, or shut off reactions entirely for a turn.

---

You're sacrificing nova power for way more endurance. You're actually dealing roughly the damage that the Fighter would be dealing by spending two superiority dice on non-Riposte maneuvers for a single ki point. Long story short, making loads of attacks is stronk.

[strangebloke]

Let's start simple. How do they stack up to any of the following:

Let's label good as the following level 8 characters:

Variant Human Vengeance Paladin with Polearm Master and Str Boosts (either spear and shield with dueling or halbred/glaive with defense)
Variant Human GWM Wolf Totem Barbarian with Str Boosts
Half-Orc Sword and Shield Dueling Style Battlemaster 6 with 2 str boosts / Genie Warlock 2 (riposte, trip and precision attack)
Half Elf with Booming Blade + Rapier + Elven Accuracy Swashbuckler Rogue



Not the purpose of this thread
Nobody's going to do your math for you
These are not 'simple' calculations except IG the rogue and BM
Blindfighting shadow monk and mercy monk can compete with all of these depending on conditions like enemy AC.
Swashbuckler loses to a naked subclassless monk that just pumps Dex.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not the purpose of this thread
Nobody's going to do your math for you
These are not reasonable 'simple' calculations
Blindfighting shadow monk and mercy monk can compete with all of these depending on conditions like enemy AC.
Swashbuckler loses to a naked subclassless monk that just pumps Dex.

To be honest I was about halfway through the math before I realized there probably wasn't any answer that wouldn't be hit with "but this is a squishy/high resource expending/conditional build" while competing with "squishy" (swashbuckler) "high resource expending" (Paladin, Battlemaster) "conditional" (Wolf Barbarian) builds.

[Amechra]

To be honest I was about halfway through the math before I realized there probably wasn't any answer that wouldn't be hit with "but this is a squishy/high resource expending/conditional build" while competing with "squishy" (swashbuckler) "high resource expending" (Paladin, Battlemaster) "conditional" (Wolf Barbarian) builds.

I'm actually pretty sure that you could do some nonsense with the Kensei that would let it match the proposed Battlemaster damage-wise and AC-wise, while generally expending fewer resources per round.

[Unoriginal]

Let's start simple. How do they stack up to any of the following:

Let's label good as the following level 8 characters:

Variant Human Vengeance Paladin with Polearm Master and Str Boosts (either spear and shield with dueling or halbred/glaive with defense)
Variant Human GWM Wolf Totem Barbarian with Str Boosts
Half-Orc Sword and Shield Dueling Style Battlemaster 6 with 2 str boosts / Genie Warlock 2 (riposte, trip and precision attack)
Half Elf with Booming Blade + Rapier + Elven Accuracy Swashbuckler Rogue


If you could provide the stats and expected AC/HPs/damages/speed/etc, it would be welcome.

The Vengeance Paladin, for example.

[Frogreaver]

Let's look at what your third option can pull off:


You have two attacks. One deals 1d8+10 damage, the other deals 1d8+7.
4 times per short rest, you may add +1d8 damage to an attack and give it a rider (knock prone/be scary).
Pulling from the same set of uses, you can spend your reaction to hit someone who attacks you and misses for 2d8+7 damage.
Once per short rest, you can whip out two extra 1d8+7 attacks.


So, on a normal, resource-free turn you're dealing 2d8+17 damage [avg. 26 damage] (since you'll generally have the same accuracy as the Monk, it's safe to look at damage without accounting for accuracy).
If you spend your superiority dice in the most efficient way possible, this goes up to 42 damage, since you're getting off your Riposte attacks. If you want to get off your riders, however, you're looking at 30.5 damage.

Let's compare this to a very simple build:

VHuman Open Hand Monk 8 with Crusher and two Dex boosts

On a resource-free turn, you're hitting for 2d8+1d6+15 damage before accuracy (assuming the use of a quarterstaff) [avg. 27.5 damage]. You also get the sweet, sweet free shove from Crusher.
If you Flurry, you jump up to 2d8+2d6+20 damage [avg. 36 damage]. And you get to force two saves vs. going prone/being shoved, or shut off reactions entirely for a turn.

---

You're sacrificing nova power for way more endurance. You're actually dealing roughly the damage that the Fighter would be dealing by spending two superiority dice on non-Riposte maneuvers for a single ki point. Long story short, making loads of attacks is stronk.

