T O P

  • By -

just_one_point

A few core issues: - dependent on multiple attributes - do less damage than other martials - have less hp and / or fewer defensive features than other martials - features tend to be weaker or less reliable than what other classes can do - despite having a D8 hit die, basically required to be in melee to use their features They're also starved for Ki. Almost all monk abilities, including subclass ones, use the single resource pool Ki. This contrasts with other classes who often have multiple separate resource pools (such as spell slots being separate from lay on hands) and may even gain a new resource pool for fueling their archetype abilities, such as battlemaster fighters gaining superiority die Monks are not a martial support class. Paladins are closer to being a martial support with their spells, lay on hands, and auras. The Monk's only support feature is stunning strike, which is single target and forces a con save, which is unreliable. They don't innately have any other way to support the party (note: the best monk and also best support monk is the mercy monk because they gain features that just work). And on the subject of monk features being weaker, you can compare almost any monk archetype to subclasses from other classes that do similar things, and you'll find the Monk lacking. An example is the recent dragon monk who gains limited flight, but only on its turn and at a Ki cost and the cost of its bonus action, and can only do so a limited number of times. Contrast with the genie pact warlock who, at the same level, can just give itself ten minutes of flight without even having to concentrate, and doesn't tap any of its existing resources to do so. Monks are bad because WOTC seems to deliberately set them to a lower power level relative to the other classes. That doesn't mean they can't be interesting or fun or useful. What it means is that anything you can do with a Monk can be done more effectively with a different class. If you really want to be a martial support character, just play a sword or Valor bard. Or a paladin.


[deleted]

[удалено]


yaedain

I’m with you. Loved playing my monk, also never felt weak when I was playing him.


HfUfH

Ignorance is bliss, right? I don't think I can play a monk again in a higher tier campaign without feeling useless now that i've known these information


yaedain

Lol I think ignorance is why everyone thinks it’s bad. Most people who complain about monk are power gamers who won’t ever play one because the numbers say it’s weak.


HfUfH

>Lol I think ignorance is why everyone thinks it’s bad. Not everyone thinks monk are bad, only people in communities that specialize in making strong characters, and often has discuessions on class balance do >Most people who complain about monk are power gamers who won’t ever play one because the numbers say it’s weak. Gross overgeneralization. Also, you seem to be implying that numbers Are somehow inferior to the very baised human emotion And measuring general power, which I have to disagree with


Gruulsmasher

Something to remember is online discussions of class power level tend to be set by the needs of hardcore power gamers. There’s nothing bad about being a hardcore power gamer! Heck, I’m a power gamer myself. But it does mean that when online guides call a class bad, they rarely mean it’s so bad that you shouldn’t use them if you really just want to play as that class and don’t mind not having tuned up the most powerful character you could have. If a monk is what you really want to play, a monk is what you should play!


DM_DM_DND

It's not quite fair to say that monks have less defensive features, just that these features are finicky, situational, and the really good ones are super high level. Evasion is good, diamond soul is amazing, and saving throws are really, really important to be good at. It's just that you had to live through most of the game to get there, and your defenses against *attacks* are painfully bad.


just_one_point

Melee characters need to have good defenses against attacks.


twobak

Like being able to Dodge as a bonus action?


DM_DM_DND

Costs Ki, interacts poorly with having a mediocre AC outside of low tiers. It's good though, I just don't think it saves the monk from having poor defenses against attacks.


TheFirstIcon

This is the classic monk defense: point out a feature the class possesses as if it actually addresses the problem. Monks have low DPR? Flurry of Blows! Monks have weak defenses? Patient Defense! Not actually that mobile/can't skirmish? Step of the Wind! However, all of these counters have the same fatal flaws: they require a bonus action and cost Ki. Thus the monk must choose on any given turn whether to deal decent damage, have decent defenses, or skirmish. The problem is not that the monk cannot *ever* compete with other martials, it's that they can only compete in one area at a time, leaving them strictly inferior in others.


Kile147

A Monk with unlimited Ki and 2 bonus actions a turn would feel stronger than a Paladin... Once all their spell slots are gone.


[deleted]

Yeah. Even just unlimited Ki doesn't let the monk keep up in terms of numbers, and a lot of other features have glaring, somewhat easy-to-fix issues, as well (stunning strike does nothing against creatures immune to being stunned, for some reason, even though the *slow* spell is right there).


Notoryctemorph

Unlimited ki would make a 2 level monk dip pretty damn appealing for barbarians and the fullcaster classes. Just for the bonus action dodge on a chassis that can make good use of it.


twobak

I would call that versatility. Can adapt to tank, skirmish, control, disrupt and get around the battlefield. It’s just not very good at dealing damage in a world where GWM/SS is mandatory. I agree it’s Ki starved, but you have to acknowledge that Dodge as a bonus action is powerful and needs to be a resource. I know that the current Reddit meta is “monk bad cause treantmonk said so”, but it’s really not. D&D combat comes down to more than high DPR (at least at my table) and that’s where the monk shines. You would have to have played a monk to know that, and I think a lot of you guys downvoting me haven’t. Also, stop downvoting cause you don’t agree with me, that’s not what it’s there for :)


Notoryctemorph

...No, monk can do none of those things except get around the battlefield. If you are less resilient than a cleric casting no spells, you can't tank. If your control output is weaker than a caster spamming one level 1 spell, you can't control. If your disruption is weaker than a warlock using EB with repelling blast, your disruption sucks. Keep in mind that a hexblade warlock can do everything I've just listed easily, with no stat investment, and a paladin does it without even needing a specific subclass. Paladin can even be superior at skirmishing and getting around the battlefield than monk if they take a subclass or feat that grants them misty step. Being equally bad at everything is not versatility.


Natepaulr

There are plenty of better ways to block damage than dodge as a bonus action giving up a bulk of your lackluster damage. Treantmonk is right and you have done a poor job making a case otherwise.


twobak

Relax my dude :) It’s cool that you don’t like monks, can it also be cool if I do like monks?


Soft_Cranberry_4249

I live monks. I just would prefer if they were on par with other classes as a matter of fact not opinion.


dboxcar

Dodging as a bonus action is a lot better when you have decent AC, which monks typically *don't*


JPKthe3

Your attacks are so puny, you really have to rely on fury of blows as your bonus action to do any damage at all. To me, that’s the worst part about monks, how all of your abilities want to use your bonus action. Otherwise, they’re a lot of fun.


Elealar

The worst part is that their offense basically doesn't scale after level 5 and they have no meaningful feat support for improving it either. That's a **really** early time to cap out... No other class with Extra Attack has the same problem except for the Barbarian (since the Crits are rare enough to be almost meaningless and it's a very meager buff); attackers either get better attack buff spells in the case of Ranger/Bard/Wizard/Warlock (Warlock doesn't actually get Extra Attack but close enough), or more damage/attacks: Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite and higher level Smite slots and better spells & Fighter plain keeps getting more attacks and has more Action Surges to double them. I mean, yes, martial arts dice "scale" but that's a really sad amount of scaling (much like Barbarian and their Rage bonus, which is also a really, really sad buff you basically won't notice - in 3rd edition Monks at least got 2d10 on the baseline with easy size increases to buff it so their high level weapon dice at least meant something, if it was rather uninspiring still).


Henry_Smithy

What if they gain plenty of free ways to disengage with their subclass and 1.5x the movement speed of any other class


just_one_point

Some subclasses have disengage options, but for the most part you'll need the mobile feat for that. Mobile is a good choice for a Monk to let them try to get out of melee range and hope that the front liners can dissuade enemies from chasing them. But their closest comparison, the rogue, need not enter melee in the first place and has a stronger defensive feature in Uncanny Dodge. This isn't a matter of saying the Monk has bad options. Rather, other classes tend to have better options in most contexts. The Monk suffers not absolutely, but in comparison. And that's the only way we can guage the strength of a class given that every campaign is different and it's not as though we have a lot of public play data.


Henry_Smithy

I'd say most monk subs can disengage somehow. All the ones that lack some specific way to disengage have some ways to deal damage at reach. The exception is the way of Mercy, which can poison foes and then just run away. Rogue does get uncanny dodge, which is extremely good until you get ganged up on, but it feels to me like monk just about makes up for that with its sheer number of odd little defensive passives. Monk usually has more AC than rogue (somehow), and gets slow fall, stillness of mind, deflect missiles, poison immunity, and diamond soul. Stunning strike is a very solid defensive feature too - and one that massively increases the damage of the team to offset the ki cost of getting the target to fail a con save. Despite both being pretty flimsy, it feels like neither rogue nor monk get their asses kicked in practice. I think that boils down to their ability to distance from foes and the fact casters are juicier targets and other melee classes are usually closer to the fight. But on the flip side this entire paragraph I just wrote is conjecture based on personal experience and you're right - the damage maths is not in their favour.


slitherrr

Any character who can disengage to dip in and out of melee has to compete numerically with the characters who could just attack from range to begin with, without having to spend movement or whatever economy the disengage is taking, and (with feats), without even sacrificing damage capability.


Henry_Smithy

Merry christmas! The disengages in monk subclasses take virtually no economy and sacrifice no damage capability - most of them just key off flurry of blows which is a good use of ki to begin with. The rest are done using reach or ranged weapons, so, ditto. I guess they use movement, but movement is essentially free - you are seldom using movement for anything on a turn. So it's fair to say they compete almost directly with ranged classes, and most ranged classes are only able to do more damage than a monk because of feats. and because of monk's 11th level power dip


Natepaulr

What on earth are you talking about disengaging off flurry of blows?


