Opinion: Monk's MADness is not as bad as most other MAD classes

[diplomancer]

It's a common argument against the Monk that they are MAD; but this MADness is significantly better when compared to other MAD classes, like the Bladesinger or the Paladin.

This is for three reasons:
1- Dex and Wis are, usually, much better stats than Str, Cha, or Int; you just get more bang for your buck when you raise those stats.
2- When a Monk raises his Dex or his Wis, he's increasing both his offense and his defense; that's not really true for the other MAD classes.
3- this is a bit counterintuitive, but the very fact that Monks don't really have must-take feats means that raising their Dex and Wis doesn't feel as bad as it does for, say, a Paladin, that every ASI agonizes over raising Str or Cha or taking feats like PAM, GWM, Mounted Combatant, Res (con), Warcaster, etc... Monks just work straight with their ASIs. This is a matter of taste and personality, but I consider NOT having to overthink at ASI level a feature, not a bug

[NaughtyTiger]

It's a common argument against the Monk that they are MAD; but this MADness is significantly better when compared to other MAD classes, like the Bladesinger or the Paladin.

This is for three reasons:
1- Dex and Wis are, usually, much better stats than Str, Cha, or Int; you just get more bang for your buck when you raise those stats.
2- When a Monk raises his Dex or his Wis, he's increasing both his offense and his defense; that's not really true for the other MAD classes.
3- this is a bit counterintuitive, but the very fact that Monks don't really have must-take feats means that raising their Dex and Wis doesn't feel as bad as it does for, say, a Paladin, that every ASI agonies over raising Str or Cha or taking feats like PAM, GWM, Mounted Combatant, Res (con), Warcaster, etc... Monks just work straight with their ASIs.

Bladesinger raises his DEX or his INT, he's increasing both his offense and his defense;
Paladin raising STR raises his defense and attack

Bladesinger and Paladin do damage and have group utility with fewer ASIs, so they can spend them on feats

[diplomancer]

Bladesinger raises his DEX or his INT, he's increasing both his offense and his defense;
Paladin raising STR raises his defense and attack

Bladesinger and Paladin do damage and have group utility with fewer ASIs, so they can spend them on feats

Paladin does not really increase his AC when he increases his Str, unless he starts with
lower Str than he should, in which case he's just keeping up. Bladesinger does raise his defense when he raises Int, but only proficiency times per day, and many times not on the first round of battle; and neither of these Saves are as common as Dex or Wis saves.

But I want to make one thing clear; I'm not saying that Monks are better than Paladins or Bladesingers, they definitely aren't. My argument is very restricted; i'm arguing that their MADness does not feel as big of an issue for them, and this is mostly because Dex and Wis are great stats for everybody; better, in general, than Str, Int, or Cha.

[ZRN]

I think in general we should understand that from a design perspective MADness is bad not because it makes a class/build/etc underpowered (which isn’t always the case and anyway would be resolvable just by buffing other aspects of the class/build), but because it restricts character build options by limiting your use of ASIs.

From a character building perspective, of course, power level is more relevant to deciding whether a particular build looks viable/fun/competitive/whatever.

[Amechra]

I think in general we should understand that from a design perspective MADness is bad not because it makes a class/build/etc underpowered (which isn’t always the case and anyway would be resolvable just by buffing other aspects of the class/build), but because it restricts character build options by limiting your use of ASIs.

From a character building perspective, of course, power level is more relevant to deciding whether a particular build looks viable/fun/competitive/whatever.

It's bad from a design perspective because most of the classes in the game are effectively SAD, not because splitting stats is inherently bad.

The thing about being MAD vs. SAD is that every class in 5e is technically MAD, in the strictest sense of the term.

Everyone needs a decent Constitution (for HP, +concentration if you're a caster), a decent Strength/Dexterity (for AC, +offense if you're a martial character), and another stat defined by your class (this is ignorable if you're a Fighter or Rogue). You usually want the first two stats to be middling and the last stat to be high, but this is kinda negotiable (a Bladelock who focuses on Dexterity over Charisma is actually reasonably viable, for example).

