Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

[JNAProductions]

And how are they doing that with a wall in the way?

Go over it? Go around it? Disintegrate it? Or, if the caster completely blocked themselves off from the Beholder... Ignore the caster, because there's jack all they can do about it now?

[Chaosmancer]

Ummm... the numbers are static, so the average is easily calculated?
A Monk has the following chances to fail to stunning strike a Beholder, assuming boosting Dex, then boosting Wis:
Levels 1-3: To hit; 60% chance of failure. To Stun; 60% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 16%
Level 4: To hit; 55% chance of failure. To Stun; 60% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 18%
Levels 5-7: To hit; 50% chance of failure. To Stun; 55% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 22.5%
Level 8: To hit: 45% chance of failure. To Stun; 55% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 24.75%
Levels 9-11: To hit: 40% chance of failure. To Stun; 50% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 30%
Level 12: To hit: 40% failure. To stun: 45% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 33%
Levels 13-15: To hit: 35% failure. To stun: 40% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 39%
Level 16: To hit: 35% failure. To stun: 35% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 42.25%
Levels 17-20: To hit/stun: 30% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 49%


Something which requires you to invest resources every round clearly isn't a strict improvement over something that lasts multiple rounds without further investment, especially at lower levels where a Stunning Strike might be attempted 2-4 times, but is capped at around 6 or 7.

I'm not following all of your math (it seems like you multiplied the chance to hit and the change to stun together?) but I do know that you stopped short.

So, assuming you are right about everything up there, and ignoring anything below level 5 (because you don't even have stunning strike) let us pull up a Binomial Probability calculator (which I'm told is the correct way of doing this)

I used this one https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

At level 5 you said it was a 22.5% chance of success, over 4 trials (ie four attacks) and only looking for a single success, that gives us a cumulative success rate of 63.9%

Just going to focus on that for a second. A level 5 character has a nearly 64% chance of essentially skipping a legendary CR 13 monster. And if you get lucky, and that happens on the first or second strike (which is about a 40% chance according to the calculator) then you can do it again.

Level 8, 24.75% over four attacks is cumulative success rate of 67.9%

9 thru 11 (the levels you are most likely to fight a beholder) 30% over four attacks is a cumulative success rate of 76% (75.99)

Level 12? You gave us 33% and that works out to 79.85%


So, you have better than 50/50 odds of a single successful stun (assuming I'm using the correct program) Which seems to prove the point quite well.

[Yunru]

Go over it?

The wall completely encompasses the beholder.

Go around it?

The wall completely encompasses the beholder.

Disintegrate it?

Which is a 10% chance per ray.

Or, if the caster completely blocked themselves off from the Beholder... Ignore the caster, because there's jack all they can do about it now?

And nothing it can do to the party, because the wall completely encompasses the beholder :P

[Yunru]

So wait, Hex is unreliable because it might drop and you'll have to recast it (slowing you down none), but spending all your Ki to get off one Stunning Strike is a totally a perk of the class?

[ProsecutorGodot]

So wait, Hex is unreliable because it might drop and you'll have to recast it (slowing you down none), but spending all your Ki to get off one Stunning Strike is a totally a perk of the class?

Slowing you down none? You're a Warlock, that's half your spell slots per rest for 50% of your leveling and a VERY large majority of game time considering where most campaigns end at.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's become 100% of your spell slots per rest assuming you've already cast it once.

[JNAProductions]

The wall completely encompasses the beholder.
The wall completely encompasses the beholder.
Which is a 10% chance per ray.
And nothing it can do to the party, because the wall completely encompasses the beholder :P

This is quite the oddly specific circumstance you've found yourself in. Not to mention, even if it absolutely HAS to Disintegrate its way out, it has a 30% chance of getting that ray.

But really, I find it unlikely that a Beholder (which can fly) would be positioned in such a way you could envelope it in a Wall of Stone. And even should you do that... You've left a pissed-off Beholder there. It WILL be after you.

[tatsuyashiba]

The wall completely encompasses the beholder.

“If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its Reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall.”

