I Found The Missing Monk Damage Bump!

[Amechra]

OK, I'm only half serious, but...

If you pretend that the Monk gets a feature that makes Flurry of Blows free at 11th level, their resourceless damage ends up comparing really favorably to stuff like an equivalent-level Warlock's Eldritch Blast spam, an equivalent-level Rogue Sneak Attacking, or the resourceless damage that Fighters and Paladins¹ deal after their own 11th level damage bump. It fits so well, in fact, that I'm reasonably certain that this is intentional.

If you then assume that most tables will take short rests every 10 rounds of combat or so, and that most Monk players will use Stunning Strike sporadically... it just so happens that the level where most Monks start to have enough ki to use Flurry of Blows/Patient Defense/Step of the Wind every round without worrying about running out is... 11th level. It makes me wonder if the design team for 5e assumed that that was what the normal pace of play would be.

¹ It should go without saying that I'm assuming that this is a featless game, for blindingly obvious reasons that we don't need to bring up.

[Tanarii]

Two Medium encounters is a short rest every 6-8 rounds of combat IMX.

Tier 2 Monks that don't go crazy with Ki can definitely Flurry of Blows somewhat consistently. It never even occurred to me before that folks who complain about a lack of Monk damage / Ki were assuming it wasn't usually the case. :smallconfused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I did my math, right, a monk[1] who flurries with every point of ki (or once per round, whichever runs out first) and gets a short rest every 9 rounds is actually stronger than a GS champion fighter[2] who gets a short rest every 9 rounds: 1.46 RED (averaged over all levels) vs 1.31 RED. The monk starts off stronger and falls slightly below at level 19 (when the fighter gets his 4th attack), but is equal or higher throughout all the other levels.

For reference, a warlock with EB/AB and 100% hex uptime is only at 1.21 RED.

And I'd say that 9 rounds per short rest is fairly "standard" (except in the "no short rest" paradigm).

On the other hand, a monk who never flurries (spends no ki on any damage-increasing effect) is way weaker than a champion fighter who never uses Action Surge (1.05 RED vs 1.16 RED). But I think those are outliers.

[1] DEX 16 at level 1, increasing it at 4 and 8.
[2] no feats, same pattern of prime score

[Dork_Forge]

And here I thought the answer was using a full Monk, not just the main class in isolation of race and subclass.*

I'm only half joking here.

And if you wanted to implement free flurry at 11th, I'm pretty sure their actual damage potential (I know you're recording resourceless) goes straight up, especially since multiple subclasses key off of flurry.

[DarknessEternal]

Check out this philosophy: RED (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647325-Seeing-RED-an-odd-coincidence&highlight=RED). It's transformative to understanding what's actually good enough damage.

Flurry exceeds it.

Edit: I see RED-man beat me here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And here I thought the answer was using a full Monk, not just the main class in isolation of race and subclass.*

I'm only half joking here.

And if you wanted to implement free flurry at 11th, I'm pretty sure their actual damage potential (I know you're recording resourceless) goes straight up, especially since multiple subclasses key off of flurry.

As a note, my numbers have evolved beyond just resourceless. I've got scenarios for the covered classes that include different assumptions about resource use. In this case, monk, with a quarterstaff, flurrying when they have ki (the varying parameter being the number of rounds per short rest).

In the 9/SR case, that means that after level 9, their damage actually falls (in RED) because rogues keep increasing but the monk has (mostly) topped off--they just get the die size increase after that. But they're still respectably above 1.0 RED at all levels. Heck, even with zero ki use and a quarterstaff, they're above 1 RED until level 12.

Thus, my belief is that there is no "Missing Monk Damage Bump". Instead, they simply gain the flexibility to use their remaining ki for other stuff while still staying comfortably in "striker"[1] territory under system assumptions[2].

[1] comparable to other classes/builds/attack routines that focus on damage output, in the 1.15+ RED "band". Compared to, say, a cleric spamming sacred flame even assuming 100% sacred weapon uptime, who sits closer to 0.7 RED and never breaches 1.0RED , as does the "baseline" warlock (no hex but with AB), who is stable at 0.5 RED.
[2] specifically thinking no feats here. I haven't implemented PAM/GWM yet, but I expect that to skew those builds much higher.

[Amechra]

Two Medium encounters is a short rest every 6-8 rounds of combat IMX.

Tier 2 Monks that don't go crazy with Ki can definitely Flurry of Blows somewhat consistently. It never even occurred to me before that folks who complain about a lack of Monk damage / Ki were assuming it wasn't usually the case. :smallconfused:

I went with 10-ish rounds because that's roughly what you'd get if you went with two Hard encounters or three Medium encounters between rests, which is on the "you're pushing it" side of things.

I feel like a lot of people who complain about Monk damage either don't have much play experience with the Monk, are comparing it to the damage other martial characters can deal with feats, or are over-prioritizing Stunning Strike.

[Dork_Forge]

As a note, my numbers have evolved beyond just resourceless. I've got scenarios for the covered classes that include different assumptions about resource use. In this case, monk, with a quarterstaff, flurrying when they have ki (the varying parameter being the number of rounds per short rest).

In the 9/SR case, that means that after level 9, their damage actually falls (in RED) because rogues keep increasing but the monk has (mostly) topped off--they just get the die size increase after that. But they're still respectably above 1.0 RED at all levels. Heck, even with zero ki use and a quarterstaff, they're above 1 RED until level 12.

Thus, my belief is that there is no "Missing Monk Damage Bump". Instead, they simply gain the flexibility to use their remaining ki for other stuff while still staying comfortably in "striker"[1] territory under system assumptions[2].

[1] comparable to other classes/builds/attack routines that focus on damage output, in the 1.15+ RED "band". Compared to, say, a cleric spamming sacred flame even assuming 100% sacred weapon uptime, who sits closer to 0.7 RED and never breaches 1.0RED , as does the "baseline" warlock (no hex but with AB), who is stable at 0.5 RED.
[2] specifically thinking no feats here. I haven't implemented PAM/GWM yet, but I expect that to skew those builds much higher.

I'm assuming that this is baseline, core only Monk?

My point was that some subclasses gain a substantial boost from assuming that Flurry is free, either directly or indirectly:

- Mercy Monks can now use Hand of Harm every turn

- Kensei Monks can afford to splurge on Deft Strike and Sharpen the Blade far more frequently

- Given the cost of summoning the arms and visage, Astral Self goes up by virtue of being able to Flurry more on top of their own damage boost

[Greywander]

My point was that some subclasses gain a substantial boost from assuming that Flurry is free, either directly or indirectly:
OP isn't talking about making Flurry free, they're just pointing out that around 11th level or so is when you can Flurry every round without running out before the next short rest. This doesn't let them spend ki on other things, because it's all going towards Flurry.

