Am I the only one who feels that monks in D&D 5e seem a little weaker than the other classes. We had a half-orc monk in our party once that seemed to always get fucked in every single fight we had and I personally have played one once as a dwarf on a seperate occasion, while I fared better than the half-orc i feel like I was a tad weaker than the rest of my party. (granted these were low level parties)
What are your experiences with playing monk in 5e, /tg/?
It seems like monks tend be shitty at low level but get progressively better as they level. Another thing, they substitute magic weapons and armor for abilities. Which the dm can't hand out freely so they can't get any sort of dm fiat going for me.
They are worse at the sheer damage output than fighters, but they're more mobile and have a few more combat options, and less equipment reliant. Additionally, at level 17, Open Hand monks get the only player-available save-or-die that is also an extremely heavy damage spike even if they save. Though that is a late game blessing.
Plus the very first level, they get two attacks a round, a d8 and d4 (versatile quarterstaff + martial arts), without having to lock themselves into dual wielding.
But it seems like their lower hit dice makes them necessarily squishier than the other front line classes. And if the remedy to that is just to sneak than wouldn't a rogue do better? I just seems like they don't really fill a role that another class can already do better.,
This is true, but open hand monks can punch enemies away, knock them down, or just make them unable to react and then run. Shadow monks can hide in darkness, then later teleport away.
Four element monks are definitely weaker than their counterparts and below the average curve.
Open Hand do crowd control very well. Shadow do sneak very well.
The monk got a bad damage output and low HD, but it begin to shine with Stunning Strike. If you're not at least level 5, you won't feel very powerful.
With my monk lvl 10 I often make us win big encounter by just stunning repeatedly the scariest ennemy in the group.
With the Mobile feat, you can go everywhere you want and lockdown anyone.
The error is to use the monk like a figther. The monk is good at crowd control, he's an utility figther. With Mageslayer you're the bane of caster too.
But yeah, the problem is that it's advertised as a figther when it's just not one.
Yes, but monks can be fucked up much harder by suboptimal choices. Playing a Fighter without a racial bonus to Str and Con? A bit tough, but your AC is probably gonna be high enough so that you'll survive.
Playing a caster without a racial bonus to your casting ability? No problem, a lot of spells have "half damage even on a save" feature and you can always use utility spells.
Playing a monk without a racial bonus to at least one of Dex or Wis? You're fucked, because your attacks and AC is going to be shit and you don't get good utility until later.
What I'm saying is monks are way more affected by not optimizing than other classes.
You need to think creatively with a monk. You can't just walk up to some armored knight and just start fighting him one on one. You need to run around, throw objects, get high, stun him, be a pain in the ass.
Until you can smash through armor with your punch (at one point, my level 15 monk stripped an entire heavily armored knight), then you cannot face him like a fighter.
Remind me of a time when I had to one on one a 11th lvl champion figther when I was just 8.
I won. I was not supposed to.
We were in an arena, and we had no more weapons than the one we choose. He took a greatsword, I took a spear and some darts.
I spent all my turns attacking him, then run away with Mobile. The only way for him to reach me was to dash.
When he readied actions to attack me as soon as I was in range, I just used darts to fuck him up.
And when he successfuly reached me, I stunned him.
It was a lot of fun. But if I tried, just once, to one on one him like a true figther, I would have been deader than dead
Bingo. Sometimes, you have to be a little roguish in order to win. Ever see a good old fashion kung fu movie? The good ones where there was some good humor in the combat? Imagine that as a monk. You're constantly looking around you, constantly finding a new distraction, constantly outrunning your enemy. And luckily, you have the speed and agility to do so.
Also that grapple is super important, especially when you're ripping the leg off a table or a yawning.
They are lackluster in all ways but one.
In 5e, combat options have been reduced to three basic choices.
