4-elements Monk

[Nifft]

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away. Shield allows the EK to momentarily break Bounded Accuracy with their AC, while Absorb Element shores up a STR fighter’s bad DEX saves against numerous AoEs. ATs get tremendous improvements in their stealth and infiltration roles from Mage Hand and Minor Illusion.

Just wanted to note that Absorb Element really ought to be available to a gosh-darn Four Elements Monk.

Giving them actual spellcasting would have been a very obvious way to make it available.

Same deal with the cantrips in the Elemental Evil pdf, they ought to be available somehow.

And yeah, it seems quite resonable to give a new resource comparable to what Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights get. I kinda like the idea of the 4EM having one daily resource (spell slots) and one encounter resource (ki pool), makes 'em fit better into different parties.

[MaxWilson]

Arguably, the core weakness of Monk is lack of AoE and lack of Ranged capability. 4E shores up this weakness. Neither PHB Way does.

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

[Amechra]

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

Slightly off-topic, but I keep eyeing a Kensei Archer build. 2x 1d8+1d4+Dex with a +1d6 smite 1/round by 6th level is kinda appealing.

[JellyPooga]

Lack of ranged capability? Before Tier 3 Wood Elf monks have better at-will ranged capabilities than most spellcasters, almost competitive with warlocks. (2 x d8 + Dex, vs. 2 x d10 + Cha.) Fighter is still clearly better offensively, but monks are better at winning archery duels due to missile catch and mobility. In Tier 3 they start to fall behind on ranged damage, but for elemonks Tier 3 is also where Fly and Fireball come online and they start getting really fun.

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

It's worth noting that "pre-Tier 3" is a wide criteria. Pre-5th level, Monks have zero support for ranged combat barring a general Dex focus. From 5th lvl. onwards they have Extra Attack, granted, but otherwise zero support, combined with a counter-focus on melee combat (and thus less incentive to take options to support it, such as Sharpshooter). It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race, ranged capability and at-will options for those that have superior, albeit limited resource, ranged options (basically any spellcaster) or well supported ranged attacks (basically any other martial class)...which is just about every other Class.

About the only Classes that are potentially worse at any kind of ranged combat are Strength focused Barbarian and Paladin (granted that is many, if not most such) and maybe Bard, and even then it's arguable that they're equally bad. Monk has a far cry from the ranged capability/support of a Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger or Warlock, significantly less incentive to even bother with it compared to Druid, Cleric or Bard and given such a massive incentive to be melee focused, it's clearly a fair argument for 4E that they have a decently solid, reactive, weaponless ranged option compared to other subclasses.

Don't get me wrong, I still think 4E Monk is largely weak compared to other subclasses...on paper.

I am, however, seeing more of the hidden strengths of it in actual play. At the tabletop, it's easy to overlook the so-called strength of highly focused builds when compared to those that have greater versatility, because it's very common for that narrow focus to be wasted (e.g. Great Weapon Master vs. low-HP Mooks), while greater versatility is always useful.

[Asisreo1]

It's worth noting that "pre-Tier 3" is a wide criteria. Pre-5th level, Monks have zero support for ranged combat barring a general Dex focus. From 5th lvl. onwards they have Extra Attack, granted, but otherwise zero support, combined with a counter-focus on melee combat (and thus less incentive to take options to support it, such as Sharpshooter). It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race, ranged capability and at-will options for those that have superior, albeit limited resource, ranged options (basically any spellcaster) or well supported ranged attacks (basically any other martial class)...which is just about every other Class.

About the only Classes that are potentially worse at any kind of ranged combat are Strength focused Barbarian and Paladin (granted that is many, if not most such) and maybe Bard, and even then it's arguable that they're equally bad.

Whoops looks like a misread something. Ignore this comment!

[Asisreo1]

I would like to note that a 4E monk can stunning strike from 15ft away, with fire snakes. Meaning they can catch a flying enemy or not have to engage in melee with a strong melee enemy and still get the stunning strikes.

[MaxWilson]

Non-Wood Elf monks are only marginally worse.

It's clearly an unfair comparison between at-will Monk, of one specific Race

???

Come again?

Wood elves are already a common Monk choice due to stat mods, but the ability to use a bow is in no way limited to elves.

[Nifft]

???

Come again?

Maybe some new kind of Elf who can summon a Monk at-will?

[Zuras]

I would like to note that a 4E monk can stunning strike from 15ft away, with fire snakes. Meaning they can catch a flying enemy or not have to engage in melee with a strong melee enemy and still get the stunning strikes.

Fangs of the Fire Snake is literally the only discipline that has synergy with the base Monk chassis, unfortunately. A better design would have provided other disciplines with similar synergy, ideally one for each element. With all the anti synergies you run into using your ki to power it, you should either get more utility or more firepower out of the deal.

[Asisreo1]

Fangs of the Fire Snake is literally the only discipline that has synergy with the base Monk chassis, unfortunately. A better design would have provided other disciplines with similar synergy, ideally one for each element. With all the anti synergies you run into using your ki to power it, you should either get more utility or more firepower out of the deal.

Both WW and Unbroken Air can knock a flier prone and when they get proned, you can use your melee capabilities. Fly gives them the ability to do their melee stunning strike thing. If they're stunned, they'll fall from the sky and since they fail their saving throws, you can follow up with a spell like burning hands.

Other disciplines cover weaknesses like cone of cold's high damage AoE a regular monk wouldn't have. Hold person is a mage's worst nightmare, especially if they're flying.

Wall of stone is hilarious, if you get the chance, you can make an entire building by yourself in under a day. Uh, combat, it locks down a creature from moving in all three dimensions, including vertically. Making a good trap for a nasty opponent while you take care of their minions. Think liches or pit fiends. If you're smart, you can layer each panel doubled up in a cubic symmetry so that breaking one AC15 180hp panel reveals another similar panel.

Wall of fire is amazing for this as well, bonus points for damage but it can't keep a lich or pit fiend contained for long. Maybe better for capturing a group of minions. What's fun is that the initial damage can be halved with a saving throw but the DoT damage and the escape damage does not have a half save. Each creature is guaranteed at least 7d8 damage or more depending. But if they escape? Push em back in with gust of wind or unbroken air.

[JellyPooga]

???

Come again?

Wood elves are already a common Monk choice due to stat mods, but the ability to use a bow is in no way limited to elves.

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

[Asisreo1]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

By what metric? Sure, a monk isn't doing the damage output of a spellcaster, most martials aren't, but they are much tankier than any spellcaster and a monk's stunning strike gives plenty of opportunities to attempt to stun an opponent, which is huge.

Warlocks don't have as high AC, don't have evasion, and don't have dexterity save proficiency. Monks do. It's not fair to compare one class to another based on a single metric since I could say warlock is a weak class because they're susceptible to other spellcaster's attacks, especially with limited access to counterspell.

But you'd realize why that's not inherently true.

[JellyPooga]

By what metric? Sure, a monk isn't doing the damage output of a spellcaster, most martials aren't, but they are much tankier than any spellcaster and a monk's stunning strike gives plenty of opportunities to attempt to stun an opponent, which is huge.

Warlocks don't have as high AC, don't have evasion, and don't have dexterity save proficiency. Monks do. It's not fair to compare one class to another based on a single metric since I could say warlock is a weak class because they're susceptible to other spellcaster's attacks, especially with limited access to counterspell.

But you'd realize why that's not inherently true.

I'm not saying the Monk as a whole is weak at all. I'm saying that, generally speaking, they have poor ranged capability in response to MaxWilsons assertion that they have better at-will ranged damage than most spellcasters (pre-Tier 3), which as I said and agree with you on, is an unfair comparison to make.

[Zalabim]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

Not being as good as a warlock is no damning verdict. A monk is competent at range by virtue of focusing on Dexterity and being proficient with weapons. They just demonstrably are competent. Not the best, though they do make up for some of that with deflect missiles. Put a monk in any challenge that requires ranged competency and they will generally pass.

What is the average anyway? Cantrips deal less damage. Strength types too. Sneak attack usually means someone else is in melee. Monks aren't as good at it as dedicated archer characters, warlocks, or spell slot use, but they also get bonus speed and better defenses. It's not the highest DPR, but I could put a level 8 monk with their no support for ranged combat head to head against a level 8 fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow expert.

[Zuras]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

AoE wise, Monks are indeed lacking. In my experience, however, Thunderwave and Shatter don’t really cut it as swarm removal (unless you are a Tempest Cleric) so again you’re not coming into your own till 11th level. By that point it’s too late for most campaigns. Battle Master gives you very little as a subclass after 10th level, but that has zero effect on its popularity. 4E monks have the opposite problem.

[JellyPooga]

Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

AoE wise, Monks are indeed lacking. In my experience, however, Thunderwave and Shatter don’t really cut it as swarm removal (unless you are a Tempest Cleric) so again you’re not coming into your own till 11th level. By that point it’s too late for most campaigns. Battle Master gives you very little as a subclass after 10th level, but that has zero effect on its popularity. 4E monks have the opposite problem.

Don't get me wrong; I tend to agree. Monks aren't terrible at range, but it is generally a weakness as a consequence of it not being a strength. I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung. The question is often "Why bother equipping a bow at all when you're often better served spending the action engaging your enemy on your best terms?" Especially if said bow is only capable of doing some mediocre damage.

The Monk class, as a whole, is largely a vector for status effects, whether it be Stun, knocking prone or for some builds grappling. The 4E Monk offers an extension of this core function with the likes of Water Whip. You'll also note that I said 4E shores up the general weakness, not that it makes it into a strength. It allows you not just to deal damage at range, but to be a Monk at range.

It's worth noting that many Disciplines that duplicate spells also fulfil this function; Thunderwave might not slay an entire mook-squad, but it will Push them around. Hold Person is comparable to a ranged Stunning Strike. Fly and Gaseous Form offer massive speed and infiltration enhancement, respectively. All of these are extensions of what it means to be a Monk, except used in a way that other Monks do not or cannot duplicate, just as other Ways offer enhancements that 4E doesn't.

Monks aren't great damage dealers as a rule (beyond the first couple of levels) and 4E doesn't offer a solution to this problem; so much is evident from the Disciplines available. It offers you similar effects to those you ordinarily use, but in two areas (at range and AoE) that the Monk otherwise doesn't fulfil its core function.

[HiveStriker]

4 Elements is perfectly playable, but it really is just bad in comparison to all the other martial subclasses that get spells. The action economy of the abilities is terrible, and it depletes your ki too fast. In Tier 3 it finally gets going, but in the early levels it is much weaker than Open Hand or Shadow.

The worst aspect is that it doesn’t deliver the fantasy of chucking elemental effects around. You effectively get the casting of a half warlock, but unsurprisingly a half caster warlock is worse than a 1/3 caster Wizard if you don’t get a separate resource pool to power it, invocations, or an Eldritch Blast equivalent. The official subclass also misses out on all the elemental spells outside of the PHB, making it doubly annoying.

I have seen plenty of 4 Elements monks in action, and the vast majority of the time they definitely were better off using their ki for stunning strike or Fly over damage dealing. The class needs either a separate resource pool to power its features or more always-on or cantrip like features.

Nope. Tooootally not. Having the same resource is a big, big boon. It gives you same kind of flexibility a Sorcerer converting spells has, on a Warlock-like short-rest basis.
If you really ran numbers you'd see that 4E can get similar casting as 1/3 caster and still get enough Ki left for a few full-round Flurrys.
You can blow everything on spells, or not. It's up to you to choose.
But having the option to choose the amount, and having resources come back on a short rest, are making false assumptions and errors in situation assessment much more forgiving for a 4E than for a, say, EK or AT.
It also provides you better resource economy: since upcast one level is just one Ki away, means you have less chance to get overkill like a Warlock can be.

If you doubt that, play an experiment.
- Be a level 5 Sorcerer,
- Picking spells that can "mimick" or "have close enough" effects of Monk abilities,
- Take the relevant amount of spell points following DMG, divide it by 3 (rounding down) make it replenish on short rest.
- Ignore the amount of SP you'd normally get but allow use of spell points to fuel Metamagic.
Play it until you're level 7-8. The probability that you don't come back after and say "wow, that's just awesome how much more efficient I am" will be damn close to 0.

Sure, It may not necessarily be fair to compare subclasses across different classes, but neither Monk, Fighter nor Rogue have heavily weighted subclasses (compared to the Ranger, for example) so I think comparisons in this case are apt. Is it unfair to compare an Eldritch Knight to an Arcane Trickster? All of the other subclasses that get spellcasting tacked on to a martial chassis get additional features to make them more effective, like War Magic and Magical Ambush. Otherwise, casting a 3rd level spell at 13th level (or even 11th) is underwhelming.

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters access spells that improve their core competencies and shore up their weaknesses right away. Shield allows the EK to momentarily break Bounded Accuracy with their AC, while Absorb Element shores up a STR fighter’s bad DEX saves against numerous AoEs. ATs get tremendous improvements in their stealth and infiltration roles from Mage Hand and Minor Illusion.

Until the 4 Elements Monk accesses Fly and Gaseous Form at 11th level, features improving core Monk competencies like mobility and soft control are thin on the ground. Your soft control options (Gust of Wind, Fist of Unbroken Air, Hold Person, Water Whip) are all weaker uses for your action than simply attacking and using stunning strike, since they don’t allow you to follow up with a bonus action martial arts attack and rely on a secondary stat for their save DC.

If you had access to both Open Hand Technique and your elemental disciplines, how often would you use Fist of Unbroken Air versus an entire routine of 4 attacks (Extra Attack + Flurry of Blows)? In a dire situation, an Open Hand attack routine can end up forcing 4 saves against stun and two against proning. If you use an elemental discipline, on the other hand, if your opponent makes the save, that’s your whole offensive output for that turn. Emotionally, it just feels bad when that happens. You also don’t have enough disciplines known to have real utility, you just have to hope you luck into a situation where your picks are useful. It’s noticeably weaker than Open Hand or Shadow, and puts you in position to attempt to do something cool but fail more often than any other subclass I’ve seen in play.

This sentence just shows you missed the whole point of the features.
Again, if you really took time to check numbers, you'd see that those actions are worth "at worst" the same as spending your action on attacks (mixing attack and attempt to Shove if we want to be the closest).
Because let's remind that...
- Constitution saves are arguably the best save to target: rarely do monsters have high STR and high DEX, but apart casters most have a decent constitution bonus for their level, and it gets worse with level. So Stunning Strike is not always good.
- Stunning is great for denying enemy action, but who cares about that if providing advantage is enough to make him go down before next round (because you have friends ready to strike in melee and the odds of landing enough damage are good enough, like 80%+)?
- Monks SUCK at Grappling of Shoving, unless you build them for that from the get-go, with the limitations it implies (delay in progression by multiclass or start Human / Half-Elf for Prodigy). Because usual Monk has crappy STR, you can't use DEX for the checks, and target can use the best between Acrobatics (DEX) and Athletics (STR). So a) you need to roll real good and b) you need to roll better than opponent to overcome it.
- And Stunning strike requires first you to connect with your attack, so when you are going against high AC, you'll either count on luck and possibly decide to Flurry (thus denying any other option) or try and get advantage (confer point above).

By the way, Monk's main things are dealing damage in melee,avoiding hits and apply some control on enemy action and movement, so features that deal damage and put prone are completely in tune with this.

As for Fangs of Fire Snake specificallly, its only drawback is making your damage fire-based, which in some situations will be counter-productive;
Apart from that.
- Reach 15 feet instead of 5 means you spare 10 feet getting into melee attack reach, can attack, can attempt Stunning Strike, spare a Disengage to avoid OA when pulling away, spare another 10 feet moving back. You get Dash+Disengage+magic damage for one ki. And you can apply Stunning Strike on this.
Meaning that even smart enough to usually attempt a Ready because they know Monk can stun them are half-powerless because the most they can do now is Readying a Dash away or Readying a single ranged attack. COnsidering that the majority of enemies, casters aside, are creatures whose primary threat relies on melee, it's a very big deal.
- Also, Open Hand's level 3 feature costs one ki, because it requires a Flurry to be taken, and it also means you cannot Dodge / Dash / Disengage (since it required you to take the Attack action in the first place) so there is that. In fact, I'd argue that Open Hans is by far the weakest and the blandest of all archetypes, because lvl 6 is self-heal, lvl 11 is (sadly) situational, so until you get the crowning Quivering Palm all you get is an additional effect that amounts to a Shove except with higher chance than with a check (which is incidentally the same with those 4E features).

I advise you to ready my lengthy post, should give you some input on how good 4E actually can be, when you try to use features proactively instead of reluctantly. Just trying to really play the class and archetype basically instead of trying to force-apply a rigid mindset copy/pasted from another experience of another class or archetype. :)

[Amechra]

This sentence just shows you missed the whole point of the features.
Again, if you really took time to check numbers, you'd see that those actions are worth "at worst" the same as spending your action on attacks (mixing attack and attempt to Shove if we want to be the closest).
Because let's remind that...
- Constitution saves are arguably the best save to target: rarely do monsters have high STR and high DEX, but apart casters most have a decent constitution bonus for their level, and it gets worse with level. So Stunning Strike is not always good.
- Stunning is great for denying enemy action, but who cares about that if providing advantage is enough to make him go down before next round (because you have friends ready to strike in melee and the odds of landing enough damage are good enough, like 80%+)?
- Monks SUCK at Grappling of Shoving, unless you build them for that from the get-go, with the limitations it implies (delay in progression by multiclass or start Human / Half-Elf for Prodigy). Because usual Monk has crappy STR, you can't use DEX for the checks, and target can use the best between Acrobatics (DEX) and Athletics (STR). So a) you need to roll real good and b) you need to roll better than opponent to overcome it.
- And Stunning strike requires first you to connect with your attack, so when you are going against high AC, you'll either count on luck and possibly decide to Flurry (thus denying any other option) or try and get advantage (confer point above).

Eh, most of this runs into the following issues:
1) Stunning Strike is dirt cheap. For the same 2 ki as Fist of Unbroken Air, you can potentially force two Con saves vs. a decent DC. Even if your target has, say, an 80% chance to pass those saves, spamming stunning strike would drop that to a 64% chance. Sure, you have to hit twice, but you get 3-4 attacks per round once you hit that level. Also, I'm unsure where you're getting your data on monsters having better Con scaling than Str or Dex scaling - care to share that source?
2) Stunning denies actions and gives all your allies advantage on their attacks (including ranged attackers) and makes the target automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saves and makes grapples automatically succeed. Meanwhile, knocking someone prone helps out your melee allies and utterly screws over your ranged allies (who now have disadvantage on their attack rolls).
3) It's true that Monks aren't good grapplers, but why would they need to be? If you want to knock people over, go Open Hand and potentially force two saves against going prone per round.
4) Sure, Stunning Strike requires you to hit with your attack, but... you have 3-4 attacks per round. Even if you only have a 50% chance of hitting with a given attack, you'd only have a 12.5% chance of missing with all of them if you don't flurry, and a 6.25% chance of missing if you do flurry.

However, I do agree that Stunning Strike's importance can be over-emphasized by these forums. Given the kinds of complaints I see about the Monk, I sometimes wonder if people had one bad experience with the class and swore it off forever, or just never actually played it and are going off the numbers.

[Zuras]

Don't get me wrong; I tend to agree. Monks aren't terrible at range, but it is generally a weakness as a consequence of it not being a strength. I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung. The question is often "Why bother equipping a bow at all when you're often better served spending the action engaging your enemy on your best terms?" Especially if said bow is only capable of doing some mediocre damage.

The Monk class, as a whole, is largely a vector for status effects, whether it be Stun, knocking prone or for some builds grappling. The 4E Monk offers an extension of this core function with the likes of Water Whip. You'll also note that I said 4E shores up the general weakness, not that it makes it into a strength. It allows you not just to deal damage at range, but to be a Monk at range.

It's worth noting that many Disciplines that duplicate spells also fulfil this function; Thunderwave might not slay an entire mook-squad, but it will Push them around. Hold Person is comparable to a ranged Stunning Strike. Fly and Gaseous Form offer massive speed and infiltration enhancement, respectively. All of these are extensions of what it means to be a Monk, except used in a way that other Monks do not or cannot duplicate, just as other Ways offer enhancements that 4E doesn't.

Monks aren't great damage dealers as a rule (beyond the first couple of levels) and 4E doesn't offer a solution to this problem; so much is evident from the Disciplines available. It offers you similar effects to those you ordinarily use, but in two areas (at range and AoE) that the Monk otherwise doesn't fulfil its core function.

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

[JellyPooga]

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

While I don't disagree that 4E probably needs a bit of a bump in utility and versatility, I think it's unfair to compare them to EK/AT. While on the surface 4E resembles them by adding de facto spellcasting, the focus and mechanics are very different. As I mentioned in my last post, 4E is not exactly adding entirely new features to the Monk, but rather extending and modifying existing ones. Both EK and AT, largely speaking, add entirely new functions to their base Class. It's why, I figure, 4E has such a limited list of Disciplines; the focus is intentionally narrow to coincide with that core function of the base class. Whether that design decision is a good one or not, is moot and while I agree that it makes the 4E a little weak compared to other Ways, I do think it's a mistake to compare it to other subclasses that I don't think are designed to fulfill the same purpose.

[ImproperJustice]

I agree that the 4E Monk is trying to cover additional bases and shore up weak points. It just does it far worse than the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, though, because the design doesn’t consider the down sides of action economy or reliance on a secondary stat for your save DCs. It also falls down on the utility side due to the lack of options, especially at-will abilities.

From 6th-10th level you have only 3 options, one of which requires trading in your flavor cantrip. 1/3 casters know four spells and at least 2 cantrips at 6th level. Giving 4e Monks some elemental cantrips (Shape Water, control Flame) would go a long way towards improving the variety and fun factor.

The advantage 4e has over the EK and AT is not being chained to long rests.

So many EKs hold back on using their spells and such because they don’t know when that next break will happen.

4e has the mental freedom to spam their abilities far more often knowing recovery is only a short rest away.

[Satori01]

, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's .

Sharpshooter is actually a very good option for a monk.

Darts/Shuriken now have a 60 foot range with no disadvantage on the attack roll.

You ignore most cover penalties, so say attacking just the rider of a flying creature is viable.
When the Wizard has polymorphed a friendly into a flying creature and has an enemy grappling the friendly flyer in air, this feat allows you to “pick the nits of the friendly flyer”

All of the above of the above of course sets up the use of the -5/+10 hit/dmg portion of the feat.

A kensei, with a Kensei weapon is going to do D10 dmg at top tiers with their monk weapons, which could be Longbow or Darts/Shuriken.

2d10 +2x Dex+ 2d4+ potentially +20 from Sharpshooter, without spending any Ki points...at either 60’ range for darts or 600’ range with a bow...plus being able to re-roll a miss once (Kensei subclass power).

The Sharpshooter feat is very viable for a monk.

[Asisreo1]

Eh, most of this runs into the following issues:
1) Stunning Strike is dirt cheap. For the same 2 ki as Fist of Unbroken Air, you can potentially force two Con saves vs. a decent DC. Even if your target has, say, an 80% chance to pass those saves, spamming stunning strike would drop that to a 64% chance. Sure, you have to hit twice, but you get 3-4 attacks per round once you hit that level. Also, I'm unsure where you're getting your data on monsters having better Con scaling than Str or Dex scaling - care to share that source?
2) Stunning denies actions and gives all your allies advantage on their attacks (including ranged attackers) and makes the target automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saves and makes grapples automatically succeed. Meanwhile, knocking someone prone helps out your melee allies and utterly screws over your ranged allies (who now have disadvantage on their attack rolls).
3) It's true that Monks aren't good grapplers, but why would they need to be? If you want to knock people over, go Open Hand and potentially force two saves against going prone per round.
4) Sure, Stunning Strike requires you to hit with your attack, but... you have 3-4 attacks per round. Even if you only have a 50% chance of hitting with a given attack, you'd only have a 12.5% chance of missing with all of them if you don't flurry, and a 6.25% chance of missing if you do flurry.

However, I do agree that Stunning Strike's importance can be over-emphasized by these forums. Given the kinds of complaints I see about the Monk, I sometimes wonder if people had one bad experience with the class and swore it off forever, or just never actually played it and are going off the numbers.

Here's the thing with action economy and stunning strike: You're only ever going to have 2-3 rounds a combat encounter if it's lengthy and you're assumed to only have roughly 2 combats per short rest. Factoring in the fact that stunning mooks like a goblin or kobold isn't really a priority, there's going to be some rounds where it's just worth doing 2 Ki to AoE big guaranteed damage like burning hands rather than 1 Ki for a flurry of blows.

Sometimes you won't be in the right position to use stunning strike. If you're not in melee, you'll have to use whatever attack method at range for the entire turn. If you don't attack your turn, you can't use stunning strike, either.

Proning makes the target more eligible to be stunning striked. Of course, if they're flying, they'll never really engage with the monk's melee enough to be stunning striked anyways.

You're not really running out of Ki points that often, though. Stunning Strike is good for a single monster encounter but everything is good against a single monster. AoE is great for multiple creatures.

[Zuras]

Sharpshooter is actually a very good option for a monk.

Darts/Shuriken now have a 60 foot range with no disadvantage on the attack roll.

You ignore most cover penalties, so say attacking just the rider of a flying creature is viable.
When the Wizard has polymorphed a friendly into a flying creature and has an enemy grappling the friendly flyer in air, this feat allows you to “pick the nits of the friendly flyer”

All of the above of the above of course sets up the use of the -5/+10 hit/dmg portion of the feat.

A kensei, with a Kensei weapon is going to do D10 dmg at top tiers with their monk weapons, which could be Longbow or Darts/Shuriken.

2d10 +2x Dex+ 2d4+ potentially +20 from Sharpshooter, without spending any Ki points...at either 60’ range for darts or 600’ range with a bow...plus being able to re-roll a miss once (Kensei subclass power).

The Sharpshooter feat is very viable for a monk.

It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

[MaxWilson]

The point is that "marginally worse" than "already under average" is "pretty bad".

Your standard Monk has access to Extra Attack at lvl.5 and 1d6 (base damage) ranged weapons. This is pretty bad and that's about as good as it gets for the Monk. Yes, certain Monks might have slightly better weapon availability (e.g. Wood Elf), but without any support from the likes of Archery Fighting Style, Hex or Sneak Attack, they have very little incentive to invest in the likes of Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter to improve it, especially given MADness eating up ASI's and the much greater support their Class offers for melee. Comparing a 5th level Wood Elf Monks base ranged damage with a longbow to a Warlocks Eldritch Blast is not a fair comparison of Ranged proficiency; largely speaking the very best that the Monk can possibly achieve is still worse than the base line of the Warlock. That is neither a fair comparison or any indication that Monks are in any way competent at range.

"Almost as good as the second-best ranged blaster" isn't bad at all. Barbarians, Paladins, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and especially Bards and Druids are far worse. I don't know why you're singling out the monk for special denigration here--they're relatively good at ranged combat. (No build specialization needed or encouraged.)

Having Dexterity as a primary stat and proficiency in short bows makes the Monk pretty competent at ranged combat. I’d argue that you’re looking at the Monk's ability to specialize in ranged combat, which is admittedly minimal outside of the Kensei. A monk will never prefer an archery duel to punching you in the face, but they fare much better than Barbarians, Paladins and STR fighters.

Remember the expression a new 5e player makes when they realize their shiny Paladin is stuck chucking javelins at a flying enemy, or when the party wants to sneak somewhere and they realize they have a 10 Dex and disadvantage on stealth? That’s a class weakness. Monks aren’t weak at range, they’re just meh, and don’t have many (any?) resource efficient ways to make it a strength. Burning through their ki to make single save for half damage attacks doesn’t really turn it into a strength, though.

Yes, this exactly. Remember the context: we got here because we were discussing flying opponents like dragons and (in post #27) Oni. The monk is relatively well-off in this scenario compared to other classes and most monsters.

In general, if you're good enough at ranged combat that a Fire Giant wants to enter melee instead of chucking rocks, you're not bad at ranged combat.

I've seen plenty of Monks without a ranged weapon beyond a few darts and one that even had a bow that they never strung.

This explains so much about your posts in this thread.

It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

I agree with you overall about Sharpshooter (not worth it for non-Kensei monks), but RE: darts, if the DM says no to darts you'll just switch to shortbow and get more range and more damage.

[Amechra]

While I don't disagree that 4E probably needs a bit of a bump in utility and versatility, I think it's unfair to compare them to EK/AT. While on the surface 4E resembles them by adding de facto spellcasting, the focus and mechanics are very different. As I mentioned in my last post, 4E is not exactly adding entirely new features to the Monk, but rather extending and modifying existing ones. Both EK and AT, largely speaking, add entirely new functions to their base Class. It's why, I figure, 4E has such a limited list of Disciplines; the focus is intentionally narrow to coincide with that core function of the base class. Whether that design decision is a good one or not, is moot and while I agree that it makes the 4E a little weak compared to other Ways, I do think it's a mistake to compare it to other subclasses that I don't think are designed to fulfill the same purpose.

I honestly think the 4E Monk would have been better off if none of their disciplines mimicked spells. Then you wouldn't get that comparison to EK/AT in the first place. Or, alternatively, if they hadn't included it in the core rules, and instead put it in the Elemental Evils Player's Companion, so that it could have drawn spells from there.

Part of my problem with the subclass is that there doesn't really seem to be a good outline of how it's supposed to be special. Take the other magic-heavy core subclass - the Shadow Monk is blatantly supposed to be a stealthy scout/ninja. All four of the spells it gets (at 3rd level, mind you) are built around making you stealthier and making use of shadows. The 4E Monk doesn't really make those steps towards opening up a new role or redefining their old one - it's like the thought process when designing it started and ended with "they should have elemental powers!".

Or, to look at it in another way: a Shadow Monk can do things with their features that a spellcaster who focuses on shadow spells just plain can't. At-will invisibility and teleportation while in poor lighting isn't something that can be replicated by making appropriate spell choices, and the four spells they get are drawn from distinct spell lists¹ so that it'd be really hard to copy them spell-wise without bending over backwards. Meanwhile, every single spell that a 4E Monk can pick from is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list. And, at the same time, their unique disciplines are available from 3rd level, and consist of a mediocre cantrip replacer, three combat options, and one bit of kinda interesting utility.

¹ Darkness is a Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell, Darkvision is an Artificer/Druid/Ranger/Sorcerer/Wizard spell, Pass Without Trace is a Druid/Ranger spell, Silence is a Bard/Cleric/Ranger spell, and Minor Illusion is a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard spell.

Here's the thing with action economy and stunning strike: You're only ever going to have 2-3 rounds a combat encounter if it's lengthy and you're assumed to only have roughly 2 combats per short rest. Factoring in the fact that stunning mooks like a goblin or kobold isn't really a priority, there's going to be some rounds where it's just worth doing 2 Ki to AoE big guaranteed damage like burning hands rather than 1 Ki for a flurry of blows.

Sometimes you won't be in the right position to use stunning strike. If you're not in melee, you'll have to use whatever attack method at range for the entire turn. If you don't attack your turn, you can't use stunning strike, either.

Proning makes the target more eligible to be stunning striked. Of course, if they're flying, they'll never really engage with the monk's melee enough to be stunning striked anyways.

You're not really running out of Ki points that often, though. Stunning Strike is good for a single monster encounter but everything is good against a single monster. AoE is great for multiple creatures.

Believe me, I understand these things - I played a Monk from the start of Tier 2 to the midpoint of Tier 3. Also, you're responding to the wrong post - I'm not comparing Stunning Strike to AoEs at all, and I really don't know where you're getting that. I'm comparing Attack+Stunning Strike to Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip, and expressing my confusion at HiveStriker's argument vis-a-vis Prone vs. Stunned.

Like, I accept the whole "if you knock them prone, you'll have advantage on your attack rolls, helping you land more hits to proc Stunning Strike" idea, but once you've used FUA or WW, you can't make any more attacks that turn, and you don't have any features that would drop their speed and prevent them from standing up. If you want an enemy to be Prone so that you can apply your particular set of violent massage techniques to them, work with another party member.

Also, I will say that I really don't understand where the whole "if you aren't in melee" stuff is coming from. You're a Monk. By 6th level you have a +15ft bonus to all of your speeds, and you have Step of the Wind if you need to cross 90ft in a single round to punch someone. As far as flying creatures are concerned... flying is actually pretty easy for PCs to pick up once they're in Tier 2. Ignoring magic items, Fly is a 3rd level spell that's on most arcane lists, and the party Monk is a really good target for it.

It’s viable in that you get decent value if you take it, but Monks have a lot more pressure on their stats than a Fighter, and two fewer ASIs. Also, you need your DM to let you draw and throw the darts as part of your attack or you run out of darts in your hands quick.

If you're seriously looking at Sharpshooter on a Monk (probably because you're a Kensei), you don't need to care about Wisdom nearly as much as you would normally. Literally the only reason you'd care about having a decent Wisdom is so that your AC isn't terrible, and ranged characters can happily get away with having an AC of 14-16 (i.e. a Wisdom of 13). You also pretty much don't care about your saving throw DC (because the only thing that calls for it on the base Monk is Stunning Strike, which is melee only), and those are the only things the base Monk has that care about Wisdom.

[LudicSavant]

Since I'm sure pretty much everyone will be talking about the balance of 4E Monks, I'll address something else.

17th level
As solely damage dealing spells, Cone of Cold and Wall of Fire just aren't cutting the cheese at this level. Stoneskin could be a decentish choice if it were effective against magical attacks, but it's not. So that leaves Wall of Stone. It's no Wall of Force or Forcecage, but it's still pretty solid (pun intended). I'd appreciate any tips on using it.

Okay, here's a tip for Wall of Stone: You know how Wall of Stone gives you a save against being enclosed?

It requires them to use their Reaction. If it's baited out for any reason (they counterspelled someone, you "accidentally" left yourself open to an OA, whatever), you can just lock them right up.

You also might be able to make a shape that they simply don't have enough movement speed to escape even if they make the save and can use the reaction.

You can also use your short rest schedule to build permanent structures with Wall of Stone (by concentrating to the full duration, then refreshing your ki).

There's an additional trick for Evokers, in that they can use Wall of Stone to give their allies Reaction moves, almost like they were doubling as a Glamour Bard while casting a powerful Wall spell.

Do note that in order to cast the spell it must be "solidly supported by existing stone."

[JellyPooga]

"Almost as good as the second-best ranged blaster" isn't bad at all.

I contend this statement, because Monks are by no means almost as good as a warlock. I'll say it again; yes, they have decent dex, but they don't have anywhere near the support to capitalise on it.

2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

There's a reason I've seen a lot of Monks that simply don't use ranged weapons and it's because while they're not bad at it, per se, neither is it an attractive or interesting option for them, let alone a powerful one.

@Amechra: I agree that Disciplines shouldn't have mimicked spells. I think the Dev team got lazy and it shows.

[MaxWilson]

There's an additional trick for Evokers, in that they can use Wall of Stone to give their allies Reaction moves, almost like they were doubling as a Glamour Bard while casting a powerful Wall spell.

Hey, that's pretty clever! Nice find.

2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

I really wish you would stay on topic and stop moving the goalposts. Now you're trying to change the subject to Tier 3 when we are explicitly discussing Tiers 1-2 (because it's already been stipulated that monk ranged attacks fall off in Tier 3 and Fireball comes online). In actual play as opposed to theorycrafting, Hex doesn't get used much IME (and forum discussions support that this is not just me) because it's a poor use of concentration, and for pure warlocks also a poor use of spell slots.

That leaves you with:

2(1d8+dex) at level 5 is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to beingis "almost as good".

Once again, in context, the key point is that the monk is better in Tier 1-2 ranged combat than most other classes, and is good enough to encourage opponents to close to melee range if they can.

[ImproperJustice]

I contend this statement, because Monks are by no means almost as good as a warlock. I'll say it again; yes, they have decent dex, but they don't have anywhere near the support to capitalise on it.

2(1d8+dex) is the best a Monk can reasonably expect without building specifically for improved ranged capability and doesn't get even that until level 5 and by being a specific Race. A Warlock has 2(1d10+1d6+Cha) at level 5 and improves from there, let alone considering it's more limited resources beyond just Hex. Monk isn't even close to being "almost as good".

There's a reason I've seen a lot of Monks that simply don't use ranged weapons and it's because while they're not bad at it, per se, neither is it an attractive or interesting option for them, let alone a powerful one.

@Amechra: I agree that Disciplines shouldn't have mimicked spells. I think the Dev team got lazy and it shows.

Eeeh, just because I am a Monk, I don’t feel compelled to be in melee.

If I see a T-Rex I would much rather run / fly 90’ around it and plink it to death than charge straight in and get eaten just like that Open Hand Monk just did.....

Different play-styles I assume.