Personally I still think monks are weak mostly because my numbers have come out drastically different to your own, and the base monk is certainty does horrendous damage compared to the other base classes which is why I let them add half their proficiency bonus to their damage which brings them up to a respectable 33.5 DPR which is pretty close to the warlock baseline. So, with subclasses, and other stuff you can get damage similar to the elite DPR baseline.
I do feel like while you are right in the sense that MAD is thrown onto the monk more than anything else, it is still deserved, the best spells for ranger are ones that dont require wisdom and while wisdom does matter, if it stays as a 14, its not going to be a punch in the gut, same thing goes with paladin. Additionally, con on monks matters so much more than normal due to the inherently low hit die as it is lower than both paladin and ranger, which makes con needing to be higher just to catch up in that regard. In regards to the dexadin, is it strong, yes, but its also significantly less common than the normal paladin. For college of swords bard, first of all, its never been considered the best subclass, and it does feel a tad disingenuous to talk about the hex blade dip as a hinderance when the video starts with discussing dipping fighter. Bladesinger tells the biggest story when discussing mad, monk needs wisdom for saves as well as ac very similar to bladesinger, however, this is where its key to take a step back and understand how the builds play out. Bladesinger can play 1 of 2 ways, either focused on spells, or focused on melee, in either case, one of those ability scores act as a bonus rather than a necessity. For example, if you go martial focused bladesinger, you use less save based spells and even less save or suck spells, the end result is int is just a further bonus to ac as you already have a good one because you are focusing dex + armor. this allows you to have the same ac as a level 20 monk as a level 5 bladesinger. Meanwhile, monk ac level 1 + low hit die makes it so that the monk feels really squishy to the point where one needs to hard set focus on bumping up that ac rather than taking other feats that can boost power, sure some of them do come in, but its much lower priority. For a caster focused bladesinger, its the same story, Int is your focus and you dont sacrifice anything for doing it, do you have slightly less powerful attacks, yes, is that the point of the build, no.
Monks, thematically, are one of my favorite classes. However, I think the arguments to validate them in this vid tend to rely on multiclassing or other ways to gain weapon proficiency in order to overcome the damage die. I think you're spot on about lots of classes needing CON as a tertiary stat and isn't unique to the monks. Finally, my biggest wish to improve monks is to solve the reliance on, in my mind, a pretty limited resource. Always a fan of your videos but I do still think monks pale in comparison to their peers.
@@cmccbuilds8229 I think rogues are, yes. Barbarians, I'm not sure as I've yet to play one. From the outside looking in, they have limited rage, but are certainly phenomenal regarding damage and toughness, which I think is a better trade.
Issue with con as tertiary for every build is that... it's not nearly as needed. Lower hitdice characters arent forced into melee like monk is to function. The need for 1 higher modifier on con than any other martial since that 1 more needs to make up for the 1 lower dice.
@@cmccbuilds8229 a fighter who's ot focused on being the tankiest he can be can easily make do with +2 hp, monk needs +3 to be at the same baseline hp. All while needing 2 other stats. Re: ranger needing wisdom too.... they dont unless you use one of the pet classes. Your best spells dont rely on wisdom, nor does the ammount of your spells do. My 10 wisdom ranger is as good at ranger-ing as friends 16 wisdom ranger.
One thing I'll say is they're not under or overpowered, but what they ARE is "awkward". A lot of things might not feel like they're supposed to because of the ki point issue and the fact that even though a D8 hit die isn't an insurmountable issue it can make it feel like you NEED to max out all 3 of your main stats instead of just maxing out dex and wis (which even then the fact that you NEED to max out dex and wis before you have your defense at the right place rather than something like barbarians getting half-plate and shields as options)
Ok, my main criticism here is not a moving of the goal post rather I feel like there was a lack of one to begin with. My question immediately is of course what can the other non casters do when afforded the same resources as the monk builds presented here. I should Imagine that a min maxed fighter or barbarian can easily out damage a monk, and both likely have better defensive parameters as well, the rogue for its part at least has a subclass with spell casting access. I also think entertaining tier 3 play, while valid is a niche I, and I think reasonably many others do not weigh heavily due to the lack of play those levels see. Ki fueled attack, an example you raised of a feature which makes good use of ki expenditure, is quite literaly only a consideration on ranged monk build, and there on its a nescesity to even make those builds remotley functional when compared to a fighter who picked up a hand crossbow. Their reward for spending the ki is being able to deliver 1-2 more points of damage, a difference easily mitigated and surpassed by the fighters action surges an maneuvers. In fact the best they could feasibly do is 3 more damage with a musket on the GUNK build you reference. And my personal feelings towards that build is the fact it takes an optional weapon from the DMG to make the monk good is a more damning indictment then anything I could really write here. Regarding MADness, this is not a fair comparison for most classes shown. The ranger does not need a high wisdom, to the exclusion of the swarmkeeper and the fey wanderer, the rangers best assets, Aid, Conjure animals, goodberry and PWT as well as weapon attacks do not rely on its casting stat at all. For the Gloomstalker for instance, all it gains from a high WIS is a higher DC for its entangle in early tier 1 and an initiative boost, it can get away with a 13 WIS rounded to 14 with res wis just fine. The CHM based gishes only need a 14 DEX and a 14 CON since they get half plate and have far superior defensive parameters, (and if were saying 1 level in fighter is a good concesion on monks, than 1 level in HB is a fair concession to make thos gishes SAD) just as a base due to spellcasting, still further they can opt into a +1 +2 race spread and be able to eventually round their CON with rescon, in fact often this should be done at ones earliest convenience. Paladins and Bladesingers are the only truly MAD ones here, but considering the upside of both classes as reletive to the upside of being a monk, the MADness is far easier to put up with. I would argue to compare classes that for the most part need at most a 14 14 15 point buy 13 14 15 in some cases, is in any way reasonable to a class that arguably all but necessitates a 15 15 15 point buy. Stunning Strike tagets CON and is all but wasted when not used on targets whom would be difficult to get rid of or are a priority to kill, read targets with high CON and spell casters or other glass canons. The latter it can do fine against. But to the exclusion of enemies with low constitution scores a Stunning Strike is not remotely reliable, especially not working off a DC we are likely not raising until level 12 at the earliest. Not accounting for any relevant legendary resistences, AC values amongst other things, to get a stun on a key target is often not an exercise of one round but of multiple rounds. And if it takes me the average length of a combat to get my 'instant kill' id rather just have had anyone else who could do better flat damage on my side of the field. In summation, the monk offers ok damage, so-so control, BAD tanking until 14-16 levels at least have been invested and even then its inferior to any shield user with defense. To conclude you have what Chris broadly outlined in his video. A glass cannon that is far more glass than cannon with no clear purpose other than, well to be a monk. Specialists do more damage, can tank better and can CC better, and we are a group. The reality is it better to have a team of specialists than a missfitting monk. In any case where you want to add a monk to your composition, you would be better served by adding literally any other class bar maybe a rogue. Monks are not unusable, but they are bottom 2 in the pecking order. If the objective of this video was to convince me otherwise, I would say it failed at it. Conversely though, if the objective was just to demonstrate monks can have value, it did its job well. That said well edited and I respect the effort put in. Earned a sub here always keen to hear some hot takes as wall as some optimisation dnd talk!
Oof - I don’t know if I’ll have time to address every issue, but check the comments and the other 2 monk videos (if you haven’t already). I’ll try to address any other issues when I can :)
The new Light Weapon rules and Unarmed Strike rules in one D&D will help Monks a lot. The wording of the Attack action is also different so that you could flurry after declaring the Attack action. At level 11 they could be making 5x d8 + 5 attacks since they also get fighting styles in the Warrior group.
Brother in law wanted to play a monk, he spent days trying to work it out. In the end, we all agreed to give him fighter subclass to equalize the balance issue. We have cleric, druid, wizard and bard, and let him have monk eldritch knight. By 3rd lvl it made a scary fast bard/ monk team of pain.
Chris takes into account that higher tier play is rare compared to tier one and two, so he discounts abilities gained at late levels. Monks are fine at most tables, but the more optimized the table plays, the more the weakness of every class and build becomes apparent. And even you state that Monks aren't great at tier one or two.