That said, Flurry is just extra damage. Stunning Strike, or some other monk feature, could offer more value than Flurry in some situations. TBH, monk has always been a bit of an oddball class; a lot of people agree they're underpowered and yet they're still quite popular and fun to play. I don't think raw damage is telling the whole story.

[Dork_Forge]

OP isn't talking about making Flurry free, they're just pointing out that around 11th level or so is when you can Flurry every round without running out before the next short rest. This doesn't let them spend ki on other things, because it's all going towards Flurry.

That said, Flurry is just extra damage. Stunning Strike, or some other monk feature, could offer more value than Flurry in some situations. TBH, monk has always been a bit of an oddball class; a lot of people agree they're underpowered and yet they're still quite popular and fun to play. I don't think raw damage is telling the whole story.

"If you pretend that the Monk gets a feature that makes Flurry of Blows free at 11th level"

I was referring to that ^

Flurry's value is incredibly dependent on which Monk is being discussed.

And people discussing damage numbers on a forum will never tell the full story of a classes irl effectiveness or player appeal.

[Amechra]

Nah, Greywander is on the right track. I brought up "what if Flurry was free at 11th level?" as a rhetorical flourish and lead-in to my actual point (which is that eventually the Monk theoretically has the ki to spam Flurry of Blows willy-nilly, and that any analysis of Monk damage numbers should take that into account.)

[Hael]

Nah, Greywander is on the right track. I brought up "what if Flurry was free at 11th level?" as a rhetorical flourish and lead-in to my actual point (which is that eventually the Monk theoretically has the ki to spam Flurry of Blows willy-nilly, and that any analysis of Monk damage numbers should take that into account.)

Usually in dpr analysis, people assume 8 rounds of combat per SR. So with mild assumptions (a few stunning strike attempts/ a few step of the winds/ a few subclass features) usually flurry becomes essentially infinite sometime in early tier3. (Edit) Of course thats just for the purpose of analysis, in reality people will likely use the other features b/c mild damage boosts from flurry aren’t really relevant in tier 3+

It helps a little but its not going to bridge the gap with optimized builds that use feats, and thats why things usually go off the rails for monks damage numbers in tier3-4. In featless games, things are usually much more reasonable for them.

[Angelalex242]

I'd be okay with certain monk features becoming free at some level or other.

After all, consider what would have to be free before monks started competing with Paladin for best melee class.

[AdAstra]

I'd be okay with certain monk features becoming free at some level or other.

After all, consider what would have to be free before monks started competing with Paladin for best melee class.

Flurry, Patient Defense, and Step Of The Wind becoming free at 11th level would be excellent, while not really upending anything since they all compete for one bonus action, though it would likely require a handful of things to be rewritten. Only issue is that it leaves a lot less to spend Ki on. If one were making a complete revamp it would be good to then introduce Improved versions of those features at 11 or higher levels. The base versions become free at a certain level, and Ki would be spent to get an even better version of them.

I will say that if Stunning Strike was completely free, with no other changes, Monks would probably be up there with Paladins. 3 chances to Stun every turn, 4 with Flurry's minimal cost, gives full casters a run for their money in the battlefield control department while also doing solid damage.

[Angelalex242]

Well...even a 20 Wis monk is limited on how often he's going to get a con save to go off against most monsters, but he'd be a beast against human enemies.

[Rukelnikov]

Flurry, Patient Defense, and Step Of The Wind becoming free at 11th level would be excellent, while not really upending anything since they all compete for one bonus action, though it would likely require a handful of things to be rewritten. Only issue is that it leaves a lot less to spend Ki on. If one were making a complete revamp it would be good to then introduce Improved versions of those features at 11 or higher levels. The base versions become free at a certain level, and Ki would be spent to get an even better version of them.

I will say that if Stunning Strike was completely free, with no other changes, Monks would probably be up there with Paladins. 3 chances to Stun every turn, 4 with Flurry's minimal cost, gives full casters a run for their money in the battlefield control department while also doing solid damage.

I agree with giving more wuxia to monks in T3 and onwards, but free stunning strike has a real chance of being a constant stunlock against anything without LR.

Assuming the Monk hits 2 attacks per round and enemies have about 60% chance to make their save, that's 64% chance to stun the enemy or about 2 out of 3 rounds.

what if by a certain level, maybe 11 since its when other classes get their damage boosts, they also got their BA attack when using Patient Defense, Step of the Wind or ki fueled subclass abilities that take up the bonus action? (as long as they still meet the prereqs, taking the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on their turn)

[ThatDuckGrant]

Thus, my belief is that there is no "Missing Monk Damage Bump". Instead, they simply gain the flexibility to use their remaining ki for other stuff while still staying comfortably in "striker"[1] territory under system assumptions[2].

[1] comparable to other classes/builds/attack routines that focus on damage output, in the 1.15+ RED "band". Compared to, say, a cleric spamming sacred flame even assuming 100% sacred weapon uptime, who sits closer to 0.7 RED and never breaches 1.0RED , as does the "baseline" warlock (no hex but with AB), who is stable at 0.5 RED.
[2] specifically thinking no feats here. I haven't implemented PAM/GWM yet, but I expect that to skew those builds much higher.

I ran these numbers for PAM and XBowE pretty quickly. Assuming VHuman builds with either of these feats, they only outpace the monk by small margins.

In fact, XBowE is dead on with a monk’s non-flurry output until level 6, when the fighter gets the earlier ASI. Then it’s even again from levels 8-10. If you then start giving monks FoB at level 11, the monk beats out the hand Xbow. The difference here would be the +2 to hit from the archery fighting style that would give the fighter a 10% damage increase over the monk if we were accounting for accuracy.

PAM is a slight increase in damage over both of those, with the biggest discrepancy coming from level 6 and 7 again. At those two levels, the fighter is dealing 26% more damage than the monk. Also I didn’t account for GWF here because I didn’t want to do the math for retooling 1s and 2s, but that would add a bit more damage for the PAM fighter.

So these feats definitely help fighters outpace monks, but not by as wide a margin as one might think.

