5E Monk and the BG3 possibilities

[The Rob]

Reading through the 5th edition PHB, Monk seems a little...underpowered. I know Larian incorporated some of the Ranger fixes into BG3, are there any for the monk?

It could be that I am completely underestimating the usefulness of monk's mobility and deflect (and catch) arrows, but do you think Larian should make any changes to the 5e Monk? Think it'll be fine as is?

I would straight up double the Ki points, and change the current state of Jump/Disengage and Shove to make the monk fun and viable. Just my theory though.

[Dragon Master]

The monk is actually pretty powerful. At level 2 they can do 4 attacks in a single turn, reduce damage from ranged and if they get it so they take no damage can damage the person who tried shooting them.

[Peanut]

Coming from someone who loves to play 5e Monks...I honestly think that the class is fine as is. Doubling the Ki points would straight up make Monks a force to be reckoned with that would be pretty unmatched. As it stands, they can attack four times in one turn provided that they spend a Ki point, their movement is difficult to top (even more so with Step of the Wind via a Ki point), and they get both unarmoured defence *and* evasion. And that's just the base class without any subclasses until level 3. Come 4th level they can nuke fall damage with Slow Fall up to a certain threshold of hit points, eventually become *immune* to poison and disease, and gain the ability to end charm and fear on themselves. The damage that they do, starting at a d4, also goes up as they level up and caps at 1d10 per strike at level 17 - further amplified by the fact that they get Ki Empowered strikes at level 6 that gives their unarmed strikes the magic weapon quality. Also stunning strike gained at level 5 can really mess enemies up. Feats can obviously be taken to add even more spice to the class, and multiclassing is solid too should that be added to the game.

Giving Monks more Ki points would be a bit too much I feel, just as giving Barbarians more rage, Sorcerers more Sorcerer points, or Bards more inspiration would be too much. Just my insight on this though! Changing the current state of Jump/Disengage/Shove would be interesting to see though...I wonder how that could be changed.

[The Rob]

Peanut a écrit :

Coming from someone who loves to play 5e Monks...I honestly think that the class is fine as is. Doubling the Ki points would straight up make Monks a force to be reckoned with that would be pretty unmatched. As it stands, they can attack four times in one turn provided that they spend a Ki point, their movement is difficult to top (even more so with Step of the Wind via a Ki point), and they get both unarmoured defence *and* evasion. And that's just the base class without any subclasses until level 3. Come 4th level they can nuke fall damage with Slow Fall up to a certain threshold of hit points, eventually become *immune* to poison and disease, and gain the ability to end charm and fear on themselves. The damage that they do, starting at a d4, also goes up as they level up and caps at 1d10 per strike at level 17 - further amplified by the fact that they get Ki Empowered strikes at level 6 that gives their unarmed strikes the magic weapon quality. Also stunning strike gained at level 5 can really mess enemies up. Feats can obviously be taken to add even more spice to the class, and multiclassing is solid too should that be added to the game.

Giving Monks more Ki points would be a bit too much I feel, just as giving Barbarians more rage, Sorcerers more Sorcerer points, or Bards more inspiration would be too much. Just my insight on this though! Changing the current state of Jump/Disengage/Shove would be interesting to see though...I wonder how that could be changed.

I'm not going to argue against my favorite D&D class, but someone on this forum spent some time explaining to me how Monk damage at higher levels just doesn't compare to fighter, ranger, rogue, etc. I mean, I don't need my monk to be the DPS- I think of them as a mobile striker to take out squishy, high-priority targets, but I do want them to be fun and viable.

I've played a lot of 3.5e Monk, both in TT and in the various video game adaptions. I'm excited to try one in BG3. Missing those stunning strikes has always been a thorn, and they've been almost useless at high level. Hopefully 5e levels that playing field a little bit. Ending charm and fear is huge, immune to poison and disease a little less so, IMO.