I agree, accuracy is the same so differences there are mostly negligible.

So totally resource free turns:
Monk does 2d8+1d6+15
Fighter Does 2d8+14 (+3 from genie warlock at slightly higher accuracy)

The monk beats out the fighter at will damage by less than 1.5 Damage. He does it over more hits leading to less overkill. He has better movement, but less AC. Seems fair enough.

However, the fighter version using hex ends up with +5.5 Damage over the monk.

Then we can look at the superiority dice and action surge.

Action Surge deals an additional 2d8+2d6+14 damage (with hex up)
Flurry deals an additional 1d6+5 damage
It takes about 4 flurry of blows to equal 1 action surge in damage

Monk will have 8 ki in a short rest. So to Stay roughly equal to action surge that's 4 ki down.

That leaves 4 ki to match up with 5 superiority dice (1d8)

1 Superiority dice spent on trip attack is going to be roughly the same additional damage that flurry of blows causes after accuracy is factored in.
1 superiority dice spent on riposte is going to be worth 2d8+1d6+7 damage. Nearly double that same resource spent on flurry.
Riposte puts the battlemaster ahead. I'd give the damage edge to the fighter/warlock by a pretty large margin. (5.5 damage per turn from at will+hex and a difference of up to 34 damage per short rest - assuming 8 combat rounds in a short rest that's equivalent to +4 damage per turn)

But, the monk has the option of stunning as needed and the fighter doesn't. The monk can also more easily swap to a bow if needed (no shield). The monk will also waste less attacks closing as well.

I'd say the monk is behind significantly on paper, but only slightly in practice and has the tools in stunning strike to add value where the fighter might struggle. Good example.

[Unoriginal]

I'm actually pretty sure that you could do some nonsense with the Kensei that would let it match the proposed Battlemaster damage-wise and AC-wise, while generally expending fewer resources per round.

With napkin maths I'm pretty sure a Variant Human Open Hand Monk with Tough is slightly outpacing the Vengeance Paladin pretty consistently, aside from nova damage.

[LudicSavant]

Adding to this further:

Don't forget to count the proc from Crusher in your math, too. When you're making a high number of attacks, there's actually a pretty good chance of it going off.

Also, the Monk's knockback/prone isn't size-limited like the Battle Master's.

Between knockback, prone, 3-4 chances to proc Crusher, and Stunning Strike, it's basically an advantage-generation and hazard-comboing machine, on top of what's already been established.

Also, the ability to turn off Reactions has no save. This is good for going first and disabling Counterspellers and others with key reactions.

[Frogreaver]

If you could provide the stats and expected AC/HPs/damages/speed/etc, it would be welcome.

The Vengeance Paladin, for example.

Sure. Level 8 Vengeance Paladin

20 str, 8 dex, 14 con, 8 in, 10 wis, 16 cha (Variant human feat = polearm mastery). ASI's went to str. Spear + shield. Dueling Fighting Style.

Hp = 68
AC = 20
Speed = 30

Attack = 8
Action = 1d6+7 (x2) Damage
Bonus = Action 1d4+7 Damage
Total = 30.5 Damage per turn, at will

Monk is doing 1d8+5+1d8+5+1d6+5 = 27.5

Paladin has +3 Damage at will.

To make it simple assume the smite happy paladin. Uses most slots on damage.

Smite Damage = 9*4 + 13.5*3 = 36+40.5 = 76.5 damage from smiting (accuracy not applied). Assuming 60% accuracy it only takes 15 ki in the day to cause more damage with flurry of blows than the smites are causing. The level 8 monk getting 2 short rests would get 24 ki total in the day. So he has about 9 ki left, but the paladin has his channel divinity left. It's a little hard to track how useful advantage is. 9 ki left for flurry yields (76.5 damage before accuracy factored in).

All in all, i'd say the monk out performs the proposed paladin at offense presuming 2 short rests and at least matches him with 1. He's not as good at defense though, AC, hp and saves. But the movement and stun option still is very nice.

[strangebloke]

goodness, can we not humor this? this isn't on topic at all, and has been hashed out a dozen times elsewhere.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Also, the ability to turn off Reactions has no save. This is good for going first and disabling Counterspellers and others with key reactions.

It's something we'd all forgotten about, except for the monk, when we fought a spellcasting ancient red dragon in our last session. We never had to account for the dragon having Shield or Counterspell and opportunity attacks were shut down so our Sorcerer was free to reposition and take an action. It's good for the Monk too, if you're feat starved you can use it to emulate Mobile to a degree.