As far as GWM and Sharpshooter go, those feats really can’t be accounted for in an “always hit, never crit” analysis because they significantly decrease the chance to hit. If we assume our PC has maxed it’s attack stat (+5 to damage), then a d10 attack would need at least a 55% chance to hit (before the -5) before GWM yielded positive damage, and a 65% chance before it yielded 1 whole point of extra damage for the attack. And as a rule, the more damage you do with a single attack, the higher the accuracy threshold needs to be. So unless your fighter can count on advantage or being Blessed in most situations, GWM gets less useful as campaigns go on.

Sharpshooter has a bit better numbers when paired with XBowE because of the archery fighting style and the lower damage per attack of the hand xbow, but I don’t think either feat is a reliably massive addition to damage output on a fighter.

[Rukelnikov]

I ran these numbers for PAM and XBowE pretty quickly. Assuming VHuman builds with either of these feats, they only outpace the monk by small margins.

In fact, XBowE is dead on with a monk’s non-flurry output until level 6, when the fighter gets the earlier ASI. Then it’s even again from levels 8-10. If you then start giving monks FoB at level 11, the monk beats out the hand Xbow. The difference here would be the +2 to hit from the archery fighting style that would give the fighter a 10% damage increase over the monk if we were accounting for accuracy.

PAM is a slight increase in damage over both of those, with the biggest discrepancy coming from level 6 and 7 again. At those two levels, the fighter is dealing 26% more damage than the monk. Also I didn’t account for GWF here because I didn’t want to do the math for retooling 1s and 2s, but that would add a bit more damage for the PAM fighter.

So these feats definitely help fighters outpace monks, but not by as wide a margin as one might think.

As far as GWM and Sharpshooter go, those feats really can’t be accounted for in an “always hit, never crit” analysis because they significantly decrease the chance to hit. If we assume our PC has maxed it’s attack stat (+5 to damage), then a d10 attack would need at least a 55% chance to hit (before the -5) before GWM yielded positive damage, and a 65% chance before it yielded 1 whole point of extra damage for the attack. And as a rule, the more damage you do with a single attack, the higher the accuracy threshold needs to be. So unless your fighter can count on advantage or being Blessed in most situations, GWM gets less useful as campaigns go on.

Sharpshooter has a bit better numbers when paired with XBowE because of the archery fighting style and the lower damage per attack of the hand xbow, but I don’t think either feat is a reliably massive addition to damage output on a fighter.

That's not how it works.

If both had a 10% hit chance without the FS, then with FS the Fighter would have 20% hit chance, meaning its doubling his damage, not just increasing it by 10%.

EDIT: Crit's eskew it a lil bit, but its mostly like that.

[AdAstra]

I agree with giving more wuxia to monks in T3 and onwards, but free stunning strike has a real chance of being a constant stunlock against anything without LR.

Assuming the Monk hits 2 attacks per round and enemies have about 60% chance to make their save, that's 64% chance to stun the enemy or about 2 out of 3 rounds.

what if by a certain level, maybe 11 since its when other classes get their damage boosts, they also got their BA attack when using Patient Defense, Step of the Wind or ki fueled subclass abilities that take up the bonus action? (as long as they still meet the prereqs, taking the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on their turn)

I agree. Stunning Strike being free wouldn't be something I'd actually advocate for, it was just answering the question of what would need to be free for Monks to match Paladins. It would completely homogenize Monks into melee Stun-machines and offer very few interesting choices.

The way I'd personally do it might be something like this:
-At 11th level, or possibly earlier, Flurry and Step of the Wind become free.
-You also get Improved Patient Defense, which gives you a reaction attack when someone attacks you or something like that (possibly with some accuracy or damage bonus to fine-tune the power). It would still cost Ki, but it requires sacrificing less of your damage output in most cases.
-Either at 11 or later on, you can spend a Ki point to use Improved Flurry, or possible something with a different name if you want it to apply to non-Flurry attacks too. Not sure of the best mechanics for it, but I would be inclined towards something like rerolling a missed attack or slapping on some more damage dice. It doesn't need to be quite as efficient as Flurry, tbh, since you have more Ki points to throw around now.
-Again, 11 or higher, get Improved Step Of The Wind, allowing you to spend a Ki point to fly for the turn, and/or possibly letting you use both Dash and Disengage at the same time. Another possibility is letting you force saves against people you move near for a bit of damage or minor debuffs like Prone.

This would probably be alongside a wide swath of reworks for other classes to match up, but yeah, something like that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I ran these numbers for PAM and XBowE pretty quickly. Assuming VHuman builds with either of these feats, they only outpace the monk by small margins.

In fact, XBowE is dead on with a monk’s non-flurry output until level 6, when the fighter gets the earlier ASI. Then it’s even again from levels 8-10. If you then start giving monks FoB at level 11, the monk beats out the hand Xbow. The difference here would be the +2 to hit from the archery fighting style that would give the fighter a 10% damage increase over the monk if we were accounting for accuracy.

PAM is a slight increase in damage over both of those, with the biggest discrepancy coming from level 6 and 7 again. At those two levels, the fighter is dealing 26% more damage than the monk. Also I didn’t account for GWF here because I didn’t want to do the math for retooling 1s and 2s, but that would add a bit more damage for the PAM fighter.

So these feats definitely help fighters outpace monks, but not by as wide a margin as one might think.

As far as GWM and Sharpshooter go, those feats really can’t be accounted for in an “always hit, never crit” analysis because they significantly decrease the chance to hit. If we assume our PC has maxed it’s attack stat (+5 to damage), then a d10 attack would need at least a 55% chance to hit (before the -5) before GWM yielded positive damage, and a 65% chance before it yielded 1 whole point of extra damage for the attack. And as a rule, the more damage you do with a single attack, the higher the accuracy threshold needs to be. So unless your fighter can count on advantage or being Blessed in most situations, GWM gets less useful as campaigns go on.

Sharpshooter has a bit better numbers when paired with XBowE because of the archery fighting style and the lower damage per attack of the hand xbow, but I don’t think either feat is a reliably massive addition to damage output on a fighter.

