New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 23 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 684
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Hi all,

    I wanted to see what folks thought of Treatmonk's latest video deconstructing the issues with Monk as a class but I haven't seen anything addressing it yet, so here we are. I've made it. It's my thread now, and you're in it.

    I'll lay out my cards - I like Monks conceptually as a concept to explore, I like the flavor of the class, but I found Treatmonk's points about their lacking mechanics convincing and in alignment with my own (very brief) experience playing a Monk. I would like to play Monks, but I don't because the actual experience is pretty boring and frustrating.

    Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk

    I'm not going to go over everything in detail but in short, most arguments about Monks seem to disagree about what a Monk is supposed to do. So he looks at all the possibilities and takes them down individually. They don't have especially good defenses so they aren't great tanks, their damage is worse than almost any other class, Stunning Strike alone does not allow them to compete for battlefield control when compared to classes that actually do specialize in that, and while their mobility is good it alone isn't valuable in a vacuum if they can't bring something else to the table.

    Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter. So the Monk fails to fill a role in the party.

    (I will add here that there are of course non-combat roles to be filled, such as Scout, where a Monk can perform admirably. But this is primarily focused on combat. Separate from that, I will say that while the Monk can make an effective Scout, you can play a Chain Pact Warlock with an invisible familiar with unlimited telepathy and flight who can also scout better and with less personal risk while outperforming the Monk at damage and control with minimal effort.)

    We rarely see threads showing up here about how Monks need to be fixed, though. More often we see stuff about Rangers, and I think Rangers do better than Monks.

    So a few questions for the playground:
    1) Do you agree with the analysis? (Please keep personal anecdotes about how you saw a Monk and he did fine to a minimum. Everyone has seen something do fine.)
    2) What should the Monk be good for?
    3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
    4) If you think this is all nonsense and Monks are good, actually, can you post a build and make the case?

    My own view is that Ki-focused design is too stingy. I think they could get away with making Flurry and Step of the Wind free, with the only expense being the opportunity cost of using a bonus action (and adjust design accordingly, obviously no point in Martial Arts granting a single bonus action attack if you do that). Patient Defense should probably retain its cost, unfortunately, as we don't want to create a Hexblade situation for Barbarians or Paladins getting free bonus action Dodge.

    Also let's try to focus on the class as a whole, rather than narrowing down to subclasses. We all know Kensei and Sun Soul have issues of their own.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
    Some ideas:
    Boost its martial arts damage die by one step (starts at d6, caps out at 2d12 at 17).
    Drop the ki-cost on Step of the Wind/Patient Defense and/or allow the monk to do one of them on top of the Martial Arts bonus attack - so you'd have the option to either flurry for a 4th hit, or SotW, or PD, while still getting your third hit.
    Changing Stunning Strike's nature based off of subclass is an idea. Since Stunning Strike is already viewed as a major attractive point of the monk by players that shouldn't be changed - just made more interesting. Maybe one subclass gives it a "it can target Charisma saves instead" while another gives it a "even if they make the save, they still have disadvantage on any attack rolls until the end of their next turn" sorta deal?
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    The only monk I ever saw do well was an avariel fighter 1 kensai x in a predominantly airborne campaign featuring 2km tall trees.

    He took a long bow, the archery fighting style, sharpshooter and a whip for stunning strike. That gave him solid damage, decent survivability, at least enough for a ranged skirmisher character and stunning strike is much better against a flying target, where even if you’re over 500 feet up and your target doesn’t hit ground, they are still out of the fight for a long time. If you’re only a couple Hundred feet off of the deck it gets downright nasty.

    Plus the extra mobility was pretty key in a 3-space encounter with lots of LOS breaking stuff. (I’m not doing those again until I find a better virtual table top that can handle x y and z)

    Anyway, the character worked just fine, but to be honest, it also didn’t really play much like a monk.

    I’m not sure I agree with the order of severity of these conclusions, but I do agree with the general sense of them.