[Frogreaver]

goodness, can we not humor this? this isn't on topic at all, and has been hashed out a dozen times elsewhere.

Why do you do this?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why do you do this?

The original intent of the thread was to highlight the strength and appeal of a Monk, not to present builds for it to compete against so those who don't enjoy the monk for whatever subjective reason can attempt to put an "objective" spin on it.

Your posts in the thread lead me to believe that you didn't have ill intent though, you've been pretty neutral up until now, I just don't think these statistical "competitions" between builds are ever very healthy for a thread that isn't asking for them specifically.

[Frogreaver]

The original intent of the thread was to highlight the strength and appeal of a Monk,

One could say it's rather hard to highlight the strength of a monk without some kind of comparison to other classes that are considered good.


Your posts in the thread lead me to believe that you didn't have ill intent though, you've been pretty neutral up until now,

And i'm suddenly not neutral because I push back against my posts being crapped on for no reason?


I just don't think these statistical "competitions" between builds are ever very healthy for a thread that isn't asking for them specifically.

Why not? Is it really more productive/useful/better to have people say, "yes it is. no it isn't" with no attempt at justifying their positions?

[ProsecutorGodot]

One could say it's rather hard to highlight the strength of a monk without some kind of comparison to other classes that are considered good.
You don't have to compare it to other classes, you can highlight situations where its abilities are useful separately or in conjunction with other classes. For example:


Also, the ability to turn off Reactions has no save. This is good for going first and disabling Counterspellers and others with key reactions.

It's something we'd all forgotten about, except for the monk, when we fought a spellcasting ancient red dragon in our last session. We never had to account for the dragon having Shield or Counterspell and opportunity attacks were shut down so our Sorcerer was free to reposition and take an action. It's good for the Monk too, if you're feat starved you can use it to emulate Mobile to a degree.


And i'm suddenly not neutral because I push back against my posts being crapped on for no reason?
I definitely didn't say that, I think that's unwarranted even as blue text. I'll say the tone might have been harsh but the intent is one I agree with.


Why not? Is it really more productive/useful/better to have people say, "yes it is. no it isn't" with no attempt at justifying their positions?
There has been plenty attempt to justify positions, which until now, was being done with more broadly applicable comparisons than constructing specific builds to tear down or build up the Monk. It's not a question of productivity either, more an effort to keep discussion from spiraling out of focus. This isn't a DPS comparison thread, it's a thread about Monk's and what they do well.

I'll say we've been doing a pretty good job of it too, tangents have branched into separate threads rather than inflating the post count in this thread. If you want to build DPS comparisons (which we kind of did somewhat recently* in the Monk vs Cleric thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626367-Who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-Monk-amp-Cleric&highlight=cleric+vs+monk)) it might be best to create a thread for that purpose.
*I can't believe a year old thread is so fresh in my mind, yeesh

[strangebloke]

One could say it's rather hard to highlight the strength of a monk without some kind of comparison to other classes that are considered good.
...
Why not? Is it really more productive/useful/better to have people say, "yes it is. no it isn't" with no attempt at justifying their positions?

Because DPR analysis is a rabbit hole without end. I'm not going to say that no analysis is possible, because obviously there are points that can be made. But "run against my gauntlet of 6 optimized DPR builds" is extremely time consuming and frankly askance of the purpose of the thread, which is subjectively poling what people do like about monks.

EDIT: I realize that this isn't my thread and that hedging things unnecessarily could be seen as against the rules. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your intent.

[Unoriginal]

So, which melee monk is actually good?


Good example.



All in all, i'd say the monk out performs the proposed paladin at offense presuming 2 short rests and at least matches him with 1. He's not as good at defense though, AC, hp and saves. But the movement and stun option still is very nice.

Well, I can provide a build if you want, but it seems that you've come to the conclusion the melee monk is actually good on your own.

[Kane0]

So, like, the Monk is the king of 'situational'. If you're playing to its strengths its phenomenal, but if you don't have the ability to make use of its features and you are required to function outside of its role it suffers way more than other martials.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, like, the Monk is the king of 'situational'. If you're playing to its strengths its phenomenal, but if you don't have the ability to make use of its features and you are required to function outside of its role it suffers way more than other martials.