A few things--
1) with my new script-based method, I can do the GWF/GWM case including accuracy[1]. It's huge. A GS-wielding GWF/GWM champion fighter with 1 short rest/9 rounds (using -5/+10 on every attack) does an average of 1.66 RED over all levels. A non-GWM GS GWF champion fighter (same assumptions) does 1.43. A monk wielding a quarterstaff and burning all ki on flurry (same assumptions) does 1.45.[2]
2) you'd think that the effect would go down...but it doesn't. Because the accuracy is actually really really bounded. For CR = level, it's flat at 65% except at level 9, where it's 70%. For CR = level + 3, accuracy never goes below 55%, and is only 55% at level 3--all others are 60 or 65%. So the median case is "it's always a flat increase in damage". Sure, there are exceptions because the variance in AC is large.
3) Monk damage does fall off (even assuming infinite flurry) fairly gradually--it peaks at level 2 at 1.98 RED and then after level 5 (1.86 RED) drops to 1.23 RED at level 20. Ki stops being an obstacle at level 9. Now this would change with sub-class features added in, such as giving advantage via stuns or prones. But that's a stretch goal :smallwink:

[1] worst case (against a monster of CR = level + 3). The disparity grows for more realistic assumptions such as CR = level/2 or CR = level.
[2] although in the no-accuracy case, the disparity is bonkers: GWF/GWM is 2.28 RED and monk is mostly unchanged (because accuracy washes out in RED terms unless there's an external factor such as the -5 case).

[Amechra]

Ugh, can we not, everyone?

I very specifically said that I was ignoring feats here, because the Usual Suspects (PAM+GWM and SS+XBE) basically invalidate all other martial options when it comes to damage dealing. There is a ton of evidence that those synergies weren't intentional, and at this point pointing at them and going "but is your damage as good as these clear outliers?" is just tiresome. The only things that do either involve tactical assumptions (like a Rogue being able to reliably score Sneak Attacks twice per round) or non-trivial resource expenditures (which tend to get papered over in white room discussions). Or, you know, they require other overtuned options, like the Tasha Bladesinger's juiced-up Extra Attack.

[Segev]

There is a ton of evidence that those synergies weren't intentional

I am curious about this statement, specifically. Where is this evidence and/or what is it?

[Rukelnikov]

I am curious about this statement, specifically. Where is this evidence and/or what is it?

TBH, I was wondering the same, I could maybe buy PAM + GWM flying off the radar because of wording or some such, but I can't imagine SS +XBE not being very obvious.

[Nefariis]

A few things--
1) with my new script-based method, I can do the GWF/GWM case including accuracy[1]. It's huge. A GS-wielding GWF/GWM champion fighter with 1 short rest/9 rounds (using -5/+10 on every attack) does an average of 1.66 RED over all levels. A non-GWM GS GWF champion fighter (same assumptions) does 1.43. A monk wielding a quarterstaff and burning all ki on flurry (same assumptions) does 1.45.[2]
2) you'd think that the effect would go down...but it doesn't. Because the accuracy is actually really really bounded. For CR = level, it's flat at 65% except at level 9, where it's 70%. For CR = level + 3, accuracy never goes below 55%, and is only 55% at level 3--all others are 60 or 65%. So the median case is "it's always a flat increase in damage". Sure, there are exceptions because the variance in AC is large.
3) Monk damage does fall off (even assuming infinite flurry) fairly gradually--it peaks at level 2 at 1.98 RED and then after level 5 (1.86 RED) drops to 1.23 RED at level 20. Ki stops being an obstacle at level 9. Now this would change with sub-class features added in, such as giving advantage via stuns or prones. But that's a stretch goal :smallwink:

[1] worst case (against a monster of CR = level + 3). The disparity grows for more realistic assumptions such as CR = level/2 or CR = level.
[2] although in the no-accuracy case, the disparity is bonkers: GWF/GWM is 2.28 RED and monk is mostly unchanged (because accuracy washes out in RED terms unless there's an external factor such as the -5 case).

Great stuff - I had no idea Monk was that high on the RED scale using Flurry, and I am really surprised that they are over 1 RED even without using any Ki at all (up to level 9). This has definitely changed my opinion of Monks a bit.

[ThatDuckGrant]

That's not how it works.

If both had a 10% hit chance without the FS, then with FS the Fighter would have 20% hit chance, meaning its doubling his damage, not just increasing it by 10%.

EDIT: Crit's eskew it a lil bit, but its mostly like that.

True, excuse my bad math lol. I’ve even written entire posts about how good even slight increases in to-hit modifier are. Spells like bless are criminally underrated.

[ThatDuckGrant]

Ugh, can we not, everyone?

I very specifically said that I was ignoring feats here, because the Usual Suspects (PAM+GWM and SS+XBE) basically invalidate all other martial options when it comes to damage dealing. There is a ton of evidence that those synergies weren't intentional, and at this point pointing at them and going "but is your damage as good as these clear outliers?" is just tiresome. The only things that do either involve tactical assumptions (like a Rogue being able to reliably score Sneak Attacks twice per round) or non-trivial resource expenditures (which tend to get papered over in white room discussions). Or, you know, they require other overtuned options, like the Tasha Bladesinger's juiced-up Extra Attack.

My point of comparing the damage to the “overpowered” feats was actually the opposite. The monk keeps up rather well. If you consider that a fighter needs to both be Vhuman AND spend another feat to get these synergies, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for them to out-damage everyone. Especially considering that a monk can do about 80% of the same damage at most levels, and gets benefits like extra move speed, evasion, and (eventually) proficiency in all saving throws.

Side note: If we really wanted to get cheeky to make the fighter jealous, we could add the open hand monk’s level 17 ability and watch the damage output skyrocket to “at least 76 per round”

[Sorinth]

A few things--
1) with my new script-based method, I can do the GWF/GWM case including accuracy[1]. It's huge. A GS-wielding GWF/GWM champion fighter with 1 short rest/9 rounds (using -5/+10 on every attack) does an average of 1.66 RED over all levels. A non-GWM GS GWF champion fighter (same assumptions) does 1.43. A monk wielding a quarterstaff and burning all ki on flurry (same assumptions) does 1.45.[2]
2) you'd think that the effect would go down...but it doesn't. Because the accuracy is actually really really bounded. For CR = level, it's flat at 65% except at level 9, where it's 70%. For CR = level + 3, accuracy never goes below 55%, and is only 55% at level 3--all others are 60 or 65%. So the median case is "it's always a flat increase in damage". Sure, there are exceptions because the variance in AC is large.
3) Monk damage does fall off (even assuming infinite flurry) fairly gradually--it peaks at level 2 at 1.98 RED and then after level 5 (1.86 RED) drops to 1.23 RED at level 20. Ki stops being an obstacle at level 9. Now this would change with sub-class features added in, such as giving advantage via stuns or prones. But that's a stretch goal :smallwink:

[1] worst case (against a monster of CR = level + 3). The disparity grows for more realistic assumptions such as CR = level/2 or CR = level.
[2] although in the no-accuracy case, the disparity is bonkers: GWF/GWM is 2.28 RED and monk is mostly unchanged (because accuracy washes out in RED terms unless there's an external factor such as the -5 case).