  4. - Top - End - #4

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I'm not going to go over everything in detail but in short, most arguments about Monks seem to disagree about what a Monk is supposed to do. So he looks at all the possibilities and takes them down individually. They don't have especially good defenses so they aren't great tanks, their damage is worse than almost any other class, Stunning Strike alone does not allow them to compete for battlefield control when compared to classes that actually do specialize in that, and while their mobility is good it alone isn't valuable in a vacuum if they can't bring something else to the table.

    Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter. So the Monk fails to fill a role in the party.

    (I will add here that there are of course non-combat roles to be filled, such as Scout, where a Monk can perform admirably. But this is primarily focused on combat. Separate from that, I will say that while the Monk can make an effective Scout, you can play a Chain Pact Warlock with an invisible familiar with unlimited telepathy and flight who can also scout better and with less personal risk while outperforming the Monk at damage and control with minimal effort.)

    We rarely see threads showing up here about how Monks need to be fixed, though. More often we see stuff about Rangers, and I think Rangers do better than Monks.

    So a few questions for the playground:
    1) Do you agree with the analysis? (Please keep personal anecdotes about how you saw a Monk and he did fine to a minimum. Everyone has seen something do fine.)
    2) What should the Monk be good for?
    3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
    4) If you think this is all nonsense and Monks are good, actually, can you post a build and make the case?
    I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

    That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

    To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

    Punisher = Fighter.
    Riddick = Monk.

    The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-07-28 at 05:07 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    QuickLyRaiNbow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    If a class needs above-average attributes to function, it's badly designed. Monks are extremely MAD, but they should be as single-attribute dependent as a caster, IMO.
    Last edited by QuickLyRaiNbow; 2020-07-28 at 05:07 PM.
    In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.

  6. - Top - End - #6

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow View Post
    If a class needs above-average attributes to function, it's badly designed.
    Then every class except Moon Druid and Necromancer is badly designed. How many players are willing to play a bard with average stats, an array like 10 10 10 10 10 10?

    Also, if you mean "below average on 4d6k3", AL point buy gives you below-average attributes for a PC. Average stats are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, but AL only gives you a 15.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-07-28 at 05:10 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Somewhere over th rainbow

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Disclaimer, haven't played Monk extensively.
    I would say another problem would be it's hard to play fun with stats as a monk. Max WIS, Max DEX, none of the other stats are really worth increasing, and taking feats doesn't seem worth it based on the massive reliance on both.
    Casters are only incredibly reliable on their casting stat, DEX and CON are secondary, and it would be fine to increase other scores for rp reasons. Monks are more MAD and need BOTH to be high.
    That being said, they have some nice abilities, and catching arrows is cool, and unarmored defence is nice.
    Professional Ancient Relic
    Beware, Monologues
    Ambassador from Gen Z
    NBITP

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterdeep Merch View Post
    Use your smite bite to fight the plight right. Fill the site with light and give fright to wights as a knight of the night, teeth white; mission forthright, evil in flight. Despite the blight within, you perform the rite, ignore any contrite slight, fangs alight, soul bright.

    That sight is dynamite.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    QuickLyRaiNbow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Then every class except Moon Druid and Necromancer is badly designed. How many players are willing to play a bard with average stats, an array like 10 10 10 10 10 10?

    Also, if you mean "below average on 4d6k3", AL point buy gives you below-average attributes for a PC. Average stats are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, but AL only gives you a 15.
    Essentially every class functions fine with the standard array. Monks are weaker than most.
    In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Honestly not sure where he's getting his numbers.

    Martial Arts Die at level 17: 1d10 (5.5)
    Expected modifier at level 17: +5.
    Monk Attacks-Per-Turn (APT) W/O Flurry of Blows: 3
    Monk APT W/ Flurry of Blows: 4


    You're looking at 31.5 DPT W/O Flurry, and 42 with.

    However, on TreantMonk's video, at 25:35, you can see that his level 17 calculations for Flurry of Blows is showing an expected ~27 damage with FOB, and ~20 W/O.