What makes the MAD classes feel worse is that they either push you towards a "bad" stat arrangement (Barbarians pressure you towards having good physical stats and bad mental stats) or they have 1-2 features that entice you towards having two high stats (Paladins are almost entirely MAD because of Aura of Protection, while Monks are MAD because of Unarmored Defense and Stunning Strike).

Here's the thing — you could build a perfectly reasonable Monk without ever improving Wisdom past 14. Sure, you'd have studded-leather-equivalent AC and your save DC for Stunning Strike would be pretty low, but plenty of subclasses don't otherwise care that much about their Wisdom score (and you can get Bracers of Defense or whatever). The reason why people don't do that is because most feats suck for Monks, so when you're deciding what to spend your ASIs on, "improving Dexterity (which is my primary stat)" and "improving Wisdom (which gives me +1 AC in addition to its other benefits)" are far more tempting.

Like, let's be honest here — if Monks actually had good options to spend their ASIs on, you'd hear less complaining about how they "have" to spend their ASIs on Dexterity and Wisdom. As it stands, they have, what, Mobile and Crusher? Sharpshooter if you're a Kensei?

(OK, OK, the other reason that people feel the need to pump both stats is that the Monk's AC kinda sucks otherwise. You need a Wisdom of 16 to beat studded leather, and a Wisdom of 18 to beat Mage Armor or racial Natural Armor... and wearing armor is a pretty big nerf. That said, AC 15 to 17 isn't completely miserable, especially if, again, you get access to AC-boosting items.)

[strangebloke]

Correct.... Ish.

Monks rely on multiple stats, and are thus MAD by definition. With that said, your point 1 is absolutely correct. The stats they rely on (DEX, WIS, CON) are the three best stats in the game to rely on. Almost no SAD classes will dump any of these stats, and many will actually bring these stats up to 12 or 14 despite having no class features that key off them. For this reason even though monks lack features that grant them out of combat utility, they usually do sort of fine out of combat purely by having good DEX and WIS.

Your second point, that monks scale very well with basic ASIs relative to other classes, is also provably true. I did this comparison a few months back: A level 5 barbarian and monk against AC 14, giving them 16 and 18 in their main offensive stats, respectively. Monk is flurrying, barbarian is raging and using reckless.
Monk
16 DEX: [(1d8+3)*2 +(1d6+3)*2]*0.65=18.2
18 DEX: [(1d8+4)*2 +(1d6+4)*2]*0.70=22.4
Barb
16 STR: [(2d6+3+2)*2]*~0.88=21.2
18 STR: [(2d6+4+2)*2]*0.91=23.6

So whichever way you count it, the monk gains almost twice the bonus the barbarian gets from a +1. And they also get AC. A monk isn't particularly weak at level 1, with competitive AC and DPR, and loads of other martials won't ever get above 17 AC anyway so the idea that monks are weak because they HAVE to invest in ASIs isn't really correct. Their problem is that they don't get damage boosting class features in t3, and lack feat options that are better than an ASI.

However, your third point is basically just another way of saying that a lack of feat support means that they're easier to build 'optimally' which.... well it isn't really true. It just means they're simple and relatively weak. Being able to take GWM and CBE are good things. Overall I would consider the lack of feat support to be the Monk's biggest weakness. But they also do have good feats, most notably EA and SS.

[Angelalex242]

...Well, if Vhuman, you start with your one feat...I might pick observant to being the 'seeing eye dog' for the party...

And since you might be a 8/16/16/8/16/8 type monk...

Your only real choice is, do you go for Dex 20 (And initiative/offense) first, or Wis 20 (And stunning strike) first.

Either way, whatever I picked at level 4, I would pick again at level 8. And then I'd pick the other one.

[Witty Username]

Most MAD classes and build sans monk are comfortable with a 14 to 16 in their secondary stat, which complicates this.