Worth noting that the way monk class was designed the tier 4 damage boost comes from the subclass level 17 feature. So if you aren't including subclass it for sure skews the results against the monk. I would be tempted to just assume an extra attack since quite a few subclasses do essentially that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Worth noting that the way monk class was designed the tier 4 damage boost comes from the subclass level 17 feature. So if you aren't including subclass it for sure skews the results against the monk. I would be tempted to just assume an extra attack since quite a few subclasses do essentially that.
Yeah. Next pass will probably look at the subclasses and see how to model it. At least at that point I can assume there's plenty of ki floating around.

[Witty Username]

If you then assume that most tables will take short rests every 10 rounds of combat or so, and that most Monk players will use Stunning Strike sporadically... it just so happens that the level where most Monks start to have enough ki to use Flurry of Blows/Patient Defense/Step of the Wind every round without worrying about running out is... 11th level. It makes me wonder if the design team for 5e assumed that that was what the normal pace of play would be.


How much is sporadically for stunning strike? I have personally found 3 ki (three stunning attempts) is what it takes to stun an enemy worth stunning on average. that will cut three rounds off your monk's uptime. And that is not taking into account legendary resistance, which one enemy could drain a monks entire ki pool if they are going for a stun. One encounter where stun is the right move breaks this limitless ki mold.


I would say if the table uses the recommended encounter rules in the DMG, monk works alright, but games that fall outside those assumptions monk suffers more than other classes, mostly on CR versus CR > level. Ditto for ability score assumptions, monk does fine with 16/14/16 dex/con/wis but below that weird stuff happens.

[Hael]

How much is sporadically for stunning strike? I have personally found 3 ki (three stunning attempts) is what it takes to stun an enemy worth stunning on average..

Ive tried modeling it, but its not super convincing. On one hand you want to keep enough ki for backup, and you want ki for damage and subclass abilities. So how much ki you allow per level for SS is going to be limited. I tried doing some sort of expectation value for how many stunning strikes per short rest based on various combat simulators and data from actual play, but I am not really sold on what I got.

Then you can compare to CR and expected con save per CR as well as legendary resistances. This too is slightly problematic b/c the things you want to SS are not the full monster distribution and there is large variance (metagaming matters).

Then you input standard dex/wis asi progression which may or may not be a good assumption.

Punchline is that SS is not very good early in tier2 b/c of lack of resources to ensure a hit (and low dex/wis). It shoots up in value in late tier 2, flatlines and oscillates a bit in tier3, then drops like a rock in late tier3 and all of tier4, to the point where its rarely worth to actually use on anything short of a BBEG.

Your guess of 3 hits is actually pretty close in tier2 (was something between 2 and 3 in so far as i can recall).

[Angelalex242]

That's a decent argument for the fact some monk abilities should eventually be free.

[BoutsofInsanity]

OP isn't talking about making Flurry free, they're just pointing out that around 11th level or so is when you can Flurry every round without running out before the next short rest. This doesn't let them spend ki on other things, because it's all going towards Flurry.

That said, Flurry is just extra damage. Stunning Strike, or some other monk feature, could offer more value than Flurry in some situations. TBH, monk has always been a bit of an oddball class; a lot of people agree they're underpowered and yet they're still quite popular and fun to play. I don't think raw damage is telling the whole story.

Super agree here. I consistently think Shadow Monk and Long Death Monk are underrated.

Shadow Monk has a at-will teleport with very little restriction, PASS WITHOUT TRACE multiple times on a short rest recharge rate, Silence, and Darkness.

Long Death Monk has a temporary hit point increase on top of one of the single best Fear Effects in the game that hits AOE every round if you want.

In terms of pure combat I super agree that unless the Monk is getting a decent number of short rests they lag behind, much like the Warlock. But man, some of the out of combat utility is pretty strong.

[strangebloke]

by level 11, most monks won't be running out of ki very often.

But yeah, level 11 is where (some) monks are missing a damage bump. It's telling that the better subclasses all get a bump there, barring shadow monk which starts far stronger than most.

[animorte]

I consistently think Shadow Monk and Long Death Monk are underrated.
I've never heard anything about the Shadow Monk except that it's one the best Monk subclasses, if not THE best. Precisely for the reasons you listed immediately after. Though people often confuse "dim light or darkness" with shadows.

I appreciate this observation that I've never played a Monk long enough to discover.

[Zalabim]

When it comes to stunning strike, the best time to use it is if you hit with the first attack you make this round, and then follow with flurry of blows. Even in that case, I would not expect as much personal damage from ki spent on SS instead of flurry, but conventional wisdom remains that the attempt to stun is more valuable than one attack.

When it comes to the abundance of ki that high level monks gain, some subclasses use it better than others. Tasha's adds focused aim, which is circumstantially better than flurry. So I feel comfortable seeing the base value of extra ki as (at least an extra attack), and then it does seem like the mid-high level damage bump comes from increased resource availability.

As for ki as a resource, it seems to be the only resource that is completely linear*. A more familiar design would have ki pool start higher, scale slower, cap lower, and not be spent for certain actions that currently do require it. At the same time, I'd like to see some of those actions not be bonus actions. It feels weird already that flurry of blows gets equal value as your main action attacks eventually, and for some subclasses even more. It's defies the usual meaning of bonus.

How that could look for flurry could look like the college of blades extra effect on hit, or dread ambusher's conditional extra attack within the action, or a combo/following attack where the flurry of blows option is granted when you hit, just anything where it doesn't take its own action.

A resource free stunning strike could reference earlier models where it's based on exceptionally high attack rolls (such as hitting AC+5, rolls of 18+, etc), or it could be limited in uses per turn.

*The sorcerer also gets 1 sorcery point per level, but those blend with the class's spell slots. The default monk doesn't have a lot that ki blends with. Before ki, it is like a fighter with smaller hit die, guaranteed two weapon fighting style, no second wind, and no penalty to stealth checks. Ki provides everything else that flavors the monk offensive abilities, and supplements the monk's defensive abilities. Free uses of flurry/ stunning strike/ subclass abilities would provide that baseline for ki to blend with which is otherwise missing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Implemented Hand of Harm/Flurry of Healing and Harm (Way of Mercy damage feature) for the "worst case" scenario (1 SR/9 rounds, all numbers calculated against AC for CR = level + 3). Assumptions:
* Flurry will be used every turn as long as ki remains.
* If there's ki remaining, it will get used on Hand of Harm (until level 11, where it becomes "free").

