So sell me on the Monk class, 'cause it doesn't look very good to me...

[SharkForce]

yup, monks have a bunch of class features that eventually make them very good at filling a very specific role. you don't need to enjoy that role, any more than you need to enjoy being a fighter or a wizard or a druid, but if you do enjoy that role, monks will be good for you, and if you don't, they won't.

there's nothing wrong with that.

they are perhaps not *perfectly* well designed (some subclasses more than others), but they're good enough. even element monks can be fairly effective, mostly by pretending they don't have any subclass at all for a significant portion of the time followed by brief moments where their subclass abilities are actually worth their cost. i'm not going to call 4 element monks well designed, because they should bloody well feel like 4 element monks all the time instead of occasionally remembering that they can cast a fly spell that is identical in every way to what a wizard or sorcerer could have cast several levels ago and for once that's actually more valuable than punching someone in the face so hard they're stunned for a round half a dozen times. but ultimately, just the core monk abilities make for a usable class, *if* you enoy playing that role.

(if, on the other hand, you basically want to play like a fighter, except more punch-y... well, i wouldn't count on having a lot of success).

[HolyDraconus]

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.

[JellyPooga]

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.

[polymphus]

You play Overwatch? The monk is D.va -- highly mobile, moderately hard-hitting, not the best at tanking damaging but still highly capable. If you're smart as a monk, there's nowhere on the battlefield you can't go.

That mage sitting in a treehouse 60 feet back, blasting away? He's yours. The commander who thinks he's safe behind a wall of archers? Dead meat. The enemy rogue who's impossible to pin down? Watch him try to outrun you. You are amazing at getting picks on backline support units or enemy mobility, while being a respectable tank and damage-dealer.

[Talamare]

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.

Scout? I rather send the faster Monk than a Ranger or Bard. Not to mention Bard has to use spells to do it well half the time.
Damage? Monks deal as much damage as all the other ones you listed
Control? All of those are based on Long Rest. They may want to hold back, while a Monk spams his control.
Tank? Both the Fighter and the Paladin tends to rely on Armor Tanking, which means that they might still have terrible AC at low levels. Which means that the Monk and Rogue might have higher AC.

I've seen more Rogues die behind the enemy line than the Monk.
Since Monks are incredibly fast, so they can slip out alone.
If a Rogue gets cornered, he just dies.
Not to mention Monks higher control means he is usually taking less damage while back there.

I rather see a Monk over a Rogue any day of the week.

You play Overwatch? The monk is D.va -- highly mobile, moderately hard-hitting, not the best at tanking damaging but still highly capable. If you're smart as a monk, there's nowhere on the battlefield you can't go.

That mage sitting in a treehouse 60 feet back, blasting away? He's yours. The commander who thinks he's safe behind a wall of archers? Dead meat. The enemy rogue who's impossible to pin down? Watch him try to outrun you. You are amazing at getting picks on backline support units or enemy mobility, while being a respectable tank and damage-dealer.

Sounds like Reaper

[JellyPooga]

I rather see a Monk over a Rogue any day of the week.

'Ere now; them's fightin' words!

Monk might have the edge on mobility (though it costs them Ki compared to the Rogues freebies), but Rogue can tank it to the end of days compared to the Monk. Uncanny Dodge and potential access to defensive magic via Arcane Trickster, not to mention the possibilities of armour and shield that are forbidden to the Monk, makes the Rogue a far surer gamble when the chips are down and space is limited. Add Expertise in Athletics or Acrobatics and the Rogue is also less likely to actually be locked down by many spells and/or effects.

[IronMike]

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.

I'm playing a Drunken Monk and while it is not required, I do carry around a small keg of beer with me. In our recent gathering, I RP'd with my not-too-bad CHA and my beer and got a guard drunk, then our bard grappled him and tied him up. Turned out he was the front guard for the caravan we were supposed to hit, so I managed to take him out of the game for I think 5 rounds till he managed to get out of his bindings. That gave us some time to whack on his colleagues.

DM later told us he had the highest HP of the group we attacked.

