The issue I have with your arguments are that they\'re all subjective in regards towards the [=DM=] heavily accommodating Barbarian and Monk weakness, and we have to assume the \'general\' scenarios where that largely is up in the air, not worst or best case. In Pathfinder, the [=DM=] is incentivized to target the Barbarian in the way of the Wizard because Reactive Strike is actually serious damage in [=PF2e=] and has a solid chance of stopping enemy movement, and diagonals are accounted for to make it harder for enemies to reach the mage backline. That\'s not even getting into how actions differ between settings to empower martials.
to:
The issue I have with your arguments are that they\\\'re all subjective in regards towards the [=DM=] heavily accommodating Barbarian and Monk weakness, and we have to assume the \\\'general\\\' scenarios where that largely is up in the air, not worst or best case. In Pathfinder, the [=DM=] is incentivized to target the Barbarian in the way of the Wizard because Reactive Strike is actually serious damage in [=PF2e=] and has a solid chance of stopping enemy movement, and diagonals are accounted for to make it harder for enemies to reach the mage backline. That\\\'s not even getting into how actions differ between systems to empower martials.
Now, this could get into a broader conversation about how melee is borked in 5e - it is - and how the guarantee of magic items in systems like Pathfinder or even the last edition of 5e made it so that you \'\'could\'\' reliably get flying equipment whereas every game I\'ve ever played in or seen for 5e have been \'\'incredibly\'\' restrictive about getting magic items, and how Barbarians tank better in Pathfinder because they actually account for diagonals, meaning a Barbarian interposing herself in front of Mr. Wizard is \'\'actually\'\' a challenge for enemies to overcome and not an opportunity to just zigzag around her, but at this point I\'m digressing. It merely feeds into the bigger issue, and why I ultimately agree with accounts of Monk and Barbarian being the weakest classes in 5e.
to:
Now, this could get into a broader conversation about how melee is borked in 5e - it is - and how the guarantee of magic items in systems like Pathfinder or even the last edition of D&D, 4e, made it so that you \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' reliably get flying equipment whereas every game I\\\'ve ever played in or seen for 5e have been \\\'\\\'incredibly\\\'\\\' restrictive about getting magic items, and how Barbarians tank better in Pathfinder because they actually account for diagonals, meaning a Barbarian interposing herself in front of Mr. Wizard is \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' a challenge for enemies to overcome and not an opportunity to just zigzag around her, but at this point I\\\'m digressing. It merely feeds into the bigger issue, and why I ultimately agree with accounts of Monk and Barbarian being the weakest classes in 5e.
This is one area where Pathfinder 2e is so much better, because diagonal movement is so much more restricted and the general power level of each individual hit is so much stronger than it is in D&D 5e that every Reactive Strike (their term fro AoO) counts. Additionally, Monks and Barbarians are actually true \'\'tank classes\'\' in Pathfinder 2e, whereas I hesitate to say as much in 5e.
to:
This is one area where Pathfinder 2e is so much better, because diagonal movement is so much more restricted and the general power level of each individual hit is so much stronger than it is in D&D 5e that every Reactive Strike (their term for [=AoO=]) counts. Additionally, Monks and Barbarians are actually true \\\'\\\'tank classes\\\'\\\' in Pathfinder 2e, whereas I hesitate to say as much in 5e.
Changed line(s) 13 from:
n
Even \'\'if\'\' we assume Brutal Critical procs at least once every combat - and that is indeed a \'\'very\'\' generous assumption - D&D5e is a low-numbers game that runs off the martial characters making multiple attacks to get their damage. This is often why people dunk (I\'d say unfairly, because Sneak Attack has its own merits) on the Rogue, and why many people consider the Fighter and the crazy crud you can do with some Ranger builds as the gold standard of Martials... in a game where the gold standard is mages.
to:
Even \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' we assume Brutal Critical procs at least once every combat - and that is indeed a \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' generous assumption - [=D&D5e=] is a low-numbers game that runs off the martial characters making multiple attacks to get their damage. This is often why people dunk (I\\\'d say unfairly, because Sneak Attack has its own merits) on the Rogue, and why many people consider the Fighter and the crazy crud you can do with some Ranger builds as the gold standard of Martials... in a game where the gold standard is mages.
Changed line(s) 29 from:
n
Let\'s assume Brutal Critical and Reckless Attack are very generous. Let\'s assume they happen consistently enough a Barbarian can keep up with a Fighter\'s damage output. Let\'s also assume that despite being ridiculously MAD for little benefit (relying on AC to avoid damage is terrible in mid-to-late game D&D because your AC does not keep up with monster to-hit) the Monk manages to somehow get around their crippling HP weakness, max out Dex \'\'and\'\' Wisdom for 20 AC, and assume monsters stick to +13 to-hit (a 65% chance to hit, which is the math assumed for PCs against enemies. This is generous - most late monsters can have +14-+20) , meaning the Monk runs into few survivability issues in combat. The lack of a viable ranged strategy outside of certain subclasses that force them to choose how they get over one of their problems is still a major issue, as is this;
to:
Let\\\'s assume Brutal Critical and Reckless Attack are very generous. Let\\\'s assume they happen consistently enough a Barbarian can keep up with a Fighter\\\'s damage output. Let\\\'s also assume that despite being ridiculously [=MAD=] for little benefit (relying on AC to avoid damage is terrible in mid-to-late game [=D&D=] because your AC does not keep up with monster to-hit) the Monk manages to somehow get around their crippling HP weakness, max out Dex \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' Wisdom for 20 AC, and assume monsters stick to +13 to-hit (a 65% chance to hit, which is the math assumed for [=PCs=] against enemies. This is generous - most late monsters can have +14-+20) , meaning the Monk runs into few survivability issues in combat. The lack of a viable ranged strategy outside of certain subclasses that force them to choose how they get over one of their problems is still a major issue, as is this;
Changed line(s) 53 from:
n
Monks have the unfortunate issue of having to compete with Rogues and Rangers, and they\'re terrible at it. Like Barbarian, their subclasses can fix some of their issues, but any outside of Kensei and Ascendant Dragon are going to struggle with flying enemies, their resilience will always be an issue because they\'re MAD, and if they don\'t want to cut into their impressive damage output Mobile is damn-near-required as a feat tax so they don\'t constantly take opportunity attacks running in and out of range of monsters. Out-of-combat, everything a Monk does well a Ranger or Rogue does better, as all three are heavily incentivized to run Dex / Wis and two of those three have some form of Expertise, and it isn\'t Monk. There\'s a reason it\'s recommended Shadow Monks MC into Rogue for the Stealth Expertise and BA Disengage. Rogues and Rangers can keep up with or exceed Monks in damage, don\'t risk themselves as much since they\'re heavily incentivized for ranged combat, largely have more options to take for niche situations, and have better out-of-combat utility.
to:
Monks have the unfortunate issue of having to compete with Rogues and Rangers, and they\\\'re terrible at it. Like Barbarian, their subclasses can fix some of their issues, but any outside of Kensei and Ascendant Dragon are going to struggle with flying enemies, their resilience will always be an issue because they\\\'re [=MAD=], and if they don\\\'t want to cut into their impressive damage output Mobile is damn-near-required as a feat tax so they don\\\'t constantly take opportunity attacks running in and out of range of monsters. Out-of-combat, everything a Monk does well a Ranger or Rogue does better, as all three are heavily incentivized to run Dex / Wis and two of those three have some form of Expertise, and it isn\\\'t Monk. There\\\'s a reason it\\\'s recommended Shadow Monks [=MC=] into Rogue for the Stealth Expertise and [=BA=] Disengage. Rogues and Rangers can keep up with or exceed Monks in damage, don\\\'t risk themselves as much since they\\\'re heavily incentivized for ranged combat, largely have more options to take for niche situations, and have better out-of-combat utility.
Changed line(s) 57 from:
n
And yes, I know, \'well then have the DM let the Barbarian roll strength for intimidation instead of charisma.\' That\'s a legitimate rule that can apply. It \'\'still\'\' doesn\'t account for the fact that, with Expertise, the Bard \'\'will\'\' do the job better, have several out-of-combat spell options to contribute to solve problems, and is still the best class in the game because of their bonkers subclasses and spell lists.
to:
And yes, I know, \\\'well then have the [=DM=] let the Barbarian roll strength for intimidation instead of charisma.\\\' That\\\'s a legitimate rule that can apply. It \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' doesn\\\'t account for the fact that, with Expertise, the Bard \\\'\\\'will\\\'\\\' do the job better, have several out-of-combat spell options to contribute to solve problems, and is still the best class in the game because of their bonkers subclasses and spell lists.
Changed line(s) 59 from:
n
The issue I have with your arguments are that they\'re all subjective in regards towards the DM heavily accommodating Barbarian and Monk weakness, and we have to assume the \'general\' scenarios where that largely is up in the air, not worst or best case. In Pathfinder, the DM is incentivized to target the Barbarian in the way of the Wizard because Reactive Strike is actually serious damage in PF2e and has a solid chance of stopping enemy movement, and diagonals are accounted for to make it harder for enemies to reach the mage backline. That\'s not even getting into how actions differ between settings to empower martials.
to:
The issue I have with your arguments are that they\\\'re all subjective in regards towards the [=DM=] heavily accommodating Barbarian and Monk weakness, and we have to assume the \\\'general\\\' scenarios where that largely is up in the air, not worst or best case. In Pathfinder, the [=DM=] is incentivized to target the Barbarian in the way of the Wizard because Reactive Strike is actually serious damage in [=PF2e=] and has a solid chance of stopping enemy movement, and diagonals are accounted for to make it harder for enemies to reach the mage backline. That\\\'s not even getting into how actions differ between settings to empower martials.
Changed line(s) 61 from:
n
This isn\'t an issue for Fighters, who have more ASIs they can devote to feats to change up their options, more broadly useful subclasses to shore up weaknesses and give them unique advantages, more attacks per round to hit with in a game where martial supremacy is typically determined by how many attacks you can make, and, if all else fails, a dedicated \'mage\' option to give them out-of-combat utility.
to:
This isn\\\'t an issue for Fighters, who have more [=ASIs=] they can devote to feats to change up their options, more broadly useful subclasses to shore up weaknesses and give them unique advantages, more attacks per round to hit with in a game where martial supremacy is typically determined by how many attacks you can make, and, if all else fails, a dedicated \\\'mage\\\' option to give them out-of-combat utility.