[Peanut]

Mole Man a écrit :

Peanut a écrit :

Coming from someone who loves to play 5e Monks...I honestly think that the class is fine as is. Doubling the Ki points would straight up make Monks a force to be reckoned with that would be pretty unmatched. As it stands, they can attack four times in one turn provided that they spend a Ki point, their movement is difficult to top (even more so with Step of the Wind via a Ki point), and they get both unarmoured defence *and* evasion. And that's just the base class without any subclasses until level 3. Come 4th level they can nuke fall damage with Slow Fall up to a certain threshold of hit points, eventually become *immune* to poison and disease, and gain the ability to end charm and fear on themselves. The damage that they do, starting at a d4, also goes up as they level up and caps at 1d10 per strike at level 17 - further amplified by the fact that they get Ki Empowered strikes at level 6 that gives their unarmed strikes the magic weapon quality. Also stunning strike gained at level 5 can really mess enemies up. Feats can obviously be taken to add even more spice to the class, and multiclassing is solid too should that be added to the game.

Giving Monks more Ki points would be a bit too much I feel, just as giving Barbarians more rage, Sorcerers more Sorcerer points, or Bards more inspiration would be too much. Just my insight on this though! Changing the current state of Jump/Disengage/Shove would be interesting to see though...I wonder how that could be changed.

I'm not going to argue against my favorite D&D class, but someone on this forum spent some time explaining to me how Monk damage at higher levels just doesn't compare to fighter, ranger, rogue, etc. I mean, I don't need my monk to be the DPS- I think of them as a mobile striker to take out squishy, high-priority targets, but I do want them to be fun and viable.

I've played a lot of 3.5e Monk, both in TT and in the various video game adaptions. I'm excited to try one in BG3. Missing those stunning strikes has always been a thorn, and they've been almost useless at high level. Hopefully 5e levels that playing field a little bit. Ending charm and fear is huge, immune to poison and disease a little less so, IMO.

Sure, in the end it'll always boil down to what you prefer as an individual!
5e Monks aren't 5e Fighters and vice versa, the differences are there and the play styles can differ wildly - even with things as simple as stealth and no armour vs. heavy armour. I was just stating that in my opinion the class is great how it is is all. But again, that's all it boils down to is an individual opinion. Definitely had a lot of fun playing as a Fighter in my last BG3 run, as a Battlemaster specifically. I hope when Monk makes it to the game it doesn't disappoint!

[Lady Voidhowler]

I'm following this thread because I'm weird and monk and druid classes are a dealbreaker for me to purchase this game, but I wasn't sure if they'd even have this class in BG3. So far, it doesn't look like it but I'm hoping to be wrong.

[Alealexi]

Tammy G Warrior a écrit :

I'm following this thread because I'm weird and monk and druid classes are a dealbreaker for me to purchase this game, but I wasn't sure if they'd even have this class in BG3. So far, it doesn't look like it but I'm hoping to be wrong.

It is already stated that they will have all classes & races from PHB by release. The store page even has a note that they will be added during EA.

[Alealexi]

Peanut a écrit :

Mole Man a écrit :

I'm not going to argue against my favorite D&D class, but someone on this forum spent some time explaining to me how Monk damage at higher levels just doesn't compare to fighter, ranger, rogue, etc. I mean, I don't need my monk to be the DPS- I think of them as a mobile striker to take out squishy, high-priority targets, but I do want them to be fun and viable.

I've played a lot of 3.5e Monk, both in TT and in the various video game adaptions. I'm excited to try one in BG3. Missing those stunning strikes has always been a thorn, and they've been almost useless at high level. Hopefully 5e levels that playing field a little bit. Ending charm and fear is huge, immune to poison and disease a little less so, IMO.

Sure, in the end it'll always boil down to what you prefer as an individual!
5e Monks aren't 5e Fighters and vice versa, the differences are there and the play styles can differ wildly - even with things as simple as stealth and no armour vs. heavy armour. I was just stating that in my opinion the class is great how it is is all. But again, that's all it boils down to is an individual opinion. Definitely had a lot of fun playing as a Fighter in my last BG3 run, as a Battlemaster specifically. I hope when Monk makes it to the game it doesn't disappoint!

Do we know what subclasses there will be for monk? If kensei is there I hope it gets the ranger treatment.

[Peanut]

Alealexi a écrit :

Peanut a écrit :

Sure, in the end it'll always boil down to what you prefer as an individual!
5e Monks aren't 5e Fighters and vice versa, the differences are there and the play styles can differ wildly - even with things as simple as stealth and no armour vs. heavy armour. I was just stating that in my opinion the class is great how it is is all. But again, that's all it boils down to is an individual opinion. Definitely had a lot of fun playing as a Fighter in my last BG3 run, as a Battlemaster specifically. I hope when Monk makes it to the game it doesn't disappoint!

Do we know what subclasses there will be for monk? If kensei is there I hope it gets the ranger treatment.

https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Classes
Way of the Open Hand ♦ Way of Shadow ♦ Way of the Four Elements
Seem to be confirmed so far

[Lady Voidhowler]

Oh, awesome! Thank you both! I was struggling to find these specific details anywhere.

Do they have an estimated time frame for full release? I'm trying to decide whether or not to check it out or wait.

[RealDealBreaker]

Mole Man a écrit :

Reading through the 5th edition PHB, Monk seems a little...underpowered. I know Larian incorporated some of the Ranger fixes into BG3, are there any for the monk?

It could be that I am completely underestimating the usefulness of monk's mobility and deflect (and catch) arrows, but do you think Larian should make any changes to the 5e Monk? Think it'll be fine as is?

I would straight up double the Ki points, and change the current state of Jump/Disengage and Shove to make the monk fun and viable. Just my theory though.

I can assure you that monks in 5e are definitely not under-powered. Monks are highly mobile melee combatants. They are EXTREMELY good at getting to backline enemies (ranged attackers, spell casters) and greatly reduce their ability to damage/cc your allies. Also, in 5e a monk would have to spend one of their limited ki points to maximise their mobility (i.e., spend a ki point for step of the wind to disengage). But since Larian has made disengage (jump) at bonus action for everyone (in 5e it is an action to disengage without other features/abilities), monks can use ALL of their ki points on flurry of blows/stunning strikes.

Additionally, a monk in the party means you don't have to spend as much gold/found items equipping them. For the early levels they will be fine with their starting weapon but a magic/+1 weapon is nice. But that isn't even required since monk's unarmed strikes become magical (for the purposes of bypassing resistances). What this means is you only have to find/buy awesome weapons and armor for the other members of the party. This allows you to stretch your resources further.

[RafaelElendil]

Monks are the worst class of 5ed by a WIDE margin.

The 3 attacks they can do at level 2 (they cannot do 4 attacks) will do less damage than a SINGLE attack from a greatweapon user and consume a resource... if we factor resources in, the fighter will outdamage then literary at all levels.

The monks are not good grapplers (barbarians, thiefs and bards are), good shovers/trippers (the 3 again are), CCers (wizards, clerics, bards and warlocks are) and they just have good mobility which acomplishes nothing since enemies can safely ignore then, or just grapple then and the monk is finished and also have the worst damage of all classes... thats math, not opinion.

I've tried many things to make monks viable over the years, but is like they really want monks to suck, cause everytime something is realeased to playtest that actually can make a good monk (like the weapon master monk) they nerf it before release to make VERY sure they will suck (no heavy weapon, so no greatweapon fighting).

Monks are noobtraps, just that, even the PHB ranger, which suck, is godtier compared to monks.

[RafaelElendil]

RealDealBreaker a écrit :

I can assure you that monks in 5e are definitely not under-powered. Monks are highly mobile melee combatants. They are EXTREMELY good at getting to backline enemies (ranged attackers, spell casters) and greatly reduce their ability to damage/cc your allies. Also, in 5e a monk would have to spend one of their limited ki points to maximise their mobility (i.e., spend a ki point for step of the wind to disengage). But since Larian has made disengage (jump) at bonus action for everyone (in 5e it is an action to disengage without other features/abilities), monks can use ALL of their ki points on flurry of blows/stunning strikes.

Additionally, a monk in the party means you don't have to spend as much gold/found items equipping them. For the early levels they will be fine with their starting weapon but a magic/+1 weapon is nice. But that isn't even required since monk's unarmed strikes become magical (for the purposes of bypassing resistances). What this means is you only have to find/buy awesome weapons and armor for the other members of the party. This allows you to stretch your resources further.

Monk mobility is an ilusion. Most level equivalent enemies can safely ignore a monk because they do crappy damage, even casters can ignore them.

The part of magic items is also one of the dumbest flaws of the basic DMG: they didnt do an "amulet of might fist" equivalent to 5ed, meaning that monks will never get the +3 to hit/damage other classes will get... this is a NERF, not a buff. Many adventures try to mask this flaw creating some item that gives a bonus to unarmed damage, but it was a major overlook of the DMG, probably we will have something equivalent on this game.

+3 to hit is HUGE in 5ed... and +3 to damage is also HUGE to a class that do damage by doing lots of attacks.

By seeing the analysis people do about their experience with monks in 5ed seems like they got a lot of babysitters GMs, because if they play the released adventures (Rise of Tiamat, etc) by the rules and as written, monks will suck hard from level 1-20, if they manage to survive.

[Shadow♥]

Tammy G Warrior a écrit :

Oh, awesome! Thank you both! I was struggling to find these specific details anywhere.

Do they have an estimated time frame for full release? I'm trying to decide whether or not to check it out or wait.

Larian stated about a year of early access before full release. I am sure that co-vid may affect release time too. If you want to get involved in the development and give feedback that helps Larian in the games development, then buy the early access but be aware that it is unfinished at this point and not the full game. It is only act 1 of the game in early access but act 1 is pretty large. It took me about 60 hours to complete first time but i like to explore and see everything I can. Larian has said act 1 is about 25 hours of content, but that depends on your play style as it took me much longer to complete act 1.

[RealDealBreaker]

RafaelElendil a écrit :

Monks are the worst class of 5ed by a WIDE margin.

The 3 attacks they can do at level 2 (they cannot do 4 attacks) will do less damage than a SINGLE attack from a greatweapon user and consume a resource... if we factor resources in, the fighter will outdamage then literary at all levels.

The monks are not good grapplers (barbarians, thiefs and bards are), good shovers/trippers (the 3 again are), CCers (wizards, clerics, bards and warlocks are) and they just have good mobility which acomplishes nothing since enemies can safely ignore then, or just grapple then and the monk is finished and also have the worst damage of all classes... thats math, not opinion.

I've tried many things to make monks viable over the years, but is like they really want monks to suck, cause everytime something is realeased to playtest that actually can make a good monk (like the weapon master monk) they nerf it before release to make VERY sure they will suck (no heavy weapon, so no greatweapon fighting).

Monks are noobtraps, just that, even the PHB ranger, which suck, is godtier compared to monks.

1) Monks from levels 1-4 can do 2 attacks every round without expending a resource (aside from a bonus action). This is from the martial arts feature and with a quarterstaff of spear that is a 1d8 + dex damage weapon attack plus a bonus action 1d4 +dex unarmed strike (assuming a +3 dex modifier which is the most common dex modifier for a monk to have at level 1, this is an average of 7.5 and 5.5 on hit). That compares nicely with any other class two-weapon fighting which requires light weapons, so at best 2 attacks with 1d6 + modifier weapons and then only with the modifier on the off-hand attack IF they have the two weapon fighting style (6.5 and 3.5 on hits without fighting style, 6.5 and 6.5 with). With a feat, that can be bumped up to 1d8 weapons (for 7.5 and 4.5 without fighting style, or 7.5 and 7.5 with fighting style) but notice that that requires a feat that is only available at level 4 (or later) in place of an ASI or to variant humans at level 1 (and a variant human monk could make excellent use of a different feat and still do the same or better damage). Now compare this to great weapon user. A great sword attack is 2d6 + str (avg 10 with a 16 or 17 in strength). Last I checked, 10 is less than 13. For a great weapon user to increase that damage they need to either take the fighting style (re-rolls 1s and 2s once on damage rolls) which ups the average damage by about 10-15% so 11 or 11.5 which is still less than 13, or take GWM feat to add 10 damage but take a -5 penalty to hit (costs a feat, see feat tax commentary that accompanied dual wielding).
^ That is all without expending a single resource and the monk wins or is VERY comparable to any weapon damage out from any martial class. So what about if a monk expends a resource? Well starting at level 2 for 1 ki, they get to make 2 attacks as a bonus action resulting in 1d8 + dex with spear/staff as an action and 1d4 + dex unarmed and 1d4 + dex as a bonus action assuming +3 dex that is 7.5, 5.5, and 5.5 average on hit). This can be done twice per short or long rest compared to a fighter expending a resource (action surge; since that is the only resource they can expend to get more attacks) that can only be done once per LONG rest. So no, fighters do not outdamage them "at literally every level." And at 5th level monk's unarmed strikes become 1d6 + dex AND they get extra attack meaning they can deal 1d8 +dex and 1d8+ dex as an action followed by bonus action 1d6 +3 (or an additional 1d6 +dex if they used a ki point for flurry of blows instead). AND monks gain more ki as they level up so they can 'nova' more often than a fighter.

2) 5e's math assumes no magic items. Sure I agree that a +3 weapon is a big boost to damage because you hit more (and the bonus applies to the damage per hit), but +3 weapons are not at all common. Plus a monk can still benefit from said +3 weapon on their 2 attacks with the attack action (5th level onward), so its not like they are useless (in fact, just as useful as on a martial class unless we are talking a level 11+ fighter who gets 3 attacks as an action. Then there is always the "official content is only part of the hobby and nothing is stopping a DM from making magic hand wraps" thing.

3) So with the 2 (3 at level 5+) attacks that a monk makes without using any resources (aside from a bonus action), what can a monk do? Stunning strike for 1 ki that forces a ♥♥♥ save and stuns the target for a round on fail. This can be attempted on any hit. Not bad at all. Most monks will will start with a +2 wisdom modifier which makes the DC of the ♥♥♥ save a DC 13 (8 + 3 prof + 2 WIS). Obviously not effective at stunning the great big meat shield kind of enemies, but monks are best against ranged/spell casters who tend to have lower ♥♥♥♥ and tend to not be proficient in ♥♥♥ saves. So no, they do not "just have good mobility which acomplishes nothing since enemies can safely ignore then".

So your 'analysis' of the monk is quite lacking. It makes me think you are either just letting your personal dislike run rampant or you didn't analyse anything.

[Peanut]

RealDealBreaker a écrit :

RafaelElendil a écrit :

Monks are the worst class of 5ed by a WIDE margin.

The 3 attacks they can do at level 2 (they cannot do 4 attacks) will do less damage than a SINGLE attack from a greatweapon user and consume a resource... if we factor resources in, the fighter will outdamage then literary at all levels.

The monks are not good grapplers (barbarians, thiefs and bards are), good shovers/trippers (the 3 again are), CCers (wizards, clerics, bards and warlocks are) and they just have good mobility which acomplishes nothing since enemies can safely ignore then, or just grapple then and the monk is finished and also have the worst damage of all classes... thats math, not opinion.

I've tried many things to make monks viable over the years, but is like they really want monks to suck, cause everytime something is realeased to playtest that actually can make a good monk (like the weapon master monk) they nerf it before release to make VERY sure they will suck (no heavy weapon, so no greatweapon fighting).

Monks are noobtraps, just that, even the PHB ranger, which suck, is godtier compared to monks.

1) Monks from levels 1-4 can do 2 attacks every round without expending a resource (aside from a bonus action). This is from the martial arts feature and with a quarterstaff of spear that is a 1d8 + dex damage weapon attack plus a bonus action 1d4 +dex unarmed strike (assuming a +3 dex modifier which is the most common dex modifier for a monk to have at level 1, this is an average of 7.5 and 5.5 on hit). That compares nicely with any other class two-weapon fighting which requires light weapons, so at best 2 attacks with 1d6 + modifier weapons and then only with the modifier on the off-hand attack IF they have the two weapon fighting style (6.5 and 3.5 on hits without fighting style, 6.5 and 6.5 with). With a feat, that can be bumped up to 1d8 weapons (for 7.5 and 4.5 without fighting style, or 7.5 and 7.5 with fighting style) but notice that that requires a feat that is only available at level 4 (or later) in place of an ASI or to variant humans at level 1 (and a variant human monk could make excellent use of a different feat and still do the same or better damage). Now compare this to great weapon user. A great sword attack is 2d6 + str (avg 10 with a 16 or 17 in strength). Last I checked, 10 is less than 13. For a great weapon user to increase that damage they need to either take the fighting style (re-rolls 1s and 2s once on damage rolls) which ups the average damage by about 10-15% so 11 or 11.5 which is still less than 13, or take GWM feat to add 10 damage but take a -5 penalty to hit (costs a feat, see feat tax commentary that accompanied dual wielding).
^ That is all without expending a single resource and the monk wins or is VERY comparable to any weapon damage out from any martial class. So what about if a monk expends a resource? Well starting at level 2 for 1 ki, they get to make 2 attacks as a bonus action resulting in 1d8 + dex with spear/staff as an action and 1d4 + dex unarmed and 1d4 + dex as a bonus action assuming +3 dex that is 7.5, 5.5, and 5.5 average on hit). This can be done twice per short or long rest compared to a fighter expending a resource (action surge; since that is the only resource they can expend to get more attacks) that can only be done once per LONG rest. So no, fighters do not outdamage them "at literally every level." And at 5th level monk's unarmed strikes become 1d6 + dex AND they get extra attack meaning they can deal 1d8 +dex and 1d8+ dex as an action followed by bonus action 1d6 +3 (or an additional 1d6 +dex if they used a ki point for flurry of blows instead). AND monks gain more ki as they level up so they can 'nova' more often than a fighter.

2) 5e's math assumes no magic items. Sure I agree that a +3 weapon is a big boost to damage because you hit more (and the bonus applies to the damage per hit), but +3 weapons are not at all common. Plus a monk can still benefit from said +3 weapon on their 2 attacks with the attack action (5th level onward), so its not like they are useless (in fact, just as useful as on a martial class unless we are talking a level 11+ fighter who gets 3 attacks as an action. Then there is always the "official content is only part of the hobby and nothing is stopping a DM from making magic hand wraps" thing.

3) So with the 2 (3 at level 5+) attacks that a monk makes without using any resources (aside from a bonus action), what can a monk do? Stunning strike for 1 ki that forces a ♥♥♥ save and stuns the target for a round on fail. This can be attempted on any hit. Not bad at all. Most monks will will start with a +2 wisdom modifier which makes the DC of the ♥♥♥ save a DC 13 (8 + 3 prof + 2 WIS). Obviously not effective at stunning the great big meat shield kind of enemies, but monks are best against ranged/spell casters who tend to have lower ♥♥♥♥ and tend to not be proficient in ♥♥♥ saves. So no, they do not "just have good mobility which acomplishes nothing since enemies can safely ignore then".

So your 'analysis' of the monk is quite lacking. It makes me think you are either just letting your personal dislike run rampant or you didn't analyse anything.

This, thank you for laying all of this out so wonderfully.
Obviously everything is going to boil down to one's personal opinion and nothing short of a miracle can change that sometimes, but this is presented so well. Comparing Monks to Fighters in the end is a bit of an age old argument that tends to lean heavily to one side or the other when both classes are honestly equally as viable without feats - even more so when feats are taken in account. Good job with this.