    It's almost like he did his calculations with the assumption the Monk only has a Dex mod of +1. Which will, uh, definitely skew the numbers for a class that attacks 3-4 times.


    [Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.

    All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-28 at 05:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    The problem with monk, ability score wise, is not that they need more than other classes. They have two stats they care about, not including Con, which is pretty much the case for every other class in the game. The actual issue is that instead of a Primary and a Secondary stat, they have two Primaries. The easy way to "fix" them, imo, is to make a few of their ability DCs based on Dex, not Wis, so that wisdom is firmly secondary, and you don't feel like you absolutely need Wisdom AND Dex at 16 to start. This might also require a change to their AC formula, but that's the only other thing I would change. Their abilities are fine. They just need to feel like they don't need more ability scores than other classes.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    [Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.
    All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.
    Is that based on the chart for the Dex-focused Monk or for the Wisdom-focused Monk?

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    Is that based on the chart for the Dex-focused Monk or for the Wisdom-focused Monk?
    23:40 : Monk without FoB
    Damage at Levels...
    • 1: 8
    • 3: 8
    • 5: 15
    • 10: 17
    • 17: 20


    25:30 : Monk with FoB
    Damage at Levels...
    • 3: 11
    • 5: 20
    • 10: 22.5
    • 17: 26


    27:11 : Monk prioritizing Wisdom (no FoB)
    • 1: 8
    • 3: 8
    • 5: 12
    • 10: 12
    • 17: 20
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-28 at 05:40 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    Honestly not sure where he's getting his numbers.

    Martial Arts Die at level 17: 1d10 (5.5)
    Expected modifier at level 17: +5.
    Monk Attacks-Per-Turn (APT) W/O Flurry of Blows: 3
    Monk APT W/ Flurry of Blows: 4


    You're looking at 31.5 DPT W/O Flurry, and 42 with.

    However, on TreantMonk's video, at 25:35, you can see that his level 17 calculations for Flurry of Blows is showing an expected ~27 damage with FOB, and ~20 W/O.

    It's almost like he did his calculations with the assumption the Monk only has a Dex mod of +1. Which will, uh, definitely skew the numbers for a class that attacks 3-4 times.


    [Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.

    All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.
    Your calculation (31.5 without flurry of blows, 42 with it) supposes a 100% hit rate. Treantmonk's calculation, iirc, assumes either a 65% or a 70% hit rate.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    GMT-5
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    [Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.

    All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.
    Maybe the dpr accounts for miss chance?

    Otherwise, yeah.

    [Edit] Ninja'd
    Last edited by CheddarChampion; 2020-07-28 at 05:40 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    I think the issue with monk is mainly in perception. I have DM'd for a few monks and they can be exceptionally powerful.

    Firstly, I think a lot of DMs don't manage to have equal representations for high saves accross all the different categories. Sadly, CON saves seem to often be above the average of all saves. With stunning strike as arguably the defining class feature, a DM that disproportionately favours big beasts and fighter types over wizardy and bardy type NPCs is kind of screwing the monk. It ain't the monk its the DM.

    Secondly there is the preneial short rest issue. How many do you get and are you in a party with full rest classes that are forced to conserve resources/frequently actually run out. Monks are pretty good as long as you have niceevenly spaced short rests and long enough adventuring days. Kind of a class isue but also a broader game issue and a DM issue.

    Thirdly the player doesn't really see their power - again mainly stunning strike. They never see the fear spell the enemy wizard would have cast if they hadn't been stunned. As a DM I can see the impact they have better than the player

    Fourthly their strengths shift. Early on they reliably get 2 attacks per round and do decent damage. In tier 2 they become arguably the best martial controller. In tier 3 they become very defensively powerful with diamond soul. Whatever you want from a class the monk will only give it to you for a short period - whatever made you pick it you will either have to wait for or watch whilst it is surpassed. Whilst it's power is still fine it cant represent a player's desire unless the desire is shifting as well.

