What makes monks competitive with Paladins, if they are?

[Witty Username]

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.)

There is that tiny thing that fear immunity tends to be on undead which tend towards radiant vulnerability and/or called out to take bonus damage from divine smite. So yes, paladin can't frighten them because that are too dead to be afraid.
Also well stun immunity is rare high con saves are not. Being if I remember correctly the highest save monsters have on average, wisdom being a more generally reliable target. Sure 3 ki a turn can make a 1 round stun happen but ki pool will run dry doing that.
As for horse stuff I don't get why people don't like mounts, and most arguments are about dungeon crawls, where mobility is kinda fraught anyways.

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



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.



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.

By speed bump I meant tanking abilities (it is a reference to one of Roy's cards in the oots board game). Sorry for being unclear.
I am not sure how much aoe potential monk has, although I agree Paladin doesn't have much. Spirit guardians on the Crowns list and the aforementioned destructive wave I think is it unless multiclass sorcerer is on the table but that feels against the spirit of the discussion.

[MaxWilson]

Also well stun immunity is rare high con saves are not. Being if I remember correctly the highest save monsters have on average, wisdom being a more generally reliable target.

Nope, Wisdom and Con are about equally crummy on average (pink and purple lines respectively) before you take immunities into account:

Spoiler: Graph of all ability scores

Show

Once you take charm immunity into account vs. stun immunity, Con has a significantly higher effectiveness trend line than Wis:

Spoiler: Graphs for Wis/Fear vs. Con/Stun

Show

and that's BEFORE you account for the ability to effectively impose super-disadvantage on saves by forcing multiple saves per turn, or the fact that Wrathful Smite is affected by Magic Resistance and Stunning Strike isn't.

Source: https://maxwilson.github.io/Simple-S...owGraphsFor5E/ (Using the "Monsters by CR" option, DC 19.)

[Witty Username]

what are the numbers on the left? % chance for successful save? and the bottom CR?

edit: ok, messed around with the site, left is chance of effect landing. looks like stun is about 40% success rate on average, so about 3 ki to call a success. +1 for flurry making for 4 ki a turn. Making for about 1-2 rounds of stun in most combats from the monk (assuming they short rest between combats and use their entire ki pool for combat) with 3/4 rounds at 12/16th level.

[MaxWilson]

what are the numbers on the left? % chance for successful save? and the bottom CR?

Higher line is good--it's the chance the monster will be affected by the given attack (as mentioned, I took this screenshots against a fixed DC of 19). Bottom is CR. If you hover over a dot in https://maxwilson.github.io/Simple-S...owGraphsFor5E/ it will tell you more about specifically what monster is represented by that dot.

You can also filter for specific monster types (undead/fey/fiends/etc.) or sourcebooks (MM, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, etc.).

[Witty Username]

Looking over this, my perception on monk effectiveness may be skewed. I played a monk in a tier 4 game 15 -17th, which ended with a fight with an ancient blue dragon. which would explain my lackluster personal experience with stunning strike based on this since tier 4 looks like the lowest point for monks in that department.

[Dork_Forge]

By speed bump I meant tanking abilities (it is a reference to one of Roy's cards in the oots board game). Sorry for being unclear.
I am not sure how much aoe potential monk has, although I agree Paladin doesn't have much. Spirit guardians on the Crowns list and the aforementioned destructive wave I think is it unless multiclass sorcerer is on the table but that feels against the spirit of the discussion.

Both the Four Elements and Sun Soul Monk have multiple aoe options (I guess you could argue that a 17th Drunken Monk is the melee equivalent of an aoe).

By tanking do you mean durability or drawing aggro?

Durability:

-Bonus Action Dodge

-Kensei AC bump

-Open Hand Wholeness of Body

-Touch of Death and Mastery of Death from Long Death Monk

Though the Monk functions better as a Skirmisher than standing around and taking blows.

[Unoriginal]

Looking over this, my perception on monk effectiveness may be skewed. I played a monk in a tier 4 game 15 -17th, which ended with a fight with an ancient blue dragon. which would explain my lackluster personal experience with stunning strike based on this since tier 4 looks like the lowest point for monks in that department.

Lvl 18 is a pretty huge power up for the monk, so talk about unfortunate timing.

[stoutstien]

Lvl 18 is a pretty huge power up for the monk, so talk about unfortunate timing.