Not noticeably more than Ranger suffered before they could swap Favored Terrain/Enemy for features that have broader utility, or how Fighter's and Barbarian's still struggle (more than a Monk does in my opinion) at contributing outside of combat.

The martial problem isn't noticeably worse for a Monk, in my mind it's like comparing a Swiss Army Knife to a Leatherman. They serve the same purpose but their best features might be different.

[Frogreaver]

Well, I can provide a build if you want, but it seems that you've come to the conclusion the melee monk is actually good on your own.

Well, at level 8. It might be a bit different at level 5 or 6. But missing out 2-3 ki isn't going to over or underpower the monk overall, especially when other classes would be missing out on some pretty significant things as well.

[animorte]

So, like, the Monk is the king of 'situational'.

As far as situational goes, I feel that specific topic is far too broad as to declare a victor so easily.

[Frogreaver]

You don't have to compare it to other classes, you can highlight situations where its abilities are useful separately or in conjunction with other classes. For example:

I think you should be comparing to other classes as well. Especially the similiar ones.


I definitely didn't say that, I think that's unwarranted even as blue text. I'll say the tone might have been harsh but the intent is one I agree with.

Apologies if I misunderstood your intent. It seemed you were implying that I was no longer being neutral.


There has been plenty attempt to justify positions, which until now, was being done with more broadly applicable comparisons than constructing specific builds to tear down or build up the Monk. It's not a question of productivity either, more an effort to keep discussion from spiraling out of focus. This isn't a DPS comparison thread, it's a thread about Monk's and what they do well.

Here's where most people go wrong in build comparisons. They don't compare what can be compared mostly directly and just list out the differences between those aspects. HP, AC, move speed, at-will damage, self buffed damage, short rest damage, etc. These measure can all be objective. Then we can speak to the ones that don't directly compare (stunning strike, aura of protection, etc) and then we can form a subjective opinion about which is overall better by applying our own personal weights to each aspect.


I'll say we've been doing a pretty good job of it too, tangents have branched into separate threads rather than inflating the post count in this thread. If you want to build DPS comparisons (which we kind of did somewhat recently* in the Monk vs Cleric thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626367-Who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-Monk-amp-Cleric&highlight=cleric+vs+monk)) it might be best to create a thread for that purpose.
*I can't believe a year old thread is so fresh in my mind, yeesh

My approach is more holistic than just DPR comparisons.


Because DPR analysis is a rabbit hole without end. I'm not going to say that no analysis is possible, because obviously there are points that can be made. But "run against my gauntlet of 6 optimized DPR builds" is extremely time consuming and frankly askance of the purpose of the thread, which is subjectively poling what people do like about monks.

I understand the sentiment because some people just aren't reasonable at all especially when discussing DPR and insist on only comparing to the absolute highest DPR builds or other annoying conversation maneuvers. I think you'll find that isn't me and that I much prefer a more holistic view than just DPR.

By the way, I didn't want anyone to compare to each. It was a pick one scenario to give some flexibility. The level 8 monk held up well enough vs the fighter/warlock and the paladin. Which is to say, that at least for me, it demonstrated that tier 2 monks are pretty good since they compare well to fairly optimized damage builds.


EDIT: I realize that this isn't my thread and that hedging things unnecessarily could be seen as against the rules. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your intent.

Thank you.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think you should be comparing to other classes as well. Especially the similiar ones.
To be clear, I meant as a form of competition. Finding out which class has what DPR is one thing (not altogether that useful in my opinion though) but you don't then have to immediately use that as a way to rate one over the other. If a fighter does X more damage than a Barbarian that's not exactly relevant unless X damage somehow means something outside of statistical analysis.

The most recent OotS comic (1254) is surprisingly topical, our knowledge of their DPR isn't relevant to every situation so it's silly of us (Roy's words, not mine) to assume all circumstances are of similar relevance. Circumstances change, there is no constant variable that means X more DPR is in any way objectively better.


Apologies if I misunderstood your intent. It seemed you were implying that I was no longer being neutral.
No problem, as long as that's cleared up.



