Explain to me the value of a monk

[Ganryu]

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

Like, going through it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do monks do that no other class can?

[Anderlith]

For me the Monk has always been the Class you take when you want to do Rogue stuff but be respectable & not have to carry gear

[ad_hoc]

Mobile is actually bad on a Monk. It just duplicates their powers. Waste of an ASI.

You're discounting their subclasses which are a good bit of their power. Pass Without Trace and Bonus Action teleports are quite good for example.

They start off with 1d8 damage on their main attack by 2handing a quarterstaff.

They have a bonus action dodge with a Ki which is very good.

They have a lot of Ki. At 5th level they have an average of 15 Ki per long rest. They can get a lot done with that. That number goes up steadily every level.

They are very good at getting to and defeating low Con high threat enemies such as casters.

They have a lot of usefulness in actual play. In a white room they don't seem great but in actual complex scenarios they have a lot of options on how to deal with situations.

[Dork_Forge]

I've never really understood the claim they have meh AC, maxing out at 20 and likely starting at 15/16 at level 1 seems pretty good seeing as it comes with none of the hindrances of other higher AC.

The Monk in my eyes is exactly what you described, they're a skirmisher, meant to harry and harrass the opposition with number of attacks and mobility, they also make great scouts.

Stunning Strike's strength is in its low cost combined with the amount of attacks a Monk is capable of making, even with high to save bonuses a Monk can burn through Legendary resistances and spam for those low save rolls if willing to burn the ki.

Defense wise a lot (if not most) subclasses have defensive options built into them and the class as a whole gets access to an at cost dodge (I think the only way to do that?), Slow Fall and Deflect Missiles.

Ki is a short rest resource and when they've burned through it all they're still left with 3 attacks for most of their career (plus maybe some subclass abilities), they do just fine when out of Ki, arguably a Barbarian suffers a lot more from not having Rage available and only one subclass of Fighter uses Superiority Die (the class base is mostly rest agnostic for it's turn to turn stuff).

Lastly there's just the theming, some people want to be badass martial artists, others get a kick out of being so fast regardless of how often it actually comes up. It could be that the Monk jsut doesn't lend itself to your playstyle, but I encourage you to try it (if you haven't, your post read like theory craft than play experience) before writing them off you may be pleasantly surprised.

[Kane0]

They're great at getting where they need to be when they are needed there as well, on top of being fairly slippery targets. Their damage output isn't the best but it's respectable, and their cheap save-or-lose-your-turn spam isn't to be trifled with even if it's a common save (because as stated it's cheap, plus the benefits of bounded accuracy and methods of impacting enemy saves).

Oh and they can operate without equipment, run on walls, catch arrows, get evasion, make bonus action attacks, get proficiency in all saves, ignore gravity falling damage, end charms/fear and more all at will before we throw in subclasses and ki powers. It's an eclectic mix but it's all handy stuff to have.

[Tanarii]

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

AC is usually a point or more better than a rogue, unless said rogue finds magic studded leather. And like Rogues, Monks have a lot of defensive and mobility features.

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

Yup. If you've seen one monk, you've seen most of them. The only question is if they took a background that gives them Thieves Tools and Sleight of Hand (Charlatan, Urchin), or Athletics and Perception (Sailor). (It's not that bad, but like Barbarians and to a degree Rogues, Monks definitely suffer from the Cookie Cutter syndrome.)

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

This is probably THE biggest mistake I see in novice players who are starting with a Monk, and haven't seen them in play. The entire point is like a Rogue, you're a skirmisher. You can get to enemies behind cover (remember creatures provide cover), temporarily take a place in the front line and get away again after defending for a round, and even penetrate enemy lines to apply force at the most needed place if required.

Of course, plenty of players and DMs don't use tactics at all, the two groups melee just come together and bash it out, with ranged attackers on both sides plinking away through the cover of their own allies. And Monks are the spanner in the works if a DM runs enemies like that. (Note: This includes me sometimes. I'm hardly a tactical genius.)

]Ki: Everything seems centered on them, and it can be super easy to blow through, way faster than spell slots, and then what?

Depends on your level and what you're comparing them too. By level 5 a long rest caster can afford to spend 1.5 spells per encounter, a monk has 2.5 Ki. (Not implying Ki are equal to spell slots, that's actually in a casters favor.) but if your adventuring day gets extended by another 1/3 and an additional short rest, all of a sudden your long rest casters only get ~1 per battle to a Monk's 2.5 Ki, and are running on fumes with it being a level 1 spells for 3-4 of those encounters. This happens regularly at my tables.

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

Damage usually starts at 1d8+Dex with your primary attack from your Spear. It's your unarmed Martial Arts bonus attack or Flurry of blows that starts at 1d4+Dex. Monk damage is anything but low.

I'm just confused what it is a monk is supposed to do. What's the appeal?

Skirmish. Off-tank. Get to targets no one else can, including ranged attackers. Lock down artiller... uh enemy casters. And most importantly, chase down routed enemies and eliminate them before they can bring reinforcements.

Seems like they are the warlock version of martial to me.

Which is singing some high praises. Warlocks are awesome.

[bid]

I'm just confused what it is a monk is supposed to do.

Ki: per short rest.

Stunning strike: you can have Dex16 Wis20 and still hit often enough to force mutiple saves per turn.

Attack: versatile 1d8+3 + 1d4+3 makes 13 damage every turn. That's more damage than TWF's 10.


The main weakness is no feat. If you hurry to Dex20 / Wis20 you'll have to wait until level 19. OTOH, you can stop at 18/18 and go for fun. Optimization is for whiteroom potential, not roleplay.

[Kane0]

Skirmish. Off-tank. Get to targets no one else can, including ranged attackers. Lock down artiller... uh enemy casters. And most importantly, chase down routed enemies and eliminate them before they can bring reinforcements.

They aren't usually the ones to crush the enemy, but they are definitely the first to make it to the lamenting women.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Skirmish. Off-tank. Get to targets no one else can, including ranged attackers. Lock down artiller... uh enemy casters. And most importantly, chase down routed enemies and eliminate them before they can bring reinforcements.

You say this sarcastically, but it has saved us a lot of pain in having a 60ft speed monk who can bonus action dash to chase down almost any fleeing enemies. Enemies are usually only fleeing when they've been pushed to a point where that Monk's damage (or Stunning Strike) could be enough to finish them off.

Mobile is actually bad on a Monk. It just duplicates their powers. Waste of an ASI.

If you can afford to give up the ASI (which is admittedly only really going to happen in a game where you have rolled above average stats thanks to the MADness of the class) then Mobile is a fantastic choice. Anything that allows a monk to maneuver the battlefield safer and faster is great. The same could really be said about most feats for a Monk since boosting your ability scores is usually a much better option. For when you can afford to take a feat though, Mobile is high on my list of recommendations.

The only Monk I wouldn't take Mobile on is Drunken Master, it's the only subclass where the benefits gained are actually redundant.

[Tanarii]

They aren't usually the ones to crush the enemy, but they are definitely the first to make it to the lamenting women.

lol

You say this sarcastically, but it has saved us a lot of pain in having a 60ft speed monk who can bonus action dash to chase down almost any fleeing enemies.

Sorry. The sarcasm is because the a large group of DMs and Players that consider it poor form for enemies to flee and bring reinforcements, that it leads to players always slaughtering their enemies and never accepting a route or surrender.

If your DM is one of those who often has fleeing enemies bring back reinforcements, Monks are very good at stopping that.

[Zerubbabel]

They aren't usually the ones to crush the enemy, but they are definitely the first to make it to the lamenting women.

Oh hell yeah.

[ad_hoc]

If you can afford to give up the ASI (which is admittedly only really going to happen in a game where you have rolled above average stats thanks to the MADness of the class) then Mobile is a fantastic choice. Anything that allows a monk to maneuver the battlefield safer and faster is great. The same could really be said about most feats for a Monk since boosting your ability scores is usually a much better option. For when you can afford to take a feat though, Mobile is high on my list of recommendations.

Added movement speed has diminishing returns. The Monk already gets a big movement addition.

Not taking OAs sounds great but in practice you need to end up wasting attacks against creatures on your way to your real target. So you end up taking little shots at the weaker enemies which other classes are better at dealing with and then not having attacks left to try to stun the ones that matter.

Or you don't actually need the disengagement in which case it doesn't do anything. If you need it you have a bonus action disengage available from your Monk abilities.

If you bonus action Dash as a Monk your jump distance is doubled so you can jump over difficult terrain.

Take advantage of the flexibility that your Monk abilities give. Don't waste resources duplicating those abilities.

I'd much rather have Tough than Mobile.

[Kane0]

I'd much rather have Tough than Mobile.

On the topic of tough monks, a dwarf monk with that feat of theirs can bonus action dodge and heal at the same time. Bonus style points for doing this while being fireballed by a friendly caster and shrugging it off with evasion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sorry. The sarcasm is because the a large group of DMs and Players that consider it poor form for enemies to flee and bring reinforcements, that it leads to players always slaughtering their enemies and never accepting a route or surrender.

If your DM is one of those who often has fleeing enemies bring back reinforcements, Monks are very good at stopping that.

Can't say I understand that line of thinking, although my characters most often fill the role of keeping the party alive. When I think they won't be a problem later, my Paladin sends the Monk at them to knock them unconscious, diplomacy ensues to make sure they stay away. If he believes they'll be a problem in the long term they're killed.

Regardless, yes, I believe Monks are among the best classes at chasing down fleeing targets. Spellcasters are all well and good but they spend valuable resources that most often take a long rest to recharge (warlocks being the exception, although their limited spells make it similarly limiting) to subdue those enemies, many of them are also incapable of doing so non-lethally.

Not taking OAs sounds great but in practice you need to end up wasting attacks against creatures on your way to your real target. So you end up taking little shots at the weaker enemies which other classes are better at dealing with and then not having attacks left to try to stun the ones that matter.

I don't see this as much of an issue, Monk's role as a controller means that when they are focused on controlling they're going to want to hit and attempt to stun as many separate targets as possible. Obviously I'm not saying it's the greatest option but it gives you versatility in how you can reach those important targets.

On the bolded part, I don't see your reasoning here. You say they should take their bonus action to use Step of the Wind and disengage, which is well and good when they're surrounded by multiple targets, but if you're just trying to run past one guy you'd be better off having mobile, striking him once moving to strike your primary target with your Extra Attack and then using Flurry of Blows as your bonus action for 3 attacks on your primary target. You have more attacks to spend on your primary target in this case. In general mobile allows you more attacks than a Monk who simply uses Step of the Wind to maneuver and it saves Ki Points for Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike.

[MrCharlie]

Basically, Ki is actually super easy to recharge. As long as you only blow through one or two a turn-and doing more requires some dedicated effort, for instance flurrying and attempting to stun every time-you can keep a steady flow up most combats. Even just the base monk kit has it's uses because it can stun-against anything without immunity or a +18 save (or level appropriate "I can never fail this" save, which is typically only seen at max levels) that's a chance of taking a turn from them. That's huge.

The one problem is that every monk has the same theme, with small variations, and the same skillset, again with slight variations. Multi-classing isn't terribly common because their defenses aren't supurb over armor, nor is their bonus action attack unique, nor do they get enough ki to use their features with only a few levels.

In general though, monks are skirmishers, flankers, and most generally problem solvers. You need someone to occupy an enemy? Monk rolls in, hits a couple times, bonus action dodges. Maybe attempts a stun first so they can do something else. Enemy escaping? You can lap them. Ally need an escape? Stun the enemy next to them. There is a hard to get to puzzle to solve? Whoosh, I'm there. Enemies are flying? I can run up the walls, get to them, and stun them so they fall to earth. Caster incapacitated everyone with a nasty spell? Good thing all my saves are second only to the paladin-and only just, at moderate levels. Also, I'm good at avoiding ambushes, telling if people are trying to screw us over, maybe picking locks or pockets, hiding, and generally scouting.

A monk can change what he does rapidly, and can fulfill a great many roles in a minimum capacity, in addition to providing disabling support. In essence, if the frontline is infantry, he's Calvary, from a tactical standpoint. You don't ask him to sit in a melee unless really necessary, but he can swoop in for some shock and awe if needed.

Some monks might do some of these roles slightly better-long death has a few more "off tank" abilities, sun soul can do a bit of AOE and range, open hand doubles down on conditions and save effects, shadow is a better scout, elements tries to double as a discount caster, Kensai has more DPS potential (and range), and Drunken Master is an even better skirmisher. But the basic toolkit is more or less unchanged. If a party has all the bases covered, the monk can supplement any major threat. If the party lacks a main role, the monk can improvise to half-ass it if necessary.

[Ganryu]

Basically, Ki is actually super easy to recharge. As long as you only blow through one or two a turn-and doing more requires some dedicated effort, for instance flurrying and attempting to stun every time-you can keep a steady flow up most combats. Even just the base monk kit has it's uses because it can stun-against anything without immunity or a +18 save (or level appropriate "I can never fail this" save, which is typically only seen at max levels) that's a chance of taking a turn from them. That's huge.

The one problem is that every monk has the same theme, with small variations, and the same skillset, again with slight variations. Multi-classing isn't terribly common because their defenses aren't supurb over armor, nor is their bonus action attack unique, nor do they get enough ki to use their features with only a few levels.

In general though, monks are skirmishers, flankers, and most generally problem solvers. You need someone to occupy an enemy? Monk rolls in, hits a couple times, bonus action dodges. Maybe attempts a stun first so they can do something else. Enemy escaping? You can lap them. Ally need an escape? Stun the enemy next to them. There is a hard to get to puzzle to solve? Whoosh, I'm there. Enemies are flying? I can run up the walls, get to them, and stun them so they fall to earth. Caster incapacitated everyone with a nasty spell? Good thing all my saves are second only to the paladin-and only just, at moderate levels. Also, I'm good at avoiding ambushes, telling if people are trying to screw us over, maybe picking locks or pockets, hiding, and generally scouting.

A monk can change what he does rapidly, and can fulfill a great many roles in a minimum capacity, in addition to providing disabling support. In essence, if the frontline is infantry, he's Calvary, from a tactical standpoint. You don't ask him to sit in a melee unless really necessary, but he can swoop in for some shock and awe if needed.

Some monks might do some of these roles slightly better-long death has a few more "off tank" abilities, sun soul can do a bit of AOE and range, open hand doubles down on conditions and save effects, shadow is a better scout, elements tries to double as a discount caster, Kensai has more DPS potential (and range), and Drunken Master is an even better skirmisher. But the basic toolkit is more or less unchanged. If a party has all the bases covered, the monk can supplement any major threat. If the party lacks a main role, the monk can improvise to half-ass it if necessary.

Actually superhelpful. Covers the basis well. And them being fluid makes it hard to pin down on paper which is what I always try to to to be honest.

[Nagog]

Mobile is actually bad on a Monk. It just duplicates their powers. Waste of an ASI.

I doesn't duplicate their powers, it replaces them. Evading Opportunity Attacks no longer takes a Bonus Action (which are in high demand as monks), and removes the Ki cost as well.

I get where OP is coming from though. Warlocks are wonderful, but they're limited in spell slots unless your party takes short rests. Same with Monks. Monks also have relatively little by the way of useful magic items. Their great strength of not needing equipment to be effective also means they don't really have much in the way of great magic items to give to them without homebrewing something specifically tailored to how your monk plays. On top of that, they aren't all that great for proactive players, as their on-demand abilities are fairly lackluster for their level.

However, that brings me around to their strengths. Most Monk abilities are passive abilities and augments. On-demand damage isn't great, but you have plenty of abilities constantly active that defend you in different ways or allow you to do things others can't. I'd say of all the classes, Monk is the best one for newer players, as these passive abilities (and triggered abilities like Deflect Arrows) allow for DMs to highlight what their character can do without requiring the player to know enough about the game/character to do it. It really helps newer players to break out of the mold of things like Video Games and other platform-bound systems into thinking out of the box in new and fun ways to solve the presented problems.

On the note of Party Role, I guess that depends on the party and how you build your monk. There are enough feats and enough variety of subclasses for most classes that I feel I could bring any class into any role (with a few exceptions), however Monks as a general class are geared towards martial versatility. They have vast mobility to get where they need to go similar to a Rogue, they have a variety of attacks allowing them to swarmslaughter like Fighters, they have the AC and HP to tank if built right, and they have status and other special effects similar to casters. They're a sort of Jack of All Trades, which again, lends well to newer players who haven't yet discovered how they want to play D&D.

[Tanarii]

I get where OP is coming from though. Warlocks are wonderful, but they're limited in spell slots unless your party takes short rests. Same with Monks.

If your party doesn't take Short Rests, that's a problem with your party (or possibly DM), not the class. The game is designed to be used with Short Rests.

[ezekielraiden]

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

Impressive, that you find it so weak even in comparison--unless you're making the assertion only about the base features, and not the Beastmaster specifically?

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

I disagree with your opinion of their AC. If you have even a passing Wis and Dex--say, 14 and 16, easily achieved at character creation--you have 10+2+3 = 15 AC, as good as or better than a Rogue's. Pump both and by level 10 you can have 18 AC while wearing literally nothing, which is as noted more than the best a Rogue can get without magic armor. Similar stuff applies to Rogues for their HP, as they have the same hit dice. I guess what I'm saying is, why are Monks worse than Rogues in your eyes, when by all indications they seem equal or better?

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

Sure, but the same can be said of many other classes (e.g. Paladins need Cha, Str/Dex, and Con; before Hexblade, Bladelocks needed Cha, Str/Dex, and Con; Barbarians need Con, Str, and Dex to do respectable damage; etc.), and true SADness is often crapped on for being a flaw rather than a positive (consider the complaints about Hexblades). Almost all classes value a stat for offense, a stat for defense, and a stat for utility effects; for Monks, Dex and Wis provide those benefits, and Con is useful as it is for everyone. I think you somewhat overvalue the necessity of high Constitution, given the "prof in all saves" thing, but that's a matter of taste.

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

As others have said, this is an oversimplification that elides out much of the value of the class. Remember that 5e allows movement between attacks, and the only class that attacks more often than the Monk is the Fighter. You can always make one unarmed strike as a bonus action after using the Attack action, and if you spend ki on it, you can instead get two. You're innately ahead of the Fighter on number of attacks until level 11, at which point you have enough ki to fuel nearly every round of combat between short rests (most combats are 5 rounds or less, or so I'm told, and you won't need Flurry of Blows every round; most of the time you won't have more than 2 combats between rests). Movement, especially your extra speed, allows you to dart in, kick someone's butt, and then dart back out again, turning movement into its own form of defense. (See, for example, the Drunken Master for how this can be emphasized--spending ki on Flurry of Blows gives them the effect of Disengage and adds 10 more feet to their movement for the round.)

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

Compare ki not to daily slots, but Warlock ones. A Warlock only has 2 spell slots all the way up until 11th level, whereas your ki is equal to your Monk level (after 1st). And, as noted, remember the innate 3 attacks a round (once you have Extra Attack at 5th)--the Monk is still putting out respectable damage at this point without needing any ki at all.

Alternatively, if you want to compare ki to daily slots, don't think in terms of just ki vs. slots; think in terms of daily ki vs. slots. Short-rest classes fall behind if they get less than two short rests per day, so we can safely assume a Monk should get at least level*3 ki per day if they spend all of it between short rests. While 11 ki might seem paltry compared to a Wizard's 15 spell slots (and 5 extra levels' worth via Arcane Recovery), remember that it's supposed to be balanced against 33 daily ki. I hope that that helps show that, while Monks cannot rely solely on their ki to make up the difference between themselves and a Wizard, the difference is smaller than a first glance implies.

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

That very much depends! I can definitely see a Monk that prioritized Wisdom over Dex, since Wisdom still improves AC, and affects this save. It probably won't happen all the time, but it's definitely an option.

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

I'm a little confused at how you think it's a meh number later on. Only Fighters outdo Monks, and only at pretty high levels.

Lockdown's great, but seems casters do it better.

A serious problem with 5e overall, I'm afraid. Most things, casters can do better, if they put their mind to it. It's not as bad as it was in 3e, but it's still a problem. You can either rail at it, or accept it and try to work around it, but frankly I find it somewhat pointless to just say "this is why this is bad!" like this. Spells trump martials. It sucks. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Holding that against the Monk class overall feels seriously unfair.

And Monks might be martial, but tend to run out of their resource even faster than casters. Seems like they are the warlock version of martial to me.

Covered this above, but in short: yeah, that's because you should be comparing them to Warlocks.

What do monks do that no other class can?

Much of this comes from their subclasses, as others have noted. However, the big factor you're missing, I think, is that the Monk really does exploit mobility as defense and offense, which few other classes do, except possibly Rogue. You can see this especially strongly with the Shadow and Drunken Master Monks, who can do things like teleporting through shadows, turn offense into easy defense (ki spent on FoB also gives Drunken monks the benefit of Disengage), or even turn invisible. Sun Soul does the converse, giving you exactly the ranged options you mentioned. In other words, again similar to the Warlock, the Monk leverages benefits from subclass-style options (like how Hexblade makes a melee Warlock viable) to shore up its natural abilities. Sun Soul provides the ranged options you're looking for; Drunken Master doubles down on the mobility and hitting lots of things; Shadow lets you exploit magical and non-magical darkness for defense and offense; etc. It's worth noting that the Way of Four Elements is generally regarded as very weak compared to other Monk subclasses, so I wouldn't include it in your estimates of the overall power of the class.

If your party doesn't take Short Rests, that's a problem with your party (or possibly DM), not the class. The game is designed to be used with Short Rests.

Uh, yeah. If your group doesn't take at least 2 short rests a day, Monks, Warlocks, and Battlemaster Fighters will fall behind other classes. (The BM may not fall behind the Champion because of how little benefit their extra crits provide over the course of the day, but that's a separate issue.)

[MustaKrakish]

The thing is that ranger and monk feel to me like they should have been a subclass of fighter and rogue rather than a full class. In the end, as a player, I want my character to feel a unique role in the party. And it feels to me that other classes are much more defined when it comes to their role.

I am not saying that ranger and monk are not powerful. I just think that they don't bring something of their own to the table, and it kinda feels that they have an identity crisis.

[Pufferwockey]

Yup. If you've seen one monk, you've seen most of them. The only question is if they took a background that gives them Thieves Tools and Sleight of Hand (Charlatan, Urchin), or Athletics and Perception (Sailor). (It's not that bad, but like Barbarians and to a degree Rogues, Monks definitely suffer from the Cookie Cutter syndrome.)

This is pretty solvable with some effort put in to the RP side of things. Try picking a sub optimal background. Another easy trick I'm sure other people have thought of but I haven't seen discussed anywhere is to take one class and use it/roll play it as another. I'm playing an outlander wood elf kensai and basically playing it as a ranger. Working with the dm to figure out why am outlander elf would end up with special training like this and and up in a place and time to meet a party of weirdos and think going adventuring was a good call informed some choices in the personality traits section of the sheet that are, I flatter myself, pretty non standard. I've got plans for a Barbarian that I'm going to run as a Paladin and coming up with a back story for that which doesn't strain the credibility of the world will set me up for the same process.

Also: By my reckoning having a good flaw that you can RP satisfyingly is the best way to make a two characters of the same class feel completely different, so work the dump stat. I dumped cha instead of int even though I'm much more likely to be called on to make a cha check than an int check if (when) some plan goes awry and the character is forced to be self reliant instead of letting the appropriate party member handle it. That helped me flesh my out my flaw and put some finishing touches on the story of how my character's life went so wrong that he was willing to enter a goblin infested dungeon to rescue the mcguffin for chump change when the time came. In game it sets me up for some ammusing or dramatic failures that are likely to be satisfyingly tied to the character's personality flaws and showcase some uniqueness.

[Kane0]

The thing is that ranger and monk feel to me like they should have been a subclass of fighter and rogue rather than a full class. In the end, as a player, I want my character to feel a unique role in the party. And it feels to me that other classes are much more defined when it comes to their role.

I am not saying that ranger and monk are not powerful. I just think that they don't bring something of their own to the table, and it kinda feels that they have an identity crisis.

We’ve been down this path before.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...Change-my-mind

[Hytheter]

I guess what I'm saying is, why are Monks worse than Rogues in your eyes, when by all indications they seem equal or better?

I'm pretty the range factor was an important part of his point. Rogues can excel from a distance, but monks do their best work up close.

[MrCharlie]

This is pretty solvable with some effort put in to the RP side of things. Try picking a sub optimal background. Another easy trick I'm sure other people have thought of but I haven't seen discussed anywhere is to take one class and use it/roll play it as another. I'm playing an outlander wood elf kensai and basically playing it as a ranger. Working with the dm to figure out why am outlander elf would end up with special training like this and and up in a place and time to meet a party of weirdos and think going adventuring was a good call informed some choices in the personality traits section of the sheet that are, I flatter myself, pretty non standard. I've got plans for a Barbarian that I'm going to run as a Paladin and coming up with a back story for that which doesn't strain the credibility of the world will set me up for the same process.

Also: By my reckoning having a good flaw that you can RP satisfyingly is the best way to make a two characters of the same class feel completely different, so work the dump stat. I dumped cha instead of int even though I'm much more likely to be called on to make a cha check than an int check if (when) some plan goes awry and the character is forced to be self reliant instead of letting the appropriate party member handle it. That helped me flesh my out my flaw and put some finishing touches on the story of how my character's life went so wrong that he was willing to enter a goblin infested dungeon to rescue the mcguffin for chump change when the time came. In game it sets me up for some ammusing or dramatic failures that are likely to be satisfyingly tied to the character's personality flaws and showcase some uniqueness.

I'd argue that the one monk=all monks issue is an elaboration on problems facing a lot of well defined classes.
The problem is that monks have too much baggage. There is no reducible theme that you then build off, you say "Monk" and there is instantly "training, robed warrior, martial arts, wise warrior", all of which are specific. The pre-associated baggage is a major issue.

For comparison, with the artificer I can sit down and come up with a character concept based on the idea of "technology" and make a artificer that fits that. Perhaps I want to bring in themes of regret, redemption, and war, so I say I'm a military scientist who helped invent some magical process that lead to chemical warfare; quite naturally, an alchemist artificer falls out of this. Or maybe I want to take it a different direction; I was a soldier in the war who had a knack with technology, until one day I came across a wounded dog on the edge of a battlefield. I tried to save it's life, but it died in my arms-since then I've tried to replicate life in chrome in order to transcend the horrors of war I've experienced one times to many; this came from reading battlesmith and seeing the metal companion feature and I worked some accessory themes into my original idea to have it fit.

Wizards are another example similar to monks; wizards are "intelligent mystics drawing power from transferable but hidden knowledge", which is fairly narrow. I'd argue it's got the same issues monks have; see one wizard, see 100 wizards.

The broadest classes, like warlocks or fighters, have broad central ideas "mystic, given/taking power at a price"/"Skilled warrior", while more narrow ones have smaller central ideas; Barbarians are similar to monks "Wild warrior who represents the physical pinnacle" has limited variation outside of it.

None of this is bad-but it means that you have less boundary for escape. It does not help when the class defines what attributes matter with such extreme clarify like the monk-DEX/WIS are inescapably part of how they function on all levels, and CON is close behind due to their greater power in melee and low HP. Barbarians are even worse-no working barbarian build uses anything but STR, if it does it's not doing what barbarians do. The final nail in the coffin is that Monks are bad multiclass material, which limits the final way to escape narrow class bonds-don't limit yourself to that class.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I'm pretty the range factor was an important part of his point. Rogues can excel from a distance, but monks do their best work up close.

I think subclass is important.

The hadouken/kamehameha can work fine with distance for example.

The monk subclasses are very heavy with important class features.

[LudicSavant]

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

One thing I don't see mentioned here is that Stunning Strike is difficult to resist because the enemy has to make multiple saves in order to be safe. Extra Attack? 2 saves. Flurry of Blows? 2 more. They try to walk away from you and get an OA? Yet another save. Even an enemy with a high Constitution save will frequently have a tough time with the iterative probability of rolling several of them. And if they fail any of them it's essentially a death sentence if the party has any idea of how to follow up.

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

It's true. I think the reflexive reaction of some might be to say "but other classes are MAD too!" but it would be a mistake to think that others are just as stat-dependent as Monks are just because they have the same number of "main stats."

A Monk with a low Dexterity OR Wisdom will be bad at offense, defense, and utility, because so many of their features depend on good scores in both for basic scaling. For example, you need Dex and Wis or your AC will be terrible, and you need Dex and Wis or your Stunning Strikes will suck. You need both of your stats for baseline relevance at basically anything you do.

By contrast a Paladin will be much less crippled if they're missing one of their two "main" stats. One with low Charisma can still smite like a truck, for example. And one with low Strength (or Dex) can still cast spells and protect the party like a champ. And both will still have a solid AC.

[Hytheter]

I think subclass is important.

The hadouken/kamehameha can work fine with distance for example.

There are subclasses that can do stuff from a range (though can you really call 30ft a ranged attack? :P), but they're still more effective up close. You can't use Stunning Strike on a Sun Bolt, for example. At best it's a "might as well" for when you can't get close or prefer not to, but it's not where they shine.

[Pufferwockey]

I'd argue that the one monk=all monks issue is an elaboration on problems facing a lot of well defined classes.
The problem is that monks have too much baggage. There is no reducible theme that you then build off, you say "Monk" and there is instantly "training, robed warrior, martial arts, wise warrior", all of which are specific. The pre-associated baggage is a major issue.

Unless you are referring to the problem of others people assuming your character trained in a mountain temple and think they know how the character dresses (which... Yeah if someone ignores how you describe your character that's annoying) I disagree. There's no reason your monk has to dress that way or had to learn their skills in a temple or even in a tradition that was even remotely monastic or ascetic. That's just how the archetype the mechanics were designed for dresses and where that archetype trains.

Your monk could take part in any walk of life and dress appropriately for it, and have their abilities from any source that doesn't break the credulity of the DMs world. I'd say training in a martial style that could be considered in some way exotic by western fantasy standards might be a soft minimum. On the other hand there's no nothing stopping you from just saying this is a guy who is just naturally rediculously athletic and good in a scrap with freakishly fast reflexes (other than the fact that that would be a lame character barring some very compelling storytelling) For the more overtly magical subclasses they might be innate magic wielders with abilities that manifest differently from sorcs because they taught themselves to control it using focus and physical training rather than arcane gestures force of personality. That would probably work best if the character is only introduced after third level.

None of this is bad-but it means that you have less boundary for escape. It does not help when the class defines what attributes matter with such extreme clarify like the monk-DEX/WIS are inescapably part of how they function on all levels, and CON is close behind due to their greater power in melee and low HP. Barbarians are even worse-no working barbarian build uses anything but STR, if it does it's not doing what barbarians do. The final nail in the coffin is that Monks are bad multiclass material, which limits the final way to escape narrow class bonds-don't limit yourself to that class.

So go sub optimal. Multiclass anyway. Take a feat that doesn't synergise perfectly but has some use and an ability with the right flavour for your wierd character. Probably won't be a problem unless your campaign is super deadly. Or you multiclassed to barbarian. Don't do that.

[HiveStriker]

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

Like, going through it:

1. Hit die: 1d8 - Equal to clerics and rogues, its really not good for someone with no range options, and unless you have Mobile feat (Which solves a LOT of monks problems admitted), or spend ki points, you're constantly in ouch range. Con is also their tertiary stat. 2. And their AC is only decent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do monks do that no other class can?

Hi ;)

I'll start by the bolded part then deal with each point separately.
So, what is Monk supposed to do? Well, whatever you want him to!
Ok, that was lame.

Monk is one of the hardest class to grasp precisely because the way its features are agenced make it the most evolving class of all.
Fighter is always more or less about simply attacking, either in melee or in range.
Casters are usually more or less the same tactic and role, even if execution differs depending on enemy (especially Clerics, which many reduce to a Healing Words / Spirit Guardians / Spiritual Weapon bot).

Monk starts like a Ranger or DEX Fighter or Rogue, maintaining as much distance as possible, closing in only when you feel confident you could survive until next round. So at low levels, it's all about using ranged / thrown weapons when you have more than one or two enemies that could reach you, while also taking into account best use for bonus action to decide when to close in.
Ki is mainly used on Dodge unless you can count on an ally reviving you if needed, or you have a good chance of finishing off the guy with bonus action attack or flurry, or OA has high chance of missing you (like, you have a pal who loves proning enemies).
On that note, 4E is the best contender: 1 Ki makes all your attacks 15 feet long for the turn, so you spare movement and bonus action. Long Death follows closely, compensating lower AC and hp with THP. Kensei is another great one with +2 AC as bonus action for free (IIRC).

Once you get Stunning Strike... Well, nothing changes much actually imx. The main difference is that you now want to spare at least one or two Ki until you are sure it wouldn't be needed to end a fight. But "nova Stuns" is simply out of question: burning all resources in one turn is a bad idea in 99,999% of cases.
In other words, you get a potential nuke, but it's still a nuke, you'll use it scarcingly.

As you progress, you get more tools to stay out of direct harm's way (Evasion, free climbing), and the mobility improvement makes it easier for you to assist party, doing one of the following: rushing to a pal to help finish off a guy; cross enemy frontline and go disable a dangerous target that thought was safe in backline; try and splitting their main melee force and lure them away (making yourself like an easy target) and tools to limit some effects that could debilitate you (charm/frighten).

Once you get Diamond Soul, you are better than any other martial when facing anything more dangerous than direct damage (which is actually quite much). By that level, you should also have a good enough AC to make do most of the time, because you still have Dodge as bonus action when needed.
Bonus point: you can now be a great spy or negociator because you "just know" all languages.

When you finally get Empty Body, you're basically unstoppable for anything below CR 17: as resistant as a Bear Barbarian, impossible to aim without special sense (to attacks at disadvantage at best, "immune" to many spell effects), d10 damage and extreme mobility (especially 4E, with Shadow being not far behind) makes you much more reliable "overall" in hard fights than a Fighter, Rogue or Barbarian. Of course you won't match their DPR (at least if they focused on it with feats), but you have a much much lower chance to become a liability or even a potential threat for your party.

-------------
1. Monks DO HAVE ranged options: barring even Kensei (longbow) and Sun Soul (30 feet radiant), ANY Monk can use throwable weapons (Light Hammer/Axe for 20 feet, Javelins for 30) for short range, or completely switch to a shortbow for lingering ranged fights or against flyers.
But yeah, Mobile is the one feat any Monk wants, because although Monk is perfectly viable without, it indeed makes life so much easier (including on Ki resource management).

2. Yeah, AC is only decent, but it's Rogue level of decent and you can easily get a 17-18 by level 8: either as a "regular" Monk that boosts DEX and WIS, or by picking a Monk archetype that allows you to focus on either DEX or WIS and keep the other at 16, and for the former possibly grab Mage Armor or a racial unarmored.

3. As said just before, you don't *need* 20 DEX and 20 WIS. 18 in both by end game is far enough if you'd like to play a normal Monk but have some different aspects with feats. And you could also decide to focus on a specific ability of Monk and target even a 18/16. It's a long-term plan but works. :)

4. Confer first point: Monk has an incentive to be in melee, but unless you consider Monk = spam Stunning Strike (hint: it's wrong), you have several ways around that.

5. When out of ki, you still sports up to three attacks, great defense against DEX effects and possibly an "extra attack" with Deflect Arrows. Plus archetype features (Long Death and Drunken Master are the most "conservative").
I don't see how such a Monk would be "useless" when a Battlemaster without manoeuvers would not.

6. I agree that Stunning Strike is overrated. It's amazing only when you have enough ki to land 3 attempts in a row, because chance for any creature to succeed on three rolls straight is very low, even with high save. Confer what I said above: at low levels, it's a feature you'll use only when you're sure it can land, knowing that CON is the one stat monsters have at least "something" as a bonus.
Conversely, that's another big benefit of 4E: Hold Person imposes better condition, potentially several rounds without additional costs, and targets WIS. Of course it's situational because of the humanoid limitation, but imx you encounter a fair share of those in any campaign.

7. Attack doesn't "start at 1d4". Nobody prevents you using two-weapon fighting at low level (1d6 weapons with ability to throw), or simply use a quarterstaff for 1d8 on main attack.
Also, I don't get how "3 attacks for free over the game, 4 attacks for a relatively diminishing cost" "gets pretty meh late" when any other martial barring Fighter needs to invest in feats for that, and Fighter only tops it off at level 20.

Skirmish. Off-tank. Get to targets no one else can, including ranged attackers. Lock down artiller... uh enemy casters. And most importantly, chase down routed enemies and eliminate them before they can bring reinforcements.

Which is singing some high praises. Warlocks are awesome.

You say this sarcastically, but it has saved us a lot of pain in having a 60ft speed monk who can bonus action dash to chase down almost any fleeing enemies. Enemies are usually only fleeing when they've been pushed to a point where that Monk's damage (or Stunning Strike) could be enough to finish them off.

The only Monk I wouldn't take Mobile on is Drunken Master, it's the only subclass where the benefits gained are actually redundant.

+10 to this. On the "fleeing enemy" part, sure, it would be simpler to just snipe him with bow, but its not always doable (enemy invisible, nobody in party with great accuracy, lots of cover like in forest, etc).

Added movement speed has diminishing returns. The Monk already gets a big movement addition.

Not taking OAs sounds great but in practice you need to end up wasting attacks against creatures on your way to your real target. So you end up taking little shots at the weaker enemies which other classes are better at dealing with and then not having attacks left to try to stun the ones that matter.

Or you don't actually need the disengagement in which case it doesn't do anything. If you need it you have a bonus action disengage available from your Monk abilities.

If you bonus action Dash as a Monk your jump distance is doubled so you can jump over difficult terrain.

Take advantage of the flexibility that your Monk abilities give. Don't waste resources duplicating those abilities.

I'd much rather have Tough than Mobile.

I have no quarry on personal preferences ;)
I strongly disagree on the case you make against Mobile though.
If you do this "using attacks against enemies on route to target" AND imply that it means "less attacks on main target that you would without", it means you made a suboptimal choice in the first place.
Otherwise...
- If there is a way to go around "mid-enemies", the extra 10 feet from Mobile may help.
- If there is no other way than go through, it means that without Mobile you would have to use your bonus action on anything else than Flurry of Blows or regular bonus action attack anyways.

That's the other big benefit of Mobile: when you have only one or two enemies in the way to your prime, Mobile brings you a net benefit because it allows you to take at least a route that potentially deals some damage to enemies while still retaining the same "attack potential" for your prime target.
And sometimes it gives enough extra movement to reach your target without need for Dodge/Disengage/Dash to avoid attacks on the way.
In other words, "at worst", it's the same as if you took a Dash/Disengage as a bonus action, because you used the Ki on Flurry of Blows instead and used Attack to "defend".
At best, it gives at least one more attack against your target that if you didn't have Mobile. :)

So its benefit stays strong until very very late. :)

A monk can change what he does rapidly, and can fulfill a great many roles in a minimum capacity, in addition to providing disabling support. In essence, if the frontline is infantry, he's Calvary, from a tactical standpoint. You don't ask him to sit in a melee unless really necessary, but he can swoop in for some shock and awe if needed.

I love that parallel!

[Keravath]

Some quick comments

1) In my experience, a monk is a skirmisher and possible problem solver/crowd control. They get to the enemy back lines, stun/damage the caster/casters, BBEG and then either dodge or open up some space so someone has to chase them. Their stun can be more influential in battles against a few challenging opponents rather than swarms keeping in mind that stun lasts until the end of the monk's next turn so everyone including the monk has an opportunity to attack the stunned target at advantage.

2) Monk AC is average to low among martial classes. It is a bit better than rogue typically but many rogues are ranged and not melee while monks may carry a short bow for the times when they need it but their special abilities are primarily melee oriented (for most archetypes).

3) I think the mobile feat is fabulous on a monk. However, I took it on a variant human so it doesn't impact the stat progression. Monks need all their ASIs for dex and wis.
- Mobile increases the monk movement by +10'. Yes it is already good but extra movement is very useful. With a movement of 60'+, a monk can actually strike from outside the movement range of many creatures and withdraw beyond their movement range. With mobile, a monk hits this mark at 10th rather than 20th level (a mobile wood elf hits it at 6th level). In addition, the extra movement lets the monk strike the back lines much more easily. (Personally, I have a shadow monk whose bonus action 60' dim or no light teleport really enhances mobility and the ability to strike behind the lines.) On top of that, the ability to attack and move on means that the monk can strike multiple targets moving through a crowd and not have to worry about opportunity attacks. Anyway, during play, I have found the feat to be far from a waste.

4) There is less feat customization for monks due to the need for dex and wis ASIs. However, the monk archetypes provide a wide range of different play styles, perhaps a bit more than with other classes which tends to help each monk feel a bit different during play ... but that is a subjective opinion :). In addition, monk progression is very good at providing some new feature almost every level while other classes can have levels that don't seem to offer as much progression.