Now, while that doesn't exactly answer your question on the monk's role, it is a reminder that this game is not just combat.

[Arkhios]

Why is it that people who watch a lot of kung-fu/wu xia movies expect the monk to be the ultimate damage dealer, while in truth, even those aforementioned movies boast a vast collection of martial artists who swing a lot but seem to deal very little damage (if at all) with a single hit, but instead do accomplish various supernatural feats while "flailing around and looking awesome".

Monk is not, even by that standard, intended to be THE damage machine. Monks' schtick is that they excel in combat unarmed and unarmored, and can hinder their foes by means other than damage.

I've seen my fair share of movies like that, and I can't remember any "one-hit-wonders" among the kung-fu heroes.

[toapat]

Paladins are pretty heavy hitters, too.

Paladins have the potential to hit so incredibly hard that people mistake them for being overpowered.

Why is it that people who watch a lot of kung-fu/wu xia movies expect the monk to be the ultimate damage dealer

Dragonball Z/Super. it doesnt help that the sunsoul exists either.

It is the worst designed class in 5e, bar none.

But that's the unpopular opinion on the playground.

Monk is only at worst tied for #3 with druid for the Worst designed class for 5E, with Ranger probably not even supposed to exist as a class because of other systems introduced in the game, while sorcerer was given a significant mechanical overhaul too late to be properly developed.

the highest DPR you're going to see is from barbarians, fighters, rangers, and paladins.

no you wont, of the mundane combatants, in order:

Barbarian > BM/EK Fighter > Rogue > Artificer > Hexblade Warlock = Vengeance paladin > Fighter > Paladin > Archer Kensai Monk > Ranger > Monk

mostly this is supposed to inverrsely follow their utility although fighter doesnt conform to the pattern that effectively

[samcifer]

So the question becomes if monks deal less damage, how is the best way to address that? I assume multiclassing can help, but which way to go with it to add damage without losing too much of what makes the monk so great?

[KorvinStarmast]

So the question becomes if monks deal less damage, how is the best way to address that? I assume multiclassing can help, but which way to go with it to add damage without losing too much of what makes the monk so great?

I think that some people forget that this is a team game. Where the damage nova comes with a monk is, when the monks locks down a critical enemy, is that the rest of the party can utterly wreck the stunned target.
Why?

Amen. Appendix A, PHB: Stunned
• A stunned creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move, and can speak only falteringly.
{• Incapacitated{condition}: An incapacitated creature can’t take actions or reactions}.
• The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.

Any attack on this creature that calls for a Dex saving throw automatically succeeds. No half damage, no other issues avoided.
Sacred flame? auto damage.
Fireball? Auto damage
Browse the attacks that are evaded/avoided by dex saves. Or strength saves.
Advantage on attack by any other party member, ranged or melee.
No reactions .

Make the team better? That's a good thing, in D&D.

[JAL_1138]

So the question becomes if monks deal less damage, how is the best way to address that? I assume multiclassing can help, but which way to go with it to add damage without losing too much of what makes the monk so great?

Multiclassing generally isn't recommended for Monks, to my understanding. They're MAD as it is, and delaying ASIs and class features is kind of painful for them. There may be some combos I'm not aware of, though.

It's not like Monk damage is horrible. It's not problematically bad. It just isn't great. Because it doesn't really need to be great; it's adequate enough for what they do.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Make the team better? That's a good thing, in D&D.

It is a point of interest to me how small that team can get before the monk's team potential hits a break even point and you wouldn't just be better off being a tank martial. Obviously if you stun a dragon and twelve people are waiting to whack on it, you've gained immensely. If you are three and none of the others would actually prefer to step up if they could avoid it, you clearly gain less.

Paladin, monk, bard maybe works well? Monk, rogue, wizard possibly a little less well? Basically, in what number of 3-character parties will the monk find the other two looking at him and going, "oh, looks like you're the tank"? What about a 2-character party; does a class exist such that it and the monk cover the basics and yet aren't forced out of their preferred roles?