The thing about monk is that they're on the weaker end in the tiers that most campaigns take place in. They aren't bad per say, they're just weak when you look at them compared to other classes. Can you make a good monk? Absolutely! Is it going to be better than an optimized fighter or paladin? Noooo lol
Is it going to perform the roles required of a striker type character so damage or control. Fighters make better grapplers and do way more damage. Paladins bring more utility. Rangers do both better then a Monk. Everything a monk can do well, another class does more efficiently. It doesn't perform out of combat things better then a rogue or bard either so it loses out there whole we're at it.
@@cmccbuilds8229 While more Ki is essential my damage numbers don't go very high with leveling that is not taking into account gunks, or bonks with sharpshooter in addition to no multiclass or magic weapons. A 20th level monk making 4 unarmed attacks doesn't even have 30 DPR by my calculations.
The jack of all trades really speaks well of the monk for me. A jack of all trades is a master of one but oftentimes better than a master of one. They do nothing better than anyone but they have an insane amount of versatility
@@cmccbuilds8229 I never said they weren’t good. I love them a lot. A few things “feel” bad even if they actually aren’t. I remember I played a monk in a ToA campaign and I actually did better than most the party. When that campaign died off, it was just after a big battle where I lost an arm but did manage to survive along with my brother (can’t remember what he was playing). Since Tasha’s at least, monks have actually been a powerhouse in my eyes
I'm a long-time D&D player but only an amateur optimizer so please forgive me if I see out of line here but I have a few comments to make regarding your video: 1) Right off the bat you defend the Monk's damage scaling and then literally in the same breath suggest either taking a 1-level dip into Fighter or taking a specific race to fill the damage hole. Now try the same thing with a V. Human with no multiclassing. IMHO, if a class NEEDS help from a multiclass dip or a certain racial trait, it's already in trouble. 2) You're right on point with regard to the claims that Monks are more MAD than most other classes. I don't know where that myth came from, personally. 3) Your comments regarding early-tier versus late-tier Monks are also correct except that you called out a feature at level 14 when (according to polls), many games don't reach that level. That's like saying Barbarians have the best capstone ability at 20 (which they do) when almost nobody plays at that level. 4) Stunning Strike is widely considered to be the Monk's most powerful ability. Beau frustrated Matt more than once by stunning an enemy at a key moment in a fight. However, it relies on the Monk's weakest trait...Ki points. You mentioned how many Ki a typical Monk will have at tier 2-3 play...10 or more in most cases. However, you also mentioned that the Short Rest is inherently important to the class because Ki points are used for most of the good features. Sure, you can use 1 Ki per turn and last longer than a typical fight without a rest...but that's ONE Stunning Strike OR ONE Flurry of Blows or ONE Step of the Wind or Patient Defense. The problem isn't that Monks can't operate well during a single battle but rather that they HAVE to be able to take rests in order to utilize more than a couple of their better abilities. Most other classes don't have this issue. 5) You are also on point with regard to magic items and weapons. Except for armor (and Barbs suffer from this as well), I can't see Monks having any issues with most magic items. As for weapons, Monks tend to be a bit choosier with what they use but many other classes are as well (have YOU ever seen a heavy-weapon Rogue?) so you're absolutely correct here. 6) When you get to the Ki part of the video, you acknowledge that it's a limited resource and particularly harmful in Tier 1 play (where many campaigns start), but then you gloss over the point by, again, saying 'just take short rests and you're good.' So, if your party can't take a SR for some reason you're screwed? Doesn't sound like a good design to me. The problem isn't that Monks, taken as a whole, are bad. The problem is that except for mobility and Stunning Strike, there are other classes/subclasses that do it better and DON'T rely on rests in order to stay in the action. IMHO the Monk needs everything to fall its way...subclass, Feats, multiclassing, campaign style, party composition, etc...in order to work as well as other class/subclass/race combinations. Damage? Make almost any kind of Martial class. Tanking? Make almost any sort of Martial class other than Ranger. Mobility? Take a Rogue with the Mobility Feat. Make a Tabaxi if you REALLY want to scoot around. Stunning Strike? Yeah...you got me here. IMHO the base class needs to be better, especially at the lower levels where most games begin, and then we can see about comparing them to everything else.
Monk fixes are simple give them a d10 hit dice. Give them wisdom modifier+level in ki points, and let them add half their proficiency bonus to the attack and damage rolls with unarmed and monk weapons which cancels out the bonuses from magic weapons if they are smaller or the same.
This makes it so the monks can have the additional ki point at low level when they’re scarce, and doesn’t change much at higher levels. It gives them the additional HP to be able to get to 200HP with the tough feat, and 14 or 16 dexterity. Lastly, it gives them a good enough damage bump that they can compete with the other martials to an extent where they struggled to do so before. This also allows them to function even better even with stingy DMs who don’t hand out magic items.
The monk is a worse dexterity based fighter. Anything I could want from a monk I can do better with a fighter and reflavor it as a monk ability. The best monk in 5e? A dexterity based battle master. With the extra asis from fighter take the mobility feat, or pick up two levels of rogue. Cunning action gives rogues way better mobility than monks. Any character concept I can make with the monk class I can make as well or better with other classes and reflavoring.
The base fighter class is better than the base monk class. Yup. Monk can do a lot of things that fighters can’t. Stunning strike is the obvious. This video is a discussion of mechanics not flavor. Flavor things in whatever way works for you.
In my experience, in tier 1 and 2, Monks can single-handedly take over the game in ways that spellcasters can often only dream of. And that was despite me playing my Monk rather sub-optimally. IMO, they're one of the hardest classes to play correctly. But even just playing my first 5e character ever, being a lowly Open Fist monk, it was reasonable to argue that I was too powerful. In a party with 7 players in it.
Monk is not a powerful class, but a single subclass or two make it viable. The base class is objectively bad and does not perform on any comparable level except for stunning strike. It is the single feature that does anything worth mentioning at all that most other classes don't really do better. But since singular big monsters that can be easily CC:d is rather old fashioned for DND, stunning strike loses a fair bit of value. It's essentially a not so tanky damage dealer which doesn't do so much damage but a stun occasionally. Overall yes, monk isn't any good. Tasha's features still are not very powerful. They are agressively mediochre. Only with the strongest subclasses do they compete with other classes on anything other than stunning strikes. And no, apart from stunning strikes, they aren't very powerful at anything. "Gun monk" is using alternative rules and requires to even ask DM to play. It is yet another example where they simply use a nice gun, the problem is that a gloomstalker fighter for example simply does it better. Monks are not better at this than other classes. Paladin and barbarian simply are better tanks. I would say that Monks now competes with most rogue subclasses in performance. If your party is like "we could use a front liner" and you say you'll bring your monk, they will think you are having a laugh. That is how they compare. While you can absolutely survive, the monk makes for a damage dealer with some survivability more comparable to a rogue or hexblade. Not a barbarian with insane hp and damage reduction nor a paladin with +5 to all saves and protection fighting style etc. They are a worse choice in this regard. Lvl 14 is a bit late to start being better at frontlining. Maybe 1 in 5-6 campaigns reaches 14+ for a while. But it is rare. This cannot be the best argument for having survivability? You can argue monk is great at using up legendary resistances when the DM forgot to make their BBEG immune to stun. In this way, it reinforces the point that they are a decent supportive choice. Like you say yourself, the monk is overreliant on Ki points, tanks worse than most frontliners, deals less damage than most damage dealers unless comparing elven accuracy alternative rule gun monk to baseline dps(?) . But yes, they can deal some damage and support for the party with abilities like stunning strike. Agressively mediochre of a choice. Most other classes can simply do more. With magic being so powerful, a martial character must deliver A LOT to compare. While the class now have decent builds after tasha's and is underrated, you are discussing the CLASS here and the base class is bad. Mercy monk is extremely much more potent than most other subclasses, yet still it doesn't outperform almost any other solid damage dealer or tank build in the game. Having a singular example build being this gun monk really helps to emphasize this problem. That is how far you need to go to not beat most of the builds from the best classes but atleast defeat the baseline by a large margin. You have to go to the DM to ask to please let you play this alternative rule build and setting specific content. That is how bad the monk is. They should buff the monk class instead of trying to make up for it is each separate subclass. Tasha's is a good start. They could use having an ability or two that cost Ki to be moved to prof/day or something instead, or maybe 2-3 extra ki. Then they'd be comparable to some of the best options of other classes. At this moment, they simple are not. They are okay. But let's not call them amazing, it is a long stretch.
