Quote Originally Posted by HolyDraconus View Post
I just got to ask: what role is the monk filling? Scout? I got rangers, bards and rogues for that. Damage? Rogues, Paladins, Fighters and Sorcerers. Control? Wizards, Bards and Clerics. Every time I see a monk at the table they do the same thing. Run in. Hit. Run away. Stay away till the Fighter or Paladin takes the attention of the big guy, or Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/Druid take them out of the equation, then move back in to hit, then run away again. Atleast I can count on the rogue to down people, or the bard to be able to bail his own ass out when he F's up. The monk though.. ugh. When he F's up, the party has to go in and get him, and because they ALWAYS play monks the same, he will ALWAYS f up behind enemy lines. And ever since Volo's.... WAAAAAAAAAAYYY behind enemy lines. Like seriously. You are a melee char that, in order for you to do melee anywhere near as good as the Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter, you must spend a resource... and hope they miss/fail.
The same things could be said of many classes. Rogue gets bogged in melee? Stuffed. Fighter finds himself up against something too tough? Stuffed. Wizard blows his best spell slots and the target makes/legendary saves? Stuffed. Failure is not a symptom of the Monk class, but of the game as a whole. As for role, well, that's the game isn't it? Creating a character rather than a set of stats. The Monk is a mobile control skirmisher; no-one else can claim that same niche; others are mobile, others have control elements, others still are skirmishers, but none combine those three in quite the same way. Might as well argue that we should do away with the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger, because the Fighter has the "beefy combat guy" role filled already.