It’s a great spell against beholder. Still, one attempt at save or suck.

[HPisBS]

So wait, Hex is unreliable because it might drop and you'll have to recast it (slowing you down none), but spending all your Ki to get off one Stunning Strike is a totally a perk of the class?

Slowing you down none? You're a Warlock, that's half your spell slots per rest for 50% of your leveling and a VERY large majority of game time considering where most campaigns end at.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's become 100% of your spell slots per rest assuming you've already cast it once.

It's also apples and oranges - comparing damage that's meant to be sustained for round after round vs landing a save-or-suck effect that sucks so much, it blocks the target's entire action economy for the round, and grants the party advantage on attacks, and makes the target auto-fail Str and Dex saves -- meaning it takes full damage + any riders on some major spells.

I notice nobody's tried to argue against that part yet lol

[jas61292]

Slowing you down none? You're a Warlock, that's half your spell slots per rest for 50% of your leveling and a VERY large majority of game time considering where most campaigns end at.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's become 100% of your spell slots per rest assuming you've already cast it once.

Yeah...

The idea that a Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Hex is a good baseline is absurd, imo, largely because of Hex. Simply put, Hex is actually not a very good spell for a Warlock past very low levels. I have never even seen an actual Warlock use Hex past level 4. Casting Hex mean you are wasting one of your incredibly limited level 3/4/5 spell slots on a piddly level 1 spells worth of damage, instead of an actually good spell. Take the Fiend Warlock for instance, they can get Fireball. What is better? adding 0 to 2 d6s per round for maybe 3 to 6 rounds... or doing 8d6 upfront to probably multiple creatures. Even if the creatures save, you are probably getting a heck of a lot more damage out of the Fireball. And these kinda comparisons are only going to get worse as you get higher level.

What's more, Hex is not just using a slot. Its using concentration. The things you could be doing with your concentration at higher levels that outstrip Hex are innumerable. And while sure... I guess if you are about to rest and have a slot left, you could pre-cast it and have it ready for the next combat. But unless you otherwise are not going to cast a spell that combat, its almost meaningless, as the best time to put up a powerful concentration spell is at the start of combat.

Now, that said, Hex is a wonderful spell... for a Sorcerer that dipped Warlock. A build where you can spend level one spell slots on it and not feel bad. But then you are looking at more optimized builds that should not be being considered for a baseline damage calculation.

[Makorel]

Yeah...

The idea that a Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Hex is a good baseline is absurd, imo, largely because of Hex. Simply put, Hex is actually not a very good spell for a Warlock past very low levels. I have never even seen an actual Warlock use Hex past level 4. Casting Hex mean you are wasting one of your incredibly limited level 3/4/5 spell slots on a piddly level 1 spells worth of damage, instead of an actually good spell.

So if Hex isn't actually good damage then it should be easy enough for other classes to surpass it right?

[Dork_Forge]

So if Hex isn't actually good damage then it should be easy enough for other classes to surpass it right?

Hex is always a good damage option for EB because it scales up with the cantrip. What might be more accurate is that it's an increasingly poor return on investment as the levels go up, due to it requiring concentration and how Pact Magic slots work.

[jas61292]

So if Hex isn't actually good damage then it should be easy enough for other classes to surpass it right?

Its good damage... but its not actually at will, and is a poor use of resources. Regardless of whether or not it is good, its not something you will really see commonly other than from more optimized multiclass builds, so it is irrelevant as a baseline.

[Zalabim]

Way to show you did zero research. Wall of Stone creates an entirely nonmagical wall of stone.

So what? The wall cannot be created into the antimagic cone, because the area of a spell can't reach there. If you get past that, the wall is still an object created by magic. It can still be dispelled up until it becomes permanent. Even after it's permanent, there's no statement that it becomes immune to winking out in an area of antimagic. Way to show you have bias instead of research.

[Evaar]

What's more, Hex is not just using a slot. Its using concentration.

