Where does the Monk stack compared to the other classes? Supposedly it was considered the weakest in the past, and I've heard that it is even weaker now. Lower damage and number of attacks than the Fighter, lower AC and HP than the Barb, and high level abilities are just low level spells.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;840738Where does the Monk stack compared to the other classes? Supposedly it was considered the weakest in the past, and I've heard that it is even weaker now. Lower damage and number of attacks than the Fighter, lower AC and HP than the Barb, and high level abilities are just low level spells.

My limited response here is purely based on my actual play experience with a monk up to 5th level, and doesn't include any attempts at comparing charop approaches to the classes or anything more than a cursory forward look to later levels. I also don't try to factor in ki points/advantage dice/rages because who can say what the short rest/long rest ratio will be for any given group.

With regard to the Fighter in the group ( a TWF guy), I currently have the same number of attacks.  The fighter will pull ahead at 11th level, though. The damage at this point seems about the same (1d8+4 1d6+4, 1d8+4 more or less for either of us).

With regard to the Barbarian (actually in a another group, but who also happens to be 5th level), the monk AC is one point better due to the Barbarian's (unarmored defense with no shield because his hands are full) ability score spread between STR/DEX/CON vs the monk being more focused on just DEX/WIS.

Hit dice are obviously smaller for Monk, and I have also rolled ... poorly.   When an enemy gets a solid piece of me I eat some dirt.

I enjoy the ability to dish out stuns, knocking 'em prone, or quashing the ability to use reactions.  I got no complaints so far.

One of the folks here who has more of a penchant for numerical analysis of the classes will surely chime in with a more comprehensive take.

At least they got the Bard right this edition, finally, after 4 editions of failure with that class.

Quote from: Mistwell;840814At least they got the Bard right this edition, finally, after 4 editions of failure with that class.

Your kidding right? The 4e Bard is awesome and a lot of fun to play

As for the monk, my experiences is limited to my buddy playing one while we were running one of the pre-made adventures for 5e. He seemed to have a fun time until one of the other players, who's character died so he ended up playing a Kobold we ended up saving, turned on us and made it into a TPK. The monk was the last one to fall but not before taking down a handful of skeletons in the process. I think we were 2nd level so the bulk of character options weren't in play yet.

From some of the optimization I've seen on other sites, the Monk does a decent job compared to the v3.5 version. He uses lots of status effects and if you play him right by moving in, attacking, and the moving out you'll do yourself a favor. We also weren't using Opportunity Attack rules at the time so there is that to consider.

It's a front line fighter type with less than a D10 hitpoints and exceedingly limited armour options and none of the built-in powers help shore up that deficiency.  In my opinion, it still is a weak class.  Is it the weakest?  I don't know, because no one has played a Sorcerer or a Bard at my table yet.  Maybe those two are even weaker, I cannot say.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840834It's a front line fighter type with less than a D10 hitpoints and exceedingly limited armour options and none of the built-in powers help shore up that deficiency.  In my opinion, it still is a weak class.  Is it the weakest?  I don't know, because no one has played a Sorcerer or a Bard at my table yet.  Maybe those two are even weaker, I cannot say.

I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not. Second, I'd say tactics is something you're gonna want to keep forefront in your mind. Running into a mob of enemies and staying there in the same round is dumb. Use the move/attack/move tactic. Keep mobile. Attack foes that aren't wielding great swords or huge axes. Take out support, artillery, and magic-using foes.  You shouldn't be swinging your arms toe-to-toe with a plate-armored warrior holding a large weapon unless you mean to stun him or use some sort of status effect and then get out of there ASAP.

Quote from: Batman;840845I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not. Second, I'd say tactics is something you're gonna want to keep forefront in your mind. Running into a mob of enemies and staying there in the same round is dumb. Use the move/attack/move tactic. Keep mobile. Attack foes that aren't wielding great swords or huge axes. Take out support, artillery, and magic-using foes.  You shouldn't be swinging your arms toe-to-toe with a plate-armored warrior holding a large weapon unless you mean to stun him or use some sort of status effect and then get out of there ASAP.

Yes, rush the ranged characters and expect to absorb the damage.  Oh right, you have less than the usual hitpoints, no real scaling armour bonus and no ranged attack.  That'll end well.

Friend of mine had a lot of success running a Monk in the Mines of Alphabet Soup (cannot remember much less spell that name).  For him, it wasn't about hurting the enemy, although he was decent as it, but making their lives hell.  Moving them around, knocking them on their asses and stunning them.  A bunch of possible party wipes were stopped cold because of him.

When you try and measure all classes simply by the amount of damage that they can inflict per round and the amount of damage that they can take, yes there will be some classes weaker than others by those metrics.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840909Yes, rush the ranged characters and expect to absorb the damage.  Oh right, you have less than the usual hitpoints, no real scaling armour bonus and no ranged attack.  That'll end well.

Then dont rush the ranged foes and expect to absorb damage with a hit-and run class. The Rogue plays much the same. They work best with teamwork and not so well on their own as a frontliner.

Quote from: Omega;840937Then dont rush the ranged foes and expect to absorb damage with a hit-and run class. The Rogue plays much the same. They work best with teamwork and not so well on their own as a frontliner.

Here's the funny thing about the Rogue, it has other uses outside of combat, the Monk, no.  Also, the Rogue has a scaling AC bonus (in the form of magical armour it can wear), so it actually has some survivability.  And finally, the Monk requires three stats (Dex, Wis, Con), where as every other melee specialist just has two (Attack Stat and Con) and like the Barbarian, it needs ALL it's stats to be decently high, because something will take a swing at it.

So the Monk still is weak.  Again, though, the Sorcerer and the Bard may be weaker, but I've not seen them being used, however, I have seen the monk get used, and it's not as good as those who want to play it think it will be.

Quote from: Batman;840845I'd say your first mistake is thinking it's a front line fighter, its not.

I have a history of spirited disagreement with our caped crusader, but here we find common ground. Agreed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961Here's the funny thing about the Rogue, it has other uses outside of combat, the Monk, no.

I ... disagree.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961Also, the Rogue has a scaling AC bonus (in the form of magical armour it can wear), so it actually has some survivability.

The back of my cocktail napkin says...

Starting Point:
Rogue with Studded Leather Armor (AC 12), +4 from Dex = 16 AC
Monk with no armor, +4 from Dex, +3 from Wis = 17 AC

Terminal Point:
Rogue with Studded Leather Armor +3, +5 from Dex = 20 AC
Monk with Bracers of Defense (+2), +5 from Dex, +5 Wis = 22 AC

Not seeing anything there to support your claim.  Does your cocktail napkin have something more convincing?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961And finally, the Monk requires three stats (Dex, Wis, Con), where as every other melee specialist just has two (Attack Stat and Con) and like the Barbarian, it needs ALL it's stats to be decently high, because something will take a swing at it.

As far as I can tell, the monk doesn't require CON any more than the rogue requires CON. Things will take swings at rogues, too.

Do you consider the barbarian to not be a melee specialist?  Every barbarian I've ever seen played (4, admittedly not the biggest sample size) have been unarmored defense-ers, and rely on STR, DEX, and CON.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;840961So the Monk still is weak.  Again, though, the Sorcerer and the Bard may be weaker, but I've not seen them being used, however, I have seen the monk get used, and it's not as good as those who want to play it think it will be.

I was not disappointed. So, there's one.

*shrug*

Only ran the playtest Monk, and I had a lot of fun with it. Mobility made him a nice, back-rank fighter, sort of like old-style Cavalry, mucking up the enemies' plans.

On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

Quote from: cranebump;841015Only ran the playtest Monk, and I had a lot of fun with it. Mobility made him a nice, back-rank fighter, sort of like old-style Cavalry, mucking up the enemies' plans.

On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

Sometimes, in the battle between dignity and survival, we have to make the hard choices.

Did you ever make it to Assmaster of Flowers?

Ok, that's AD&D, but it was all I could come up with.