Here's where most people go wrong in build comparisons. They don't compare what can be compared mostly directly and just list out the differences between those aspects. HP, AC, move speed, at-will damage, self buffed damage, short rest damage, etc. These measure can all be objective. Then we can speak to the ones that don't directly compare (stunning strike, aura of protection, etc) and then we can form a subjective opinion about which is overall better by applying our own personal weights to each aspect.
Mostly because, as I said above, the most directly comparable things are often the least important aspects, yet people cling to them because they're easy to solve for and "impossible" to argue against. I can't refute the DPR of a Battle Master Fighter after the math is done but I can refute it's relevance because damage is only a single aspect of the system and Monk's (or any martial) isn't substantially worse than another, which has also been proven so it does us no good to continue bringing it up.


My approach is more holistic than just DPR comparisons.
I'm sure it's intended to be but even bring up DPR comparisons (or explicitly asking for them) is a good way to bring focus very narrowly onto that, variables inevitably end up being eliminated and we ignore them, discussion moves away from things unrelated to damage.

EDIT:

I understand the sentiment because some people just aren't reasonable at all especially when discussing DPR and insist on only comparing to the absolute highest DPR builds or other annoying conversation maneuvers. I think you'll find that isn't me and that I much prefer a more holistic view than just DPR.

By the way, I didn't want anyone to compare to each. It was a pick one scenario to give some flexibility. The level 8 monk held up well enough vs the fighter/warlock and the paladin. Which is to say, that at least for me, it demonstrated that tier 2 monks are pretty good since they compare well to fairly optimized damage builds.
Though it looks like we've more or less reached the same conclusions here, a welcome change of pace.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Here's where most people go wrong in build comparisons. They don't compare what can be compared mostly directly and just list out the differences between those aspects. HP, AC, move speed, at-will damage, self buffed damage, short rest damage, etc. These measure can all be objective. .

A holistic view is a more accurate than a narrow ‘objective’ test.
Frogreaver you were positing a monk using 4 Flurries in a row, evidently in some vain attempt to out damage a Battlemaster in total damage, over an unspecified Adventuring day.

Going all in on Flurry of Blows is not how one would play an Open Hand Monk, (or many other types of monks).

Your ‘objective test’ is akin to racing a Mclaren Supercar against an Off-road Sand Rail. The results may be objective, but the information is not very useful, and does very little at all to illuminate the capabilities of the sand-rail.

A true examination, like that you propose is going to require a broader view than: Monk mashes the Flurry Button.

[Frogreaver]

A holistic view is a more accurate than a narrow ‘objective’ test.
Frogreaver you were positing a monk using 4 Flurries in a row in some vain attempt to out damage a Battlemaster in total damage over an unspecified Adventuring day.

Going all in on Flurry of Blows is not how one would play an Open Hand Monk, (or many other types of monks).

Open hands monks specifically are fond of flurry of blows because their whole subclass is built around effects that happen when you flurry of blows.


A true examination, like that you propose is going to require a broader view than: Monk mashes the Flurry Button.

In comparisons you compare the like things and note the unlike things. I'm not really sure what you wanted me to note about the open hand monk that I didn't?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Open hands monks specifically are fond of flurry of blows because their whole subclass is built around effects that happen when you flurry of blows.

Correct, which will often result in the Open Hand monk using Flurry of Blows rather judiciously as the true value in each Flurry strike is an opportunity to either stop a Legendary Creature from using their Legendary Actions with no saving throw, or knock any size creature prone with a Dexterity Saving Throw.

It would be a pity to waste such rarified abilities on some goal as meager as racing the Warlock in a Damage Dealing contest.

Open Hand monks bring the pain not in DPR but in status effects.
I’m rather sure, others have brought that up before.

I would love to read your mathematical examples of that.
(Meant sincerely)

[Frogreaver]

Correct, which will often result in the Open Hand monk using Flurry of Blows rather judiciously as the true value in each Flurry strike is an opportunity to either stop a Legendary Creature from using their Legendary Actions with no saving throw, or knock any size creature prone with a Dexterity Saving Throw.

In general that's a great point in the open hand monks favor. However, at level 8 you aren't fighting many creatures with legendary actions. So maybe it's not very important to the specific level we are evaluating. By the time you reach higher level and start fighting such creatures you'll have even more ki, such that you probably won't have to worry about judiciously managing it. You'll just need to avoid getting too stunning strike happy as that's where ki is going to get burnt on the open hand monk fast if anywhere.

***EDIT: Just wanted to calibrate because I can't find the rule that says no reactions means no legendary actions?


It would be a pity to waste such rarified abilities on some goal as meager as racing the Warlock in a Damage Dealing contest.