By level 5, Hex effectively does not use a slot. It lasts 8 hours when upcast to level 3, which the warlock does automatically starting at 5. So unless you're having to re-cast Mage Armor, the Warlock doesn't need to re-cast Hex unless his Concentration is broken. And he gets the spell slot back on the first short rest.

It DOES use the Warlock's Concentration, which is a true opportunity cost. But it is very much the case that a Warlock can keep Hex up all day if that's what they want to do, and they don't have to use all their resources to do it. So the question is, if the Monk is using a reasonable amount of its resources trying to compete in damage, is it being effective?

This is the point at which the argument shifts from "That's an unrealistic standard" to "Monks aren't meant to compete with that damage, they do Other Thing!"

[ProsecutorGodot]

By level 5, Hex effectively does not use a slot. It lasts 8 hours when upcast to level 3, which the warlock does automatically starting at 5. So unless you're having to re-cast Mage Armor, the Warlock doesn't need to re-cast Hex unless his Concentration is broken. And he gets the spell slot back on the first short rest.

The classic ritualistic morning kill followed by the fireside coffee and grits.

There are several hurdles in reliably pre-casting Hex. The first target is usually the catch, not the maintaining concentration part. Unless you've gone out of your way to go hunting wild animals or you're some lunatic who carries a bag of rats, you're probably getting your first cast in during the first combat.

[Ignimortis]

My method of 'fixing' the low damage output of a monk is to have 13+ charisma and taking 1 or 2 levels of Hexblade warlock to add proficiency bonus damage to every hit and having access to the Hex spell. If you can cast Hex before battle, you can go a long way towards adding more damage to each hit. It will never be amazing damage, but with up to 4 attacks per turn, it will add up to something better than the flat base damage they tend to have. If you do this with a Bugbear, you can keep out of enemies reach to make keeping your distance and reducing the damage you take by keeping you out of many monsters' reach.

At least that's how I see it.

I once did something similar, but IMO better if you can access it - UA Ranger with Hunter's Mark as a class feature replacing Favored Enemy. It doesn't require concentration, and entering Ranger takes the same stats as Monk already uses.

[Treantmonk]

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.

I have a video where I explain how the baseline is calculated, and how I calculate average damage, and explain why I use the baseline I do. I'm not going to link it, but it's easy to find on YouTube if you want, it's called "How To Calculate Average Damage Per Round"

Of course, when it comes to assessing the Monk's damage, the baseline isn't important, what's important is that of 13 classes, an optimized Monk does less damage on average than all of the other 12. The only think the baseline does is provide a measure to show that difference.

Edit: Should also add, I assumed a 16 Dex at level 1. I have different charts in the video for whether Dex is increased at levels 4&8 or 12&16

[HPisBS]

I once did something similar, but IMO better if you can access it - UA Ranger with Hunter's Mark as a class feature replacing Favored Enemy. It doesn't require concentration, and entering Ranger takes the same stats as Monk already uses.

That's the main issue I think the UA Variants Ranger has - it makes Hunter's Mark too good. It should've read as "Concentrating on Hunter's Mark doesn't prevent you from concentrating on another Ranger spell" or something. Also less than Wis Mod free uses. Cuz as written in that UA, it is clearly so much better than grabbing Hex for so many builds.

[Merudo]

Of course, when it comes to assessing the Monk's damage, the baseline isn't important, what's important is that of 13 classes, an optimized Monk does less damage on average than all of the other 12. The only think the baseline does is provide a measure to show that difference.

A bold claim. Have you shown your DPR calculation for all classes? I looked through many of your videos and couldn't find DPR tables for some of the classes such as Bard or Rogue.

Additionally, when you calculated the DPR for casters you don't account for limited spell slots, or for the set-up round. For example your video on the Forge Cleric you posted a DPR of 29.63 at level 8 that doesn't account for limited resources or for the round spent casting Spirit Guardians / Animate Objects.

A level 8 Four Elemental Monk with Fangs of the Fire Snake can spend 6 Ki to do 36.7 damage in 1 round by activating the fire damage four times. Should we conclude that the Elemental Monk does more damage than the Forge Cleric?

