What makes monks competitive with Paladins, if they are?

[Eldariel]

Safety does matter ESPECIALLY if someone is taking damage.

Okay, so Monk isn't hit; how does that help the frontline Paladin or Cleric or whatever?

It makes the enemy go down faster.

How? Everyone's unloading their average or their spike damage anyways. How does one character being safe help kill the enemies faster, if that character isn't the highest offensive value one ergo the one enemy most wants to target? Enemies wouldn't want to attack an average damage dealer so the average damage dealer being safe doesn't make the enemy go down any faster since it doesn't increase the damage being dealt.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, so Monk isn't hit; how does that help the frontline Paladin or Cleric or whatever?

The more PCs are staying up, the more PCs the enemies have to handle.

How? Everyone's unloading their average or their spike damage anyways. How does one character being safe help kill the enemies faster, if that character isn't the highest offensive value one ergo the one enemy most wants to target?

I may have misunderstood which point was being debated. Regardless, a character being safe help kill the enemy faster, as they are safe to keep inflicting reliable damage without the party risking to lose their contribution.

Enemies wouldn't want to attack an average damage dealer

Of course they would. Enemies will want to attack all the PCs, at one point or another.

so the average damage dealer being safe doesn't make the enemy go down any faster since it doesn't increase the damage being dealt.

Not losing an average damage dealer means that the average damage can keep being dealt, meaning the enemy goes down faster than if the average damage dealer was taken out and unable to contribute.

If you have 3 characters dealing X amount of damage, and one character dealing Y, you have 3X+Y amount of damage dealt. If one of the character dealing X damage is safe, then you are guaranteed to have at least X dealt. 2X+Y damage dealt due to one of the X-dealing characters being neutralized means the enemy will go down slower than if 3X+Y damage was applied due to the X-dealing character being safe.

[Valmark]

Just want to note that if the giants had all Dashed over to the monk they wouldn't have gotten ANY attacks that round, and then the Fighter would open up with his crossbow while the Monk would just cast Darkness + Step of the Wind away again next round (moving 65' towards the party this time). Everybody else waits for the giants to Dash close enough to hit them within the Darkness (snakes will have advantage there because of Blindsight). Note that Darkness prevents the giants from getting any opportunity attacks. Anyway, point is that this strategy also doesn't end well for the giants, it just makes the monk spend 3 ki instead of 58 HP.



Yes he did. I believe it was one hit for 31 damage, mitigated down to 8 HP by Deflect Missile (9 on d10 + 5 for Dex + 9 for level = 23 mitigated), then a low-damage hit for 22 HP, and a third lucky hit for another 28. At first I thought the monk was KO'ed but then I checked and found he had 66 HP (Con 14, 7 HP per level + 3 = 7*9+3 = 66). But he withdrew behind cover after that and just shot arrows for the rest of the combat.

Yeah, my "try to" was because the monk could just stand up and get out of there. I didn't mean that my tactic would have been better, just that the giant would have acted differently.

Which further proves your point, I think?

[Eldariel]

The more PCs are staying up, the more PCs the enemies have to handle.

I may have misunderstood which point was being debated. Regardless, a character being safe help kill the enemy faster, as they are safe to keep inflicting reliable damage without the party risking to lose their contribution.

Of course they would. Enemies will want to attack all the PCs, at one point or another.

Not losing an average damage dealer means that the average damage can keep being dealt, meaning the enemy goes down faster than if the average damage dealer was taken out and unable to contribute.

If you have 3 characters dealing X amount of damage, and one character dealing Y, you have 3X+Y amount of damage dealt. If one of the character dealing X damage is safe, then you are guaranteed to have at least X dealt. 2X+Y damage dealt due to one of the X-dealing characters being neutralized means the enemy will go down slower than if 3X+Y damage was applied due to the X-dealing character being safe.

This misses the point: enemy attacks anyways. The monk being safe doesn't mean more PCs are staying up, it just means different PCs are staying up. If those different PCs are offensively more valuable than the Monk, them being attacked instead of the Monk is actually detrimental to overall party output. The point where the enemies have to attack "all PCs" is way past the point of near-TPK; if the enemy manages to destroy the whole frontline in a party with a normal frontline, there isn't much left to save or protect and that's the first point where the Monk survivability is a benefit. The survivability of a PC doesn't matter unless they are a PC the enemy would want to attack before other PCs; to win you need to make sure you keep the highest value PCs alive, not the average value PCs. Damage being focused on high value PCs instead of the average value PC (ergo Monk) is at worst detrimental to party survivability.

[Xervous]

Comparing the monk to the wesnoth fencer seems accurate here. High mobility and high consistency on kill confirms, but a suboptimal choice for plugging the frontline (the merit there being when only a monk could move to be that plug, though such times lean towards self sacrifice).

If the enemy can expect to more easily eliminate their opposition by focusing on other party members who have higher threat/durability we’ve got the same problem monks stared down in 3.5e. Safe damage wins a grinder but the whole party is not necessarily safe damage dealers. If there is the assumption that you can rotate your frontline to spread blows across the party’s whole health pool the safe frontline damage dealer is only relevant for plugging doors (or other such comparable situations) as it is never correct to pick them as a target when a non safe character is also targetable and more easily dispatched.

Safety for an individual doesn’t mean much beyond them going unmolested. Orc mook #405 is still going to attack somebody and if given the choice it won’t be the safe, low threat somebody.

[Unoriginal]

This misses the point: enemy attacks anyways. The monk being safe doesn't mean more PCs are staying up, it just means different PCs are staying up. If those different PCs are offensively more valuable than the Monk, them being attacked instead of the Monk is actually detrimental to overall party output. The point where the enemies have to attack "all PCs" is way past the point of near-TPK; if the enemy manages to destroy the whole frontline in a party with a normal frontline, there isn't much left to save or protect and that's the first point where the Monk survivability is a benefit. The survivability of a PC doesn't matter unless they are a PC the enemy would want to attack before other PCs; to win you need to make sure you keep the highest value PCs alive, not the average value PCs. Damage being focused on high value PCs instead of the average value PC (ergo Monk) is at worst detrimental to party survivability.

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

Comparing the monk to the wesnoth fencer seems accurate here. High mobility and high consistency on kill confirms, but a suboptimal choice for plugging the frontline (the merit there being when only a monk could move to be that plug, though such times lean towards self sacrifice).

What's the wesnoth fencer?

[Xervous]

What's the wesnoth fencer?

Battle for wesnoth is an old turn based strategy game on a hex tile set where a unit’s defenses are dependent on the terrain it occupies.

The one mechanic worthy of note here is the zone of control, if move to a spot adjacent to an enemy unit you lose all remaining movement for that turn. An easy parallel on opp attack screening in 5e. The fencer is a unit that ignores zone of control, allowing it unparalleled mobility in seeking out targets. It has a lower damage but high swing count attack, making it consistent for securing kills, pressuring dodgy units and being hard to pin down when it’s harassing objectives. This is in contrast to a standard infantry unit (Spearman) that has more health (but less low end dodge) and burstier, higher damage output.

Having such a skirmisher is a great tool if you can properly screen your glass party members/units, but you need to have enough baseline throughput or alpha capabilities for the core of the group to win over the opposition. The monk / fencer is an answer in search of a question while a paladin or fighter is a box and checkmark all in one. Niche vs generalist, and it looks like some people here feel monk pays too much for its niche.

[x3n0n]

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

I think the claim is that the 3 PCs probably don't have the same offensive output. If A's damage output is greater than B's or C's, and the boss can only do (multi-)attack with one target per attack, and the PCs all take the same number of attacks to be KOed, you would rather have the boss target B or C, not A. In this (greatly oversimplified) model, hiding C does nothing productive.

[KorvinStarmast]

Battle for wesnoth is an old turn based strategy game on a hex tile set where a unit’s defenses are dependent on the terrain it occupies.

The one mechanic worthy of note here is the zone of control, if move to a spot adjacent to an enemy unit you lose all remaining movement for that turn.

Most Avalon Hill board games had a similar mechanic.

An easy parallel on opp attack screening in 5e. The fencer is a unit that ignores zone of control, allowing it unparalleled mobility in seeking out targets. It has a lower damage but high swing count attack, making it consistent for securing kills, pressuring dodgy units and being hard to pin down when it’s harassing objectives. This is in contrast to a standard infantry unit (Spearman) that has more health (but less low end dodge) and burstier, higher damage output.

Having such a skirmisher is a great tool if you can properly screen your glass party members/units, but you need to have enough baseline throughput or alpha capabilities for the core of the group to win over the opposition. The monk / fencer is an answer in search of a question while a paladin or fighter is a box and checkmark all in one. Niche vs generalist, and it looks like some people here feel monk pays too much for its niche.

Interesting point on the monk.

[Eldariel]

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

Depends on the PCs and the boss. If the boss is capable of multitargeting at long range, of course as few as possible. Most bosses though are very limited in that regard though: generally they will have some very avoidable AOE and mostly high powered single target effects.

In this more typical case, if the 2 PCs are better at defeating the boss than the 3rd one, definitely 3 who can equally be targeted. This at least gives the boss the chance to mistakenly attack the lesser threat. OTOH if the lesser threat automatically removes themselves from the threat pool, the PCs are essentially automatically optimising the boss's actions for the boss to defeat the greater threats first and then the lesser threat.

[Xervous]

Most Avalon Hill board games had a similar mechanic.

Interesting point on the monk.

If you are valuing the monk on its mobility it boils down to the lost frontlining throughout being weighted against the potential value of putting the monk in a spot where no other character type could be expected to reach. You’re trading a known quantity for a future possibility.

[noob]

So in a team of one thief, a magic user and a fighter do not use the monk as a fighter or else you lack a frontline?
Else if you are doing team elusive made out of evasive characters then a monk works well?
It also works when you have already a strong frontline(ex: 1 paladin and 1 fighter) and need someone to reach the backline?
I think monk participation depends a lot of the party.
But now should you compare monks to paladins or to rogues?
Rogues might also fill the stereotypical "kills people in the back lines" role.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, my "try to" was because the monk could just stand up and get out of there. I didn't mean that my tactic would have been better, just that the giant would have acted differently.

Which further proves your point, I think?

Maybe. At this point of my day my brain is 80% busy with work and I can't remember what my original point was, just that I had fun this morning running the practice combat and that the monk almost got splatted. :) I guess if I'm making a point it is that helps when people propose and run concrete scenarios for us to talk about, instead of handwaving at each other in a Schrodinger's vacuum.

Question: if a boss is fighting 3 PCs, is it better to have:

-3 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss

or

-2 PCs who can equally be targeted by the boss and one who can stay out of harm's way while the boss attack while still dealing damage to them when it's time to act

If those are option A and option B, it is better to have option (C): one PC who can be targeted by a boss and two more who deal damage from safety, because then the one PC who's eligible to be targeted can focus on defense while the others do damage. This typically results in significantly more favorable HP loss ratios (PCs lose some damage but bad guy loses a LOT of damage), and that is why chokepoints + ranged weaponry is a good combination in 5E.

If the bad guy has a choice between TWO PCs it's much harder to say which is better, because you'd be giving up much more offensive power by setting two PCs on defense. So you look for a way to reduce option A or B to a previously-solved problem by turning them into option C. This may involve pushing, Disengaging, terrain manipulation, etc., or it may turn out to be infeasible in this fight and you just have to tough it out. It depends.

If you are valuing the monk on its mobility it boils down to the lost frontlining throughout being weighted against the potential value of putting the monk in a spot where no other character type could be expected to reach. You’re trading a known quantity for a future possibility.

Yes, but being somewhere no one else can be can have defensive value as well as offensive. Sometimes you're not just trying to reach spots no one else can reach this turn so you can attack--you may be trying to bait the enemy out of position (divide and conquer) so that in future rounds they will lose action economy Dashing when the monk denies them the opportunity to attack him.

I think many players undervalue tactical movement. I've ever seen DMs advocate that e.g. "every boss monster should have some kind of movement-related special ability, because otherwise it just turns into a static slugfest where everybody is standing in one place hitting each other," which tells me that both the DMs and their players are underestimating the tactical value of movement. Even something as dumb-but-Mobile as a Tyrannosaurus Rex becomes significantly more dangerous to a melee-oriented party if the DM uses its 50' movement speed + ability to grapple, and the converse is true for players fighting melee-oriented monsters. (Against ranged attackers movement is still useful but harder to describe in an Internet post, and relies to some extent on availability of partial/total cover in the current terrain.)

Adding for clarity: I'm not saying that high movement speed can suddenly triple a monk's combat potential or anything. A smart, mobile monk has a force multiplier on the order of maybe 1.25x to 2x depending, whereas e.g. Polymorph is a force multiplier on the order of 2x per casting and Planar Binding is a force multiplier on the order of 2x to Arbitaryx. Good movement is not the only force multiplier in the game, but it is definitely a genuine force multiplier that you might as well take advantage of, and taking advantage requires more effort from the player than just pushing the Planar Binding or Polymorph buttons, and sometimes doing harder things is fun. Hence, playing monks is fun even when/if those monks would lose in a cage match to a Moon Druid.

Monks are fun and good enough to be useful in Deadly encounters, and they make good spies ("harmless accountant" secretly a ninja, who BTW can eavesdrop in any language), and it's totally okay if they are not as OP in a fight as a Necromancer with 99 animated skeletons with shortbows.

[Frogreaver]

If the giants start 80ft away the monk is opening the encounter with a short bow while melee allies are throwing a javelin at disadvantage. Really depends on how the giants are played and starting conditions. Also really depends on what spells your casters utilize in the battle - as they are most likely going to be the stars of this show.

Given the right conditions and enemy tactics the monk can easily end up being more valuable than the paladin in this fight.

Personally my monk is staying at range until my melee allies engage the giants. Turn after that I’m charging in with some stuns.

[Witty Username]

My take away is that monk & paladin are difficult to compare because of their different primary roles in parties. Monk would be better compared with rogue or ranger.
That being said glory paladin can do alot of strange mobility things, and a mounted paladin with a reach weapon will be able to use the same skirmishing tactics. Also, the Paladin's imp. Divine smite can make up for not having a magic weapon, another selling point of the monk. Even Stunning strike's control options can be replicated with properly leveraging the Paladin's spell list.
My instincts say monk is overall out performed by paladin.

[Dork_Forge]

My take away is that monk & paladin are difficult to compare because of their different primary roles in parties. Monk would be better compared with rogue or ranger.
That being said glory paladin can do alot of strange mobility things, and a mounted paladin with a reach weapon will be able to use the same skirmishing tactics. Also, the Paladin's imp. Divine smite can make up for not having a magic weapon, another selling point of the monk. Even Stunning strike's control options can be replicated with properly leveraging the Paladin's spell list.
My instincts say monk is overall out performed by paladin.

They do fulfill very different roles and if you want to you can press either into the other's roles, however:

-Improved Divine Smite is the Paladin's tier 3 damage bump, if the rest of their damage isn't magical they are still falling greatly behind what they should be doing damage wise (they should be using Magic Weapon if they don't have an actual item by this point)
-I can't see anything on the Paladin spell list that gives the Stunned condition, do you mean granting advantage and disadvantage?

The Paladin can make up for short comings in the Monk comparison by using spells and that's a great thing, but it should be noted that every spell they cast to compensate is one less Smite or one less spell cast that's more in their wheel house (like Aid).

[Witty Username]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter. More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.
Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).

[Xervous]

Do modules favor paladin or monk from an encounter design standpoint?

[MaxWilson]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter. More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.

Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).

It's absolutely bizarre to me how every time you mention "buy a horse or two" as a solution to mobility, everybody gets all negative about skeptical about whether you're going to be fighting in terrain where horses are even useful, but if it's a summoned steed, somehow that's not an issue?

Find Steed is fundamentally a logistical help: it saves you money on horses, and possibly time spent buying a new horse. In rare circumstances it can help you get a horse in a place where you otherwise couldn't (e.g. at the top of a cliff). Other than that though it's just a regular old horse that anyone could get, even if they're not a paladin.

One note RE: Wrathful Smite, it relies on fear, and fear immunity is much more common than stun immunity. (I.e. Wrathful Smite is still a great spell for its cost, but when you meet a new monster, there's definitely a risk of it being outright immune especially if it's some kind of demonic, undead, or BBEG type and you might want to spend your concentration/bonus action on something else.)

[Dork_Forge]

Less smites doesn't mean no smites, from my experience Paladin's only need 1-2 smites on an average encounter.

My point was that trying to fill that roll actively detracts from the Paladin's core functions besides Lay on Hands.

More importantly, the monk has no equivalent to the Paladin's buff and healing support, burst damage, or speed bump abilities.

And the Paladin has no equivalent to a Monk's potential stealth or even aoe capability (Destructive Wave is basically a casting capstone for them), I don't know what you mean by speed bump abilities.

Paladin's can ape the mobility with a steed, and control options with things like wrathful smite (although that argument feels weak since Paladin and monk don't do control very well compared to full casters like the wizard).

We heavily disagree on a mount letting the Paladin 'ape' a Monk's mobility, are you just talking about movement speed here? Find Steed doesn't come online until 5th level and then is entirely dependent on the mount being able to fit where the party are going and not getting cut from under the Paladin (or impacted by a different effect). Find Greater Steed covers sturdier and flying mounts, but doesn't come online until 13th level. The basic Monk chassis has a very high standard movement speed, the possibility of double dashing for a ki point and as of 9th level onwards the ability to cross liquids and vertical surfaces. You can go further than that if you consider that the Shadow Monk gets at will teleportation (situational, but normally pretty useful).

A Smite spell requires a bonus action, concentration and has the possibility of being wasted before it takes effect, all to impart arguably a lesser effect that as Max pointed out, the creature is more likely to be immune to.

They're both good at different things, but even if the Paladin is compensating with spells they don't clear cut cover all of the Monk's bases.

I don't know if it's come up in this thread already, but unless you're talking a face Dexadin, the usual Paladin is also pumping less useful stats, having a high Dex and Wis is more far reaching in the game than having a high Str and Cha.

[noob]

Do modules favor paladin or monk from an encounter design standpoint?

You can make team paladin made out of four paladins and team monk made out of four monks and test modules but I fear the best team monk for cheesing through modules might just be rogues gimping themselves by deciding to not be rogues (and win the modules through abusive amounts of stealth "coordinated takeover we kill four of them from behind by surprise then we flee and do that again later").
So I think we should also do team rogue for comparing.

It will also not indicate the average usefulness to the varied parties because dnd players often wants to play the class they want instead of playing team bard each time because bards are super polyvalent.

[MaxWilson]

You can make team paladin made out of four paladins and team monk made out of four monks and test modules but I fear the best team monk for cheesing through modules might just be rogues gimping themselves by deciding to not be rogues (and (A) win the modules through abusive amounts of stealth "coordinated takeover we kill four of them from behind by surprise then we flee and do that again later").
So I think we should also do team rogue for comparing.

It will also not indicate the average usefulness to the varied parties because dnd players often wants to play the class they want instead of playing team bard each time because bards are super polyvalent.

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

[noob]

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

How much of a time limit does the campaigns have?
rogues does not needs recharging.
Also assassin rogues did get something super strong on the first turn when surprising.

[x3n0n]

Wouldn't Team Monk be even better than Team Rogue at (A) thanks to Pass Without Trace (Shadow Monk), higher mobility, stuns, and AoEs (Elemental Monk)? Rogues have some good at-will powers but if the plan is "gank the other team by surprise" then short rest powers are effectively at-will powers too (because you won't go into a fight without plenty of ki), and ki-fueled powers are stronger than Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.

For that matter, since we seem to agree that single-target focused damage is not a strength of Team All-Monks, I'm somewhat enchanted with Team Three Monks and a Rogue.

Shadow (utility as above) +
Elemonk (AoEs) +
UA Mercy (healing and curing) +
Rogue.

(Alert) Shadow + (Alert) Assassin is a fun "Recon in Force" tandem, since they are likely to get surprise when scouting with PWT to get the elusive Assassinate to fire, plus Alert to take advantage of Darkness, and any Rogue can take advantage (pun somewhat intended) of the stunned condition.

Also, Monks don't tend to have much in the way of skills, tools, or Charisma, which the Rogue can have in spades.

The Elemonk and Mercy monk could be a Druid instead and still maintain mobility via Wild Shape (but I liked the Three Men and a Baby joke).

[MaxWilson]

For that matter, since we seem to agree that single-target focused damage is not a strength of Team All-Monks, I'm somewhat enchanted with Team Three Monks and a Rogue.

Shadow (utility as above) +
Elemonk (AoEs) +
UA Mercy (healing and curing) +
Rogue.

(Alert) Shadow + (Alert) Assassin is a fun "Recon in Force" tandem, since they are likely to get surprise when scouting with PWT to get the elusive Assassinate to fire, plus Alert to take advantage of Darkness, and any Rogue can take advantage (pun somewhat intended) of the stunned condition.

Also, Monks don't tend to have much in the way of skills, tools, or Charisma, which the Rogue can have in spades.

The Elemonk and Mercy monk could be a Druid instead and still maintain mobility via Wild Shape (but I liked the Three Men and a Baby joke).

Maybe make it a Fast Hands Healer Thief? Healer Arcane Trickster could work too if you do healing out of combat.

I don't see why you'd leave the other monks behind while scouting though. Pass Without Trace isn't just a self-buff.

[Unoriginal]

If you want more skills to a Monk group and don't mind non-official stuff, Cobalt Soul Monk can work.

[x3n0n]

If you want more skills to a Monk group and don't mind non-official stuff, Cobalt Soul Monk can work.

That's true--a CS could fill the "brainy" Investigation and knowledge role--that could be fun. :)
That still feels like a separate role from the "face", though, and doesn't help much with the "fire a cannon at the single high-value target" role very well.
However, assuming no immunity to necrotic, the Mercy Monk's Hands of Harm can do a number on anybody stunned.

Maybe make it a Fast Hands Healer Thief? Healer Arcane Trickster could work too if you do healing out of combat.

I don't see why you'd leave the other monks behind while scouting though. Pass Without Trace isn't just a self-buff.

All true. I was kind of hoping that I had found a good use for the Assassin. Oh well. :)

The Rogue subclass feels like a tough call. Fast Hands (with Healer) and Use Magic Item feel like they fill gaps, and Second-Story work preserves the "climbing up walls" theme.
On the other hand, Spellcasting fills a lot of gaps too, some of which aren't entirely plugged by giving someone Ritual Caster (Wizard).

I kinda like Magic Initiate: Druid (Guidance, Shape Water or Mold Earth, Goodberry) on the Elemonk; that gets us Guidance, gives a flavorful cantrip for use after we retrain Elemental Attunement, and offers a 3rd source of healing (after Healer Rogue and Mercy Monk) and a way to feed the Rogue after the rest of the team no longer needs food nor water. :)

[Edea]

Spoiler: Off-Topic

Show

If a Monk were to become a half-caster, what would their spell list 'sort-of' look like?

I'm sort-of curious how Tasha's is going to alter this discussion, myself.

[Asisreo1]

For those saying that monks don't benefit from magic weapons, its very likely that they will actually bring the most out of magic weapons.

If a monk is given something weak like a +2 dagger that hardly competes with the fighter's greatsword, however if the monk is at least 5th level, the dagger is able to outperform their strongest melee option since it does 1d6+2 rather than a staff's 1d8. Its also capable of being thrown.

Okay, maybe a +2 dagger is rare for a level 5 party to wander by, but the principle remain. A monk that finds a +1 shortsword at level 11 has brought the shortsword's damage farther than any other class could have. Would it be better on a fighter? I actually haven't analyzed that far but my initial reaction is that it wouldn't.

[OldTrees1]

For those saying that monks don't benefit from magic weapons, its very likely that they will actually bring the most out of magic weapons.

If a monk is given something weak like a +2 dagger that hardly competes with the fighter's greatsword, however if the monk is at least 5th level, the dagger is able to outperform their strongest melee option since it does 1d6+2 rather than a staff's 1d8. Its also capable of being thrown.

Okay, maybe a +2 dagger is rare for a level 5 party to wander by, but the principle remain. A monk that finds a +1 shortsword at level 11 has brought the shortsword's damage farther than any other class could have. Would it be better on a fighter? I actually haven't analyzed that far but my initial reaction is that it wouldn't.

Double checking, does this also apply to the monk being given a +2 greatsword? Or are you saying monk can use some magic weapons better and some magic weapons worse? Or are you saying magic weapons improve the most when wielded by a monk? Or some 4th thing?


Sidenote: Rogue makes better use of a +0 dagger than a Monk does. But that is more because Rogues need a weapon (Monks don't) but don't need it to contribute to the damage (Monks do).