As expected, there's no difference until level 10 (because until that point you don't have enough ki to flurry every turn, so no uses of HoH). After that, they stay roughly 0.25 RED apart (less at level 10 where you're only using it 1/SR instead of every turn like level 11+), for an overall RED score of 1.29 for the "subclass-free" monk and 1.41 for the mercy monk. The mercy monk never goes below 1.0 RED, while the "base" monk dips below (0.94 RED) after level 19. There's still the slow decline (roughly linear), but it doesn't start until level 12 (instead of level 6 for the base monk).

So yes, those subclasses that get significant damage features at level 11 do get a substantial power boost. I'll note that the simplest "DPR comparison" build (no feat GS/GWF champion) sits at 1.43 RED average--higher from level 14+ but equal or lower before that.

[Dork_Forge]

Implemented Hand of Harm/Flurry of Healing and Harm (Way of Mercy damage feature) for the "worst case" scenario (1 SR/9 rounds, all numbers calculated against AC for CR = level + 3). Assumptions:
* Flurry will be used every turn as long as ki remains.
* If there's ki remaining, it will get used on Hand of Harm (until level 11, where it becomes "free").

As expected, there's no difference until level 10 (because until that point you don't have enough ki to flurry every turn, so no uses of HoH). After that, they stay roughly 0.25 RED apart (less at level 10 where you're only using it 1/SR instead of every turn like level 11+), for an overall RED score of 1.29 for the "subclass-free" monk and 1.41 for the mercy monk. The mercy monk never goes below 1.0 RED, while the "base" monk dips below (0.94 RED) after level 19. There's still the slow decline (roughly linear), but it doesn't start until level 12 (instead of level 6 for the base monk).

So yes, those subclasses that get significant damage features at level 11 do get a substantial power boost. I'll note that the simplest "DPR comparison" build (no feat GS/GWF champion) sits at 1.43 RED average--higher from level 14+ but equal or lower before that.

What does the Astral Self look like? Curious how they stack up versus other classes in RED with their double damage boosts by the time they hit 20.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What does the Astral Self look like? Curious how they stack up versus other classes in RED with their double damage boosts by the time they hit 20.

Haven't implemented that one yet. It gets a 1/turn boost when it flurries until T4 when it gets a full extra attack, right? Judging from things, it seems like it will be worse until that extra attack kicks in (relative to mercy, which ALSO gets +wis mod instead of just +1 die) and then will substantially pull ahead (of mercy, and possibly the fighter, since it's getting 4 d10+mod attacks + one extra d10 hit). And in T4 there's enough ki to use that big mode pretty frequently.

Edit: implemented it (assuming that after level 3 you'll always summon the arms with one target on round 1 and flurry from then on until out of ki/out of rounds, and that one summoning is enough, which is sketchy). Ends up basically identical (on average) to the mercy monk--lower until 17 and then above, for a profile that's basically flat/slightly oscillatory. But I don't trust it to be more than an ok approximation.

[Dork_Forge]

Haven't implemented that one yet. It gets a 1/turn boost when it flurries until T4 when it gets a full extra attack, right? Judging from things, it seems like it will be worse until that extra attack kicks in (relative to mercy, which ALSO gets +wis mod instead of just +1 die) and then will substantially pull ahead (of mercy, and possibly the fighter, since it's getting 4 d10+mod attacks + one extra d10 hit). And in T4 there's enough ki to use that big mode pretty frequently.

Edit: implemented it (assuming that after level 3 you'll always summon the arms with one target on round 1 and flurry from then on until out of ki/out of rounds, and that one summoning is enough, which is sketchy). Ends up basically identical (on average) to the mercy monk--lower until 17 and then above, for a profile that's basically flat/slightly oscillatory. But I don't trust it to be more than an ok approximation.

I don't know if it changes things, but the bonus damage isn't tied to Flurry, it's just once per turn when you attack using the arms.

So I guess the 'nova' would be lower until the third attack, but the floor might be higher? Needing to spend 2 Ki for 10 minutes of coverage does make it hard to judge.

[Witty Username]

Why use flurry before hand of harm? hand of harm damage is more reliable than flurry so your better off not using flurry until hand of harm becomes free. Damage is about the same, but it is still something to keep in mind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why use flurry before hand of harm? hand of harm damage is more reliable than flurry so your better off not using flurry until hand of harm becomes free. Damage is about the same, but it is still something to keep in mind.

Because I was modding the preset that only did flurry, and that was easier to implement. And I'm not all that familiar with mercy monks.

[Witty Username]

Because I was modding the preset that only did flurry, and that was easier to implement. And I'm not all that familiar with mercy monks.

Fair enough, the short version is that flurry and hands of harm use the same damage numbers (martial arts dice +stat modifier) so they are about the same if accuracy is not taken into account (flurry being slightly better if raising dex is assumed), but if accuracy is taken into account in even a cursory factor hands of harm will be superior.

The long version, flurry of blows damage is dependent on a successful attack roll, the extra attack gained by the ki, so its average damage will be (MA+dex) *x, x being your chance to hit, hands of harm is similarly dependent on a successful attack roll, but as it is a trigger on a successful attack you chances of hands of harm is landing at least one attack in the monk's attack line, or (MA+wis)*|((1-x)^3 -1)| or opposite of chance of missing the entire attack line 3 being the number of monk attacks by fifth level, 2 before that (MA+wis)*|((1-x)^2-1)|.
Assuming 16 starting Dex and Wis, and a unrealistic but usable accuracy of 95%, this makes flurry ((1d6)+3)*.95 or average 6.175 while hands of harm ((1d6)+3) *|(1-.95)-1| or 6.5 * |.999875| which is 6.499.
Once Dex and Wis fall out of step it gets more complex, but generally the less accurate the monks punches the the more favorable hands of harm is. at .95 accuracy it is something like flurry 4.75 vs hands of harm 3.00 after damage dice are factored out at 20 dex vs 16 wis. my rough estimates are 18 vs 16 - 60% accuracy or below, hands of harm is better, 20 vs 16 - 50% accuracy or below (but at that point the monk is probably at level 11 and using both flurry and HoH so it is less relevant which is better).


A side thing to mention is that the level 6 upgrade to Hands of Harm, that it poisons the target for a round, adds a potent debuff in addition to this math. It is arguably a better ability than flurry of blows and stunning strike combined at that point due to the debuff and shear reliability. I would personally not go that far, I would need to have more play experience with it, but it is very comparable to being able to combine flurry of blows and patient defense in the same turn, if only 1 enemy is active.

