What makes monks competitive with Paladins, if they are?

[MaxWilson]

Creating this thread for a tangent from the Paladin thread.

Gtdead wrote: Sorry for turning the discussion back to monk, but I actually have a lot of trouble understanding what are these amazing features that make people think he is so good, especially when compared to Paladin.

The only thing he has going for himself is Ki Empowered Strikes in an edition where Magic Items are not a certainty. I consider this a weak argument considering that even with spending resources on Flurry, monk doesn't even deal double the at will damage of other martials against physical resistance at lvl 6 and that's the peak of his damage output.

Also if we continue this argument and assume that mundanes will never get magic weapons, then we should really just forget about martial classes all together. 3.5e casters have nothing on 5e casters that way.

The defenses are mediocre. 18 AC at lvl 8. Whoop dee doo. Hardly better than casters.
Their damage is so low that common sources of retributive damage do more damage than monk attacks. What is he going to do against a fire shield?

Monk has a strong trick against BBEGs at low levels. He isn't good against swarms of weaker enemies. And as the game progresses, CON saves become more common and his mobility becomes irrelevant because other classes start getting tricks too (find steed for example).

Diamond Soul isn't comparable to Aura of Protection in the slightest. One is a personal buff for a class that hits like a wet noodle and the other is an aoe buff originating from a class with very high nova damage and extending to classes that have to maintain concentration.

I kind of like Way of the Shadow, even if it can't capitalize on the advantage generation due to low damage but I like the utility it brings with pass without trace, silence and later invisibility. I have a shadow with a hexblade dip in the works that scales kind of well into higher tiers of play based on the stealth capabilities of the subclass. Scouting, finding targets, casting hex, initiating combat hopefully with surprise. It's nuanced but at least Shadow can pull it off. I would never try it with any other monk.

For myself I'll just say they fill different roles. Paladins are good at tanking, melee nova, and healing. Monks vary but Shadow Monks for instance are good at scouting, enabling party stealth, single target control (stunning, which leads to grappling as a followup, without the usual grappling problem of not having enough free hands), and winning archery duels. Different example: Elemental Monk is strong against mobs especially in Tier 3+ (just when Monk ranged damage normally starts to fall behind) and can control single-target enemies too, while still being good at winning archery duels and decent at scouting. Monks can be fairly tanky for short periods of time (and 14th+ level monks are quite good at tanking while 18th+ level monks are SUPERB tanks) but they tend to be skirmishers instead, winning by attrition instead of by novas.

It's not a matter of one of them being "so good". Apples and oranges really. But I think a multiclassed Paladorc or Paladorlock does have a broader niche, is more likely to be voted MVP of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 party than a pure Monk is. For single-classed paladins I guess Tier 2 is probably the sweet spot, but it depends on how the DM approaches magic weapons and weapon-resistant monsters.

@Gtdead, against Fire Shield the monk can shoot arrows from her bow (depending on race but IME longbow from Wood Elf).

Also @Gtdead, why do you want the monk to deal double damage with ki empowered strikes? Wouldn't that be quadruple damage once you factor in weapon resistance? Are you really saying that triple damage after factoring in weapon resistance is not enough to impress you?

[Yakmala]

I like playing Paladins. I like playing Monks. I've played both to relatively high levels (and at least one Monk to 20).

With that out of the way...

Monks are not tanks. Monks are not Novas. But they do their jobs very well. They are fantastic skirmishers, they get to their target, do damage, apply debuffs and get out. They are much harder to take down than most realize. They can usually get out of range of melee, can deflect missiles are immune to poison and disease, have proficiency in all saves and have evasion. I've seen a party get hit by three meteor swarms in a single round. Half the party went down, the rest were badly hurt... Except for the Monk, who took zero damage. And Long Death Monks? I saw one get shoved all the way through a prismatic sphere one way, and then dragged back through it a second time. They were down a few Ki points but lived through the experience.

I hear a lot of talk about Stunning Strike being ineffective at higher levels due to BBEG's with big Con saves, legendary saves, etc. There's no denying this makes it more difficult, but it only has to land once and the enemy is screwed. Monks at higher levels have a big pool of Ki that they get back on short rest. They have multiple chances each turn to land the stun. If they were smart enough to pump their Wisdom, they will land it eventually. There is no class better for stripping a high level creature of its legendary saves than a Monk. And that doesn't just help the Monk, it helps the entire party. And once that Stun does land, the creature is incapacitated until the end of the Monk's next turn. That's a long time in the average fight.