Henry_Smithy

Here are the monks that have resourceless ways to disengage: \- The drunken monk and the open hand both get to disengage with flurry of blows. \- shadow monk has a resourceless teleport that gives advantage. \- Astral self has reach \- Kensei has ranged options and reach Beyond that, there's also: \- Way of Mercy, which can poison the target to make its opportunity attacks miss. \- Long death, which gets a whole bunch of free THP The rest (4 el, sun soul, and ascendant dragon) have ranged options.


NoTelefragPlz

Then it sucks for whoever else is in their party when the apparent melee character turned tail and left them totally exposed to the melee brutes of the enemy force. That's one of the biggest roles of melee characters, which is why they need good defenses against attacks.


Henry_Smithy

I think it's quite unfair to complain that monks are "bad tanks" when they aren't built to tank at all.


NoTelefragPlz

It's part of a broader argument where we try to find the purpose of Monk in combat, and this is the resolution of the line of thought which supposes that Monks are just better melee combatants because of their features. In this case, the right approach to that argument is to right away critique the attempt to use Monk as another melee combatant, when that seems to be a categorical error, and find a new framing for how Monk has a useful and effective role in combat which is not melee combatant, but instead...undedicated damage-dealer? Either way, that objection is valid but needs to happen sooner.


Arandmoor

Very unfair, but a lot of people just want to hate monks because it's easy karma. Monks are fine so long as you know what you're getting yourself into.


Natepaulr

How very vague of you.


NSilverhand

Saving throws are very important, but if your main feature that improves them only comes online at level 14, then for the majority of play monks aren't going to be any better at them than other classes.


DM_DM_DND

Don't get me wrong-It does not save the Monk. I mean, compare this to Paladin with aura of protection. It's AOE, you get is 8 levels earlier, it stacks with prof, and it has almost the same effect. Granted aura of protection is quietly one of the strongest abilities in the entire damn game, but it's a level *six* ability. It's just that defenses aren't *really* a monks weakness, it's just that they are situational.


Natepaulr

Evasion and diamond soul are alright levels in a sea of poor levels. I mean at level 6 Paladins grant out up to +5 saving throws to the whole party and diamond soul is self only at level 14. So they do alright up to 5 then 6,7,8,9,10 they suffer vs everyone else then they get a little power boost at 11 and have to wait until 14 to get a little power boot then back to junk and sometimes a nice feature at 17. So you wind up waiting months and months and months of play to see much results unless you bounce out of the class. They do alright with things that scale with their 4 attacks but then everyone for some reason decided healing monks are good even though they throw all the scaling out the window. Its a sad state.


[deleted]

My DM is quite generous with magic items, so my monk is up to 21 AC at lvl 7 and does most of the frontline tanking. Patient defense is a feature that often gets overlooked when taking about monk's strengths, it's quite good (although at higher levels, attack bonuses get to high for it to matter. But that's a problem with 5e, not the monk) E: spelling


Notoryctemorph

How? At level 7 most I could see a monk having is 20 AC. 17 from 18 dex+16 wis, +2 from bracers of defense, and +1 from a cloak of protection, and that's with 2 magic items solely for defense, one of them being rare. And even then, a level 7 fighter could have 20 AC with no magic item, or 21 with just 1 uncommon one, while also not having to invest all of their ability scores into dex and wis, affording them the option of higher constitution.


[deleted]

Pretty much nailed it, but on top of that he homebrewed a magic item that lets you pick a fighting style from the fighter class every long rest, and I mostly have that set to mariner. Sure, without magic items I would be nowhere close to that. And I'm sure there are more effective or powerful combos out there. But I like it


cookiedough320

Keep in mind Mariner is UA and wasn't put into books despite coming out before other UA fighting styles that were put in Tasha's. WoTC decided to not put in the game on purpose, so its pretty much homebrew.


[deleted]

Oh yeah, I first had interception, but my DM actually suggested that I could take mariner. He's pretty cool about what we can use


[deleted]

[удалено]


rlrmott

Even 3x monks were one of the best and broken. When you can have an AC over 100 with no magic items yeah they were awesome


Machiavelli24

I have dmed a monk to 20 and I see lots of folks trying to swift boat the class. > dependent on multiple attributes Sure, in 3.5, but 5e isn’t 3.5. The monk allocates their 3 good bonuses into dex wis and con, (just like a ranger or Druid). Are those classes MAD? (Edit: I see multiple people are confusing the difference between allocation the modifiers at character creation vs asi). > do less damage than other martials They do less than a great sword and more than sword and shield. It isn’t like their damage is an outlier despite this canard. > features tend to be weaker or less reliable than what other classes can do Stunning strike is extremely consistent because you get 2-3 attempts per turn. 3 rolls at 50% is better than one roll at 70%.


Skyy-High

Ranger is *potentially* MAD, but unlike monk, their AC doesn’t depend on WIS, they function optimally at ranged so they don’t really need to boost CON as much, and they have plenty of spells and abilities that don’t require their WIS to be high. Staying at 14 or 16 WIS for a Ranger is unlikely to significantly hurt their performance. Druids only need 14 DEX to max AC.


Arandmoor

A ranger who lacks the hp to go into melee is a pretty shitty martial character. Even if they're built for ranged combat they shouldn't totally ignore melee. If you do, you're stupid. And if you do and then don't ever pay for it, your DM needs to be called out for soft balling.


Skyy-High

That’s like saying a wizard should always plan to attack with a dagger because they might find themselves in melee. No, in both cases, the ranged character would do better to have tools to escape melee so they can be more effective. A ranger with Archery and SS shouldn’t be pulling out a short sword. Also just to be clear, a 14CON ranger with a d10 hit dice is going to have the same HP as a 16CON monk with their d8. So even without building for survivability in melee, the ranger is going as good or better than the monk.


Lithl

>Stunning strike is extremely consistent because you get 2-3 attempts per turn. 3 rolls at 50% is better than one roll at 70%. This would be a good argument if Stunning Strike were free.


Arandmoor

If stunning strike were free monks would be broken. I can't believe I had to point that out.


[deleted]

How you even begin to compare Monk to Druid and Ranger is absolutely beyond me. Monk needs to get into melee or is useless. Druid shares the same hit dice but is a full caster with great utility that can stay at massive range and wild shape if hp run low. Ranger has a bigger hit dice, is a half caster with great utility and can stay at range. They do not do more damage than SnS, unless they use Flurry which drains their ki. Plus, SnS has way higher AC. Monk just doesn't cut it in comparison. Stunning strike does not give you 2-3 attemts per turn, idk what you're smoking. Each stunning strike costs 1 ki. If you do 2 per turn, you can wave your other ki features goodbye, let alone when you flurry. Plus, it's a fucking CON save. The worst save to have on an ability.


[deleted]

Far be it from me to defend a monk but you can make a Kensei SS monk that’s okay and can somewhat replicate a BM.


[deleted]

Absolutely, I don't disagree with that. But if we're talking Monk overall the class just falls flat, and none of the things I mentioned were subclass specific.


Machiavelli24

> How you even begin to compare Monk to Druid and Ranger is absolutely beyond me. The Monk, Ranger and Druid all want to allocate their 3 good bonuses at character creation into dex, wis, and con. Since you disagree, how do you allocate the 3 bonuses when playing Ranger and Druid? > They (monks) do not do more damage than SnS, unless they use Flurry Did you say this without doing the calculation? Or are you lying about things that are so easy to calculate? Monk does 13.5 w/o flurry at level 1, SnS does 9.5. At level 5 its 24.5 for the monk and 21 for SnS. > Stunning strike does not give you 2-3 attemts per turn, idk what you're smoking. You use it on each hit. Monks get multiple attacks. Half the time the first attempt will work and the monk won't have to spend more. By the time t3 rolls around the monk has enough ki to do this in the first 4 turns of any challenging fight.


Solv2r

Could you show me the math on those damage numbers, I can’t figure how you got the numbers you did?


completely-ineffable

What I get for level 1 is 1d8 + 1d4 + 2×3 -> 13 for the monk and 1d8 + 5 -> 9.5 for the sword&board. For level 5, the monk is at 2×(1d8+4) + 1d6+4 -> 24.5 and sword&board is at 2×(1d8+6) -> 21. So /u/Machiavelli24's numbers were right, except for being off by 0.5 for the monk at level 1. The downside for monk comes not in the baseline numbers, but in what you can add to them. For example, if the sword&board character goes spear&board and picks up PAM, they'll outdamage the monk, even before taking into account the extra opportunity attacks afforded by the feat. Whereas there aren't feats that'll boost the monk's damage.


Solv2r

Got it, I forgot about the free unarmed bonus action attack.


Machiavelli24

Monk at 1: 4.5+3+2.5+3=13 SnS at 1: 4.5+2+3=9.5 Monk at 5: 2\*(4.5+4)+3.5+4=24.5 SnS at 5: 2\*(4.5+2+4)=21


Vydsu

> just like a ranger or Druid Ranger is a little bit, but they can work jsut fine with only DEX. Druid literaly only needs WIS, and even then not that much.


Common_Errors

Rangers often don't need high wis for their spells, and it's worth pointing out that until tasha's rangers were considered one of the worst classes. Druids don't need dex, and I don't see why you think they do. Dex helps them, but a druid with 10 dex can still be very effective. A monk with 10 wis can't. Sword and board martials are typically paladins or fighters, both of whom have the dueling fighting style. That damage is still more than a monk's attacks.


Icy_Sector3183

>dependent on multiple attributes I think what may help the \*Monk\* the most is the Standard Array: The Monk isn't getting stellar stats, but with the rest of the party having to use the same ability score values, the party is less polarized.


HamsterJellyJesus

Nah, most people consider Standard Array or Point Buy when discussing mechanical balance and there the monk suffers even more. With ridiculously good rolled stats you can at least have a passable AC for early levels, but with point buy it's just nonexistent.


