Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
When that does happen I fully expect the arguments of "Larian homebrewed monk REEE RAW monk at my table is awesome!" though so let's hope they don't end up removing it or reverting it back to RAW.
"Monk bad" is easiest way to say "i'm bad at turn based tactics" without saying that.
Here is a list of the monk ♥♥♥♥ that does not use Ki:
- Actually effective unarmed attacks (which even become considered magical for overcoming resistance at 6th level)
- The bonus action attack from the martial arts feature
- move faster/further in a turn (+10 movement at 2nd level, eventually scales up to +30 at 18th level
- Deflecting a missile (throwing it back requires 1 Ki, but deflecting it is just a reaction that no other class can do)
- Reducing fall damage by 5 times your monk level
- evasion (take no damage on a successful dex save, half damage on a fail)
- immunity to charm/frightened (7th level)
- immunity to disease/poison (10th level)
- understand all languages and the ability to speak with any creature that knows at least one language (free, no spell slot, no ki, nothing)
- proficiency in ALL saving throws (14th level)
- Age has no effect on your effectiveness until you would otherwise just die (minor but potentially useful)
- No longer need to eat or drink
And that's just the base monk. Nearly every subclass gives something that doesn't require ki at all.
you should really just take 5 seconds to actually look at the monk compared to any other class. i think this guy does the best job at explaining it.
EDIT: for example, in the video you link to, he says martial arts is a bad feature becasue "you can swing your longsword for a d10 or you can access martial arts for a d4 instead." He then later says that martial arts scales, but even from level 1 martial arts is great because (unlike other martial classes) you can swing a longsword for a d10 then use a bonus action to make a d4 attack with your fist (or foot, or head, whatever you want to call your unarmed attack). For any other class using the longsword attack as a d10 (which requires weilding it with two hands) and then make a second attack as a bonus action for d4 damage they would have to... oh wait, its impossible at best they could use the long sword one handed (d8) with the dual wielder feat and attack with another one handed weapon. This of course ONLY works in a game using feats and obviously requires taking a feat (meaning no ASI or being a variant human). Then throw in the fact martial arts scales and monks can also use ki to make more attacks or stun (for advantage on subsequent attacks) and suddenly mr. Treantmonk looks like an dolt.
anyways here is another source to rebuke your claim https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/59394-strongest-and-weakest-classes-poll
point is. monks should feel as powerful as everybody else. im currently playing a monk in a current campaign and i feel weak compared to the 7 other players.
That guy really really should be taken with a grain of salt. He's trying to approach D&D from a raw numbers perspective instead of from a roleplaying perspective which is always a bad sign and at the table, people who behave that way tend to be a red flag for somebody we won't want to come back after the campaign ends, be it a DM or a player.
Monk has a ton of options and character features that make it just as effective as other classes, but with a weak start and a heavy scaling over the levels, sort of like a melee version of a wizard, who starts out being able to light some clothes on fire and can get killed by sneezing in their direction, but turns in to a walking drone strike later on.
The trick is you just have to actually roleplay your character well and use all their options and be creative with them, because if you try to focus exclusively on numbers and minmax everything, all you've done is optimize the fun out of D&D so of course a class like Monk will seem "weak", because you're not utilizing it fully.
Just have to wait and see how Larian decides to tackle it.
I would say that's a fallacious appeal to majority if it wasn't for the fact that's a tiny, TINY sample size compared the millions of people who play D&D.
Oh, and these polls don't have any indication of the margin between each classes strength/effectiveness and the next one's strength/effectiveness. So even if people all were making a genuine effort to rank the classes entirely on mechanics and were trying their best to look at the classes holistically (as opposed to looking at a single dimension like DPR), there is no indicate whether monk is 1% worse than the next class (which I think most people would say is unlikely to be a meaningful difference) or 50% worse.
Look, you and others clearly don't like monk. But it is far from being in the ♥♥♥♥♥ like you are trying to suggest. And besides the game is about far more than just power balance and even if it was 'power' is highly context dependant (e.g., a barbarian is great in a melee situation but is going to be a lot less useful against a flying enemy or a caster on the opposite side of a chasm)