[Nifft]

Multiclassing generally isn't recommended for Monks, to my understanding. They're MAD as it is, and delaying ASIs and class features is kind of painful for them. There may be some combos I'm not aware of, though.

Here are some simple ones:

Shadow Monk X / Warlock 3 (for more darkness spells, and to see through your own darkness, and also a Familiar or Tome)

Shadow Monk X / Assassin Rogue 3 (for Sneak Attack after you shadow-teleport, and Assassinate on the 1st round of combat when you shadow-teleport to the back line and single-fistedly take down the Hobgoblin Archmage, and for no-cost bonus action Withdraw / Dash / Dodge). Level 5 Rogue is also really good, for Uncanny Dodge and another Sneak Attack die.


But in my own experience, the Monk features are good enough to keep me happy without any multi-classing.

So there are valid reasons to multi-class, but there are equally valid reasons to stay pure Monk 20.

[Gryndle]

But I really think that you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't try it out. Control allows you to be a force multiplier for others on your team, and even if YOU'RE not doing a ton of damage, you can allow others to do a ton of damage more consistently.

this!

there are other classes to be played if you only worry about damage dice. However, a well played monk can easily change the entire course of a combat encounter, possibly more so than any other non-spellcaster. And they do it without being shoe-horned into the GWM/Sharpshooter/PAM/smite paradigm.
But it does require looking at a combat encounter differently. With a pally/barb/fighter whatever built for damage, your biggest decision is in what order do I chew through enemies. With a monk you look at the entire battlefield and ask yourself "How do I best f this up?"

[SharkForce]

well, i would disagree that you're doing yourself a disservice by not trying it out. it isn't something that will (or necessarily should) appeal to everyone. there are, i believe, 11 classes. they don't all have to be classes that any given person would like to play, so if someone doesn't want to play a monk, that's totally fine.

i do think the game could have offered a clearer view of what exactly it is that the monk does, and i would also say that early on (especially before level 5) it is very easy to completely miss the role a monk will eventually fill and be fooled into thinking you're supposed to be a DPR/tank warrior. in fact, those first 4 levels (damage is comparatively much higher relative to level than it will ever be, and no stunning strike) are probably the biggest argument for monk having a flawed design, and i can certainly see a monk reaching level 5 and suddenly going "hey wait a minute, the fighter suddenly started doing way more damage than me, where's *my* huge damage boost?" and thinking the monk isn't good at anything. especially if the fighter picked up some combat feat or other at level 4.

monks are not lacking damage, monk players are lacking in an understanding of the monk's role, and while the first few levels are certainly not blame-free in that regard, it is not a problem that should be solved by substantially boosting monk damage, but rather by making it more clear what the monk is supposed to do.

[krugaan]

well, i would disagree that you're doing yourself a disservice by not trying it out. it isn't something that will (or necessarily should) appeal to everyone. there are, i believe, 11 classes. they don't all have to be classes that any given person would like to play, so if someone doesn't want to play a monk, that's totally fine.

i do think the game could have offered a clearer view of what exactly it is that the monk does, and i would also say that early on (especially before level 5) it is very easy to completely miss the role a monk will eventually fill and be fooled into thinking you're supposed to be a DPR/tank warrior. in fact, those first 4 levels (damage is comparatively much higher relative to level than it will ever be, and no stunning strike) are probably the biggest argument for monk having a flawed design, and i can certainly see a monk reaching level 5 and suddenly going "hey wait a minute, the fighter suddenly started doing way more damage than me, where's *my* huge damage boost?" and thinking the monk isn't good at anything. especially if the fighter picked up some combat feat or other at level 4.

monks are not lacking damage, monk players are lacking in an understanding of the monk's role, and while the first few levels are certainly not blame-free in that regard, it is not a problem that should be solved by substantially boosting monk damage, but rather by making it more clear what the monk is supposed to do.

This is insightful and more or less absolutely correct in my view. The first three levels are like "whee I can get way more attacks than anyone else!" The last 15 are like "I haven't gotten a real damage increase in long time."