[jaappleton]

Monks are immensely self sufficient. They can be incredibly effective regardless of magic items. However, since their AC is dependent purely on their stats, their ASIs are largely spoken for before Tier 3 (Variant Human aside).

They also get some top tier subclass capstones, for sure.

[Waazraath]

snip

Solid analysis I think. Maybe part of the discripantie in power that some observe is in the fact that the paladin's features are just there, you don't have to do anything with it you use them (aura's) or are pretty obvious as when to use them (LoH, smite). Monk requires a bit more tactics I think, how to move, when to spend ki on what feature (dodge, disengage, flurry, stun), and when you can duke it out with foe and when to move (cause, as somebody mentioned, monk isn't a tank), and its role really depends more on subclass than the pally's does.

Having said that: I think paladin are one of the strongest classes in the game, so I'd put them a bit above monks, but this is in an edition where all classes are in the same 'tier' (using 3.5's tier system) so the differences aren't that big.

[Gtdead]

@Gtdead, against Fire Shield the monk can shoot arrows from her bow (depending on race but IME longbow from Wood Elf).

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.

Also @Gtdead, why do you want the monk to deal double damage with ki empowered strikes? Wouldn't that be quadruple damage once you factor in weapon resistance? Are you really saying that triple damage after factoring in weapon resistance is not enough to impress you?

I meant after the resistance is calculated. Against a monster with resistance at lvl 6, a monk with flurry deals 7~ dpr more than a fighter against 15 AC (common mage AC, 2 dex + mage armor, not saying that mages usually have resistance, just a target AC I consider basic). And that's a use of Ki vs standard GWM fighter. (Without flurry it's something like 2.) If you see it as a percentage, it's a 50% increase, which isn't what I consider respectable under all these assumptions.

[RogueJK]

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.

Monks are generally weaker against enemies that require ranged attacks to take down (such as enemies with melee-reactive defenses like your example of a caster with Fire Shield, as well as other stuff like distant ranged enemies or flying enemies).

But then, most Paladins are as well.

And that's totally okay. Not every character is going to be great at everything. That's why you have a party. The Monk/Paladin isn't operating by himself.

There are still ways that they can contribute to party victory, like mopping up minions, or making (suboptimal) ranged attacks themselves, or in the case of that Fire Shielded caster perhaps closing with the caster and then using the Help action to generate Advantage for the attack roll of one of your allies with better ranged options.

[Sigreid]

Which means he can't perform the basic function of controlling a caster. And this is after considering that Monk has huge costs of opportunity if he tries to get ranged feats so he can't really threaten the caster by himself easily.

Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

[MaxWilson]

I meant after the resistance is calculated. Against a monster with resistance at lvl 6, a monk with flurry deals 7~ dpr more than a fighter against 15 AC (common mage AC, 2 dex + mage armor). And that's a use of Ki vs standard GWM fighter. (Without flurry it's something like 2.) If you see it as a percentage, it's a 50% increase, which isn't what I consider respectable under all these assumptions.

As I calculate it, a GWM Fighter with Str 20 by level 6 attacks twice at +3 for (2d6+15)/2, which is 10.03 DPR against AC 15.

A Dex 18 monk (because he's had one fewer ASI than the Fighter, and presumably spent his feat on Mobile or Defensive Duelist or something instead of an attack feat) attacks three times at +7 for d6+4 per hit. (Normally he could use a staff, but ki-empowered strikes only works with unarmed strikes, not weapons, if you're not a Kensei.) Against AC 15 that's 15.15 DPR, rising to 20.20 DPR if he Flurries.

What assumptions are you making differently that lead you to compute less damage advantage for the monk?

In any case, I'd say that doing 50% more damage than a GWM Fighter (and twice as much damage as the cantrip caster) without even spending ki, and twice as much if you do spend ki, is more than respectable for someone who isn't even primarily a damage-dealer (didn't spend feats on it).

Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

Spoken truly.

[Unoriginal]

Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Monks are slippery. Sure they don't have the highest AC nor the highest HPs, but they can make themselves scarce if necessary and otherwise can stay close while making themselves harder to hit.