I can agree with that, but it's not a huge concern since you'll have so much KI by that time IMO.


Open Hand monks bring the pain not in DPR but in status effects.
I’m rather sure, others have brought that up before.

I would love to read your mathematical examples of that.
(Meant sincerely)

They wouldn't be mathematical examples. They would be points to note since the Fighters, Paladins, Rogues and Barbs get nothing similar to compare to. I guess the prone affect the fighter can mimic with trip attack, but the monks is more reliable at landing and he has more potential uses.

[Amechra]

I mean, hey, once you hit late T2 you're probably looking at enough ki to flurry every single turn if you really want to.

Like, I don't get this "they wouldn't waste it on something as gauche as damage" stance. Part of the fun of the Open Hand Monk is using Flurry of Blows to SWEEP THE LEG (save vs. prone) and then elbow drop the poor jerk you're fighting.

(Also, I hate to break it to you, but Legendary Actions aren't reactions...)

[animorte]

I mean, hey, once you hit late T2 you're probably looking at enough ki to flurry every single turn if you really want to.

Like, I don't get this "they wouldn't waste it on something as gauche as damage" stance. Part of the fun of the Open Hand Monk is using Flurry of Blows to SWEEP THE LEG (save vs. prone) and then elbow drop the poor jerk you're fighting.

(Also, I hate to break it to you, but Legendary Actions aren't reactions...)

Also Legendary Resistance and Legendary Actions are two entirely different things.

And if anybody has noticed lately... Using a lot of resources during combat generally helps to turn the combat in your favor a lot quicker. AND, don't forget this part, Monks require less time than literally any other class to short rest (except Genie Warlock at level 10, which is only 10 minutes). Unless I've overlooked something, please let me know.

[Amechra]

AND, don't forget this part, Monks require less time than literally any other class to short rest (except Genie Warlock at level 10, which is only 10 minutes). Unless I've overlooked something, please let me know.

I think you're overlooking something:


When you spend a ki point, it is unavailable until you finish a short or long rest, at the end of which you draw all of your expended ki back into yourself. You must spend at least 30 minutes of the rest meditating to regain your ki points.

It doesn't look like it does anything to shorten the actual rest — it just adds an extra requirement that you have to be meditating for part of it.

[animorte]

I think you're overlooking something:

It doesn't look like it does anything to shorten the actual rest — it just adds an extra requirement that you have to be meditating for part of it.

That's true absolutely, but there aren't too many actions any other classes tend to note as necessary enough during a short rest so that it wouldn't be achievable.

[Witty Username]

It's something we'd all forgotten about, except for the monk, when we fought a spellcasting ancient red dragon in our last session. We never had to account for the dragon having Shield or Counterspell and opportunity attacks were shut down so our Sorcerer was free to reposition and take an action. It's good for the Monk too, if you're feat starved you can use it to emulate Mobile to a degree.

How, did you reach the dragon?
I ask because it involves a personal use case on why four elements monks are underrated.

[stoutstien]

So, like, the Monk is the king of 'situational'. If you're playing to its strengths its phenomenal, but if you don't have the ability to make use of its features and you are required to function outside of its role it suffers way more than other martials.

The good news is the situations where monks shine are when a lot of other option are completely shut off. Also their basic abilities allow them to always be applicable so they never feel useless. They may not be the biggest impact when everything is going well but they will always get something done.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Also Legendary Resistance and Legendary Actions are two entirely different things.

That is true. The Monster Manual states the following in part for LA:
It can forgo using them, and it can't use them while incapacitated or otherwise unable to take actions.

I have seen some DM rule that Legendary Actions are not allowed when a creature can not take Reactions.

Of course we are talking about a Monk here…so we can add in a Stunning Strike, with the Flurry of Blows Attacks, if prohibiting Reactions is not enough to stop an Eye Tyrant from Lighting up the Night.😀

[Willie the Duck]

The good news is the situations where monks shine are when a lot of other option are completely shut off. Also their basic abilities allow them to always be applicable so they never feel useless. They may not be the biggest impact when everything is going well but they will always get something done.

As a counterpoint, the same could be said about 3e monks* and that certainly didn't make them very fun to play. The monk has to be more than just good when other options aren't (and have something to do the rest of the time), because you still have to play them that rest of the time. Something like a spell, where you can swap out preparing it, work much better as situational options.
*'what's your fighter and wizard going to do when we're stuck in a jail cell without our gear?' 'we're never in a jail cell without our gear because it is so crippling to everyone but monks (and sorcerers).'