There is a reason when I criticize monks I try to make a point that my arguments do not apply to way of mercy monks.

[diplomancer]

Why use flurry before hand of harm? hand of harm damage is more reliable than flurry so your better off not using flurry until hand of harm becomes free. Damage is about the same, but it is still something to keep in mind.

From my last play session, where this was exactly my train of thought as a Mercy Monk 3

"I'll just use a regular Martial Arts attack, should be enough to kill enemy. If it isn't, I can always apply Hand of Harm".

And then I missed.

Turns out, a hit would probably have killed the enemy.

So, that's a situation where Flurry is better than Hands of Harm.

[Yakk]

Dex is 16 L1, 18 L4, 20 L 8+

Baseline Rogue, 2 short swords. Always has SA, doesn't get advantage. 65% accuracy, 5% crit, uses SA on first successful hit.
SA: Hit 0.88, of which .07 are crits; 0.95d6 damage per SA die.
SS: Hit 1.3, of which 0.1 are crits; 1.4d6 + 0.65*dex damage per round.

L1: 10.175
L5: 17.475
L7: 20.8
L9: 24.775
L11: 28.1
L17: 38.075

Baseline Monk. Quarterstaff, 2 handed (d8). Doesn't get advantage. 65% accuracy, 5% crit. Use MA each round. Ki us used to upgrade MA to Flurry.
L1-3: 8.8 = (1d8+1d4+6) * 0.65 + (1d8+1d4)*0.05
Per Ki: 3.7 = 1d4*.7 + 3*.65
L4: 14.3 = (1d8+1d4+8)*.65 + (1d8+1d4)*.05
Per Ki: 4.35 = (L1-3)+.65
L5-7: 16.55 = (2d8+1d6+12) * 0.65 + (2d8+1d6)*0.05
Per Ki: 5.05 = 1d6*.7 + 4*.65
L8-10: 18.5 = (L5-7)+3*.65 at-wil
Per Ki: 5.7 = (L5-7)+0.65 per Ki
L11-16: 19.2 = (3d8+15)*.65 + (3d8)*.05
Per Ki: 6.4 = 1d8*.7 + 5*.65
L17+: 21.3 = (3d10+15)*.65 + (3d10)*.05
Per Ki: 7.1 = 1d10*.7 + 5*.65


Monk Level * Per Ki / (Rogue at-will - Monk at-will):
L1: 2.7
L5: 27.3
L7: 9.1
L9: 8.2
L11: 7.9
L17: 7.2

If we ignore the fact we get 1 use of ki/round, this is the number of rounds it takes rogue to catch up to monk damage after the monk dumps their Ki into flurries.

When that number is greater than the level, it means the Monk has more damage when they burn Ki. When it is less than the Monk's level, it means the Monk+Flurry doesn't match at-will Rogue damage. Because the Monk can only spend 1 Ki/round on extra damage.

This isn't always a problem, because Monks in theory can spend Ki on other stuff besides Flurry that are as good or better (stunning strike for example).

But the interesting bit is that around L 9-11 that the Monk Ki-enhanced damage falls behind at-will Rogue damage. Which is when people talk about Monk damage falling off.

Allowing monks to spend Ki on extra damage faster might have a pretty big impact here.

...

1) Move Flurry to not being a bonus action. It is an extra attack when you take the attack action for 1 Ki.
2) Scale MA damage dice a bit faster in T2-4
3) At or around L 11, let the Monk spend a Ki to double their MA damage dice on a hit? That allows much faster burning of Ki. And is fun, as you can save it for crits.

[Dork_Forge]

Dex is 16 L1, 18 L4, 20 L 8+

Baseline Rogue, 2 short swords. Always has SA, doesn't get advantage. 65% accuracy, 5% crit, uses SA on first successful hit.
SA: Hit 0.88, of which .07 are crits; 0.95d6 damage per SA die.
SS: Hit 1.3, of which 0.1 are crits; 1.4d6 + 0.65*dex damage per round.

L1: 10.175
L5: 17.475
L7: 20.8
L9: 24.775
L11: 28.1
L17: 38.075

Baseline Monk. Quarterstaff, 2 handed (d8). Doesn't get advantage. 65% accuracy, 5% crit. Use MA each round. Ki us used to upgrade MA to Flurry.
L1-3: 8.8 = (1d8+1d4+6) * 0.65 + (1d8+1d4)*0.05
Per Ki: 3.7 = 1d4*.7 + 3*.65
L4: 14.3 = (1d8+1d4+8)*.65 + (1d8+1d4)*.05
Per Ki: 4.35 = (L1-3)+.65
L5-7: 16.55 = (2d8+1d6+12) * 0.65 + (2d8+1d6)*0.05
Per Ki: 5.05 = 1d6*.7 + 4*.65
L8-10: 18.5 = (L5-7)+3*.65 at-wil
Per Ki: 5.7 = (L5-7)+0.65 per Ki
L11-16: 19.2 = (3d8+15)*.65 + (3d8)*.05
Per Ki: 6.4 = 1d8*.7 + 5*.65
L17+: 21.3 = (3d10+15)*.65 + (3d10)*.05
Per Ki: 7.1 = 1d10*.7 + 5*.65


Monk Level * Per Ki / (Rogue at-will - Monk at-will):
L1: 2.7
L5: 27.3
L7: 9.1
L9: 8.2
L11: 7.9
L17: 7.2

If we ignore the fact we get 1 use of ki/round, this is the number of rounds it takes rogue to catch up to monk damage after the monk dumps their Ki into flurries.

When that number is greater than the level, it means the Monk has more damage when they burn Ki. When it is less than the Monk's level, it means the Monk+Flurry doesn't match at-will Rogue damage. Because the Monk can only spend 1 Ki/round on extra damage.

This isn't always a problem, because Monks in theory can spend Ki on other stuff besides Flurry that are as good or better (stunning strike for example).

But the interesting bit is that around L 9-11 that the Monk Ki-enhanced damage falls behind at-will Rogue damage. Which is when people talk about Monk damage falling off.

Allowing monks to spend Ki on extra damage faster might have a pretty big impact here.

...

1) Move Flurry to not being a bonus action. It is an extra attack when you take the attack action for 1 Ki.
2) Scale MA damage dice a bit faster in T2-4
3) At or around L 11, let the Monk spend a Ki to double their MA damage dice on a hit? That allows much faster burning of Ki. And is fun, as you can save it for crits.