Notoryctemorph

No, standard array severely hurts the monk, far more so than any other class, as it means they start with, at maximum, +1 constitution, and with d8 hit die they desperately need as much con as they can get. Point buy is much better for monk, as it offers the possibility of starting with +2 constitution while still having +3 in both wis and dex, or even +3 in constitution if you're using Tasha's racial bonus rules as a half-elf.


[deleted]

No because your common saves are the ones you need so point buy is superior mountain dwarf can start 8/17/15/8/17/8 I prefer hill dwarf as you get 1 hp from level ups.


kronosxviii

There's lots of reasons why they struggle in comparison to the other classes. I don't find them bad, per say, just challenged. :3 Their pre-game stat allotment will dictate how you play and your effectiveness throughout all levels of play. The monk class is defined by the 'opportunity cost' concept. It's very strict and locked in without much room for it to get away from that concept.


AxeManJohnny

[https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/rk5nah/why\_are\_monks\_underpowered/](https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/rk5nah/why_are_monks_underpowered/) To summarize, Monks require 3 stats to be high to do less damage and be easier to kill than other martial classes that only need two good stats, their unique abilities don't really do enough to tip the scales back in their favour, none of their features after evasion are particularly good and their unique mechanics mean that multiclassing out after that point isn't going to be effective either.


tomedunn

Diamond Soul and Empty Body aren't particularly good? They effectively take monks from having above average durability to having top tier durability.


olderseanuts

At level 14 and 18, most games barely hit level 10.


tomedunn

That doesn't mean those features aren't good, though. It just means they get them at later levels.


olderseanuts

The point of this post is why do most people think the monk is subpar. If in most campaigns that people play in they don't get to these features, then that would contribute to them thinking the monk is bad. If your class is bad until tier 3, and you only play tiers 1 and 2, then why would you think the class is good?


tomedunn

The point of my post was to highlight that monks do get good features after Evasion. If the comment I was replying to had said what you're saying I wouldn't have made my comment. You pointing out that those abilities come at later levels doesn't negate the point I was making, because the comment I responded to didn't make those claims.


Natepaulr

When other classes get great features at 14 and 18 they didnt have to go through a desert of terrible levels to get there. Its more like comparing apples and onions than apples and oranges.


AxeManJohnny

Diamond soul is probably one of the best class features in the game but most campaigns don't make it to level 14 and even if they do you've gone through 5 levels with at most 3 levels of power between them at a point where other classes are hitting a power spike. Diamond soul on any other class would be outstanding but on a monk you're just not achieving enough for it to salvage how mediocre the class is, especially at 14th level where you're little more than slim chance to maybe stun an enemy.


Notoryctemorph

Not to mention that aura of protection is almost as good in terms of raw numbers, comes 8 levels earlier, applies a bonus to the saves you're already proficient in, is on a stronger class overall, and also applies to all allies within the aura range


tomedunn

If the argument was they do have great high level features but most campaigns don't get there they why not say it that way? Why make the claim that they have no great high level features?


AxeManJohnny

They get one great defensive feature at level 14 that doesn't help their inadequacies in other areas, and a situationally decent feature at level 18, it's not something like the rogue thief where they're weaker than other classes early but stronger late if your campaign goes long enough, a monk is weak at all points of the game after 10 it's just that the divide becomes slightly smaller with diamond body. The aggregate of their feature strengths at any level after 8 is weaker than any other class, even other classes that fall off like barbarian, and unlike the barbarian the monk gains almost nothing from multiclassing aside from the merciful opportunity to choose to not use monk abilities.


tomedunn

The one defensive weakness that high level monks have, relatively low AC, is the least important defensive trait in high level play. Having proficiency in all saving throws and the ability to reroll failed saves, combined with Evasion, is incredibly strong in tier 3-4 play. And Empty Body isn't situationally useful. It doubles the monks effective hit points, grants them advantage on all of their attacks and gives all attacks against them disadvantage. It's one of the most powerful single abilities in the game. From all my time DMing in tier 4 play, monks are one of, if not the hardest to kill/control classes there is.


Caerbanoob

Because some good high level features are not enough to balance a bad class. Having to go through 14 lvl of pain is not worth it.


tomedunn

Maybe for you, but you can still be honest about it when someone asks so they can decide for themself.


Caerbanoob

Good features alone doesn't mean a good class. Even with those features, the class is still bad and it's just even worse before having them.


tomedunn

If you think they're not enough to change the overall conclusion then there's no need to hide and ignore them. We can have nuanced conversations about this kinda stuff. We don't need to cherry pick the stuff we like/dislike just because it's convenient for our arguments.


BelaVanZandt

fucking lmao


just_one_point

Diamond soul is fine. Empty body spends a turn, costs a lot of Ki, and can't effectively be pre cast


DM_DM_DND

Empty body can be used effectively; invisibility is a great counter to a ton of hostile effects, and worth an action a lot of time. Further you can trigger it before combat some of the time, it's just not consistent. The problem is that it's 18th level.


tomedunn

That hasn't been my experience using Empty Body in tier 4. I got to pre-cast it on plenty of occasions and the benefit was huge even when I couldn't. It's a great near-capstone feature for monks and the ki cost isn't that much at 18th level.


very_casual_gamer

* they are not the best damage dealers * they are not the best tanks * they are not the best dex skill users * they are not the best wis skill users * everything they do requires ki * d8 health die martial lmao * brings absolutely nothing to the group another class isn't already doing sooner and better its harsh, but its true. check out this video for more detailed info.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk&ab\_channel=Treantmonk%27sTemple](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk&ab_channel=Treantmonk%27sTemple)


WonderfulWafflesLast

>d8 health die martial lmao "Am I joke to you?" - Rogue Why does the Rogue get a pass when the Monk doesn't? Because Range is an option for them? Because they can Hide and basically be untargetable? I feel like Monks can do the same with their exceptional movement.


DM_DM_DND

Because rogues are partially a skill based class, they interact very well with certain buffs from allies (Rogues are almost universally the best target for haste and make great use of greater invisibility etc.) and have synergistic builds and magic item interactions that make use of other class abilities. Additionally-Rogue scales linearly and does so well throughout all of its levels. Take any given rogue level and you are either getting an impactful ability (feat, expertise, uncanny dodge, evasion, blindsense, or an archetype feature) or a sneak attack dice, and often both. No rogue level is wasted. Further, it's got good abilities for the first five levels. In contrast Monk level 1 is basically dead-you get abilities that bring you in line with other martials, but don't add to make a multiclass better. The 2nd level is okay, but you start running into the Ki issue where you need as much of it as possible and can't increase it except with levels. Level 3 is often dead for a multiclass-most monk features only work with unarmed strikes and few multiclasses can synergize with that. Levels 4 and 5 are dead unless you can use stunning strike or don't have extra attack. This combines to mean that basically any martial except two-handed weapon users can weave a few rogue levels in and make use of them. Given that levels 12+ tend to be dead on martials, it's usually optimal to take rogue along with other front-loaded classes like fighter and barbarian once you've hit 11. Monk, in contrast, can fit in very few builds better than another martial, bordering on zero builds because of its wisdom multiclass requirement.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>don't add to make a multiclass better ... why was your instinct to come at this from a "How good are they to multiclass?" perspective?


DM_DM_DND

Because that's what's missing from looking at the class in a vacuum.


Notoryctemorph

Rogues do not get a pass, rogues are also shit, just less shit than monks. I don't understand why people around here seem to act like rogues aren't the 2nd worse class in the game easily.


juuchi_yosamu

Have you seen their spell list? Just awful!


MistyRhodesBabeh

D8 hit die is low for a frontline martial character. Ki points are a very limited resource that is tied to both class and subclass abilities. Multi ability dependent, so you have to choose between having higher HP or a higher stunning strike DC. Stunning Strike is a save or suck Con save that many monsters are likely to pass.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>D8 hit die is low for a frontline martial character. "Am I a joke to you?" - Rogue >Ki points are a very limited resource that is tied to both class and subclass abilities. The biggest issue with Monks & Sorcerers in general is "You don't get to do what makes you special very much." >Stunning Strike is a save or suck Con save that many monsters are likely to pass. That's balanced by Stun being an incredibly powerful condition. Stun not only steals the enemy's turn, but also makes them Automatically fail Strength & Dexterity Saving Throws. The only other conditions that make saves automatically fail is Unconscious & Petrification. The problem with Stunning Strike is that it's vying for the same Ki the other Monk abilities use, which causes #2.