DPR: You can build a monk with good DRP, but you are far more constrained in how to do it than other martial builds with equivalent DPR. Scaling: Getting a weapon from a race or dip into fighter is a solution, but neither of these should be required for passable scaling, especially not the dip. You mention the downside of a hexblade dip being the lost progression in the main class, and the same is true here. MAD: Monk's *are* more MAD, because unlike the other MAD classes that can work with a middling tertiary stat, monks have a severe AC, DPR *and* AC, or hit point disadvantage depending on which stat gets put third. The other classes have features (armor, bigger hit die, spells that don't require a good spell-save DC, etc.) they can rely on. Monks can't. Tanking: Tier 3 and 4 are played much more rarely than 1 and 2. They should factor into the discussion much less. In addition, your comment about monks being glass cannons is *only* true if you stuck to the builds that make their DPR good, see my opinion on that above. (By the by, this is exactly the moving of the goalposts Treantmonk was talking about - we're talking about the monk's tanking ability, their DPR is irrelevant here.) Also, forcing players into another play style just because what they used to do starts to suck is bad game design. Player usually picked a class and subclass because they want to play that way. Hit Die: There are two ways to tank damage from attacks: AC and hit points. Monks only get a good AC at much later levels. They (usually) start with 16, get 17 at level 4,18 at level 8, 19 at level 12 and 20 at level 16. Compare this with paladins or fighters who can start with 19 AC and get to 21 once they can buy plate armor. All the other builds you mentioned get a good AC in other ways, especially the casters who can cast _Shield._ Barbarians get the same AC progression as monks, but *also* get a D12 hit die, AC that relies on Constitution (meaning they can increase AC *and* hit points, while the monk has to choose), they can use a shield (which monks can't and which increases your AC by 2) *and* they get resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage through rage, halving the damage of the most common damage type (as a group) in D&D. Being able to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action is useful... but you're extremely limited by Ki, meaning you won't be spending it on Flurry of Blows, and you give up your second attack from your Bonus Action. This cripples your DPR, which was the only thing keeping your enemies attacking you instead of anybody else. And no Ki means no Stunning Strike, the only really way you have of controlling your enemies besides looking dangerous. Stunning Strike: Is powerful, but if you use it a lot you'll be giving up all the other things you can do with Ki. Such as tanking. But Stunning Strike is powerful when it lands, and you can increase the chance of it landing a lot by doing it multiple times on a turn. Magic Armor, Weapons and Feats: You're ignoring that of the 4 (actually 5) attacks at level 5, is that only 2 of them can be made with a weapon, the others are unarmed attacks, which don't benefit from the bonus magic weapons give. But it *is* more damage than other martials who are only making the two attacks with the weapon, with the possible exception of those using the Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter feat. But things like the Dragonhide Belt, the tattoos or the Bracers of Defence *are* just better for monks than for other classes. Give them these, if you're a DM. The Staff of Defence however is only useful for the AC bonus, since monks *can't cast **_Mage Armor_** or **_Shield._* Ki: Nothing to add, except that tier 3 and 4 are, again, much less relevant to the discussion than 1 and 2. You can argue this is a problem with the fundamental game design, not the monk, and I'd agree. But that fundamental game design is what we have. Mobility: Monks are absolutely the best at mobility. No argument here. Only Barbarians get close, and not by much. If only they could actually use it in an average fight, without needing to be scared of the constant danger of Opportunity Attacks pinning them down.
added some new things on my monk wishlist. thanks for that, Also agree on the transformation into a powerhouse from skirmishing glass cannon. you gotta build on the monks strengths, or build a specific type of way to really make the monk get out there. Do agree that monk Ki should be PB+lvl should help some in the early levels, and in high tier you can do whatever you want even using Treantmonks 8 combats a day as you'll have ki out the wazoo. also the other classes that arent as MAD get help from spells of which the monk gets none to help out in those low levels. outside of that first ASI (according to how most people build) which is a half feat. every one after needs to go into actual ASI unless you want to supplement them with magic items. since most those choices are super apparent like with some other classes they feel lacking.
I'm not sure how to handle Ki moving forward. I saw the treantmonk video discussing the options and none stood out to me as THE answer. So, we'll see. Don't forget that 2 monk subclasses get "spells", but they use Ki instead of spell slots for some very odd reason. But the shadow monk's spells are actually quite good.
@@cmccbuilds8229 Maybe a combo of more Ki and reworking ki costs. Some ki abilities just need to become innate abilities of the class with no ki costs. Or at the least choice based activation for all those X ability would be broken if they could do it every turn. so if you do X, then you cant use X ability. yea i think Chris mentioned in the survey he took to just make the Ki points work like spell slots like in those 2 sub classes.
@@PaintballaJkilla "Some ki abilities just need to become innate abilities of the class" *Looks at Step of the Wind* *Looks at Rogue's Cunning Action* You don't say. But seriously. What the fuck? Why does the Monk just have a shittier version of the Rogue's 2nd level ability? If it was a free action to use, I could at least understand the Ki cost, even if I think it's still a bad move to tie a skirmisher's ability to move in and out of combat on a resource, especially one that's incredibly small during low levels. But no. Literally just a crappier version of Cunning Action. Like... WHY???
Thank you. Monks being weak is almost a meme at this point that I don't think people actually realize that it's not correct. Firstly, you need to assume no short rests for ki to be that much of an issue. In a major battle you might run out by the last couple rounds, and even then you still have three attacks a round so you're not useless. Also, when people aren't saying monks are useless they are saying they are OP which makes no sense to me at all, how can they be both?
I don't think Monks are as weak as Treantmonk claims, mostly because his assumptions are aLOT more combats per day than most groups do, and that really forces the resource issue. His target AC assumptions are rather strenuous as well, while his CON save assumptions (for stuns) are probably overly generous. That said, whatever metric you use to measure Monks, if you are similarly generous with other classes, and make equal efforts to represent each at their best, Monks are still going to be behind pretty much any build that focuses on damage. But... I don't think it requires top tier to be fun, and the variety of tools are part of the equation. If you want to teleport a lot, Shadow Monk brings it online at a lower level than other classes. If you want to not require armor, Monk is a strong option. The impact of Feats is really hard to quantify too. Yes, the inability to use GWM hurts. But their mobility and defensive features might make them a better chassis for support Feats like those in Fizban and Dragonlance books. They just don't fit any simple definitions, and so come up lacking when those definitions are the measure.
I always build my Monks with 1 level of Arcana Cleric to have cantrips like Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. it relieves some of the pressure on my Ki points for damage
@@cmccbuilds8229 yep...I can still be effective and have another resource besides Ki. I think of it like a warlock that has limited resources, spell slots, but still haa invocations and cantrips
Yo finally someone who shares my opinion that Monk is not weak, it’s pretty decent. I’ve seen plenty of monks through streams and even my players being monks and they always have fun and do well in their combat and don’t worry too much about Ki even with Astral self
Sooo no the martial arts die doesn’t hold them back…but if you want to be an unarmed monk then yes..yes it does… Multi stat dependent sooo yes they have this problem more than most as many of you mentioned as those classes have skills to back them up. There are others but you are far to dismissive of most of the problems like just get magic items…if your dm gives them to you etc etc…. This is a class that need a massive buff and a buff to something they don’t need like get a longsword shouldn’t be happening…
I didnt say “just get magic items”. I addressed the criticism that monks are worse off in the magic item category. If you want to take the worst of weapon i options for the monk (unarmed vs longsword) then yeah it’s going to be behind. The monk doesn’t have skills to back them up???
now you kind of go over each of the monks problems indicudually and point out that there are other classes who are scaling poorly others who only have a d8 hit dice and others who are mad. That is undouptedly correct but the thing is that monks have all of these issues and not only some of them.