    Fifthly magic items radically change the game balance. Imagine no one has magic weapons. Suddenly the monk is looking pretty good for taking on things like fiends. Meanwhile the monk gains the least from bonusses - no particular benefit from feats like sharpshooter or GWM that like +to hit effects (so no archery fighting style), benefit less from magic armour or shields. Benefit less from things that help PCs fly orgain mobility... In a game with no magic items a monk really shines.

    Sixth, the things that can help other subclasses shine are popular. For example I think a lot more campaigns feature undead than say fey - so classes like the paladin and the cleric get a bit of a boost. Again a DM issue not a class issue really. Obviously this is a bit more subjective.


    I do think there are some issues with the monk, not huge by the standard of the game, but still there.

    Out of combat stuff is pretty weak. Potentially true of all martials but Monks main stats being wisdom and dex... they tend to be reactive rather than proactive. With Int you can research a solution to a problem, with Cha you can talk to someone to solicit aid, with strenth you can physically remove an obstacle to the party or to climb past something. Dex and wis are just a bit more about avoiding something when your enemies have the initiative - not exclusively but in balance I think its true. The MADness of the class means that it is just a bit harder to take a feat to support out of combat roles.

    The class kind of has little variety. Again this is true of a lot of classes - you punch something, then decide if you want to use your special ability is basically it. OK, there are some less used abilities, positioning is more important than for some classes and so on, so it isn't the worst offender but I think the class would be a lot more well recieved if there was more competition for Ki for stunning strike and there were more things to do against big bag of HP enemies.


    So yeah, I don't really complain about the class as I think it is better designed/fun (by my criteria) than the barbarian, the ranger, the rogue (kind of, maybe), and the fighter. This isjustabout goodenough tonotbea target for me. It doesn't mean there are not things I would want to fix but its kindof OK.

  16. - Top - End - #16

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow View Post
    Essentially every class functions fine with the standard array. Monks are weaker than most.
    Yes. Don't take standard array unless you're okay with not playing monks. Rolling stats is the primary stat generation method for a reason--there's nothing wrong with having some classes that are more SAD than others.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Your calculation (31.5 without flurry of blows, 42 with it) supposes a 100% hit rate. Treantmonk's calculation, iirc, assumes either a 65% or a 70% hit rate.
    See, I'm not sure about that. Fighter with a 2d6 weapon and a +5 mod and 100% accuracy at level 20 is looking at 48 damage. With a 75% chance to hit (which is roughly what would be needed to move the Monk's numbers to his graph), you're looking at 36, which is his baseline. And that's the highest damage weapon of Fighter (without getting into feat selection and all that jazz).

    However, he also states that he could make virtually any class hit that baseline, except the Monk, and we know that Rogues don't get close to that at level 20 (they'd have 30 damage with 75% accuracy at lvl 20).

    So something is definitely not adding up.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-28 at 05:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

    That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

    To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

    Punisher = Fighter.
    Riddick = Monk.

    The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.
    No comment on other things but Riddick is not a monk, he is a rogue.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Yes. Don't take standard array unless you're okay with not playing monks. Rolling stats is the primary stat generation method for a reason--there's nothing wrong with having some classes that are more SAD than others.
    I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?
    I think MaxW is referring, explicitly, to the standard default array. You can get a balanced spread using Point Buy that works for the Monk that isn't the default array.

    For example: 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Go Wood Elf and call it a day.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-28 at 05:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    However, he also states that he could make virtually any class hit that baseline, except the Monk, and we know that Rogues don't get close to that at level 20 (they'd have 30 damage with 75% accuracy at lvl 20).
    Keep in mind that when he says he can make any class hit that baseline, he means by building that class well, not that any class that just does basic attacks with no feats is going to beat that marker.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    MN, US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    Fourthly their strengths shift. Early on they reliably get 2 attacks per round and do decent damage. In tier 2 they become arguably the best martial controller. In tier 3 they become very defensively powerful with diamond soul. Whatever you want from a class the monk will only give it to you for a short period - whatever made you pick it you will either have to wait for or watch whilst it is surpassed.