>1: Do consistent damage without using a spell-slot equivalent
>2: Dom more damage, using a spell-slot equivalent
>3: Use a spell-slot qeuivalent, and assuming the enemy/emenies fail a save, the opposing party loses [spell slot level] standard actions worth of action economy in exchange for your one, but you do no damage. This can usually be disrupted if you're hit before they've missed out on X standard actions.
Pick your buitton, press it, and move on. Personally I think it's made combat a bit bland and uninterresting, but that's a discussion for a different thread.
But the open-hand monk is one of the ONLY classes that's capable of doing option 2 and option 3 at the same time with a single spell-slot equivalent, and with the stunned condition no-less (a damn good condition that most classes don't get access to until much later.)
Admittedly, they get fewer spell-slot equivalent resources than a caster, which is a problem, but not the biggest problem in the world, because their post-out-of-spell-equivalent-resources damage is more respectable than the majority of options that can use spell-slot-equivalent-resources to increase damage.
>But it seems like their lower hit dice makes them necessarily squishier than the other front line classes.
Except for the fact that they get to attack and defend with dexterity, meaning their secondary stat can be constitution. Assuming point-buy, that's adds a lot of relative survivability.
What do you mean by "real"?
If you want a real spy assassin, just go rogue assassin.
If you want the supernatural ninja, I'd say assassin 3 then shadow monk is good. You can even throw some levels of warlock to take fun spells and devil's sight and cast Darkness more often.
>Spell casters don't seem OP in 5e compared to how other people complain about pathfinder.
That's like saying someone doesn't seem stupid next to someone who's literally mentally handicapped, or humble next to pic-related. It's technically true, but means nothing.
>That's like saying someone doesn't seem stupid next to someone who's literally mentally handicapped, or humble next to pic-related. It's technically true, but means nothing.
Meant to say
>>That's like saying someone seems smart next to someone who's literally mentally handicapped, or humble next to pic-related. It's technically true, but means nothing.
-The fighter took absolutely no ranged weapons? Why? Not even daggers/handaxes to throw?
-Could have action surged you to catch up, if nothing else.
-Wouldn't he get an AoO when he caught up after double moving?
-Wouldn't you run out of Ki if you keep using the bonus dash?
-Must have been a huge arena if you could just circle strafe him
Because it was a gladiator fight, he was a big half orc, and this was just not his style.
He did use action surge once, just after that I stunned him.
You don't get an AoO after a dash on an ennemy. He couldn't make an AoO after I move because of Mobile
I didn't used the bonus dash, I had 35ft (wood elf) +10ft (mobile) +15ft (monk) = 60ft movement speed. Try to catch that.
It was. That was a gladiator fight.
He could have won with ranged weapon, but you don't always have one. The point is, when you play monk you have to play smart. You're not a fighter, you can't act like one.
Casters still get story-changers like Teleport, Wish, Control Weather, that sort of thing. But they aren't infinitely-buffed-better-than-fighters-plus-spells casters of 3.X.
It's arguable that casters are still more influential than martials, but that's kind of the nature of spellcasting.
Control Weather isn't that useful and Wish runs a heavy cost (and you may only get to cast it once in a lifetime if you're unlucky). Teleport is utility. They can't end fights with single spells, and the only good damaging spell at all seems to be Disintegrate (and Bigby's Hand if you can get it to crush).
The way I've seen is that casters can solve many problems, but they're really bad at solving the biggest, most preeminent problem PCs face (depleting that big scary monster's large HP pool).
Most casters still get cantrips that are roughly 70% as strong as a fighter's attacks, so they don't really have any HP-depletion issues.
Even a beginning caster with Minor Illusion can do the 'I hide in an illusion of a bush' trick (although a sane DM will probably just say 'sure, that gives you advantage on a stealth roll' or something like that).
Being a spellcaster in DnD just plain gives you a bigger problem-solving toolbox. You want to fix it, you need to play a game where casters aren't hyper-general, like Reign or Runequest or something.