Aye. It might be one of the single largest changes any class gets in 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

Aye. It might be one of the single largest changes any class gets in 5e.

It's a nice feature, to be sure.

Beginning at 18th level, you can use your action to spend 4 ki points to become invisible for 1 minute. During that time, you also have resistance to all damage but force damage. Additionally, you can spend 8 ki points to cast the astral projection spell, without needing material components. When you do so, you can’t take any other creatures with you.

[Droppeddead]

Well, technically true but such minor increase is barely worth noting.

Well, it's better than any one-handed weapon any sword and board fighter, pally, rogue or barbarian has access to. Not sure if that's "barely worth noting". Even so, you were still wrong in your claim.

Yeah, some subclasses get some offensive stuff of note but by and large they won't really outperform the base stuff othe Monk.

Pretty much every subclass gets offensive stuff or stuff that can be used to increase you roffensive capabilties.

Well, Bulezau have an aura that causes automatic necrotic damage around them so understandably our melee wanted to finish them off fast. Monk in particular was also unable to really stand in melee; he had what, 15 AC (Ghostwise Halfling Monk)? Add to that pretty mediocre HP (14 Con IIRC?) and he was hurting. I actually remembered, it was a Four Elements Monk and I think he had Fist of Unbroken Air (he only used it once and only during a tutorial day of sorts so it slipped my mind: as he died on level 3 never got to really see much of it from him). Pally burnt a smite or two and Monk burnt two flurries, which coupled with a Sleep and some damage spells from the War Wizard took the Bulezau down rather quickly and our Wizards were still well-stocked. The Horizon Walker also had no issues: I think he hadn't burnt a spell slot yet by the final encounter, not that it did us much good (he could've certainly killed the Babau but he got stuck engaging on the other side).Long story short

Anyways, in the second fight the Monk had 1 ki and the Pally 1 smite and both were of course burnt in short order. Ranger and Monk got stuck fighting a set of cultists (I think 8 + a priest and a cult leader) while the Wizards and the Pally engaged two scouts and the Babau. It quickly became apparent that nobody could really damage the Babau after the Pally was out of Smites and it just wasn't going down. Meanwhile the Ranger and Monk were mostly overwhelmed numerically after whiffing a few attacks and while the Ranger took down the acolyte and the big priest, the Monk simply went down to the cultists. One of the Wizards dropped a Sleep there and another dropped some AOE with the ranger on the mop-up duty, but that tied him down long enough that the damage was done.

One of the biggest issues was that the Monk had to melee to do damage and yet they didn't have any native hardiness whatsoever. Patient Defense would cost Ki too. A Fighter or a Cleric or a Barbarian or a Paladin or whatever could have 3 points higher AC at the same time with more HP to boot in the case of the Fighter.

OK, so stupid tactical choices all round, how is that the fault of the monk as a class?

[Droppeddead]

Monks aren't even any good with multiclassing

You're right, monks are awesome even without multiclassing. But if you do want to throw in a bunch of multiclass you can get a whole bunch of nice features. For example, just a single level of Rogue (because face it, Monk can do without their 20th level) gives you sneak attack, expertise and more skills. Six levels of Rogue and six levels of Shadow Monk gives you an fantastic assassin. If you shift it around, 6 levels of Kensei combined with any number of Gloomstalker levels and you have an awesome hunter of monsters (or anything, really).

[Eldariel]

Well, it's better than any one-handed weapon any sword and board fighter, pally, rogue or barbarian has access to. Not sure if that's "barely worth noting". Even so, you were still wrong in your claim.

Great, yes, that 1 point of damage is very noteworthy when people are hitting for 100+ damage a round.

OK, so stupid tactical choices all round, how is that the fault of the monk as a class?

Because another more martial or more caster or more rogue class instead of the Monk would've likely allowed coming out on top. Monk's running out of steam basically after round 1 of the "hold the fort" was one of the key reasons the Ranger was stuck (alongside poor rolls) and why the swap between the roles would've been so costly. Ironically, the other problem was the Paladin; 3 smites just doesn't get you that far. But at least each of the smites is an autohit for 3d8 (average 13,5) irresistable damage (so more like 27 with the party setup), which is certainly noteworthy in this scenario.

[Xervous]

Perhaps we can consider this from another angle.

A. You’re building a party, planning out the roles. For a non gimmicky group how many party members would be needed for monk to number among them? Does the likelihood of including a monk go up or down as you increase party size?