Calculation: (2*4.5 + 2*3.5 + 4*5.5 + 4*5)*0.60 + (2*4.5 + 2*3.5 + 4*5.5)*0.05

[Witty Username]

It's also apples and oranges - comparing damage that's meant to be sustained for round after round vs landing a save-or-suck effect that sucks so much, it blocks the target's entire action economy for the round, and grants the party advantage on attacks, and makes the target auto-fail Str and Dex saves -- meaning it takes full damage + any riders on some major spells.

I notice nobody's tried to argue against that part yet lol

Well I suppose challenge accepted.
let us compare stunning strike vs tasha's hideous laughter. The first think that springs to the front is that stunning strike requires an attack to hit before it can be used, making it less reliable than tasha's, The next two big factors are duration and save targeted, con saves are much easier to make by monsters as a general rule in comparison to wis saves, and stun only lasts 1 round in comparison to tasha's which has the possibility of disabling a creature for multiple turns.
Let us call this a control baseline, a useful but not overpowering 1st level spell that is accessible by multiple classes vs the arguably most powerful monk class feature.

Edit: don't spirit guardians and animate objects deal damage on cast, making casting them not having a significant drop in damage in the 1st round, and are concentration spells that can last entire combats and can be cast multiple times per day, so resource cost is less of a factor?

[Dork_Forge]

Well I suppose challenge accepted.
let us compare stunning strike vs tasha's hideous laughter. The first think that springs to the front is that stunning strike requires an attack to hit before it can be used, making it less reliable than tasha's, The next two big factors are duration and save targeted, con saves are much easier to make by monsters as a general rule in comparison to wis saves, and stun only lasts 1 round in comparison to tasha's which has the possibility of disabling a creature for multiple turns.
Let us call this a control baseline, a useful but not overpowering 1st level spell that is accessible by multiple classes vs the arguably most powerful monk class feature.

True that you need to hit first to even get a chance at Stunning Strike, but you did leave out the weak points of Tasha's in your comparison:

-a 1st level slot is relatively a bigger expense than a single Ki point, this mediates trying multiple times to stun

-It requires concentration, which is an opportunity cost and a point of failure

-It may have the potential to last longer than a single round but it has far more points of failure: The concentration of the caster, Counter Spell, Dispel magic, a save every turn, a save every time they take damage (at advantage)

-Stunned is a far superior condition to impose on a creature than incap+prone

Edit: Spirit Guardians is a great spell, but a self centered aura that requires you to be amongst the monsters whilst also requiring you to maintain concentration (I also don't think it deals damage on cast, unless the area being created counts as a creature entering it for the first time). Animate Objects is a great spell as well, but it's a 5th level spell that deals nonmagical damage (it also doesn't do damage on a cast, you need to use your bonus action to command them).

[HPisBS]

True that you need to hit first to even get a chance at Stunning Strike, but you did leave out the weak points of Tasha's in your comparison:
-snip-

Also disregarded the fact that you still get multiple chances every round. Assuming this is correct

...
At level 5 you said it was a 22.5% chance of success, over 4 trials (ie four attacks) and only looking for a single success, that gives us a cumulative success rate of 63.9%

Just going to focus on that for a second. A level 5 character has a nearly 64% chance of essentially skipping a legendary CR 13 monster. And if you get lucky, and that happens on the first or second strike (which is about a 40% chance according to the calculator) then you can do it again.

Level 8, 24.75% over four attacks is cumulative success rate of 67.9%

9 thru 11 (the levels you are most likely to fight a beholder) 30% over four attacks is a cumulative success rate of 76% (75.99)

Level 12? You gave us 33% and that works out to 79.85%

So, you have better than 50/50 odds of a single successful stun (assuming I'm using the correct program) Which seems to prove the point quite well.

- that leaves you with a pretty substantial chance to make a stun stick on any given round. Granted, this was specifically vs a Beholder, which has relatively weak Con saves, but still. It's a similar story for Mind Flayers, Bone Devils, Vampires, and plenty of other popular, intimidating monsters. Many things with natural spellcasting are weaker against Con than Wis.