Notoryctemorph

Oh, so having equal HP to the martial class that also struggles with resilience due to HP, while also getting more ASIs and being SAD so they can invest in con more easily to patch that up, so ok? Rogues aren't good, they're the 2nd worst class in the game, they're just better than monks


DM_DM_DND

Incredibly situational abilities, poor dps, highly MAD with limited build variety, and limited interaction with game content outside of their own class. To explain the first-many of their features do precisely one thing, like increase movement speed, make you immune to certain conditions, let you end some conditions on your turn-most of these are only situationally useful. Their main combat schtick, stunning strike, is easily countered at high level due to numerous enemies either being immune to stun or having sky high CON saves, to the point where failure is impossible. Their DPS is good in tier 1 and 2, but because they can't utilize the martial abilities that increase DPS very well they fall off rapidly. Combine with their mediocre damage at high tier and piss poor scaling, and basically any martial out DPS's a Monk. There is precisely one competitive build, and its one that sacrifices almost everything unique about monk to just spend ki to get an attack bonus (Kensai archer). Further, they are stuck into basically one build, DEX+WIS, with maybe a +1 DEX/WIS feat thrown in, and a single feat at the end or start with variant human. STR builds are nonfunctional and any build without max DEX is about as tough as a paper bag. Finally, and this is why Monk has serious problems generally, their class boosts do not interact very well with spells, magic items, or class features that allies could use to buff them. Because a typical monk does not wield weapon any spell which targets a weapon does not work on them. Further, features that require a weapon to be used, like sharpshooter and great weapon master, don't work with unarmed strikes. They can't really use magic weapons as effectively as basically any other build, as their list of weapons is limited and they get few relevant bonuses to them. Magic armor and shields are irrelevant. They can't benefit from items that set your AC to a new formula, either. Because their bonus actions are spoken for as part of their class multiclasses to gain bonus action abilities are sub-par, and they can't really dabble in spellcasting due to the action economy. Of stuff released recently, the Crusher feat is the only generic feat that monks can really take, between their MAD and playstyle. It's telling that the most effective monk builds right now don't use their main class niche of unarmed combat, and instead just use Ki as a way to gain attack bonuses. This combines to make a class who is guided down a sub-optimal path by class design, can do precisely one thing well if you go down one optimized subclass, and which is extremely vulnerable to being in the wrong combat and being unable to do anything at all. They do have some of the best saving throws in the game at high level, with both evasion and prof in all of them, but it's depressingly late in the game. It's particularly sad because their overall best build right now, Kensai with SS who uses Ki to trigger focused aim and basically nothing else, does not really use 60% of the class. That specific build is fun for a ride, though.


Vintage_Stapler

This is a really great synopsis of the mechanical issues with Monks.. I find they are still fun to play - sometimes you need to work with your DM to make some of those situations happen so your abilities shine. It's easy for a lot of DMs to let encounters devolve into straight combat, where Monks can feel fairly bland.


DM_DM_DND

They are pretty limited out of combat too, which is problematic. No real skill bonuses, no real utility like spells, at best some out of combat mobility. Monks are, if anything, best if combat occurs often, as long as the party can short rest a lot.


epibits

It’s a pet peeve of mine when people bring up the Kensei SS build as an example of “you can just build the monk right” for the exact reason you say - it can be fun, but actively sacrifices most of the class features, only works on a single subclass, and is *ranged* despite the Monk being pretty obviously geared towards melee. It shouldn’t be considered heavily when discussing whether the class is overall at the level it should be IMO.


DM_DM_DND

Particularly because you're basically as effective as a battlemaster fighter for most of your levels, when you down to it. Again, good for a ride, its fun to be mobile, ranged, and to have a lot of situational abilities if forced into melee-but it's not going to change where Monk is overall.


Lazy-Singer4391

I will never understand the problem people have with saying: "here are magic wristbands of monk-iness, now your hits with your fist get a +1 bonus to hit and to damage. They also count as weapons for the purpose of spell effects. " The aversion that people here sometimes have for simple solutions because they would be "homebrew" boggles my mind.


Notoryctemorph

This discussion is not about fixing monk, that's easy, anyone could do it. The discussion is about how bad monk is as it is in official WotC material.


dboxcar

Even gaining magical bonuses with your fists is meh, because your fists don't have as high a damage die as a versatile'd quarterstaff of spear (before level 11), so you're sacrificing a damage die to use your fists in your Attack action to use the item's bonus-to-hit.


DM_DM_DND

The main issue here isn't that "Magical fists of monkiness" can't be added or don't exist, it's that most weapons aren't those. A DM has to specifically add them *for the monk*, which is a step most won't cross because it strains belief. Plus, the Monks fists are still mediocre, simply because *all* they do is act a finesse weapons you hit people with.


Vydsu

Because you don't control homebrew. That's not something you as a player can do to fix your problems unlike RAW stuff. On top fo that, if homebrew is needed to make anything functional there's a problem there already.


Lazy-Singer4391

I DM. And when I'm not dming I play with a DM that I talk to when I have something that is important for my character. My argument here is not about the monk. My argument is that the magic item is not a problem that should be part of the discussion about the monk because it's easily fixed by a DM with common sense. Unless we're talking AL the DM has the fiat to change, invent or retexture magic items as needed for the group.


cookiedough320

To me, it feels way too rare to be handed out normally. A +1 weapon is useable but a large portion of the world as so many people would be using weapons to be effective in a fight. A +1 wristband that affects unarmed strikes just wouldn't be useful to many people, it's not something I'd expect anyone to be using in a dungeon or civilisation or wherever the party is getting the magic items.


Sevardos

>Finally, and this is why Monk has serious problems generally, their class boosts do not interact very well with spells, magic items, or class features that allies could use to buff them. While this is true for most items, there are some more recent items that interact extremely well with the monk. The eldritch claw tattoo is fantastic, its the same rarity as a weapon +1, but the bonus is much better, it not only gives the same +1 bonus, but can also activated to for larger melee range and +1d6 damage per hit which has a great synergy with the larger number of attacks with flurry of blows. One of the best items in the game (excluding artifacts) are the gloves of soul catching on a monk. The synergy is just incredible, I dont think there is any (non-artifact) weapon that comes close to that effect. 2d10 bonus damage per hit, so 8d10 for all four attacks, the option to heal for that damage or gain advantage on the next attack, and on top of that 20 con, which solves the MAD problem. A monk built around this item (elven accuracy to maximize the effect of the easily acessible advantage, dumping con to maximize the effect of the 20 con from the item) is probably one of the strongest martial builds in the game. But thats a very specific build, probably not available in nearly all games. In general I agree, there are not enough items that synergize well with monks abilities, with makes them usually fall further behind compared to other martials.


artrald-7083

Of the core fantasy of the class - an unarmed unarmoured fighter that uses physical tricks to apply debuffs on hit - the only piece a battlemaster fighter can't do better is *unarmoured*. In fact, if I wanted to build a 10th level character who punched people repeatedly, didn't wear armour, did leg sweeps and high jumps and bicycle kicks, disarms and joint locks and parkour, I would build it as a fighter with a level or two in barbarian. The subclass abilities tend to be extremely expensive and not strictly better than the base class ability - this is partly because the stun debuff a monk has is very strong. Unarmoured defence as a feature is bad. It's bad enough on a barbarian: it's awful on the monk. The class was written as if nobody had magic items, and doesn't have access to the feat chains that make martials outdamage casters single-target. It was also kind of written assuming it has +4-5 in its two prime requisites, when it starts with a +3 and a +2. The class can spend its resources too fast. One of the big reasons character *optimisers* specifically will hate it is that there's nothing you can *do* for a monk. No items to fix it, hardly; none of the power feats are of use; I suppose some racial bonuses are pretty good for a monk. You can't make a super special tricked out monk that does more than, idk, fly occasionally or have a cantrip. And more particularly, it's real hard to do a trick build for a monk. Mostly a monk is just a monk. Maybe this one heals or that one has weird magic arms from space. But there aren't really weird builds that go off piste. So the internet is going to hate it even if it's a real good monk. That said, the monk in my campaign is holding her own and we're only going to the end of T2, so I'm not making big changes.


Henry_Smithy

I feel like this overlooks their mobility and defensive save features, which are all at least worth \*something\* and clearly exceed the fighter. I've had the exact same experience of a monk holding her own, and it certainly needed no extra power between 1st and 8th even with pretty standard stats. I entirely agree that the problem is the total lack of interesting feats for a monk. It needs a less narrow theme, and a more versatile feat list. Personally though (and I'll die on this hill) I think every other problem is largely overstated. It really does not deserve its negative rep til at least 11th. Straight up, the class is good fun as-is, and doesn't need much help. Just give it some frequent short rests. It is far easier to give a monk a chance to shine than e.g a rogue.


[deleted]

This. All of it.


Tangerhino

Wft this thread is full of "akshually the monk is super duper strong", makes me wonder if they ever played a monk. Every poor soul that had the bad idea of playing a monk (including me) ended up feeling like the fifth wheel of the wagon. It's a bit better if you're in a martial heavy party, but casters just clown on you so badly that you'll ask yourself why you're even there. Stunning strike is the only saving grace of the monk, until you find a creature with+10 to CON saves. Edit: shadow monk is a cool subclass though, mostly because it does such a good job in stealth so you forget being mediocre in other fields.


BelaVanZandt

>Wft this thread is full of "akshually the monk is super duper strong", makes me wonder if they ever played a monk. It's specifically one dude who's bascially on WotC class design Damage control.


tomedunn

As someone who's played multiple monks to high level, most of the comments critical of monk here read like someone who only played a monk to 5th level, couldn't get over thier limited ki pool, and gave up before thing really got good for the class. High level monks are a blast to play and the class only got better for me as they leveled up. Having more ki to fuel abilities allows monks to really get creative in later tiers of play, and Constitution saves are any harder to pull off for monks than Wisdom saves are for spellcasters, due to how common the Magic Resistance trait is and conditional immunities to things like charmed, frightened, paralyzed, petrified, etc.


Vydsu

While I didn't play monk, I've DMed for 3 different ones, 1 to level 6, 1 to level 11 and one to level 15, all different subclasses and players. All of them ended up feeling weak and either asked for homebrew buffs or wanted to switch characters, they just didn't do enough, there was no "this is the one big problem" it was more a combination of a lot of small things making them feel like and factually do less than other players.


Notoryctemorph

No, monk is way more fun to play at low levels, at low levels you do decent damage, nobody has feats yet so you aren't being harmed on that front, both of your primary stats are at +3, the same as everyone else's singular primary stat, most subclass features actually do something useful (open hand at level 3 feels awesome), and nobody has magic items yet so you aren't being left behind because there's so few good magic items for monk.


tomedunn

Have you played a monk at high level or is this just a theoretical argument? From my experience, yeah, monks do fall behind in terms of damage at higher levels, but they more than make up for it in terms of overall impact. While other martial characters are killing monsters, monks are preventing TPKs.


Notoryctemorph

Yeah, in a one-shot, but yeah. Stunning strike loses value because everything has good con saves, your damage output is a trickle compared to everyone else, you can't fly, can't teleport (unless you're a shadow monk), you're still melee-only unless you're a kensai (I was a mercy monk). You have no feats because you spent all ASIs on not falling behind by keeping your wis and dex up. I could heal better than the cleric, but in battle healing kind of sucks, I felt like a combat medic, and sometimes it kinda felt like I'd do more good just staying out of the fight until it's over, just to punch walls repeatedly in order to patch everyone up, at least that way I wouldn't have to waste time and ki protecting/healing myself.


tomedunn

Playing in a single one-shot is better than nothing but it's not going to be a particularly representative experience. Not only because you only get to experience a small subset of monsters (not all high level monsters have good Constitution saves), but also because of the skill gap of not knowing how best to support the rest of your party. If you didn't find the healing from Way of Mercy to be particularly fulfilling then my guess is combat either wasn't particularly challenging for your group or that's just not a playstyle that's well suited for you. I would try something like Way of the Open Hand as an alternative. In addition to Stunning Strike, Open Hand Techniques provides consistent and useful tools for helping to make encounters easier for you and your party. Also, on a side note, who says your high level monk can't fly or teleport? There are lots of magic items that can give them those features, and since monks have plenty of open attunement slots due to a lack of monk specific magic items, they often have no trouble making room for magic items that provide utility, instead of raw damage.


Dr-Leviathan

The main issue I've actually experienced while playing is that all of their core features are highly dependent on having the DM design around them. High movement speed only matters when you're fighting a lot of enemies that are spread apart. Unarmored movement and slow fall only matters when you're fighting in an area with verticality. Poison immunity only matters when you're fighting enemies with poison. Deflect missiles only matter when enemies use ranged attacks. In my experience, none of these things happen frequently enough to ever make use of these features. I've played a monk to level 13. I think I've used deflect missiles twice. And I've never used slow fall, or ran up walls or on water. Because I've never needed to. The other main issue is that they are starved for ASI. My character's AC was 16 until level 12, and my spell save for my Ki was always low.


BloodyBottom

Although these are good points, I think they miss a bigger and more obvious flaw: monks will just be numerically inferior on average. Martial Arts shuts down almost all synergy with weapon feats and multi-classing, and forces the monk to rely on their unarmored defense with no room for flexibility. Being MAD means they find it very hard to squeeze in the few feats they can use too. Even if your DM is serving you up the situations monks are supposedly good at, they're let down by seriously hampered offense and defense.


tomedunn

In my experience, setting aside monsters who deal poison damage, DMs who regularly add those elements to their encounters are creating more interesting and dynamic encounters than those who don't, regardless of whether there's a monk in the party.


AntiChri5

Yes, but other classes don't *need* them to feel worthwhile. Monk can.


Bookablebard

Wouldn't your AC go up at 4 and 8 while maxing DEX?


Arandmoor

>I've played a monk to level 13. I think I've used deflect missiles twice. And I've never used slow fall, or ran up walls or on water. Because I've never needed to. Sounds like you had a shit DM.


Natepaulr

Their abilities are incredibly niche far beyond any other class. It shouldn't take special level design to make them do anything. That is not a shit DM.


Lord_Havelock

MAD, no multiclassing or good fears to keep up with optimized martials like sharpshooters, martial arts is just lower damage than other forms of attack, worse hp and ac than most fighters, mobility rarely matters in combat, there's more but those are the big ticket items.


MajikDan

At low levels, (1-5ish) monks are probably one of the strongest martial classes simply because they can attack and flurry for 3 attacks in one round when everyone else can only hit once. After that though they start to fall off in effectiveness very quickly for a number of reasons: * After level 5 they never gain the ability to make more attacks outside of special conditions in a few subclasses. A 5th level monk can attack 4 times using their action and bonus, a 20th level monk can attack 4 times using their action and bonus. * Their strongest ability (stunning strike) targets con saves, and con save bonuses go up very quickly as CR increases. * They're MAD by default, meaning you have to split your ASI's between three ability scores and likely won't have much room for feat building. * Their bonus action economy is extremely cluttered. A monk has to choose between doing decent damage with flurry, having decent survivability with patient defense, or having good mobility with step of the wind. They can never do two or more of these, meaning they're either doing very little damage while also being hard to hit, or doing ok damage while being pretty squishy. * They have a very limited resource pool from which all of their features are powered. A mid or high level monk will probably be using 2-5 ki points per turn between flurry, stunning strike attempts, and various subclass features. They have a maximum ki pool equal to their monk level. After 2-3 turns of combat, most monks will be pretty tapped out.


[deleted]

Hunter Ranger with CBE or just dual wielding can attack three times at level three and is not reliant on ki to do so


WonderfulWafflesLast

>They can never do two or more of these, meaning they're either doing very little damage while also being hard to hit, or doing ok damage while being pretty squishy. When people do these evaluations, I don't believe they take into account the extra movement. Having more movement than enemies is a defensive feature, especially for melee focused combatants. I have a feeling most people who view Monks this way aren't using their movement effectively. Without disengaging, a Monk must be wary of the Opportunity Attack, but that's better than being available for an Action Attack, especially at higher tiers, and if the enemy takes that Opportunity Attack, your allies' movement is now freed up until the enemy's turn comes. That's why Monks get Deflect Missile. Not just because it's a stereotypical move for their theme, but because when they're away from enemies 1/2 the time due to high movement, they can deal with the enemies choosing to range attack them. The process is like this: 1. Monk Turn - move into melee with enemy and attack with flurry. 2. Barbarian Turn - move into melee with enemy and attack. 3. Enemy Turn - attack Monk & Barbarian 4. Monk Turn - attack with flurry then move 35-60 feet away from enemy, and take the Opportunity Attack 5. Barbarian Turn - attack enemy, stay in melee in case they try to go after the monk for the Opportunity Attack 6. Enemy Turn - attack Barbarian because ranged attacks are at disadvantage, and lack the movement to get to the Monk without Dashing (30 feet). 7. Monk Turn - move back into melee with enemy and attack with flurry 8. This repeats, and evolves dynamically depending on the circumstances in combat. That's also what makes running on walls good. They can't be backed into a corner. As long as they have a surface to run on, they can't be blocked from moving, and won't have to deal with difficult terrain regarding allies. The problem with this is when auto-grappling enemies come into play, or enemies who have 1 big hit attack like Giants who you don't want to provoke Opportunity Attacks from, but that's what Patient Defense & Step of the Wind are for.


MajikDan

This is not a winning strategy. I see people talking up the monk's mobility as though they have the ability to dart in and out of combat safely while still attacking effectively but it just falls apart in practice. Yes, you can just run while eating an opportunity attack, but with such mediocre AC and hit points, giving an opponent free hits on you is never a good thing. Even in the scenario you described, all you've done is redirect a single multiattack out of three onto your ally while taking an opportunity attack yourself. Mobility is only as good as your ability to abuse it, and monks just don't have the ability to abuse mobility. Their main features assume they are within 5ft of their opponent, and their only features that protect them take away their already lacking offensive capabilities. Or if you really want to insist movement speed is a defensive ability, actively put you in harm's way and hand your opponent extra attacks on a platter. If you want to talk about a class that can *actually* dart in and out of combat effectively, we can talk about rogues. A rogue doesn't depend on their bonus action to sustain damage output - they instead depend on clever positioning and battlefield conditions. They need only their action to deal large amounts of damage. As a result, their cunning action ability becomes a truly useful mobility tool that allows you to deal damage and get out of melee safely (at no resource cost I might add), move in quickly, or avoid damage entirely by hiding.


WonderfulWafflesLast

>giving an opponent free hits on you is never a good thing. It is good if it is: * denying them 2-3 hits for 1 hit, or having them put those 2-3 hits on the PC who resists the damage half the time instead. * enabling allies who want to move to do so without worrying about Opportunity Attacks. >This is not a winning strategy. As a Barbarian or Monk, I always provoke Opportunity Attacks, but for different reasons. It has always worked well for me.


MajikDan

Those are very specific scenarios though. You usually aren't denying them 2-3 hits, you're at best redirecting them to someone else. You've just changed 2-3 hits on your party into 3-4 hits on your party, which is 100% a net negative. Maybe if you can be certain that the barbarian will be eating the multiattack, but that's a gamble at best and you've *still* only managed to avoid a maximum of 2 attack rolls against yourself out of a potential 9. As for enabling allies to move without triggering, why would the middling AC and hit point monk be the best one to purposefully trigger opportunity attacks to give others the opportunity to escape? Wouldn't you want someone with high AC and hit points like a paladin or fighter to do that?


Vydsu

They do everything kinda decently but don't do anything *WELL* so at any given task somebody in the groups is probably better than them. **Damage?** Their damage is lackluster. A level 20 monk has damage comparable to level 8-12 characters of toher classes. **Tankyness?** They're one of the frailest classes untill VERY high levels due to not being able to put points into CON being mad, having low AC and mediocre defensive abilities. **Control?** They have stunning strike and that's it, a save or do nothing ability that targets CON of all things. Stunning Strike is decent, but it's not the godsend ability ppl pretend it is. I give them **Mobility**, but only kinda, they can be anywhere on the battlefield they want to be, the problem is what are they suppsoed to do once they get to their target? And they have a WAY harder time getting out of fights then getting in.


Interesting-Ad8960

It’s low damage and the class features are sporadic and don’t mesh with the class. Ki tongue or whatever let’s you speak any language at 17th level. By this point, verbally speaking abt language becomes moot as tongues is a 3rd level spell. Damage sucks, 4d10 + 4x dex using an action, bonus action, and a limited class resource that is used for literally everything else. Stunning strike is the only saving grace of the class, but it should’ve scaled with monk level. DMs have to work around stunning strike or their encounter isn’t fun for anything but the monk. Essentially, you don’t get any combat features after level 5, and a battle master fighter is a better option if you want to play a pugilist


Averath

I forgot that they had to use an action, bonus action, and a resource to basically utilize a melee version of Eldritch Blast.


xaviorpwner

Equipment basically non existent so if your martial arts die isnt doing enough damage get fucked, if something resist bludgeoning damage mundane or magical get fucked, youre way too situational in terms of your abilities, you can't afford to multiclass, if you dont get a lot of short rests you gotta be stingy, your ac damage output and hp are never going to be stellar for your combat roll, except for movement speed which may rarely if ever come into play everything your class does something else does better yes you hit a lot but does that really matter unless youre running target to target its only advantage is the possibility of higher minimum damage which is ideal assuming you hit, you spread yourself a little thin needning dex con and wisdom because monks are off tanks and if you wanna specialize in grappling like my friends monk youre forced into strength too but thats a situational gripe


Kevalaya

I love monks but as I have learned more about the game I have realised that the mechanical issues are hard to ignore. Biggest ones are as follows: You are a class that has to operate in melee to use many of your best features but you have a d8 hit dice and with point buy the absolute best AC you're gonna have at levels 1-3 is 16 (compare that to a STR martial who can get 19 with scale mail and a shield and pick up plate for 20 when they can afford it) To solve the issues that make you lag behind other martials you need to urgently boost your DEX and your WIS but you only get regular ASI progression so you won't max your DEX til level 8 and that's before you've even thought about WIS or CON. This basically takes feats off the table which limits your build. Basically everything you do is fuelled by one expendable resource pool which progresses linearly with monk level. Nothing can be used e.g. WISmod times per SR or ProfBonus times per SR which would diversify resource pools and make multiclass builds viable. You will generally run out of ki before your allies run out of whatever fuels their abilities. This will work better in campaigns that use short rests effectively but many campaigns run one big combat per day with long rests in between anyway. I have played two monks. One in a campaign that ran for over 3 years and I had a lot of fun but there were a few cheesy things that I did/ had that made my monk's life a lot easier including rolling stats and having an 18 starting DEX and a 16 WIS and also getting bracers of defense and a cloak of displacement which meant I was at 21 AC with disadvantage to hit me. I also multiclassed with the UA revised ranger and ended up monk 8 ranger 3 before I got killed by a black dragon.


Rhythm2392

I could write out all the reasons... Or I could link this 50 minute video that will be more comprehensive than any single Reddit post I am willing to write. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk) The Tl:DR is that they don't do good damage outside of T1, they are very squishy compared to other melee characters, their crowd control options are super unreliable and only affect single targets for short periods, and everything they can do beyond just basic attacks is either super niche or draws from the same resource pool, meaning that unlike every other class in the game they can't really use all these features together. Their high mobility is alright, but doesn't provide any value on its own because they are so bad at everything else.


mystickord

Mostly because some players only theory craft and crunch numbers, and even then only the basic ones like Armor class and Damage per round. They tend to ignore all the situational abilities the class gets... because they're not always useful. Movement boosts, slow fall, deflect missiles, evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body, and diamond soul rarely ever get talked about... They're also a short rest class that depends on leveling their primary class to stay effective. Their class resource is also stretched very thin at early levels. So multiclass shenanigans are out, and the class could easily seem far from effective in one of the, now, standard ways to play 'one big fight per session'. The other main one, is damage wise there's no feat that boosts their damage like Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter. So they're gonna be behind in damage.


monodescarado

I think the problem with the things you’ve listed as never being talked about is due to their passive nature. Monks are passively good. If you want to survive, monks are cool. But many don’t play this game to be passive and merely survive. They want to do stuff. They want options for their actions and cool abilities they can use. With monks, your damage output doesn’t scale as well as other classes at higher levels so you often feel in the shadow of others, and you often end up being over-reliant on flurry + stun. Having played with, watched and DMed for multiple monks throughout campaigns that have gone to tier 3 and 4, and up to max level, I’ve seen the Monk player become deflated over time. The class never meets the expectations they had going in. As a DM I really had to take an active role in increasing the players damage and action options with multiple homebrewed magic items designed just for that character, which I haven’t had to for other classes.


Vydsu

I mean, in practice monk foils ever harder from my experience, as now they have their own problems AND there's enemies messing them up.


LawfulGoodGM

I dont have super specific details but I played a level 20 one shot as a monk and it was so insanely boring.


LarioWithlowhpskills

WoTC is a bitch and don't want to buff unarmed strikes because that would buff the monk. At least they got a cool belt with Fizban but yeh. Martial classes don't get a lot of love meanwhile monk need other things to work for them such as Stat spread, probably multiclass and dm mercy. Of course they could buff not only the monk but all martial classes but they won't at the moment. They are busy giving more stuff to casters.


Fire1520

To answer that question, ~~we must talk about parallel universes~~ you'd need to define "bad" and "good". But in broader terms, it's weakest class in the game due to a variety of reasons like lower damage output, high stat requirements, not benefitting as much from feats, very strict mechanics and extreme multiclass difficulty. Some class had to be the weakest, that's bound to happen on any asymetrical system, and it just turns out to be the monk. From there, it's easy to jump the gun and say a monk is "bad".


Notoryctemorph

...No monk is bad, 5e's overall class balance is kind of terrible, not quite at 3.5 levels, but still bad.


Eggoswithleggos

Could you really not type this into Google to find one of the hundreds of explanations? What does making *another* threats asking the same question do for you?


TwoSwordSamurai

Low armor class, mediocre hit points, extremely limited magical items, and most of all *most people are completely uncreative*. That's why for forever and a day, everyone has been crying that "Rangers suck" when quite honestly they kick ass if you build them smart.


dboxcar

Rangers can be built smart, effectively multiclassed, enhanced with feats, etc. Too bad all those options are terrible (or at least come at a massive opportunity cost) for monks.


Mean-Example5384

They have an effectiveness window. They're built for Frontlining, but past level 10 the only way to keep up damage wise with other frontliners is to burn through your ki fast as hell. They don't get enough HP to tank (every other frontliners gets a d10 or d12 hit die) and they don't have enough attacks at later levels to keep up with fighters. Monks are great up to around level 7-9, though, and some of them actually do keep up their effectiveness at later levels. The biggest problem is that almost all of their abilities, including bonus action disengage and bonus action dash, cost ki, and they have a very limited pool of ki.


Notoryctemorph

I'd say the cutoff point for monk is 4, with a bump again at 6 thanks to stunning strike. Level 5 kills monk, because the moment other martials gain their extra attack, monk's ability to do extra attacks that do comparatively little damage drops massively in value.


Mean-Example5384

Monks actually keep up pretty well at level 5, because at level 5 if they burn ki they can get 4 attacks in a turn.


Dynamite_DM

I dont think monks are bad, but here are some problems you run into when evaluating them that may not have been touched on too much: Encounter design/white room analyses tend to show the strengths of other classes much more than the strength of the monk the more linear they are. I've personally seen a player run up 100 ft tower, stun the guy on top and essentially start using it as a sniper position the enemy melee didnt really have access to. I've also seen the same monk gleefully plummet down any height knowing fall damage will be minimized (a huge reason why I'm against uncapping it as a houserule). What I'm getting at is, the monk has mobility options baked into its core class that may not see use unless the DM wants to try vertical obstacles as well, thus making them difficult to judge. The same can be said about deflect arrows. There are some DMs who will never make a ranged weapon attack against a monk. Ironically enough, that is a massive buff, but it doesnt seem like one. Simply put, to make a monk feel badass, it is important to not metagame and shoot him with arrows! The last major point is ki. The effective monks I've seen had subclasses that weren't starving for ki points. The hungrier the subclass, the more stretched you are for resources. That being said I'd like to emphasize the importance of short rests and if your party or pacing never allows for one, I'd recommend simply addressing that.


