Treatmonk on Monks in 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Evaar

2020-07-28, 04:26 PM

Hi all,

I wanted to see what folks thought of Treatmonk's latest video deconstructing the issues with Monk as a class but I haven't seen anything addressing it yet, so here we are. I've made it. It's my thread now, and you're in it.

I'll lay out my cards - I like Monks conceptually as a concept to explore, I like the flavor of the class, but I found Treatmonk's points about their lacking mechanics convincing and in alignment with my own (very brief) experience playing a Monk. I would like to play Monks, but I don't because the actual experience is pretty boring and frustrating.

Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqq7iZUmMk

I'm not going to go over everything in detail but in short, most arguments about Monks seem to disagree about what a Monk is supposed to do. So he looks at all the possibilities and takes them down individually. They don't have especially good defenses so they aren't great tanks, their damage is worse than almost any other class, Stunning Strike alone does not allow them to compete for battlefield control when compared to classes that actually do specialize in that, and while their mobility is good it alone isn't valuable in a vacuum if they can't bring something else to the table.

Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter. So the Monk fails to fill a role in the party.

(I will add here that there are of course non-combat roles to be filled, such as Scout, where a Monk can perform admirably. But this is primarily focused on combat. Separate from that, I will say that while the Monk can make an effective Scout, you can play a Chain Pact Warlock with an invisible familiar with unlimited telepathy and flight who can also scout better and with less personal risk while outperforming the Monk at damage and control with minimal effort.)

We rarely see threads showing up here about how Monks need to be fixed, though. More often we see stuff about Rangers, and I think Rangers do better than Monks.

So a few questions for the playground:
1) Do you agree with the analysis? (Please keep personal anecdotes about how you saw a Monk and he did fine to a minimum. Everyone has seen something do fine.)
2) What should the Monk be good for?
3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
4) If you think this is all nonsense and Monks are good, actually, can you post a build and make the case?

My own view is that Ki-focused design is too stingy. I think they could get away with making Flurry and Step of the Wind free, with the only expense being the opportunity cost of using a bonus action (and adjust design accordingly, obviously no point in Martial Arts granting a single bonus action attack if you do that). Patient Defense should probably retain its cost, unfortunately, as we don't want to create a Hexblade situation for Barbarians or Paladins getting free bonus action Dodge.

Also let's try to focus on the class as a whole, rather than narrowing down to subclasses. We all know Kensei and Sun Soul have issues of their own.

Amnestic

2020-07-28, 04:38 PM

3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?

Some ideas:
Boost its martial arts damage die by one step (starts at d6, caps out at 2d12 at 17).
Drop the ki-cost on Step of the Wind/Patient Defense and/or allow the monk to do one of them on top of the Martial Arts bonus attack - so you'd have the option to either flurry for a 4th hit, or SotW, or PD, while still getting your third hit.
Changing Stunning Strike's nature based off of subclass is an idea. Since Stunning Strike is already viewed as a major attractive point of the monk by players that shouldn't be changed - just made more interesting. Maybe one subclass gives it a "it can target Charisma saves instead" while another gives it a "even if they make the save, they still have disadvantage on any attack rolls until the end of their next turn" sorta deal?

Spiritchaser

2020-07-28, 04:54 PM

The only monk I ever saw do well was an avariel fighter 1 kensai x in a predominantly airborne campaign featuring 2km tall trees.

He took a long bow, the archery fighting style, sharpshooter and a whip for stunning strike. That gave him solid damage, decent survivability, at least enough for a ranged skirmisher character and stunning strike is much better against a flying target, where even if you’re over 500 feet up and your target doesn’t hit ground, they are still out of the fight for a long time. If you’re only a couple Hundred feet off of the deck it gets downright nasty.

Plus the extra mobility was pretty key in a 3-space encounter with lots of LOS breaking stuff. (I’m not doing those again until I find a better virtual table top that can handle x y and z)

Anyway, the character worked just fine, but to be honest, it also didn’t really play much like a monk.

I’m not sure I agree with the order of severity of these conclusions, but I do agree with the general sense of them.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 05:03 PM

I'm not going to go over everything in detail but in short, most arguments about Monks seem to disagree about what a Monk is supposed to do. So he looks at all the possibilities and takes them down individually. They don't have especially good defenses so they aren't great tanks, their damage is worse than almost any other class, Stunning Strike alone does not allow them to compete for battlefield control when compared to classes that actually do specialize in that, and while their mobility is good it alone isn't valuable in a vacuum if they can't bring something else to the table.

Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter. So the Monk fails to fill a role in the party.

(I will add here that there are of course non-combat roles to be filled, such as Scout, where a Monk can perform admirably. But this is primarily focused on combat. Separate from that, I will say that while the Monk can make an effective Scout, you can play a Chain Pact Warlock with an invisible familiar with unlimited telepathy and flight who can also scout better and with less personal risk while outperforming the Monk at damage and control with minimal effort.)

We rarely see threads showing up here about how Monks need to be fixed, though. More often we see stuff about Rangers, and I think Rangers do better than Monks.

So a few questions for the playground:
1) Do you agree with the analysis? (Please keep personal anecdotes about how you saw a Monk and he did fine to a minimum. Everyone has seen something do fine.)
2) What should the Monk be good for?
3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
4) If you think this is all nonsense and Monks are good, actually, can you post a build and make the case?

I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

Punisher = Fighter.
Riddick = Monk.

The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-28, 05:07 PM

If a class needs above-average attributes to function, it's badly designed. Monks are extremely MAD, but they should be as single-attribute dependent as a caster, IMO.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 05:08 PM

If a class needs above-average attributes to function, it's badly designed.

Then every class except Moon Druid and Necromancer is badly designed. How many players are willing to play a bard with average stats, an array like 10 10 10 10 10 10?

Also, if you mean "below average on 4d6k3", AL point buy gives you below-average attributes for a PC. Average stats are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, but AL only gives you a 15.

Wizard_Lizard

2020-07-28, 05:13 PM

Disclaimer, haven't played Monk extensively.
I would say another problem would be it's hard to play fun with stats as a monk. Max WIS, Max DEX, none of the other stats are really worth increasing, and taking feats doesn't seem worth it based on the massive reliance on both.
Casters are only incredibly reliable on their casting stat, DEX and CON are secondary, and it would be fine to increase other scores for rp reasons. Monks are more MAD and need BOTH to be high.
That being said, they have some nice abilities, and catching arrows is cool, and unarmored defence is nice.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-28, 05:14 PM

Then every class except Moon Druid and Necromancer is badly designed. How many players are willing to play a bard with average stats, an array like 10 10 10 10 10 10?

Also, if you mean "below average on 4d6k3", AL point buy gives you below-average attributes for a PC. Average stats are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, but AL only gives you a 15.

Essentially every class functions fine with the standard array. Monks are weaker than most.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-28, 05:16 PM

Honestly not sure where he's getting his numbers.

Martial Arts Die at level 17: 1d10 (5.5)
Expected modifier at level 17: +5.
Monk Attacks-Per-Turn (APT) W/O Flurry of Blows: 3
Monk APT W/ Flurry of Blows: 4

You're looking at 31.5 DPT W/O Flurry, and 42 with.

However, on TreantMonk's video, at 25:35, you can see that his level 17 calculations for Flurry of Blows is showing an expected ~27 damage with FOB, and ~20 W/O.

It's almost like he did his calculations with the assumption the Monk only has a Dex mod of +1. Which will, uh, definitely skew the numbers for a class that attacks 3-4 times.

[Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.

All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.

jas61292

2020-07-28, 05:28 PM

The problem with monk, ability score wise, is not that they need more than other classes. They have two stats they care about, not including Con, which is pretty much the case for every other class in the game. The actual issue is that instead of a Primary and a Secondary stat, they have two Primaries. The easy way to "fix" them, imo, is to make a few of their ability DCs based on Dex, not Wis, so that wisdom is firmly secondary, and you don't feel like you absolutely need Wisdom AND Dex at 16 to start. This might also require a change to their AC formula, but that's the only other thing I would change. Their abilities are fine. They just need to feel like they don't need more ability scores than other classes.

Evaar

2020-07-28, 05:32 PM

[Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.
All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.

Is that based on the chart for the Dex-focused Monk or for the Wisdom-focused Monk?

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-28, 05:35 PM

Is that based on the chart for the Dex-focused Monk or for the Wisdom-focused Monk?

23:40 : Monk without FoB
Damage at Levels...

1: 8
3: 8
5: 15
10: 17
17: 20

25:30 : Monk with FoB
Damage at Levels...

3: 11
5: 20
10: 22.5
17: 26

27:11 : Monk prioritizing Wisdom (no FoB)

1: 8
3: 8
5: 12
10: 12
17: 20

diplomancer

2020-07-28, 05:36 PM

CheddarChampion

2020-07-28, 05:39 PM

[Edit] Yup, just double checked using a spreadsheet. Accounted for the quarterstaff attacks, the Unarmed Strikes, etc.

All of his numbers line up for a Monk having a +1 Dex mod.

Maybe the dpr accounts for miss chance?

Otherwise, yeah.

[Edit] Ninja'd

MrStabby

2020-07-28, 05:41 PM

I think the issue with monk is mainly in perception. I have DM'd for a few monks and they can be exceptionally powerful.

Firstly, I think a lot of DMs don't manage to have equal representations for high saves accross all the different categories. Sadly, CON saves seem to often be above the average of all saves. With stunning strike as arguably the defining class feature, a DM that disproportionately favours big beasts and fighter types over wizardy and bardy type NPCs is kind of screwing the monk. It ain't the monk its the DM.

Secondly there is the preneial short rest issue. How many do you get and are you in a party with full rest classes that are forced to conserve resources/frequently actually run out. Monks are pretty good as long as you have niceevenly spaced short rests and long enough adventuring days. Kind of a class isue but also a broader game issue and a DM issue.

Thirdly the player doesn't really see their power - again mainly stunning strike. They never see the fear spell the enemy wizard would have cast if they hadn't been stunned. As a DM I can see the impact they have better than the player

Fourthly their strengths shift. Early on they reliably get 2 attacks per round and do decent damage. In tier 2 they become arguably the best martial controller. In tier 3 they become very defensively powerful with diamond soul. Whatever you want from a class the monk will only give it to you for a short period - whatever made you pick it you will either have to wait for or watch whilst it is surpassed. Whilst it's power is still fine it cant represent a player's desire unless the desire is shifting as well.

Fifthly magic items radically change the game balance. Imagine no one has magic weapons. Suddenly the monk is looking pretty good for taking on things like fiends. Meanwhile the monk gains the least from bonusses - no particular benefit from feats like sharpshooter or GWM that like +to hit effects (so no archery fighting style), benefit less from magic armour or shields. Benefit less from things that help PCs fly orgain mobility... In a game with no magic items a monk really shines.

Sixth, the things that can help other subclasses shine are popular. For example I think a lot more campaigns feature undead than say fey - so classes like the paladin and the cleric get a bit of a boost. Again a DM issue not a class issue really. Obviously this is a bit more subjective.

I do think there are some issues with the monk, not huge by the standard of the game, but still there.

Out of combat stuff is pretty weak. Potentially true of all martials but Monks main stats being wisdom and dex... they tend to be reactive rather than proactive. With Int you can research a solution to a problem, with Cha you can talk to someone to solicit aid, with strenth you can physically remove an obstacle to the party or to climb past something. Dex and wis are just a bit more about avoiding something when your enemies have the initiative - not exclusively but in balance I think its true. The MADness of the class means that it is just a bit harder to take a feat to support out of combat roles.

The class kind of has little variety. Again this is true of a lot of classes - you punch something, then decide if you want to use your special ability is basically it. OK, there are some less used abilities, positioning is more important than for some classes and so on, so it isn't the worst offender but I think the class would be a lot more well recieved if there was more competition for Ki for stunning strike and there were more things to do against big bag of HP enemies.

So yeah, I don't really complain about the class as I think it is better designed/fun (by my criteria) than the barbarian, the ranger, the rogue (kind of, maybe), and the fighter. This isjustabout goodenough tonotbea target for me. It doesn't mean there are not things I would want to fix but its kindof OK.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 05:41 PM

Essentially every class functions fine with the standard array. Monks are weaker than most.

Yes. Don't take standard array unless you're okay with not playing monks. Rolling stats is the primary stat generation method for a reason--there's nothing wrong with having some classes that are more SAD than others.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-28, 05:49 PM

Your calculation (31.5 without flurry of blows, 42 with it) supposes a 100% hit rate. Treantmonk's calculation, iirc, assumes either a 65% or a 70% hit rate.

See, I'm not sure about that. Fighter with a 2d6 weapon and a +5 mod and 100% accuracy at level 20 is looking at 48 damage. With a 75% chance to hit (which is roughly what would be needed to move the Monk's numbers to his graph), you're looking at 36, which is his baseline. And that's the highest damage weapon of Fighter (without getting into feat selection and all that jazz).

However, he also states that he could make virtually any class hit that baseline, except the Monk, and we know that Rogues don't get close to that at level 20 (they'd have 30 damage with 75% accuracy at lvl 20).

So something is definitely not adding up.

Misterwhisper

2020-07-28, 05:50 PM

I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

Punisher = Fighter.
Riddick = Monk.

The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.

No comment on other things but Riddick is not a monk, he is a rogue.

Evaar

2020-07-28, 05:51 PM

Yes. Don't take standard array unless you're okay with not playing monks. Rolling stats is the primary stat generation method for a reason--there's nothing wrong with having some classes that are more SAD than others.

I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-28, 05:53 PM

I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?

I think MaxW is referring, explicitly, to the standard default array. You can get a balanced spread using Point Buy that works for the Monk that isn't the default array.

For example: 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Go Wood Elf and call it a day.

Evaar

2020-07-28, 05:54 PM

However, he also states that he could make virtually any class hit that baseline, except the Monk, and we know that Rogues don't get close to that at level 20 (they'd have 30 damage with 75% accuracy at lvl 20).

Keep in mind that when he says he can make any class hit that baseline, he means by building that class well, not that any class that just does basic attacks with no feats is going to beat that marker.

x3n0n

2020-07-28, 06:12 PM

Fourthly their strengths shift. Early on they reliably get 2 attacks per round and do decent damage. In tier 2 they become arguably the best martial controller. In tier 3 they become very defensively powerful with diamond soul. Whatever you want from a class the monk will only give it to you for a short period - whatever made you pick it you will either have to wait for or watch whilst it is surpassed.

Fifthly magic items radically change the game balance. Imagine no one has magic weapons. Suddenly the monk is looking pretty good for taking on things like fiends. Meanwhile the monk gains the least from bonusses - no particular benefit from feats like sharpshooter or GWM that like +to hit effects (so no archery fighting style), benefit less from magic armour or shields. Benefit less from things that help PCs fly orgain mobility... In a game with no magic items a monk really shines.

On the "Fourthly" point, my only comment is that you're playing through half of tier 3 without Diamond Soul, unlike (say) full casters (6th+ level spells) and Fighters (3rd attack). Seems like your subclass 11th-level bonus is expected to do A LOT here, and not all of them manage that.

On magic items: yes, this. The designers talk quite a bit about needing to have a caster "or a Monk" in the party specifically because they expect resistance and immunity to non-magical damage to be a serious constraint starting in tier 2. If there are enough magic weapons around so that every martial can have at least one acceptable one for their fighting style, then that implicit advantage is nullified.

The problem with monk, ability score wise, is not that they need more than other classes. They have two stats they care about, not including Con, which is pretty much the case for every other class in the game. The actual issue is that instead of a Primary and a Secondary stat, they have two Primaries.

Thank you. I was having a hard time articulating this.

I think this analysis is influenced too heavily by AL and point buy. 15,14,13,12,10,8 is a bad array for monking, but a better-than-average rolled stats array like 17,16,13,10,9,9 is perfectly fine. You could play for example a Dex 18 Wis 16 Con 14 Alert human Shadow Monk who tanks using Darkness + Alert (AC 17 + disadvantage to enemies is somewhat like AC 22, plus they don't get opportunity attacks against you so you can use your mobility to achieve local force superiority), or a Dex 18 Wis 18 Con 13 Wood Elf archer (AC 18 is quite respectable even before you add in Missile Catching).

That said, RE: points #2 and #3, I think monks should be excellent at martial arts, because that fulfills "the fantasy," i.e. the implicit promise that draws people to want to play monks in the first place. A Prodigy (Athletics) monk is already pretty good at grappling due to both having Extra Attack and yet (unlike Fighters) not needing shields or two-handed weapons, but you can make monks even more satisfying by giving them a Monk 1 ability to substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics).

To answer your point #2 directly, fundamentally monks are about being flashy, wuxia-themed skilled warriors who do things that you think ought to be impossible, but not necessarily in a "kill ten orcs in six seconds" kind of way, more like Neo from The Matrix, or "I'll kill you with my teacup" vin Diesel. Monks are about doing more with less instead of doing even more with more (fighters), which is why I think martial arts and Wisdom (Athletics) feels appropriate for them.

Punisher = Fighter.
Riddick = Monk.

The 5E monk is already pretty close to achieving this, I just think adding more martial arts via Wisdom (Athletics) helps the flavor and gives more options that don't rely on ki.

And thank you for this. The Monk I'm playing in my home game (starting 6th level now) feels ok, and I think it's specifically because we rolled stats, so I could start at Dex 18.

"Doing more with less" is exactly what the Monk feels like. At my table, that means I'm never going to spend a dime of the loot we've earned, and hopefully that means we can get the Fighter into plate that much sooner.

Re: Athletics, it sure felt weird to be told at the table that my 2nd level Monk can't climb a wall because his Str(Athletics) roll was crappy. Wis(Athletics) would be a nice nudge toward all of the cool things a martial artist "should" be able to do.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 06:17 PM

I haven't watched the full video but I didn't find the arguments so far very persuasive. There was very much a case where the examples he's using to downplay the monk are a little absurd like in a discussion about tanking bring up the War Wizard ability to add to their saving throws as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.

I think a large part of the problem some have with the monk is the idea that everybody has to have a specialized role and the only thing that matters is how well they fulfill that role. The problem is that it completely ignores how important being versatile is. So yeah you can make a fighter that is a better damage dealer, but if you run into a situation where your damage dealer fighter needs to impose some battlefield control they will fail and the party will suffer as a result. At the drop of a hat the monk can switch from one role to another and be successful at it. That versatility is also important because often times one character can't completely fulfill a role, so for example many times having one tank isn't enough and you really need two characters performing that role, but the combat after that you really need an extra striker. That's where monks show their value, they fulfill the role that is most optimal instead of being the most optimal for a specific role.

I think as a general concept the Monk fulfills a mobile support role. You basically go where ever you are most needed and fulfill whatever role needs to be fulfilled. So if your tanks are doing their job holding the line you act as a striker, but when enemy reinforcements fall on the rear of the party you switch that up and start tanking those reinforcements and protect that squishy back line.

Overall I think they do a fine job in that role, but can certainly appreciate that it's not a role that everyone will enjoy playing nor is it a role that absolutely needs to be fulfilled for a party to function. The one thing I wish they would have done is made it so that monks could use Dexterity instead of Strength for athletics checks (At least for Grapple/Shove attacks). This would open up a lot more battlefield control options beyond stunning strike and still be well within the general martial arts theme.

Merudo

2020-07-28, 06:18 PM

I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?

Monks benefit more from having 3 high stats than the average character, because

1) their AC formula really benefit from high stats, potentially giving them AC 20 at level 1 (Bladesinger & Barbarian are similar)

2) their damage and DC depend on two different stats (Paladin is in a similar boat).

3) they get up to 3 attacks at level 2 and 4 attacks at level 5, so each flat stat mod added to damage is magnified (PAM / XBE users are like that too)

AdAstra

2020-07-28, 06:24 PM

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 06:32 PM

I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that a Monk can function fine if it happens to get an outsized mathematical bonus in comparison to the average character. Can you clarify?

I'm saying different classes have different levels of MADness. Some, like Moon Druids and Necromancers, can function fine with all 10s or worse. Some, like Fighters, would like one really high stat but don't benefit much from secondary and tertiary stats. Multiclass combinations and monks benefit more than most from multiple high stats, which makes them rare, and suffer more than most from having low stats, which makes the artificially-low stats of AL/point buy make them look worse than they really are. (Ref: https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/ In some ways making standard array deliberately worse than average is clever game design, because it means players who roll stats are likely to feel like they did "better than average" even when they only did average, but in the context of analyzing a class it's more helpful to look at the true average.)

Overpowered options are a bigger problem than underpowered options, because bad options get ignored and good options alter expectations. Monks with bad stats are arguably underpowered, while monks with good stats are not overpowered, so the only question here is "are the monk's stat demands so unreasonable as to make them a waste of page space?"

I'd guesstimate that at least 30% of the stat arrays I've ever rolled could make pretty good monks if they wanted to, which is common enough for me not to consider it a design problem. If you want to play a monk you'll definitely get to play a monk, just not every time. If it were 1% I'd consider the class a waste of page space, but it's not.

Also I noticed that you solicited builds but didn't respond to my build. So, I want to re-draw your attention to Alert Shadow Monks as pretty good tanks from level 3 onwards (as well as being amazing good scouts). Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist Elemonks are also fun.

I think MaxW is referring, explicitly, to the standard default array. You can get a balanced spread using Point Buy that works for the Monk that isn't the default array.

For example: 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8. Go Wood Elf and call it a day.

The standard array is deliberately underpowered compared to the average 4d6k3 array. See https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/ if you're not familiar with the math.

=================================================

I haven't watched the full video but I didn't find the arguments so far very persuasive. There was very much a case where the examples he's using to downplay the monk are a little absurd like in a discussion about tanking bring up the War Wizard ability to add to their saving throws as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.

Hobgoblin war wizard with Medium Armor Master (a.k.a. Iron Wizard) is a perfectly fine tank with fantastic saves, as is a Fighter/War Wizard. That comparison doesn't seem inappropriate.

Monk saves are not as good as you think they are until Diamond Soul comes online. In fact, they are arguably the worst in the game. Str + Dex save proficiency and Dex + Wis means the only save you're really good before 14th level at is Dex. In theory monks have Stillness of Mind to help out, but in practice it's written in such a way that monks are more likely than not to fail saves against Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Dominate Person, etc., and then Stillness of Mind never comes into play. (IMO it should be a reaction instead of an action.)

Aett_Thorn

2020-07-28, 06:35 PM

I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.

Even just using the basic Monk toolset, excluding subclasses, the Monk can fluidly switch and combine its damage, control, mobility, and tanking, which can vary from turn to turn, so long as they have ki. The Monk can always make its basic attacks, which opens up the use of Stunning Strike, so Control is always a possibility. The Monk always has increased speed even if they don't use Step of the Wind, so mobility is also always there in some form. Then there's the bonus action, which the Monk can use to either BA attack for minimal resource expenditure and damage, FoB for more damage and SS attempts, or Patient Defense for more durability at the cost of some damage.

So the Monk isn't just capable of damage, tanking, and control separately, it's able to do multiple at the same time

This. So much this. Monks aren't the best at any one thing, but they are incredibly versatile from round to round at being able to do lots of different things. They're never going to do quite as much damage as a main damage dealer like a Paladin, but they can deal respectable damage. They can't tank just as well as a Barbarian, but they can tank for a few rounds when needed. They offer flexibility, which is its own strength that is hard to quantify.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-28, 06:43 PM

Monks do different things at different levels, which allows him to say they do nothing by knocking each thing at different points.

Monks do, as his chart shows, good damage at low levels. His chart undersells it slightly because it's abstract DPR. In reality, the fact that the DPR comes from multiple attacks with an ability mod gives the Monk more consistency at low levels, when things are their swingiest and consistency is most important. A level one Monk has an 84% chance of killing a giant centipede in one round at precisely the time when a giant centipede is actually a threat. The claims about fighters with TWF miss the point that TWF is a trap for fighters that they will regret later (and thus not pick now), while martial arts is something that happens automatically. The level 2 Monk ability to, in two consecutive rounds ~every other encounter, make three attacks with ability modifier damage, is a big deal at level 2. And that's (mostly) their peak value as a damage dealer.

At level 5, it's been documented elsewhere that his numbers are misleading on con saves. But the bigger issue is that he's missing the point the ability's in context value. The level five Monk in a party facing down a seriously threatening enemy provides immense value by being able to proc multiple saves in one turn. You attack twice, attempt stun on any hits, then if BBEG isn't stunned, you flurry and attempt to stun up to twice more. The math is complicated, but the rate per attempt isn't what really matters - it's the rate per turn. Against an CR 10 Aboleth, the Monk has about a 60 percent chance of stunning it. And then once it's stunned, unlike other status effects like hold person where you can get ****ed by initiative order, the effect is guaranteed to last the full round. Negating not just their actions, but their reaction, legendary, and lair actions for a full round. Nobody else comes close to doing that at that consistency at that level. What spell is the warlock casting?

Keeping in mind the idea that you are getting a short rest approximately every other combat, and have a sense of which ones are nova worthy, this is a genuinely valuable contribution for a long time. Ki is for this, and rare opportunities to do something better (e.g. push someone off a cliff as a OH).

Eventually, Legendary Resistance, casters spell advantage, etc catches up with you and stunning strike is no longer as great. At higher levels, monks are... weirdos who vary a lot by subclass. You can certainly make the case that by level 17 the wizard is more powerful than anyone else. But OH has a value proposition as "guy who triggers the most literal save or die effects per short rest". Long Death has a value prop as the guy who can cheat death 17 times per short rest. Etc. It's harder to point to a specific "role" by this point but in my experience you're still a valuable member of the team.

Its not like the GWF fighter, where from 1-20 they are Frontline damage dealers. A monk's job changes drastically as they level. But it's not like they don't have a job.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 06:47 PM

Evaar

2020-07-28, 06:49 PM

I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.