[Treantmonk]

A bold claim. Have you shown your DPR calculation for all classes? I looked through many of your videos and couldn't find DPR tables for some of the classes such as Bard or Rogue.

Additionally, when you calculated the DPR for casters you don't account for limited spell slots, or for the set-up round. For example your video on the Forge Cleric you posted a DPR of 29.63 at level 8 that doesn't account for limited resources or for the round spent casting Spirit Guardians / Animate Objects.

A level 8 Four Elemental Monk with Fangs of the Fire Snake can spend 6 Ki to do 36.7 damage in 1 round by activating the fire damage four times. Should we conclude that the Elemental Monk does more damage than the Forge Cleric?

Calculation: (2*4.5 + 2*3.5 + 4*5.5 + 4*5)*0.60 + (2*4.5 + 2*3.5 + 4*5.5)*0.05

I have not done a DPR video for every class, though I did do the rogue, and yes, it beat the baseline at all 20 levels, and I showed multiple ways this could be done with the rogue. I do not have a Bard DPR video though I did consider a build where I was able to achieve baseline numbers, but in the end, I decided it was not a build I was proud enough of to make a video.

What I don't do when calculating DPR is take a spell that does damage for one round and claim it can be expected as DPR for more than one round, for the same reason I wouldn't do that with Flames of the Fire Snake. However, when a spell has an extended effect, and can be used for many rounds, and in some cases (like Spirit Guardians) for potentially many combats, then I do. Obviously, this decision could have been different, but it's in line with the way I analyze these things. I am definitely not hiding the decisions I made and am happy to explain why I made them (and I have), but others might make different decisions than me, and draw different conclusions, which is fine.

I think it's important to point out that my Monk video shares my opinion. Opinions are subjective, and if yours is different than mine that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the opinion I shared. This is also not an opinion I fabricated or inflated to make a video, this is an opinion I've been very consistent about and have spoke about in several previous videos for over a year before releasing this one.

Obviously when calculating DPR we need to understand it's just a snapshot - we have to guess things like the enemy AC (and DPR will vary significantly if this is changed) or how many rounds a combat will be, how many fights between short rests, how many fights per long rest. My guesswork is no better than anyone else, but I do think it's important that I remain consistent in these assumptions from one example to the next, or it invites bias.

It is possible if we change these assumptions an optimized Monk might post better numbers than an optimized member of another class, but I'm definitely against moving my goalposts so I can achieve the results I wanted to achieve. I can say without reservation that the baseline, the assumptions I make for DPR, number of rounds in combat, number of combats per day nor the number of short rests I assume were set with any intention of making the Monk results look bad. I would have much rather made a video where I declared victory and presented a Monk build I was proud of. My inability to do that is frustrating, and to some extent the video was therapeutic for me in expressing that frustration.

[Zalabim]

It is possible if we change these assumptions an optimized Monk might post better numbers than an optimized member of another class, but I'm definitely against moving my goalposts so I can achieve the results I wanted to achieve. I can say without reservation that the baseline, the assumptions I make for DPR, number of rounds in combat, number of combats per day nor the number of short rests I assume were set with any intention of making the Monk results look bad. I would have much rather made a video where I declared victory and presented a Monk build I was proud of. My inability to do that is frustrating, and to some extent the video was therapeutic for me in expressing that frustration.

What are your assumptions for AC, rounds in a combat, number of combats, number of short rests, how threatening enemies are, etc? I've watched several videos and I can't bring anything to mind for most of those.

[Merudo]

What are your assumptions for AC, rounds in a combat, number of combats, number of short rests, how threatening enemies are, etc? I've watched several videos and I can't bring anything to mind for most of those.

He assumes the following enemy AC:

Level 01-03: AC 14
Level 04-04: AC 15
Level 05-07: AC 16
Level 08-08: AC 17
Level 09-12: AC 18
Level 13-16: AC 19
Level 17-20: AC 20

[Witty Username]

-Stunned is a far superior condition to impose on a creature than incap+prone

-Failure on str saves and dex saves
-advantage on ranged attacks instead of disadvantage
That is the exact superiority of the stunned condition, most combats I don't think would notice.

[Zalabim]

-Failure on str saves and dex saves
-advantage on ranged attacks instead of disadvantage
That is the exact superiority of the stunned condition, most combats I don't think would notice.

The level 5 baseline average damage drops from 16.5 to 9.405 against a prone enemy (or stays 16.5 if you move within 5') and raises to 23.595 against a stunned enemy. The only combats that won't notice are ones where your team has no ranged attackers.

[Hael]

Eh, for what it’s worth my own math on class dpr tends to align with much of TMs findings. So while you can make optimized dpr builds for monks that will exceed his baseline (eg a Kensai with judiciously chosen damage ASis), in general you don’t want to do that. You usually want that alert or mobile feat bc it allows you to skirmish effectively.

And the problem with the class is that while you can find certain lvls where they aren’t bad at any one thing, you will find many lvls where they aren’t good at that thing. So for instance a long death monk is a good tank.. a really good tank in tier 3 and 4. However in the early lvls, you better hope your team has another tank. So it makes it hard to build a team around that, unless you have another player with a synergistic power curve.

That will be true as well for the damage kensai, who falls off in tier 3-4 relatively speaking, if what you were looking for was an offtank striker.

Anyway, my point of view is that you could easily add a third attack at lvl 13 to the class, and it wouldn’t overpower them in the slightest. I happen to think that they should be amongst the highest dpr strikers, and as it stands their damage is at best avg, and of course has a bad scaling problem (not helped by the ubiquitous lack of items and feats).

[Dork_Forge]

Of course, when it comes to assessing the Monk's damage, the baseline isn't important, what's important is that of 13 classes, an optimized Monk does less damage on average than all of the other 12. The only think the baseline does is provide a measure to show that difference.

I'm struggling to understand how you can say that a baseline isn't important when you yourself are using it as a yard stick to say that Monks are bad at damage. I also think that the Monk on average does less than all other classes is a very bold claim to make, given you are not providing evidence to support this claim (that I have seen).

You went through the trouble of making these videos to express your opinion on the Monk so I will highlight some things that seem... suspect if not just smacking of bias:

On the baseline:

A Warlock in that configuration as a baseline for damage seems pretty terrible imo, your baseline is reliant on a cantrip, keeping the primary stat at relative max, an invocation and a spell. The spell alone introduces a mandatory resource cost for the Warlock, can be Countered, creates opportunity cost as it ties up concentration and cause damage to drop off if concentration is lost. So why should you consider this a baseline for general comparison when it requires pretty significant commitment from the Warlock and an ongoing resource cost? Because it's the obvious thing to do with a Warlock? Why should any class be expected to keep up with that baseline without resource expenditure when the baseline itself assumes resources are expended?

On a Monk's damage:

Monks are good damage in tier 1 exactly because of Martial Arts, you can replicate the same damage with a TWF Fighter sure, but said Fighter made an opportunity cost to do so and their AC will suffer for it (whilst the Monk's is the same as the Fighter's and will continue to advance with ASIs). After that a generic, subclassless Monk is okay at damage, they certainly don't suck at it.

On a Monk's AC:

A starting AC of 16 whilst having a free hand and not making any real choices/sacrifices for that AC is not bad at all (I don't conisder a decent secondary stat a cost, you may). 17 AC at 4th and 18AC at 8th is also pretty good, is it the best? No but I've never seen anyone claim the base Monk chassis without subclass yields the best AC. A GWF Fighter maxes out at 18 after spending a significant chunk of change to get there, is their AC 'bad?' It doesn't really matter they're not focused on AC, at that point neither is a generic Monk. Highest AC in the game? No, but average at worst without trying. Better than a S&B, Plate, Defense Fighter/Paladin if you do (Agile Parry takes it to a resourceless 22).