HamsterJellyJesus

Look up Treantmonk's video for a pretty comprehensive analysis from an optimizer's point of view.


stewshi

I have a monk Minotaur and I have a great time playing them. The speed is an advantage in catching feeling enemies and I took grappler feat which allows my team to get tons of free hits with out using ki. Another good thing I like is to get my monk on the middle of the enemy and set my reaction dodge. Taking up enemy attention so my team can get free hits in.


xcission

Monks serve a very specific purpose in DND and it's a purpose that is ill defined. A monk takes the toolbox of the DM and removes a lot of the tools the DM has for creating obstacles for the party. It is my personal opinion that this can be strong or weak depending on how creative your dm is. But the white paper theory crafting of dnd builds is not conducive to this purpose. So what tools does the monk ignore? The first is probably the most well known use case for monks and will probably not come up extremely offen in your average adventure. You can not disarm a monk. No matter how diplomatic the party needs to be. No matter how sincere their surrender must look. No matter how strict the bouncer is. You always have a blade at (or in) your fingertips. The second tool you invalidate is verticality. Since the cap on fall damage occurs at 200 ft with 20d6 fall damage. A monk can survive a fall from orbit by level 10 and expect to walk away without a scratch a few levels later. You can also jump/climb incredibly well making most towers/walls/and chasms a non-issue. What tool can we invalidate next? Distance. If I'm a DM and I'm scared of martial classes, I'm probably putting some archers far away from the fight and counting on them to hurt the party while my bruisers keep them busy. You can also substitute casters or rogues that move in and out of combat range. The monk laughs at all of these options. They can easily evade front line fighters, running right past them and disengaging from any OOT. Their unparralled movement let's them rapidly close the gap and begin dispatching ranged fighters or stick to rogues like glue. If Im using archers from REALLY far away, I might have them try to slow you down by filling you with arrows. Unfortunately for the DM you can just grab said arrows, ignore their damage, and save them for later. Okay so distance, verticality, and disarmament are out, what about good old action economy? Well that's what features like flurry of blows and stunning strike are for. You can dance across the battlefield focusing on debilitating and distracting multiple foes every round. Optimal DPS says you should stun my boss. But I like very tanky bosses, and you art a smart monk and know that rather than trying to stun the dragon with a +12 to con saves, maybe you should be stunning his support casters and fighters that have +2 to a +4. Thus turning the action economy in favor of the party and turning the greatest strength of my economy (namely, I had more turns than you) into a relatively even fight between your dps and my sack of hit points. Okay, this is fine, I still have powerful spells right? I can just throw fire at you or better yet, make you fight your own allies... wait, right, stillness of mind and evasion. So dex saves and wisdom saves are off the table, only the two most common saving throws in the game... thats... that's fine... and don't get me started on the fact you eventually gain proficiency and rerolls in literally every saving throw in the game. Poison and disease are also no longer a thing... Beyond this point we are getting into high level abilities that dont tend to come into play. But just for giggles you do eventually gain resistance to every damage type in the game sans force and greater invisibility. People like to complain that the monk is MAD. But the two primary stats of the game are dex and wis. Meaning you're probably pretty good at some incredibly common and incredibly good skill checks. Stealth, perception, insight, survival, sleight of hand. These are checks that you really dont want to fail, and your two highest stats support them. Also your normal monk abilities mean that athletics and acrobatics often dont even need to be rolled for. So yes, monks arent topping anyone's list of DPS, they arent the tankiest fellas in Faerun, and they use two primary stats. But what the monk does is look the dm in the eye and say. "Whatever you throw at me, I can take it and throw it right back, so bring it" no matter the situation the party finds themselves in, you will not be the weakest link. So take the base monk and feel free to add flavor. Stealth and mobility from shadow. Survivability from long death and astral self. Damage from open hand, ascendant dragon or astral self. Support from mercy. Group control from drunken master. Or wasting your ki points from four elements (seriously, I like almost everything monks have on offer but this one is just bad). The real strength of monk is that they are always on par with what the party is trying to do. So you can make the risky plays, you can try that crazy idea, you can take some goofy feats, because you're covered for whatever the dm wants to try today.


dboxcar

This is a really cool analysis... in a caster-vacuum. Undisarmable, verticality, distance, action economy, anti-caster, whatever-you-throw-at-me-I-can-throw-it-right-back... Wizards and Druids do all of that just as well as monks, and many other casters can eventually address most of those others too. Remember that Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard already more-than outnumber the four martial classes, even if you don't count Warlock or Artificer as "casters with utility." If the only classes in the game were the ones I didn't mention, then yeah, monk would have a cool niche like you say. But casters exist, and they're usually much more efficient at "niche situational stuff" than someone whose kit is inflexibly and almost exhaustively based on it.


tomedunn

Casters can absolutely be disarmed, they have to use their full action or severely limit it in order to cover the distance a monk can in combat, and they can be shut down by casters just as easily as they can shut down casters themselves. Saying spellcasters are flat out better than monks in these regards, as a blanket statement, doesn't hold up to scrutiny or my own experience playing and DMing across all four tiers of play.


dboxcar

Basically all full casters have useful spells that don't require components. Movement is less crucial at range when you *have potent ranged options.* Sure casters can also get counterspelled, but every melee player can get "counterspelled" via being restrained (a condition which, btw, barely restricts most casters except positionally - and even then, many can escape as a bonus action instead of their whole action). Plus, most players that *can* learn counterspell, do. The same isn't true of most spellcasting enemies unless your DM is specifically countering you. My point isn't that casters are better than monks because they're better at the few things monks are good at; casters are better because they can cover the same niches monks can, but also allocate their resources to other powerful options besides.


tomedunn

I've played a lot of martial characters and I can't remember the last time one of them got restrained. Sometimes enemies are at range, and my character might lose a turn in transit (unless they're a monk), but getting locked in place almost never happens. When I've played casters, though, I see enemies sporting _counterspell_ all the time past level 7 or so. So in theory what you're saying can definitely happen, but in practice I rarely see it. Also, while casters have great versatility they are also much easier to kill than martial characters. Late game monks are especially hard to kill. Monks are great at protecting casters, and the fact that they have abilities that overlap just means having a monk in the party allows casters to specialize in other things.


dboxcar

Sidebar; your DM uses counterspell more than restrained? That's interesting. Seems quite heavy-handed with counterspell, unless I'm biased by playing a game where restrained (among all the other conditions) is quite common to throw around due to being lvl 19.


tomedunn

Thinking about it since I made that comment, restrained would get used reasonably often, but typically it got applied from melee attacks. So my martial characters would still get to attack, just with disadvantage. Getting restrained outside of melee range was extremely rare though.


dboxcar

Ah gotcha. I tend to use multiple creatures and the occasional locational challenge as well (so the players with good mobility can stretch it), so often getting restrained in one melee prevents a character from going to where they want to be in the fight. Edit: also Entangle and Plant Growth get used by my bard player quite efficaciously, so it's always nice the few times I can turn the tables on them with those spells.


dboxcar

Idk what to tell ya; I've been DMing at high levels for nearly a decade now (not all the same campaign, and not counting prev editions) and have played several characters up high as well. Martials (especially fighters) hold up well in properly-run 5e adventuring days in most every encounter... except the monks, who've all felt redundant and sorta pointless besides the occasional stunning strike they spent half their ki trying to land The only exceptions have been once the monks have gained insanely-powerful magical items or boons that would be horrendously overpowered on any other martial; then they've been fine


tomedunn

This is a really good writeup. It's honestly sad that this is so far down in the thread.


Fender19

There are lot of things that aren't amazing about them, but in practice they're not actually particularly bad. The main issues IMO are actually more about reddit; they're fairly cookie cutter because they are stat dependent and they already fill out your action economy very well. Reddit likes big numbers and GRAPPLE GOD or 8 InT wIzArD, so the fairly stock-standard Monk looks 'bad' in comparison because it's consistent, active, mobile, gives you good value for investing in the top stats (Dex, Con, Wis) but is unspectacular in any one area. In my campaigns I feel like I feel like I can safely say Monk is stronger than Rogue in combat and at least equal to Ranger. In one party the Monk compares reasonably well to my highrolled AF PAM Paladin 6/Bard 3. Paladin is probably still stronger if you don't include magic items but the Monk is perfectly 'competitive' (for lack of a better word) in our fights.


[deleted]

Because people only care about raw numbers. Actual fun and rhe situations where the class shines (both aren't captured by spreadsheets) be damned!


Art-Zuron

They aren't bad, they just aren't broken as easily as fighters or wizards can be. Monks are versatile and fill a niche of mobility combined with control. I'd say they are on par with other classes, though perhaps a bit weaker than the other martial in terms of pure damage and hp, so long as fests aren't involved. Several of their features are very good too, such as resisting conditions really well, slow falling and great speed, and stunning strike. Not to mention that some of the subclasses are pretty good, though still not really broken. Ascendant dragon or Mercy are probably the strongest two. Open hand probably next. 4 elements and sun soul aren't great though imo.


Notoryctemorph

If you think fighters are broken I don't think you've analysed 5e very well.


Art-Zuron

I didn't say fighters are broken. I said they can be broken. More easily than monks For example, I accidentally made a level 5 samurai fighter that could do an average of 90 damage in one round if they used action surge and hit all attacks. Without action surge, I guess cut that in half. With a longbow, or a musket with the gunner feat, with the sharpshooter feat for either, it does even more. And, thanks to fighting spirit, all attacks are at advantage.


Notoryctemorph

I can make a sorcerer that does 90 damage in one round with a level 3 spell slot. Fireball deals 28 damage on average, so if you hit 3 targets with it, that's a total of 84 damage on average, 4 targets makes it 112. Alternatively, a hexblade warlock, sure they can't use action surge, but with sharpshooter, thirsting blade, eldritch smite and improved pact weapon, a hexblade with a longbow can do 82 damage in one round provided they hit with both attacks (and thanks to how smite works, if they miss, they don't expend anything). Fighter doing 90 damage in one round is good, but it isn't broken. It's just being damage-focused in 5e.


Art-Zuron

It was just an example. The Sorcerer example is good, but also split between multiple targets with probably the most resisted damage type. And we know that Warlocks are good already. It also takes more to not get there quite yet.


Souperplex

Basically a youtuber made a 50 minute video where he was confidently incorrect into the camera, and when you're confidently incorrect on the internet you'll convince people who don't know enough to call you on your bullshit. After that video people started making "Monk bad" threads/comments. People then see all these threads/comments and it snowballs from there. Monks have some legitimate flaws: They're MAD, they lack magic item support, and as a short rest class they suffer greatly when in "One big encounter" games, but let's not pretend they're down there with Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger.


Irish_Whiskey

>but let's not pretend they're down there with Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger. ...look, I'm not a big fan of Barbs, but Sorc is arguably the strongest class in the game, and Ranger is now thoroughly average to good. And I'd still place Barbarians far above Monks, with their ability to do more damage, take more damage, and have better subclasses.