B. You’re joining a random party that mostly conforms to the standard role stereotypes. What arrangements and group sizes would encourage you to pick monk, what would discourage?

For the trivial case of 1 member custom party monk is a very solid pick. You have good self sufficiency for pillar coverage, successful run-out-of-range defense is a 100% damage mitigation, and you are moderately durable for a brawl. Damage throughput isn’t top tier but it’s consistent and any other class will be forfeiting something from a pillar if they want to stay ahead.

As you add to the party size you first need to keep with somewhat more generalist characters. This swiftly gives way to an array of specialists that tend to sustainable damage throughput, nova / cc potential, exploration and other utility features. I expect brutal combatants in the vein of XBE fighters and Hexadins are in line as options for your throughput. There’s a broad selection of supporting casters with spells for pulling outlier fights down to more manageable odds. So what does the monk figure in as? Scout and stunbot? If you have a suite of specialists checking every desired box, flowing together like a finely crafted jigsaw puzzle, you don’t have a supreme need for a generalist that can stand on its own.

Flip this to the grab bag stereotype party. We’re looking at the low end here. Monk being able to contribute to all manner of things, even if it’s frequently second best, at least ensures the monk won’t be irrelevant. This is not to say it might be sufficient, but if anyone else is dropping the ball you can chip in to move things more towards par.

Anyone care to take a shot at paladin and/or offer up corrections on the above?

[x3n0n]

Anyone care to take a shot at paladin and/or offer up corrections on the above?

First, this seems like a fruitful way to discuss this; thank you.

Second, it sounds like the claim is that the base Monk (played well) is a mostly-self-sufficient generalist, especially with respect to scouting and combat/debuffs against non-flying foes (weaknesses being lackluster Cha skills, lack of AoEs, and lacking "burst" damage). This would make it useful in small parties and parties of unknown composition (both of which may need each member to cover multiple roles), but less useful in parties that can guarantee that all of their roles are covered by specialists. (For example, in a party where the arcane caster is able to reliably inflict significant detrimental conditions, the "stun" capability becomes less useful.)

Is that a reasonable summary?

[Throne12]

So monk has a special place in my heart it was my first D&D class played. Paladin is my 3rd favorite after cleric. I've played 4 monks and 3 or 2 paladins. For the paladins one was played as a tank. Armored from head to toe dealing crazy amounts of damage with every swing of his sword. And the other one was played as Defender he try and soak up as much damage and using his spells and lay on hands to help the party. Now to monks where shadow monk and I played them like rogues. Then one was a sun soul that I would just stay out of range and pepper enemies and droping aoe. Then I played a open hand to knock down grapple and move the enemy around the battle field a monks extra movement speed is great for dragging enemy's around. So I would push or drag them through spells like cloud of daggers, ect. Or you fighter/paladin/barbarian is happy when you drag that wizard right to there feet.

So I always play my monks are Interrupter. I also like the mage slayer feat on monks. I find out whats the most annoying or problematic thing in a fight and deal with it. Thank to the monks many abilities I can get to the problem and do something about it. Be it stunning or forcing con checks on spells too bring something to the damage dealer. Is the BBEG about to use the mcguffin I can get to it and take it way from them. I love the monk there is just so many things I do in combat other them dealing damage.

[Unoriginal]

First, this seems like a fruitful way to discuss this; thank you.

Second, it sounds like the claim is that the base Monk (played well) is a mostly-self-sufficient generalist, especially with respect to scouting and combat/debuffs against non-flying foes (weaknesses being lackluster Cha skills, lack of AoEs, and lacking "burst" damage). This would make it useful in small parties and parties of unknown composition (both of which may need each member to cover multiple roles), but less useful in parties that can guarantee that all of their roles are covered by specialists. (For example, in a party where the arcane caster is able to reliably inflict significant detrimental conditions, the "stun" capability becomes less useful.)

Is that a reasonable summary?

Thing is, even for those who would agree the claim is accurate, how D&D 5e works makes it so that there are *very* few specialists who won't appreciate having a teammate who can give them backup.

[x3n0n]

Thing is, even for those who would agree the claim is accurate, how D&D 5e works makes it so that there are *very* few specialists who won't appreciate having a teammate who can give them backup.

Agreed. I probably should have separated the claims, but I got over-zealous in trying to make a TL;DR summary (and I may have inadvertently converted a legitimate question of Xervous's into a claim)--my mistake.