    Fifthly magic items radically change the game balance. Imagine no one has magic weapons. Suddenly the monk is looking pretty good for taking on things like fiends. Meanwhile the monk gains the least from bonusses - no particular benefit from feats like sharpshooter or GWM that like +to hit effects (so no archery fighting style), benefit less from magic armour or shields. Benefit less from things that help PCs fly orgain mobility... In a game with no magic items a monk really shines.
    On the "Fourthly" point, my only comment is that you're playing through half of tier 3 without Diamond Soul, unlike (say) full casters (6th+ level spells) and Fighters (3rd attack). Seems like your subclass 11th-level bonus is expected to do A LOT here, and not all of them manage that.

    On magic items: yes, this. The designers talk quite a bit about needing to have a caster "or a Monk" in the party specifically because they expect resistance and immunity to non-magical damage to be a serious constraint starting in tier 2. If there are enough magic weapons around so that every martial can have at least one acceptable one for their fighting style, then that implicit advantage is nullified.

    Quote Originally Posted by jas61292 View Post
    The problem with monk, ability score wise, is not that they need more than other classes. They have two stats they care about, not including Con, which is pretty much the case for every other class in the game. The actual issue is that instead of a Primary and a Secondary stat, they have two Primaries.
    Thank you. I was having a hard time articulating this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

    That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

    To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

    Punisher = Fighter.
    Riddick = Monk.

    The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.
    And thank you for this. The Monk I'm playing in my home game (starting 6th level now) feels ok, and I think it's specifically because we rolled stats, so I could start at Dex 18.

    "Doing more with less" is exactly what the Monk feels like. At my table, that means I'm never going to spend a dime of the loot we've earned, and hopefully that means we can get the Fighter into plate that much sooner.

    Re: Athletics, it sure felt weird to be told at the table that my 2nd level Monk can't climb a wall because his Str(Athletics) roll was crappy. Wis(Athletics) would be a nice nudge toward all of the cool things a martial artist "should" be able to do.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    I haven't watched the full video but I didn't find the arguments so far very persuasive. There was very much a case where the examples he's using to downplay the monk are a little absurd like in a discussion about tanking bring up the War Wizard ability to add to their saving throws as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.

    I think a large part of the problem some have with the monk is the idea that everybody has to have a specialized role and the only thing that matters is how well they fulfill that role. The problem is that it completely ignores how important being versatile is. So yeah you can make a fighter that is a better damage dealer, but if you run into a situation where your damage dealer fighter needs to impose some battlefield control they will fail and the party will suffer as a result. At the drop of a hat the monk can switch from one role to another and be successful at it. That versatility is also important because often times one character can't completely fulfill a role, so for example many times having one tank isn't enough and you really need two characters performing that role, but the combat after that you really need an extra striker. That's where monks show their value, they fulfill the role that is most optimal instead of being the most optimal for a specific role.

    I think as a general concept the Monk fulfills a mobile support role. You basically go where ever you are most needed and fulfill whatever role needs to be fulfilled. So if your tanks are doing their job holding the line you act as a striker, but when enemy reinforcements fall on the rear of the party you switch that up and start tanking those reinforcements and protect that squishy back line.

    Overall I think they do a fine job in that role, but can certainly appreciate that it's not a role that everyone will enjoy playing nor is it a role that absolutely needs to be fulfilled for a party to function. The one thing I wish they would have done is made it so that monks could use Dexterity instead of Strength for athletics checks (At least for Grapple/Shove attacks). This would open up a lot more battlefield control options beyond stunning strike and still be well within the general martial arts theme.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?
    Monks benefit more from having 3 high stats than the average character, because

    1) their AC formula really benefit from high stats, potentially giving them AC 20 at level 1 (Bladesinger & Barbarian are similar)

    2) their damage and DC depend on two different stats (Paladin is in a similar boat).

