Why exactly is Monk considered bad?

[Snobby Hobo]

After the PAINFUL early game I've finally moved to Tactician difficulty. Now I know monk is considered a subpar class, but I'm not seeing it (currently level 6).

Tankier than a barbarian (very high AC), I can easily pump out as much damage as a barbarian as long as I have Ki, bad ranged options but the highest mobility of all classes, very strong CC (in melee range), very strong against enemies with specific weaknesses. Very synergetic with items that provide bonuses per hit, as the monk hits around 6 times per turn.

The real thing I actually feel like I'm lacking is ranged options, which can be somewhat awkward in specific cases, but other than that - what exactly is the reason monk is considered meh?

[BeautifulFlowerField]

It's considered bad in 5E, I don't see anything much about act 3 yet so I don't think the actual meta for BG3 is at all established. Plenty of things were changed from 5E.

[Snobby Hobo]

Originally posted by BeautifulFlowerField:

It's considered bad in 5E, I don't see anything much about act 3 yet so I don't think the actual meta for BG3 is at all established. Plenty of things were changed from 5E.

That makes sense, thanks for the info. What exactly would make monk bad in 5e (just to get a feeling of what is different here)?

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Usually cuz it's got better versions in all other classes, kinda like ranger is it's not seen as the best in slot for what it does. However larian did a good job making ranger strong as well so I have no doubt they did monk justice and gave it appropriate buffs where needed so it keeps up nicely. Personally i dont pay attention to meta or whats good if it sounds fun i do it lol

[BeautifulFlowerField]

Originally posted by Snobby Hobo:

Originally posted by BeautifulFlowerField:

It's considered bad in 5E, I don't see anything much about act 3 yet so I don't think the actual meta for BG3 is at all established. Plenty of things were changed from 5E.

That makes sense, thanks for the info. What exactly would make monk bad in 5e (just to get a feeling of what is different here)?

not enough ki points i think but i don't know.

[Mad Max]

Monk is a bit of a late bloomer. It's squishy but is expected to be a front-line fighter.

[Matty101]

I'm running monk, he seems a jack of all trades.
Been running him for lockpicking and trap disarms and his zen monk solutions help out during npc conflicts.

[Typha]

I don't think monks are considered bad but they have a range of situations where they're not-great, and a range where they're great, more than other classes. I'd like to see an extra ki point for their class at lower levels.

[NaRf]

Originally posted by Snobby Hobo:

After the PAINFUL early game I've finally moved to Tactician difficulty. Now I know monk is considered a subpar class, but I'm not seeing it (currently level 6).

Tankier than a barbarian (very high AC), I can easily pump out as much damage as a barbarian as long as I have Ki, bad ranged options but the highest mobility of all classes, very strong CC (in melee range), very strong against enemies with specific weaknesses. Very synergetic with items that provide bonuses per hit, as the monk hits around 6 times per turn.

The real thing I actually feel like I'm lacking is ranged options, which can be somewhat awkward in specific cases, but other than that - what exactly is the reason monk is considered meh?

I havent felt that is the case and I have a Rogue/monk hybrid.

[katzenkrimis]

My Monk is kicking butt.

I named him Muhammad Ali.

And he's definitely living up to the name.

[Velesianus]

Originally posted by BeautifulFlowerField:

It's considered bad in 5E, I don't see anything much about act 3 yet so I don't think the actual meta for BG3 is at all established. Plenty of things were changed from 5E.

I'd disagree that it's considered "bad" in 5e, more that it's "MAD" intensive, meaning that newer players are likely to struggle with stat spread.

RPGbot has an excellent summary [rpgbot.net] of the monk class in 5e, imo.

In crpgs, like BG3, it really is pretty solid.

[jonnin]

monks have always been a mess in the various video games. The concept doesn't work:
the concept is a warrior, with no weapons or armor who wipes the floor with everyone without gear.

The problem is that these video games are gear heavy. So the monk becomes this guy wearing a billionty credits worth of rings, necklaces, wands/scrolls/potions, magic robes, and more because every gear slot has to be filled, magic 'hand wraps' and other nonsense.

if you can get past that, its implementation and DM dependent whether the class works well or not.

[Hobocop]

Monk is generally memed on in 5e because in order to do most of their cool Monk things, including subclass stuff, you need to spend Ki, and it's quite limited on TT, especially for Four Elements where the spells/abilities they can cast are prohibitively expensive.

BG3 takes steps to address this by giving them a bit more ki, so they're better, though haven't played one myself ingame as of yet.

[Laguna]

people keep comparing to other games but in current state of BG3, monk excels very well at mid-late game but is a slow starter at early game. your ki is your main limiter but that gets better overtime. their magical crowd control in a pinch is very useful in addition to hitting multiple strikes up close in case you miss a first attack. also you get some special monk interactions in certain dialogue scenarios where you can avoid combat all together by imposing your monk will on others kinda like avatar the last airbender.

[Snobby Hobo]

Originally posted by jonnin:

monks have always been a mess in the various video games. The concept doesn't work:
the concept is a warrior, with no weapons or armor who wipes the floor with everyone without gear.

The problem is that these video games are gear heavy. So the monk becomes this guy wearing a billionty credits worth of rings, necklaces, wands/scrolls/potions, magic robes, and more because every gear slot has to be filled, magic 'hand wraps' and other nonsense.

if you can get past that, its implementation and DM dependent whether the class works well or not.

I'm unfamiliar with the original rules, but in BG3 the only restriction I have to enable the passive is to not wear anything more than basic armor ("clothing"); so I can still get the passives I would want.

Bracelets and boots can still be worn without any downside too.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by Snobby Hobo:

Originally posted by jonnin:

monks have always been a mess in the various video games. The concept doesn't work:
the concept is a warrior, with no weapons or armor who wipes the floor with everyone without gear.

The problem is that these video games are gear heavy. So the monk becomes this guy wearing a billionty credits worth of rings, necklaces, wands/scrolls/potions, magic robes, and more because every gear slot has to be filled, magic 'hand wraps' and other nonsense.

if you can get past that, its implementation and DM dependent whether the class works well or not.

I'm unfamiliar with the original rules, but in BG3 the only restriction I have to enable the passive is to not wear anything more than basic armor ("clothing"); so I can still get the passives I would want.

Bracelets and boots can still be worn without any downside too.

You can wear any gear that doesn't have it listed as armor. Some boots and gloves have "heavy armor" or what not, there are helms and all slots that have no armor listing and can be worn. Such as the momentum Helm can be worn by barbs and monks as its not listed as an armor.