I started to address that with this part:

Or to put it even more briefly, they aren't especially good at tanking, damage, or control, and the fact that they can perform at mediocre levels in all three categories isn't sufficient to mechanically justify picking Monk over, say, a Fighter.

I originally wrote out more but thought I was belaboring the point. I anticipated the "versatility" response, but let's really think through that. Couldn't you just pick a Battlemaster Fighter and expect to out-damage, out-tank, and effectively compete with a Monk's control?

Evaar

2020-07-28, 06:52 PM

Also I noticed that you solicited builds but didn't respond to my build. So, I want to re-draw your attention to Alert Shadow Monks as pretty good tanks from level 3 onwards (as well as being amazing good scouts). Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist Elemonks are also fun.

Okay. I mean, no offense, I just don't find builds reliant on high rolled stats persuasive. Maybe it's the standard at every table except the ones I've played at, but generally builds posted on here are budgeted according to point-buy.

Mr Adventurer

2020-07-28, 06:57 PM

Anecdotally, the house rule of a free feat at level 1 I have found very helpful with my Monk I've played from 1-3½ so far. I took Mobility, which makes me insanely mobile for a game that normally likes to have characters with 30-40 foot speed. The ability to select my targets anywhere on the battlefield has been very valuable, but moreso has been the ability to strike and retreat, to manage the incoming number of attacks.

Makorel

2020-07-28, 06:59 PM

This. So much this. Monks aren't the best at any one thing, but they are incredibly versatile from round to round at being able to do lots of different things. They're never going to do quite as much damage as a main damage dealer like a Paladin, but they can deal respectable damage. They can't tank just as well as a Barbarian, but they can tank for a few rounds when needed. They offer flexibility, which is its own strength that is hard to quantify.

I disagree. I think the Monk gives up too much damage per round by trying to dodge or move with its bonus action. Conversely the Monk gives up a ton of survivability by using its bonus action to attack instead of one of the aforementioned options. Similarly, using Stunning Strike eats at your damage potential and even on four hits it doesn't always go through. Before anyone asks yes I have played and seen monks been played and have not been particularly impressed. In my experience these options the Monk has aren't really options because I never feel like I'm doing enough damage unless I Flurry, and sometimes not even then.

Really the Monk just needs more damage. The damage dice should go 1d4-2d4-3d4-4d4. At 11th level a Monk attacking 3 times with 3d4 does about as much as a Fighter with a Greatsword at the same level. You can add more damage by spending a ki point for flurry and I think that's fine because Flurry of Blows is not at will damage. I think a lot of people overestimate how much you'll be able to flurry, especially if you're using your Ki on other various Monk features. I would go so far as to say they should also get a bonus attack with Step of the Wind and Patient Defense like Flurry gets a bonus attack.

Other thoughts:

Having to rely on a tertiary stat for your gameplan also really sucks unless you roll well, and not everyone gets to roll well. I look at the Paladin and their tertiary stat provides a nice buff but not having it doesn't hinder their gameplan like it does the Monk. Stunning Strike shouldn't be a necessity it should be an option.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 07:00 PM

Your calculation (31.5 without flurry of blows, 42 with it) supposes a 100% hit rate. Treantmonk's calculation, iirc, assumes either a 65% or a 70% hit rate.

He claims to have used a 60% hit rate, but I really don't see how he's calculated his baseline damage.

He's got something like a +2 to damage from level 1 to level 2 which means it has to be a Paladin or Ranger as his baseline since they get the fighting style boost at level 2. But it can't be either Paladin or Ranger as there's a significant damage boost at level 17 when they get no new abilities only extra spell slots.

So there's definitely something fishy with his baseline damage.

AdAstra

2020-07-28, 07:03 PM

I started to address that with this part:

I originally wrote out more but thought I was belaboring the point. I anticipated the "versatility" response, but let's really think through that. Couldn't you just pick a Battlemaster Fighter and expect to out-damage, out-tank, and effectively compete with a Monk's control?

If you have a way for Battlemasters to immediately zoom to priority targets across the battlefield and Stun them, sure? Also, the Battlemaster is an average tank at best. So the BM has Damage and marginally better Survivability (and at higher levels Survivability kinda flips to the Monk), and the Monk has Mobility and Control, as well as Damage at low levels due to easy bonus action attacks (unless we compare to a Variant Human PAM, which is an outlier in a bunch of different ways).

Evaar

2020-07-28, 07:04 PM

He claims to have used a 60% hit rate, but I really don't see how he's calculated his baseline damage.

He's got something like a +2 to damage from level 1 to level 2 which means it has to be a Paladin or Ranger as his baseline since they get the fighting style boost at level 2. But it can't be either Paladin or Ranger as there's a significant damage boost at level 17 when they get no new abilities only extra spell slots.

So there's definitely something fishy with his baseline damage.

His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 07:14 PM

I disagree. I think the Monk gives up too much damage per round by trying to dodge or move with its bonus action.

That's why Alert + Darkness works so well for Shadow Monks. Darkness lasts for 10 minutes, not just 1 like most buffs, and you get to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and prevent opportunity attacks, since opportunity attacks require seeing the target. (Technically by RAW you also gain advantage on your ranged attacks, but DMs will find ways to prevent that even if it requires changing the rules on Darkness.)

And yet you can still spend your bonus action on Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows or Shadow Jump.

(The real power of Shadow Monks though is in Pass Without Trace.)

Evaar

2020-07-28, 07:17 PM

If you have a way for Battlemasters to immediately zoom to priority targets across the battlefield and Stun them, sure? Also, the Battlemaster is an average tank at best. So the BM has Damage and marginally better Survivability (and at higher levels Survivability kinda flips to the Monk), and the Monk has Mobility and Control, as well as Damage at low levels due to easy bonus action attacks (unless we compare to a Variant Human PAM, which is an outlier in a bunch of different ways).

I do not agree that a Monk is ever a better tank than a Battlemaster who's actually using the abilities the class grants. Fighters get extra feats, so can afford at least one Resilient pick. Fighters get bonus action Second Wind. Fighters get two uses of Indomitable per day by the time the Monk has Diamond Soul. And that's assuming no magic armor, no magic shields.

Battlemaster Fighters can apply most of their maneuvers on ranged attacks, so in the event the Fighter has a need to get across the battlefield and finds she cannot, she can still apply control effects. A Monk will have an easier time if the situation calls for him to zip across the battlefield, but not if he is immobilized, and his control effect must be applied in melee. If there's an enemy that needs to be controlled and is unlikely to make a Constitution save and the battlefield is such that the party needs to zip across but they haven't been immobilized, then the Monk is going to be better at Control than the Fighter. That's a lot of ifs.

Stun is certainly a superior condition compared to anything the Fighter will apply, which is why I said the Fighter competes on that level. The Monk is reliant on Ki to use it, which competes with everything else the Monk wants to do, whereas the Fighter has 4-6 superiority dice as a dedicated resource only for these effects, so the Fighter can arguably apply effects more liberally, often without a saving throw for the enemy, at range, with a wider array of options.

Makorel

2020-07-28, 07:25 PM

And yet you can still spend your bonus action on Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows

You need to make an attack on your turn to make the bonus action attacks, so not on the turn you cast Darkness.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 07:26 PM

Hobgoblin war wizard with Medium Armor Master (a.k.a. Iron Wizard) is a perfectly fine tank with fantastic saves, as is a Fighter/War Wizard. That comparison doesn't seem inappropriate.

Monk saves are not as good as you think they are until Diamond Soul comes online. In fact, they are arguably the worst in the game. Str + Dex save proficiency and Dex + Wis means the only save you're really good before 14th level at is Dex. In theory monks have Stillness of Mind to help out, but in practice it's written in such a way that monks are more likely than not to fail saves against Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Dominate Person, etc., and then Stillness of Mind never comes into play. (IMO it should be a reaction instead of an action.)

I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die. Great saves, and pretty good AC so they won't be terrible by any means but I would be very concerned if they were the primary tank. Though I'd probably also be concerned if a Monk was the primary tank so maybe you have a point there. But anyways this kind of highlights my problem with his analysis, he'll point out a build that does something better then a monk for every facet and therefore conclude monks suck. But it's a different build every time. So AC he's comparing against a Sword and Board Fighter with Defence fighting style, but for damage he's comparing with 2-weapon fighting (And then later some baseline that seems impossible), then for saves it's Paladin/War Wizard, etc... It's a terrible way of analyzing something.

For saves, the main thing about Monk and saves is that their primary stats lineup with the most important saves so they will always have decent saves against the big 3. Other classes will have one good save against one of the big 3, and be ok against Con, and weak against the last save. So even without Diamond Soul the Monk is strong saving throw wise because their ASI naturally lineup with the saves. But again like everything else the Monk isn't the undisputed champ when it comes to saves, they are just good. Which is basically the Monk's motto, good at everything but not #1 at any one thing.

HPisBS

2020-07-28, 07:28 PM

I think the big flaw with the analysis, primarily regarding the assertion that "being able to do 3 things okay is not useful", is that the Monk isn't just capable of doing those three things separately, they can combine them.

...

So the Monk isn't just capable of damage, tanking, and control separately, it's able to do multiple at the same time

Very true.

While I haven't yet watched the whole vid, I'd say any Monk analysis which discounts their subclasses does the class a great disservice since they can totally transform how the class plays.

Open Hand's nearly free push / prone / reaction loss adds a ton of control and/or skirmishing capability. Maybe even some dpr since their being prone grants advantage.

Shadow adds a ton of control, too, throwing around Darkness zones and Silencing enemy casters (and guards). It even makes the whole party much better at stealth via PWoT, nevermind the Shadow's own superb stealth.

And so on.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 07:31 PM

Battlemaster Fighters can apply most of their maneuvers on ranged attacks, so in the event the Fighter has a need to get across the battlefield and finds she cannot, she can still apply control effects. A Monk will have an easier time if the situation calls for him to zip across the battlefield, but not if he is immobilized, and his control effect must be applied in melee. If there's an enemy that needs to be controlled and is unlikely to make a Constitution save and the battlefield is such that the party needs to zip across but they haven't been immobilized, then the Monk is going to be better at Control than the Fighter. That's a lot of ifs.

And that last "if" is unnecessary. If you're fighting a beholder, a mind flayer, or a half-dozen neogi, you'd rather have a monk on your team than a Battlemaster, even if you're locked in a cage with the monster with no battlefield zipping required. Battlemasters have very limited ability to prevent enemies from using spells and powers.

You need to make an attack on your turn to make the bonus action attacks, so not on the turn you cast Darkness.

Yes, hence the importance of the 10 minute duration I mentioned: you would rather precast to avoid casting it in the middle of combat. Precasting a 1 minute spell is very tough to time correctly unless you're about to kick down a door with known bad guys in the other side. 10 minutes is less difficult.

I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die. Great saves, and pretty good AC so they won't be terrible by any means but I would be very concerned if they were the primary tank. Though I'd probably also be concerned if a Monk was the primary tank so maybe you have a point there. But anyways this kind of highlights my problem with his analysis, he'll point out a build that does something better then a monk for every facet and therefore conclude monks suck. But it's a different build every time. So AC he's comparing against a Sword and Board Fighter with Defence fighting style, but for damage he's comparing with 2-weapon fighting (And then later some baseline that seems impossible), then for saves it's Paladin/War Wizard, etc... It's a terrible way of analyzing something.

For saves, the main thing about Monk and saves is that their primary stats lineup with the most important saves so they will always have decent saves against the big 3. Other classes will have one good save against one of the big 3, and be ok against Con, and weak against the last save. So even without Diamond Soul the Monk is strong saving throw wise because their ASI naturally lineup with the saves. But again like everything else the Monk isn't the undisputed champ when it comes to saves, they are just good. Which is basically the Monk's motto, good at everything but not #1 at any one thing.

Good points. It is indeed a terribly haphazard analysis method. Treantmonk's channel isn't about careful analysis, it's just about explaining his opinions, some of which are persuasive and others which are not. Same as all the rest of us on this thread.

I generally view Dex as the weakest of the "big three," but YMMV. My main point is just that we tend to mentally associate monks with terrific saves, but until Diamond Soul comes online all they've got is Str and Dex proficiency and Evasion (which boosts Dex). Your average T2 wizard is better at fighting off a Wis attack than your average T2 monk is, and e.g. a hobgoblin War Wizard blows them out of the water, and their Con saves are downright anemic. Then suddenly at level 14 monks are suddenly the best. (Shrug.) Just sayin'.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 07:39 PM

His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.

Ok that's pretty strange to use as the baseline for a martial but ok.

Even then his level 11 damage is somewhere around 27, but the Warlock is doing 1d10+1d6+5 3 times at 60% hit rate for 25.2 so there's still something wrong with the graph.

Also how can he spend so much time harping about how the monk has to spend ki to be remotely competitive but turn around and use spell slots in the baseline? It's incredibly hypocritical.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 07:42 PM

The Monk, at best, has mediocre damage. To the point where if you had a feat that doubled the number of attacks they make, it only makes them one of the better damage dealers.

This alone kills it. It doesn't matter how versatile you are if it comes at the cost of doing any one of those things to the degree where you have an impact. So we can discount damage completely, since you'd contribute more by being any other class.

So what do they get to compensate for that? They're fast, but don't let the mobility fool you, their speed's roughly half what's listed considering how they want to dart in and out of melee to stay alive.
They've Stunning Strike, except it's a Con save. Which means the creatures it'd most likely succeed against are the ones easier dealt with via deadification. Not to mention, it's gated behind not just Ki expenditure, but effectively two saves (you have to hit, then they have to fail a save).
So the Monk's control as a base class is pretty poor. What about defense? Well, they can't HP tank, we know that. They can't really Ranged attack defend at higher levels, because heavens forbid we get cool stuff like Deflect missiles not being gated behind a reaction. We have... An AC. It works off both our primary stats, so it's unlikely to be neglected, but... It's 16AC from 1-3, 17AC from 4-7, 18AC from 8-11, 19AC from 12-15, and doesn't hit 20AC until level 16. That's almost as painful as their martial arts die progression. So they can't HP tank, they have subpar AC compared to other classes, and while they can survive, they do so by not being targeted. Tanking fail.

So what are we left with? We've a class that can do three or four things poorly, some of which simultaneously but more shockingly some of which competes against itself.

We've a class that does little damage, has few ways of boosting said damage, has poor control, has few ways of boosting said control, has poor defenses, and can't even fully utilise their large mobility due to said poor defenses.

I mean, I like Monks, so much so I wrote one of the first guides on them, but they're not good.

Yakmala

2020-07-28, 07:47 PM

While some Monk sub-classes need some love, I feel like the Monk class overall is in a good place. There are no dead levels with Monks. There's always something new or cool or improved to look forward to from Level 1 to Level 20.

Here's what I see as the main issues with Monks, most of which are issues with the players more than the class:

1: They are not tanks, they are skirmishers. Anyone that tries to play them like a tank is likely going to be disappointed.

2: They are MAD. This is a big knock against Monks, and they are not wrong. The thing is though, Monks are one the the least Feat dependent classes in the game. You need Mobile, maybe, and that's it. Get your Dexterity and Wisdom to 20 with 4 of your 5 ASI's and have fun with the remaining one.

3: Players undervalue Wisdom. Yes, Dexterity is super important for a Monk, but don't ignore Wisdom! At higher levels you are going to run into creatures with high Constitution saves so you want your Wisdom as high as possible to land those stunning strikes.

4: Equipment: Players in threads like these tend to make their damage calculations on the assumption of 2-4 unarmed strikes unsupported by any magic items. They forget that at least two of those strikes can be weapons, and those weapons can be up to +3 and have other properties as well. Also, high level Monks that get their hands on Belts of Giant Strength turn into monsters. There's nothing preventing a Monk from using Strength for their attacks if they find an item that outperforms the damage from their Dexterity.

5: Defense: Sure, Monks don't get armor and only have D8's for HP. But max their Dexterity and Wisdom and toss on some easy to acquire protection magic items like cloak/ring of protection or Bracers of Defense, then use your speed and mobility to hit and run, including running up walls. Add in patient defense, missile deflection and evasion and you are not easy to take down. If you're a Kensei, you're even tougher to hit.

6: Stunning Strike: Another ability that is undervalued by many. Sure, it's not the mass crowd control of a caster, but land a stunning strike on a tough enemy or boss, and they are stunned until the end of your next turn. That's a long time in 5th edition combat! If you saved your Ki, or managed a short rest before the boss fight, you can attempt your stun four times a round! Assuming you remembered to boost your wisdom, one of those is eventually going to land and the boss is going to be hating life. Legendary saves? No class is better suited to making bosses burn up all their legendary saves then a Monk.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 07:48 PM

Ok that's pretty strange to use as the baseline for a martial but ok. Umm... No? It's something any class can do with a 2 level dip. It's one of the easiest achieved baselines, which is what makes it such a good baseline. Damage is damage, be it martial or magical.

Also how can he spend so much time harping about how the monk has to spend ki to be remotely competitive but turn around and use spell slots in the baseline? It's incredibly hypocritical.
Yes, because we all know that 1st level spell slots are so hard to come by, especially when a two level dip gets you all the spell slots you need for baseline along with everything else needed. But okay, let's compare like for like. When the Monk gets At-Will Flurry of Blows it still doesn't keep up.

diplomancer

2020-07-28, 07:52 PM

His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.

And that is actually the main problem with his calculation. Agonizing Blast, ok, it's a cost that almost all Warlocks will take. But Hex is less at will then Flurry of Blows, specially because of the Concentration. A Warlock who spends his whole adventuring day concentrating on Hex loses a lot of good opportunities, which means that, in practice, many times they will NOT be concentrating on Hex. Not to mention, you know, losing concentration.

Dienekes

2020-07-28, 07:53 PM

Ok that's pretty strange to use as the baseline for a martial but ok.

Even then his level 11 damage is somewhere around 27, but the Warlock is doing 1d10+1d6+5 3 times at 60% hit rate for 25.2 so there's still something wrong with the graph.

Also how can he spend so much time harping about how the monk has to spend ki to be remotely competitive but turn around and use spell slots in the baseline? It's incredibly hypocritical.

His mentality (that I kind of agree with) is: damage is damage. If your build is supposed to deal damage it does not matter whether you're a caster or a martial. They should all be judged on the damage they deal. Warlock spamming EB getting the obvious benefits for it with absolutely no thought put into it is supposed to be effective. So that's what he calls the baseline. What he considers passable damage. Not really good, just passable. I'd say the difference for him is the Warlock with it's spells per short rest mechanic is getting that 1 spell per fight assuming you're following the average of 6 encounters per day with two short rests. 9 encounters per day after level 11. Which is within the suggested rounds per day per short rest given in the DMG.

While I don't always agree with everything he says, he tends to lay things out with his numbers and builds. For example, someone up thread mentioned how the Rogue by this benchmark does not deal good damage naturally. Which he has agreed with. But he has gotten them above that headline by making very specific builds that do get them above the baselines usually with room to spare.

But of course he's not infallible. So if his math is wrong, call him out on it.

MaxWilson

2020-07-28, 07:57 PM

Umm... No? It's something any class can do with a 2 level dip.

... If they take a dependency on boosting Charisma, and give up on concentrating on anything besides Hex.

Cha 14 Eldritch Blast might be an reasonable aopriximation for minimum viable DPR, but Cha 20 Hex + Eldritch Blast is probably not a reasonable assumption.

LudicSavant

2020-07-28, 07:59 PM

as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.

This isn't as farfetched as you assume. There are a lot of legitimately fantastic Wizard tank builds.

I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die.

I've seen plenty of them in actual play, throughout all tiers of play. And they're good. Like "get behind me, Fighter, you're too squishy" good.

Hit die size is a less important factor than people often assume. Even by level 20, the difference between a d6 and d10 HD is just 40 hit points. You can make up more HP value than that with a single spell.

diplomancer

2020-07-28, 08:02 PM

This isn't as farfetched as you assume. There are a lot of legitimately fantastic Wizard tank builds.

I've seen plenty of them in actual play, throughout all tiers of play. And they're good. Like "get behind me, Fighter, you're too squishy" good.

Hit die size is a less important factor than people often assume. Even by level 20, the difference between a d6 and d10 HD is just 40 hit points. You can make up more HP value than that with a single spell.

My Mark of Warding Abjurer is the tankiest character I've ever had.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 08:03 PM

... If they take a dependency on boosting Charisma, and give up on concentrating on anything besides Hex.

Cha 14 Eldritch Blast might be an reasonable aopriximation for minimum viable DPR, but Cha 20 Hex + Eldritch Blast is probably not a reasonable assumption.

Yes and? This isn't off-the-cuff decisions, this is planned builds. They'll have high Charisma because that's how they plan to do damage.
So no, it is a valid assumption.

Makorel

2020-07-28, 08:04 PM

And that is actually the main problem with his calculation. Agonizing Blast, ok, it's a cost that almost all Warlocks will take. But Hex is less at will then Flurry of Blows, specially because of the Concentration. A Warlock who spends his whole adventuring day concentrating on Hex loses a lot of good opportunities, which means that, in practice, many times they will NOT be concentrating on Hex.

Warlock certainly loses opportunities but that's the point; it's not too good or too bad.

However if you're really hung up on the damage being at will then a Greatsword Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting will do about the same damage. At worst it's a point less damage at every tier than a Warlock with EB/AB/Hex. The only dip is that Fighter gets their fourth attack at level 20.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 08:10 PM

Umm... No? It's something any class can do with a 2 level dip. It's one of the easiest achieved baselines, which is what makes it such a good baseline. Damage is damage, be it martial or magical.

Yes, because we all know that 1st level spell slots are so hard to come by, especially when a two level dip gets you all the spell slots you need for baseline along with everything else needed. But okay, let's compare like for like. When the Monk gets At-Will Flurry of Blows it still doesn't keep up.

So a Barbarian will take a 2 level dip in Warlock and achieve those baselines? What about a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, are they really maxing their Charisma which is needed to 2 level dip and hit that baseline?

How is the fact that you have disadvantage in melee factored in? And you have 2 slots per short rest until level 11 so yeah spending one on a spell is a much bigger deal then spending 1 Ki on Flurry of blows. Not too mention we are assuming you never lose concentration which doesn't seem likely.

It's nonsenscial to use a baseline that assumes Hex is up and running. You can't assume you have the slots because who knows what has gone on during the adventuring day you get so few slots as a warlock anyways, and it requires concentration which can drop at any time. You also shouldn't really be comparing melee to ranged since there are a lot of differences.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 08:17 PM

So a Barbarian will take a 2 level dip in Warlock and achieve those baselines? What about a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, are they really maxing their Charisma which is needed to 2 level dip and hit that baseline? Yes, if that's how they're choosing to meet the baseline.

How is the fact that you have disadvantage in melee factored in?By not being in melee when casting? (Or having Crossbow Expert.)

And you have 2 slots per short rest until level 11 so yeah spending one on a spell is a much bigger deal then spending 1 Ki on Flurry of blows.Except that one spell slot has an effect for the entirety of the battle, vs the Ki's single point of impact.

Not too mention we are assuming you never lose concentration which doesn't seem likely.You're a Ranged attacker, why is that unlikely?

You also shouldn't really be comparing melee to ranged since there are a lot of differences.Damage is damage. There is no difference except that Ranged has an easier time getting in range.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 08:18 PM

His mentality (that I kind of agree with) is: damage is damage. If your build is supposed to deal damage it does not matter whether you're a caster or a martial. They should all be judged on the damage they deal. Warlock spamming EB getting the obvious benefits for it with absolutely no thought put into it is supposed to be effective. So that's what he calls the baseline. What he considers passable damage. Not really good, just passable. I'd say the difference for him is the Warlock with it's spells per short rest mechanic is getting that 1 spell per fight assuming you're following the average of 6 encounters per day with two short rests. 9 encounters per day after level 11. Which is within the suggested rounds per day per short rest given in the DMG.

While I don't always agree with everything he says, he tends to lay things out with his numbers and builds. For example, someone up thread mentioned how the Rogue by this benchmark does not deal good damage naturally. Which he has agreed with. But he has gotten them above that headline by making very specific builds that do get them above the baselines usually with room to spare.

But of course he's not infallible. So if his math is wrong, call him out on it.

It's hypocritical to constantly harp on the monk having to use Ki but then using 50% of your spell slots to get a baseline damage. The level 11 monk with the same 6 encounters and 2 short rests can spend 5.5 Ki per encounter, and since combats are supposed to last 2-3 rounds on average the whole spending a Ki to flurry every round isn't actually a big deal.

Tellara

2020-07-28, 08:23 PM

I had a rule as a monk. If you expect to spend 3 ki points to stun a squishy target, you'll only be disappointed 9.1125% of the time.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 08:27 PM

By not being in melee when casting? (Or having Crossbow Expert.)
So you basically have to be variant Human because the baseline has damage increases at 4 and 8 through ASIs. And as pointed out in his own analysis you can't rely on mobility to keep you out of melee.

Except that one spell slot has an effect for the entirety of the battle, vs the Ki's single point of impact.

Or you get hit and have to recast which you may not even have the slots for since you only get 2.

You're a Ranged attacker, why is that unlikely?

Enemies with ranged attacks? AOE damage? Just running up and hitting the squishy backline? Honestly if you never get threatened as a ranged attacker then your DM is going very easy on you.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 08:32 PM

It's hypocritical to constantly harp on the monk having to use Ki but then using 50% of your spell slots to get a baseline damage. The level 11 monk with the same 6 encounters and 2 short rests can spend 5.5 Ki per encounter, and since combats are supposed to last 2-3 rounds on average the whole spending a Ki to flurry every round isn't actually a big deal.