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

Monks are unusual. Most of what Ki does is not hindered by the typical protections against magic, and most foes lack the tools to counter the enlightenment-granted powers of the Monk.

Monks are relentless. To be the enemy of a Monk means being hit from any angle available, while they make it hard for you to retaliate, until your health is shaved down to nothing. And the more allies the Monk has, the more the potency of their Stunning Fist is multiplied.

Monks are awesome.

[king_steve]

I think one thing that comes up a lot when talking about Monks is that they are a bit MAD and often need to spend their ASIs on stats. However, if your playing with rolled stats instead of the standard array or point buy, IME they do a lot better and have a bit more freedom with the ASIs.

The same could be said of a Paladin, since they’ll want multiple stats (unless they’re dipping into hexblade warlock, then they can focus on just CHA/CON), but I think if your playing with rolled stats, Monks do pretty well if you have the right distribution.

I guess you could boil this down to, I think that Monks are often viewed in a negative light if they’re stats are lower compared to other classes, but they perform better with higher (rolled) stats.

IME as a DM, I’ve only had one PC monk so far and I wouldn’t say they were any less effective in the party than the Paladin in that group. But we were playing with rolled stats.

[MaxWilson]

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, (A) can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

I wish (A) were true, but Stillness of Mind is written with that awkward action requirement, which the worst fear and charm effects always deny you--it's a chicken and egg problem, not in the monk's favor. I wish Stillness of Mind were a reaction instead of an action (should probably houserule that).

I think one thing that comes up a lot when talking about Monks is that they are a bit MAD and often need to spend their ASIs on stats. However, if your playing with rolled stats instead of the standard array or point buy, IME they do a lot better and have a bit more freedom with the ASIs.

The same could be said of a Paladin, since they’ll want multiple stats (unless they’re dipping into hexblade warlock, then they can focus on just CHA/CON), but I think if your playing with rolled stats, Monks do pretty well if you have the right distribution.

I guess you could boil this down to, I think that Monks are often viewed in a negative light if they’re stats are lower compared to other classes, but they perform better with higher (rolled) stats.

IME as a DM, I’ve only had one PC monk so far and I wouldn’t say they were any less effective in the party than the Paladin in that group. But we were playing with rolled stats.

Good point.

[stoutstien]

paladin tend to pick a primary role and stick to that from the start to when ever the game ends where the monk's primary role changes as they level up but they have ways of emulating different roles for at least a few rounds. they are not the best at at any one task but they are hard to be put in a position where they can't do something that is helpful.

[Gtdead]

Monks are generally weaker against enemies that require ranged attacks to take down (like your example of a caster with Fire Shield, or other stuff like a distant ranged enemy or a flying enemy). But then, most Paladins are as well.

And that's totally okay. Not every character is going to be great at everything. That's why you have a party. The Monk/Paladin isn't operating by himself.

Depending on the situation, I as a monk will either eat some damage and use stunning strike to try to shut that guy down or move on to another target and let the others deal with that one until the spell is gone. There's nothing wrong with not being the best answer to every situation.

I get that single characters can't do everything, but as you see, there is a common theme with the monk being a skirmisher, monk surviving when others die, monk going solo. This creates a dissonance. Is he an addition to the party, or is he something else. Can he perform when there isn't an obvious target for him to stun, or he just stays away and adds negligible dpr.

If he is good solo, but has to weight his options to help the party, then he has a fundamental problem.
Paladin on the other hand helps the party by default and can then weight his options. This is already a stronger position by design.

I can see the value of a monk when both sides can't engage. It was discussed in another thread and had to do with engaging from extreme range, where Max Wilson talked about Shadow Monk and I agree with that. This is an uncommon situation though.

[Unoriginal]

paladin tend to pick a primary role and stick to that from the start to when ever the game ends where the monk's primary role changes as they level up but they have ways of emulating different roles for at least a few rounds. they are not the best at at any one task but they are hard to be put in a position where they can't do something that is helpful.

Yeah, it's hard to have a situation where the Monk's presence isn't useful.

I get that single characters can't do everything, but as you see, there is a common theme with the monk being a skirmisher, monk surviving when others die, monk going solo. This creates a dissonance. Is he an addition to the party, or is he something else. Can he perform when there isn't an obvious target for him to stun, or he just stays away and adds negligible dpr.