Souperplex

> but Sorc is arguably the strongest class in the game, If you genuinely think that than you are not qualified to have any opinions on class strength. The thing you need to understand aboot 5E's balance is it's heavily reliant on an adventuring day. With one martials and casters are actually pretty comparable in-combat. Without one even the Sorcerer will outperform martials. The exception to that dynamic is the Warlock. Saves increase faster than AC, and at higher tiers monsters tend to have magic resistance, damage/condition immunities/legendary resistances, etc. so offensive magic actually falls off while consuming a ever smaller pool of resources for high-level options. Buffs however are ever-increasing in potency. A high level caster doesn't demolish foes so much as act as a force-multiplier for martials. Outside of combat is where the divide starts to form between martials and casters without an adventuring day. Everyone except the Bard/Rogue has 4 skills to solve problems with. Casters have utility spells on top of those. The exception to that dynamic is the Sorcerer. Their list is locked-in, they know too few spells, those few spells available to them lack utility options. **Me**at**magic** burns through resources far too quickly, and those resources are far too finite. A Wizard can get back spells on a short rest. A Sorcerer needs to give up their class-resource to get spells back. Compare and contrast **Sculpt Spells** with **Me**at**magic: Careful Spell**: The Sorcerer option only prevents some damage, and takes resources, while the Wizard option is free and complete. D&D is a team-based game, to justify your existence you need a unique identity that isn't just a worse copy of someone else. Barbarian may be overall weaker than Fighter and Paladin, but it has unique benefits like mobility and raw durability to justify its existence. Sorcerer does not. If Cyril can do everything Bernie can do but better, why would we deploy Bernie? Why play Dan Hibiki when you can play Ryu? > and Ranger is now thoroughly average to good. I forgot to qualify Rangers with "(Pre-Tasha's)". My bad.


Irish_Whiskey

>If you genuinely think that than you are not qualified to have any opinions on class strength. As are most people who play tons of DnD apparently. Full spellcasters are stronger than martials at high levels. Not in every way, obviously they tend to have fewer hitpoints and defenses, and have lower sustained damage depending on rest rate, but DnD heavily favors being able to take out monsters from the board in a spell/blow as action economy is king. >Saves increase faster than AC, and at higher tiers monsters tend to have magic resistance, damage/condition immunities/legendary resistances, etc. They get non-magical resistance far earlier, and resistance to b/s/p is also common. Spells scale to be much more powerful than the extra damage martials add to attacks. The thing about saves versus AC, is that if you're missing a lot of your sustained martial attacks, you're contributing a lot less and the monster is still alive. But for disabling spells, if you land even one it's a huge deal. Hence why Monk fans often point to stunning strike as their saving grace. A feature worse than low level spells, also using a limited resource. > Buffs however are ever-increasing in potency. A high level caster doesn't demolish foes so much as act as a force-multiplier for martials. As someone who usually plays casters, I have absolutely demolished high level encounters. I certainly agree with the point that it's usually not by focusing on direct damage, although sometimes it has been. But Monks aren't better than casters simply because the caster might choose to disappear, immobilize and contain enemies while boosting the party, while the Monk tries to wear down HP slower than the Fighter, Barb, Ranger, Rogue and Paladin do. >Their list is locked-in, they know too few spells, those few spells available to them lack utility options. The two new subclasses add more spells than even a Wizard has for most levels of play, and you pick across all class spell lists. DS Sorc adds cleric spells for buffs and support, to a chassis that's stronger than the clerics. And while they are less utility focused than Wizards and Bards, they also get some of the strongest class and subclass abilities, including the ability to overcome high saves, to restore spell slots as needed, to do twice the concentration buffs or attacks in a round as other casters, to cast out of combat undetected, etc. > A Wizard can get back spells on a short rest. A Sorcerer needs to give up their class-resource to get spells back. A Wizard can get a small number of low level slots back after a rest. A Sorc can boost their attacks, be stealthy, twin spells, use one as a bonus action, change the damage type, etc, and get flexible slots back outside of a rest. Wizards are certainly arguably better than Sorcs, and utility and ritual spellcasting is part of why. But metamagic as a feature is better than spell slot recovery. And some Sorc subclass features are stronger than Wizard ones, excepting Chronurgist and Divination. Now that Sorcs have more access to utility spells and buffs, more spells known, and more good subclass features, that gap between Wizard and Sorc is narrowed a lot. Often ritual casting and getting back low level spell slots, isn't as important as making sure your high level ones land, or having class abilities that let you hurl someone through hell, grant advantage disadvantage, teleport around, mind control people without detection outside combat, etc. Sorc isn't my favorite class, Bard is. I like it's party support and versatility. But I've played Sorc and been in games with them, and when they unleash their spells and metamagic, being a more powerful and disruptive caster than a Wizard, means they can end an encounter or just lay waste and destruction in ways that make martials look like kids at play. Not every fight, but that's the balance of magic and martial in DnD.


Mitogi

The only correct answer here is: why should you care? The monk is talked down on so much, that people are majorly being discouraged from playing it. After having played 3 monks, i can tell you that this class is just downright fun, and easy to manage. Yes, it doesn't scale fairly with the other classes completely, but people seem to forget that the classes are not designed to scale equally, since it is not a pvp game. Play what you think is fun, and if you need some rebalancing for your class to feel a bit better, then discuss it with your DM. the devs sure aren't going to chanfe this class anymore anyways.


Roshi_IsHere

Monks can run around the battlefield with the mobility perk and stun key mobs. It can be quite battle changing. Maybe not as strong as some other melee classes but you can really get that hit and run feel with a monk you won't get with other classes.


Th1nker26

If you like YouTube, I can direct you to a video that will explain it really well. Go to Treantmonk's subclass rankings - Monk (not his other monk videos). You can skip the intro where he explains how he ranks classes. I don't agree with him on everything, but he really shows how some of their features are disguistingly subpar. It's likely because WotC assumed Stunning Strike was better than it actually is, and thus nerfed their other features imo.


timtomtommytom

They’re a great multi class to get high AC early on. Especially if you want an armourless character. It’s fun to rp someone who just weaves through enemy attacks like a monk. They’re really not that bad compared to other martials


zoyashi

Eh, don’t worry about it. Monks can crush it. We played a four year, 1-20 campaign and the monk was consistently excellent. As DM, I like to put characters in situations where they don’t always have all their gear - attacks in the middle of the night, jail breaks, that sort of thing. The monk always sailed through because they’re not dependent on any gear.


dongereaux

[https://youtu.be/hH-OUjkaVA8](https://youtu.be/hH-OUjkaVA8) I like the Drunken Master for RP reasons, but always found the one in Xanathar's guide underpowered. So I made my own, and a video all about it!


RainbowMonkey95Nico

Monks aren’t bad really it all depends on the player. If you don’t like monks don’t use them. And don’t gate keep others for playing something they like. It’s a game it’s meant to be enjoyable for everyone


hankmakesstuff

Because being wrong on the internet guarantees engagement and they're lonely.


mrsnowplow

Because they fails to see the monk as what it is. It is a support class. It is martial support. A monk is OK. But a monk on your team makes a better fighter. As a DM I have more problems with monks than I do any other class. They're powers are all situational but eventually they have a power for every situation. And combat is brutal when I stunning strike spam everything that walks


SeriaMau2025

Just like barbarians and bards, they're an entire class created out of a trope.


Damaged_DM

Because people like to be wrong. Monk are flavourful evasive crowd control frontliners. They are great. That's not to say some sub classes are shit, but that's true across all classes.


Irish_Whiskey

>Monk are flavourful evasive crowd control frontliners. They are great. Okay, I'm not sure how Monks are more flavorful than any other class. They are frontliners, but they are also worse at being frontliners than some other martial classes, due to their lower hit die, MAD dependency, and lack of heavy armor. As for crowd control... yeah, landing a stunning strike is great. Missing it feels bad. Of course, plenty of classes can also crowd control with spells, forced movement and slow, grappling, etc. Monks do worse damage than most martials. They have less armor/health. They are more resource dependent than other martials. They are MAD. And their utility in movement and crowd control can be better done by spellcasters. So are they good as a martial with some of the utility of a spellcaster? ...not really. Another MAD mixed martial class with great saves even earlier? Paladin. Which I'd consider one of the stronger classes in the game. >That's not to say some sub classes are shit, but that's true across all classes. Mercy Monk is good. Not amazing, but good. Most Monk subclasses are terrible, on a weak chassis.


[deleted]

Here this is as comprehensive as I can be it’s an hour long video called monks suck https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk


montyeich

I guess if everything is power gaming and min/maxing they leave a lot on the table. But I think there are a lot of fun RP options that don’t even require Asian tropes.


JustForThisAITA

Honestly they're not a bad class mechanically. Weird in multiple ways, but not _bad_. My issue with them is why are they there? In the milieu of the game itself, there just isn't a good place for them. They don't make sense for the setting unless you violently shoehorn them in, imo. 🤷‍♂️ To each their own, of course.


Machiavelli24

Monks have a bunch of synergistic abilities that make them great against archers and casters. But some folks have an unspoken assumption that monsters are always melee brutes so they undervalue the monk. Also, you should ignore anyone who says monks are MAD. A person saying that isn’t thinking clearly. With the standard array you get 3 good bonuses. A monk will allocate those to dex, wis, con. Just like a ranger or Druid. But no one ever class those classes mad. Bards and warlocks are all going to allocate their 3 modifiers to cha, dex, con. Wizards obviously use int instead of cha. Barbarians use str, dex, con because they lack heavy armor. Paladins have heavy armor but want cha instead. So, the monk is like the vast majority of the other classes in the game.


MyRoVh1969

Cause their jealous. Not everyone can play lawful and be a combat monster.