Level 2: The Warlock spends half their short rest resource to add 1d6 damage to each turn.
The Monk spends all their short rest resource to add 1d4+3, twice.
Level 5: The Warlock spends one spell slot for 8 hours of Hex, then rests, for an effectively free 1d6 every attack (of which there's now 2) for 7 hours.
The Monk spends resources to add the same one instance of damage per Ki, or to attempt to stun.
Level 11: The Warlock spends a spell slot (of which they've now 3) and long or short rests (24 hour duration) for effectively free 1d6 per attack (of which there's now 3).
The Monk has no new options.

So let's take your assumption of 3 rounds (never actually happens, but it's implied to be the standard combat was designed around). This Monk will focus on damage because I am too tired for the complex Maths of Stunning Strike.
Level 2: Warlock adds 3d6 (10.5} damage with 50% of their short rest resources.
Monk adds 1d4+3 (5.5) damage with 50% of their short rest resources.
Level 5: Warlock adds 6d6 (21) damage for effectively no resource cost.
Monk adds 5d6+20 (37.5) damage if they use all their resources in one fight. Half that if split across a short test's worth of encounters. (Which we'll assume because 3 round combat.)
Level 11: Warlock adds 9d6 (31.5).
Monk adds 11d8+55/2 (52.25) across two fights using all their resources.

And that's just EB+Hex.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 08:35 PM

Or you get hit and have to recast which you may not even have the slots for since you only get 2.

If you have as little as a +0 modifier, you have to take 22 damage in one go to have a 50% chance of failing. That's nowhere near as common as you're trying to make out.

HPisBS

2020-07-28, 08:42 PM

Level 5: The Warlock spends one spell slot for 8 hours of Hex, then rests, for an effectively free 1d6 every attack (of which there's now 2) for 7 hours.
...
Level 11: The Warlock spends a spell slot (of which they've now 3) and long or short rests (24 hour duration) for effectively free 1d6 per attack (of which there's now 3).
...

That assumes the DM lets you maintain concentration while resting -- which is no safe assumption.

Edit:

If you have as little as a +0 modifier, you have to take 22 damage in one go to have a 50% chance of failing. That's nowhere near as common as you're trying to make out.

And just 1 damage to have a 45% chance of failing. That's nowhere near as rare as you seem to want to make out. lol

JNAProductions

2020-07-28, 08:42 PM

If you have as little as a +0 modifier, you have to take 22 damage in one go to have a 50% chance of failing. That's nowhere near as common as you're trying to make out.

If you get hit three times for two damage each, assuming a +2 mod, you have a 3/4 chance of losing Concentration.

Jerrykhor

2020-07-28, 08:45 PM

That assumes the DM lets you maintain concentration while resting -- which is no safe assumption.

Maintaining concentration while short rest is RAW as long as you don't sleep, for long rest its not, unless you don't need to sleep.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 08:47 PM

Specifically, there is no RAW on long rests breaking concentration, but being unconscious does. Thankfully there's a lot of races that have still-conscious-sleep-alternatives.

CharonsHelper

2020-07-28, 08:53 PM

Keep in mind that when he says he can make any class hit that baseline, he means by building that class well, not that any class that just does basic attacks with no feats is going to beat that marker.

I remember that being my first thought reading the monk. That it would be pretty solid in a low optimized group, but there isn't really any way to go up.

So, a reasonably high floor, but low ceiling for the monk. They can pull their weight, but not top tier.

HPisBS

2020-07-28, 08:59 PM

Maintaining concentration while short rest is RAW as long as you don't sleep, for long rest its not, unless you don't need to sleep.

Specifically, there is no RAW on long rests breaking concentration, but being unconscious does. Thankfully there's a lot of races that have still-conscious-sleep-alternatives.

A short rest is a period "during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

That's vague enough language to be completely up to DM interpretation whether maintaining concentration is "more strenuous than reading," etc. Thus, they'd be completely within their RAW-based-rights to rule that you can't benefit from a rest while concentrating on a spell.

Note I'm not saying anything about RAI, just that, without errata, the RAW is unclear.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-07-28, 09:06 PM

A short rest is a period "during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

That's vague enough language to be completely up to DM interpretation whether maintaining concentration is "more strenuous than reading," etc. Thus, they'd be completely within their RAW-based-rights to rule that you can't benefit from a rest while concentrating on a spell.

Note I'm not saying anything about RAI, just that, without errata, the RAW is unclear.

This rabbit hole has been delved into extensively the last time we had a long debate on Coffee Locking, probably a few times since then as well. When arguing RAW you need explicit words, not inferences. RAW is very clear because there's no indication that concentrating is strenuous (in regards to resting) it's whether that's RAI that is ambiguous. The absence of a rule doesn't make RAW ambiguous, it means that by RAW there is no relation.

Then we go to rule 0, then we accuse DM's of tyranny, then the argument cycles back with some dictionary definitions and a fine tooth combing of obscure possibly out of context quotes, etc, etc.

On topic: My gut instinct (and anecdotal experience of having a high level monk in my party) tells me that the control that a Monk offers remains fantastic at all levels of the game, while their damage can fall off harshly without some powerful items to help them keep up. This isn't really news to me.

Our Monk doesn't make for all that impressive of a tank but she is durable when she needs to be, and the lack of effectiveness in this area is likely more because of player preference than the class being lacking in this aspect. I consider Monks to be a difficult class to learn but once you do have the intricacies figured out there isn't actually a lot you can expand on.

Jerrykhor

2020-07-28, 09:13 PM

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 09:17 PM

Level 2: The Warlock spends half their short rest resource to add 1d6 damage to each turn.
The Monk spends all their short rest resource to add 1d4+3, twice.
Level 5: The Warlock spends one spell slot for 8 hours of Hex, then rests, for an effectively free 1d6 every attack (of which there's now 2) for 7 hours.
The Monk spends resources to add the same one instance of damage per Ki, or to attempt to stun.
Level 11: The Warlock spends a spell slot (of which they've now 3) and long or short rests (24 hour duration) for effectively free 1d6 per attack (of which there's now 3).
The Monk has no new options.

So let's take your assumption of 3 rounds (never actually happens, but it's implied to be the standard combat was designed around). This Monk will focus on damage because I am too tired for the complex Maths of Stunning Strike.
Level 2: Warlock adds 3d6 (10.5} damage with 50% of their short rest resources.
Monk adds 1d4+3 (5.5) damage with 50% of their short rest resources.
Level 5: Warlock adds 6d6 (21) damage for effectively no resource cost.
Monk adds 5d6+20 (37.5) damage if they use all their resources in one fight. Half that if split across a short test's worth of encounters. (Which we'll assume because 3 round combat.)
Level 11: Warlock adds 9d6 (31.5).
Monk adds 11d8+55/2 (52.25) across two fights using all their resources.

And that's just EB+Hex.

Everything is based on maintaining concentration on Hex and only ever targeting the Hexed creature the which just doesn't seem likely and breaks the intent of establishing a baseline. The whole point of a baseline is that you can always just do that, the Warlock can't always deal his Hex damage on every attack which is why it's a terrible baseline to use.

Nagog

2020-07-28, 09:20 PM

While I think Monks could use some tweaking (not as much as Sorcerer or Druid, but they could use it), Treantmonk kinda missed the forest for the trees. He pointed out how Monks are mediocre at damage, control, defense, and mobility, but failed to see how they're capable of all of them all the time. It's be like criticizing the Bard for not being the best at any one thing (Rogues get expertise and reliable talent, Wizards have better control spells, Clerics are better supports, whatever), but they're still an amazing class because they're capable of pretty much anything. On top of all that, Treantmonk also heavily overlooked the fact that Ki points are restored on a short rest. He passively says that Sorcerers are better, but Sorcerers are far worse in that department, both with how valuable the resource is as well as applications for that resource. Monks get a wide variety of applications all across the spectrum of investment, and with a Short Rest replenishment, their resource management is only really an issue if your DM is the kind of person who utilizes the "Single Encounter Adventuring Day" type thing (I fall victim to that as well). The only place I can really see Monks falling behind is in the magical weapon department. While other martials are picking up stuff like +2 axes, magic armor, and Vorpal Daggers, Monks have precious little to find, unless your DM is willing to homebrew a few items to throw your way.

TL;DR, Monks are martial Monks: If a martial can do it, so can a Monk, and then some.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 09:21 PM

You're looking at the wrong rule. When arguing whether one can concentrate through short rest, you need to look at what breaks concentration, which there are only these few things: Taking damage and failing the CON save, being incapacitated/dead/unconscious, and casting another spell that requires concentration. A short rest is none of these things, therefore it does not break concentration.

The RAW is clear, but you are not.

I personally think you can concentrate on a spell during a short rest, but the RAW against it comes down to whether concentrating on a spell counts as a strenuous activity or not. If it's considered more strenuous then eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds then you can't take the short rest.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 09:23 PM

Everything is based on maintaining concentration on Hex and only ever targeting the Hexed creature the which just doesn't seem likely and breaks the intent of establishing a baseline. The whole point of a baseline is that you can always just do that, the Warlock can't always deal his Hex damage on every attack which is why it's a terrible baseline to use.

The whole point of a baseline is as an arbitrary point of comparison. That it lines up (mostly) with an easily achievable combo is a bonus point, not a core.

Nagog

2020-07-28, 09:24 PM

I personally think you can concentrate on a spell during a short rest, but the RAW against it comes down to whether concentrating on a spell counts as a strenuous activity or not. If it's considered more strenuous then eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds then you can't take the short rest.

I'd say that concentrating on a spell would be similar to listening to the lyrics of music you're listening to. Most of the time it's just kinda a passive attention, but being stabbed makes it a bit harder to pay attention like that.

JNAProductions

2020-07-28, 09:24 PM

The whole point of a baseline is as an arbitrary point of comparison. That it lines up (mostly) with an easily achievable combo is a bonus point, not a core.

I would not consider a good baseline to be arbitrary.

Yunru

2020-07-28, 09:26 PM

I would not consider a good baseline to be arbitrary.

All baselines are arbitrary. What differentiates a good one from a bad one is why it was chosen.

HPisBS

2020-07-28, 09:32 PM

You're looking at the wrong rule. When arguing whether one can concentrate through short rest, you need to look at what breaks concentration, which there are only these few things: Taking damage and failing the CON save, being incapacitated/dead/unconscious, and casting another spell that requires concentration. A short rest is none of these things, therefore it does not break concentration.

The RAW is clear, but you are not.

I never said anything about a short rest breaking concentration; that isn't the question. The question is whether you can benefit from a short rest while concentrating. And that question rests solely on whether the DM considers concentrating on a spell to be strenuous.

I also never said what my personal view on it is (I happen to prefer allowing concentration while resting). All I've said is that there's enough ambiguity in the text for people to honestly rule it either way, so you shouldn't necessarily count on it being treated... what you'd call "properly."

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 09:33 PM

The whole point of a baseline is as an arbitrary point of comparison. That it lines up (mostly) with an easily achievable combo is a bonus point, not a core.

It's pointless to use a point of comparison if it comes with a bunch of caveats that the other dataset doesn't have.

Jerrykhor

2020-07-28, 09:36 PM

I personally think you can concentrate on a spell during a short rest, but the RAW against it comes down to whether concentrating on a spell counts as a strenuous activity or not. If it's considered more strenuous then eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds then you can't take the short rest.

If you want a good argument whether concentration is considered strenuous, think about what you can do while concentrating: If you can still fight and move around the freely during combat (as long as you don't take damage), then what else is more strenuous? Being in combat mode generally requires quite a high level of focus.

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 09:39 PM

If you want a good argument whether concentration is considered strenuous, think about what you can do while concentrating: If you can still fight and move around the freely during combat (as long as you don't take damage), then what else is more strenuous? Being in combat mode generally requires quite a high level of focus.

That really depends, if concentrating on a spell is basically adding a layer of stress on your mind then you could still easily move around and fight freely you are just more stressed in an already stressful situation so doesn't really change much. But in a non-stressful situation it's enough to prevent you relaxing and recovering.

Hael

2020-07-28, 09:50 PM

The monks role does indeed change as they lvl, and that’s one of the frustrating parts of the class.

I personally believe that they would be designed very differently if they were released today as opposed to PHB. Their design niche was as a skirmishers, with some battlefield control and the mobility to dive the backline.

The problem is since that time, there are many Martial subclasses that can achieve that control and lvl of mobility, and can do it far more safely. Take eg the echo knight, which achieves greater mobility, with far less threat and more dpr.

Worse, the ranged mechanics in this game makes it too easy to simply target the backline directly, so why the need for crazy mobility when you can just safely hit people behind cover with a single feat tax from a mile away.

The most fun monk class that I’ve played was the UA astral hand monk, and I found the reach made a huge difference, bc I wasn’t so vulnerable to being collapsed on, and I could do my job properly (our DM is very strong at positioning in combat and if you aren’t careful you simply die).

Sorinth

2020-07-28, 09:54 PM

The Monk is reliant on Ki to use it, which competes with everything else the Monk wants to do, whereas the Fighter has 4-6 superiority dice as a dedicated resource only for these effects, so the Fighter can arguably apply effects more liberally, often without a saving throw for the enemy, at range, with a wider array of options.

The Monk being reliant on Ki is less burdensome then limited pool of superiority dice the BM gets simply because the Ki pool is so much bigger. It's also unfair to claim the monk is using Ki for other abilities but ignoring the fact that the BM is also probably using maneuvers for non battlefield control things like Precision Attack, Riposte, etc...

Also what conditions is the BM applying at range that don't require a enemy saving throw?

djreynolds

2020-07-28, 10:59 PM

CapnWildefyr

2020-07-28, 11:04 PM

Monks are kinda like axle grease: they're a bit squishy, but if you don't have any, you miss it. Their ability to always do something comes in handy :smallwink:. Really, though, I'm playing a monk now. By myself, I'm just OK. But with a rogue in the party we can be deadly. Same for other classes. Sometimes support = healing (cleric/druid), sometimes support = buffs (bard), sometimes support = flaming death, sometimes support = opportunities. Monks are more of this last one, I think, able to move around and provide the pretexts for everyone else to be able to do what they are good at.

[Just one quick point I'd like to make, which I don't normally see mentioned. An OH monk - I know this is subclass, but it's the "basic" monk -- in tier 4 gets quivering palm. 3 ki for death or 10d10 necrotic if you save. Every other round. Granted, this is a subclass feature, and in this thread we are talking base class, and also it's level 17 (not often attained), but still, not shabby.]

Luccan

2020-07-28, 11:06 PM

Somewhere here is a thread I posted about... big exciting kicks or punches.

Quivering palm comes to late... and only open hand.

Flying sidekick... the damage is probably the same as using FOB and two attacks...

Just something fun.

I might've fold open hand into the base monk chassis.

As crazy as it sounds the way of the 4 elements allows for something exciting.... at a huge cost... It may not even beat 4 attacks... But it's something.

Every class deserves to be able to nova once in a while.... bring the pain once a day

Much as I think the establishment of a class hierarchy is unnecessary for 5e and don't personally believe Monk is suffering, they did fold a fair number of classically Monk class things into Open Hand. I also think the Prone and Push abilities would've been appreciated

Misterwhisper

2020-07-28, 11:33 PM

The Monk being reliant on Ki is less burdensome then limited pool of superiority dice the BM gets simply because the Ki pool is so much bigger. It's also unfair to claim the monk is using Ki for other abilities but ignoring the fact that the BM is also probably using maneuvers for non battlefield control things like Precision Attack, Riposte, etc...

Also what conditions is the BM applying at range that don't require a enemy saving throw?

Well for one thing, even with no subclass figured in, the fighter is still better than the monk with one.

- they may survive due to getting out of the way, And if they live long enough good saves, that just makes them the last to die.

- they don’t have the HP to take hits, especially considering they barely have room to boost con.

- every class can get better AC, because unlike ever other class who may not start with proficiency with good armor or shields, monks get negatives even if they do get proficiencies. No shield alone is a loss of 2 to 5 ac

- they are not really a threat from range, but have great speed. So that means they can run ahead of the front line and get to HVTs... then what? Become the alone target for the whole group of enemies? They can’t stealth like the rogue, they can’t take the hit like a barbarian, they don’t have the ac of a weapon and armor of any of the other martials but a rogue.

- they can only use magic weapons and all their bonuses for 2 attacks their other 1 or 2, don’t get anything, so they will also have less chance to hit when magic weapons are around.

- they can’t use armor so they can’t get any of those nice magic bonuses

- They don’t get any more skills than other, no expertise, not even consistent bonuses to the skills they do get.

- if they do get a chance to get a feat, they can’t really use any of the really powerful ones.

So what do they bring to the table?

Can’t tank, because they are fragile and low threat.
They are not a high damage class, they are not really even a medium damage class.
They are definitely not a skill class.
They will never have the stats to be a face.

They are fast, they are cheap, and they have stunning fist...

My biggest issue with them is this:

Every build is the same.

Max starting dex and wis, as much con as they can spare and who cares about the rest.

Carry a spear/quarterstaff.

Monk would only really work in a game with no multclassing, no feats, or magic items.

Zalabim

2020-07-28, 11:34 PM

Quick and dirty version: if anyone wants to play a pure striker monk, just play the kensei. It hits or exceeds the baseline at all levels of play with no special build* which is something I can't say for some paladins, barbarians, and rangers. That pure striker monk will also still get 60' movement, 20 AC, proficiency in all saves, permanent tongues, nearly equal capability with a longbow, immunity to poison, selectively 22 AC in melee, running up walls... the whole weird monk package. Sure, I think the monk is a little weaker than it should be (I publicly endorse d10 HD and faster martial arts improvement), but if Treantmonk can't hit the baseline damage with one then TM hasn't considered all the options, to say the least.

*Just use deft strike and flurry, and people consider stunning strike > flurry > deft strike, so I'd expect every other monk to be nearly as good, in their own way.

I've heard that they had to go to print before they could test a monk with better hit die and martial arts die, but this is actually one thing that could easily fit into their errata physically. It's just replacing a few numbers. Changes to step of the wind, flurry of blows, patient defense, martial arts, or even getting one more extra attack are harder to print in. Remember when WotC thought rangers should have d8 hit die? It's like that in reverse.

As an example, 4d4 for the final martial arts die value is a little higher than I'd suggest but not a lot higher, and I think would be divisive mainly based on how people feel about rolling d4s.

BMF

2020-07-28, 11:42 PM

The only place I can really see Monks falling behind is in the magical weapon department. While other martials are picking up stuff like +2 axes, magic armor, and Vorpal Daggers, Monks have precious little to find, unless your DM is willing to homebrew a few items to throw your way.

I agree with this, but I just wanted to say that if the DM is handing out +2 weapons and the like to a party, they are real jerks if they don't give the monk some +1 handwraps or a ki necklace or something.

I would absolutely say you should not play a monk in a game where the DM refuses to make up for the monk's lousy official loot pool.

Makorel

2020-07-28, 11:47 PM

As an example, 4d4 for the final martial arts die value is a little higher than I'd suggest but not a lot higher, and I think would be divisive mainly based on how people feel about rolling d4s.

I said 4d4 just because I don't think adding a d4 each tier is unreasonable conceptually to show the Monk's growth. Personally I would take it to 1d4-1d8-2d6-2d8 because yes that is a ton of d4s across attacks.

Also in regards to this idea of Warlock damage not being a good baseline because of concentration and spell slots and all that: Once again, a greatsword fighter does virtually the same damage with gwf. No optimization necessary.

Ignimortis

2020-07-29, 12:03 AM

My own view is that Ki-focused design is too stingy. I think they could get away with making Flurry and Step of the Wind free, with the only expense being the opportunity cost of using a bonus action (and adjust design accordingly, obviously no point in Martial Arts granting a single bonus action attack if you do that). Patient Defense should probably retain its cost, unfortunately, as we don't want to create a Hexblade situation for Barbarians or Paladins getting free bonus action Dodge.

Pretty much this.

Also Monk DPR, unlike most martials (IIRC Barb suffers from this too), stops significantly growing after level 5. Most other martials gain another bump to their damage at level 11-12, Monk gets +1 die size which is +4 damage at best. That levels out by level 17 (unless we're talking Fighter), but there are quite a few levels where Monk damage is subpar.

And they don't get any magic weapons unlike other martials. Ranger gets an Oathbow, Paladin gets a Holy Avenger, Fighter and Barb get a Flametongue, Monk...gets an Insignia of Claws, which is an equivalent of a +1 weapon. But even getting a +2 weapon with no fancy effects lets other martials get significantly ahead of monks.

Kensei fixes that last problem, but their growth is even worse, since they start off stronger. They also need fixes to their level 11 ability (at least let it buff existing magic weapons to +3, or let them share the weapon enchantments with their fists).

Zalabim

2020-07-29, 12:42 AM

And they don't get any magic weapons unlike other martials. Ranger gets an Oathbow, Paladin gets a Holy Avenger, Fighter and Barb get a Flametongue, Monk...gets an Insignia of Claws, which is an equivalent of a +1 weapon. But even getting a +2 weapon with no fancy effects lets other martials get significantly ahead of monks.
The one in the module is +1, but it's exactly equivalent to a +1 weapon. There's no reason you can't have ones that are +2 or +3, or even ones that mimic other specific weapons.

Misterwhisper

2020-07-29, 12:54 AM

The one in the module is +1, but it's exactly equivalent to a +1 weapon. There's no reason you can't have ones that are +2 or +3, or even ones that mimic other specific weapons.

Unless people play by the book or AL where those don’t exist.

Even the only one is only in one module.

Jerrykhor

2020-07-29, 01:26 AM

And they don't get any magic weapons unlike other martials. Ranger gets an Oathbow, Paladin gets a Holy Avenger, Fighter and Barb get a Flametongue, Monk...gets an Insignia of Claws, which is an equivalent of a +1 weapon. But even getting a +2 weapon with no fancy effects lets other martials get significantly ahead of monks.

Staff of Striking, Staff of Thunder and Lightning.

HPisBS

2020-07-29, 01:32 AM

Chaosmancer

2020-07-29, 01:34 AM

His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.

And I think that is a huge problem for his baseline damage. I'm not going to add the 60% chance to hit because A) my math skills are weak this late at night and B) everyone gets the same, so everyone's ratios stick to the same.

Assuming a standard of +4 mod

Warlock by level 5 is doing 2d10+2d6+8 = 26

Paladin/Fighter with Greatsword is doing 4d6+8 = 22? I think the fighting style is supposed to be at least a +2. So 24

Monk 2d8+1d6+12 = 24.5

So, his baseline is higher than all of them, and not counting feats or expended resources, the monk is just slightly ahead of the Paladin/Fighter.

Level 11, the big drop off point?

Warlock 3d10+3d6+12 = 39

Paladin With Greatsword 4d6+2d8+8= 33

Fighter with Greatsword 6d6+12 = 35

Monk 3d8+12 = 25.5

Now, this is a massive drop off, I fully agree with that, but I also note, that everything is below his baseline yet again. I can see a fix of increasing the monks bonus action attacks here, letting them do 2 naturally and 4 with ki...

That would make the monk doing 4d8+16 = 34 baseline, and then spending their ki could bring it to 51... which is pretty decent actually. But, I think his baseline is still far too high

Edit: People reminding me that short rest recovery is a thing. Maybe do something a little more complex, but have the second set of attacks be a die size lower? Probably still too good if you really focused on making them shine, but they do need a big boost in damage to stay competitive with even basic builds at this level.

Umm... No? It's something any class can do with a 2 level dip. It's one of the easiest achieved baselines, which is what makes it such a good baseline. Damage is damage, be it martial or magical.

Yes, because we all know that 1st level spell slots are so hard to come by, especially when a two level dip gets you all the spell slots you need for baseline along with everything else needed. But okay, let's compare like for like. When the Monk gets At-Will Flurry of Blows it still doesn't keep up.

I'm going to have to call you out on this. Saying it is a good baseline, because all you need is two levels of only class that gives you that combo is like saying that calculating a baseline with a +5 Flametongue is reasonable, because all you need is martial weapon proficiency.

Technically true, but misses the point of what a baseline is supposed to be.

For me, I tend to use Featless Champion Fighter Sword and board for my baseline. Which is far under his proposed baseline

Edit: I see the baseline question is the big one, and I think the biggest point we are missing is Firebolt, which should be a decent baseline assumption test. Because it is at-will, and the only cantrip that is purely damage with no add-ons, the disadvantage is a lack of mod, which is generally about half the damage when mod gets added.

1-4 -> 1d10 = 5.5
5-10 -> 2d10 = 11
11 - 16 -> 3d10 = 16.5

My Champion s+b? 10.5/ 21 / 31.5

Which is about double the Firebolt, which works well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some other points Treantmonk brought up that I disagree with involve the mobility argument (if your argument involves horses, which are traditionally a terrible idea in DnD, it seems to be a poor argument), his ignoring the subclasses, and the general view of "if a spell does it, it doesn't count"

Because, the thing is, the Monk is most similar in combat to the rogue. Now yes, rogue sneak attack damage is great, but it is all or nothing. And without it, you are hosed. But, Treantmonk compares the monk to the fighter and paladin when talking about AC, the Rogue when talking about Dex saves, the Warlock for damage, and wizards for their other abilities.

That is a poor way to look at the design. Because the Fighter is worse at mitigating falling damage and avoiding dex saves, and if we are talking a sword and board defense fighter, they deal worse damage until level 11. Meanwhile, the wizard is generally worse at all of that other stuff.

And the subclasses are a bit egregious, because some of them offer really substantial benefits. Open Hand becomes a much better controller, with pushing, removal of reactions or prone. The ability to knock an enemy prone, granting melee advantage, then possibly push them through damaging terrain, or pull them out into the party for them to wail on can be huge tactically. The shadow monk has the ability to at-will teleport in dim light or darkness, meaning they can teleport in, attack with advantage, and run out with their full movement. And if they have mobile, then no opportunity attacks. I mean, it is limited to dim light or darkness, but what melee character wouldn't give their right arm for at-will misty step with double the range, and grants advantage on your first attack.?

Now, all of this being said. I do agree that monk after 11th level needs help. Their damage plummets, and all their abilities become very niche and most of them are not super useful. But I think with the damage increase I proposed above, it really works itself into just needing to alter a few abilities. For example, my capstone change was essentially to give them the three basic ki actions (flurry, step, dodge) for free. Allowing them to save their ki for their higher level abilities.

AdAstra

2020-07-29, 01:51 AM

Monks definitely do get shafted on dedicated magic items.

Here's to hoping they make one or two for Baldur's Gate 3 that WotC can appropriate.

Edit: There's really nothing that makes those staffs special for monks; plenty of classes can get every bit as much use out of them as a Monk would. The only thing that even kinda makes it seem monkish is being versatile since Monks don't need anything in their off-hand.

One of the UAs had magical tattoos, one of which (Eldritch Claw) effectively gave you +1 unarmed strikes, plus a once-per-dawn ability that gave you 1 minute of 1d6 extra damage and 30 foot range as a bonus action.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 03:36 AM

I'm going to have to call you out on this. Saying it is a good baseline, because all you need is two levels of only class that gives you that combo is like saying that calculating a baseline with a +5 Flametongue is reasonable, because all you need is martial weapon proficiency.

Technically true, but misses the point of what a baseline is supposed to be.
Umm... No? Or am I missing the bit where martial weapon proficiency comes with a free rarer-than-legendary weapon?

Eldritch Blast + Agonising Blast + Hex is an easily achieved combo. A +5 Flametongue... Doesn't even exist.

I'll edit in responses to the rest when I'm on a screen bigger than my hand is.

Quick Edit: I'll note that a feat less sword and board champion is one of the worst builds possible, and should never qualify as a baseline for good damage.

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 03:46 AM

Staff of Striking, Staff of Thunder and Lightning.

When so much of the monk aesthetic/theme is on martial arts with punches and kicks, being forced into using a staff feels kinda meh. Yes, staff monks are a thing, some can even be very cool, but the lack of unarmed magic 'weapons' is a glaring one.

HappyDaze

2020-07-29, 04:42 AM

What book are Monks from? I've never seen one played in 5e, so they must be in a new book, right?

Yunru

2020-07-29, 05:06 AM

So here's a very simplified comparison of DPR between a few builds (because I'm still bery tired and the more things I add (like criticals) the more complicated it'll get to code):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w4qy8NcGkN0NYAYy3XKpZpHruZLkIh3h4Q_3dIx7xi0/edit?usp=sharing

Mikal

2020-07-29, 06:05 AM

So the Monk isn't just capable of damage, tanking, and control separately, it's able to do multiple at the same time

Doing one or two things well is better than doing three things crappily.

Versatile doesn’t matter if you suck at doing all the thing you’re capable of doing

Mikal

2020-07-29, 06:10 AM

That assumes the DM lets you maintain concentration while resting -- which is no safe assumption.

Seeing as how this is a discussion of RAW mechanics and RAW you can maintain concentration while resting it is a safe assumption.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 06:11 AM

Doing one or two things well is better than doing three things crappily.

Versatile doesn’t matter if you suck at doing all the thing you’re capable of doing

Doing a thing well is very game-dependent. CR and encounter design is an inexact science, especially for small or large parties, and in a slightly undertuned encounter, monks can be a class that gets in, gets out, hits hard and shrugs off retaliation. In a slightly overtuned one, the monk can't get out once they're in, can't effectively absorb, dodge or deal damage and can't get their BFC effects through enemy defenses. Meanwhile, wall of stone is wall of stone. It makes a big wall and it doesn't much matter whether the thing on the other side swings once a round at +5 or twice a round at +8.

Mikal

2020-07-29, 06:13 AM

Not really.

da newt

2020-07-29, 07:00 AM

In my opinion all Monks need to be on equal ground with other classes is a boost to Ki so that they can use their cool moves more. The martial arts adept from Volos is a simple monk-ish NPC that can stunning strike every unarmed attack - even with a low DC, these things are nasty.

I also agree that there ought to be a little more martial arts variability in there - give me a judo throw and a kick to the head with fun effects.

An alternate KISS DPR boost would be to add DEX and WIS damage bonuses to attacks.

CharonsHelper

2020-07-29, 07:08 AM

While a bit off-topic since this is a 5e board; was anyone else surprised that the video didn't touch on Pathfinder's Monk class in the intro? I realize that it's not technically D&D, but it's basically D&D 3.75.

The initial Pathfinder monk was little better than 3.5's, and tripping was weaker. However, with a couple of archetypes (Qinggong and 1-2 others; my personal favorite was Drunken Master, potentially combined with Sensei) it could be a very solid build.

And late in Pathfinder, the Unchained Monk was a solid choice out of the box.

Frankly, late Pathfinder was probably the high-point for the monk.

Though I was also surprised that he didn't at least mention how much the 3.5 monk was used as a dip for the feats & saves. Frankly, no 3.5 martial class was used for straight 20, so a solid 2 level dip was more than many of them were.

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-29, 07:08 AM

So a few questions for the playground:
1) Do you agree with the analysis? (Please keep personal anecdotes about how you saw a Monk and he did fine to a minimum. Everyone has seen something do fine.)
2) What should the Monk be good for?
3) How can its design be adjusted to accomplish that goal?
4) If you think this is all nonsense and Monks are good, actually, can you post a build and make the case?

Good Morning, I'm a monk class player. I love the class, love the flavor, I've had the most fun at the table playing monk. I've only played it at tables where it's a rolled array, usually 4d6d1, a few 5d6d2. I've played all the subclasses besides Four Elements.

1) I don't agree, the monk fills multiple rolls on a situational basis. The common theme I've seen from posts here and elsewhere in regards to balance, is attempts to being all the classes on to some mathematical par with one another. I believe the PHB Ranger needed the most help in that regards. The Monk isn't with sheer mechanic/ability creep

2) The Monk IS good for filling in gaps or providing that support where there is none. IMO, everyone is trying to make a class outshine each other in some niche min/max'd ability or mechanic. To not get computer chair dev on this matter, however did anyone think that maybe some classes came with certain drawbacks to add in the fun?
The monk can tank, sure it's MAD, if you want your CON in line with a max DEX and WIS for highest amount of AC. Doesn't mean you can't fill that role. A monk can set up free disengages, with stuns or using Ki to get to other parts of the battle encounter to aid other players. Does the Druid did need the 1st round to Wildshape? Get in and face tank, until the Druid takes over. Or perhaps the Paladin was caught up away from the ambush point, and you're the closest. OR the fight started and your range DPS fell into a hole, run back, help pull them out, run back in using your movement.

3) Perhaps consider tweaking the martial arts die or Ki pool. I know from experience the Monk early levels can do some heavy damage. the Martial arts is like the JV of Extra Attack. It does feel to fall off nearing level 5 compared to other classes. However, I honestly believe it wasn't expected for a Monk to carry a high DPR. The pure class itself is gifted with a ton of abilities and added mechanics.

4) If you're trying to Min/Max the monk, you're going to find a lot of reasons not to play it, and if that's your style. Go back to your V.Human Fighter. If you're in it to play and have a great time with a group try out a pure monk.
-Party fell down a tower or pit trap, slow fall.
-Getting ambushed by archers, Deflect Missiles
-2 rounds in the casters are being flanked? +10 feet of movement, stun strike
-Are you crowd controlling the mobs with your face, allowing the spellcaster to Fireball them, you got Evasion, you'll be fine.
-Got charmed? Stillness of mind
-No druid in the party to talk to animals? Tongue of the Sun and Moon
-Did the Barb trip a nasty AoE trap again? Diamond Soul.

I've done the Barb 3 (Bear Totem) / Monk X and I felt damn near invincible. Sure I wasn't doing anywhere near the damage the Sorcadin player or Fighter was OR the Pure Sorc when dropping twined spells of damage. It sure was fun tho.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 07:11 AM

-Getting ambushed by archers, Deflect MissilesTry "Deflect Missile" :P

stoutstien

2020-07-29, 07:15 AM

Umm... No? Or am I missing the bit where martial weapon proficiency comes with a free rarer-than-legendary weapon?

Eldritch Blast + Agonising Blast + Hex is an easily achieved combo. A +5 Flametongue... Doesn't even exist.

I'll edit in responses to the rest when I'm on a screen bigger than my hand is.

Quick Edit: I'll note that a feat less sword and board champion is one of the worst builds possible, and should never qualify as a baseline for good damage.

Not really depending on how you define baseline. The basic warlock with agonizing blast and hex is a good baseline for sustainable damage where the duelist champion fighter is a good baseline for at-will damage.
I think both are overrated in terms of how good or bad an individual class rates. Some players just hate the idea of leaving any damage potential unutilized regardless of the opportunity cost. The mini game of damage is what they find enjoyable. It doesn't matter if damage is one of the worse things to focus on.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 07:30 AM

2) The Monk IS good for filling in gaps or providing that support where there is none. IMO, everyone is trying to make a class outshine each other in some niche min/max'd ability or mechanic. To not get computer chair dev on this matter, however did anyone think that maybe some classes came with certain drawbacks to add in the fun?

Let's say we have an AL table with the recommended five players. The table has a life-domain cleric, a samurai fighter, a scout rogue and a divination wizard. What is this group missing, and what makes the monk the right class to provide it? Are there other classes that would do it better? How would the group need to change for the monk to be the best class for that spot?

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-29, 07:46 AM

Let's say we have an AL table with the recommended five players. The table has a life-domain cleric, a samurai fighter, a scout rogue and a divination wizard. What is this group missing, and what makes the monk the right class to provide it? Are there other classes that would do it better? How would the group need to change for the monk to be the best class for that spot?

The group is missing a 5th player, and if that player thinks the monk would be fun, it's right class. To boil it down and keep it simple.

To answer more mechanically, kensai monk focused on ranged, or shadow monk to set up ambushes with the rogue, drunken master or open hand to help guard the wizard, assist the rogue. In any subclass case, the monk can jump in with the samurai for front lining.

A group like that, shouldn't have to change up anything. The addition of a monk or any class adds to the overall survival success rate. If the samurai player is all combat, monk synergies to help and allow them to shine. If the scout rogue is constantly RP'ing arguments of morals with the life cleric , the monk can RP a possible middle ground or the point that finished the debate in favor of one morale choice over the other. If the wizard, is a little poor for spellbook maintenance, the monk can RP charitable and help out his fellow party member. I'm devolving back to the the fun aspect I know.

My original point can also be turned against me, you could fit any class into the mix to fill a gap. Choosing Monk over Ranger or Druid, really comes down to how the player wants to play. Druid for full spell casting, Ranger for half spell casting more martial, or Monk for a point system of martial abilities.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 07:50 AM

The addition of a monk or any class adds to the overall survival success rate.Does it though? Does the presence of the Monk compensate for the increased number of enemies their presence brings?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 07:58 AM

The group is missing a 5th player, and if that player thinks the monk would be fun, it's right class. To boil it down and keep it simple.

To answer more mechanically, kensai monk focused on ranged, or shadow monk to set up ambushes with the rogue, drunken master or open hand to help guard the wizard, assist the rogue. In any subclass case, the monk can jump in with the samurai for front lining.

A group like that, shouldn't have to change up anything. The addition of a monk or any class adds to the overall survival success rate. If the samurai player is all combat, monk synergies to help and allow them to shine. If the scout rogue is constantly RP'ing arguments of morals with the life cleric , the monk can RP a possible middle ground or the point that finished the debate in favor of one morale choice over the other. If the wizard, is a little poor for spellbook maintenance, the monk can RP charitable and help out his fellow party member. I'm devolving back to the the fun aspect I know.

My original point can also be turned against me, you could fit any class into the mix to fill a gap. Choosing Monk over Ranger or Druid, really comes down to how the player wants to play. Druid for full spell casting, Ranger for half spell casting more martial, or Monk for a point system of martial abilities.

I think you're edging closer to a Stormwind fallacy, so let's stipulate that the player is going to have equal amounts of fun and contribute equally in RP situations no matter what class they play. What's the argument for a monk over, say, a gloomstalker ranger?

Do you think that the group would be more effective if you swapped in a monk for one of the core four I listed?

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 08:08 AM

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-29, 08:18 AM

Does it though? Does the presence of the Monk compensate for the increased number of enemies their presence brings?

the monk or any class, Yes.

What's the argument for a monk over, say, a gloomstalker ranger?

Do you think that the group would be more effective if you swapped in a monk for one of the core four I listed?

Monk vs Gloomstalker Ranger argument= Player's choice

Depends on your basis for what is effective, what is the goal, what is objective? The four you've listed is already a solid party.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 08:22 AM

the monk or any class, Yes.

Well no, most classes will be able to offer a positive net contribution, the damage focused ones being the easiest to prove, but you can't just drop any class into an AL game and have it be a benefit to the party. (Which is not to say it can't be a benefit to the table, since it's an RPG and more RP more good.)

At level 5, they transition to using stunning strike on the tougher half of combats. It has a substantially higher success rate per round than anything the wizard or cleric can do. Especially in a deadly encounter against a boss with lair and legendary actions, they will be the mvp.

Someone's at the door. I believe Spirit Guardians wants a word.

Also "substantially higher"? Can I have some of what you're smoking? :P
Either the Monk has very little, moderate, or very good chance of stunning, but it's outside of their control.
A Wizard or Cleric can just switch to a better save.

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 08:24 AM

At level 5, they transition to using stunning strike on the tougher half of combats. It has a substantially higher success rate per round than anything the wizard or cleric can do. Especially in a deadly encounter against a boss with lair and legendary actions, they will be the mvp.

Is burning indomitable/legendary resistances fun when it's essentially your entire shtick and you offer nothing else over any other class? Especially when doing so also hurts your DPR and hardiness because suddenly you can't afford FOB/SotW/PD?

I dunno. It doesn't sound fun, and playing a level 6 shadow monk right now the ki cost of trying to land that CON stun is really painful. One round of FOB+SS and whoops, I'm basically tapped out until the next short rest - which as has been documented extensively on this forum and beyond doesn't oft match up with gameplay narrative flow. Which also means all my cool shadow monk spells? Yeah, can't cast those. Too expensive. If I pace myself with shadow step I've got three rounds of SS attempts before I'm dry, and the other stuff monk offers doesn't really make up for that.

If they're MEANT to be primarily based around SS after 5th level, then it should be better - either by buffing the ki pool or adding different riders/modifications based off of subclass, so it actually feels like you're not just setting up for the rest of your party to swoop in for the glory. "But clerics are buffers!" is a potential reply and, yeah - discounting Spirit Guardians and other big shenanigans buffing is a cleric's thing and that's part of their theme as a supporter class. If a monk's theme (which is definitely debatable) is 'disabler' then...why don't their subclass options, save the 3rd level Open Hand, support that better?

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-29, 08:39 AM

Well no, most classes will be able to offer a positive net contribution, the damage focused ones being the easiest to prove, but you can't just drop any class into an AL game and have it be a benefit to the party. (Which is not to say it can't be a benefit to the table, since it's an RPG and more RP more good.)

Correct, thus making my statement of the Monk is able to fill any gap situationally. If you walk up to a 4 player table looking for a 5th, and they all go "The DM is throwing mobs at us, We need more DPR" you're not going to pick Monk.

However, to your original question, it is still a yes. Any 5th player will compensate for the one or two additional baddies to maintain CR and Adjusted XP.

CapnWildefyr

2020-07-29, 09:04 AM

Unfortunately, a lot of what happens at tables is situational. That makes straight DPR calculations useful, but not a complete picture. So let's mention a few things monks can do that other classes cannot do as well.

Monks cannot be disarmed except by a sword of sharpness. Ever been captured? Ever been ambushed when the best weapon for the situation is not on your person?

Monks never lose their armor, unless unconscious, and at that point it doesn't matter much. No duration, no limits, no weight.

Monks can wake up to an ambush and fight at 100% - no time needed to put on armor, or grab a backpack.

Monk abilities can't be lost. Wizards, fighters, rangers - they are bound by stuff. Without their stuff, they are less than their full potential.

At 9th, monks can flank opponents by running along walls. They can flee a sinking ship by walking home across the water (they just can't stop moving or they sink). A monk like this can storm a castle wall in 1 round - with Dash, an average (not short-legged) monk can walk up almost 90 feet of wall or cliff without falling.

Is it true that others can do this? Yes. Fly spell. Spider climb spell. Grappling hooks and rope. This point is that monks don't expend resources on it. Every fly spell cast is one less potential counterspell, fireball, etc. What monks can do cannot be dispelled.

Now if in your campaigns you never get captured, never have to be away from your stuff, never lose your stuff because it got fireballed when you had to leave your backpack upstairs during dinner in a tavern, etc, then these advantages won't mean as much.

Monks do have a problem fighting things like fire elementals, black pudding, mimics, etc. - open hand, anyway. But then, does wild shape help against a mimic? Stuck is stuck.

One thing that ought to be fixed is that monks should not fight at disadvantage vs. someone who is restraining them, again, 'cause martial arts training is all about fighting when being restrained. I house rule that one but it's not RAW that I know of. More ki points would always be nice, and I also agree that the initial d4 damage should be a d6. I'd also consider scaling unarmored defense slightly - maybe +1 at each tier?

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 09:05 AM

Also in regards to this idea of Warlock damage not being a good baseline because of concentration and spell slots and all that: Once again, a greatsword fighter does virtually the same damage with gwf. No optimization necessary.

A fighter with a greatsword and GWF style is below the warlock baseline every level except level 1. Granted it's usually about 1 damage except levels 17-19 where it's 10 damage and gets back to within 1 at level 20.

Now 1 point off isn't a big deal, but it's also worth noting that the monk using FoBs is ahead of the GWF fighter by much more then 1 damage for 10 levels, then behind the GWF by about 1 damage for levels 11-16, ahead again by about 1 damage for levels 17-19, and then finally well below at level 20. So a Monk using FoB is actually significantly better then a straight GWF for 10 levels, more or less equivalent for 9 levels, and significantly worse for 1 level.

In fact if you add up the difference between GWF and Warlock w/Hex the fighter is 42.294 damage behind the Warlock, whereas the FoB monk is only 7.5 damage behind. If you assume a lack of Ki points means the Monk can't flurry for the first 10 levels and then always flurries from level 11 onwards, the monk is at 46.8 below the warlock which is pretty much in range of what the GWF fighter did.

It's also worth pointing out that AC of the monk was said to be weak because the Fighter was actually using a Shield and took Defense as their fighting style and so had a starting AC of 19 that went up to 21 compared to the monk's 16 that went up to 20. But clearly that wasn't true, the GWF fighter had a starting AC of 16 same as the monk and gets up to 18 when they get Plate.

That's the flaw in all these analysis where they point to a build that does something better then the monk. Yeah that build does do that one thing better then the monk, but they are also a whole lot worse at all those other things which required a different build to beat out the monk.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 09:12 AM

At levels 1 and 2, the Monk is a premier striker, especially with the reliability of them doing at least four damage a round being meaningful at this point when ~ 4hp monsters are a threat.

At level 5, they transition to using stunning strike on the tougher half of combats. It has a substantially higher success rate per round than anything the wizard or cleric can do. Especially in a deadly encounter against a boss with lair and legendary actions, they will be the mvp.

In higher tier play what they contribute will vary tremendously by subclass and campaign. However, admittedly, it will not be premier DPR (they've long ago lost competitiveness there).

Thanks for the answer. I'm curious about your stunning strike assertion. Con is usually not the easiest save to target; are you assuming that you'll be burning multiple ki points per round to ensure a stunning strike lands? Assuming 14 Wis, a level 5 monk's stunning strike has a DC of 13 (8 + 3 prof + 2 wis). In Princes of the Apocalypse, the boss of the 5th level dungeon has a 60% chance to save. Assuming 16 Int (15 + 1 racial), that same boss has a 45% chance to save against enemies abound from a wizard. One of the 'bosses' of Isle of the Abbey has a 65% chance to save against stunning strike, if my math is correct. So you'd have to be using multiple ki points per round to get a substantially higher success rate, right? And the effect is one round stunned. Which isn't nothing! It's very useful, especially since it targets nonhumanoids and solo enemies. I'm just not sure it's substantially better than the options a caster has for doing the same kinds of things.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 09:13 AM

That's the flaw in all these analysis where they point to a build that does something better then the monk. Yeah that build does do that one thing better then the monk, but they are also a whole lot worse at all those other things which required a different build to beat out the monk.

Not really. A Mark of Handling Cleric, for instance, fills any role the Monk could just as well or better, with just as much versatility.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 09:20 AM

Is burning indomitable/legendary resistances fun when it's essentially your entire shtick and you offer nothing else over any other class?

Legendary resistance is mostly a higher level ability. Though monks are also the best at burning through it. Especially since magic resistance is more common than legendary resistance but often appears together.

And yes, it is fun and valuable in the appropriate context (a game with appropriate short rests, mostly tiers 2 and 3).

Especially when doing so also hurts your DPR and hardiness because suddenly you can't afford FOB/SotW/PD?

I dunno. It doesn't sound fun, and playing a level 6 shadow monk right now the ki cost of trying to land that CON stun is really painful. One round of FOB+SS and whoops, I'm basically tapped out until the next short rest - which as has been documented extensively on this forum and beyond doesn't oft match up with gameplay narrative flow. Which also means all my cool shadow monk spells? Yeah, can't cast those. Too expensive. If I pace myself with shadow step I've got three rounds of SS attempts before I'm dry, and the other stuff monk offers doesn't really make up for that.

That's all issues of feels bad / emotional management.

If not using other ki based features except when they are more valuable than stunning strike is stressful for you, don't play the Monk.

But every other option is there for the moment it's worth more than stunning strike. Options can only ever add value, though they can sometimes be overwhelming.

For example, if your shadow teleport allows you to bypass several fights (nobody else at that point can teleport as much as you can iirc) then teleport, bypass those encounters, and feel good about it.

If it's just contributing a little bit to a non deadly encounter? Don't.

That applies to subclass features and core Monk features both.

If they're MEANT to be primarily based around SS after 5th level, then it should be better - either by buffing the ki pool or adding different riders/modifications based off of subclass, so it actually feels like you're not just setting up for the rest of your party to swoop in for the glory. "But clerics are buffers!" is a potential reply and, yeah - discounting Spirit Guardians and other big shenanigans buffing is a cleric's thing and that's part of their theme as a supporter class. If a monk's theme (which is definitely debatable) is 'disabler' then...why don't their subclass options, save the 3rd level Open Hand, support that better?

If you just don't enjoy control and contributing value synergistically as a team, yes, you shouldn't play a Monk. Maybe just stick to rogues.

The other options and features are so all over the map it's hard to address. But I would say that most at least *can be* in support of this role. The teleport? Occasionally, that's what you need to get within striking distance of the deadly enemy that needs stuns. Sanctuary? Same deal. Long Death? Can't stun if you're unconscious. Etc.

The other thing they do is set you up for:

Rare opportunities (eg teleport to bypass an encounter)

Set you up for your weird high level thing.

At high levels, the Long Death Monk does actually become tanky. The OH Monk gets his weird save or die. Etc. Those don't necessarily support the stunning strike groove, and it's not all one thing (the way that most fighter or rogue subclasses are essentially filling the same class defined role).

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 09:43 AM

That's all issues of feels bad / emotional management.

If not using other ki based features except when they are more valuable than stunning strike is stressful for you, don't play the Monk.

But every other option is there for the moment it's worth more than stunning strike. Options can only ever add value, though they can sometimes be overwhelming.

For example, if your shadow teleport allows you to bypass several fights (nobody else at that point can teleport as much as you can iirc) then teleport, bypass those encounters, and feel good about it.

If it's just contributing a little bit to a non deadly encounter? Don't.

That applies to subclass features and core Monk features both.

How a class feels should absolutely be a factor in people's analysis. If it doesn't feel good to play even if it's mechanically "okay" then it's bad design.

And in what world are you bypassing entire encounters because you can teleport on your own unless it's a solo campaign?

If you just don't enjoy control and contributing value synergistically as a team, yes, you shouldn't play a Monk. Maybe just stick to rogues.

I'm saying that monks don't do an interesting job of it. Instead they throw their sole resource (ki) down a blackhole until they hopefully land a stun and that's it. There's no tactics or strategy or interesting choice involved beyond "does this look important enough to SS? Y/N" and apply accordingly until you run dry, at which point you're stuck with very little in the way of options or choices.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 09:44 AM

Someone's at the door. I believe Spirit Guardians wants a word.

Spirit guardians deals damage and halves their movement. It does not remove a tons, reactions, legendary, and lair actions. It has nothing to do with this.

Also "substantially higher"? Can I have some of what you're smoking? :P
Either the Monk has very little, moderate, or very good chance of stunning, but it's outside of their control.
A Wizard or Cleric can just switch to a better save.

A wizard or a cleric can proc one save a round. They also have limited spells at this level.

Eventually, do not get me wrong, the level 17 caster for sure has something and is more powerful. But what spell is the fifth level caster casting three times a day (long rest + 2 short rests) that can target almost any monster?

Even against a humanoid with better CON than WIS, the Wizard with hold person gets one shot on their turn. Then the mob gets a second save potentially as soon as the next initiative. The Monk (who knows this is the most important thing for them to do) gets multiple shots, and then it is guaranteed to last a full round (~1/3 of the encounter). As a ribbon, they also dealt some damage, whereas other control options don't, just while I'm talking it up.

Thanks for the answer. I'm curious about your stunning strike assertion. Con is usually not the easiest save to target; are you assuming that you'll be burning multiple ki points per round to ensure a stunning strike lands? Assuming 14 Wis, a level 5 monk's stunning strike has a DC of 13 (8 + 3 prof + 2 wis). In Princes of the Apocalypse, the boss of the 5th level dungeon has a 60% chance to save. Assuming 16 Int (15 + 1 racial), that same boss has a 45% chance to save against enemies abound from a wizard. One of the 'bosses' of Isle of the Abbey has a 65% chance to save against stunning strike, if my math is correct. So you'd have to be using multiple ki points per round to get a substantially higher success rate, right? And the effect is one round stunned. Which isn't nothing! It's very useful, especially since it targets nonhumanoids and solo enemies. I'm just not sure it's substantially better than the options a caster has for doing the same kinds of things.

Yes the assumption is that you put everything into it you have to (stun every hit until the save fails, flurry if the first two attacks didn't do the job). Idk those monsters AC, and I'd also assert WIS first is the right move for a Monk, but with your stated probabilities ~1.9 hits per round gets the Monk to better odds of success against the boss of the Abbey.

x3n0n

2020-07-29, 09:47 AM

What if we restrict our analysis to tiers 1 and 2, and against the non-full-casters?

DPR: base Monk is very good in tier 1 and ok in tier 2 (if you prioritize Dex and Flurry). PAM/GWM and XBE/SS outshine others around 6th-8th lvl, but not by a huge margin.

Survivability if targeted: comparable to base Rogue. Potentially +1AC via starting Wis +3, Deflect Missile(s) vs Uncanny Dodge. Can spend ki on Patient Defense (damaging other "pillars"). Worse than d10 classes overall.

Hit-and-run: pretty good if prioritized: Open Hand and Drunken Master get useful Flurry riders, everybody gets Step of the Wind (at ki cost), lots of movement.

Mobs: Actually not horrible in T1/T2, right? Lots of (weak) attacks to reduce numbers of weak attackers quickly, Dex for good initiative.

Battlefield Control: not much in T1 (Open Hand "shoves"). T2 opens up Stunning Strike. Vaguely similar to lvl 2 Paladin/Ranger BC spells? Not incredible, but not bad.

So, at a glance, a base Monk feels kind of close to a TWF/Horde-Breaker Hunter Ranger with worse HP and better "skirmishing", at basically no GP cost (and no reliance on magic items nor long-rest spell slots to deal damage to resistant foes).
Sounds like a good class for T1-T2 campaign with very little money and lots of short rests.

The first half of tier 3 looks pretty rough: no Diamond Soul, no 3rd attack, no 3rd-level spells. A lvl 13 Monk looks a LOT like a lvl 10 Monk with more hit points and more Wis (unless the subclass offers something GREAT at 11). The Martial Arts die doesn't do enough to move the needle on damage.
14-16th is all about leaning on Diamond Soul.

Tier 4 doesn't seem to get played much, and there's already been a lot of discussion about "martials vs casters in tier 4". Base Monk gets Empty Body at 18, which is great...when compared to other martials. Open Hand and Long Death get unusual damage dealers at 17.

T3 and T4 are also weakened by the lack of awesome loot, especially armor. Non-Kensei don't have access to most of the cool weapons.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 09:53 AM

How a class feels should absolutely be a factor in people's analysis. If it doesn't feel good to play even if it's mechanically "okay" then it's bad design.

If it doesn't feel good to you, it's not a good choice for you.

Wizards are arguably the most antifun class in the hands of a player who wastes everyone's time having to look up spells every long rest. They're a bad class for that player, not a bad design.

And in what world are you bypassing entire encounters because you can teleport on your own unless it's a solo campaign?

The world where you use that ability a lot.

Mcguffin is over there. You can get over there and back with your teleport.

Unless there's a rare circumstance like that that makes it more valuable than your best option... just don't use it. It's not hurting you by being on your sheet.

I'm saying that monks don't do an interesting job of it. Instead they throw their sole resource (ki) down a blackhole until they hopefully land a stun and that's it. There's no tactics or strategy or interesting choice involved beyond "does this look important enough to SS? Y/N" and apply accordingly until you run dry, at which point you're stuck with very little in the way of options or choices.

It's a more complex flowchart than you're giving it credit for, but yes, the Monk mostly plays through a much smaller flowchart than the wizard, but a bigger one than the champion fighter. It is very formulaic. If you don't like that, play another class.

For someone who enjoys it, it's fun.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 09:54 AM

But what spell is the fifth level caster casting three times a day (long rest + 2 short rests) that can target almost any monster?
Hypnotic Pattern is my immediate first thought.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 09:59 AM

Enemies abound is usually mine. Int is often a pretty weak save, and lone enemies are going to be heavily outgunned in action economy.

stoutstien

2020-07-29, 10:09 AM

Hypnotic Pattern is my immediate first thought.

the only condition immunity that shows up more than charmed is poisoned.

micahaphone

2020-07-29, 10:24 AM

Enemies Abound is like Confusion - super fun, but there's still a chance the enemy can just hit your party normally even if they fail the save

Yunru

2020-07-29, 10:27 AM

the only condition immunity that shows up more than charmed is poisoned.
At least you can tell at a glance who it won't work on most of the time, unlike Stunning Strike.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 10:40 AM

Not really. A Mark of Handling Cleric, for instance, fills any role the Monk could just as well or better, with just as much versatility.

I'd need more details on the cleric. Are they using Heavy Armor + Shield in order fill that secondary tank role, and if so how are they filling the scouting role. What are they doing for damage/control?

stoutstien

2020-07-29, 10:45 AM

At least you can tell at a glance who it won't work on most of the time, unlike Stunning Strike.

YMMV. a much larger concern is that SS is all or nothing. immunity is rare and if it lands it can turn a potentially dynamic encounter into a boring rocket tag beat down. either the monk is the all star or they feel useless with little leeway in between. its even worse if a peculiar DM fixes dice rolls for the sake of their game.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 10:48 AM

I'd need more details on the cleric. Are they using Heavy Armor + Shield in order fill that secondary tank role, and if so how are they filling the scouting role. What are they doing for damage/control?
I'll need more details on the Monk. How are they filling that secondary tank role, what are they doing for damage/control? :P

In more seriousness, what do you define as tanking? What do you define as scouting?
There's many a way to build a Cleric, depending on exactly what you want out of it affects the build. A shield and armour provides could AC if you call that tanking. Spirit Guardians provides good "stay away from my allies" if you call that tanking. Spirit Guardians provides good "stay away from my allies" if you call that control. Conjure animals provides good meat shields if you call that tanking. It provides strategic pressure if you call that control. Etc.

Dr. Cliché

2020-07-29, 10:52 AM

diplomancer

2020-07-29, 10:55 AM

At least you can tell at a glance who it won't work on most of the time, unlike Stunning Strike.

Only if you are metagaming (unless it's a construct, an ooze, or an elf).

stoutstien

2020-07-29, 11:00 AM

Only if you are metagaming (unless it's a construct, an ooze, or an elf).

I've never under stood this argument. it should be fairly obvious what is immune/ resistant to what.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 11:01 AM

I'll need more details on the Monk. How are they filling that secondary tank role, what are they doing for damage/control? :P

In more seriousness, what do you define as tanking? What do you define as scouting?
There's many a way to build a Cleric, depending on exactly what you want out of it affects the build. A shield and armour provides could AC if you call that tanking. Spirit Guardians provides good "stay away from my allies" if you call that tanking. Spirit Guardians provides good "stay away from my allies" if you call that control. Conjure animals provides good meat shields if you call that tanking. It provides strategic pressure if you call that control. Etc.

Monk spends a Ki point on Patient Defence and can tank for that round.
If they need to be a damage dealer they can instead flurry.
If they need to be impose battlefield control they can do that with stunning strike.

It doesn't even matter what the monk build is they all have those as options.

But yeah you can build a cleric in many different ways, and if you wanted to build a tank you'll very likely end up with a better tank then a monk. But I doubt they'll be able to pivot to the other roles from one round to the next like a monk can. That's why I asked for details on the build because chances are the build will have a lack of versatility.

Also unrelated I don't think comparing a martial to a full caster especially assuming high levels is really all that fair to begin with since the whole caster vs martial problem rears it's head and has nothing to do with monk.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 11:05 AM

IMO the Monk has too many abilities that are locked behind a Ki paywall.

What's more, there is a distinct power gap between many of those abilities. e.g. Having Stunning Strike and reflect projectiles fed from the same pool just means the latter will rarely ever get used.

The Monk is in dire need of more free abilities (or ways to replenish Ki between rests). I think having Step of the Wind and the reflection part of Deflect Missiles consume no Ki would be a good start. The only thing that could be problematic is Bonus Action Dodge, but even then it's still competing with other Bonus Action abilities - including a Monk's main source of damage.

Deflect Missiles only costs ki if you want to throw the missile back. Throwing it back is basically granting a free attack, so it's no different from flurry of blows costing a ki to gain an additional attack.

Step of the Wind I agree it kind of sucks that it costs a Ki, but in theory you don't often have to Dash because of your increased movement, and there are plenty of ways to avoid needing to disengage. So it's not a big deal.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 11:12 AM

It's worth noting for the high level damage where the monk drops off significantly in tier 4 it's worth noting that every monk subclass has damage boosts as their level 17 ability which isn't being considered in this kind of generic baseline comparison.

diplomancer

2020-07-29, 11:12 AM

I've never under stood this argument. it should be fairly obvious what is immune/ resistant to what.

Why? A construct, yes, obvious. An undead? About half of them are not immune, and some of them are even incorporeal. What about fiends? What tells you which fiends are immune to charm and which fiends are not?

You'd think Feys would be immune to charm (since the Elf's Fey Ancestry makes them resistant), but very few are.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 11:13 AM

Hypnotic Pattern is my immediate first thought.

Immunities, and it ends when they're damaged. It's a different sort of tool.

In the fight against big target and minions, the wizard with hypnotic pattern feels awesome because he neutralized the mooks. The Monk feels awesome because he neutralized the big target, and the other party members feel awesome because they're the ones that actually killed the big target (while it was stunned) and then fought the mooks one by one.

Enemies abound is usually mine. Int is often a pretty weak save, and lone enemies are going to be heavily outgunned in action economy.

Doesn't incapacitate, chance they still target you, and they get a new save every hit. Still a good spell, but it doesn't turn them into a punching bag like stunning strike.

Also a lone enemy in an encounter that is meant to be a threat will have legendary and or lair actions, which stunning strike shuts down in a huge action economy win.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 11:18 AM

Enemies Abound is like Confusion - super fun, but there's still a chance the enemy can just hit your party normally even if they fail the save

True, though that only applies to to potential targets within the range of the abilities it is going to use. Used early in combat on big meat slabs, it's likely that only enemies are within range. Plus, the affected creature is required by the text of the spell to take opportunity attacks if its allies provoke them. Ultimately though enemies abound is only as strong as the DM is willing to let it be, and if your DM's reaction to the spell going off is to have his monster know that it's being affected by a concentration spell and charge the caster to disrupt the spell, it's going to be a weaker option.

micahaphone

2020-07-29, 11:24 AM

True, though that only applies to to potential targets within the range of the abilities it is going to use. Used early in combat on big meat slabs, it's likely that only enemies are within range. Plus, the affected creature is required by the text of the spell to take opportunity attacks if its allies provoke them. Ultimately though enemies abound is only as strong as the DM is willing to let it be, and if your DM's reaction to the spell going off is to have his monster know that it's being affected by a concentration spell and charge the caster to disrupt the spell, it's going to be a weaker option.

I feel like it's only good on round 1 - if any melee based ally has already moved up into combat, well they're probably close to/touching the big bruiser, and the evil necromancer or whatever might actually be out of the bruiser's reach, as otherwise why wouldn't your melee ally just be hitting the caster? Under such a standing, your friendly paladin will still be the target our mind addled enemy will hit.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 11:35 AM

Doesn't incapacitate, chance they still target you, and they get a new save every hit. Still a good spell, but it doesn't turn them into a punching bag like stunning strike.

Also a lone enemy in an encounter that is meant to be a threat will have legendary and or lair actions, which stunning strike shuts down in a huge action economy win.

Stunning strike only lasts one round; enemies abound lasts one round minimum. For the duration to be one round, either your party will have to be attacking that creature rather than focusing down other targets or other enemies will be burning their action attacking the target. The chance the target attacks your party is dependent on range; stay out of range of its attacks and you're safe. While it doesn't turn them into a punching bag, it's not intended to. It gets them to do the punching for you. That can including using its legendary or lair actions on your behalf.

I feel like it's only good on round 1 - if any melee based ally has already moved up into combat, well they're probably close to/touching the big bruiser, and the evil necromancer or whatever might actually be out of the bruiser's reach, as otherwise why wouldn't your melee ally just be hitting the caster? Under such a standing, your friendly paladin will still be the target our mind addled enemy will hit.

In that scenario, yes, it probably is only good in the first round. In other circumstances, Ras Nsi's throneroom, for example it can reveal enemies waiting in ambush or disrupt reinforcements.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 11:54 AM

Stunning strike only lasts one round; enemies abound lasts one round minimum. For the duration to be one round, either your party will have to be attacking that creature rather than focusing down other targets or other enemies will be burning their action attacking the target. The chance the target attacks your party is dependent on range; stay out of range of its attacks and you're safe. While it doesn't turn them into a punching bag, it's not intended to. It gets them to do the punching for you. That can including using its legendary or lair actions on your behalf.

Right, like I said, it's still a good spell. But it's a different thing. That creates synergy, not redundancy. The Monk is still adding value by being there to do his thing, which the guy with enemies abound cannot do.

In the moment where about half of the danger is from the big guy, half from mooks, you have a way of staying out if the fight, etc, enemies abound is going to be the blowout success.

In the moment where the big guy needs to be confronted, or especially if it is a solo boss fight, stunning strike is the star.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 12:11 PM

In the moment where the big guy needs to be confronted, or especially if it is a solo boss fight, stunning strike is the star.
Right up until the point the BBEG succeeds their Constitution save, because of course they have high Con, they're a BBEG.

That's the problem: The situations where Stunning Strike is most useful, are the situations where Stunning Strike is least usable.

HPisBS

2020-07-29, 12:18 PM

Right up until the point the BBEG succeeds their Constitution save, because of course they have high Con, they're a BBEG.

That's the problem: The situations where Stunning Strike is most useful, are the situations where Stunning Strike is least usable.

Also the same situations where forcing up to 4 separate saves while dealing up to 4 separate damage rolls shines. (Or up to 6 if you're an Open Hand trying to knock prone or push with your flurry for no extra ki cost.)

Yunru

2020-07-29, 12:21 PM

Also the same situations where forcing up to 4 separate saves while dealing up to 4 separate damage rolls shines. (Or up to 6 if you're an Open Hand trying to knock prone or push with your flurry for no extra ki cost.)
Right, for at least a quarter of your available Ki (1 for Flurry of Blows, 1 each for the four Stunning Strikes), although more realistically it'll be somewhere between "all" and "1/3rd".
And then they recover from it in one round.

HPisBS

2020-07-29, 12:47 PM

Right, for at least a quarter of your available Ki (1 for Flurry of Blows, 1 each for the four Stunning Strikes), although more realistically it'll be somewhere between "all" and "1/3rd".
And then they recover from it in one round.

Right, but within that one round, your whole party is attacking with advantage and/or spamming Str and Dex saves - which, thanks to your stun, have become auto-fails.

Since this is the BBEG worth blowing through all your ki, it's also worth the whole party's focus-fire when presented with such a golden opportunity. Said BBEG may survive past the end of your next turn, but probably not by much.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-07-29, 12:56 PM

Right, but within that one round, your whole party is attacking with advantage and/or spamming Str and Dex saves - which, thanks to your stun, have become auto-fails.

Since this is the BBEG worth blowing through all your ki, it's also worth the whole party's focus-fire. Said BBEG may survive past the end of your next turn, but probably not by much.

I just want to endorse this, and add that 1 round is about 1/3 of a combat. And even at level 5, you have enough ki to usually be using stunning strike for about 2 turns (5 ki ~ 3 stun attempts, two flurries, or 4 attempts, one flurry).

Dr. Cliché

2020-07-29, 01:34 PM

Deflect Missiles only costs ki if you want to throw the missile back.

I know. That was what I was referring to. :smalltongue:

Throwing it back is basically granting a free attack, so it's no different from flurry of blows costing a ki to gain an additional attack.

There are two differences:

- Firstly, there is a thematic difference. Catching an arrow and throwing it back is generally regarded as a fun/cool thing to do, whereas Flurry of Blows is just punching someone another time.

- Second this 'extra attack' is not remotely consistent because it is entirely dependant on an enemy choosing to shoot at the Monk with an appropriate ranged weapon. And as soon as the enemy see that the Monk can deflect or reflect their projectiles, they'll almost certainly either switch to melee or switch targets. Hence, it's an attack you'll rarely get to use more than once each combat (and often not even once). Further, unlike Flurry of Blows, the reflected projectile has no synergy with the class, so the Monk can't put Stunning Strike or the like onto it.

Put simply, it's the sort of thing that wouldn't make the Monk noticeably more powerful, but would likely make it a great deal more fun.

Step of the Wind I agree it kind of sucks that it costs a Ki, but in theory you don't often have to Dash because of your increased movement, and there are plenty of ways to avoid needing to disengage. So it's not a big deal.

But if it's not a big deal anyway, then why make it cost Ki at all? Let Monks have fun acting like Sonic the Hedgehog outside of combat.

MaxWilson

2020-07-29, 01:47 PM

Right, for at least a quarter of your available Ki (1 for Flurry of Blows, 1 each for the four Stunning Strikes), although more realistically it'll be somewhere between "all" and "1/3rd".
And then they recover from it in one round.

But only after you've had the chance to renew the effect.

Stunning Strike is at its best against glass cannons like enemy spellcasters, beholders, neogi, mind flayers, etc. If your DM already avoids creating such threats because they're deadly and "swingy", Stunning Strike won't seem as good to you. Is it worth spending 4 ki to temporarily stun one (or maybe two) of the two beholders who would otherwise be disintegrating the party wizard this round? Ask the wizard.

There are two differences:

- Firstly, there is a thematic difference. Catching an arrow and throwing it back is generally regarded as a fun/cool thing to do, whereas Flurry of Blows is just punching someone another time.

- Second this 'extra attack' is not remotely consistent because it is entirely dependant on an enemy choosing to shoot at the Monk with an appropriate ranged weapon. And as soon as the enemy see that the Monk can deflect or reflect their projectiles, they'll almost certainly either switch to melee or switch targets. Hence, it's an attack you'll rarely get to use more than once each combat (and often not even once). Further, unlike Flurry of Blows, the reflected projectile has no synergy with the class, so the Monk can't put Stunning Strike or the like onto it.

Put simply, it's the sort of thing that wouldn't make the Monk noticeably more powerful, but would likely make it a great deal more fun.

Cogently argued, sir. Consider me persuaded.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 01:58 PM

What if we restrict our analysis to tiers 1 and 2, and against the non-full-casters?

DPR: base Monk is very good in tier 1 and ok in tier 2 (if you prioritize Dex and Flurry). PAM/GWM and XBE/SS outshine others around 6th-8th lvl, but not by a huge margin.

Survivability if targeted: comparable to base Rogue. Potentially +1AC via starting Wis +3, Deflect Missile(s) vs Uncanny Dodge. Can spend ki on Patient Defense (damaging other "pillars"). Worse than d10 classes overall.

Hit-and-run: pretty good if prioritized: Open Hand and Drunken Master get useful Flurry riders, everybody gets Step of the Wind (at ki cost), lots of movement.

Mobs: Actually not horrible in T1/T2, right? Lots of (weak) attacks to reduce numbers of weak attackers quickly, Dex for good initiative.

Battlefield Control: not much in T1 (Open Hand "shoves"). T2 opens up Stunning Strike. Vaguely similar to lvl 2 Paladin/Ranger BC spells? Not incredible, but not bad.

The PAM/GWM or XBE/SS fighters have just as bad an AC as the monk so I'm not seeing how the monk is worse overall in terms of survivability? Do you really think the 1hp per level is that big of a difference maker?

The first half of tier 3 looks pretty rough: no Diamond Soul, no 3rd attack, no 3rd-level spells. A lvl 13 Monk looks a LOT like a lvl 10 Monk with more hit points and more Wis (unless the subclass offers something GREAT at 11). The Martial Arts die doesn't do enough to move the needle on damage.
14-16th is all about leaning on Diamond Soul.

Tier 4 doesn't seem to get played much, and there's already been a lot of discussion about "martials vs casters in tier 4". Base Monk gets Empty Body at 18, which is great...when compared to other martials. Open Hand and Long Death get unusual damage dealers at 17.

T3 and T4 are also weakened by the lack of awesome loot, especially armor. Non-Kensei don't have access to most of the cool weapons.

The thing about the higher tiers is that you ki pool is becoming big enough that you can realistically spend multiple ki points every single round of combat for the entire adventure day. So the main difference is that you went from having to carefully choose when to use ki and when to save it to simply spamming everything you can every round.

Also the extra damage at level 17th isn't unusual every single monk subclass gets a damage boost from their subclass at that level. Drunken master grants potentially 3 extra attacks, Kensei turns a miss into a hit, Shadow gets an attack that can be used as a reaction, Sun Soul gets a reaction to deal damage.

In terms of lacking magic loot, you aren't wrong but I would point out all Monks can use magic short swords, so things like Defender, Luck Blade are still possible and quite good in the hands of a monk.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 02:07 PM

I know. That was what I was referring to. :smalltongue:

There are two differences:

- Firstly, there is a thematic difference. Catching an arrow and throwing it back is generally regarded as a fun/cool thing to do, whereas Flurry of Blows is just punching someone another time.

- Second this 'extra attack' is not remotely consistent because it is entirely dependant on an enemy choosing to shoot at the Monk with an appropriate ranged weapon. And as soon as the enemy see that the Monk can deflect or reflect their projectiles, they'll almost certainly either switch to melee or switch targets. Hence, it's an attack you'll rarely get to use more than once each combat (and often not even once). Further, unlike Flurry of Blows, the reflected projectile has no synergy with the class, so the Monk can't put Stunning Strike or the like onto it.

Put simply, it's the sort of thing that wouldn't make the Monk noticeably more powerful, but would likely make it a great deal more fun.

But if it's not a big deal anyway, then why make it cost Ki at all? Let Monks have fun acting like Sonic the Hedgehog outside of combat.

Fun is subjective, but mechanically it makes sense for throwing the missile back costing a ki point since a ki is essentially equivalent to an extra attack.

For step of the wind it certainly won't break the game if they dropped the ki cost, afterall a 2 level rogue dip will give you exactly the same effect. But personally if they were looking for ways to improve the monk that would be far down on my wishlist.

x3n0n

2020-07-29, 02:46 PM

The PAM/GWM or XBE/SS fighters have just as bad an AC as the monk so I'm not seeing how the monk is worse overall in terms of survivability? Do you really think the 1hp per level is that big of a difference maker?

FWIW, I'm on team "likes to Monk", I am just trying to be reasonable in my assessment.

An additional 1+1*lvl HP is noticeable, isn't it? Otherwise, wouldn't we all take Con 12 instead of Con 14 (modulo saves)?

XBE/SS has the benefit of (usually) being out of melee at no cost (other than AoO opportunity cost, which a skirmisher is paying the same way).
PAM/GWM has the benefit of bigger dice and swinging at one on the way in (potentially killing it).
If I understand correctly (haven't done the math myself), 3 risky strikes a turn is a LOT more damage than 3 normal strikes, especially with Archery.

The thing about the higher tiers is that you ki pool is becoming big enough that you can realistically spend multiple ki points every single round of combat for the entire adventure day. So the main difference is that you went from having to carefully choose when to use ki and when to save it to simply spamming everything you can every round.

Also the extra damage at level 17th isn't unusual every single monk subclass gets a damage boost from their subclass at that level. Drunken master grants potentially 3 extra attacks, Kensei turns a miss into a hit, Shadow gets an attack that can be used as a reaction, Sun Soul gets a reaction to deal damage.

In terms of lacking magic loot, you aren't wrong but I would point out all Monks can use magic short swords, so things like Defender, Luck Blade are still possible and quite good in the hands of a monk.

I'm looking forward to seeing how infinite my ki feels around 11th lvl. :) I hope you're right. 14th feels a long way off when I think we're going to end the campaign around 15th.

Good point on 17th, but I don't really have much of a horse in that fight. I doubt I'll ever play there. I do know that the capstone looks very underwhelming to me.

The loot thing mostly feels like a way for armor wearers to improve their AC without needing to invest ASIs.

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 03:11 PM

The PAM/GWM or XBE/SS fighters have just as bad an AC as the monk so I'm not seeing how the monk is worse overall in terms of survivability? Do you really think the 1hp per level is that big of a difference maker?

Fighters get a hit dice size on the monk and they ~often~ have CON as a secondary stat, while for monks it's tertiary behind dex and wis.

Fighter will be Str *or* Dex, then Con, then whatever else for flavour (potentially different for EKs) while monks are almost universally Dex *and* Wis, then Con, then whatever else. 2HP/Level disparity starting from 1st level and only growing from there is quite likely, so it's definitely not a single HP point due to monk's stat requirements.

MrStabby

2020-07-29, 03:13 PM

The loss of HP isnt just from the hit die, it's also that Con is pushed into being a tertiary stat (compared to say a fighter). So either you suffer a bit of a more significant penalty to tanking or your wis based abilities take a hit.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 03:14 PM

FWIW, I'm on team "likes to Monk", I am just trying to be reasonable in my assessment.

An additional 1+1*lvl HP is noticeable, isn't it? Otherwise, wouldn't we all take Con 12 instead of Con 14 (modulo saves)?

XBE/SS has the benefit of (usually) being out of melee at no cost (other than AoO opportunity cost, which a skirmisher is paying the same way).
PAM/GWM has the benefit of bigger dice and swinging at one on the way in (potentially killing it).
If I understand correctly (haven't done the math myself), 3 risky strikes a turn is a LOT more damage than 3 normal strikes, especially with Archery.

It's noticeable for sure, but one use a deflect missile will put the monk ahead of the game, and then there's patient defense which puts the monk well ahead in terms of survivability but will come at a cost of Ki and damage. Generally speaking the monk should be skirmishing so has the same defensive benefits as the XBE/SS in terms of not being in melee. It's just a case that if you get "trapped" and start taking hits the monk has a much better options to survive that situation.

So Monk has a much better survibability compared to the GWM/Ranged fighter, but his DPR is worse (Though you also have to start factoring the missing ASI because they went with feats and that sort of stuff).

I'm looking forward to seeing how infinite my ki feels around 11th lvl. :) I hope you're right. 14th feels a long way off when I think we're going to end the campaign around 15th.

Good point on 17th, but I don't really have much of a horse in that fight. I doubt I'll ever play there. I do know that the capstone looks very underwhelming to me.

The loot thing mostly feels like a way for armor wearers to improve their AC without needing to invest ASIs.

It's obviously going to depend on the type of encounters you face, but generally speaking 6 encounters a day with a short rest after two encounters means at level 11 an average of 5.5 Ki per encounter. Encounters are supposed to last 2-3 rounds so you are good for about 2 ki a round which is basically Flurry of Blows + 1 Stunning Strike (Though it's often better to go big in round 1 and ensure the SS hits and simply use less ki in subsequent rounds).

But obviously if your campaign deviates from that "norm" then you might get more or less mileage out of your ki.

Capstone is weak no argument there, and honestly I'd probably skip levels 18 and 19 too.

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 03:22 PM

Encounters are supposed to last 2-3 rounds

Are they? I might need to tweak my encounter design if that's the case because uh...yeah, the last time I had an encounter last 2 rounds it felt like a piddly little waste of time.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 03:25 PM

Fighters get a hit dice size on the monk and they ~often~ have CON as a secondary stat, while for monks it's tertiary behind dex and wis.

Fighter will be Str *or* Dex, then Con, then whatever else for flavour (potentially different for EKs) while monks are almost universally Dex *and* Wis, then Con, then whatever else. 2HP/Level disparity starting from 1st level and only growing from there is quite likely, so it's definitely not a single HP point due to monk's stat requirements.

Sure but the XBE+SS Fighter is also taking 2 feats (One is free from class) so it's going to be much harder to focus on that secondary stat even if it is Con.

Then you have to factor in how much damage the Monk simply doesn't take because of Deflect Missile, Slow Fall, Evasion, and Patient Defense. You only need one to happen to get ahead HP wise vs the Fighter.

Sorinth

2020-07-29, 03:27 PM

Are they? I might need to tweak my encounter design if that's the case because uh...yeah, the last time I had an encounter last 2 rounds it felt like a piddly little waste of time.

I think it was mentioned somewhere in the DMG but maybe somewhere else. But it's going to vary a lot from table to table just like the 6-7 encounters a day you're "supposed" to have is going to vary a lot from table to table.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 03:34 PM

Are they? I might need to tweak my encounter design if that's the case because uh...yeah, the last time I had an encounter last 2 rounds it felt like a piddly little waste of time.

You're also supposed to have, conservatively, a hundred billion encounters a day. My preference is for fewer, more consequential or difficult encounters, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I genuinely wouldn't bother prepping an encounter that would take two combat rounds to resolve, and on the occasions when they've come up in published modules I've tended to run them in theater-of-the-mind style.

Yunru

2020-07-29, 03:42 PM

Encounters are roughly based around being decided in the first three rounds, hence an NPC with limited use abilities working out their average DPR based on a three round average.

MaxWilson

2020-07-29, 03:50 PM

Are they? I might need to tweak my encounter design if that's the case because uh...yeah, the last time I had an encounter last 2 rounds it felt like a piddly little waste of time.

There's no "supposed to" in 5E, but FWIW DMG guidelines on monster CR have you guesstimate monster DPR for limited-use abilities by assuming the combat will last for about three rounds, and adding up all the damage over three rounds then dividing by three. E.g. if you can Cone of Cold once, and you guesstimate that it will hit about 3 PCs for 8d8 (36) HP each, and then you're reduced to plinking away with Ray of Frost for 1d8 (4.5) per round, the DMG would call that (3 * 36 + 4.5 + 4.5)/3 = 39 DPR.

If your combats tend to go longer (presumably because they are harder) that monster will be relatively underpowered, because it can't actually cast Cone of Cold every three rounds. On the other hand, if the combat lasts only one round (maybe because you used too many monsters and the PCs got stomped) the monster will be relatively overpowered for its CR.

The three-round guesstimate actually says more about the limitations of the CR system than it does about how a DM "should" construct encounters, but posters the Internet will often tell you otherwise. Believe who you want to believe and do what works for you. If you find that longer combats are working out well for you, keep doing that.

(IME it really, really depends. Long-range combats with lots of stealth and total cover last much longer than melee-range fights, and some fights are effectively solved by a well-chosen and lucky spell like Hypnotic Pattern long before they actually end--if you hypnotize a Fire Giant and a Githyanki Gish and then someone kills the Drow Mage who was with them, there's still a lot of HP that you need to deplete but unless there are hidden reinforcements that fight is effectively over, unless the players don't know what they're doing. That Fire Giant is going to wake up disarmed, prone, manacled, restrained, grappled, and having just lost a bunch of HP to readied attacks at advantage, and then the Githyanki is going to wake up similarly after the Fire Giant is dead. Did the fight last 2 rounds or 8? Depends how you measure it.)

===============================================

Sure but the XBE+SS Fighter is also taking 2 feats (One is free from class) so it's going to be much harder to focus on that secondary stat even if it is Con.

Then you have to factor in how much damage the Monk simply doesn't take because of Deflect Missile, Slow Fall, Evasion, and Patient Defense. You only need one to happen to get ahead HP wise vs the Fighter.

There's also Second Wind to consider, so you may need two, and if the fighter is an Eldritch Knight you may need a bunch more (Shield).

But I agree with your main point, that d8 HP vs d10 is not much of a difference in durability. In Tier 2, it's 1/10 of an unoptimized Aura of Vitality spell. The real durability differences come from tactics, which is rooted in both player skill and class abilities. Monks are surprisingly good at winning long-range (or prone) archery duels, for example, because disadvantage to both sides helps monks more than it helps the enemy. (It increases the proportion of hits that can be stopped via Deflect Missiles.) Conversely, a Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert gains a lot of durability from using partial or total cover. It's tough to compare monk vs. fighter durability in a theorycrafted discussion because monk abilities are so situational, but it is possible to know what doesn't matter, and the size of your HP die doesn't matter much once you take healing and temp HP into account. (If it did, the Tough feat would be far more popular than it is, and clerics would be infamous for upcasting Aid, not Spiritual Guardians.)

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 04:01 PM

Encounters are roughly based around being decided in the first three rounds, hence an NPC with limited use abilities working out their average DPR based on a three round average.

Seems like most enemies wouldn't even have chance to breathe at a 3 round duration, especially any spellcasters with a dozen spellslots.

Sure but the XBE+SS Fighter is also taking 2 feats (One is free from class) so it's going to be much harder to focus on that secondary stat even if it is Con.

Then you have to factor in how much damage the Monk simply doesn't take because of Deflect Missile, Slow Fall, Evasion, and Patient Defense. You only need one to happen to get ahead HP wise vs the Fighter.

Even with the double feat tax (offset by the extra two ASIs fighters get over the monk), fighters are still pumping Con sooner than them. They've got Second Wind/Indomitable and, for XBE, a straight up shield in most cases.

I think it was mentioned somewhere in the DMG but maybe somewhere else. But it's going to vary a lot from table to table just like the 6-7 encounters a day you're "supposed" to have is going to vary a lot from table to table.

I wonder if there's a guideline not on encounters per day but combat rounds per day. Obviously it can be more difficult to estimate than encounters since dice/tactics/etc. but general ideas should still be estimatable.

MaxWilson

2020-07-29, 04:07 PM

You're also supposed to have, conservatively, a hundred billion encounters a day. My preference is for fewer, more consequential or difficult encounters, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I genuinely wouldn't bother prepping an encounter that would take two combat rounds to resolve, and on the occasions when they've come up in published modules I've tended to run them in theater-of-the-mind style.

You're not "supposed" to have a bunch of encounters per day. They just playtested a bunch of dungeon crawls during the design process and measured how many dungeon crawl encounters it took to make players feel like they were "done" for the day, and wrote that up in a DMG table which also calls out that harder encounters will wear PC out more quickly.

Ref:

The Most Important D&D Video You've Never Seen (5E's designers on the 5E design process): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw

Additional commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PzZtlGTFDg

Even with the double feat tax (offset by the extra two ASIs fighters get over the monk), fighters are still pumping Con sooner than them. They've got Second Wind/Indomitable and, for XBE, a straight up shield in most cases.

How are you loading your crossbow without a free hand? Are you assuming Artificer support via Repeating Shot in "most cases"?

I wonder if there's a guideline not on encounters per day but combat rounds per day. Obviously it can be more difficult to estimate than encounters since dice/tactics/etc. but general ideas should still be estimatable.

It's not a bad idea for Internet discussions, but it's not actually mathematically sound because combat power for simple monsters scales roughly quadratically: twice as many monsters will take twice as long to kill you, but they'll inflict ~4x as much damage before they die. Therefore you can't correctly estimate how beat up PCs will be based purely on number of rounds of combat. If you insist on using math, use DMG math (which takes the quadratic scaling into effect, via "XP multipliers" which are really combat effectiveness multipliers), which isn't great but is at least more accurate than measuring number of encounters or number of rounds.

jas61292

2020-07-29, 04:16 PM

The idea that encounters are supposed to last 2 to 3 rounds is as flawed and incorrect as the idea that you are supposed to have 6 to 8 encounters a day. All those numbers have meanings, but not the meanings that people frequently ascribe to them.

For encounters, 6 to 8 is what is supposed to be enough to use up all of a character's resources. There is nothing saying you need to burn through all resources every day, and certainly nothing saying a player cannot burn through them faster. But a character generally should be able to do 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters and get through the day using all their resources.

Similarly, there is a meaning to the 3 round of combat thing. But that meaning is even less relevant, because all it is is the duration over which you should measure a creature's damage output for the purpose of CR. Nothing saying that is how long a battle with it should necessarily last. But that is how long is needed to get a good sense of how strong something is, so you know how much experience it should be giving out.

In my personal experience, most non-trivial combats last at least 5 rounds. The idea of a 2 round combat that is not just there to show off how overpowered one side is would be unheard of at my table.

Amnestic

2020-07-29, 04:16 PM

How are you loading your crossbow without a free hand? Are you assuming Artificer support via Repeating Shot in "most cases"?

XBE ignores Loading property of crossbows you're proficient in, it's part of the standard package.

MaxWilson

2020-07-29, 04:21 PM

XBE ignores Loading property of crossbows you're proficient in, it's part of the standard package.

Yes, but it doesn't ignore the Ammunition property. You still need to load the crossbow--you just aren't limited to only 1/round.

Longbows don't have the Loading property, but you can't shoot a longbow while you're holding a shield.

=================================================

The idea that encounters are supposed to last 2 to 3 rounds is as flawed and incorrect as the idea that you are supposed to have 6 to 8 encounters a day. All those numbers have meanings, but not the meanings that people frequently ascribe to them.

For encounters, 6 to 8 is what is supposed to be enough to use up all of a character's resources.

Not even that. It's just what made the players during the playtest feel like they were ready to throw in the towel, during the playtest dungeon crawls.

There is nothing saying you need to burn through all resources every day, and certainly nothing saying a player cannot burn through them faster. But a character generally should be able to do 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters and get through the day using all their resources.

Similarly, there is a meaning to the 3 round of combat thing. But that meaning is even less relevant, because all it is is the duration over which you should measure a creature's damage output for the purpose of CR. Nothing saying that is how long a battle with it should necessarily last. But that is how long is needed to get a good sense of how strong something is, so you know how much experience it should be giving out.

In my personal experience, most non-trivial combats last at least 5 rounds. The idea of a 2 round combat that is not just there to show off how overpowered one side is would be unheard of at my table.

Hmmm. My experience is that I see a wide range of combats. 8-10 rounds is not rare, and 2 rounds is not unheard-of either, and the 2-round combats don't necessarily leave players with fewer scars than the 8-10 round ones. (It might just mean that multiple PCs got very aggressive with novas and got lucky on their dice, and the DM ruled that the rest of the combat was a mop-up.)

Protolisk

2020-07-29, 04:24 PM

XBE ignores Loading property of crossbows you're proficient in, it's part of the standard package.

The Loading Property only stipulates you can't attack with the weapon more than once per round, which XBE removes so you can use Extra Attack.

Unless I missed something, XBE does not remove the Ammunition property of crossbows, where you have to draw the ammunition from a quiver/bolt case/ whatever. Logically, you'd need a free hand to actually load a crossbow with the bolt. Unless you had a feature like Returning from an Artificer, of course.

Makorel

2020-07-29, 04:41 PM

A fighter with a greatsword and GWF style is below the warlock baseline every level except level 1. Granted it's usually about 1 damage except levels 17-19 where it's 10 damage and gets back to within 1 at level 20.

Now 1 point off isn't a big deal, but it's also worth noting that the monk using FoBs is ahead of the GWF fighter by much more then 1 damage for 10 levels, then behind the GWF by about 1 damage for levels 11-16, ahead again by about 1 damage for levels 17-19, and then finally well below at level 20. So a Monk using FoB is actually significantly better then a straight GWF for 10 levels, more or less equivalent for 9 levels, and significantly worse for 1 level.

In fact if you add up the difference between GWF and Warlock w/Hex the fighter is 42.294 damage behind the Warlock, whereas the FoB monk is only 7.5 damage behind. If you assume a lack of Ki points means the Monk can't flurry for the first 10 levels and then always flurries from level 11 onwards, the monk is at 46.8 below the warlock which is pretty much in range of what the GWF fighter did.

It's also worth pointing out that AC of the monk was said to be weak because the Fighter was actually using a Shield and took Defense as their fighting style and so had a starting AC of 19 that went up to 21 compared to the monk's 16 that went up to 20. But clearly that wasn't true, the GWF fighter had a starting AC of 16 same as the monk and gets up to 18 when they get Plate.

That's the flaw in all these analysis where they point to a build that does something better then the monk. Yeah that build does do that one thing better then the monk, but they are also a whole lot worse at all those other things which required a different build to beat out the monk.

I repeat from a previous post: Flurry of blows is not at will damage. If the idea is that baseline damage is at will then you can't give Monks flurry and say it's like at will.

I agree that there's flaws in these analysies and it's that everyone is making different assumptions and arguing from those assumptions. We can't even get a consensus on what "baseline damage" should be. I also see a lot of people not factoring in accuracy and I don't think that paints an accurate picture. A level 5 Barbarian is doing basically Tier 3 damage with reckless attack even though it's basically the same two attacks the Fighter gets at that level. I assume everyone has a 50% chance to hit. Is that too much? Too little? I don't know, but if there was a set of guide and regulations on damage calculations for 5e then I'm not aware of it.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-29, 05:57 PM

I repeat from a previous post: Flurry of blows is not at will damage. If the idea is that baseline damage is at will then you can't give Monks flurry and say it's like at will.

I agree that there's flaws in these analysies and it's that everyone is making different assumptions and arguing from those assumptions. We can't even get a consensus on what "baseline damage" should be. I also see a lot of people not factoring in accuracy and I don't think that paints an accurate picture. A level 5 Barbarian is doing basically Tier 3 damage with reckless attack even though it's basically the same two attacks the Fighter gets at that level. I assume everyone has a 50% chance to hit. Is that too much? Too little? I don't know, but if there was a set of guide and regulations on damage calculations for 5e then I'm not aware of it.

The most accurate comparisons will involve build stubs so we have an AB we can compare against representative ACs at a variety of CRs and get a range of hit probabilities.

Evaar

2020-07-29, 06:52 PM

The PAM/GWM or XBE/SS fighters have just as bad an AC as the monk so I'm not seeing how the monk is worse overall in terms of survivability? Do you really think the 1hp per level is that big of a difference maker?

I'm going to quote you from earlier in this thread:

I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die.

Fighter uses a d10, Monk uses a d8, Wizard uses a d6. When considering ability to tank, why is the Monk fine when compared to the Fighter, but the Wizard isn't fine when compared to the Monk? (Especially considering the Iron Wizard build typically does 16 starting Constitution which the Monk can't afford.)

HPisBS

2020-07-29, 07:34 PM

Somewhere here is a thread I posted about... big exciting kicks or punches.

Quivering palm comes to late... and only open hand.

Flying sidekick... the damage is probably the same as using FOB and two attacks...

Just something fun.

I might've fold open hand into the base monk chassis.

As crazy as it sounds the way of the 4 elements allows for something exciting.... at a huge cost... It may not even beat 4 attacks... But it's something.

Every class deserves to be able to nova once in a while.... bring the pain once a day

Would this revision (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615777-4-Elements-Monk-Revamped) compensate for that?

MaxWilson

2020-07-29, 07:43 PM

I'm going to quote you from earlier in this thread:

Fighter uses a d10, Monk uses a d8, Wizard uses a d6. When considering ability to tank, why is the Monk fine when compared to the Fighter, but the Wizard isn't fine when compared to the Monk? (Especially considering the Iron Wizard build typically does 16 starting Constitution which the Monk can't afford.)

He probably wasn't thinking at the time about all of the defensive (tanky) abilities an Iron Wizard has: AC 19, Arcane Ward (Abjuror) or Arcane Deflection (War Wizard), Blur, Shield, Absorb Elements, Misty Step, Mirror Image/Blink (not all at the same time of course because that's overkill, and not all of them are worth an action IMO, but they are all an option).

It turns out that wizards in 5E are very tough to kill in melee, d6 HP notwithstanding. They have crummy melee damage though unless you can get SCAG cantrips. Monks are not as tough, but also have much better built-in damage.

Chaosmancer

2020-07-30, 12:35 AM

Quick Edit: I'll note that a feat less sword and board champion is one of the worst builds possible, and should never qualify as a baseline for good damage.

Then you are playing a game far more optimized than the game was designed at. Feats are optional, and a sword and board fighter with dueling is an obvious move to mix AC and Damage.

That is likely the baseline the creators thought about when designing.

T3 and T4 are also weakened by the lack of awesome loot, especially armor. Non-Kensei don't have access to most of the cool weapons.

Yeah, I think this is something being seen as a monk problem that is really a game problem. There is next to no equipment magical or otherwise that is a great fit for a monk. There aren't a lot of feats that are ideal for the monk like there are for other classes and equipment builds.

But that is something we can fix, by creating equipment and feats that are good for the monk to take. Like Crusher, which is amazing for monks, or slasher (remember, shortswords are monk weapons, they are just less powerful than staves)

A fighter spending 1500 gold can increase their AC by +2, why can't we figure out something for monks to take that can do something similar for them?

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 12:52 AM

...
But that is something we can fix, by creating equipment and feats that are good for the monk to take. Like Crusher, which is amazing for monks, or slasher (remember, shortswords are monk weapons, they are just less powerful than staves)

A fighter spending 1500 gold can increase their AC by +2, why can't we figure out something for monks to take that can do something similar for them?

Butterfly's Footwork
Wondrous Item, Rare

You have +1 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.

Butterfly's Advanced Footwork
Wondrous Item, Very Rare

You have + 2 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.

Butterfly's Legendary Footwork
Wondrous Item, Legendary

You have +3 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.
:smallbiggrin:

micahaphone

2020-07-30, 01:02 AM

Butterfly's Footwork
Wondrous Item, Rare

You have +1 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.

Butterfly's Advanced Footwork
Wondrous Item, Very Rare

You have + 2 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.

Butterfly's Legendary Footwork
Wondrous Item, Legendary

You have +3 to AC while unarmored and wearing these lightweight shoes.
:smallbiggrin:

Listen, I'm gonna need to see a legendary duet item that boosts your unarmed attack, like Ring of the Bee. If you wear both at the same time, you get a further buff. Maybe a flurry of blows grants an additional extra attack. Or patient defense doesn't cost ki now. Or a blinding rider on flurry of blows.

“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. The hands can't hit what the eyes can't see.”

MaxWilson

2020-07-30, 01:36 AM

Jerrykhor

2020-07-30, 02:43 AM

diplomancer

2020-07-30, 02:53 AM

Yeah I too am not seeing how Monk is as bad as Treantmonk described. At least Monk has a niche and decent abilities to look forward to as they level up. Stunning Strike is still a one of a kind single target lockdown on boss, which is very nice to have in a party. They can be insanely fast, even faster than Rogues. And if you ever need to be in a situation where your gear is stripped from you, they are still at near full power.

Rangers are worse than Monks. They are so terrible past level 5. What are they looking forward to? Land's Stride? Hide in Plain Sight? Favored Enemy upgrades?? Evasion>Land's Stride, Purity of Body>>>Hide in Plain Sight, and Diamond Body>>>>>Vanish.

Rangers look forward to spells. Even at 9th level, Conjure Animals is very good, for instance.

On topic, I've only played a Monk once, from 1st to 6th level. It was with rolled stats, which allowed me to begin with 18 dex, 16 wis (ghostwise halfling). Felt pretty good; at 1st level DM was surprised with the damage output, at later levels most of my ki was spent either on patient defense or pass without trace. Flurry of blows was pretty rare, only when I thought one more hit might be sufficient to kill the enemy. I felt that, unless you're Open Hand, flurry of blows is not a very effective use of ki.

Jerrykhor

2020-07-30, 03:43 AM

Rangers look forward to spells. Even at 9th level, Conjure Animals is very good, for instance.

On topic, I've only played a Monk once, from 1st to 6th level. It was with rolled stats, which allowed me to begin with 18 dex, 16 wis (ghostwise halfling). Felt pretty good; at 1st level DM was surprised with the damage output, at later levels most of my ki was spent either on patient defense or pass without trace. Flurry of blows was pretty rare, only when I thought one more hit might be sufficient to kill the enemy. I felt that, unless you're Open Hand, flurry of blows is not a very effective use of ki.

Yeah ok they have spells, but their spells are nothing to write home about, besides a few notable ones like Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit and Hunters Mark. There's a reason people don't talk about Ranger spellcasting - The spell list is kind of ****, can't change their spells on long rest and not unique like Paladins. Conjure Animals is probably the best on the list, and yet it is heavily reliant on DM ruling. I dont think anyone look forward to Ranger 9 just to get a spell that druids can cast at level 5. The other level 3 spells on the list are also pretty ****.

Also, if using Treantmonk's logic, Rangers spellcasting are not the best at anything, their martial abilities are also not the best, therefore he should say they are the worst class.

MrStabby

2020-07-30, 03:43 AM

I finally got around to watching Treantmonk's video from the OP, and I'm not impressed. Notes:

(1) The methodology Treantmonk is using seems to be, "a class which isn't clearly better than every other class in at least one niche stinks." This methodology is highly suspect. It would imply, for example, that gestalt multiclassing is underpowered if it slows down your levelling--Treantmonk's methodology would imply that being a Moon Druid 8 AND ALSO a Warlock 8 is clearly worse than being a Warlock 10 or a Moon Druid 10. Obviously that's false. Having the tools of both classes increases your chances of having the right solution to any given problem and makes you (roughly speaking) twice as relevant. 80% of 200% is 160%, not 80%. Versatility is great if you don't give up too much to get it.

I think this definition is not without merit. I am not saying it is always the best, but it is useful - if not for measuring overall power then at least levels of fun for some players. I would use a similar criterion when chosing a class. "What role do I want to fill?" and "what class to play such that no one else in the party will be doing my role better?" are two really significant questions I have when chosing a character I will enjoy. It isn't about overall power but it is about fun. I would be inclined to give a bit of a pass on this and to their credit communicating the benchmark you use is providing the needed context.

(2) Treantmonk claims that a monk using Patient Defense constantly is still mediocre at tanking even at low levels: "not the best, or the second best, or arguably even the third best, and they need to spend all their resources to hold even the middle spot. This is the spot where they would be if everybody else is not spending resources at all." This is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence, and I don't think it's true. Are there really two or three other classes who, without spending resources or feats, are harder to damage in Tier 1 than a Dodging AC 16-17 monk with Deflect Missiles? Druid, nope, wildshape is a resource. Wizards, everything they do is based on spells which are resources so no. Fighter or paladin? AC 19ish is clearly worse than AC 16-17 with disadvantage. Barbarian, nope, Rage is a resource. Rogue, nope, Uncanny Dodge isn't even online yet. Sorc, warlock, cleric: nothing. Bard: it is to laugh. Ranger? Worse AC than a Fighter.

So it looks like this claim is just flat-out false. If a monk is spending ki to tank, other classes also have to spend resources to keep up, and then it's mostly just a question of which classes have the most resources and who can use their resources most efficiently. (Treantmonk tends to overlook that monks have relatively plentiful ki compared to e.g. Paladin spell slots, Fighter Action Surges, etc.)

I suspect that some of this comes down to game style and what the DM does. If the DM gives early access to things like plate armour or magic armours and shields then AC 16-17 is not great. If the DM likes to use multiple lower level monsters or prefers melee to ranged attacks then deflect arrows isn't great either. It also depends on what you are comparing to - fighter, paladin, cleric and multiclass thereof all can get heavy armour and shields and either shield of faith or defence fighting style or other defensive bonuses. If you are looking at good tanks that can expend resources to be tough then this is where things like eldritch knight set the bar. I mean, I think they are being a bit harsh, but given they set out that they are looking for an area in which the monk is arguably the best as their criterion for success, comparing with the best seems pretty reasonable. I think arguments comparing resource using monk unfavourably with non resource using other classes are not that conclusive - but I will say that if you consider doing enough damage to persuade an enemy to target you to be an important part of "tanking" then the cost of that bonus action is pretty high.

(3) Not everything Treantmonk says is wrong--he makes valid points about saving throws for example; monk's have an undeserved reputation for saving throw excellence which doesn't materialize until level 14.

I think this is another campaign specific thing - if your DM doensn't like to force PCs to miss turns or similar then they are more likely to lean on damage spells than control spells and then in turn overrepresent dexterity saves. I can see monoks doing very well out of saves at some tables with great dex saves and evasion. Not how I would rate it but I can see both sides of this.

(4) It's well known that monk damage falls off around level 11, but Treantmonk claims that every class except the monk has a way to meet or exceed "baseline damage" (which to him means Hexed Agonizing Blast with maxed Charisma). This seems wrong in two ways:

(a) Is this supposed to be about at-will damage? Paladins and Barbs can't meet that baseline either then unless they use GWM, and of course wizards, clerics, etc. fall just pathetically short. A Kensei Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert monk can exceed that baseline just as easily as a Paladin can.

(b) If this is allowed to take resources into account, then of course wizards and paladins can exceed the baseline, but so can e.g. a Fireballing Elemonk.

Either way, Treantmonk is wrong, partly because he's waaaay too focused on Flurry of Blows instead of looking at the whole class.

I think that this can be trying to force too much into a definition. The "baseline" is just a number that represents good, but not outstanding damage as it scales through levels. The method is just a description of how that figure was arrived at. I think getting hung up on if that is the right way to arrive at the number is less important than if the number is broadly correct. I think they are asking "how much damage would a monk need to do, roughly, at each level to be considered to be doing good damage?" And this is their answer.

I don't think it needs hard and fast rules about resource usage - to say that we wont consider extra damage from resources, even when abundant, seems a bit absurd. Likewise to assume peak damage is typical is similarly absurd. And there are so many more factors that tend to get ommited - things like mobility (if you spend a turn dashing to get to melee then that lowers your average damage), reaction attacks (your ability to stand next to someone who really doesnt want you stood next to them and so will move away), intitiative (if you do 4 turns of damage before combat is over and a GWM fighter only does 3 then your average damage per combat will get a boost relative to them).

I do think that the monk is undersold but I don't think that most of the points made are wrong - I think it comes down to personal preference on how you weight different factors and what kind/level campaign you play in.

Merudo

2020-07-30, 05:14 AM

I finally got around to watching Treantmonk's video from the OP, and I'm not impressed. Notes:
(1) The methodology Treantmonk is using seems to be, "a class which isn't clearly better than every other class in at least one niche stinks."

His claim is much stronger: Monks not only are surpassed in every niche - they actively suck in every niche (suck at tanking, suck at damage, and suck at control).

(2) Treantmonk claims that a monk using Patient Defense constantly is still mediocre at tanking even at low levels: "not the best, or the second best, or arguably even the third best, and they need to spend all their resources to hold even the middle spot. This is the spot where they would be if everybody else is not spending resources at all." This is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence, and I don't think it's true. Are there really two or three other classes who, without spending resources or feats, are harder to damage in Tier 1 than a Dodging AC 16-17 monk with Deflect Missiles? Druid, nope, wildshape is a resource. Wizards, everything they do is based on spells which are resources so no. Fighter or paladin? AC 19ish is clearly worse than AC 16-17 with disadvantage. Barbarian, nope, Rage is a resource. Rogue, nope, Uncanny Dodge isn't even online yet. Sorc, warlock, cleric: nothing. Bard: it is to laugh. Ranger? Worse AC than a Fighter.

So it looks like this claim is just flat-out false. If a monk is spending ki to tank, other classes also have to spend resources to keep up, and then it's mostly just a question of which classes have the most resources and who can use their resources most efficiently. (Treantmonk tends to overlook that monks have relatively plentiful ki compared to e.g. Paladin spell slots, Fighter Action Surges, etc.)

Part of his argument is that Monks have less hit points than other tanking classes due to the d8 HP die and lower CON (typically 14) resulting from investing in both DEX and WIS.

For the specific claim your are quoting though ("[Monks] need to spend all their resources to hold even the middle spot") he was clearly talking about "avoiding hits". As you said, a tier 1 Monk spending his Ki to dodge is less likely to be hit than anyone not using resources.

(4) It's well known that monk damage falls off around level 11, but Treantmonk claims that every class except the monk has a way to meet or exceed "baseline damage" (which to him means Hexed Agonizing Blast with maxed Charisma). This seems wrong in two ways:

(a) Is this supposed to be about at-will damage? Paladins and Barbs can't meet that baseline either then unless they use GWM, and of course wizards, clerics, etc. fall just pathetically short. A Kensei Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert monk can exceed that baseline just as easily as a Paladin can.

(b) If this is allowed to take resources into account, then of course wizards and paladins can exceed the baseline, but so can e.g. a Fireballing Elemonk.

He posted DPR tables for some of the classes in his other videos, but I don't believe he did so for every class in the game.

In the case of Forge Cleric, his calculated DPR seemingly assumes unlimited resources, and that the Cleric pre-casted Spirit Guardians or Animated Object before the start of the fight.

Additionally, the DPR he achieved with the Rogue is barely above the baseline.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 05:19 AM

Then you are playing a game far more optimized than the game was designed at. Feats are optional, and a sword and board fighter with dueling is an obvious move to mix AC and Damage.

That is likely the baseline the creators thought about when designing.
No, it isn't. Because if they had thought about any sort of baseline damage, then featless martials wouldn't be outshone by (almost?) every caster.
If you're not playing with feats, you straight up shouldn't play marital DPS (other than because you enjoy it).

stoutstien

2020-07-30, 06:29 AM

No, it isn't. Because if they had thought about any sort of baseline damage, then featless martials wouldn't be outshone by (almost?) every caster.
If you're not playing with feats, you straight up shouldn't play marital DPS (other than because you enjoy it).

That doesn't make much sense seeing how there are quite a few martials that can match and exceed treatmonk's baseline without feats.

Eldariel

2020-07-30, 06:33 AM

Yeah ok they have spells, but their spells are nothing to write home about, besides a few notable ones like Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit and Hunters Mark. There's a reason people don't talk about Ranger spellcasting - The spell list is kind of ****, can't change their spells on long rest and not unique like Paladins. Conjure Animals is probably the best on the list, and yet it is heavily reliant on DM ruling. I dont think anyone look forward to Ranger 9 just to get a spell that druids can cast at level 5. The other level 3 spells on the list are also pretty ****.

Also, if using Treantmonk's logic, Rangers spellcasting are not the best at anything, their martial abilities are also not the best, therefore he should say they are the worst class.

Well, Conjure Animals is still better at fighting than what most non-casters can do. But yeah, Ranger is certainly weaker than full casters (as are all classes that can't cast 9th level spells, quite unsurprisingly) but in its niche of being a damage dealer, a tank and a wilderness utility character, being able to cast 5th level spells is pretty good. The list is shallow but you only know few spells and there are enough great spells to make it quite useful (Plant Growth on an archer Ranger is pretty insane and Conjure Animals is always absurd; Conjure Woodland Beings as well). Plant Growth specifically is a spell Ranger is probably the best class to abuse as a very solid archer that can also cast spells. Honestly, an argument could be made for Rangers being pretty weak far as their class fantasy goes, but their spell list does contain Goodberry, Hunter's Mark, Pass without Trace, Silence, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Thunder Arrow, Conjure Woodland Beings, Guardian of Nature, Freedom of Movement, Swift Quiver, even Wrath of Nature are decent. And you might be able to fit in one utility spell like Commune with Nature. You know 11 spells total so you can e.g. have:
1. Goodberry, Absorb Elements
2. Pass without Trace, Silence, Healing Spirit (if your Wis is good)
3. Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Thunder Arrow
4. Guardian of Nature, Freedom of Movement
5. Commune with Nature

That, for example, is a fine set of spells for e.g. a Hunter or a Gloom Stalker. Of course, there are other spells worth picking up, but that covers all your basic bases. If you're a Gloomy or a Horizon Walker, you obviously do have a good set of extra spells. Certainly Paladin or Artificer tier in terms of utility; none of their abilities compares to True Polymorph or Shapechange or Wish. But still, for a class that hits things with a stick it does a fair number of things fairly well.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 06:37 AM

That doesn't make much sense seeing how there are quite a few martials that can match and exceed treatmonk's baseline without feats.

There are? Citations, please!

Yunru

2020-07-30, 06:43 AM

Also, if using Treantmonk's logic, Rangers spellcasting are not the best at anything, their martial abilities are also not the best, therefore he should say they are the worst class.

I mean, he should if your flanderisation was correct.

But he has not once said something has to be the best, it merely need do something adequately. And when even the Beast Master Ranger can meet the Baseline damage, it's good for, if nothing else, damage.

stoutstien

2020-07-30, 06:54 AM

There are? Citations, please!

Well let's look at the basic SnB champion with duelist at lv 5. Over three round against AC range 13-20 and barring any loss due to repositioning, using AB in melee, and so on the fighter has an output of around 17.3 per round assuming one action surge somewhere in those three rounds. The warlock in the perfect scenario where they never have to reapply or move hex is averaging around 14.15.
is it possible for the warlock to get multiple encounters in a row where they can take advantage of hex sure but if the question is simply can a basic "bad" player option meet the baseline of the warlock without feat the answer is yes.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 07:05 AM

Well let's look at the basic SnB champion with duelist at lv 5. Over three round against AC range 13-20 and barring any loss due to repositioning, using AB in melee, and so on the fighter has an output of around 17.3 per round assuming one action surge somewhere in those three rounds. The warlock in the perfect scenario where they never have to reapply or move hex is averaging around 13.15.

Umm... how are you getting those numbers?

AEB+Hex is an average of 2*(1.05*(5.5+3.5)+2*4)= 34.9, so to get 13.15 from that requires an accuracy of...
34.9X=13.15
X=1315/3490
... an impossible percentage, given that DnD accuracy works in 5% units. And one below 40% (which is very disingenuous) to boot.
(I didn't try and reverse engineer the Fighter because there's a lot more going on their fractionally.)

Edit: I blame the heat for not reading proper.
Against an AC range of 13-20 is still an unrealistic goalpost though, because the only creatures you'll be encountering with AC that high at level 5 are outliers.

Edit 2: With a +7 to hit, the Warlock's accuracy across 13-20 would be:
(0.75+0.6)/2=0.675, far removed from less than 40%

stoutstien

2020-07-30, 07:10 AM

Umm... how are you getting those numbers?

AEB+Hex is an average of 2*(1.05*(5.5+3.5)+2*4)= 34.9, so to get 13.15 from that requires an accuracy of...
34.9X=13.15
X=1315/3490
... an impossible percentage, given that DnD accuracy works in 5% units. And one below 40% (which is very disingenuous) to boot.
(I didn't try and reverse engineer the Fighter because there's a lot more going on their fractionally.)

Edit: I blame the heat for not reading proper.
Against an AC range of 13-20 is still an unrealistic goalpost though, because the only creatures you'll be encountering with AC that high at level 5 are outliers.

What AC range would you like? I use that one because it's the ACs that a level 5 party would see at my table. The 20 is from any NPC with plate and a shield such as a bandit leader who acquired some.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 07:12 AM

What AC range would you like? I use that one because it's the ACs that a level 5 party would see at my table. The 20 is from any NPC with plate and a shield such as a bandit leader who acquired some.
Personally I prefer to do a level/die roll table, like so (note that these tables were done on the fly, so are very simplified):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w4qy8NcGkN0NYAYy3XKpZpHruZLkIh3h4Q_3dIx7xi0/edit?usp=sharing

stoutstien

2020-07-30, 07:39 AM

Personally I prefer to do a level/die roll table, like so (note that these tables were done on the fly, so are very simplified):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w4qy8NcGkN0NYAYy3XKpZpHruZLkIh3h4Q_3dIx7xi0/edit?usp=sharing

I'd have to take your word for it I'm horribly dyslexic so table of numbers Cascade like a matrix loading screen for me.
I was curious how the would both do in a scenario where actors you wasn't an issue other than critical misses. They are closer than I realized which is probably an indication how powerful the Duelist fighting style is when you take away the feat support for the other ones.

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-30, 08:05 AM

Treatmonk's claim of baseline is weird, not to mention it was already found to be off with utilizing a +1 Dex for the monk.

If you're going to baseline, you shouldn't have to use some Min/Max cheese. It should be a more comprehensive baseline.

Here's one done a few years ago, Also not my work. Easy to understand and shows a varying degree of option one would find at most tables with a mix brand of players.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JIrEV1RFv6yxWEdqG6zP3z-ZONDTacquGyqYj8G-CdE/edit?usp=sharing

Yunru

2020-07-30, 08:16 AM

If you're going to baseline, you shouldn't have to use some Min/Max cheese. It should be a more comprehensive baseline.
Since when has "Agonising Blast + Hex" been "Min/Max cheese"?

Or, as I found out based on a previous suggestion, just above a Fighter with Duelist who doesn't use any of their subclass features.

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-30, 08:34 AM

Since when has "Agonising Blast + Hex" been "Min/Max cheese"?

It's a 1d10 + 1d6 + CHA. How did that become a quintessential 'baseline' It seems you could pick anything else and skew the point of view on what these 'baselines' are. If your goal is to do big numbers from numbered rocks. You're focused on one element of play, and obviously not playing a monk.

Not to mention, one hit and a failed con save, there goes your 1d6, and a spell slot down on another class with a limited resource. It just sounds like a flimsy baseline.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 08:35 AM

It's a 1d10 + 1d6 + CHA. How did that become a quintessential 'baseline'
Because it's easily achievable, consistently scaling damage that's independent of class level?

Justin Sane

2020-07-30, 09:42 AM

Because it's easily achievable, consistently scaling damage that's independent of class level?It's more than that - it's an obvious combination, as close to unoptimized optimization as it gets.

Ignimortis

2020-07-30, 10:02 AM

It's more than that - it's an obvious combination, as close to unoptimized optimization as it gets.

Yes, pretty much that. It's the first thing anyone looking at Warlock mechanically usually sees. It's online from level 2 (so basically almost instantly, unlike some other features), almost at-will (unless you lose Hex, and even then it's better than just shooting a Longbow), and who hasn't seen people dip Warlock 2 just for that stable martial-level DPR?

Mr Adventurer

2020-07-30, 10:12 AM

It's more than that - it's an obvious combination, as close to unoptimized optimization as it gets.

That's not how optimisation works. It doesn't have to be obscure.

The fact that it's highly optimised AND easy to do doesn't mean it should be a baseline.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 10:17 AM

Because it's easily achievable, consistently scaling damage that's independent of class level?

Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:

1 of only 2 cantrips known
1 of only 3 spells known
1 of 2 spell slots
- your only concentration "slot"
and 1 of only 2 invocations known

Common though such a setup may be for people who want to focus on damage, that much focus is hardly what I'd hold up as "standard."

Nevermind that it compares using 1 of only 2 spell slots - which is lost with the first failed concentration save - against a Monk who doesn't use his ki to flurry.

And nevermind that while flurrying (or not flurrying), said Monk can also be stunning the enemy, setting up all kinds of advantaged attacks and auto-fails on the party's spells.

And nevermind that it compares that much customization against a base class's damage when that base class has an obvious way to focus on damage (Kensei).

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 10:21 AM

Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:

1 of only 2 cantrips known
1 of only 3 spells known
1 of 2 spell slots
- your only concentration "slot"
and 1 of only 2 invocations known

Common though such a setup may be for people who want to focus on damage, that much focus is hardly what I'd hold up as "standard."

I'm not sure any warlock won't take eldritch blast and agonizing blast. I'm less comfortable with assuming hex and max Cha.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 10:27 AM

I'm not sure any warlock won't take eldritch blast and agonizing blast. I'm less comfortable with assuming hex and max Cha.

Surely, you've at least read about people eschewing EB before, right? I certainly have.

Either way, the last time I played with someone with Warlock levels, they were a RogueLock. And, while I never saw their character sheet, I don't recall them ever using EB during the year+ that I was in that campaign. Strictly Sharpshooter, iirc.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 10:30 AM

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 10:34 AM

Surely, you've at least read about people eschewing EB before, right? I certainly have.

Either way, the last time I played with someone with Warlock levels, they were a RogueLock. And, while I never saw their character sheet, I don't recall them ever using EB. Strictly Sharpshooter.

Pure warlock? Genuinely no, and there's no reason to beyond thinking it's overpowered and wanting to avoid overpowered things. A multiclass option that's using warlock for a bit of utility (telepathy for a scout, maybe?) - perhaps, especially if they're already building into a different ranged archetype like a crossbow/sharpshooter rogue. But warlock dips are more common for charisma synergies, and nearly every cha synergy build that takes more than one level of warlock takes eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's the best low-investment at-will ranged damage available.

Chaosmancer

2020-07-30, 10:34 AM

(2) Treantmonk claims that a monk using Patient Defense constantly is still mediocre at tanking even at low levels: "not the best, or the second best, or arguably even the third best, and they need to spend all their resources to hold even the middle spot. This is the spot where they would be if everybody else is not spending resources at all." This is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence, and I don't think it's true. Are there really two or three other classes who, without spending resources or feats, are harder to damage in Tier 1 than a Dodging AC 16-17 monk with Deflect Missiles? Druid, nope, wildshape is a resource. Wizards, everything they do is based on spells which are resources so no. Fighter or paladin? AC 19ish is clearly worse than AC 16-17 with disadvantage. Barbarian, nope, Rage is a resource. Rogue, nope, Uncanny Dodge isn't even online yet. Sorc, warlock, cleric: nothing. Bard: it is to laugh. Ranger? Worse AC than a Fighter.

So it looks like this claim is just flat-out false. If a monk is spending ki to tank, other classes also have to spend resources to keep up, and then it's mostly just a question of which classes have the most resources and who can use their resources most efficiently. (Treantmonk tends to overlook that monks have relatively plentiful ki compared to e.g. Paladin spell slots, Fighter Action Surges, etc.)

As I understand it, Treantmonk was looking at this from two different angles. Which I disagree with, because of the obvious next step, but it vaguely makes sense if you follow along.

Part 1 is that Monks have the worst hp. I would argue they are only slightly behind Rangers and Paladins who are also putting Con as a Tertiary stat (they both have spellcasting they want to see improved) and rogue is debatable in RAW hp, but he is clearly right that Fighters and Barbarians will have a nice chunk of hp more than the Monk. Followed by Ranger and Paladin.

Part 2 is that those AC numbers you put is not what he was using. But, what he was using was a really weird system of measurements. First, he was not talking about full casters, only the melee classes I mentioned, and secondly he was looking at their best AC if they focused on AC.

So, Monk has 16

But Sword and Board Fighter/Paladin/Ranger with defensive have 19. Barbarian has 18 because they can use a shield. Rogues are a little worse. But he never really addresses that.

Then he points out that Monks can max out at 20, but the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger can get 21, and the Barbarian can get 26 AC with their capstone and a shield.

Now, where this analysis falls flat for me is two fold. 1) Like I said if the party is getting all this gear beyond starting equipment, we need to have gear for monks. It is interesting to note that the Barbarian's unarmored defense is really treated more like a ribbon. They do not lose any abilities for wearing medium armor, and so it is generally better for them to do so. Monk's don't have that option. 2) This assessment is put side-by-side with the PAM-GWM Fighter or Barbarian, and the Ranger with their longbow, with the appropriate styles. Ignoring that this monk who is increasing their Defenses isn't focused on that.

A monk who focuses on offense, raising Dex through 8 gets an 18 AC. Which is just as good as any warrior with two-handed weapons. And the monk can choose to go defensive in an instant, where the Greatsword wielding paladin really can't. They don't get to switch styles and be defensive immediately. And I think this was the greatest flaw in Treantmonk's analysis. He looks at each piece separately, and compares each facet of a single monk's arsenal against a build focused on that aspect from another class.

I think that this can be trying to force too much into a definition. The "baseline" is just a number that represents good, but not outstanding damage as it scales through levels. The method is just a description of how that figure was arrived at. I think getting hung up on if that is the right way to arrive at the number is less important than if the number is broadly correct. I think they are asking "how much damage would a monk need to do, roughly, at each level to be considered to be doing good damage?" And this is their answer.

It might be because the term "baseline". To me, that is really a term that is more of a "lowest reasonable value" than it is "how much is the average of good"

To give an example, the "baseline" in public education is really a D+, that is the lowest you can have and still graduate. I believe (though I could be mistaken) that that is also true in college. "Average" is above the baseline. And going for solid B's (while not impressive by most people's standards) is setting a high bar compared to the baseline.

No, it isn't. Because if they had thought about any sort of baseline damage, then featless martials wouldn't be outshone by (almost?) every caster.
If you're not playing with feats, you straight up shouldn't play marital DPS (other than because you enjoy it).

And yet it can be argued that you shouldn't play martial DPS even with feats, because Casters can still do better than you.

Casters outperforming martials has been a thing for decades, just because it is still true doesn't mean the designers didn't think about a baseline for martial damage when designing martials and monsters.

I mean, he should if your flanderisation was correct.

But he has not once said something has to be the best, it merely need do something adequately. And when even the Beast Master Ranger can meet the Baseline damage, it's good for, if nothing else, damage.

How? (I use +4 for ease of math, nothing else, if all mods are the same the ratio is the same regardless)

Warlock has 1d10+1d6+4 by level 2. That is 13

Ranger is doing 1d8+1d6+4. That gets us 12, which is under. By level 3 they could have the beast attack instead.

I guess if they are using a Giant Snake that is an average of 18, which exceeds it (assuming the enemy fails the save against poison). Which beats the baseline by having the snake attack and not the ranger.

Level 5 gets us to 2d10+2d6+8, which is 26
Compared to (if I add them) 30

So, is that it? That we can use the giant snake, assume the enemy fails the save against poison, and that jumps our numbers up? I guess it is fine, if you want to do that and make those assumptions. But if we apply the standards to this that we did the Monk.

AC isn't good. 11 to 20 hp is horrendous, and the snake is a frontline fighter, it is also more than half you damage out put, and the snake venom is a con save (and not a high one) so most CR enounters will make the save, droping out damage by half. Which means 13 and 25, back below the baseline. And, once the snake is killed, then you are doing Only 12 and 24, still below the base line. Oh, and I've been including hunter's mark on all these, which is a spell that takes concentration and can be lost (just like hex)

And you know what, just for giggles. Let's assume a Variant human, so our Monk can get hunter's mark. Just to see what happens.

Monk at level 2, assuming they get the mark and flurry? 1d8+2d4+3d6+12 = 32 damage

Level five? 2d8+6d6+16 = 45 damage.

Now, I will grant, it takes a little bit of set up. That bonus action is crowded, just like for a dual-wielding ranger. But, since there is an argument that the monk can't possibly be built to beat the baseline.... Well, I doubled the baseline easily

Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:

1 of only 2 cantrips known
1 of only 3 spells known
1 of 2 spell slots
- your only concentration "slot"
and 1 of only 2 invocations known

Common though such a setup may be for people who want to focus on damage, that much focus is hardly what I'd hold up as "standard."

Nevermind that it compares using 1 of only 2 spell slots - which is lost with the first failed concentration save - against a Monk who doesn't use his ki to flurry.

And nevermind that while flurrying (or not flurrying), said Monk can also be stunning the enemy, setting up all kinds of advantaged attacks and auto-fails on the party's spells.

And nevermind that it compares that much customization against a base class's damage when that base class has an obvious way to focus on damage (Kensei).

That's not how optimisation works. It doesn't have to be obscure.

The fact that it's highly optimised AND easy to do doesn't mean it should be a baseline.

These ^ exactly.

I do like the claim that this combo is "independent of class level" indicating that you can put this one any class. The problem is, that means you need to focus on Charisma as a main stat. Which most classes don't do.

Also, it is very likely the warlock's at will damage is over-tuned, to compensate for their lack of spell slots. Note that other full casters with cantrips are doing either 1d10's or 1d8's straight. No mod. No hex damage.

Meaning that unless they are casting leveled spells, they are also below "the baseline" of this combo

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 10:41 AM

It's not, as a previous poster tried to claim, optimising between several options with your limited pick: It's taking the one damage boosting option out of a bunch of otherwise not damage boosting choices.

The previous poster was me lol. And no, it really is a combination of several options. And at level 2, which other previous posters have held up, it really is out of very limited picks.

1 of only 2 cantrips known
1 of only 3 spells known
1 of 2 spell slots
- your only concentration "slot"
and 1 of only 2 invocations known

You could just as well choose to use your limited picks to help you deal melee damage instead. That would start coming online a level later, but still.

Edit:

Pure warlock? Genuinely no, and there's no reason to beyond thinking it's overpowered and wanting to avoid overpowered things. A multiclass option that's using warlock for a bit of utility (telepathy for a scout, maybe?) - perhaps, especially if they're already building into a different ranged archetype like a crossbow/sharpshooter rogue. But warlock dips are more common for charisma synergies, and nearly every cha synergy build that takes more than one level of warlock takes eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's the best low-investment at-will ranged damage available.

You said "never" lol.

But even without multiclassing, BladeLock is still a thing.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 10:41 AM

I do like the claim that this combo is "independent of class level" indicating that you can put this one any class. The problem is, that means you need to focus on Charisma as a main stat. Which most classes don't do.
I've yet to see anyone who's character role in combat is "deal damage" not focus on the stat they deal damage with. Sure, you can't just drop it on a preexisting character willy-nilly, but you sure can right at the beginning when you first design the character.

(Re: Ranger: There's an entire video about it with numbers and stuff that I honestly haven't watched because I just don't like the Ranger. But re: the comparison: The Ranger may also fail at all the other things, but they doesn't fail to meet the damage threshold, so there's a niche they can fill.)

Evaar

2020-07-30, 10:47 AM

Hey guys? The baseline number can be arbitrary. It really doesn’t matter. The point is the Monk struggles to keep up with the damage numbers any other class is able to put out, but yet the Monk is often portrayed as a damage dealer. The baseline number is just a point of comparison.

And it is, by the way, a completely fair and achievable number. If your damage build can be improved by just taking two levels of Warlock and doing Warlock stuff instead, why bother with the rest of the build?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 10:48 AM

And you know what, just for giggles. Let's assume a Variant human, so our Monk can get hunter's mark. Just to see what happens.

How are you getting access to hunter's mark? It's a ranger spell, so it doesn't qualify for Magic Initiate. Are you just going monk 1 ranger 1 for your level 2 build?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 10:53 AM

You said "never" lol.

But even without multiclassing, BladeLock is still a thing.

You got me. I was trying to be charitable, and I've learned my lesson. From now on I'll ask you to actually demonstrate things before I consider whether you might have a point.

Even bladelocks take eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's low-investment ranged damage and keeps them from being useless when they can't use devil's sight/elven accuracy/darkness or whatever their melee combo of choice is.

Evaar

2020-07-30, 10:56 AM

You got me. I was trying to be charitable, and I've learned my lesson. From now on I'll ask you to actually demonstrate things before I consider whether you might have a point.

Even bladelocks take eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's low-investment ranged damage and keeps them from being useless when they can't use devil's sight/elven accuracy/darkness or whatever their melee combo of choice is.

I don’t really see how this is relevant to the thread but I’m currently playing an archer Hexblade without Eldritch Blast or Agonizing Blast because... I’m an archer. They would be wasted.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 11:00 AM

I don’t really see how this is relevant to the thread but I’m currently playing an archer Hexblade without Eldritch Blast or Agonizing Blast because... I’m an archer. They would be wasted.

It's not really relevant to the thread, but I'm engaging on it anyway, which is silly. And yes, you have a normal source of at-will ranged damage. Seems reasonable!

MrStabby

2020-07-30, 11:01 AM

How are you getting access to hunter's mark? It's a ranger spell, so it doesn't qualify for Magic Initiate. Are you just going monk 1 ranger 1 for your level 2 build?

Maybe the mark of finding "variant" human from Eberron?

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 11:01 AM

...
And you know what, just for giggles. Let's assume a Variant human, so our Monk can get hunter's mark. Just to see what happens.
...

Short of the new UA feat, I don't think there's a way to get Hunter's Mark without Ranger levels. I assume you meant Hex via Magic Initiate.

- Edit: Mark of Finding Human does grant one / day. But that's considered a particular race option distinct from V. Human.

You got me. I was trying to be charitable, and I've learned my lesson. From now on I'll ask you to actually demonstrate things before I consider whether you might have a point.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

Even bladelocks take eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's low-investment ranged damage and keeps them from being useless when they can't use devil's sight/elven accuracy/darkness or whatever their melee combo of choice is.

I'll concede that I'm no expert on how most people play their Warlocks (extremely limited spell slots isn't really enticing to me). The most I could do is to say I've read multiple comments about how other people didn't (or wouldn't? I don't remember that well.) bother with EB. But finding them again would take much more searching than I'd want to do lol

But the point is simply that relying on Agonizing Blast, etc, does in fact require a lot of very particular customization, and a very limited resource. These things don't strike me as a great standard or "baseline."

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 11:05 AM

Maybe the mark of finding "variant" human from Eberron?

Doesn't that apply to Insight and Perception checks only? I don't have the Eberron book, so I must be missing something.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 11:09 AM

I'll concede that I'm no expert on how most people play their Warlocks (extremely limited spell slots isn't really enticing to me). The most I could do is to say I've read multiple comments about how other people didn't (or wouldn't? I don't remember that well.) bother with EB. But finding them again would take much more searching than I'd want to do lol

Likewise, I'll concede, especially with Evaar's post, that it's not a given that a warlock will have that combo. I do think, though, that it's likely they will, and that it's a frequent option for warlock dips by bards, paladins or sorcerers. Either way, the question is about whether it's a reasonable baseline, and I think eb+ab is and eb+ab+hex+20 cha probably isn't.

MrStabby

2020-07-30, 11:19 AM

Doesn't that apply to Insight and Perception checks only? I don't have the Eberron book, so I must be missing something.

They can, amongst other things, cast hunter's mark once per long rest.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 11:25 AM

They can, amongst other things, cast hunter's mark once per long rest.

Where is this? I'm looking at Mark of Finding in a PDF of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron now, and I'm genuinely not seeing anything like that. The only spell associated is locate animal or plant.

ScoutTrooper

2020-07-30, 11:27 AM

Yes, pretty much that. It's the first thing anyone looking at Warlock mechanically usually sees. It's online from level 2 (so basically almost instantly, unlike some other features), almost at-will (unless you lose Hex, and even then it's better than just shooting a Longbow), and who hasn't seen people dip Warlock 2 just for that stable martial-level DPR?

I have never seen that in 5 years of playing 5e at dozens of tables.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 11:33 AM

Likewise, I'll concede, especially with Evaar's post, that it's not a given that a warlock will have that combo. I do think, though, that it's likely they will, and that it's a frequent option for warlock dips by bards, paladins or sorcerers. Either way, the question is about whether it's a reasonable baseline, and I think eb+ab is and eb+ab+hex+20 cha probably isn't.

That's much more reasonable - both because it's a bit less customization, and because it's truly at-will. It still basically assumes no Pact of the Blade, but oh well.

With that formulation, the comparison becomes the Warlock's 8.5/19/21/31.5 damage at levels 2/5/8/11
vs the dex-focused base Monk's 13/24.5/27.5/28.5 at levels 1/5/8/11.

Of course, focusing on Dex means the Monk's stun (as well as many subclass features) would suffer, but still.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 11:43 AM

No, in which case the new metric becomes a Duelist Fighter so we don't have to redo any numbers (because they're nearly identical) :P

Evaar

2020-07-30, 12:12 PM

Where is this? I'm looking at Mark of Finding in a PDF of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron now, and I'm genuinely not seeing anything like that. The only spell associated is locate animal or plant.

Depending on when you downloaded that PDF, the Dragonmarked subraces are completely different in Rising From The Last War. He is correct that Hunter's Mark 1/longrest is a feature of the Mark of Finding subrace for humans/half-orcs in that book.

But also, you're getting +2 Wis/+1 Con with that subrace. No Dexterity bump. If my internet database of choice is correct.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 12:24 PM

No, in which case the new metric becomes a Duelist Fighter so we don't have to redo any numbers (because they're nearly identical) :P

Oho, so now we'll do martial vs martial?

That'd be 9.5/21/23/34.5 at lvl 1/5/6/11
vs 13/24.5/ 27.5/28.5 at levels 1/5/8/11.

I think we all agree that the base Monk's relative dpr drops quite a bit at lvl 11. Do we want to think up ways to change that? Maybe with a change to martial arts scaling? Maybe we'd like it if it were 1d4 → 1d6 → 1d4+1d6 → 2d6, or somesuch?

Or should our analysis of tier 3+ Monks even be focused on dpr in the first place? After all, by that level, a Monk has enough ki to spam stunning strike and neutralize the main threat / make it more vulnerable to the whole party's dpr nearly every round until it's dead. (3 rounds of party-wide focus-fire with advantage and auto-fail on Str / Dex saves should kill pretty much anything.)

Lemme put it this way:
I like to think of the Monk as more of a Jack of All Trades, Master of Stun.

The subclass helps a Monk to at least get closer to Master of some-other-thing, too. Stealth with Shadow. Dpr with Kensei. Tanking with Long Death. Control with Open Hand (with a little towards tanking and dpr, too).

- Shadow is something of a standout, here. The only thing that prevents it from clearly being outright better than Rogues at sneaking and infiltration is that it gets no expertise. But even that can be compensated for by going V.human Prodigy Stealth. (But then you lose your innate darkvision. Good thing Goggles of Night are uncommon and don't require attunement!)

... He is correct that Hunter's Mark 1/longrest is a feature of the Mark of Finding subrace for humans/half-orcs in that book.

But also, you're getting +2 Wis/+1 Con with that subrace. No Dexterity bump. If my internet database of choice is correct.

He also called it "V. Human," which it isn't.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 12:29 PM

That'd be 9.5/21/23/34.5 at lvl 1/5/6/11
vs 13/24.5/ 27.5/28.5 at levels 1/5/8/11.

Ah, but you fail to account for Action Surge adding a 7/6 multiplier!

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 12:35 PM

Ah, but you fail to account for Action Surge adding a 7/6 multiplier!

We were comparing at-will damage.

If we're now spending resources for the Fighter, then we should also be spending resources for the Monk. And while we're at it, we should compare multiple rounds, else the bulk of the difference would come from comparing a 1-round nova vs the beginning of a sustainable sprint.

But really, that at-will damage is more like gravy on the Monk's stunningly star feature. :smalltongue: - Especially by tier 3, when Monks have enough ki to focus on stunning.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 12:44 PM

If we're now spending resources for the Fighter, then we should also be spending resources for the Monk.
We are?
All my numbers, at least, have been for a Monk with at-will Flurry of Blows, a massive boon to them.
And they still fall short.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 12:54 PM

We are?
All my numbers, at least, have been for a Monk with at-will Flurry of Blows, a massive boon to them.
And they still fall short.

Short vs that 1 round of action surge, sure. So at lvl 8, it becomes 46 Surge vs 36 Flurry... in round 1. Then, it'd go back to 23 vs 36 for up to 7 rounds after that.

- The Monk comes out slightly ahead after the very next round, then beats the Fighter out by another 13 every round after that.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 12:55 PM

Short vs that 1 round of action surge, sure. So at lvl 8, it becomes 46 Surge vs 36 Flurry... in round 1. Then, it'd go back to 23 vs 36 for up to 7 rounds after that.

Yes... Hence the 7/6 modifier.

HPisBS

2020-07-30, 12:59 PM

Yes... Hence the 7/6 modifier.

That's a really odd way of noting this. I can't tell what it's supposed to mean in this context lol.

Or at least not how it leads to this result:

- The Monk comes out slightly ahead after the very next round, then beats the Fighter out by another 13 every round after that.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 01:05 PM

Depending on when you downloaded that PDF, the Dragonmarked subraces are completely different in Rising From The Last War. He is correct that Hunter's Mark 1/longrest is a feature of the Mark of Finding subrace for humans/half-orcs in that book.

But also, you're getting +2 Wis/+1 Con with that subrace. No Dexterity bump. If my internet database of choice is correct.

Oh, I wasn't looking at Rising from the Last War. Thanks for giving me the source.

I suppose you could take your +2 racial bonus to wis and just stick some more points in dex in character creation. You're going to want high to moderate dex, wis and con anyway; it's not like it's getting you points in a pure dump stat. If you're locked into the standard array, it could be a bit more problematic in DPR comparisons, but not the end of the world. You're still competitive enough in ideal conditions whether your extra +1 is in wis or dex, and the +1 wis actually helps the monk's nova condition of flurry/stunning strike more than the +1 dex.

samcifer

2020-07-30, 01:05 PM

My method of 'fixing' the low damage output of a monk is to have 13+ charisma and taking 1 or 2 levels of Hexblade warlock to add proficiency bonus damage to every hit and having access to the Hex spell. If you can cast Hex before battle, you can go a long way towards adding more damage to each hit. It will never be amazing damage, but with up to 4 attacks per turn, it will add up to something better than the flat base damage they tend to have. If you do this with a Bugbear, you can keep out of enemies reach to make keeping your distance and reducing the damage you take by keeping you out of many monsters' reach.

At least that's how I see it.

Evaar

2020-07-30, 01:08 PM

Oh, I wasn't looking at Rising from the Last War. Thanks for giving me the source.

I suppose you could take your +2 racial bonus to wis and just stick some more points in dex in character creation. You're going to want high to moderate dex, wis and con anyway; it's not like it's getting you points in a pure dump stat. If you're locked into the standard array, it could be a bit more problematic in DPR comparisons, but not the end of the world. You're still competitive enough in ideal conditions whether your extra +1 is in wis or dex, and the +1 wis actually helps the monk's nova condition of flurry/stunning strike more than the +1 dex.

Yeah it's not a boost to dump stats, but if we're comparing with point buy or standard array (which we should be, otherwise let's just assume 18 in all stats because why not?) then we have to consider any monk reliant on Hunter's Mark is either dipping into Ranger or is operating at -1 modifier to attack and damage on every attack until level 12 (starting at 15, getting to 17 at four, 19 at eight, and finally 20 at twelve). Not the worst thing in the world, but Not Great, Bob!

Chaosmancer

2020-07-30, 01:29 PM

I've yet to see anyone who's character role in combat is "deal damage" not focus on the stat they deal damage with. Sure, you can't just drop it on a preexisting character willy-nilly, but you sure can right at the beginning when you first design the character.

(Re: Ranger: There's an entire video about it with numbers and stuff that I honestly haven't watched because I just don't like the Ranger. But re: the comparison: The Ranger may also fail at all the other things, but they doesn't fail to meet the damage threshold, so there's a niche they can fill.)

Technically? The ranger does fail to meet the threshold.

The Giant Snake doesn't.

If the ranger picked a more classic Wolf companion, or a panther, those numbers would be very different.

And, yes, obviously a class that focuses on damage will use the stat they use damage for.

But, let us say you are a Cleric. How are you reaching this baseline with no feats, and no using daily resources like spells?

Hey guys? The baseline number can be arbitrary. It really doesn’t matter. The point is the Monk struggles to keep up with the damage numbers any other class is able to put out, but yet the Monk is often portrayed as a damage dealer. The baseline number is just a point of comparison.

And it is, by the way, a completely fair and achievable number. If your damage build can be improved by just taking two levels of Warlock and doing Warlock stuff instead, why bother with the rest of the build?

And you've hit on the two problems.

1) If the baseline is arbitrary, then it isn't accurate. The monk does not struggle to keep up with damage from other melee classes, assuming no resources spent and no SS or GWM until 11th level. I've shown this, repeatedly.

2) The warlock is a very powerful at-will damage dealer. A lot of builds struggle to keep up with the Warlock if you can't have feats, because 1d10+mod is better than most weapons in the game, and when you can add a 1d6 to each strike, and you get as many attacks as a fighter, it adds up to a fairly significant amount of damage.

How are you getting access to hunter's mark? It's a ranger spell, so it doesn't qualify for Magic Initiate. Are you just going monk 1 ranger 1 for your level 2 build?

Originally it was a mark of finding human, but that made them Eberron specific. So I switched over to the Feytouched feat.

Though, to be blunt, I could just have it be hex instead. I was just talking about the ranger right before it, so hunter's mark was on the mind.

Edit: I see I sparked a lot of discussion. The reasoning for Fey-touched goes even further, if it becomes official, I know it is UA, is that you can get a +1 Wisdom as well, and keep your stats going.

But, again, to be obvious, you can go magic initiate for hex too, it doesn't change the damage numbers at all. Which everyone seems to be ignoring, this monk crushed the baseline damage, and their action economy was no worse that a dual-weilding ranger.

Yunru

2020-07-30, 01:32 PM

But, again, to be obvious, you can go magic initiate for hex too, it doesn't change the damage numbers at all. Which everyone seems to be ignoring, this monk crushed the baseline damage, and their action economy was no worse that a dual-weilding ranger.

You speak of not using limited resources, then come up with this?
How is a Monk that can cast Hex once a day "crushing" the baseline?

diplomancer

2020-07-30, 01:32 PM

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 01:35 PM

Yeah it's not a boost to dump stats, but if we're comparing with point buy or standard array (which we should be, otherwise let's just assume 18 in all stats because why not?) then we have to consider any monk reliant on Hunter's Mark is either dipping into Ranger or is operating at -1 modifier to attack and damage on every attack until level 12 (starting at 15, getting to 17 at four, 19 at eight, and finally 20 at twelve). Not the worst thing in the world, but Not Great, Bob!

I mostly think we should be operating under AL rules in these discussions whenever possible, as they're the closest thing we've got to a universal ruleset for character generation methods, variant rules, control of magic items and so on. I do think that, while it's not ideal to be at -1 to hit and damage, in some cases it might be better to have +1 DC on stunning strike, open hand technique and the other open hand features, or the four elements features. That said, a monk planning to focus on their burst control with stunning strike and open hand technique is maybe less likely to care about having hunter's mark. It's a real cost, though, for sure, since it harms your chance to hit with those flurry/stunning strikes on bosses.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2020-07-30, 01:43 PM

Re: Ranger Discussion: isn't it pretty universally acknowledged that the beastmaster ranger is close to the worst class/subclass combination in the game and has some problems as written?

Yunru

2020-07-30, 01:53 PM

Re: Ranger Discussion: isn't it pretty universally acknowledged that the beastmaster ranger is close to the worst class/subclass combination in the game and has some problems as written?
It's not that bad, mechanically; the beast just needs some more survivability.
It's a pretty "feels bad" subclass as written though, given that the answer to Snowball dying is "here's Snowball 2... when you get time to acquire him."

MaxWilson

2020-07-30, 02:11 PM

There's enough discussion here that I'm pulling out my old Usenet etiquette. Instead of responding to sentences at a time, I'll quote whole posts (*snipping* to reduce context) and respond at the end. When I'm responding to multiple points within a post I'll label the paragraphs I want to respond to (A), (B), (C), etc.

(A) I think this definition is not without merit. I am not saying it is always the best, but it is useful - if not for measuring overall power then at least levels of fun for some players. I would use a similar criterion when chosing a class. "What role do I want to fill?" and "what class to play such that no one else in the party will be doing my role better?" are two really significant questions I have when chosing a character I will enjoy. It isn't about overall power but it is about fun. I would be inclined to give a bit of a pass on this and to their credit communicating the benchmark you use is providing the needed context.

I suspect that some of this comes down to game style and what the DM does. If the DM gives early access to things like plate armour or magic armours and shields then AC 16-17 is not great. (B) If the DM likes to use multiple lower level monsters or prefers melee to ranged attacks then deflect arrows isn't great either.

*snip*

(C) I think that this can be trying to force too much into a definition. The "baseline" is just a number that represents good, but not outstanding damage as it scales through levels. The method is just a description of how that figure was arrived at. I think getting hung up on if that is the right way to arrive at the number is less important than if the number is broadly correct. I think they are asking "how much damage would a monk need to do, roughly, at each level to be considered to be doing good damage?" And this is their answer.

*snip*

(A) I do think the methodology is of dubious merit because it leads to obviously-erroneous conclusions. Apply the same methodology to fighters and hey, look, now fighters stink at damage too because at level 1 monks and rogues do better damage than they do! (Except for TWF fighters, who stink because later on other fighters do more damage than they do.) And yet, monks stink at damage because at level 11+ Fighters do more damage. And Barbarians stink at tanking because level 18+ monks are invisible AND have resistance to everything except force damage, whereas Barbarians are merely resistant to BPS damage unless they take a specific subclass, and tend to grant advantage to their enemies' attacks instead of imposing disadvantage on them like Empty Body does. The methodology (falsely) implies that lots of thinks stink when actually they don't. You don't have to be unquestionably the best at something to be good at it.

In fact, good game design goes out of its way to avoid (where possible) making anything unquestionably the best at anything, because having to make tradeoffs is interesting.

(B) Treantmonk says this too about multiple monsters but it's actually false. Because you only use your Deflect Missiles reaction on a hit, vs. an attack, it still works great against multiple monsters, and in fact you can make it even more useful simply by imposing disadvantage on both sides by going prone or staying at long range. I've seen a level 7ish monk take out seven hobgoblin archers by herself with barely a scratch, by staying at long range and catching the rare hits. Treantmonk also dismisses Deflect Missiles against e.g. boulders thrown by giants, but again he's wrong here: if a Fire Giant can hit you with one boulder every other round or so (one attack at +11 vs. AC 18ish, possibly with disadvantage due to range), and you can reduce THAT damage by about 2/3 without spending any resources... you're a remarkably good tank against that Fire Giant, better than a Raging Barbarian!

Yet another case where Treantmonk's arguments seem arbitrarily dismissive. (Paraphrase) "It doesn't grant immunity therefore it's worthless," when actually it triples your effective HP, is just wrong.

Side note: he does this with Stunning Strike too. "Literally any spell that doesn't target Con" is better than Stunning Strike he says, but: (1) Plenty of really dangerous monsters like Beholders and Mind Flayers have weak Con, and (2) a spell that targets a monster's immunity (e.g. frightened) is worse than a spell that targets a strong save for that monster (Con). Stunning Strike is not as good as some people think, but it's not as bad as Treantmonk represents it to be either. It's a pretty good ability, and under some circumstances it's an excellent ability.

(C) You didn't actually respond to the point I was making here, you got hung up on the parenthetical about what his baseline was. My point was that his comparison is both unclear and wrong. It's unclear in that it's not obvious whether he's talking about at-will DPR or not, and it's wrong in that whether or not you assume he's talking about at-will DPR, it isn't true that the monk is the one class that can't meet the Hexed Agonizing Blast Cha 20 baseline.

If you assume it's about at-will DPR, then a damage-focused monk can meet that baseline just as easily as a damaged-focused Paladin or Barbarian. Level 11, even using point-buy instead of average rolls, (I know Treantmonk loves point buy so I'll use it for argument's sake), vs. AC 17 for example, the baseline damage is 3 x d10+d6+5 at +9 to hit = 28.65 DPR. A point buy human Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert Kensei with a hand crossbow will have Dex 18 and a +3 Hand Crossbow from Sharpen the Blade, so 3 x d8+17 at +6 to hit = 32.92 DPR. At level 12 that improves to Dex 20 (+7 to hit, +18 to damage) and 37.8 DPR for the Kensei. In the real world, the Kensei would be likely to take a single level of Fighter for Archery style, bringing to-hit up to +9 and DPR up to 44.55. By level 20 the baseline has increased by one more d10+d6+5, but by then the Kensei has a free re-roll on any miss and optionally Empty Body for advantage on attacks, so he can still stay ahead of the baseline.

BTW I don't love Kensei, in fact I think they are boring compared to Shadow Monks, and I probably wouldn't make a damage-focused character into a Kensei (I'd go Sharpshooter). I'm just disproving Treantmonk's claim here that monks can't keep up, I'm not advocating a playstyle.

(A) His claim is much stronger: Monks not only are surpassed in every niche - they actively suck in every niche (suck at tanking, suck at damage, and suck at control).

Part of his argument is that Monks have less hit points than other tanking classes due to the d8 HP die and lower CON (typically 14) resulting from investing in both DEX and WIS.

*snip*

(B) In the case of Forge Cleric, his calculated DPR seemingly assumes unlimited resources, and that the Cleric pre-casted Spirit Guardians or Animated Object before the start of the fight.

(A) Yeah, I was being charitable. The stronger version of Treantmonk's claim is just downright wrong and everybody knows it.

I wonder if this is due to Treantmonk's business model. Treantmonk is paid for having strong opinions that generate attention, so maybe he's attracted to superlatives? A video that says "Monks are pretty decent under XYZ conditions" might be more correct than one that says "monks STINK because [flawed analysis]," but would it make Treantmonk more money? Cui bono this video?

(B) In any scenario where Spirit Guardians has good damage, a Fireballing Elemonk is likely to also have excellent damage, since it does twice as much damage and has a bigger area and much better placement (centered on the area that hits the most monsters, not centered on a PC).

This should be obvious. It's annoying that Treantmonk is so uncritical of his own opinions here. Max to Treantmonk: No, @Treantmonk, you haven't proved that monks stink at damage. You haven't even seriously tried to answer the question--you've just stated your opinion without seriously examining it first to see if it's really true.

As I understand it, Treantmonk was looking at this from two different angles. Which I disagree with, because of the obvious next step, but it vaguely makes sense if you follow along.

Part 1 is that Monks have the worst hp. I would argue they are only slightly behind Rangers and Paladins who are also putting Con as a Tertiary stat (they both have spellcasting they want to see improved) and rogue is debatable in RAW hp, but he is clearly right that Fighters and Barbarians will have a nice chunk of hp more than the Monk. Followed by Ranger and Paladin.

Part 2 is that those AC numbers you put is not what he was using. But, what he was using was a really weird system of measurements. First, he was not talking about full casters, only the melee classes I mentioned, and secondly he was looking at their best AC if they focused on AC.

*snip*

Now, where this analysis falls flat for me is two fold. 1) Like I said if the party is getting all this gear beyond starting equipment, we need to have gear for monks. It is interesting to note that the Barbarian's unarmored defense is really treated more like a ribbon. They do not lose any abilities for wearing medium armor, and so it is generally better for them to do so. Monk's don't have that option. 2) This assessment is put side-by-side with the PAM-GWM Fighter or Barbarian, and the Ranger with their longbow, with the appropriate styles. Ignoring that this monk who is increasing their Defenses isn't focused on that.

*snip*

I do like the claim that this combo is "independent of class level" indicating that you can put this one any class. The problem is, that means you need to focus on Charisma as a main stat. Which most classes don't do.

Also, it is very likely the warlock's at will damage is over-tuned, to compensate for their lack of spell slots. Note that other full casters with cantrips are doing either 1d10's or 1d8's straight. No mod. No hex damage.

Meaning that unless they are casting leveled spells, they are also below "the baseline" of this combo

I have no real response to make to any of this, just wanted to say, "Yeah, I think you're right."

Re: Ranger Discussion: isn't it pretty universally acknowledged that the beastmaster ranger is close to the worst class/subclass combination in the game and has some problems as written?

The problems the beastmaster has are fictional, not mechanical. As in, "people who are attracted to the idea of playing a Beastmaster tend to discover that everything they want to do is actually illegal and/or ineffective." You want to play Tarzan and his gorilla brother? Sorry, that gorilla is a mindless zombie unless Tarzan is actively directing it. You want to play a girl and her marvellous intelligent horse Black Beauty? Sorry, Black Beauty isn't even legal as a companion because horses are Large instead of Medium.

It's not really related to damage. Damage-wise Beastmasters are fine, since they still have the awesome Ranger spell list to draw on, and Rangers still have Archery style and Extra Attack.