    3) they get up to 3 attacks at level 2 and 4 attacks at level 5, so each flat stat mod added to damage is magnified (PAM / XBE users are like that too)

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.

    Even just using the basic Monk toolset, excluding subclasses, the Monk can fluidly switch and combine its damage, control, mobility, and tanking, which can vary from turn to turn, so long as they have ki. The Monk can always make its basic attacks, which opens up the use of Stunning Strike, so Control is always a possibility. The Monk always has increased speed even if they don't use Step of the Wind, so mobility is also always there in some form. Then there's the bonus action, which the Monk can use to either BA attack for minimal resource expenditure and damage, FoB for more damage and SS attempts, or Patient Defense for more durability at the cost of some damage.

    So the Monk isn't just capable of damage, tanking, and control separately, it's able to do multiple at the same time
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer



  26. - Top - End - #26

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?
    I'm saying different classes have different levels of MADness. Some, like Moon Druids and Necromancers, can function fine with all 10s or worse. Some, like Fighters, would like one really high stat but don't benefit much from secondary and tertiary stats. Multiclass combinations and monks benefit more than most from multiple high stats, which makes them rare, and suffer more than most from having low stats, which makes the artificially-low stats of AL/point buy make them look worse than they really are. (Ref: https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/ In some ways making standard array deliberately worse than average is clever game design, because it means players who roll stats are likely to feel like they did "better than average" even when they only did average, but in the context of analyzing a class it's more helpful to look at the true average.)

    Overpowered options are a bigger problem than underpowered options, because bad options get ignored and good options alter expectations. Monks with bad stats are arguably underpowered, while monks with good stats are not overpowered, so the only question here is "are the monk's stat demands so unreasonable as to make them a waste of page space?"

    I'd guesstimate that at least 30% of the stat arrays I've ever rolled could make pretty good monks if they wanted to, which is common enough for me not to consider it a design problem. If you want to play a monk you'll definitely get to play a monk, just not every time. If it were 1% I'd consider the class a waste of page space, but it's not.

    Also I noticed that you solicited builds but didn't respond to my build. So, I want to re-draw your attention to Alert Shadow Monks as pretty good tanks from level 3 onwards (as well as being amazing good scouts). Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist Elemonks are also fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    I think MaxW is referring, explicitly, to the standard default array. You can get a balanced spread using Point Buy that works for the Monk that isn't the default array.

    For example: 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Go Wood Elf and call it a day.
    The standard array is deliberately underpowered compared to the average 4d6k3 array. See https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/ if you're not familiar with the math.

    =================================================

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    I haven't watched the full video but I didn't find the arguments so far very persuasive. There was very much a case where the examples he's using to downplay the monk are a little absurd like in a discussion about tanking bring up the War Wizard ability to add to their saving throws as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.
    Hobgoblin war wizard with Medium Armor Master (a.k.a. Iron Wizard) is a perfectly fine tank with fantastic saves, as is a Fighter/War Wizard. That comparison doesn't seem inappropriate.

    Monk saves are not as good as you think they are until Diamond Soul comes online. In fact, they are arguably the worst in the game. Str + Dex save proficiency and Dex + Wis means the only save you're really good before 14th level at is Dex. In theory monks have Stillness of Mind to help out, but in practice it's written in such a way that monks are more likely than not to fail saves against Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Dominate Person, etc., and then Stillness of Mind never comes into play. (IMO it should be a reaction instead of an action.)
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-07-28 at 06:45 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.

    Even just using the basic Monk toolset, excluding subclasses, the Monk can fluidly switch and combine its damage, control, mobility, and tanking, which can vary from turn to turn, so long as they have ki. The Monk can always make its basic attacks, which opens up the use of Stunning Strike, so Control is always a possibility. The Monk always has increased speed even if they don't use Step of the Wind, so mobility is also always there in some form. Then there's the bonus action, which the Monk can use to either BA attack for minimal resource expenditure and damage, FoB for more damage and SS attempts, or Patient Defense for more durability at the cost of some damage.