[Samayu]

My monk was my favorite character. I loved...

proning opponent on the first hit, and attacking with advantage for two more. The DPR learned to stay near me when he could, and attack recklessly.

running through, around or over enemy lines and taking out the mage.

running up the wall to the roof to take out some archers, and then jumping across the alley to take out the rest.

not taking falling damage.

returning missiles for damage.

having teammates lined up waiting for a stunning strike.

being able to get anywhere I needed to be.

[HolyDraconus]

It's not even about melee really, we just don't see it as anything more than a trap option like it's 3.x counterpart. Maybe not AS much but still. The party currently is vengeance paladin, necro wizard, life cleric, lore bard and swashbuckler rogue. Rogue and bard both do a damn good job scouting, with both having buttons to get out of problems, can double as skill monkeys, can remove traps and play face. Cleric and wizard does everything cause magic, and paladin does tanking, damage and can heal. We admit that a monk can do a niche job well, but if your only talent is that one niche and you aren't flexible enough to be needed elsewhere then you get left behind. Key word being needed.

When thinking about adding to the party, monk never comes up. It doesn't do great offtanking, it handles crowds pretty poorly, it can control what it hits....IF it hits, and sometimes you just need effect, not a hit. That's us though.

[Chaosmancer]

My experience with monks has to be unusual because I never understand this point that they are squishy.

Monks are generally one of the highest ac characters in my games. We roll our stats and I've never seen a monk with less than a 16 or 17 ac, and it quickly ends up being an 18. Combine that with a bonus action dodge and monks end up really hard to hit.

And that AC combined with Deflect Missiles can make archers a joke. Four archers, only one hits, reaction probably reduces it to zero.

Now, I'll grant they've got lower hp, but they've got AC on par with the rest of the party or better and dex or wis are not bad stats to max out for that 20 AC.

[PopeLinus1]

Although this isn’t very functional, monk is fairly entertaining just because you get a bunch of different ways to attack people. The uniqueness of your abilities and your varying attacks can make combat more fun, as you aren’t just simply using the attack option but instead can spike up your actions and make each turn different, unlike many other straight up fighters that use their same attack, over and over.

[SaurOps]

Why is it that people who watch a lot of kung-fu/wu xia movies expect the monk to be the ultimate damage dealer, while in truth, even those aforementioned movies boast a vast collection of martial artists who swing a lot but seem to deal very little damage (if at all) with a single hit, but instead do accomplish various supernatural feats while "flailing around and looking awesome".

Monk is not, even by that standard, intended to be THE damage machine. Monks' schtick is that they excel in combat unarmed and unarmored, and can hinder their foes by means other than damage.

I've seen my fair share of movies like that, and I can't remember any "one-hit-wonders" among the kung-fu heroes.

Some styles from the Weapons of the Gods RPG (which come from a HK comic) could sweep aside entire crowds in one hit or deal extremely terrible damage to a target; in these sorts of settings, there are one hit takedowns, but they're extremely rare techniques and/or difficult to master. The lack of clear "class" and "level" structure in these stories to delineate the characters, as well as the piecemeal capability of learning techniques, is also something that D&D doesn't model well. So, people are right to not like how the monk turned out, because if martial arts media is a 3D map, the monk is a flattened 2D version of the same. D&D may or may not have more dimensions in this analogy, but it pretty obviously doesn't share many in common with martial arts media, which means that everything about the monk ends up feeling weird, compounded with D&D cramming nearly everything from martial arts media into that one single class.

[Malifice]

I just got to ask: what role is the monk filling?

Precision guided, long range, priority target, stun lockers.

They run in, and stun lock priority targets [spell casters and their ilk]. They run in and spam stunning strike on legendary creatures to strip legendary resistances [so the casters can finish them off].

You save a legendary resistance vs a trippuing strike. You spend it to avoid being stunned an entire round.

Very few critters are immune to being stunned. They can easily force up to 4 saves vs being stunned/ turn.

Ive seen BBEG's ran by DMs trolling PCs via monologing. Then the Monk runs up and its game over. The BBEG spends the rest of the encounter stunlocked, prone, disarmed and with a monk (and the rest of the party) jumping on his face.

They make DMs cry. Ive never seen so many DMs suddenly grant every important NPC Con save proficiency and/or the Lucky feat and/or legendary resistances or even flat out stunned condition immunity after seen a single class in action for a single encounter, as I have with the monk.

[Arkhios]

Dragonball Z/Super. it doesnt help that the sunsoul exists either.

D&D is hardly the proper platform to represent supersaiyan abilities. If you/they really want to play martial artists with god-like powers that can level entire planets from the orbit, I would respectfully suggest taking a look at Exalted instead.

D&D, in my honest opinion, is much more realistic platform in that regard.

Also, if one wants good inspiration for D&D-monks, Ip Man (the movies) is one of the best sources.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is a point of interest to me how small that team can get before the monk's team potential hits a break even point and you wouldn't just be better off being a tank martial.

Good point. The game was built / balanced on a 4 person party, and I seem to see a lot of the adventures from the official side seem to be 5 person parties.
With a three person party, I can see where a monk might not be a good fit unless you have a warlock spamming eldritch blast (can crit, gets the advantage roll form stun) ... when I wrote my post, I was presuming a 4 or 5 person party.

[SaurOps]

D&D is hardly the proper platform to represent supersaiyan abilities. If you/they really want to play martial artists with god-like powers that can level entire planets from the orbit, I would respectfully suggest taking a look at Exalted instead.

Exalted reins in the destructive capacities of characters to countrysides of relatively small regions. Well, unless you're using warstriders or other Artifact 5 and N/A wonders, but those are difficult to come by. It helps to keep focus somewhat more personal. For emulating Dragonball, you'd want something less restrained and more exclusively shonen, since Exalted also taps a lot of other sources, like various mythological epics, Tales of the Flat Earth and the Black Company.

D&D, in my honest opinion, is much more realistic platform in that regard.

It's attitudes like "D&D has anything to do with reality" that arbitrarily hold the fighter - and pretty much only the fighter - back. If you want realism, you go to GURPS and crack down on anything even remotely supernatural. You do not waste any time with D&D, because it is not connected to reality in even slight ways. It is emulating its own particular, unique genre of a cosmos built around objective morality according to someone from the mid 20th-century Midwestern US, where eye creatures fire energy rays from their eyes and wizards go around changing reality on a whim.

Also, if one wants good inspiration for D&D-monks, Ip Man (the movies) is one of the best sources.

Probably way too grounded for D&D, given the above point. Given the existence of the four elements monk, Avatar is kind of where D&D seems to want to place it, but that, too, is not really a comfortable fit.

[Jakinbandw]

Also monks have access to the only save or die in the game. And can use it pretty often.

[Arkhios]

It's attitudes like "D&D has anything to do with reality" that arbitrarily hold the fighter - and pretty much only the fighter - back. If you want realism, you go to GURPS and crack down on anything even remotely supernatural. You do not waste any time with D&D, because it is not connected to reality in even slight ways. It is emulating its own particular, unique genre of a cosmos built around objective morality according to someone from the mid 20th-century Midwestern US, where eye creatures fire energy rays from their eyes and wizards go around changing reality on a whim.

Note, though, that I didn't say D&D is realistic, but still more realistic than some other RPGs.

[SharkForce]

Probably way too grounded for D&D, given the above point. Given the existence of the four elements monk, Avatar is kind of where D&D seems to want to place it, but that, too, is not really a comfortable fit.

i'll certainly agree that avatar was a likely inspiration. i'll disagree vehemently that they came anywhere even remotely close to doing a competent job of making a monk that feels anything like a bender.

[SaurOps]

Note, though, that I didn't say D&D is realistic, but still more realistic than some other RPGs.

Not even under that qualifier. Between the Great Wheel and everything that surrounds it, along with the zero to hero progression where just killing people can grant you earthshaking powers, D&D is roughly as realistic as Bleach.