If he is good solo, but has to weight his options to help the party, then he has a fundamental problem.
Paladin on the other hand helps the party by default and can then weight his options. This is already a stronger position by design.

A monk doesn't need to go solo.


The main advantage of the Monk is that in most situations they can throw a wrench is whatever the enemies are attempting. If that involves doing something the rest of the group isn't doing, so be it, but that still needs to be done.

It's not a straightforward class, to be sure, but it's still a potent one.


Gotta ask how a Monk's DPR is negligible, though. A mid-level Monk can inflict each turn damage comparable to 3rd-4rth level spells without issues.

I wish (A) were true, but Stillness of Mind is written with that awkward action requirement, which the worst fear and charm effects always deny you--it's a chicken and egg problem, not in the monk's favor. I wish Stillness of Mind were a reaction instead of an action (should probably houserule that).

Fair, but I must say I haven't seen that affect much.

What's your opinion on the rest of the things I said, just to know?

[RogueJK]

Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Don't forget Bonus Action Dash for 1 Ki point too.

A Monk with Mobile is seriously fast and slippery, able to Move 50-70 feet per round with normal movement, or 100-140 feet in a round with Bonus Action Dash, or even 150-210 feet with a Dash+Bonus Action Dash if needed.

And as long as they're not Double Dashing, they can avoid OAs from enemies by tossing out attacks along the way thanks to Mobile.

It's hard to fully appreciate until you've actually seen it/played it in person.

[Foxhound438]

It's not a matter of one of them being "so good". Apples and oranges really. But I think a multiclassed Paladorc or Paladorlock does have a broader niche, is more likely to be voted MVP of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 party than a pure Monk is. For single-classed paladins I guess Tier 2 is probably the sweet spot, but it depends on how the DM approaches magic weapons and weapon-resistant monsters.

"apples and oranges" is my thought exactly. Measuring a monk with the paladin ruler is going to make monk look pretty bad, with only a couple things being toss ups in terms of what's better (diamond soul vs aura of protection). At the same time, measuring the paladin on the monk ruler is going to make paladins look slow, stiff, and vulnerable in many regards, and he has to spend a spell slot to comprehend languages! Pathetic!.

On those multiclasses, those can pick up some things that make them better than a paladin at the things monks are good at, but it's never going to be quite the same. You can do something kind of like stunning an enemy by casting hold person on them, but it's going to be on a better save for those dangerous casters. You can pick up eldritch blast to deal with enemies that are far away, but enemies that make smart use of cover might still throw a wrench in your plans. On top of that, every level you take in sorcerer or warlock is putting you further away from the good top end paladin things, like improved divine smite or find greater steed.

And as a side note, I think that paladins can get some of that attacking debuffing utility that monks are generally great at by using the special smite spells, and with access to misty step on several of the oaths, they can have respectable mobility as well. It's just that every time they do those things they're sacrificing a lot of damage, and I hardly ever see any paladin players besides myself do that. Guess it comes down to what we value as players.

[Gtdead]

As I calculate it, a GWM Fighter with Str 20 by level 6 attacks twice at +3 for (2d6+15)/2, which is 10.03 DPR against AC 15.

A Dex 18 monk (because he's had one fewer ASI than the Fighter, and presumably spent his feat on Mobile or Defensive Duelist or something instead of an attack feat) attacks three times at +7 for d6+4 per hit. (Normally he could use a staff, but ki-empowered strikes only works with unarmed strikes, not weapons, if you're not a Kensei.) Against AC 15 that's 15.15 DPR, rising to 20.20 DPR if he Flurries.

I actually did make a mistake and calculated against 14 AC for fighter.

PAM/GWM with 4 STR, GWF 23.82, 11.91 against resistance
Monk fists at +4 DEX (again accounting for crit/crit miss) is 15.15 or 20.20

So it's 3.25 and 8.3 respectively, not ~2 and ~7

[Unoriginal]

I actually did make a mistake and calculated against 14 AC for fighter.

PAM/GWM with 4 STR, GWF 23.82, 11.91 against resistance
Monk fists at +4 DEX (again accounting for crit/crit miss) is 15.15 or 20.20

So it's 3.25 and 8.3 respectively, not ~2 and ~7

That's a rather not negligible DPR, IMO.

[Gtdead]

Yeah, it's hard to have a situation where the Monk's presence isn't useful.

Gotta ask how a Monk's DPR is negligible, though. A mid-level Monk can inflict each turn damage comparable to 3rd-4rth level spells without issues.

The example was as a longbow user. That's magic missile damage upcasted to lvl 2 in this specific example or single target SG.
Also in melee he can inflict damage comparable to 3-4th AoE spells. It's quite an important distinction. Cause the other spells he has to compete with are in the vein of Conjure Animals since there aren't many good single target spells.

[Foxhound438]

That's a rather not negligible DPR, IMO.

I would agree with this. Even ignoring the resistance part, you're doing about 90% the damage of a moderately optimized DPR/Tank build. Granted that goes up more for the fighter if they're using something like precision attack, but not to the point where the monk is "negligible" in any case.

[Unoriginal]

The example was as a longbow user. That's magic missile damage upcasted to lvl 2 in this specific example or single target SG.

Not sure I understand what you man, sorry.

Also in melee he can inflict damage comparable to 3-4th AoE spells. It's quite an important distinction. Cause the other spells he has to compete with are in the vein of Conjure Animals since there aren't many good single target spells.

So you're saying the Monk isn't competing against single target spells? Or that the Monk is better at damage dealing than them?

[Droppeddead]

[QUOTE=jaappleton;24759532]Monks are immensely self sufficient. They can be incredibly effective regardless of magic items. However, since their AC is dependent purely on their stats, their ASIs are largely spoken for before Tier 3 (Variant Human aside). [quote]
Very true. If you roll for stats you won't have this problem, though.

They also get some top tier subclass capstones, for sure.

Also true. On the other hand they get a 14th level ability that is better than a lot of other classes' capstones.

[MaxWilson]

. What's your opinion on the rest of the things I said, just to know?

You mean this?

Monks are fast. Yes you can probably get a build that is faster at low level by going variant human-Mobile feat + Expeditious Retreat, but a Monk is fast as a basis. Catching fleeing enemies, getting in the face of the squishy ranged enemies, reaching the desired point of the battlefield for X or Y reason, the Monk can do it just by being the Monk.

Monks are slippery. Sure they don't have the highest AC nor the highest HPs, but they can make themselves scarce if necessary and otherwise can stay close while making themselves harder to hit.

Monks are resilient. They're immune poison and disease, can shrug off fear and charm effects, and at lvl 14 they're proficient in all saves.

Monks are unusual. Most of what Ki does is not hindered by the typical protections against magic, and most foes lack the tools to counter the enlightenment-granted powers of the Monk.

Monks are relentless. To be the enemy of a Monk means being hit from any angle available, while they make it hard for you to retaliate, until your health is shaved down to nothing. And the more allies the Monk has, the more the potency of their Stunning Fist is multiplied.

Monks are awesome.

Pretty mainstream opinion except for the conclusion, which is clearly a subjective value judgment (and that's fine). I have no beef with any of those claims except the Stillness of Mind one, which I called out previously.

Is that an answer to the question you were asking?

[stoutstien]

As someone who likes monks I can see that currently there is not a lot of options for players who want to play a monk focused on dealing damage other than 4E. *New splat book might change that*

The new unarmed fighter styles might be a new avenue depending on new variant class options. If they do present a fighting style feat I could see a monk getting good milage out of that extra d4 on grappled foes. I personally would even let the initial d4 that's applied on the grapple check to be improved by martial arts.

[MaxWilson]

Also true. On the other hand they get a 14th level ability that is better than a lot of other classes' capstones.

Yes, and their 18th level ability is also capstone-worthy. High level monks are considerably tougher than Barbarians. (And Long Death monks are just out of this world when it comes to toughness.)

[Gtdead]

Not sure I understand what you man, sorry.

My argument was countered using a monk that shoots a longbow. To which I responded that this makes him a class that has to weight his options between controlling the caster with stun strike and the like, or doing negligible damage with the longbow.

An ASI starved monk with a longbow deals magic missile damage, not 3-4 level spell damage.

So you're saying the Monk isn't competing against single target spells? Or that the Monk is better at damage dealing than them?

I'm saying that the available spells for single target damage in the levels you mentioned are the likes of Conjure Animals. Concentration effects that last for a lot of rounds. IIRC wizard doesn't have single target nuking spells in these levels like scorching ray for example.

However,

Monk's damage is 2x(1d8+mod) + 2x(1d6+mod). In this particular case it's 32 dpr reduced by AC. This is fireball level damage, but fireball is aoe. So no, monk can't compete with that. Fireball ends encounters at lvl 5, monk ends a single target at best.

[Gryndle]

what makes paladins competitive with paladins? Nothing.

The D&D classes and party concept are not designed to be competitive; they are designed (in theory) to be complimentary. It isn't "what can the monk do better THAN the paladin"; rather it is "what the monk can do better WITH the paladin". It is a group game, a team "sport" of imagination.

In my current game, I am playing a kensai monk. The group is now 13th level, and is a gwm dragon totem barbarian from some 3rd party book, an ancients paladin, a hexblade and an arcane trickster rogue. We are light on healing but high on damage output, when we work together as team.

I scout ahead (best perception, alert feat), the trickster takes care of any traps I find. In battle the barb takes the point and the pally supports him, and those two dish out some serious damage. The hexblade and the trickster are versatile in that they can melee, cast spells or make ranged attacks with almost equal efficiency. They are pretty versatile in tactics and ability.

My job as the monk is to use that crazy mobility to be where ever the group needs me. I move around, deal out some hits and try to lock things down with stunning blow when I can.

I can be defense-keeping the others from getting cornered or flanked. Or I can be offense and lock down an annoying ranged critter or caster.

If I get in over my head and cant get out immediately, I use my ki to dodge instead of Flurry (yes, we can do that) allowing me to off-tank for a bit. Or if a fight turns into a real melee I move around to provide my allies with flank, or setup the rogue's sneak attack, or stun enemies to either make them easier to take out or limit their damage output.

As a monk, I don't do the high burst damage of the paladin or the gwm barbarian, or even the rogue. But my AC is right there with the big guys, my mobility is crazy good, and the passive defensive abilities (immune to poison and disease, evasion, missile deflection, still mind, etc.) of the monk at this level make me pretty durable in my own way.

When I set up that rogue to get his sneak attack, I feel like part of that damage is mine. When I stun a target the others try to capitalize on that and nuke it down, and part of that damage is mine too.

In short, I don't compete with the paladin (or any member of the party). As a monk I play the roles of scout and skirmisher, and limited crowd control; all with the purpose of helping the others do what they do, only better. I don't get the big damage rolls, that's not my job. My job is to help the other guys get those big rolls. I get a lot more satisfaction out of affecting the tactical picture any way.

[Foxhound438]

As someone who likes monks I can see that currently there is not a lot of options for players who want to play a monk focused on dealing damage other than 4E. *New splat book might change that*

The new unarmed fighter styles might be a new avenue depending on new variant class options. If they do present a fighting style feat I could see a monk getting good milage out of that extra d4 on grappled foes. I personally would even let the initial d4 that's applied on the grapple check to be improved by martial arts.

I don't think I would like all monks to be reliant on grappling to be good, as that means they only become more MAD and lose all the benefits of their high mobility.

I would prefer to just have a damage feat that monks can actually use. Doesn't have to be "GWM but applied to unarmed strikes", maybe something like an extra damage die for hitting multiple times? But that's getting into the weeds of homebrew more than actual things we might get any time soon.

[Unoriginal]

Is that an answer to the question you were asking?

Indeed, thanks.

Monk's damage is 2x(1d8+mod) + 2x(1d6+mod). In this particular case it's 32 dpr reduced by AC. This is fireball level damage, but fireball is aoe. So no, monk can't compete with that. Fireball ends encounters at lvl 5, monk ends a single target at best.

How many encounters do Fireball ends at lvl 5?

[MaxWilson]

My argument was countered using a monk that shoots a longbow.

What argument? What counter? You just asked a simple question (what to do vs. Fire Shield) and got a simple answer (shoot them). You didn't make an argument.

It's not like 2x d8+Dex is bad damage either, for Tier 2. It's mediocre in Tier 3 but many games never get that far, and by then the monk has their 11th level subclass shtick anyway.