I have zero experience, because I'm a shy, lonely, virgin loser, but what I can say is I think Monk is the coolest-sounding class. They do well on their own in a lot of specific situations, with the ability to catch projectiles, run up walls, run along water...at high levels, you can move ~180 feet in a single turn.
They're not as strong or durable than Fighters, and their nimbleness isn't as lethal as a Rogue's, but they get a hefty proportion of both and also provide control for the party (with any of the traditions).
Spellcasters still get big fat chunks of narrative abilities that just allow things to happen without having to go through a mother may i situation with the GM. And they get an entire chapter devoted to their antics.
Spellcasters get more than everyone else just fucking because. Non-casters get nothing because feats are "optional," and if you've been paying to the devs, they've been consistently shitting on all non-caster options. Also, spellcasters share the feat section with non-casters.
Spellcasters are the favored child of 5e, you can't dispute this.
>You need to think creatively with a monk
Lets assume the most creative you can be is a 100 out of 100, then mechanically you're a 60 out of 100, that means you at best are a 160. Meanwhile casters can be a 200 because they can be as creative as you while also being supported by the rules.
>Not reading an action when you attack him to trip you or grapple you
>Killing a fighter with 1d4 darts
He either was a retard or you were rolling crits everytime and maxing dice
>He could have won with ranged weapon, but you don't always have one
Seems to me you had one and won because of that.
>When he readied actions to attack me as soon as I was in range, I just used darts to fuck him up.
Metagaming isn't nice.
>Stunning a 11th level fighter
Kek, sure thing, brah.
Seems to me you didn't play smart, only he played like a retard and the gods were only on your side, this way even a rabbit with 1 HP can win.
>Most casters still get cantrips that are roughly 70% as strong as a fighter's attacks, so they don't really have any HP-depletion issues.
That falls out of scale rather quickly for everyone except Warlocks who focus on Eldritch Blast invocations.
Fighters start outstripping at level 5 (3 for Battle Masters) and stay in the lead forever.
And? you deal 1d6+5 at best, woopidy doo, with standard array he has 109 HPs, that means you need 13 hits to knock him out, sorry, 14 because he's a Half-orc.
You have with standard array 47 HPs, he knocks you out with 4 hit (2d6+5), way less if he lands a crit because 19-20 with extra die due Half-orc, and this assuming he hasn't GWM.
Ready action, hit you, pray he doesn't have sentinel or similar.
Fuck, even in a single turn he can outright kill you without much difficulty. You won because gods were so hard on your side you shat californium for a week.
>We were in an arena, and we had no more weapons than the one we choose. He took a greatsword, I took a spear and some darts.
>The one we choose
>he picked one
>I picked infinite
So you cheated like a motherfucker and call it "playing smart"?
This is blatantly false. While Wizards are at the top of the pile, Sorcerers and Rangers are both rather low, and plenty of non-casting classes fall higher than them.
Spells are no longer a guarantee of power. If they were, 4 elements monk wouldn't be the worst of the subclasses.
>If they were, 4 elements monk wouldn't be the worst of the subclasses.
4 elements is garbage because of poor spell choices and exceptionally poor casting cost. Surprise surprise, if you have insanely bad access to the one tool to rule them all without any mitigating factors that matter, then you're bad.
>Having good abilities makes you good
>Having bad abilities makes you bad
That's just basic logic. The point is that Spellcasting as an ability is no longer universally good.
It's far better than 3.5 where you can trace a graph of Tiers to number of Spell slots. At least now there are reasons to actually play a Fighter or a Rogue.
The only two really overpowered spellcasters anyway are the Wizard and Bard, and the Bard is just because it can snag other spells.
Every other class is pretty much on par with eachother from there.
>Well, casters in this edition are more powerful on the utility side only. That's something.
>I would never bet on a caster against a figther.
That's essentially true, that in 5e classes are balanced for combat but not for noncombat. While in many editions, this really wouldn't be an issue, because for over a decade, D&D has largely been a combat-simulator, with non-combat rules that smart DM's ignore in lieu of "dude... you know how to role-play right?" 5e is not one of those editions. Combat is so streamlined and simplified that it no longer can carry the crunch-weight of a campaign. 5e is easilly 75-80% non-combat, if for no other reason than the fact that combat is over so quickly, and so hyper deadly (and... honestly... not as fun as a minigame anymore) that it de-incentivizes action-scene-centric solutions.
TLDR, 5e balanced combat, and left non-combat with "caster supremacy," which would have been enough for previous editions, but then made the game so non-combat focused, that it made all that balancing work meaningless.
Tell us all about the situation, because if your situation ends up as "I killed a terminally retarded and/or badly roleplayed enemy" then you have roughly as much claim to legitimacy as a random bullet manufacturer can claim to be a mass murderer because someone used his bullets to kill four or more people.
>Except for the fact that they get to attack and defend with dexterity
Uh. You mean like any other martial can already do?
>meaning their secondary stat can be constitution
So like any other martial already does?? What are you going to do with the monk then, dump wisdom?
>So like any other martial already does?? What are you going to do with the monk then, dump wisdom?
Probably take a single level in barbarian or cleric with one of the domains that give fullplate. Might even be able to pick up shillelagh for some bonus damage.
In actual play, this isn't the case. Along with all the neat combat tricks they get that gives them indirect defensive options, the get to combine Dex into their AC.
Except 5e is primarily combat focused and casters are outclassed in combat by fighters and barbarians, by fucking miles. The only way to make a Wizard better than a fighter is to dip into Fighter for action surge.
>Except 5e is primarily combat focused
No it's not.
>Combat takes mere minutes
>Sessions are usually about 4 hours traditionally
>Combat is extremely deadly, intentionally swingy, and even at-level and below-level encounters have a decent chance of accidentally killing PC's, promoting playstyles that avoid combat and think of ways around violent obstacles
It is not combat focused.
I'd like my combats to go that fast. What's your secret?
>It is not combat focused.
5E has a good 80% of it's books dedicated to either class rules, or combat, with almost all of it's non-combat parts getting nothing written for them except "The DM should just make it up", or worse, an entry that references another page where the entry it sends you to just references the page you came from, since no one bothered to proofread the books before they published them.
But 4E had much, much more of it's rulebook dedicated to roleplay, with skill challenges, backgrounds, and other things about actual out-of-combat situations that weren't just pawned off on "Do whatever you want" cop-outs.
What? Did you even read the book? Putting your monk in any form of armor completely shuts down Martial Arts, meaning:
- you can't use dexterity to hit or damage with your unarmed strikes and monk weapons
- you can't make use of the higher damage die for unarmed strikes or monk weapons; enjoy doing piddly shit 1 + Strength modifier for damage on unarmed strikes (if you can even hit with your shitty dumped Strength score, remember you can't use Dex any more)
- you can no longer make an unarmed strike as a bonus action when taking the Attack action, slashing your already now pathetic damage output to basically nothing
You're also shutting down Unarmored Movement, and because you're dumping Strength and won't have at least a 15, you're actually *losing* 10 feet of land speed over a normal member of your race.
>combats are long because you suck at DMing and your players are getting distracted. How do you fix it? Do less combats.
What an enlightening article
Oh yes. That Thorcules arc is an absolute blast, and it features the greatest sound effect in comics history. Also, Alflyse is the best dark elf.
>How do you fix it?
>A: Run less combats.
>B: Shape up and control the pace of your game
>C: Don't be afraid to end combat after the obvious "mop up" phase has started
If your GMing is as good as your reading level it's no wonder your combats suck senpai
>You're also shutting
Get gud I guess? IDK man. My group plays primarily 4e, so I guess we've gotten good at running combat quickly.
>Also the game wants you to have like, six to eight combats a day.
Dude, even with a (conservative) estimation of a 10% chance of any given encounter killing at-least one PC, that's 53.1441-43.046721% chance of the whole party surviving any given adventuring day, and that's just counting combat risks. I know it was going for nostalgia, but I thought we were talking 3.5 nostalgia, not B/X nostalgia, where you come to the table with a stack of cohorts, on the assumption that you WILL die and take control of one of the cohorts to keep playing. Every 5e game I've seen or taken a part of avoids combat like the plague because of the high mortality, and because we actually like developing our characters.
Bruh, I love 4e.... like a lot, and I never once mentioned 4e. You got defensive for, literally, no reason. Admitedly, my friends and I rarely use any out of combat rules, but we started playing in 2e, and have been used to ignoring noncombat rules since the 90's. OF all the editions I've played, 4e runs better under those house rules. But we were talking about 5e.
>someone didn't like the article I posted, better insult them more than I address the question at hand. Just like my article!
>Question: How do I run better combats?
>Answer: Read this link
>Response: This link is dumb!
>Rebuttal: No, you're dumb, but because I'm nice I'll go ahead and summarize the points you did not read
>Counter-rebuttal: [SHITPOSTING INTENSIFIES]
My DM had a homebrew to fix that.
He simply changed the feat "Ki enhanced strikes" like this:
Your martial arts and monk weapon attacks count as magical.
You gain an enchantment that is applied to your unarmed attack or monk weapon (while it's held) every 3 levels after gaining this ffeature.
The enchantment is from a special list of "monk techniques" from which you can choose from.
Your monk also gains additional type themed damage added on each attack equal to half your martial arts die (type is determined by monk tradition; open hand deals force damage, long death necrotic, 4 E either cutting, blunt, fire or frost, shadow monk necrotic and sun soul radiant) meaning when your opend hand monk for example has a martial arts die od d8 then he will deal an additional 1d4 of force damage per attack.
>I beat a creature that has 3 times more HPs than me, flies, moves faster than me, has 3 attacks, has ranged attacks, etc
Yeah, and I beat 1001 balors full prepared for combat in an arena with a 1st level blindfolded expert, with both hands and legs tied and only headbutting
>You deal monk's unarmed damage with darts, retard,
Shut the fuck up you absolute idiot. Don't spread blatant fucking lies and don't call others retards when you haven't even read the fucking book you're talking about. Fuck you.
Monk, Martial Arts feature:
>You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
Monks are proficient in simple weapons, darts are simple weapons, therefore monks can use the Martial Arts die when making ranged attacks with a dart. You are right that Flurry of Blows has to be unarmed strikes however.
Monk proficiencies: simple weapons, shortswords. PHB 77. Also, the monk starting equipment includes 10 darts, further suggesting they are in the monk's wheelhouse, given that they're in the monk's backpack.
Flurry of blows only allows unarmed strikes
Martial arts extra attack only allows unarmed strikes
Darts aren't monk weapons
So you won by cheating hard, not only you were only allowed ONE weapon and you picked tons, you also cheated with your class features.
Sage says it doesn't even work with daggers, only with melee attacks with melee simple weapons (no 2hd no heavy) and shortswords unless you're Sun Soul Monk attacking with sunbolts. But yeah, RAW, daggers only.
>Also the game wants you to have like, six to eight combats a day.
The book tells you that, but the numbers printed in the book actually give 4-6 encounters per day. And encounters don't always end in violence.
>If you're unsatisfied with this thing, get gud scrub
>Can't even curse but still stuffs the post with $#@! nonetheless, mostly directed at the reader
>Presents example situations where the players are actively ignoring the game or blowing all of their "interesting abilities" early and then being bored autoattacking
>Offers the solution of calling fights when they tip, without mentioning the flip side that the sudden cutting short of combat will seriously peeve some interested players, especially when he runs 1 combat per 4 hours
Maybe sometimes people just want to have a fun time and the fact you have to optimize to not get fucked isn't actually fun.
He was probably just struggling due to misaligned racial bonuses. 5e is not so forgiving to poor stats, especially in regards to AC calculations. If you don't have at least 15 for a melee character, life will be rough.