Paladin is a good example of this as Cha provides potent benefits even at 14, the pressure is gains not baselines. Paladin AC will hover around 18-21 without much issue.

Monk has the issue that its AC and offensive value both nessastate high Dex and Wis to function. Also 14 vs 16 is an important number in non-Tasha's point by, most classes are reasonable with 16/14 or 14/14 in primary/secondary stats at early levels. For monk they more or less need the 16/16. This sharply limits race selection when not using Tasha's.
Numbers
Monk will hit AC 18 around 8th level in most games, and end at 20. But only if maintaining max Dex/Wis.
Without Tasha's this could also require starting with AC 14 to fit concept, reaching AC 18 by 16th level, and never reaching AC 20.
A heavy armor class with 15 strength will be able to achieve AC 20 regardless of stat increases with use of a shield and AC 18 without once the full plate is achieved.

Offensively, monk is dependent on landing attacks and successful Stuns, making for a similar need to max Dex for attack/damage and wis for save DCs.
Most classes on need one will outstrip the other, Paladin will tend to be strength, bladesinger intelligence, Ranger dex.
Ranged monk builds sometimes get around this by reducing their need for wisdom.

[Seramus]

Dex and Wis are great attributes, but I want to play a monk that doesn't have either Dex or Wis and not be a huge liability/tortle.

[LudicSavant]

It's a common argument against the Monk that they are MAD; but this MADness is significantly better when compared to other MAD classes, like the Bladesinger or the Paladin.

This is for three reasons:
1- Dex and Wis are, usually, much better stats than Str, Cha, or Int; you just get more bang for your buck when you raise those stats.
2- When a Monk raises his Dex or his Wis, he's increasing both his offense and his defense; that's not really true for the other MAD classes.
3- this is a bit counterintuitive, but the very fact that Monks don't really have must-take feats means that raising their Dex and Wis doesn't feel as bad as it does for, say, a Paladin, that every ASI agonizes over raising Str or Cha or taking feats like PAM, GWM, Mounted Combatant, Res (con), Warcaster, etc... Monks just work straight with their ASIs. This is a matter of taste and personality, but I consider NOT having to overthink at ASI level a feature, not a bug

You're right in point #1; if you're going to be dumping everything into stats, you could hope for no better stats than Dexterity and Wisdom.

However, I would still say that Monk is the most MAD class. And when I say that, I mean that they are the most dependent on said multiple attributes. To put it another way, a Paladin's effectiveness varies less based on its Str/Dex or Cha than a Monk's does based on its Dex or Wis.

If the Paladin class was designed like the Monk, then it wouldn't just get an AC from armor (needing Str not to slow down); it'd have its AC based on Str and Cha. And it wouldn't just get smite dice with a flat damage bonus. The damage bonus would be based on Charisma (while their attack is, as before, based on Str/Dex). And it wouldn't just get a flat Lay on Hands pool, the size of that pool would probably be based on Cha too. And maybe they'd find some way to make the Aura based partly on Strength too.

See what I'm saying? If a Paladin has Str but not Cha, they still have full AC, full smiting, etc. If a Paladin has Cha but not Str, they have full spellcasting saves, full aura, etc. And both cases would have full Lay on Hands, etc.

But the Monk has basically everything linked. To have a good AC, you need both Dex and Wis high. To have a good offense, you need both Dex and Wis high. For just about any given function, you need both Dex and Wis high.

[Angelalex242]

To be fair, my Paladins focus on Cha 20 with ASIs, then rely on a magic item for str (or leave it at 16 for a while.)

But there is no 'set your dex/wis to 29' item, as there is with belts.

[Skrum]

Having low str and thus being unable to effectively grapple as a character *that also can't use a shield and also runs really fast* is gotdamn infuriating. They also can't climb or jump (without spending ki). What the actual @$&#. How did this get overlooked.

I really hate that monks get locked into a path/archetype more than other classes, because of their stat requirements.

[Angelalex242]

Well, if STR is all you want, like I just said, you can always give your 8 str 20 dex monk a belt of giant strength.

[elyktsorb]

Well, if STR is all you want, like I just said, you can always give your 8 str 20 dex monk a belt of giant strength.

Before this wasn't really an issue because Monk's hardly had magic items worth getting aside from like, Bracers of Defense. But now there are enough magic items tailored to monks that having to have a belt of giant strength just to supplement grappling, is aggravating.

Although you could just be a Astral Self monk, which can use its wisdom for grappling instead.

[Angelalex242]

Depends on the Belt, of course. A belt of storm giant strength will overwhelm your dex based offense and change it to strength based.

[Zaile]

I think the 5e Monk is the most balanced version of the class yet. It's 2 stats fewer than the 3e version (if you like skill points). The stat dependency for defense IS higher than other classes, but the added ASI makes up for it as does the lack of need for feats. They are the "best" stats in terms of the ones that affect offense, defense and saves, but also they don't have as many boost items, save for tomes, manuals, dwarven belt and ioun stones.

The Str stat items are the worst magic items in the game as they can completely negate ASIs for martials/wizards and are either "YAY!" early or super "Really, after I got to 20 with 2 ASIs?" feels-bad. They also give Wizards and Str-classes a free chance to focus on other stats or extra feats while a monk would not have the same luxury. Magic items setting stats was a terrible design and the designers will never fix it. Removing skill points made Int a dump hard stat for all classes but wizards/artificers as there is no real penalty for doing so.

All-in-all monk's issues are not MAD, but more just the lack of strong and unique sub-class options and poor unarmed scaling, especially now that a fighting style starts you at 11th level monk damage.

[Dork_Forge]

Having low str and thus being unable to effectively grapple as a character *that also can't use a shield and also runs really fast* is gotdamn infuriating. They also can't climb or jump (without spending ki). What the actual @$&#. How did this get overlooked.

I really hate that monks get locked into a path/archetype more than other classes, because of their stat requirements.

Having a low Str doesn't prevent you from grappling effectively, just leave at least a 10 in it and take prof in athletics, which Monk can give you, and you'll be competent at worst. If you want to be good at grappling then Astral Self or taking something like Skill Expert (preferably as a V Human) for expertise in Athletics. Every single Monk not being good at grappling is okay, since it isn't really in their imagery or core mechanics. The important thing is that there are options for a grappling Monk if you want to go that way.

The jumping thing I can see being a little eh, but Step of the Wind solves that and is cheap enough, once you can run on vertical and liquid surfaces it becomes moot a lot of the time.


I think the 5e Monk is the most balanced version of the class yet. It's 2 stats fewer than the 3e version (if you like skill points). The stat dependency for defense IS higher than other classes, but the added ASI makes up for it as does the lack of need for feats. They are the "best" stats in terms of the ones that affect offense, defense and saves, but also they don't have as many boost items, save for tomes, manuals, dwarven belt and ioun stones.

Monks don't get an additional ASI, just Fighters (2) and Rogues (1) do.


All-in-all monk's issues are not MAD, but more just the lack of strong and unique sub-class options and poor unarmed scaling, especially now that a fighting style starts you at 11th level monk damage.

Disagree with all of that, but I wish people would stop seeing the unarmed style as being better than a Monk.

For certain levels it gives a higher unarmed strike die, longer if you jump through the hoops to Kirk hammer fist, but the Monk still gets a resourceless bonus action attack that is worth more than the piddly 1-2 damage on average the style gets to the hits.

The boxer hits hard, the martial artist hits many times quickly. Having different ways of doing the same kind of thing without complete overlap is one of 5e's strengths.

[Psyren]

You're right in point #1; if you're going to be dumping everything into stats, you could hope for no better stats than Dexterity and Wisdom.

However, I would still say that Monk is the most MAD class. And when I say that, I mean that they are the most dependent on said multiple attributes. To put it another way, a Paladin's effectiveness varies less based on its Str/Dex or Cha than a Monk's does based on its Dex or Wis.

If the Paladin class was designed like the Monk, then it wouldn't just get an AC from armor (needing Str not to slow down); it'd have its AC based on Str and Cha. And it wouldn't just get smite dice with a flat damage bonus. The damage bonus would be based on Charisma (while their attack is, as before, based on Str/Dex). And it wouldn't just get a flat Lay on Hands pool, the size of that pool would probably be based on Cha too. And maybe they'd find some way to make the Aura based partly on Strength too.

See what I'm saying? If a Paladin has Str but not Cha, they still have full AC, full smiting, etc. If a Paladin has Cha but not Str, they have full spellcasting saves, full aura, etc. And both cases would have full Lay on Hands, etc.

But the Monk has basically everything linked. To have a good AC, you need both Dex and Wis high. To have a good offense, you need both Dex and Wis high. For just about any given function, you need both Dex and Wis high.

Yeah, this about sums it up. Everyone in 5e is "multi-attribute," the part that varies by class is the "dependent" part. Monks have more of the D than most.

A Paladin with 14 Cha, or hell, even 12 Cha can still feel decent in play. A Monk with 12 or 14 Wis just feels weak.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I were king of D&D (which I'm not and y'all should be grateful for that fact), I'd set a rule that

1. Every class has a Prime attribute. Or possibly the choice of a Prime attribute. System expectation: start with a 15-18, end with an 18-20.
2. Every class/subclass combination has a secondary attribute of importance that is not the same as the Prime attribute. System expectation: start with a 12-14, end with a 14-16.
3. Some class/subclass combinations might have multiple secondaries, but if they do, they're less important. In this case, the secondaries would expect to end with a 12-14.
4. Every class should want a positive Constitution modifier
5. Attributes would be explained as being about archetype and approach, not physical simulation[1].
6. No feature, ability, spell, or anything can make you SAD. I'm looking at you, Hex Warrior.

[1] That is, you can have INT 8 and not be dumb. It's just your personality/habits/etc make you less successful at cerebral "outthink the problem" approaches. Or you can be strong (physically) but not high STR (defaulting to and best at overpower-with-brute-force approaches). This would mostly be a wording change, but would require some rejiggering of things like carry capacity. Which should, IMO, be not-really-a-thing except for prompt lifting capability. That is, measuring how well you can hold up that portcullis, not how much you can carry on a march.

[Rukelnikov]

If I were king of D&D (which I'm not and y'all should be grateful for that fact), I'd set a rule that

1. Every class has a Prime attribute. Or possibly the choice of a Prime attribute. System expectation: start with a 15-18, end with an 18-20.
2. Every class/subclass combination has a secondary attribute of importance that is not the same as the Prime attribute. System expectation: start with a 12-14, end with a 14-16.
3. Some class/subclass combinations might have multiple secondaries, but if they do, they're less important. In this case, the secondaries would expect to end with a 12-14.
4. Every class should want a positive Constitution modifier
5. Attributes would be explained as being about archetype and approach, not physical simulation[1].
6. No feature, ability, spell, or anything can make you SAD. I'm looking at you, Hex Warrior.

[1] That is, you can have INT 8 and not be dumb. It's just your personality/habits/etc make you less successful at cerebral "outthink the problem" approaches. Or you can be strong (physically) but not high STR (defaulting to and best at overpower-with-brute-force approaches). This would mostly be a wording change, but would require some rejiggering of things like carry capacity. Which should, IMO, be not-really-a-thing except for prompt lifting capability. That is, measuring how well you can hold up that portcullis, not how much you can carry on a march.

Grateful I am :smallbiggrin:!!

[Psyren]

You ARE king of D&D - at your table :smalltongue:

(If your players agree you are.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

You ARE king of D&D - at your table :smalltongue:

(If your players agree you are.)

Yeah, but actually changing things is too much work. Talking about it idly in the internet is easier.