Here's a thought for all monks... Monks have a range problem! This is easily fixed however with the sharpshooter feat for Darts, and a single level dip in fighter for the archery fighting style... 1d4+13 -ish with a range of 60' ? Yes please... if you want to be martial-only-classed... Of course a single level dip in arcana or peace cleric, or a couple levels of moon or stars druid are also a decent choices.
@@cmccbuilds8229 True. Not a lot of guns in Campaign 2 CR, darts reflavored as throwing stars, but they would have been better with SS -- maybe then she'd not have needed the gloves.
Wait so for the dprk comparison, did he use an optimized build for monk which includes feats, racial choice and multi classing to compare with a nonoptimized warlock?
Now that the Gauntlet is a thing your channel is doing, I'm curious if anyone actually thinks a monk build could complete it. The first Barbarian build got roflstomped.
@@cmccbuilds8229 Looking forward to seeing it. That video format is genius. I watch actual plays for the interactions between the players and the GM, but the way you present the gauntlet really highlights the game('s combat) mechanics.
What is your build for the calculations? Seems kinda high ngl. Diamond Soul comes way too late to feel relevant. (PF2e Monks _start_ with triple proficiency in Fort, Will, Reflex). Yeah, Monks change their role starting Tier 3. But _why_ do they change their role? Why can't I play the fantasy of powerful martial artist that while done poorly in Tiers 1-2, is completely gone Tiers 3-4?
Check out those videos for more info on the dpr and the specific builds used. 14 isn’t too late. There are still 7 levels of play at that point. That’s 35% of the game left to be played. Yes, most people play levels 1-10, but that doesn't mean we should ignore more than 1/3 or more of the game because of a particular portion of the game's popularity. Why do monks need to transition roles? Because that’s how it was designed. Is that good or bad? Up to you to decide. That’s a taste thing.
@@cmccbuilds8229 I still think 14 is too late. If you've ever looked online, most tables stop before Tier 3, or Tier 3 latest. At most, Diamond Soul is a capstone. If a table only goes to 14, Monk's don't get anything at that Tier 3 threshold of 11th Level, while other classes get a damage spike. They barely get access to Diamond Soul before the campaign ends. TBH I think the design philosophy of switching a Monk's role at higher levels, especially just as their ki points finally come online is a huge mistake. If I want to play a monk, I want to play a powerful martial artist, not a mediocre DPS that has to stun to keep up. Either start and stay as a support tank/off-dps like PF2e, or go all-on on the DPS role.
Again - ignoring 1/3 to half the game because it’s less popular isn’t the best approach to design or optimization. Significantly less people finish video games than start - should we ignore the final acts of those games? Of course not. Same here. Tier 3 and 4 should not be ignored. I’m not sure where mediocre DPR is coming from or the need to stun to be relevant. Neither is true. If you don’t want to change roles - you can do that but it probably won’t be as optimized. Idk why it was designed that way. Maybe someone else does. Either way you’ll be a bad ass martial for the life of the character.
@@cmccbuilds8229 It's still late even if you consider a whole 20-level campaign. Paladins get their Aura of Protection at 6th level, less than half that of the Monk. A 14-level campaign just makes that worse. If you want to ease a Monk player's transition to tank, give it at 11th, the transition threshold to Tier 3. Still late, but justifies it being late by being at the threshold. And comparing it to video games makes no sense. Video games present a complete package, whether you finish the package or not is up to you. Dnd (and other systems) provide a _framework_ to build your own "game" (world and story). There is nothing that requires a campaign reach 20th level to be "finished". The campaign is "finished" as long as the DM's intent for the story is finished. If the _framework_ is bad, then it's bad. The UA Astral Self was broken as hell, but only because of its capstone. At 3rd, the ki cost was so inefficient it felt horrible to use (personal experience). I've taken a look at your DPR calculations, you're using Mercy + Elven Accuracy. That's a specfic build combo, it's not representitive of the Monk class as a whole.
@@kori228 "but if you take this very specific list of feats and ASI, and then take this very specific subclass, and then utilize these specific weapons, and min/max it all together, this class is actually pretty good!"
I think you may actually be underselling Monks. If facing a single opponent who doesn't have Legendary Resistances (like say, a boss during the first two tiers of play), spamming Stunning Strike is arguably far more effective than most things spellcasters can do. And even if facing multiple enemies, Stunning Strike can still sometimes be game-breaking. The first 5e character I ever played once stunned all 4 opponents, only to discover that we were facing a party of Monks who were never able to recover from the deficit I put them in. I don't remember for sure how many stunning strikes I landed after the initial round where I stunned each of them, but that fight definitely ended up being a cakewalk.
Monks are great. The only people that don’t understand them, like Treantmonk, D4, and others, are focused on only on thing, self contained damage. Sad and misguided.
@@beartygerevillaugh9418 Sure! The short version is the question “Are web or hypnotic pattern bad?” No. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. People who “make builds” for martial characters focus on dealing damage to a single target. That is, although very fun to talk about, not common in combat scenarios. Warlocks and fighters get all kinds of love for their short rest resources. Action surge, fireball, whatever, it comes back in a short rest. Well, so too do monks. Monks should go nova just like those classes. Run fast, catch arrows, flurry of blows, stunning strike, fireball, whatever. Monks not only put out damage, but they also survive very well and aid the fellows in combat.
I typically don’t like martial classes because as a creative player in, and out of combat I simply feel useless without having the versatility of casters.
@@cmccbuilds8229 All moot or irrelevant points. You have compared multi class builds to single class builds. Please compare apples to apples. I digress, Monks flurry of blows and stunning strikes are my main points of contention. 1st point of contention: both abilities do not improve or grow in power by leveling up e.g. battlemaster maneuvers dice grows from 1d8-1d10-1d12 respectively. 2nd point of contention: flurry of blows is restricted to unarmed strikes only, a very unnecessary restriction. Stunning strikes are cons saves. why? Since it's a wisdom base ability why isn't it a wisdom save? Or at least do an extra MA dmg dice.
All of these points were dealt with in the prior monk videos. The one exception is that a wisdom ability uses a con save instead of the same stat as the ability itself. There is absolutely nothing uncommon with that. Spells and abilities often do have an ability or spell stat that then targets another stat.
![D&D Character Concept [OPTIMIZED]: The Hexadin (Paladin/Warlock Multiclass)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bVqVyfHkQvE/mqdefault.jpg)
Name all the movies featured in the vid to get pinned :)
You aren't that popular, sorry.
@@CarloGoiff666 are you the girl I asked to my senior prom? Jen, is that you?
Personally I still think monks are weak mostly because my numbers have come out drastically different to your own, and the base monk is certainty does horrendous damage compared to the other base classes which is why I let them add half their proficiency bonus to their damage which brings them up to a respectable 33.5 DPR which is pretty close to the warlock baseline. So, with subclasses, and other stuff you can get damage similar to the elite DPR baseline.
I do feel like while you are right in the sense that MAD is thrown onto the monk more than anything else, it is still deserved, the best spells for ranger are ones that dont require wisdom and while wisdom does matter, if it stays as a 14, its not going to be a punch in the gut, same thing goes with paladin. Additionally, con on monks matters so much more than normal due to the inherently low hit die as it is lower than both paladin and ranger, which makes con needing to be higher just to catch up in that regard. In regards to the dexadin, is it strong, yes, but its also significantly less common than the normal paladin. For college of swords bard, first of all, its never been considered the best subclass, and it does feel a tad disingenuous to talk about the hex blade dip as a hinderance when the video starts with discussing dipping fighter. Bladesinger tells the biggest story when discussing mad, monk needs wisdom for saves as well as ac very similar to bladesinger, however, this is where its key to take a step back and understand how the builds play out. Bladesinger can play 1 of 2 ways, either focused on spells, or focused on melee, in either case, one of those ability scores act as a bonus rather than a necessity. For example, if you go martial focused bladesinger, you use less save based spells and even less save or suck spells, the end result is int is just a further bonus to ac as you already have a good one because you are focusing dex + armor. this allows you to have the same ac as a level 20 monk as a level 5 bladesinger. Meanwhile, monk ac level 1 + low hit die makes it so that the monk feels really squishy to the point where one needs to hard set focus on bumping up that ac rather than taking other feats that can boost power, sure some of them do come in, but its much lower priority. For a caster focused bladesinger, its the same story, Int is your focus and you dont sacrifice anything for doing it, do you have slightly less powerful attacks, yes, is that the point of the build, no.
It is worth mentioning that the gunk build you made you took a lot of multi class levels.
2/3 of that build is monk. 14 levels.
@@cmccbuilds8229 True thought there was more, but I was wrong.
Monks, thematically, are one of my favorite classes. However, I think the arguments to validate them in this vid tend to rely on multiclassing or other ways to gain weapon proficiency in order to overcome the damage die.
I think you're spot on about lots of classes needing CON as a tertiary stat and isn't unique to the monks.
Finally, my biggest wish to improve monks is to solve the reliance on, in my mind, a pretty limited resource.
Always a fan of your videos but I do still think monks pale in comparison to their peers.
Do you still think barbarians are better than monks? How about rogues?
@@cmccbuilds8229 I think rogues are, yes. Barbarians, I'm not sure as I've yet to play one. From the outside looking in, they have limited rage, but are certainly phenomenal regarding damage and toughness, which I think is a better trade.
Issue with con as tertiary for every build is that... it's not nearly as needed.
Lower hitdice characters arent forced into melee like monk is to function. The need for 1 higher modifier on con than any other martial since that 1 more needs to make up for the 1 lower dice.
The hit dice are not that low compared to other martial builds as shown in the vid - and they can be ranged. The options are there.
@@cmccbuilds8229 a fighter who's ot focused on being the tankiest he can be can easily make do with +2 hp, monk needs +3 to be at the same baseline hp. All while needing 2 other stats.
Re: ranger needing wisdom too.... they dont unless you use one of the pet classes. Your best spells dont rely on wisdom, nor does the ammount of your spells do. My 10 wisdom ranger is as good at ranger-ing as friends 16 wisdom ranger.
One thing I'll say is they're not under or overpowered, but what they ARE is "awkward". A lot of things might not feel like they're supposed to because of the ki point issue and the fact that even though a D8 hit die isn't an insurmountable issue it can make it feel like you NEED to max out all 3 of your main stats instead of just maxing out dex and wis (which even then the fact that you NEED to max out dex and wis before you have your defense at the right place rather than something like barbarians getting half-plate and shields as options)
Ok, my main criticism here is not a moving of the goal post rather I feel like there was a lack of one to begin with. My question immediately is of course what can the other non casters do when afforded the same resources as the monk builds presented here. I should Imagine that a min maxed fighter or barbarian can easily out damage a monk, and both likely have better defensive parameters as well, the rogue for its part at least has a subclass with spell casting access. I also think entertaining tier 3 play, while valid is a niche I, and I think reasonably many others do not weigh heavily due to the lack of play those levels see.
Ki fueled attack, an example you raised of a feature which makes good use of ki expenditure, is quite literaly only a consideration on ranged monk build, and there on its a nescesity to even make those builds remotley functional when compared to a fighter who picked up a hand crossbow. Their reward for spending the ki is being able to deliver 1-2 more points of damage, a difference easily mitigated and surpassed by the fighters action surges an maneuvers. In fact the best they could feasibly do is 3 more damage with a musket on the GUNK build you reference. And my personal feelings towards that build is the fact it takes an optional weapon from the DMG to make the monk good is a more damning indictment then anything I could really write here.
Regarding MADness, this is not a fair comparison for most classes shown. The ranger does not need a high wisdom, to the exclusion of the swarmkeeper and the fey wanderer, the rangers best assets, Aid, Conjure animals, goodberry and PWT as well as weapon attacks do not rely on its casting stat at all. For the Gloomstalker for instance, all it gains from a high WIS is a higher DC for its entangle in early tier 1 and an initiative boost, it can get away with a 13 WIS rounded to 14 with res wis just fine.
The CHM based gishes only need a 14 DEX and a 14 CON since they get half plate and have far superior defensive parameters, (and if were saying 1 level in fighter is a good concesion on monks, than 1 level in HB is a fair concession to make thos gishes SAD) just as a base due to spellcasting, still further they can opt into a +1 +2 race spread and be able to eventually round their CON with rescon, in fact often this should be done at ones earliest convenience.
Paladins and Bladesingers are the only truly MAD ones here, but considering the upside of both classes as reletive to the upside of being a monk, the MADness is far easier to put up with. I would argue to compare classes that for the most part need at most a 14 14 15 point buy 13 14 15 in some cases, is in any way reasonable to a class that arguably all but necessitates a 15 15 15 point buy.
Stunning Strike tagets CON and is all but wasted when not used on targets whom would be difficult to get rid of or are a priority to kill, read targets with high CON and spell casters or other glass canons. The latter it can do fine against. But to the exclusion of enemies with low constitution scores a Stunning Strike is not remotely reliable, especially not working off a DC we are likely not raising until level 12 at the earliest. Not accounting for any relevant legendary resistences, AC values amongst other things, to get a stun on a key target is often not an exercise of one round but of multiple rounds. And if it takes me the average length of a combat to get my 'instant kill' id rather just have had anyone else who could do better flat damage on my side of the field.
In summation, the monk offers ok damage, so-so control, BAD tanking until 14-16 levels at least have been invested and even then its inferior to any shield user with defense. To conclude you have what Chris broadly outlined in his video. A glass cannon that is far more glass than cannon with no clear purpose other than, well to be a monk. Specialists do more damage, can tank better and can CC better, and we are a group. The reality is it better to have a team of specialists than a missfitting monk. In any case where you want to add a monk to your composition, you would be better served by adding literally any other class bar maybe a rogue. Monks are not unusable, but they are bottom 2 in the pecking order. If the objective of this video was to convince me otherwise, I would say it failed at it. Conversely though, if the objective was just to demonstrate monks can have value, it did its job well.
That said well edited and I respect the effort put in. Earned a sub here always keen to hear some hot takes as wall as some optimisation dnd talk!
Oof - I don’t know if I’ll have time to address every issue, but check the comments and the other 2 monk videos (if you haven’t already). I’ll try to address any other issues when I can :)
@@cmccbuilds8229 honestly wasn't expecting a reply at all but will do. I think the video was an valiant attempt at a defense for what its worth :D.
I like playing Mercy Monk Gunks. Feels like im in the movie Equilibrium.
I have a few equilibrium clips in the gun monk vid :)
The new Light Weapon rules and Unarmed Strike rules in one D&D will help Monks a lot. The wording of the Attack action is also different so that you could flurry after declaring the Attack action. At level 11 they could be making 5x d8 + 5 attacks since they also get fighting styles in the Warrior group.
Don’t forget grapple and shove rules.
It would help more if they’d just consider monks fists as weapons
Brother in law wanted to play a monk, he spent days trying to work it out. In the end, we all agreed to give him fighter subclass to equalize the balance issue. We have cleric, druid, wizard and bard, and let him have monk eldritch knight. By 3rd lvl it made a scary fast bard/ monk team of pain.
Mercy monk or shadow monk would’ve worked fine. Shadow monk prob should have been a 1/3 caster in the first place.
Shield on a monk is nice though.
Chris takes into account that higher tier play is rare compared to tier one and two, so he discounts abilities gained at late levels.
Monks are fine at most tables, but the more optimized the table plays, the more the weakness of every class and build becomes apparent. And even you state that Monks aren't great at tier one or two.
The thing about monk is that they're on the weaker end in the tiers that most campaigns take place in. They aren't bad per say, they're just weak when you look at them compared to other classes. Can you make a good monk? Absolutely! Is it going to be better than an optimized fighter or paladin? Noooo lol
Define “better”
Is it going to perform the roles required of a striker type character so damage or control. Fighters make better grapplers and do way more damage. Paladins bring more utility. Rangers do both better then a Monk. Everything a monk can do well, another class does more efficiently. It doesn't perform out of combat things better then a rogue or bard either so it loses out there whole we're at it.
The paladin brings more utility than a mercy monk?
I gave my monk player a staff of force which lets you spend charges to add a equal number d10 force damage to the attack.
Personally, I’ve always loved the monk and this just solidifies why.
My math has shown me that they can do well in early levels with DPR, but do fall off at higher levels similar to treeant monks video.
I get the opposite. The more ki you have available, the easier to output damage especially with multiclassing.
@@cmccbuilds8229 While more Ki is essential my damage numbers don't go very high with leveling that is not taking into account gunks, or bonks with sharpshooter in addition to no multiclass or magic weapons. A 20th level monk making 4 unarmed attacks doesn't even have 30 DPR by my calculations.
The jack of all trades really speaks well of the monk for me.
A jack of all trades is a master of one but oftentimes better than a master of one.
They do nothing better than anyone but they have an insane amount of versatility
But they often require less feats, so that’s ok. Monks are pretty good. You will see soon ;)
@@cmccbuilds8229 I never said they weren’t good. I love them a lot. A few things “feel” bad even if they actually aren’t. I remember I played a monk in a ToA campaign and I actually did better than most the party. When that campaign died off, it was just after a big battle where I lost an arm but did manage to survive along with my brother (can’t remember what he was playing). Since Tasha’s at least, monks have actually been a powerhouse in my eyes
I'm a long-time D&D player but only an amateur optimizer so please forgive me if I see out of line here but I have a few comments to make regarding your video:
1) Right off the bat you defend the Monk's damage scaling and then literally in the same breath suggest either taking a 1-level dip into Fighter or taking a specific race to fill the damage hole. Now try the same thing with a V. Human with no multiclassing. IMHO, if a class NEEDS help from a multiclass dip or a certain racial trait, it's already in trouble.
2) You're right on point with regard to the claims that Monks are more MAD than most other classes. I don't know where that myth came from, personally.
3) Your comments regarding early-tier versus late-tier Monks are also correct except that you called out a feature at level 14 when (according to polls), many games don't reach that level. That's like saying Barbarians have the best capstone ability at 20 (which they do) when almost nobody plays at that level.
4) Stunning Strike is widely considered to be the Monk's most powerful ability. Beau frustrated Matt more than once by stunning an enemy at a key moment in a fight. However, it relies on the Monk's weakest trait...Ki points. You mentioned how many Ki a typical Monk will have at tier 2-3 play...10 or more in most cases. However, you also mentioned that the Short Rest is inherently important to the class because Ki points are used for most of the good features. Sure, you can use 1 Ki per turn and last longer than a typical fight without a rest...but that's ONE Stunning Strike OR ONE Flurry of Blows or ONE Step of the Wind or Patient Defense. The problem isn't that Monks can't operate well during a single battle but rather that they HAVE to be able to take rests in order to utilize more than a couple of their better abilities. Most other classes don't have this issue.
5) You are also on point with regard to magic items and weapons. Except for armor (and Barbs suffer from this as well), I can't see Monks having any issues with most magic items. As for weapons, Monks tend to be a bit choosier with what they use but many other classes are as well (have YOU ever seen a heavy-weapon Rogue?) so you're absolutely correct here.
6) When you get to the Ki part of the video, you acknowledge that it's a limited resource and particularly harmful in Tier 1 play (where many campaigns start), but then you gloss over the point by, again, saying 'just take short rests and you're good.' So, if your party can't take a SR for some reason you're screwed? Doesn't sound like a good design to me.
The problem isn't that Monks, taken as a whole, are bad. The problem is that except for mobility and Stunning Strike, there are other classes/subclasses that do it better and DON'T rely on rests in order to stay in the action. IMHO the Monk needs everything to fall its way...subclass, Feats, multiclassing, campaign style, party composition, etc...in order to work as well as other class/subclass/race combinations.
Damage? Make almost any kind of Martial class.
Tanking? Make almost any sort of Martial class other than Ranger.
Mobility? Take a Rogue with the Mobility Feat. Make a Tabaxi if you REALLY want to scoot around.
Stunning Strike? Yeah...you got me here.
IMHO the base class needs to be better, especially at the lower levels where most games begin, and then we can see about comparing them to everything else.
Monk fixes are simple give them a d10 hit dice. Give them wisdom modifier+level in ki points, and let them add half their proficiency bonus to the attack and damage rolls with unarmed and monk weapons which cancels out the bonuses from magic weapons if they are smaller or the same.
This makes it so the monks can have the additional ki point at low level when they’re scarce, and doesn’t change much at higher levels. It gives them the additional HP to be able to get to 200HP with the tough feat, and 14 or 16 dexterity. Lastly, it gives them a good enough damage bump that they can compete with the other martials to an extent where they struggled to do so before. This also allows them to function even better even with stingy DMs who don’t hand out magic items.
I’m curious what they do with them in One D&D
Monks can't cast shield usong the Staff of Defense. Only creatures with the spell already on their class list can cast them with that staff
Good point of clarification
The monk is a worse dexterity based fighter. Anything I could want from a monk I can do better with a fighter and reflavor it as a monk ability. The best monk in 5e? A dexterity based battle master. With the extra asis from fighter take the mobility feat, or pick up two levels of rogue. Cunning action gives rogues way better mobility than monks. Any character concept I can make with the monk class I can make as well or better with other classes and reflavoring.
The base fighter class is better than the base monk class. Yup.
Monk can do a lot of things that fighters can’t. Stunning strike is the obvious.
This video is a discussion of mechanics not flavor. Flavor things in whatever way works for you.
On my experience, tier 1 and 2 monks are not glass cannons, they're just glass
In my experience, in tier 1 and 2, Monks can single-handedly take over the game in ways that spellcasters can often only dream of. And that was despite me playing my Monk rather sub-optimally.
IMO, they're one of the hardest classes to play correctly. But even just playing my first 5e character ever, being a lowly Open Fist monk, it was reasonable to argue that I was too powerful. In a party with 7 players in it.
Monk is not a powerful class, but a single subclass or two make it viable. The base class is objectively bad and does not perform on any comparable level except for stunning strike. It is the single feature that does anything worth mentioning at all that most other classes don't really do better. But since singular big monsters that can be easily CC:d is rather old fashioned for DND, stunning strike loses a fair bit of value. It's essentially a not so tanky damage dealer which doesn't do so much damage but a stun occasionally. Overall yes, monk isn't any good. Tasha's features still are not very powerful. They are agressively mediochre. Only with the strongest subclasses do they compete with other classes on anything other than stunning strikes.
And no, apart from stunning strikes, they aren't very powerful at anything.
"Gun monk" is using alternative rules and requires to even ask DM to play. It is yet another example where they simply use a nice gun, the problem is that a gloomstalker fighter for example simply does it better. Monks are not better at this than other classes.
Paladin and barbarian simply are better tanks. I would say that Monks now competes with most rogue subclasses in performance. If your party is like "we could use a front liner" and you say you'll bring your monk, they will think you are having a laugh. That is how they compare. While you can absolutely survive, the monk makes for a damage dealer with some survivability more comparable to a rogue or hexblade. Not a barbarian with insane hp and damage reduction nor a paladin with +5 to all saves and protection fighting style etc. They are a worse choice in this regard.
Lvl 14 is a bit late to start being better at frontlining. Maybe 1 in 5-6 campaigns reaches 14+ for a while. But it is rare. This cannot be the best argument for having survivability?
You can argue monk is great at using up legendary resistances when the DM forgot to make their BBEG immune to stun. In this way, it reinforces the point that they are a decent supportive choice.
Like you say yourself, the monk is overreliant on Ki points, tanks worse than most frontliners, deals less damage than most damage dealers unless comparing elven accuracy alternative rule gun monk to baseline dps(?) . But yes, they can deal some damage and support for the party with abilities like stunning strike. Agressively mediochre of a choice. Most other classes can simply do more. With magic being so powerful, a martial character must deliver A LOT to compare. While the class now have decent builds after tasha's and is underrated, you are discussing the CLASS here and the base class is bad. Mercy monk is extremely much more potent than most other subclasses, yet still it doesn't outperform almost any other solid damage dealer or tank build in the game. Having a singular example build being this gun monk really helps to emphasize this problem. That is how far you need to go to not beat most of the builds from the best classes but atleast defeat the baseline by a large margin. You have to go to the DM to ask to please let you play this alternative rule build and setting specific content. That is how bad the monk is.
They should buff the monk class instead of trying to make up for it is each separate subclass. Tasha's is a good start. They could use having an ability or two that cost Ki to be moved to prof/day or something instead, or maybe 2-3 extra ki. Then they'd be comparable to some of the best options of other classes. At this moment, they simple are not. They are okay. But let's not call them amazing, it is a long stretch.
Appreciate the detailed response!
I'll try to dig when I have some time, but obviously I disagree on some fairly important details.
DPR: You can build a monk with good DRP, but you are far more constrained in how to do it than other martial builds with equivalent DPR.
Scaling: Getting a weapon from a race or dip into fighter is a solution, but neither of these should be required for passable scaling, especially not the dip. You mention the downside of a hexblade dip being the lost progression in the main class, and the same is true here.
MAD: Monk's *are* more MAD, because unlike the other MAD classes that can work with a middling tertiary stat, monks have a severe AC, DPR *and*
AC, or hit point disadvantage depending on which stat gets put third. The other classes have features (armor, bigger hit die, spells that don't require a good spell-save DC, etc.) they can rely on. Monks can't.
Tanking: Tier 3 and 4 are played much more rarely than 1 and 2. They should factor into the discussion much less. In addition, your comment about monks being glass cannons is *only* true if you stuck to the builds that make their DPR good, see my opinion on that above. (By the by, this is exactly the moving of the goalposts Treantmonk was talking about - we're talking about the monk's tanking ability, their DPR is irrelevant here.) Also, forcing players into another play style just because what they used to do starts to suck is bad game design. Player usually picked a class and subclass because they want to play that way.
Hit Die: There are two ways to tank damage from attacks: AC and hit points. Monks only get a good AC at much later levels. They (usually) start with 16, get 17 at level 4,18 at level 8, 19 at level 12 and 20 at level 16. Compare this with paladins or fighters who can start with 19 AC and get to 21 once they can buy plate armor. All the other builds you mentioned get a good AC in other ways, especially the casters who can cast _Shield._ Barbarians get the same AC progression as monks, but *also* get a D12 hit die, AC that relies on Constitution (meaning they can increase AC *and* hit points, while the monk has to choose), they can use a shield (which monks can't and which increases your AC by 2) *and* they get resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage through rage, halving the damage of the most common damage type (as a group) in D&D.
Being able to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action is useful... but you're extremely limited by Ki, meaning you won't be spending it on Flurry of Blows, and you give up your second attack from your Bonus Action. This cripples your DPR, which was the only thing keeping your enemies attacking you instead of anybody else. And no Ki means no Stunning Strike, the only really way you have of controlling your enemies besides looking dangerous.
Stunning Strike: Is powerful, but if you use it a lot you'll be giving up all the other things you can do with Ki. Such as tanking. But Stunning Strike is powerful when it lands, and you can increase the chance of it landing a lot by doing it multiple times on a turn.
Magic Armor, Weapons and Feats: You're ignoring that of the 4 (actually 5) attacks at level 5, is that only 2 of them can be made with a weapon, the others are unarmed attacks, which don't benefit from the bonus magic weapons give. But it *is* more damage than other martials who are only making the two attacks with the weapon, with the possible exception of those using the Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter feat.
But things like the Dragonhide Belt, the tattoos or the Bracers of Defence *are* just better for monks than for other classes. Give them these, if you're a DM. The Staff of Defence however is only useful for the AC bonus, since monks *can't cast **_Mage Armor_** or **_Shield._*
Ki: Nothing to add, except that tier 3 and 4 are, again, much less relevant to the discussion than 1 and 2. You can argue this is a problem with the fundamental game design, not the monk, and I'd agree. But that fundamental game design is what we have.
Mobility: Monks are absolutely the best at mobility. No argument here. Only Barbarians get close, and not by much. If only they could actually use it in an average fight, without needing to be scared of the constant danger of Opportunity Attacks pinning them down.
added some new things on my monk wishlist. thanks for that, Also agree on the transformation into a powerhouse from skirmishing glass cannon. you gotta build on the monks strengths, or build a specific type of way to really make the monk get out there. Do agree that monk Ki should be PB+lvl should help some in the early levels, and in high tier you can do whatever you want even using Treantmonks 8 combats a day as you'll have ki out the wazoo.
also the other classes that arent as MAD get help from spells of which the monk gets none to help out in those low levels. outside of that first ASI (according to how most people build) which is a half feat. every one after needs to go into actual ASI unless you want to supplement them with magic items. since most those choices are super apparent like with some other classes they feel lacking.
I'm not sure how to handle Ki moving forward. I saw the treantmonk video discussing the options and none stood out to me as THE answer. So, we'll see.
Don't forget that 2 monk subclasses get "spells", but they use Ki instead of spell slots for some very odd reason. But the shadow monk's spells are actually quite good.
@@cmccbuilds8229 Maybe a combo of more Ki and reworking ki costs. Some ki abilities just need to become innate abilities of the class with no ki costs. Or at the least choice based activation for all those X ability would be broken if they could do it every turn. so if you do X, then you cant use X ability.
yea i think Chris mentioned in the survey he took to just make the Ki points work like spell slots like in those 2 sub classes.
@@PaintballaJkilla "Some ki abilities just need to become innate abilities of the class"
*Looks at Step of the Wind*
*Looks at Rogue's Cunning Action*
You don't say. But seriously. What the fuck? Why does the Monk just have a shittier version of the Rogue's 2nd level ability? If it was a free action to use, I could at least understand the Ki cost, even if I think it's still a bad move to tie a skirmisher's ability to move in and out of combat on a resource, especially one that's incredibly small during low levels. But no. Literally just a crappier version of Cunning Action. Like... WHY???
So they don’t step on the rogues toes. Except they do exactly that at 7 with evasion. So who knows.
Thank you. Monks being weak is almost a meme at this point that I don't think people actually realize that it's not correct. Firstly, you need to assume no short rests for ki to be that much of an issue. In a major battle you might run out by the last couple rounds, and even then you still have three attacks a round so you're not useless. Also, when people aren't saying monks are useless they are saying they are OP which makes no sense to me at all, how can they be both?
I don't think Monks are as weak as Treantmonk claims, mostly because his assumptions are aLOT more combats per day than most groups do, and that really forces the resource issue. His target AC assumptions are rather strenuous as well, while his CON save assumptions (for stuns) are probably overly generous.
That said, whatever metric you use to measure Monks, if you are similarly generous with other classes, and make equal efforts to represent each at their best, Monks are still going to be behind pretty much any build that focuses on damage.
But...
I don't think it requires top tier to be fun, and the variety of tools are part of the equation. If you want to teleport a lot, Shadow Monk brings it online at a lower level than other classes. If you want to not require armor, Monk is a strong option.
The impact of Feats is really hard to quantify too. Yes, the inability to use GWM hurts. But their mobility and defensive features might make them a better chassis for support Feats like those in Fizban and Dragonlance books.
They just don't fit any simple definitions, and so come up lacking when those definitions are the measure.
I always build my Monks with 1 level of Arcana Cleric to have cantrips like Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. it relieves some of the pressure on my Ki points for damage
Don’t you miss out on other attacks?
You can’t flurry of blows, but that’s the point.
@@cmccbuilds8229 yep...I can still be effective and have another resource besides Ki. I think of it like a warlock that has limited resources, spell slots, but still haa invocations and cantrips
Transitioning from DPS to Tank means either you play early game without tank or end up with two tanks both not so good options. /jk
Yo finally someone who shares my opinion that Monk is not weak, it’s pretty decent. I’ve seen plenty of monks through streams and even my players being monks and they always have fun and do well in their combat and don’t worry too much about Ki even with Astral self
That's the thing. Monks are decent when you dont compare them to anything else.
Sooo no the martial arts die doesn’t hold them back…but if you want to be an unarmed monk then yes..yes it does…
Multi stat dependent sooo yes they have this problem more than most as many of you mentioned as those classes have skills to back them up. There are others but you are far to dismissive of most of the problems like just get magic items…if your dm gives them to you etc etc….
This is a class that need a massive buff and a buff to something they don’t need like get a longsword shouldn’t be happening…
I didnt say “just get magic items”. I addressed the criticism that monks are worse off in the magic item category.
If you want to take the worst of weapon i options for the monk (unarmed vs longsword) then yeah it’s going to be behind.
The monk doesn’t have skills to back them up???
now you kind of go over each of the monks problems indicudually and point out that there are other classes who are scaling poorly others who only have a d8 hit dice and others who are mad. That is undouptedly correct but the thing is that monks have all of these issues and not only some of them.
Here's a thought for all monks... Monks have a range problem!
This is easily fixed however with the sharpshooter feat for Darts, and a single level dip in fighter for the archery fighting style... 1d4+13 -ish with a range of 60' ? Yes please... if you want to be martial-only-classed...
Of course a single level dip in arcana or peace cleric, or a couple levels of moon or stars druid are also a decent choices.
Gunk makes good use of sharpshooter or even kensei to a lesser extent
@@cmccbuilds8229 True. Not a lot of guns in Campaign 2 CR, darts reflavored as throwing stars, but they would have been better with SS -- maybe then she'd not have needed the gloves.
Wait so for the dprk comparison, did he use an optimized build for monk which includes feats, racial choice and multi classing to compare with a nonoptimized warlock?
baseline
That seems a little disingenuous. I thought it was a nonoptimized based mercy monk vs a base warlock. had to look through the comments to found out.
Watch the first monk video for details - it’s all explained there
Now that the Gauntlet is a thing your channel is doing, I'm curious if anyone actually thinks a monk build could complete it. The first Barbarian build got roflstomped.
A straight monk ran it. I’ll feature it next
@@cmccbuilds8229 Looking forward to seeing it. That video format is genius. I watch actual plays for the interactions between the players and the GM, but the way you present the gauntlet really highlights the game('s combat) mechanics.
What is your build for the calculations? Seems kinda high ngl.
Diamond Soul comes way too late to feel relevant. (PF2e Monks _start_ with triple proficiency in Fort, Will, Reflex).
Yeah, Monks change their role starting Tier 3. But _why_ do they change their role? Why can't I play the fantasy of powerful martial artist that while done poorly in Tiers 1-2, is completely gone Tiers 3-4?
Check out those videos for more info on the dpr and the specific builds used.
14 isn’t too late. There are still 7 levels of play at that point. That’s 35% of the game left to be played. Yes, most people play levels 1-10, but that doesn't mean we should ignore more than 1/3 or more of the game because of a particular portion of the game's popularity.
Why do monks need to transition roles? Because that’s how it was designed. Is that good or bad? Up to you to decide. That’s a taste thing.
@@cmccbuilds8229 I still think 14 is too late. If you've ever looked online, most tables stop before Tier 3, or Tier 3 latest. At most, Diamond Soul is a capstone. If a table only goes to 14, Monk's don't get anything at that Tier 3 threshold of 11th Level, while other classes get a damage spike. They barely get access to Diamond Soul before the campaign ends.
TBH I think the design philosophy of switching a Monk's role at higher levels, especially just as their ki points finally come online is a huge mistake. If I want to play a monk, I want to play a powerful martial artist, not a mediocre DPS that has to stun to keep up. Either start and stay as a support tank/off-dps like PF2e, or go all-on on the DPS role.
Again - ignoring 1/3 to half the game because it’s less popular isn’t the best approach to design or optimization. Significantly less people finish video games than start - should we ignore the final acts of those games? Of course not. Same here. Tier 3 and 4 should not be ignored.
I’m not sure where mediocre DPR is coming from or the need to stun to be relevant. Neither is true.
If you don’t want to change roles - you can do that but it probably won’t be as optimized. Idk why it was designed that way. Maybe someone else does.
Either way you’ll be a bad ass martial for the life of the character.
@@cmccbuilds8229 It's still late even if you consider a whole 20-level campaign. Paladins get their Aura of Protection at 6th level, less than half that of the Monk. A 14-level campaign just makes that worse. If you want to ease a Monk player's transition to tank, give it at 11th, the transition threshold to Tier 3. Still late, but justifies it being late by being at the threshold.
And comparing it to video games makes no sense. Video games present a complete package, whether you finish the package or not is up to you. Dnd (and other systems) provide a _framework_ to build your own "game" (world and story). There is nothing that requires a campaign reach 20th level to be "finished". The campaign is "finished" as long as the DM's intent for the story is finished. If the _framework_ is bad, then it's bad. The UA Astral Self was broken as hell, but only because of its capstone. At 3rd, the ki cost was so inefficient it felt horrible to use (personal experience).
I've taken a look at your DPR calculations, you're using Mercy + Elven Accuracy. That's a specfic build combo, it's not representitive of the Monk class as a whole.
@@kori228 "but if you take this very specific list of feats and ASI, and then take this very specific subclass, and then utilize these specific weapons, and min/max it all together, this class is actually pretty good!"
I think you may actually be underselling Monks. If facing a single opponent who doesn't have Legendary Resistances (like say, a boss during the first two tiers of play), spamming Stunning Strike is arguably far more effective than most things spellcasters can do. And even if facing multiple enemies, Stunning Strike can still sometimes be game-breaking. The first 5e character I ever played once stunned all 4 opponents, only to discover that we were facing a party of Monks who were never able to recover from the deficit I put them in. I don't remember for sure how many stunning strikes I landed after the initial round where I stunned each of them, but that fight definitely ended up being a cakewalk.
I missed the Beau part. Can I get a time stamp?
Rewatch 0:00-0:25 if you’re confused about the purpose of the video. Thanks for watching!
@@cmccbuilds8229 I was joking. I like the video and just waiting for the next.
good timing!
@@cmccbuilds8229 yeah, I have expertise in it. Though I'm only level 6 it's still an overall +11 to all timing checks. 😏
Screw the gun Monk! Odds are, if you're taking monk, you're wanting to use your *fists,* which the class doesn't encourage!
John Wick and John Preston have entered the chat.
I love the concept of monk but sucks in every one edition.
The videos demonstrate otherwise. We live in a post-Tasha’s world.
@@cmccbuilds8229 freshly bought.
Tasha’s?
@@cmccbuilds8229 Now i have tasha, let's see if this monk works...
Monks are great. The only people that don’t understand them, like Treantmonk, D4, and others, are focused on only on thing, self contained damage. Sad and misguided.
Care to expand?
@@beartygerevillaugh9418 Sure! The short version is the question “Are web or hypnotic pattern bad?” No. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. People who “make builds” for martial characters focus on dealing damage to a single target. That is, although very fun to talk about, not common in combat scenarios. Warlocks and fighters get all kinds of love for their short rest resources. Action surge, fireball, whatever, it comes back in a short rest. Well, so too do monks. Monks should go nova just like those classes. Run fast, catch arrows, flurry of blows, stunning strike, fireball, whatever. Monks not only put out damage, but they also survive very well and aid the fellows in combat.
I typically don’t like martial classes because as a creative player in, and out of combat I simply feel useless without having the versatility of casters.
This video is pointless.
Plenty of points were made. Feel free to attempt a counter point to any of the dozen or so that were made.
@@cmccbuilds8229 All moot or irrelevant points. You have compared multi class builds to single class builds. Please compare apples to apples.
I digress, Monks flurry of blows and stunning strikes are my main points of contention.
1st point of contention: both abilities do not improve or grow in power by leveling up e.g. battlemaster maneuvers dice grows from 1d8-1d10-1d12 respectively.
2nd point of contention: flurry of blows is restricted to unarmed strikes only, a very unnecessary restriction. Stunning strikes are cons saves. why? Since it's a wisdom base ability why isn't it a wisdom save? Or at least do an extra MA dmg dice.
All of these points were dealt with in the prior monk videos.
The one exception is that a wisdom ability uses a con save instead of the same stat as the ability itself. There is absolutely nothing uncommon with that. Spells and abilities often do have an ability or spell stat that then targets another stat.
@@cmccbuilds8229 All moot points. Sorry buddy. Great vidéo editing skills. Peace.
Gee thanks :)