To start answering the actual questions posed by Xervous:

Conditions that make me want to add a Monk to the party:

Allies who benefit disproportionately from having advantage on their attacks, like Rogues and crit-fishers
Already having a kiting-capable party, but lacking melee damage
Allies who need gold/treasure to progress
Getting to play when Diamond Soul and/or Empty Body comes online
Lacking good damage capabilities other than nonmagical weapons (especially Kensei)
Lacking a way to disrupt opposing spellcasters (especially Shadow)
Lacking scouting/scrying (especially Shadow)
Lacking Pass Without Trace or Silence (Shadow)
Lots of mooks and needing a tank (Long Death, maybe Kensei)
Fear-resistant allies, like a lv10 Paladin (Long Death)
Starting close to level 11 (Elemonk for lots of Fireballs)

[OldTrees1]

Agreed. I probably should have separated the claims, but I got over-zealous in trying to make a TL;DR summary (and I may have inadvertently converted a legitimate question of Xervous's into a claim)--my mistake.

To start answering the actual questions posed by Xervous:

Conditions that make me want to add a Monk to the party:

Allies who benefit disproportionately from having advantage on their attacks, like Rogues and crit-fishers
Already having a kiting-capable party, but lacking melee damage
Getting to play when Diamond Soul and/or Empty Body comes online
Lacking good damage capabilities other than nonmagical weapons (especially Kensei)
Lacking a way to disrupt opposing spellcasters (especially Shadow)
Lacking scouting/scrying (especially Shadow)
Lacking Pass Without Trace or Silence (Shadow)
Lots of mooks and needing a tank (Long Death, maybe Kensei)
Fear-resistant allies, like a lv10 Paladin (Long Death)
Starting close to level 11 (Elemonk for lots of Fireballs)

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

[Unoriginal]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

A class that isn't desirable for a broad palette of cases isn't desirable by many.

If anything the 3.X Prestige Classes (and non-core classes to an extant) proved that. They only were considered attractive when a) you wanted the special gimmick or b) when someone found a way to broaden the use you got out of it.

[x3n0n]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

Those are not intended as sufficient conditions to guarantee that a Monk is the next thing I would add to the party, but they are all things that would move the Monk "up" my list of "next party member to add".

(I also am not applying them as inverses--for example, "wanting a tank" applies both to Paladin and Long Death Monk when compared to, say, Bard.)

I am less familiar with Paladins overall, but these are some conditions that would encourage me to add one:

Lacking melee burst damage
Lacking a divine caster
Lacking a secondary healer
Lacking Cha skills
Wanting a heavy armor wearer (that is, being ok not having everyone be stealthy)
Needing a melee tank
Wanting Aura of Protection (and who doesn't, other than already having a Paladin?)

I can imagine adding to both lists, but that's what I've got so far.

(Note that Long Death Monk and Conquest Paladin make quite the team.)

[MaxWilson]

That is a rather broad case assuming each of those is a sufficient condition.

And the inverse? Conditions that make you (specifically x3n0n so we get a 1:1 comparision) want to add a Paladin to the party:
_________

(1) Going to fight a lot of fiends in this campaign so want ability to turn fiends as well as undead.
(2) PCs are going to rely heavily on Polymorph spam and need Paladins/Bards to provide concentration save bonuses to Polymorphed apes.
(3) Ranged damage/spellcasting/summoning/scouting already covered and we want someone who can supply healing + save bonuses.
(4) A melee tank is needed: someone who isn't afraid to stick their head down a dark hole and maybe get it lopped off (or open a mysterious door in a dark hallway, or enter the old crone's hut to have a private word with her).

There are always tradeoffs but when 2-4 of these conditions are fulfilled, that is where I start to feel like a Paladin might be more valuable than a fighter, druid, bardlock or wizard. It's always painful though no matter which choice you end up making.

[OldTrees1]

Those are not intended as sufficient conditions to guarantee that a Monk is the next thing I would add to the party, but they are all things that would move the Monk "up" my list of "next party member to add".

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. If they were both lists of sufficient conditions, that would be easier to direct compare rather than a list of favorable conditions. Still I appreciate the lists.

Comparing your two lists it seems like you are less likely to add a monk than to add a paladin, but you are less familiar with Paladins overall which is evidence against that theory. So I will conclude Monks work well enough for x3n0n. That should be a safe conclusion.

[x3n0n]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. If they were both lists of sufficient conditions, that would be easier to direct compare rather than a list of favorable conditions. Still I appreciate the lists.

Comparing your two lists it seems like you are less likely to add a monk than to add a paladin, but you are less familiar with Paladins overall which is evidence against that theory. So I will conclude Monks work well enough for x3n0n. That should be a safe conclusion.

Yes, that is a safe conclusion. I'd like them even better in a world where I could fit one more ASI/feat while still being able to reach 20 Dex/20 Wis. (I tend to play standard point buy; more generous stat regimes would push me toward Monk even more, relative to other classes.)

I am also not very experienced in D&D, so I hope we continue to get more lists!

Another point to add to my "add a Monk" list: the party is already full of characters that benefit from treasure. The Monk can't make good use of most of it, leaving more for the Wizard or heavy armor user.

I am biased toward the Monk by aesthetics as well. Martial arts and unarmored defense fluff, wuxia wall- and water-running, Timeless Body, the whole thing. Given that, I'm certainly not impartial.

[Witty Username]

You're right, monks are awesome even without multiclassing. But if you do want to throw in a bunch of multiclass you can get a whole bunch of nice features. For example, just a single level of Rogue (because face it, Monk can do without their 20th level) gives you sneak attack, expertise and more skills. Six levels of Rogue and six levels of Shadow Monk gives you an fantastic assassin. If you shift it around, 6 levels of Kensei combined with any number of Gloomstalker levels and you have an awesome hunter of monsters (or anything, really).

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes. unarmored defense is better than rogue normal but also throws of ASI's which blunts the impact of it. So monk is there for movement speed, extra attack and stunning strike and shadow monk.
I would think rogue/ranger would work better for AC, sneaking, skills, and the increased spell list for control and utility options.

kensei+ranger is pretty solid on paper though.

[Amnestic]

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes.

This remains a silly thing in the RAW and I will die mad about it.

That and the fact that stunning strike is such a key feature that a) doesn't come online until level 5 (for some reason) and b) doesn't interact with your subclass whatsoever.

[Sorinth]

I think rogue/monk is overrated because martial arts doesn't mix well with sneak attack, as it doesn't grant the finesse quality to weapons to allow sneak attack with monk weapons or unarmed strikes. unarmored defense is better than rogue normal but also throws of ASI's which blunts the impact of it. So monk is there for movement speed, extra attack and stunning strike and shadow monk.
I would think rogue/ranger would work better for AC, sneaking, skills, and the increased spell list for control and utility options.

kensei+ranger is pretty solid on paper though.

Short Swords are Monk weapons and with 1d6 SA it will end up better then using a quarterstaff but it's not a huge deal. It still falls behind the Kensei until Monk 11 though.

I think the main reason to go Rogue is to grab expertise, and maybe cunning action.

[OldTrees1]

This remains a silly thing in the RAW and I will die mad about it.

That and the fact that stunning strike is such a key feature that a) doesn't come online until level 5 (for some reason) and b) doesn't interact with your subclass whatsoever.

Stunning strike coming online at T2 makes sense. Stunning in T2 is a qualitative improvement on what a Monk can do. It is also a level appropriate threat around T2. In T1 Monk's key offensive feature is their extra attacks. Ideally there would also be level appropriate qualitative improvements in the Monk's threat in T3/T4. It is good to have qualitative improvement rather than just quantitative improvement.

Your other criticisms, and more, stand without question or comment.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Question about stunning strike:

I saw some mention of a spending up to 5 Ki with Flurry to try and force a stun (1 Ki to activate flurry, 4 Ki per hit to force a Stun save). Am I reading things incorrectly? I thought Stunning Strike was only available on melee weapon attacks, so your Flurry of Blows attacks didn't count as stunning strike vectors.

[stoutstien]

Question about stunning strike:

I saw some mention of a spending up to 5 Ki with Flurry to try and force a stun (1 Ki to activate flurry, 4 Ki per hit to force a Stun save). Am I reading things incorrectly? I thought Stunning Strike was only available on melee weapon attacks, so your Flurry of Blows attacks didn't count as stunning strike vectors.

Unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks.
The reference is under the melee attack section pg195. ± a page, AFB.

[Valmark]

Unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks.
The reference is under the melee attack section pg195. ± a page, AFB.

That was errata'd- at least, my copy specifies that unarmed strikes aren't weapons (and so does the errata and the Sage Advice).

Yes, I hate it.