That said, the overall monk has come a long way in playability and enjoyability since the 3e version. Overall I think they require more skill to make shine than plenty of other classes/options, and that might be part of their perception problem more than anything else.

[ProsecutorGodot]

How, did you reach the dragon?
I ask because it involves a personal use case on why four elements monks are underrated.

We had a potion of flying we gave the Monk, it absolutely would have been much more difficult if the Monk wasn't able to fly.

[animorte]

Of course we are talking about a Monk here…so we can add in a Stunning Strike, with the Flurry of Blows Attacks, if prohibiting Reactions is not enough to stop an Eye Tyrant from Lighting up the Night.😀

Either way, it still gets a save, which it must fail 4 saves to actually fail just because of legendary resistance. Which if your party is throwing out enough things that require a save, this could be accomplished within a couple rounds. But anything with LR is likely to have really good saves anyway, haha. I guess that's what makes them legendary! Who knew?

[LudicSavant]

Of course we are talking about a Monk here…so we can add in a Stunning Strike, with the Flurry of Blows Attacks, if prohibiting Reactions is not enough to stop an Eye Tyrant from Lighting up the Night.😀

Either way, it still gets a save, which it must fail 4 saves to actually fail just because of legendary resistance. Which if your party is throwing out enough things that require a save, this could be accomplished within a couple rounds. But anything with LR is likely to have really good saves anyway, haha. I guess that's what makes them legendary! Who knew?

What are you talking about? Eye tyrants don't have legendary saves. They only have legendary and lair actions, and their Con save is only +4. Monks wreck them.

They're not the only legendary monsters without legendary saves, either. There's plenty. Even stuff like the Kraken. Oh sure, the Kraken has a +14 Con save, but it turns out it still has a ~60% chance of getting stunned by 4 DC19 Stunning Strikes.

What's that, you want to fight a Solar? Well it only has a +8 Con save, and it has Legendary Actions but not Legendary Saves. Guess who's getting stunned into oblivion? That Solar is.

[Unoriginal]

What are you talking about? Eye tyrants don't have legendary saves. They only have legendary and lair actions, and their Con save is only +4. Monks wreck them.

They're not the only legendary monsters without legendary saves, either. There's plenty. Even stuff like the Kraken. Oh sure, the Kraken has a +14 Con save, but it turns out it still has a ~60% chance of getting stunned by a full DC19 Flurry of Blows barrage.

What's that, you want to fight a Solar? Well it only has a +8 Con save, and it has Legendary Actions but not Legendary Saves. Guess who's getting stunned into oblivion? That Solar is.

Also those who have Legendary Resistances will likely burn through them to avoid getting Stunned... which is what one call "a win".

[Amnestic]

Guess who's getting stunned into oblivion? That Solar is.

Well if a Solar lets a monk get into melee with them despite its 150ft fly speed and 120ft legendary action teleport, it probably deserves that stunning.

The Solar example does dovetail into something monk players should bring up to their DM early so they can convince them to rule the right way to avoid any confusion, which is monk abilities being magical (and therefore being affected by magic resistance), to which they should be directed to the Sage Advice on the topic which says that as a general rule they're not, so they can avoid the DM giving every magic resistant foe advantage on stunning strike saves.

But just bear in mind that it does mean if you're a shadowmonk you can't teleport out of force cages. Unfortunate, but definitely worth it in the long run.

[LudicSavant]

Well if a Solar lets a monk get into melee with them despite its 150ft fly speed and 120ft legendary action teleport, it probably deserves that stunning. Tagging people with 150ft fly speeds and 120 ft legendary teleports is one of the things that high level Monks are much better at than many martials.

[animorte]

What are you talking about? Eye tyrants don't have legendary saves. They only have legendary and lair actions, and their Con save is only +4. Monks wreck them.

I wasn't referring to Eye Tyrants specifically, just the legendary resistance in general. To your point though, I absolutely agree.


Also those who have Legendary Resistances will likely burn through them to avoid getting Stunned... which is what one call "a win".

Yeah, I was thinking that exactly as I was typing it. Which is exactly why I said this:


Which if your party is throwing out enough things that require a save, this could be accomplished within a couple rounds.

[Rashagar]

Also, the ability to turn off Reactions has no save. This is good for going first and disabling Counterspellers and others with key reactions.

** tries to take a mental note that "unable to take reactions" doesn't only equal "unable to take opportunity attacks", though this will almost certainly be forgotten when it's relevant **

[stoutstien]

** tries to take a mental note that "unable to take reactions" doesn't only equal "unable to take opportunity attacks", though this will almost certainly be forgotten when it's relevant **

Low key one of the best features for OH monk's. Sapping action economy without even giving a save is a good way to keep the momentum in your party's favor. There are quite a few NPCs with nasty reactions and as new blocks are created they are making more use of the entire economy.

[Witty Username]

** tries to take a mental note that "unable to take reactions" doesn't only equal "unable to take opportunity attacks", though this will almost certainly be forgotten when it's relevant **

Yeah, that is definitely a problem. On a more hopeful note, I think the biggest stealth buff for monk in my playgroup is our last DM forgot about Legendary Resistance for the entire game.

[Witty Username]

We had a potion of flying we gave the Monk, it absolutely would have been much more difficult if the Monk wasn't able to fly.

Neat. My talking point is onboard flight is so good for four elements monk. I find that alot of people that claim it is the weakest don't really think about that.
That and a more overall point on ki starvation, four elements tends to spend more ki in situations that other Monk don't perform well in, and have massive upsides in some cases. Shape the flowing river is really cool when in an aquatic setting.

[Petrocorus]

And yeah there are bad subclasses, but, well. .... Scout? .....
Scout is a bad subclass?

[Miele]

Well some people go to monk to fulfill the "unarmed character" archetype, for one. It's also how the class is presented. Their first level ability is "martial arts."

I'm late to the party and just want to drop a comment on this: in the history of oriental martial arts, the chinese ones are the most ancient of which we can find a widespread usage. I said oriental, because in Europe we had a totally different way of fighting and that suit the Fighter archetype rather than the Monk one.

In the old eastern world, the defense of settlements was organized by the leading family and the others followed. The threats ranged from brigands to soldiers roaming the land for this or that reason. The training this "civilian militia" received was quite specific for their village/settlement. Later on the most predominant styles, that took from some family names, started to spread.

Every combat training was based on weapons, without exceptions. Farmer weapons, improvised weapons, crude weapons, yes, but nobody in their right mind would train bare handed.

I spent a large portion of my life training martial arts, from Karate many many years ago (which we only learn the school version) to kung fu, mostly Shaolin and a sub branch called Tang Lang Quan, but also Xing Yi Quan and Tai-Ji (which is not "old people slowing doing weird moves in the park, it was a war-based art before it became something different).
I learned to use one handed swords, two handed swords (chinese semi-light ones, not medieval heavy ones), the spear, daggers, single saber and shield, dual sabers, etc.

Bare hand is for training without hurting people or for competitions, the rest comes from the weapons, the basics of the "styles" are rooted in weapon usage. So yeah... back to DnD.

I like the monk class, but I never had the possibility to play one for an extended campaign. I want to think about a concept before building one, but next chance I get (either new campaign or untimely death) the monk is a serious candidate.

[Tanarii]

Every combat training was based on weapons, without exceptions. Farmer weapons, improvised weapons, crude weapons, yes, but nobody in their right mind would train bare handed.
Agreed, the only way a Monk could be expected to be superior unarmed to with a weapon should be if they trained in a form that didn't teach them any weapon use. For a given character, using a melee weapon they are trained in the use of should always be equal to or superior to not using a weapon at all. Even Monks.

In the case of monks, it's important to note that their style "trains" them in the use of Monk weapons. They aren't as trained in Dex non-monk weapons in general and usually very bad with Str non-monk weapons, even if they're game terminology proficient.

[Amnestic]

Agreed, the only way a Monk could be expected to be superior unarmed to with a weapon should be if they trained in a form that didn't teach them any weapon use. For a given character, using a melee weapon they are trained in the use of should always be equal to or superior to not using a weapon at all. Even Monks.

Clearly the devs disagree with you since unarmed fighting style, even one handed, outstrips d4 weapons immediately, and d6 weapons if you've not got any weapons/shields in hand.

But if you want to give me an Alternate Class Feature on monk to give up all their weapon proficiencies in exchange for the Unarmed Fighting Style, I'd be pretty happy with that, sure. Doesn't even need to affect their bonus action attacks.