On a Monk's mobility:

You cannot say ride a horse to invalidate this, that's ridiculous. Besides a horse costing money for most PCs, it's another creature that can be affected by monsters and whilst you may get a free disengage, the horse doesn't and wouldn't be particularly difficult to be cut from under you. That doesn't even take into consideration the mobility restrictions riding a horse provides. Or did I miss a part in the mounted combat rules that gave horses the ability to climb ladders, ropes, go through small spaces etc.? Is it not frowned upon to ride your horse into a social situation that isn't on a road?

Monk's have fantastic mobility, whether or not is the best is subjective, that it's good in general isn't. Just because other classes can increase their movement speed doesn't mean that a Monk's native movement bonus being the highest doesn't matter.

On their class abilities 'sucking':

I believe you became well known due to your Wizard guides (though please correct me if I'm incorrect) and I believe your caster bias is readily apparent here. A spell creating a similar effect does not invalidate a class feature. In fact the class feature is superior to the spell since it doesn't have the inherent weaknesses of being a spell.

Deflect Missiles: 'a defense that uses a reaction to protect against a single attack, do you know how common that ability is?' That's not an ability, it's a category and a piece of action economy, you didn't even give any examples. I'm fairly well versed in 5e and a reaction to reduce damage doesn't seem common whatsoever (the only thing that jumps to mind is a Goliath's Stone's Endurance), it sounds like you're putting Deflect Missiles together with something like Shield, when they're completely different things unless you're taking a very broad stroke at classifying them.

Slow Fall: You bash on this without mentioning that it's a ribbon that accompanies an ASI.

Evasion: Apparently Dex saves don't come up often? ...Aren't they one of the most common saves in the game up there with Con (not to mention a lot of traps would provoke Dex saves). A Barbarian's Danger Sense is not the same as Evasion, again very broad strokes and the comparison seems to ignore that the Monk saving take no damage, whilst the Barbarian takes half. A Rogue also getting it doesn't make it a bad ability.

Stillness of Mind: Again, you're treating this as a stand alone, it's a ribbon that comes alongside a great ability

Tongue of the Sun and Moon: An always on, undispelable version of a 3rd level spell is bad to any degree?

Diamond Soul: You didn't even address this in the class ability section, I guess because you either forgot or because you though talking about it in the Saves part of the video was adequate. No way you slice it, this is a good ability, better than a Paladin in that it's independent of the secondary stat, has a higher ceiling and something which I believe you just didn't mention: if you fail it allows you to reroll for a ki point.

Empty Body: 4 Ki points is not a lot for this, they reset on a short rest. This is not the same as Greater Invisibility, it isn't concentration, doesn't have the baggage of a spell, doesn't tie up concentration and you can still Flurry on the same turn. I don't understand why you down play resistance to everything but force as if it isn't a very good thing to have. You actively compare it to other classes getting resistances to far fewer forms of damage (that btw, are encompassed in this ability and more).

Perfect Self: Yeah this isn't good, I don't think anyone has argued that it is, capstones across the entire game are a mixed bag at best. I will say though that your comment about playing intellignetly to conserve points makes little sense in light of this ability. Your points regen on any form of rest and you are always guaranteed to have a handful for every combat. That allows you to be more frivolous with your points, arguably playing a straight 20 Monk and being stingy with your Ki is the worse way to play it.

Overall: You never really seem to point out that Monks suck, you just seem to be providing examples of where other classes can do some aspect better, always providing a different class. So if anything the Monk is average overall or a mix of average and above average with some niches it does particularly well in. There's no real evidence at all that they 'suck' and some of your comparisons reference subclasses against a core chassis.

[HPisBS]

-snip-
Empty Body: 4 Ki points is not a lot for this, they reset on a short rest. This is not the same as Greater Invisibility, it isn't concentration, doesn't have the baggage of a spell, doesn't tie up concentration and you can still Flurry on the same turn..
-snip-

I fully agree with your whole comment. However, Flurry and the free bonus action attack both require you to take the Attack action on the same turn. You can still dodge, dash, and disengage as a bonus action alongside your Empty Body action, but you can't actually make any attacks on that turn.