    So the Monk isn't just capable of damage, tanking, and control separately, it's able to do multiple at the same time
    This. So much this. Monks aren't the best at any one thing, but they are incredibly versatile from round to round at being able to do lots of different things. They're never going to do quite as much damage as a main damage dealer like a Paladin, but they can deal respectable damage. They can't tank just as well as a Barbarian, but they can tank for a few rounds when needed. They offer flexibility, which is its own strength that is hard to quantify.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Monks do different things at different levels, which allows him to say they do nothing by knocking each thing at different points.

    Monks do, as his chart shows, good damage at low levels. His chart undersells it slightly because it's abstract DPR. In reality, the fact that the DPR comes from multiple attacks with an ability mod gives the Monk more consistency at low levels, when things are their swingiest and consistency is most important. A level one Monk has an 84% chance of killing a giant centipede in one round at precisely the time when a giant centipede is actually a threat. The claims about fighters with TWF miss the point that TWF is a trap for fighters that they will regret later (and thus not pick now), while martial arts is something that happens automatically. The level 2 Monk ability to, in two consecutive rounds ~every other encounter, make three attacks with ability modifier damage, is a big deal at level 2. And that's (mostly) their peak value as a damage dealer.

    At level 5, it's been documented elsewhere that his numbers are misleading on con saves. But the bigger issue is that he's missing the point the ability's in context value. The level five Monk in a party facing down a seriously threatening enemy provides immense value by being able to proc multiple saves in one turn. You attack twice, attempt stun on any hits, then if BBEG isn't stunned, you flurry and attempt to stun up to twice more. The math is complicated, but the rate per attempt isn't what really matters - it's the rate per turn. Against an CR 10 Aboleth, the Monk has about a 60 percent chance of stunning it. And then once it's stunned, unlike other status effects like hold person where you can get ****ed by initiative order, the effect is guaranteed to last the full round. Negating not just their actions, but their reaction, legendary, and lair actions for a full round. Nobody else comes close to doing that at that consistency at that level. What spell is the warlock casting?

    Keeping in mind the idea that you are getting a short rest approximately every other combat, and have a sense of which ones are nova worthy, this is a genuinely valuable contribution for a long time. Ki is for this, and rare opportunities to do something better (e.g. push someone off a cliff as a OH).

    Eventually, Legendary Resistance, casters spell advantage, etc catches up with you and stunning strike is no longer as great. At higher levels, monks are... weirdos who vary a lot by subclass. You can certainly make the case that by level 17 the wizard is more powerful than anyone else. But OH has a value proposition as "guy who triggers the most literal save or die effects per short rest". Long Death has a value prop as the guy who can cheat death 17 times per short rest. Etc. It's harder to point to a specific "role" by this point but in my experience you're still a valuable member of the team.

    Its not like the GWF fighter, where from 1-20 they are Frontline damage dealers. A monk's job changes drastically as they level. But it's not like they don't have a job.

  29. - Top - End - #29

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn View Post
    This. So much this. Monks aren't the best at any one thing, but they are incredibly versatile from round to round at being able to do lots of different things. They're never going to do quite as much damage as a main damage dealer like a Paladin, but they can deal respectable damage. They can't tank just as well as a Barbarian, but they can tank for a few rounds when needed. They offer flexibility, which is its own strength that is hard to quantify.
    By level 18 monks tank considerably better than a Barbarian. Even before then it's debatable which is better. (And then of course there's Long Death Monks, who are the absolute kings of 5E tanking.)

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.
    I started to address that with this part:
    Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter.
    I originally wrote out more but thought I was belaboring the point. I anticipated the "versatility" response, but let's really think through that. Couldn't you just pick a Battlemaster Fighter and expect to out-damage, out-tank, and effectively compete with a Monk's control?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •