New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 201
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozenstep View Post
    1 ki per stunning strike attempt. Monks are kind of strange because their role changes as they get more ki or based on what enemy they fight. Flurry is initially a decent nova ability, but eventually the lack of magic item support for unarmed attacks hurts your accuracy and damage even with scaling martial arts. Stunning strike is either amazing or useless depending on what kind of con modifier your enemies are rocking.
    Hmm, don't know why I thought it was 2 ki, but it's been a while since I played one. That definitely helps their power but until then I still feel they are one of the weakest classes in the game

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    If I wanted to optimize 2 weapon fighting, I'd take variant human and take the feat from the getgo to leverage the feat support.
    Which nets you 2 more damage before level 5, at which point you're barely ahead, while the monk could do the same thing to get mobile which provides a ton of hard-to-compare value (but enemies being forced to take opportunity attacks to try to attack you is the main thing). Or take a flying race to get to hard-to-reach spots and get over any terrain that would stop a variant human in their tracks.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozenstep View Post
    Will they? The dual wielder feat is worse in every way compared to just using your ASI to bump your dexterity by 2,
    The main point that monks outdamage TWF is on point. But this statement misses the point and/or is not correct.

    Whats not correct: for a Str dual wielder who already has med armor and Dex 14 or heavy armor, Dual Wielder is superior to raosing dexterity by 2.

    The point that you've missed: Dual Wielder feat isn't designed to benefit Dex dual wielders.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    Hmm, don't know why I thought it was 2 ki, but it's been a while since I played one. That definitely helps their power but until then I still feel they are one of the weakest classes in the game
    They're a skirmishing class. You shouldn't be using Patient Defense in non-emergency situations, because you're not generally going to be the focus of melee attacks (ranged attacks kinda stop being a massive problem at 3rd level, thanks to Deflect Missiles). You should be moving in, smacking them a little, then running away. If you play them correctly, you're unlikely to run out of ki after 6th level or so.

    Monks are really good buff targets, too, due to their high potential number of attacks. Cast Alter Self on a spear-wielding Monk and they'll happily outpace a TWFer. Or, if you have access to the Class Features UA, dip a level in Fighter for the Unarmed Fighting fighting style and be happy with your d8 fists that you can make better use of than the Fighter ever could.

    Are they top-tier? Not particularly, no. But I'd rather have a poorly-played Monk in my party than a poorly-played Bard.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    If you see me try to discuss the nitty-gritty of D&D 5e, kindly point me to my signature and remind me that I shouldn't. Please and thank you!

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    The main point that monks outdamage TWF is on point. But this statement misses the point and/or is not correct.

    Whats not correct: for a Str dual wielder who already has med armor and Dex 14 or heavy armor, Dual Wielder is superior to raosing dexterity by 2.

    The point that you've missed: Dual Wielder feat isn't designed to benefit Dex dual wielders.
    That's true, I completely left strength-based dual wielders out of my argument, I should have specified.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    If I wanted to optimize 2 weapon fighting, I'd take variant human and take the feat from the getgo to leverage the feat support.
    Just to be clear "feat support" is a single feat whose biggest benefit for the style's damage is letting you uprgrade a single die level. The +1 AC is nice, but does nothing for the damage which you keep talking about.

    I admit, it isn't like monks get a lot of amazing feats only they can take advantage of, but you are putting an awful lot of focus on this one aspect.

    In fact, I think the point that you have to compare a fighting style and a feat to a single feature of the monk class, is grounds that it is actually a pretty darn decent feature.

    And a staff wielding monk could leverage "feat support" to take Polearm master and get a reliable reaction attack as well. Or a shortsword monk could use "feat support" for defensive duelist to reaction improve their AC. So this really ends up seeming to show in their favor no matter how you slice it.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    Just to be clear "feat support" is a single feat whose biggest benefit for the style's damage is letting you uprgrade a single die level. The +1 AC is nice, but does nothing for the damage which you keep talking about.

    I admit, it isn't like monks get a lot of amazing feats only they can take advantage of, but you are putting an awful lot of focus on this one aspect.

    In fact, I think the point that you have to compare a fighting style and a feat to a single feature of the monk class, is grounds that it is actually a pretty darn decent feature.

    And a staff wielding monk could leverage "feat support" to take Polearm master and get a reliable reaction attack as well. Or a shortsword monk could use "feat support" for defensive duelist to reaction improve their AC. So this really ends up seeming to show in their favor no matter how you slice it.
    I don't see how polearm master adds anything for the Monk besides the OA. You're just replacing the martial arts bonus action attack with a weapon butt attack which will never improve from 1d4+ mod. Defensive duelist is fine but doesn't add anything offensively.

    This feat talk wasn't meant to be the main topic. I was just trying to point out the monks sub par offense, at least early on. But this wouldn't be a problem if their defense wasn't sub par as well.

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    I don't see how polearm master adds anything for the Monk besides the OA. You're just replacing the martial arts bonus action attack with a weapon butt attack which will never improve from 1d4+ mod. Defensive duelist is fine but doesn't add anything offensively.

    This feat talk wasn't meant to be the main topic. I was just trying to point out the monks sub par offense, at least early on. But this wouldn't be a problem if their defense wasn't sub par as well.
    But that is my point.

    You are saying they are subpar offensively, and have to use a fighting style and a feat to "prove" that.

    Sure, dual-wielding isn't the most highly regarded path for damage, but if you need the feat and the style, and you are still only 1.5 or so above the damage the monk is doing from their single feature with no ki used... I think the monk is doing fine.

    Would you say that the Sword and Board fighter with Defensive has subpar damage? They only get a single attack with 1d8+mod. Sure, they get 19 AC, which is likely 3 points higher than the Monk's AC, but the monk has invested no different abilities or stats. They get the AC benefit, the damage benefit, the mobility benefit, and they start getting options to do other things as they move on. And the Dual Wielder is likely only at 18 AC if they are dex based, max dex, and have the feat. A monk with max dex and +3 wis... also has 18 AC.

    Want your fighter using battle dice to knock prone? Open Hand monk does the same thing, or they can push, or they can remove reactions.

    I won't say Monk's are better than fighters in whatever aspect the fighter chooses to specialize in, but they don't specialize, they get all their benefits and can work as a great switch hitter, laying damage with decent AC, near unmatched mobility, and a bunch of other tricks.

    So, with zero feats, and a just what they get at level 1. A monk can match the damage of a dual-wielder with style and feat, investing in Dex and Wis can get their AC to match a fighter in full plate with a shield, while still keeping up with the Dual-Wield damage. And this is ignoring everything except level 1 abilities. Sure, it takes time and hardship to get there, but they never lose out on a different option. They generally get all their options.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    This feat talk wasn't meant to be the main topic. I was just trying to point out the monks sub par offense, at least early on. But this wouldn't be a problem if their defense wasn't sub par as well.
    Didn't I just make a chart showing monk's damage isn't subpar early on, even if they aren't using ki? Let's throw in greatsword fighter, for the hell of it. Note it does average 8.33 damage because I'll assume the fighting style, and that's the average after accounting for that.

    Level 1 TWF fighter: two short sword attacks, (1d6+3) * 2 for 13 average damage.
    Level 1 TWF fighter with duel wielder feat and two rapiers: (1d8+3) * 2 for 15 average damage.
    Level 1 Greatsword fighter: One greatsword attack (8.3+3) for 11.3 average damage.
    Level 1 Monk: One quarterstaff and one unarmed: (1d8+3) + (1d4+3) = for 13 average damage.

    At level 4, take +2 dexterity or +2 strength.

    Level 4 TWF fighter: two short sword attacks, (1d6+4) * 2 for 15 average damage.
    Level 4 TWF with feat: (1d8+4) * 2 for 17 average damage.
    Level 4 Greatsword fighter: One greatsword attack (8.3+4) for 12.3 average damage.
    Level 4 Monk: One quarterstaff and one unarmed: (1d8+4) + (1d4+4) = for 15 average damage.

    Level 5 TWF fighter: three short sword attacks, (1d6+4) * 3 for 22.5 average damage.
    Level 5 TWF with feat: (1d8+4) * 3 for 25.5 average damage
    Level 5 Greatsword fighter: Two greatsword attacks (8.3+4) * 2 for 24.6 average damage.
    Level 5 Monk: Two quarterstaff and one unarmed: (1d8+4) * 2 + (1d6+4) = for 24.5 average damage.

    Doesn't look subpar to me. Fairly competitive, actually, which is fair for a class that then throws in more offense when needed or can go on the defensive in need be.
    Last edited by Frozenstep; 2019-12-02 at 08:37 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    But that is my point.

    You are saying they are subpar offensively, and have to use a fighting style and a feat to "prove" that.

    Sure, dual-wielding isn't the most highly regarded path for damage, but if you need the feat and the style, and you are still only 1.5 or so above the damage the monk is doing from their single feature with no ki used... I think the monk is doing fine.

    Would you say that the Sword and Board fighter with Defensive has subpar damage? They only get a single attack with 1d8+mod. Sure, they get 19 AC, which is likely 3 points higher than the Monk's AC, but the monk has invested no different abilities or stats. They get the AC benefit, the damage benefit, the mobility benefit, and they start getting options to do other things as they move on. And the Dual Wielder is likely only at 18 AC if they are dex based, max dex, and have the feat. A monk with max dex and +3 wis... also has 18 AC.

    Want your fighter using battle dice to knock prone? Open Hand monk does the same thing, or they can push, or they can remove reactions.

    I won't say Monk's are better than fighters in whatever aspect the fighter chooses to specialize in, but they don't specialize, they get all their benefits and can work as a great switch hitter, laying damage with decent AC, near unmatched mobility, and a bunch of other tricks.

    So, with zero feats, and a just what they get at level 1. A monk can match the damage of a dual-wielder with style and feat, investing in Dex and Wis can get their AC to match a fighter in full plate with a shield, while still keeping up with the Dual-Wield damage. And this is ignoring everything except level 1 abilities. Sure, it takes time and hardship to get there, but they never lose out on a different option. They generally get all their options.
    I'm trying to compare the early Monk fully loaded to other early melee classes, fully loaded. You seem to think that because the fighter had to use a fighting style and a feat to make their damage is somehow not a fair comparison because the Monk did not use a fighting style or feat. The fact these other melee classes get feats and fighting styles to augment their power and the Monk does not is the point. The Monk gets a very slowly progressing martial arts die which just isn't as good early on as the other melees. Why would I want to compare to a fighter that's not fully loaded? What even marginally optimized fighter wouldn't take a fighting style or a feat if it goes with their concept and helps their offensive and or defensive power.

    Yes the sword and board fighter offensively is below average, but it's counterbalanced by a superb defense. Monks offense is definitely better than the S&B fighter, but I submit to you that the Monk is still behind offensively, maybe not as much as the S&B, but still behind, but they don't have a defense to counterbalance it. A 16 AC with a d8 hit die is far below other melees.

    So in a nutshell, in the early game, fully loaded Monk compared to other fully loaded melees, the other classes may either be better defensively but worse offensively or vice versa, or even better in both, but none are worse in both offense and defense compared to monks. That's why I feel they are one of the weakest if not the weakest class in the early game.

    I am not arguing about the viability of monks in the later game. My premise has always been that the Monk is weak in the early tiers. They're decent later when they get more abilities and a bigger ki pool.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    SNIP
    It's my understanding (and anyone who wants to correct me on this feel free) that Monks are actually pretty strong offensively early on, hinging mostly on the fact that they have a built in bonus action attack that adds their ability mod, something that takes investment for another build. It's actually later that they usually fall off in damage because instead of getting features that grant them more damage dice they're filled to the brim with features that make them more versatile instead.

    The slow progression of their Martial Arts die is what makes them worse (comparatively and in regards to their DPR) later on, not better. It's slow, meaning they're often outscaled by Fighters getting more attacks, Rogues constantly getting more sneak attack dice and Paladin's who get larger spell slots to smite with. More dice is generally better for damage than larger dice, Monks start early on able to throw out a lot of dice.

    So I don't think I really agree with your conclusion here, Monks aren't below (or far enough below) the curve at early levels to warrant being called "weak" offensively.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    I'm trying to compare the early Monk fully loaded to other early melee classes, fully loaded. You seem to think that because the fighter had to use a fighting style and a feat to make their damage is somehow not a fair comparison because the Monk did not use a fighting style or feat. The fact these other melee classes get feats and fighting styles to augment their power and the Monk does not is the point. The Monk gets a very slowly progressing martial arts die which just isn't as good early on as the other melees. Why would I want to compare to a fighter that's not fully loaded? What even marginally optimized fighter wouldn't take a fighting style or a feat if it goes with their concept and helps their offensive and or defensive power.
    Okay, let's try this again.

    First of all the part I bolded, I think you are misunderstanding the argument.

    The Fighter only gets a feat that the Monk doesn't by 6th level. Before that point they are progressing at the same rate in terms of feats. To get a feat before 4th level, you have to go V. Human.

    I'm going to assume you realize that and are instead saying that Dual-Wielding Fighters can choose to take a feat while Monks have no feat to increase their damage directly. Because, I cannot argue that there is a "Monk Fighting Better" feat.

    But, that is not what I am trying to say with the argument.

    Let's make two 1st level characters.

    V Human Fighter, with Dual Wielder feat, two Swords, and Chain Mail. Main Stat 16.

    They have an AC of 17 (chain plus Dual Wield Feat), disadvantage on stealth checks, and hit for 2d8+6, So, about 15 damage a turn.

    Monk, either Wood Elf or V. Human with a feat that grants them either a bonus to dex or wisdom.

    They have an Ac of 16 (wis and dex 16 each), no disadvantage on stealth checks, and hit for 1d8+1d4+6, So about 13 damage a turn.

    So. A fully kitted out, with a feat and best possible weapons, fighter has +1 AC and +2 damage on average over a Wood Elf monk with nothing else. I could even go human, and get a feat of my own, and if it has the proper bonus I don't even lose AC. This monk is not "fully kitted out", it is bog standard.

    Come level 4, what can this fighter do to become a better dual-wielder? Not much of anything. They can raise a stat to 18, that's about it.

    So, let's do that. Both the Wood Elf and the V. Human raise their stat to 18.

    Our Fighter still has an Ac of 17, disadvantage on stealth, they still hit twice but now it is 2d8+8, or about 17 damage.

    The Monk raises their AC to 17 as well, still no disadvantage, they hit twice for 1d8+1d4+8, or about 15.

    So, the Monk has now caught up in AC, but is still 2 damage behind... as long as they don't use Ki. On a turn they use Ki they can bump that up by an additional 1d4+4 with Flurry. An extra 6 damage which pushes them to 21. Of course the Fighter can Action surge once, compared to four potential uses of ki that can also be used to defend, and if the fighter action surges they get an additional 1d8+4, or 8, popping them back to 2 damage up.


    And level 5... things get interesting. Extra attack.

    Fighter, still at 17 AC (maybe they've bought better armor by this point, Splint is only 200 gold, but I'm keeping it to the same equipment throughout) and now they get three attacks, 3d8+12, a highly respectable 25 damage on average.

    The monk, well, also at 17 AC, and also with three attacks now. 2d8+1d6+12 or 24 damage... now only 1 point behind the fighter.

    And when we compare a single flurry (which is cheaper now, because they have more Ki) to the Single Action surge, the fighter comes ahead. They get 2d8+8 instead of the monks 1d6+4, but that still only puts them 11 points above the monk.


    And, I will admit, by 6th level the Fighter could bump their stat to a 20, and pull ahead for a bit.


    So, yes, the fully kitted out V. Human Dual Wielder with their entire offensive loadout... is about 2 points of damage ahead of a bog standard Wood Elf monk with nothing else.

    And the monk keeps getting better, their damage keeps rising, and we have not talked about any of their other features.

    That is the point I am trying to make. You have a fighter with all their offensive bells and whistles blaring, and it is only two points ahead on average to a bog standard, no bells and whistles monk

    2 points, and you claim they are the weakest class because of it. Because you can build a V. Human fighter from level 1 that can match what they do naturally.

    And without that Feat? The fighters damage equals the monks... and then they take the feat at 4, but they don't get the bump to damage from their mod increasing. So, AC and damage match if the fighter has to take the feat at level 4 instead of one, until they hit level 6 and can increase their stat.

    So, any race except V. Human equals the monk with the build you are proposing.

    This is why saying their offense is "subpar" makes no sense. You have to have a specific build that takes the biggest offensive buff it can at level 1 to come out ahead.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    So in a nutshell, in the early game, fully loaded Monk compared to other fully loaded melees, the other classes may either be better defensively but worse offensively or vice versa, or even better in both, but none are worse in both offense and defense compared to monks. That's why I feel they are one of the weakest if not the weakest class in the early game.

    I am not arguing about the viability of monks in the later game. My premise has always been that the Monk is weak in the early tiers. They're decent later when they get more abilities and a bigger ki pool.
    But, you are missing the point of the comparison.

    The Sword and Board fighter is doing less damage, but has better AC.

    The Dual Wield is about even with them in AC and Damage.

    A Raging Barbarian is behind them in Damage and maybe equal in AC.

    A monk is right in the middle of the pack, offensively and defensively, with the same build. Monk's do not have to decide "do I give up offense for defense" in their passive numbers. They get both in equal amount and increasing one automatically increases the other. They sacrifice nothing except if they want to use Ki to get a far better defense (disadvantage is considered around +/- 5, so the Monk would have an effective 22 AC that round) or a great offense, and again, choosing one does not prevent them from using the other later in the same fight.

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    I wouldn't call the lance not one's 'real' weapon, but yes one had to be ready to leave you lance behind in your first opponent. Of course, the complex interplay of different weapons, how they are used, and what opposition forces they were good/bad against was something that was included in the earliest of D&Ds and people seemed to have responded with a resounding ignore. That, plus the real world doesn't have +1 lances that the PCs will hate to lose or leave unattended.
    A "realistic" knight lance would probably have disadvantage baked in, break or get dropped on contact, and auto-crit if used from mount-back during a charge. Which would actually be pretty cool if it didn't make the game so deadly at early levels. "The goblin on a dog instantly kills you, sorry."
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    Okay, let's try this again.

    First of all the part I bolded, I think you are misunderstanding the argument.

    The Fighter only gets a feat that the Monk doesn't by 6th level. Before that point they are progressing at the same rate in terms of feats. To get a feat before 4th level, you have to go V. Human.

    I'm going to assume you realize that and are instead saying that Dual-Wielding Fighters can choose to take a feat while Monks have no feat to increase their damage directly. Because, I cannot argue that there is a "Monk Fighting Better" feat.

    But, that is not what I am trying to say with the argument.

    Let's make two 1st level characters.

    V Human Fighter, with Dual Wielder feat, two Swords, and Chain Mail. Main Stat 16.

    They have an AC of 17 (chain plus Dual Wield Feat), disadvantage on stealth checks, and hit for 2d8+6, So, about 15 damage a turn.

    Monk, either Wood Elf or V. Human with a feat that grants them either a bonus to dex or wisdom.

    They have an Ac of 16 (wis and dex 16 each), no disadvantage on stealth checks, and hit for 1d8+1d4+6, So about 13 damage a turn.

    So. A fully kitted out, with a feat and best possible weapons, fighter has +1 AC and +2 damage on average over a Wood Elf monk with nothing else. I could even go human, and get a feat of my own, and if it has the proper bonus I don't even lose AC. This monk is not "fully kitted out", it is bog standard.

    Come level 4, what can this fighter do to become a better dual-wielder? Not much of anything. They can raise a stat to 18, that's about it.

    So, let's do that. Both the Wood Elf and the V. Human raise their stat to 18.

    Our Fighter still has an Ac of 17, disadvantage on stealth, they still hit twice but now it is 2d8+8, or about 17 damage.

    The Monk raises their AC to 17 as well, still no disadvantage, they hit twice for 1d8+1d4+8, or about 15.

    So, the Monk has now caught up in AC, but is still 2 damage behind... as long as they don't use Ki. On a turn they use Ki they can bump that up by an additional 1d4+4 with Flurry. An extra 6 damage which pushes them to 21. Of course the Fighter can Action surge once, compared to four potential uses of ki that can also be used to defend, and if the fighter action surges they get an additional 1d8+4, or 8, popping them back to 2 damage up.


    And level 5... things get interesting. Extra attack.

    Fighter, still at 17 AC (maybe they've bought better armor by this point, Splint is only 200 gold, but I'm keeping it to the same equipment throughout) and now they get three attacks, 3d8+12, a highly respectable 25 damage on average.

    The monk, well, also at 17 AC, and also with three attacks now. 2d8+1d6+12 or 24 damage... now only 1 point behind the fighter.

    And when we compare a single flurry (which is cheaper now, because they have more Ki) to the Single Action surge, the fighter comes ahead. They get 2d8+8 instead of the monks 1d6+4, but that still only puts them 11 points above the monk.


    And, I will admit, by 6th level the Fighter could bump their stat to a 20, and pull ahead for a bit.


    So, yes, the fully kitted out V. Human Dual Wielder with their entire offensive loadout... is about 2 points of damage ahead of a bog standard Wood Elf monk with nothing else.

    And the monk keeps getting better, their damage keeps rising, and we have not talked about any of their other features.

    That is the point I am trying to make. You have a fighter with all their offensive bells and whistles blaring, and it is only two points ahead on average to a bog standard, no bells and whistles monk

    2 points, and you claim they are the weakest class because of it. Because you can build a V. Human fighter from level 1 that can match what they do naturally.

    And without that Feat? The fighters damage equals the monks... and then they take the feat at 4, but they don't get the bump to damage from their mod increasing. So, AC and damage match if the fighter has to take the feat at level 4 instead of one, until they hit level 6 and can increase their stat.

    So, any race except V. Human equals the monk with the build you are proposing.

    This is why saying their offense is "subpar" makes no sense. You have to have a specific build that takes the biggest offensive buff it can at level 1 to come out ahead.





    But, you are missing the point of the comparison.

    The Sword and Board fighter is doing less damage, but has better AC.

    The Dual Wield is about even with them in AC and Damage.

    A Raging Barbarian is behind them in Damage and maybe equal in AC.

    A monk is right in the middle of the pack, offensively and defensively, with the same build. Monk's do not have to decide "do I give up offense for defense" in their passive numbers. They get both in equal amount and increasing one automatically increases the other. They sacrifice nothing except if they want to use Ki to get a far better defense (disadvantage is considered around +/- 5, so the Monk would have an effective 22 AC that round) or a great offense, and again, choosing one does not prevent them from using the other later in the same fight.
    Yes I know how many feats Monk and fighters get. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that monks don't have any meaningful feats to increase their damage. In general monks don't benefit as much from feats as fighters, not just in number but in actual benefit because monks get most of their meaningful stuff from their class abilities.

    I appreciate the thorough breakdown which basically shows what I'm trying to say. The Monk is behind in both damage output and AC, not by much but behind. This is not 3.5 where builds can be miles apart. 5e is much more balanced and that's why even a few points difference... makes a difference. And the way that monks change that difference is by using their very limited ki, which is in my opinion the problem, too little early on.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    Yes I know how many feats Monk and fighters get. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that monks don't have any meaningful feats to increase their damage. In general monks don't benefit as much from feats as fighters, not just in number but in actual benefit because monks get most of their meaningful stuff from their class abilities.

    I appreciate the thorough breakdown which basically shows what I'm trying to say. The Monk is behind in both damage output and AC, not by much but behind. This is not 3.5 where builds can be miles apart. 5e is much more balanced and that's why even a few points difference... makes a difference. And the way that monks change that difference is by using their very limited ki, which is in my opinion the problem, too little early on.
    I will agree, not many "monk specific" feats.

    Not a lot of class specific feats in general.


    But, A single point of AC and 2 points of damage does not toss them into "the weakest class at early levels"

    Heck, Barbarian.

    Barbarian Half-Orc, Double 16 stat. They have an AC of 14 and with a greatsword only deal 2d6+5 (rage) for an average of 12 damage. That is 2 AC and 1 damage behind even the monk.

    And, without something like Great Weapon Master, they are going to be only tying the monk by level 5. If the monk chooses not to flurry.

    And trust me, while I know a lot of people who look to rage reduction and call barbarians nigh unstoppable, that Hp vanishes fast if they don't have support.

    So, I just don't see it. They are not "the weakest" they can't take a feat that catapults them into the highest tiers of damage either, but things like mobile or PAM can offer them a lot of versatility. Heck, Wood Elf magic isn't a bad choice for the Wood Elf monk, giving the a Druid cantrip which offers them a ranged option, longstrider to increase their mobility even higher, and pass without a trace which is one of the best exploration buffs in the game. Doesn't help DPR, but they are fine at DPR with no help. Average is not the weakest.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzun View Post
    Yes I know how many feats Monk and fighters get. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that monks don't have any meaningful feats to increase their damage. In general monks don't benefit as much from feats as fighters, not just in number but in actual benefit because monks get most of their meaningful stuff from their class abilities.

    I appreciate the thorough breakdown which basically shows what I'm trying to say. The Monk is behind in both damage output and AC, not by much but behind. This is not 3.5 where builds can be miles apart. 5e is much more balanced and that's why even a few points difference... makes a difference. And the way that monks change that difference is by using their very limited ki, which is in my opinion the problem, too little early on.
    You say the problem is early on, but then can only point to builds that require variant human because otherwise they don't have the feats they need early on to boost their damage past a monk (and then can only get a point or two ahead). Are fighters that aren't variant humans also weak offensively early on?

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    You've mostly got it. Class is cool and fun in tier 1 and 2 and quickly starts to suck in tier 3 and 4.

    Try to really analyze the power of the monk through the way it's features crystallize:
    Tier 1: good damage and moderate AC with constant and free bonus action attacks. Expendable resource system to trade bonus action attack for dash, disengage or DODGE (this becomes a big deal with lots of weak enemies).
    Scaling utility and defense already taking root; deflect missiles and slow fall.


    Tier 2: Damage begins to fall off a bit in that it starts coming closer to other martials that don't use GWM/SS but utility rises substantially; stunning strike at 5, evasion and stillness of mind at 7 and capping out with wall running and poison/disease immunity. All the early tier 1 trends are the same: keep enhancing mobility with cool defensive options.


    Tier 3 is where the Monk starts declining. Other martials have increased their damage (fighter, rogue, paladin, barbarian slightly) but the monk has stagnated. Stunning strike is quickly growing obsolete as higher and higher con saves become more and more abundant. Your middling AC has improved from 16 to 19 (without magic gear) improving only to 20 by the very end of tier 3 but creature attack bonus has gone from +2-5 into +7-14. 2 out of 3 class features amount to ribbons and only at level 14 do you feel like you've gotten unique and useful for the tier (discounting ASI's). Speaking of ASI's, the other SAD classes get to start taking feats, but you're stuck either boosting your Dex, Wis, or getting a feat but taking a hit to a stat you need. You must either play at range and be a bit cagey or wait for squishy targets to present themselves. The old hyper-scaling monk of old would begin hitting their stride here but you've fallen behind. Stunning strike works sometimes but you have to be willing to aggressively burn Ki. You've got 4-6 rounds of combat before you'll want your hour long break. At least you can run kinda fast...

    Tier 4 kicks in and even then you must wait one more level to get Empty Body so you can finally stand toe to toe with big baddies. Con saves of >+10 all over the place. You also get your first feat at level 19! Congrats...I guess? Your unarmed strikes don't have any hit or damage boosts the way other martials have on weapons so you'll probably try and avoid using them. +30ft of movement....hurray! Maybe spam 5 Ki per round to flurry and go for 4 stunning strikes in the hopes you can stun that big bad. Nice capstone *snicker* you should've multiclassed Rogue after level 8....
    Last edited by TheUser; 2019-12-03 at 01:27 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by bid View Post
    Mage armor is no better than Wis16, you don't gain anything.
    Maybe try and think of what I meant before saying that? ^^
    If you followed the thread you may have seen (I hope at least) the post where I detailed on much, or not, Monks wants high DEX and/or WIS depending on archetypes and playstyle/role focus. :)

    "Starting DEX + Elven Accuracy" -> AC 17 at level 4 (18 DEX) and AC 18 at level 8 (20 DEX) while maximizing weapon attacks. Not great for some archetypes, but great for a Kensei, Shadow, possibly Drunken or some 4E/Sun Soul that can be very viable putting focus on everything else than Stunning Strike (which also means you could boost CON a bit instead of WIS).
    You can still boost WIS later if you wish so and end with a reasonable 16 or 18.
    Last edited by HiveStriker; 2019-12-03 at 06:36 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by HiveStriker View Post
    Maybe try and think of what I meant before saying that? ^^
    If you followed the thread you may have seen (I hope at least) the post where I detailed on much, or not, Monks wants high DEX and/or WIS depending on archetypes and playstyle/role focus. :)

    "Starting DEX + Elven Accuracy" -> AC 17 at level 4 (18 DEX) and AC 18 at level 8 (20 DEX) while maximizing weapon attacks. Not great for some archetypes, but great for a Kensei, Shadow, possibly Drunken or some 4E/Sun Soul that can be very viable putting focus on everything else than Stunning Strike (which also means you could boost CON a bit instead of WIS).
    You can still boost WIS later if you wish so and end with a reasonable 16 or 18.
    If you have 14 Wis, then Mage Armor only gives you +1 AC. That's still really not very worth it, and requires that other players sacrifice resources that are better spent elsewhere. Most of the time everyone'd be better off if the caster just used Faerie Fire or Bless or the like to boost everyone's offense. Sure Mage Armor lasts a long time and doesn't need concentration, but it's such a small benefit that it's still usually worse.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer



  20. - Top - End - #140
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    where South is East

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by HiveStriker View Post
    Maybe try and think of what I meant before saying that? ^^
    So, what do you gain by starting Wis14?
    Trust but verify. There's usually a reason why I believe you can't do something.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    If you have 14 Wis, then Mage Armor only gives you +1 AC. That's still really not very worth it, and requires that other players sacrifice resources that are better spent elsewhere. Most of the time everyone'd be better off if the caster just used Faerie Fire or Bless or the like to boost everyone's offense. Sure Mage Armor lasts a long time and doesn't need concentration, but it's such a small benefit that it's still usually worse.
    "Standard" Monk: Wood Elf, STR 8|10 / DEX 16 / CON 14 / INT 8|10 / WIS 16 / CHA 10. Starting AC, 16.
    Mobile, +2 DEX (AC 17), +2 WIS (AC 18), +2 DEX (AC 19), +2 WIS (AC 20).

    Kensei Monk, Sea Elf, STR 10 / DEX 17 / CON 16 / INT 10 / WIS 11 / CHA 10. Elven Accuracy (+DEX), +2 DEX, Observant (WIS), +2 WIS, +2 WIS. Balanced around late game planning (proficiency in saves without drawback, pumping WIS to get slightly better Stun to keep up) while giving a big boost in early survivability: +2 HP per level compared to "regular monk.
    Or completely ditch the idea of bumping WIS high.
    Mobile -> Elven Accuracy -> DEX, Observant (WIS), Ritual Caster/Mage Slayer/Alert/Magic Initiate/multiclass.

    Kensei Monk, Sea Elf, STR 10 / DEX 17 / CON 14 / INT 8 / WIS 13 / CHA 10: same concept, but less HP for slightly better Stun.

    Drunken Master Monk, Human, STR 12 / DEX 16 / CON 16 / INT 10 / WIS 13 / CHA 10: Prodigy (Athletics), +DEX, whatever else (+CON, Observant, +WIS, etc): Grapple enemies, butthead them, make them hit one another (Dodge + reaction), works fine until most creatures you face become Huge (which is fairly late): makes a fearsome tank.

    Shadow Monk with small dip in Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock for Darkness vision, Drow Elf, 8 / 17 / 14 / 8 / 12 / 15: Elven Accuracy (DEX or CHA), another feat that increase DEX or CHA (I don't gind DEX-improving feats great for a Monk though unless UA is on the table - Quick-fingers is a great pick for a Shadow Monk-), then whatever you like. You don't need more AC than that anyways, and you get Hold Person as an alternative against CON-resistant enemies if you want to branch out more.

    All those are perfectly fine, viable and efficient Monks, that, thanks on not relying that much in their WIS for AC, are free to develop original tactics or become better in their mundane turns.

    --------------

    Conversely, that one can work great too: Long Death Monk, Hill Dwarf, 15|14 / 10|12 / 17 / 8 / 15 / 8: Athletics proficiency from background, Grudge Bearer (WIS), Dwarven Fortitude (CON), any among (Durable (CON), +1CON+1STR), Grappler, Brawny (other way to get Athletics), Tough, +2 WIS. You don't care that much about your mediocre AC, because you'll spend so much time alternating Fear action and Extra Attack to Grapple and harm enemies, that between your high starting HP, your THP from reducing creature to 0HP, the disadvantage inflicted on every close by enemy with Fear, the cover you get from grappled enemy, the possible advantage from Shoving or Grappler, and the high enough mobility to catch any enemy on the field and yet find yourself a position that keeps you from being into too much threat...
    You'll be a powerhouse of tanking.
    Would work extremely good with Open Hand too. ^^

    -------------

    My point was: you never *need* to max both WIS and DEX. And if you don't want to focus on WIS, Mage Armor allows you to bump DEX solely to get good enough AC while redistributing those points in other areas. And either completely forget about having mid/high WIS, or waiting a much later point in progression to grab it.
    Last edited by HiveStriker; 2019-12-03 at 12:56 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by HiveStriker View Post
    "Standard" Monk: Wood Elf, STR 8|10 / DEX 16 / CON 14 / INT 8|10 / WIS 16 / CHA 10. Starting AC, 16.
    Mobile, +2 DEX (AC 17), +2 WIS (AC 18), +2 DEX (AC 19), +2 WIS (AC 20).

    Kensei Monk, Sea Elf, STR 10 / DEX 17 / CON 16 / INT 10 / WIS 11 / CHA 10. Elven Accuracy (+DEX), +2 DEX, Observant (WIS), +2 WIS, +2 WIS. Balanced around late game planning (proficiency in saves without drawback, pumping WIS to get slightly better Stun to keep up) while giving a big boost in early survivability: +2 HP per level compared to "regular monk.
    Or completely ditch the idea of bumping WIS high.
    Mobile -> Elven Accuracy -> DEX, Observant (WIS), Ritual Caster/Mage Slayer/Alert/Magic Initiate/multiclass.

    Kensei Monk, Sea Elf, STR 10 / DEX 17 / CON 14 / INT 8 / WIS 13 / CHA 10: same concept, but less HP for slightly better Stun.

    Drunken Master Monk, Human, STR 12 / DEX 16 / CON 16 / INT 10 / WIS 13 / CHA 10: Prodigy (Athletics), +DEX, whatever else (+CON, Observant, +WIS, etc): Grapple enemies, butthead them, make them hit one another (Dodge + reaction), works fine until most creatures you face become Huge (which is fairly late): makes a fearsome tank.

    Shadow Monk with small dip in Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock for Darkness vision, Drow Elf, 8 / 17 / 14 / 8 / 12 / 15: Elven Accuracy (DEX or CHA), another feat that increase DEX or CHA (I don't gind DEX-improving feats great for a Monk though unless UA is on the table - Quick-fingers is a great pick for a Shadow Monk-), then whatever you like. You don't need more AC than that anyways, and you get Hold Person as an alternative against CON-resistant enemies if you want to branch out more.

    All those are perfectly fine, viable and efficient Monks, that, thanks on not relying that much in their WIS for AC, are free to develop original tactics or become better in their mundane turns.

    --------------

    Conversely, that one can work great too: Long Death Monk, Hill Dwarf, 15|14 / 10|12 / 17 / 8 / 15 / 8: Athletics proficiency from background, Grudge Bearer (WIS), Dwarven Fortitude (CON), any among (Durable (CON), +1CON+1STR), Grappler, Brawny (other way to get Athletics), Tough, +2 WIS. You don't care that much about your mediocre AC, because you'll spend so much time alternating Fear action and Extra Attack to Grapple and harm enemies, that between your high starting HP, your THP from reducing creature to 0HP, the disadvantage inflicted on every close by enemy with Fear, the cover you get from grappled enemy, the possible advantage from Shoving or Grappler, and the high enough mobility to catch any enemy on the field and yet find yourself a position that keeps you from being into too much threat...
    You'll be a powerhouse of tanking.
    Would work extremely good with Open Hand too. ^^

    -------------

    My point was: you never *need* to max both WIS and DEX. And if you don't want to focus on WIS, Mage Armor allows you to bump DEX solely to get good enough AC while redistributing those points in other areas. And either completely forget about having mid/high WIS, or waiting a much later point in progression to grab it.
    So your long death monk with a 13 ac is supposed to be your tank option...

    The fear hits enemies and team mates so you are fearing allies and doing no damage. However your save on fear and stunning strike is going to be pretty low so it won’t matter.

    Grappling does not harm anyone, it does not even give anyone advantage to hit them unless you prone them too.

    You don’t get a cover bonus from grappling someone, just by them being between you and the target, which they could have been anyway.

    Also your plan seems to be to tank your save dc on the best combat ability in the entire game, and the only really good thing monks have in stunning strike...

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterwhisper View Post
    So your long death monk with a 13 ac is supposed to be your tank option...

    The fear hits enemies and team mates so you are fearing allies and doing no damage. However your save on fear and stunning strike is going to be pretty low so it won’t matter.

    Grappling does not harm anyone, it does not even give anyone advantage to hit them unless you prone them too.

    You don’t get a cover bonus from grappling someone, just by them being between you and the target, which they could have been anyway.

    Also your plan seems to be to tank your save dc on the best combat ability in the entire game, and the only really good thing monks have in stunning strike...
    I feel it's useless to answer to this kind of post. Those are builds that were thought as complements to different parties I played into. I wouldn't pick Long Death Monk if you're tacked with lots of melee pals obviously. As a lone frontliner it can fare extremely well even with that AC past level 6 because of the disadvantage. Plus you still have Dodge if Fear failed or wasn't an option.

    Anyways. You're just here to contradict without even trying, so I'll stop here. :)
    ("Only really good thing Monks have in stunning strike" is already decredibilizing you anyways).

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by HiveStriker View Post
    ("Only really good thing Monks have in stunning strike" is already decredibilizing you anyways).
    I think you mean "discrediting" here, and I'm not sure I really agree.

    Although I don't agree with the broad statement that Misterwhisper is making here (stunning strike isn't the only good thing monks have) I do agree with their other statements, that Long Death build doesn't look very effective as a tank. I can't think of a party composition where I'd want such a frail frontliner, you're not usually going to even make use of your Touch of Death feature either with 10/12 Dex since your damage is going to suffer from your poor accuracy. Your poor accuracy also makes that fantastic feature we're talking about (stunning strike) much less reliable.

    Sure, after level 11 you can choose not do die up to 11 times but that doesn't really make you a tank. Smart enemies aren't going to be threatened by a Dwarf who can't kill them and whose greatest strength is dying later than his allies.

    Final two points, I'd be careful about pulling 2+ year old out of date/scrapped UA feats (Grudge Bearer, Brawny) to validate a proposed build. Not everyone is going to want to use those feats. Finally, Hour of Reaping also has friendly fire with a respectable range, you'd be putting yourself in great danger to avoid catching your own allies in that fear aura and if you don't you run the risk of fearing your own allies. It also takes an action, which means you aren't grappling/attacking that turn.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Yeah, only the Monklock would be something I’d consider for actual use. That one has actual value as a mage killer and general selfish combatant due to Darkness/Devil’s Sight. Note that that build doesn’t even quite work, since it only has 12 Wis, while you need 13 to multiclass. The others are just kinda not great.

    Not sure how you’re getting +2 HP per level on the sea elf, considering how it only has a +3 Con compared to +2 for the normal monk.

    The grappler build could be done better by a Monk/Rogue with expertise in Athletics and decent Wis for Stunning Strike, which allows you to grapple without a check.

    The Long Death build works, but is hardly a Wis-dumping build.

    Stunning Strike isn’t the Monk’s only valuable feature, but it’s a very powerful and unique ability they have, and it’s a substantial part of the class’s strength.
    Last edited by AdAstra; 2019-12-03 at 03:32 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganryu View Post
    Literally the title! I really want to understand the class, I really do, but I just can't wrap my head around it. In my experience it seems like the weakest class(Yeah, I know Ranger.)

    Like, going through it:

    Hit die: 1d8 - Equal to clerics and rogues, its really not good for someone with no range options, and unless you have Mobile feat (Which solves a LOT of monks problems admitted), or spend ki points, you're constantly in ouch range. Con is also their tertiary stat. And their AC is only decent.

    MAD issues - Wisdom, Dex, Con, leaves little rule for customization

    Movement: Either you're hitting an enemy, or you're not.

    Ki: Everything seems centered on them, and it can be super easy to blow through, way faster than spell slots, and then what? The fighter at least isn't useless without superiority die. Barbarians lose effectiveness without rages, but can still do well. Seems like they always need more.

    Stunning Strike: The crème de la crème. Stun is EXTREMELY useful. So why do am I confused by it? Its a con save. Against your secondary stat. Most monsters have ungodly con saves. Your Wisdom generally lags behind Dex.

    Attack: Is low damage. Starts at 1d4. Ends at 1d10. Its fabulous amount of attacks at the beginning, but gets pretty meh late game.

    I'm just confused what it is a monk is supposed to do. What's the appeal? I know there is one, I just can't figure it out. They run around really fast and are hard to pin down, but, well... what then? What's it's party role? Lockdown's great, but seems casters do it better. And Monks might be martial, but tend to run out of their resource even faster than casters. Seems like they are the warlock version of martial to me.

    What do monks do that no other class can?
    1. Easy to learn (Mostly)
    2. Great for status effects
    3. All have magic (Level 6 feature, punches are magic)
    4. Versatile archetypes.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Although I do like Monks and think they are fine, I can see some possibles issues with the class.

    1- Monks are skirmishers
    True, but let's compare it to the Rogue:

    At 3rd-level,
    Rogue can sneak attack, dealing 1d6+3+2d6 = 13.5 damage. The Rogue can then disengage as a bonus action for free, or if he/she misses the attack they can make another attack to try again.
    Monk attacks with their quarterstaff and makes one unarmed strike for 1d8+1d4+6 = 13 damage. If the Monk wants to disengage, they need to not only spend 1 ki point but also forgo the unarmed strike.

    Of course, you can pick the Mobile feat or choose Open Hand or Drunken Master as your tradition. Mobile is a huge investment for a Monk if you're picking it with your ASI though.

    2- MADness
    The Monk is the most MAD class in the game. All the other classes start with only one attack, so the damage bonus from your stat modifier is less important. Additionally, you need two stats to raise your AC.

    A Paladin dumping CHA is totally playable, you can still wear heavy-armor and smite. Barbarians have a good hit-chance even with 14 STR thanks to Reckless Attack, and can rely on their resistances to absorb damage instead of their AC.

    A lot of Monks will also have less HP than most Rogues because they'll focus on WIS over CON.

    3- No feat support
    There is no -5/+10 feat for unarmed strikes. Also, other classes can grab XBE or PAM for bonus action attacks, making the Monk's bonus action unarmed strike less special.

    And even if there were more feats for Monks, the MADness would make those hard to pick up.
    Last edited by Daphne; 2019-12-03 at 04:46 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Daphne View Post
    Although I do like Monks and think they are fine, I can see some possibles issues with the class.

    1- Monks are skirmishers
    True, but let's compare it to the Rogue:

    At 3rd-level,
    Rogue can sneak attack, dealing 1d6+3+2d6 = 13.5 damage. The can Rogue then disengage as a bonus action for free, or if he/she misses the attack they can make another attack to try again.
    Monk attacks with their quarterstaff and makes one unarmed strike for 1d8+1d4+6 = 13 damage. If the Monk wants to disengage, they need to not only spend 1 ki point but also forgo the unarmed strike.

    Of course, you can pick the Mobile feat or choose Open Hand or Drunken Master as your tradition. Mobile is a huge investment for a Monk if you're picking it with your ASI though.

    2- MADness
    The Monk is the most MAD class in the game. All the other classes start with only one attack, so the damage bonus from your stat modifier is less important. Additionally, you need two stats to raise your AC.

    A Paladin dumping CHA is totally playable, you can still wear heavy-armor and smite. Barbarians have a good hit-chance even with 14 STR thanks to Reckless Attack, and can rely on their resistances to absorb damage instead of their AC.

    A lot of Monks will also have less HP than most Rogues because they'll focus on WIS over CON.

    3- No feat support
    Their is no -5/+10 feat for unarmed strikes. Also, other classes can grab XBE or PAM for bonus action attacks, making the Monk's bonus action unarmed strike less special.

    And even if there were more feats for Monks, the MADness would make those hard to pick up.
    Also add in that their are no magical weapons for unarmed strikes that can be random rolled, only one item at all, and it is in a module book.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    Quote Originally Posted by Daphne View Post
    Although I do like Monks and think they are fine, I can see some possibles issues with the class.

    1- Monks are skirmishers
    True, but let's compare it to the Rogue:

    At 3rd-level,
    Rogue can sneak attack, dealing 1d6+3+2d6 = 13.5 damage. The can Rogue then disengage as a bonus action for free, or if he/she misses the attack they can make another attack to try again.
    Monk attacks with their quarterstaff and makes one unarmed strike for 1d8+1d4+6 = 13 damage. If the Monk wants to disengage, they need to not only spend 1 ki point but also forgo the unarmed strike.

    Of course, you can pick the Mobile feat or choose Open Hand or Drunken Master as your tradition. Mobile is a huge investment for a Monk if you're picking it with your ASI though.
    If you want to skirmish, you would be choosing open hand or drunken master. Or maybe working with your party so darkness from shadow monk doesn't annoy them. Otherwise you're tanking (long death) or attacking from range (sun soul, kensei in some cases). Or being a 4 elemental monk, I guess.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Explain to me the value of a monk

    My experience has been that Monks are probably the best 5th member of a party. If all of the traditional roles are filled, a Monk is a great force multiplier. In the hands of a less experienced or tactically savvy player, a Monk in a party of 3-4 can be pretty underwhelming.

    Monks and Bards can be a great addition to a party, but a lot of players don’t really understand their roles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •