Monk: A DPR Analysis (Video)

[CMCC]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I would pull together some monk DPR numbers and compare to other builds and make a video analysis about my findings. I've done just that. Lots of work. Lots of time. Lots of graphs. But it was a good learning experience for me.

I chatted a bunch with Ludic, because he's much more bullish about Monk abilities and power levels than I am. I wanted to give the Monk a fair shake, and I think I did just that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_TGR1rs1HA

[Skrum]

Really good breakdown!! I have a couple of quibbles with the methodology (like applying the hexblade's curse for an entire encounter seems fairly unlikely in game conditions), but I can also see why you made a few assumptions like that. They're quite minor in the scheme of things.

That ranger build....wth lol. That's with summoned pets?

[CMCC]

Really good breakdown!! I have a couple of quibbles with the methodology (like applying the hexblade's curse for an entire encounter seems fairly unlikely in game conditions), but I can also see why you made a few assumptions like that. They're quite minor in the scheme of things.

That ranger build....wth lol. That's with summoned pets?

Yeah. Conjure animals > velociraptors > insanity.

It’s not “fair”, but leaving out a spell like that is completely disingenuous so I couldn’t do it and still feel good about the analysis.

[Skrum]

Does the caster even get to choose the animal though? https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/conjure-animals

That would make this build effectively not a build.

[CMCC]

Side note: Pact Tactics released a Gunk build - which I left off this analysis. Treantmonk featured a Bunk build last week. So those can be used to fill in the ranged monk gaps I left.

[CMCC]

Does the caster even get to choose the animal though? https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/conjure-animals

That would make this build effectively not a build.

Check out pack tactics video on the subject. Basically the wording of Conjure Animals and polymorph are functionally the same. So there’s no reason for a DM to not allow the Player to choose. Plus it’s just lame to screw them over like that. Now the details of initiative and combat order is something that i totally get a DM changing for convenience.

YMMV though.

[PhantomSoul]

Check out pack tactics video on the subject. Basically the wording of Conjure Animals and polymorph are functionally the same. So there’s no reason for a DM to not allow the Player to choose. Plus it’s just lame to screw them over like that. Now the details of initiative and combat order is something that i totally get a DM changing for convenience.

YMMV though.


Conjure Animals:

Choose one of the following options for what
appears:
• One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower
• Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
• Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

Polymorph:

The new form
can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or
less than the target's (or the target's level, if it doesn't
have a challenge rating).

They are written differently.

With that said, if using Conjure Animals, letting the Player choose (but conserving veto power if it's actually turning into a problem) is fine by me. But really, replacing Conjure Animals altogether has been a better strategy.

[CMCC]

Conjure Animals:


Polymorph:


They are written differently.

With that said, if using Conjure Animals, letting the Player choose (but conserving veto power if it's actually turning into a problem) is fine by me. But really, replacing Conjure Animals altogether has been a better strategy.

The same meaning: nowhere does it mention the DM or player choosing the specific beast(s)

[Unoriginal]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I would pull together some monk DPR numbers and compare to other builds and make a video analysis about my findings. I've done just that. Lots of work. Lots of time. Lots of graphs. But it was a good learning experience for me.

I chatted a bunch with Ludic, because he's much more bullish about Monk abilities and power levels than I am. I wanted to give the Monk a fair shake, and I think I did just that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_TGR1rs1HA


I'm quite confused by your selection of a Mercy Monk for this comparison, only to use the generic Monk capacities rather than the Mercy Monk's signature damage boosting ones (something you point out in the video itself).

I'm also quite confused why you used a Fighter/Monk multiclass for this comparison, given that it doesn't help showcase the DPR of the Monk class within the parameters you set (since the multiclassing hinder the ki and your Monk calculation is based on Flurry of Blows + 2x Stunning strike). Plus it's the only build with multiclass in the video, even when a multiclass could have easily augmented the DPR of, say, the Polarm Master Paladin.

Unless the goal was to show that even an unoptimized Monk does clear your damage baseline, but that's not what the intro of your video suggest.


If you want to showcase the DPR of the Mercy Monk in particular, I'd suggest Variant Human with Fighting Initiate: Unarmed Fighting Style, ending up with 18 DEX and 16 WIS at lvl 5, 20 DEX and 16 WIS at lvl 9 and 20 DEX and 18 WIS at lvl 13. At lvl 12, replace the Unarmed fighting style from Fighting Initiate with Superior Technique: Disarming Attack.

Using their subclass abilities the same way as the other builds in the video did (aka as much as they can even if it'd be more tactically sound to not), that's:

At lvl 5: 4x 1d8+4 attacks with 2 stunning strike and one 1d6+3 Hand of Harm, for 1 more ki than your video's version, and 3x 1d8+4 attacks without ki.

At lvl 9: 4x 1d8+5 attacks with 2 stunning strike and one 1d6+3 Hand of Harm, for 1 more ki than your video's version, and 3x 1d8+5 attacks without ki.

At lvl 13: 4x 1d8+5 attacks with 2 stunning strike, one 1d8+4 Hand of Harm +1d6 from Disarming Attack once per rest, for the same ki cost as your video's version, and 3x 1d8+4 attacks without ki.

Which is a significant DPR bump over the video's version, I would say.

[CMCC]

I'm quite confused by your selection of a Mercy Monk for this comparison, only to use the generic Monk capacities rather than the Mercy Monk's signature damage boosting ones (something you point out in the video itself).

I'm also quite confused why you used a Fighter/Monk multiclass for this comparison, given that it doesn't help showcase the DPR of the Monk class within the parameters you set (since the multiclassing hinder the ki and your Monk calculation is based on Flurry of Blows + 2x Stunning strike). Plus it's the only build with multiclass in the video, even when a multiclass could have easily augmented the DPR of, say, the Polarm Master Paladin.

Unless the goal was to show that even an unoptimized Monk does clear your damage baseline, but that's not what the intro of your video suggest.


If you want to showcase the DPR of the Mercy Monk in particular, I'd suggest Variant Human with Fighting Initiate: Unarmed Fighting Style, ending up with 18 DEX and 16 WIS at lvl 5, 20 DEX and 16 WIS at lvl 9 and 20 DEX and 18 WIS at lvl 13. At lvl 12, replace the Unarmed fighting style from Fighting Initiate with Superior Technique: Disarming Attack.

Using their subclass abilities the same way as the other builds in the video did (aka as much as they can even if it'd be more tactically sound to not), that's:

At lvl 5: 4x 1d8+4 attacks with 2 stunning strike and one 1d6+3 Hand of Harm, for 1 more ki than your video's version, and 3x 1d8+4 attacks without ki.

At lvl 9: 4x 1d8+5 attacks with 2 stunning strike and one 1d6+3 Hand of Harm, for 1 more ki than your video's version, and 3x 1d8+5 attacks without ki.

At lvl 13: 4x 1d8+5 attacks with 2 stunning strike, one 1d8+4 Hand of Harm +1d6 from Disarming Attack once per rest, for the same ki cost as your video's version, and 3x 1d8+4 attacks without ki.

Which is a significant DPR bump over the video's version, I would say.

I did the math on Mercy. The way I did it maximized DPR. Hand of Harm was used when it made mathematical sense to do so. Hand of Harm is "free" by level 13 btw.

If you think Ludic's Monk build is suboptimal, that's your opinion that I personally don't share. It's quite powerful from basically all aspects. It doubles the baseline at 9. Not sure your issue there.

If you'd like to submit another build, I'm happy to run it through my DPR analysis an add it as a pinned comment (with your permission) if it does well.

Thanks for the feedback!



I'm also quite confused why you used a Fighter/Monk multiclass for this comparison, given that it doesn't help showcase the DPR of the Monk class within the parameters you set (since the multiclassing hinder the ki and your Monk calculation is based on Flurry of Blows + 2x Stunning strike). Plus it's the only build with multiclass in the video, even when a multiclass could have easily augmented the DPR of, say, the Polarm Master Paladin.

Fair criticism. I didn't multiclass the comparative builds because I wanted them to be as simple as possible. "Very simple optimization" was my motto for those builds.
Multiclassing into fighter for Shadow Monk is key to the DPR as Blind Fighting adds a ton of value, and so does action surge and maneuvers later on. The two monk builds could afford more customization because I wanted the best versions of those two builds.

Originally I had a third monk build, but I couldn't find the "right" one. I wanted it to be a ranged Bunk/Gunk build. Probably a Kensei monk. I opted to leave it out for that reason and time constraints. I wanted this to be a sub 20 min video and it was getting a touch long. Ended up at 18 min, so I could have fit it in - unfortunately.

[CMCC]

Well, this is now my best performing and most downvoted video to date. Interesting.

If you downvoted, feel free to post why in the comments - even if it's "i hate your voice, and you're ugly." :)

[Witty Username]

Monk, like DMC, is polarizing. Some people really hate monk, others really love monk. It means feedback is going to be a few ticks above normal.
I will check the vid out maybe after work tomorrow.

[CMCC]

Monk, like DMC, is polarizing. Some people really hate monk, others really love monk. It means feedback is going to be a few ticks above normal.
I will check the vid out maybe after work tomorrow.

Please do. If you like, consider subscribing :) I’m dangerously close to 1k subscribers ;)

[Frogreaver]

It saddens me how precision attack was calculated :smallfrown:

[animorte]

You certainly got that description correct. Calculating the utility provided through Stunning Strike is not really obtainable, that and their ability to avoid damage. So for those that only seek highest damage, here you go. For those that are looking for a class to offer other things aside from just damage, perhaps you'll need to look elsewhere.

It's nice to see this breakdown and my first thought was how I would optimize your baseline Monk to challenge some of these builds! :tongue:

[CMCC]

It saddens me how precision attack was calculated :smallfrown:

If you have a better, reasonable, time efficient way of doing it - I would LOVE to hear it.

I’m willing to bet that only applying it on misses would add a relatively small amount of DPR. Less than 1.

So either way I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

[CMCC]

You certainly got that description correct. Calculating the utility provided through Stunning Strike is not really obtainable, that and their ability to avoid damage. So for those that only seek highest damage, here you go. For those that are looking for a class to offer other things aside from just damage, perhaps you'll need to look elsewhere.

It's nice to see this breakdown and my first thought was how I would optimize your baseline Monk to challenge some of these builds! :tongue:

Would love to see them. I may do a follow up with Bunk and Gunk builds and any others that were omitted and would provide value.

[animorte]

Would love to see them. I may do a follow up with Bunk and Gunk builds and any others that were omitted and would provide value.

Sorry, correction: I thought about how I would optimize the baseline Warlock... But then it wouldn't be baseline, would it?

[CMCC]

Sorry, correction: I thought about how I would optimize the baseline Warlock... But then it wouldn't be baseline, would it?

Yeah it’s baseline because it’s basic and very difficult to mess up in both creation and combat.

[Frogreaver]

If you have a better, reasonable, time efficient way of doing it - I would LOVE to hear it.

I’m willing to bet that only applying it on misses would add a relatively small amount of DPR. Less than 1.

So either way I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

A quick estimate without using binomial distributions is going to be:

average dice needed = #attacksPerShortRest / 20 * N (where N is the size of a miss you will use precision attack on). Do this for a few N until you find one that needs a bit more than 4 (since you only have 4 supeririorty dice, if you have more then use the number of superiority dice you have).

For a 2 attack character with action surge, and 2 encounters per short rest of 4 rounds each, that's 18 / 20 * 5 = 4.5

Thus. N=5. This means you use precision attack on a miss by 5 or less. Then it's just calculating your chance precision attack turns an attack into a miss = (8/8 + 7/8 + 6/8 + 5/8 + 4/8) / (5) = 0.75. This is the chance precision attack turns a miss into a hit.

You have 4 precision superiority dice and you probably do around 17.5 damage on an attack, so the short rest damage provided by precision attack = (4)*(0.75)*(17.5) = 52.5 total damage per short rest. In your case that's 105 damage per day. Since there's 16 rounds of combat in your day that's 105/16 = +6.6 DPR added by precision attack as a decent estimate.

Your method adds .225 to hit to 4 attacks per short rest. 0.225*4*17.5 = 15.75 per short rest = 31.5 per day. 31.5/16 = +2 DPR for precision attack using your method.

You are undervaluing the DPR add of precision attack by about 4.6 DPR.

[CMCC]

A quick estimate without using binomial distributions is going to be:

average dice needed = #attacksPerShortRest / 20 * N (where N is the size of a miss you will use precision attack on). Do this for a few N until you find one that needs a bit more than 4 (since you only have 4 supeririorty dice, if you have more then use the number of superiority dice you have).

For a 2 attack character with action surge, and 2 encounters per short rest of 4 rounds each, that's 18 / 20 * 5 = 4.5

Thus. N=5. This means you use precision attack on a miss by 5 or less. Then it's just calculating your chance precision attack turns an attack into a miss = (8/8 + 7/8 + 6/8 + 5/8 + 4/8) / (5) = 0.75. This is the chance precision attack turns a miss into a hit.

You have 4 precision superiority dice and you probably do around 17.5 damage on an attack, so the short rest damage provided by precision attack = (4)*(0.75)*(17.5) = 52.5 total damage per short rest. In your case that's 105 damage per day. Since there's 16 rounds of combat in your day that's 105/16 = +6.6 DPR added by precision attack as a decent estimate.

Your method adds .225 to hit to 4 attacks per short rest. 0.225*4*17.5 = 15.75 per short rest = 31.5 per day. 31.5/16 = +2 DPR for precision attack using your method.

You are undervaluing the DPR add of precision attack by about 4.6 DPR.

Im sorry what? The chance of turning a miss into a hit is 75% (0.75).

[Frogreaver]

Im sorry what? The chance of turning a miss into a hit is 75% (0.75).

Short answer, Yes. Slightly more nuanced answer is that you asked for a simple way to obtain a better estimate for precision attack given your encounter day and number of attacks assumption. If you change those parameters the X% could be different.

[CMCC]

Short answer, Yes. Slightly more nuanced answer is that you asked for a simple way to obtain a better estimate for precision attack given your encounter day and number of attacks assumption. If you change those parameters the X% could be different.

That’s not how probability statistics works. At all.

[Frogreaver]

That’s not how probability statistics works. At all.

We can calculate the longer and more precise answer, but you laid out 'better, reasonable and time efficient' as requirements.

The precise calculation is below.

We need the times we use a precision dice and the chance the precision dice we use turns a hit into a miss. For our purposes we know we make 18 attacks per short rest (2 attack character with action surge). We know we have 4 superiority dice. We will use a superiority dice when we miss by 5 or less. The chance we miss by 5 or less is 0.25.

Take the vectors below
[binom.dist(0, 18, 0.25, False), binom.dist(1, 18, 0.25, False), binom.dist(2, 18, 0.25, False), binom.dist(3, 18, 0.25, False), binom.dist(4, 18, 0.25, False), ... , binom.dist(18, 18, 0.25, False)]

[0,1,2,3,4,4,4, ... , 4]

Do the inner product on them. This yields 3.5 times where can use a superiority dice on an attack misses by 1 to 5 on average in our short rest period.

Then calculate the probability your superiority dice turns a hit into a miss when you use it on a miss by 5 or less. (1 + 7/8 + 6/8 + 5/8 + 4/8) / 5 = 0.75

Calculate the average damage of an attack (I used 17.5 to represent a SS archer).

Then the final calculation is 3.5*0.75*17.5 = 46.1 Total Damage per short rest caused by precision attack.
Since we have another short rest period that becomes 92.2 Total Damage per day caused by precision attack.
There are 16 rounds in your adventuring day. So 92.2 / 16 = +5.8 DPR.

*Slightly lower than the easier to calculate +6.6 estimate above but still close. To use your own words, it's less than a 1 DPR difference.

[Greywander]

I can understand why people think the monk is weak, while at the same time a lot of people seem to enjoy playing monks. Your DPR might be lower, but you get to zoom around the battlefield at roughly twice the speed of anyone else, you get a lot of attacks (more than anyone except a 20th level fighter), and a lot of your ki abilities, including Stunning Strike, are fun to use. I think you hit the nail on the head when talking about Stunning Strike that the monk does a lot more than just damage, so raw DPR isn't really capturing the value of having a monk in the party.

I'm not actually sure if monks need it (see previous comment about raw DPR not being an accurate measure of party value), but if we wanted to "fix" monks then a few simple tweaks could make a significant difference. I'm reminded of a thread I posted a little while back about revising the monk (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?640949-Revised-monk), and some of the changes I suggested.

Monks, like any MAD build, also become a lot more appealing when using any houserule that allows you to double up on ASIs to get both the ASI and a feat. IMO, this is kind of needed to maintain the proper balance between MAD and SAD classes, as feats are optional and thus those classes are balanced around spending those ASIs on ability scores. There aren't a lot of great monk feats, but there are a few nice ones, such as Mobile, Defensive Duelist, Sharpshooter, Tough, or Alert. I also posted a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?642263-Replacing-ASIs-with-1-to-two-different-stats-and-a-feat) about a potential method of implementing this ASI doubling up, which essentially boils down to the ASI being two +1s to different stats, and if you get a half feat then the +1s have to be different from that, too. There are some exceptions that allow a lower stat to stack two +1s, as with only 5 ASIs you'd only be able to boost a starting stat of 15 or higher to 20.

I also just realized how bonkers the owlin is. Aarakocra is nice for the speed, particularly since monks are already so speedy (with Mobile, you can hit 90 speed without Dashing; that's triple the speed of most humanoids), but free Stealth proficiency and 120 foot darkvision are both quite substantial. If you play a small owlin, you can grab Squat Nimbleness to get a DEX boost with a +5 speed boost (and other benefits), so you end up with 75 speed with Mobile. Being small means being not great at grappling, though, and grappling on a flying character can be quite powerful, especially when you can airlift someone 70 to 140 feet (Step of the Wind) before dropping them.

Heck, you want to talk monk DPR, maybe look into an airlift grapple build. With Step of the Wind, an aarakocra can nearly reach the 200 foot max fall damage limit, stopping just shy at 180 feet. With two attacks, you can potentially grab two enemies, zoom into the air, and drop them both. Next turn, you zoom back down and make normal attacks. Third turn, airlift again. Since you use all your movement to airlift, it does mean you have to spend a second turn getting back to the ground, but you can make your normal attacks still. Even at 5th level, an owlin or winged tiefling monk can still lift one or two enemies 40/80 feet to deal 4d6/8d6 fall damage, and knock them prone. Add one/two more dice at 10th and 18th level, and if you pick up Mobile, for up to 7d6/14d6, or up to 9d6/18d6 for an aarakocra. Again, that's potentially to two enemies. Oh, and flying enemies? You've already got an answer to that, and it's called Stunning Strike.

Now I really want to build an airlift monk.

Edit: I just remembered that you move at half speed while grappling. So halve all those numbers above. Still, with Step of the Wind you can still achieve a 70/90 foot lift distance, and even a 20 foot drop is still 2d6 damage and a free shove prone.

[animorte]

I can understand why people think the monk is weak, while at the same time a lot of people seem to enjoy playing monks. Your DPR might be lower, but you get to zoom around the battlefield at roughly twice the speed of anyone else, you get a lot of attacks (more than anyone except a 20th level fighter), and a lot of your ki abilities, including Stunning Strike, are fun to use. I think you hit the nail on the head when talking about Stunning Strike that the monk does a lot more than just damage, so raw DPR isn't really capturing the value of having a monk in the party.

This exactly is why they have such high value, not to mention their incredible built-in defense.

[Greywander]

Monk defense does seem to be underrated. It's true they have less HP than a fighter, and their AC scales a bit slowly, but you end up with 20 AC, the same as plate + shield, and Diamond Soul makes you highly resilient against save effects. Not to mention Evasion reducing AoE damage.

If they have a weakness, it's enemies with an attack bonus so high that AC doesn't matter (Defensive Duelist can push AC high enough to make a difference, though; +17 to hit vs. 20 + 6 AC is only a 60% chance to hit). That's a job for barbarians, where they can just assume they're getting hit anyway and use Reckless Attack with no consequences and halve the damage taken by Raging, not to mention the larger hit die. Monks instead excel against casters once they have Diamond Soul, and do well against enemies with more reasonable to-hit bonuses. Flurry of Blows + Stunning Strike is also a natural counter to big brutes like dragons, as while they might have high CON saves, their odds of passing four CON saves in a row aren't as great, and if there's only one monster to worry about, you can focus everything on them.

[CMCC]

Reddit has been a fun experiment for this video. Wow.

They have a very hard time understanding the difference between stunning strike attempts and total attacks in a turn.

Bleh, now I need to do a follow up vid. Sigh.

[Greywander]

Not that it matters much, but I do think your "baseline" should have been a warlock starting with 16 CHA and no other supporting features, e.g. racials, subclass. Just a generic warlock using standard ability score progression. You can optimize a warlock to do better, but at that point it's no longer baseline. Assuming a custom lineage so you can start with an 18 just doesn't strike me as "baseline".

That's a minor quibble, though, the points made still get across pretty well.

[CMCC]

Not that it matters much, but I do think your "baseline" should have been a warlock starting with 16 CHA and no other supporting features, e.g. racials, subclass. Just a generic warlock using standard ability score progression. You can optimize a warlock to do better, but at that point it's no longer baseline. Assuming a custom lineage so you can start with an 18 just doesn't strike me as "baseline".

That's a minor quibble, though, the points made still get across pretty well.

That’s fair. My thought was that the “baseline” we’re used to was created pre-Tasha’s and post-Tasha’s baseline should reflect the overall power creep in the game.

I don’t personally like how level 5 and 9 of my baseline are the same, but I can’t fudge the numbers for my personal preference.

[Greywander]

Starting with 16 CHA means they only have 18 CHA by 5th level, and 20 CHA by 9th level. So using that as your baseline would make 5th and 9th level slightly different, albeit not much. Then again, that's going to be true for a lot of classes, unless you're picking up a damage feat at 8th level. Or you're a cleric.

My first thought would have been to compare 5th, 11th, and 17th level, since those are when most classes get a big power spike. Though some class options get an equivalent feature one level late, such as the Bladesinger's Extra Attack or the bladelock's Lifedrinker, so maybe 6th and 12th level would be better options. These numbers would allow you to compare how different builds fair during tiers 2, 3, and 4 (tier 1 is pretty short, and sees the most growth proportionally, so it's difficult to get an accurate read off of a snapshot). That said, looking at 9th level would allow you to see if a particular build is scaling during tier 2 or if it holds steady until tier 3.

If you wanted to be super thorough, then the ideal levels to check would probably be 3rd, 6th, 9th, 13th, 17th, and 20th, but that's probably overkill. 6th and 12th/13th are probably the most important ones since those give you a good read of how you'll perform during tiers 2 and 3, followed by 9th, which reveals if you've scaled during tier 2 or not. Which is pretty close to what you had. Few people reach tier 4, and few people spend much time in tier 1.

[Spo]

Thank you for your time and effort in making this video. I learned a lot from this (and I took a shadow monk from 1 to 20 in heist and mad mage).

I will be revisiting this video in the future to review some of the builds you mentioned (and intrigued by that shadow/fighter build with blind fighting).

Again, thanks for this.

[CMCC]

Thank you for your time and effort in making this video. I learned a lot from this (and I took a shadow monk from 1 to 20 in heist and mad mage).

I will be revisiting this video in the future to review some of the builds you mentioned (and intrigued by that shadow/fighter build with blind fighting).

Again, thanks for this.
Thanks!

Check out the eclectic builds thread. Ludic has the shadow monk there.

[CMCC]

The Monk (Part 2): D&D 5e DPR Analysis and Responses

https://youtu.be/h2DJlcZfpUQ

Folks, I'm dangerously close to 1K subscribers, so if you think the content is OK, I would ask that you consider subscribing. 1k is a big deal. I'm genuinely excited about it, even though this is just something I do for fun :)

[Thunderous Mojo]

I enjoyed this video.
CMCC, does an excellent job discussing something that seemingly is lost in internet conversations: Analysis should inform you of the relationships of inputs in a system.

One doesn’t just “Optimize”, one is Optimizing for X…
….X being something specific.

CMCC, also has demonstrated, that they are a good faith interlocutor.

If your position on a certain topic is set, regardless of credible arguments that might alter your certitude, then you really are not discussing anything…you are stating your inviolable beliefs.

Community is Important, and finding those who share your beliefs and sharing those beliefs amongst fellow opinion holders is wonderful, and arguably necessary for humans.

Yet, a Community of Belief thread has fundamentally different goals from a Discussion of Topic thread. (This statement has no normative connotation, neither conversation is better or worse than the other, indeed both are necessary).

I think this might explain why certain topics cause such rancor, two distinctly different conversations are ineffectively being had simultaneously, in large part because those separate conversations are being had simultaneously.

[Unoriginal]

The Monk (Part 2): D&D 5e DPR Analysis and Responses

https://youtu.be/h2DJlcZfpUQ

Folks, I'm dangerously close to 1K subscribers, so if you think the content is OK, I would ask that you consider subscribing. 1k is a big deal. I'm genuinely excited about it, even though this is just something I do for fun :)

Just wanted to say that the quality of the video is pretty great. It's not easy to find the right balance between presenting the information and keeping the viewer entertained when the topic is mathematic data, IMO, but you clearly hit bull's eye here. Especially concerning where to place which background pictures/videos relatively to the info presented.

[CMCC]

I enjoyed this video.
CMCC, does an excellent job discussing something that seemingly is lost in internet conversations: Analysis should inform you of the relationships of inputs in a system.

One doesn’t just “Optimize”, one is Optimizing for X…
….X being something specific.

CMCC, also has demonstrated, that they are a good faith interlocutor.




Just wanted to say that the quality of the video is pretty great. It's not easy to find the right balance between presenting the information and keeping the viewer entertained when the topic is mathematic data, IMO, but you clearly hit bull's eye here. Especially concerning where to place which background pictures/videos relatively to the info presented.

you made my day... and I'm not even joking :)

[KorvinStarmast]

A critique on style:
Intro's far too long. Your rambling style detracts from your message. (Also like your choices for visuals in the opening, though). Suggestion: get to the point early.

The other details have been addressed by others.

[CMCC]

A critique on style:
Intro's far too long. Your rambling style detracts from your message. (Also like your choices for visuals in the opening, though). Suggestion: get to the point early.

The other details have been addressed by others.

The intro is 27 seconds long. If you'd like to skip, the chapter selections are available.