This analysis doesn't take into consideration that Monks get combat boosts from the subclass. Kensei, Mercy, and Astral Monks are straightforward to compare here, all with added damage and ways that ki converts into damage outside of FoB.

[Yakk]

Sure, but I'm also comparing a Baseline unopitimized Rogue to a Baseline Monk.

Partly because comparing 10 Rogue subclasses vs 10 Monk subclasses makes my post 100x longer.

And if the problem exists when a monk isn't one of a small selection of subclasses with a good bump at 11, then the problem exists. If there was 1 or 2 monk subclasses without the problem those subclasses could be the problem. But there are more than just 2.

L11 without damage: Long Death, 4E, Drunk, Open Hand, Shadow... and that is just reading subclasses at random.

[Dork_Forge]

Sure, but I'm also comparing a Baseline unopitimized Rogue to a Baseline Monk.

Partly because comparing 10 Rogue subclasses vs 10 Monk subclasses makes my post 100x longer.

And if the problem exists when a monk isn't one of a small selection of subclasses with a good bump at 11, then the problem exists. If there was 1 or 2 monk subclasses without the problem those subclasses could be the problem. But there are more than just 2.

L11 without damage: Long Death, 4E, Drunk, Open Hand, Shadow... and that is just reading subclasses at random.

4E get's access to, among other things, Fireball at 11th level.

Shadow gets a good scouting ability that doubles as a source of advantage for first attack.

Drunk gets to nullify disadvantage on their attacks.

The latter two aren't straightforward bumps, but given that accuracy adjusted numbers seem to permeate the forum it's not to see them as some degree of bump.

This kind of split doesn't happen at all in the Rogue, with most subclasses doing little to nothing for damage (besides making Sneak more consistent) until their capstone.

I guess the comparison irks me for this reason:

The Rogue doesn't expect damage out of subclasses, at most the expectation is to aid reliability of Sneak Attack, which isn't hard to begin with.

However, the Monk does expect damage out of its subclasses if that is the kind of Monk you're playing. So the base class comparisons always end up feeling like they're missing something and tend to lead to the notion that Monks are bad at damage altogether. It's almost like looking at the core Ranger class for damage when it's reliant on subclass bumps.

[Yakk]

4d8+20 (38) single target for 1 ki.
9d6 (31.5) aoe damage for 5 ki fireball + tashas 1d8+5(9.5).

So it does give a faster conversion of ki to damage, if less efficient.

[Rukelnikov]

This analysis doesn't take into consideration that Monks get combat boosts from the subclass. Kensei, Mercy, and Astral Monks are straightforward to compare here, all with added damage and ways that ki converts into damage outside of FoB.

Kensei's damage boost are kinda meh outside of ranged kensei. What are you really getting?

Deft strike, spend 1 ki for MA damage, that's very similar to FoB, MA+Stat * Accuracy. It becomes better if you only use it for crits, but then its still not that relevant since it won't come into play often.

Sharpen the Blade is table dependant, how we play, by lvl 11 you probably have recently gotten or are about to get a +2 weapon or comparable, so 3 ki and a bonus action for +1 att and damage. Its decent to good, but it will only lose in usefulness as levels go by, unless you manage to get a powerful magic weapon with no +att and dam, which are not very common.

Unerring Accuracy is good, its almost like having an extra attack.

[Sorinth]

Kensei's damage boost are kinda meh outside of ranged kensei. What are you really getting?

Deft strike, spend 1 ki for MA damage, that's very similar to FoB, MA+Stat * Accuracy. It becomes better if you only use it for crits, but then its still not that relevant since it won't come into play often.

Sharpen the Blade is table dependant, how we play, by lvl 11 you probably have recently gotten or are about to get a +2 weapon or comparable, so 3 ki and a bonus action for +1 att and damage. Its decent to good, but it will only lose in usefulness as levels go by, unless you manage to get a powerful magic weapon with no +att and dam, which are not very common.

Unerring Accuracy is good, its almost like having an extra attack.

For a Kensei keep in mind if the equivalent is something like a Flametongue then you get the +3 attack and damage on top of the Flametongues extra damage.

But I think the OPs point was that in terms of class design a lot of the damage boosts for monk come from Subclass features whereas the same isn't true for Rogue so by ignoring subclasses it's a biased comparison.

[Rukelnikov]

For a Kensei keep in mind if the equivalent is something like a Flametongue then you get the +3 attack and damage on top of the Flametongues extra damage.

Yeah, good magic weapons with no +att & dam then its good. But those are few and far between.


But I think the OPs point was that in terms of class design a lot of the damage boosts for monk come from Subclass features whereas the same isn't true for Rogue so by ignoring subclasses it's a biased comparison.

And I think that's assertion isn't true, only Mercy and Astral get noticeable damage boosts.

[Sorinth]

And I think that's assertion isn't true, only Mercy and Astral get noticeable damage boosts.

If you compare each subclass to the base class then it's quite obvious that they all get damage boosts, some like Kensei get it with every subclass feature, others like Drunken Master get situational boosts, and a few only get their damage boost at high level (Level 17) but every single subclass has a damage boost or two in their subclass.

[Rukelnikov]

If you compare each subclass to the base class then it's quite obvious that they all get damage boosts, some like Kensei get it with every subclass feature, others like Drunken Master get situational boosts, and a few only get their damage boost at high level (Level 17) but every single subclass has a damage boost or two in their subclass.

I'd like to know which are those bonuses people talk about, cause IMO only Mercy and Astral do get them.

Kensei?

Doesn't get a bonus at lvl 3, you do more damage with martial arts.

Gets a "bonus" on lvl 6 which is less efficient than FoB for melee, does work for ranged due to Ki fueled Attack.

Gets a "bonus" at lvl 11 that only devaluates as lvls go by and is largely item dependant.

Gets a good bonus at lvl 17.

[Sorinth]

I'd like to know which are those bonuses people talk about, cause IMO only Mercy and Astral do get them.

Kensei?

Doesn't get a bonus at lvl 3, you do more damage with martial arts.

Gets a "bonus" on lvl 6 which is less efficient than FoB for melee, does work for ranged due to Ki fueled Attack.

Gets a "bonus" at lvl 11 that only devaluates as lvls go by and is largely item dependant.

Gets a good bonus at lvl 17.

Is going from a d8 to a d10 not considered a damage boost anymore? I mean seriously, the DPR of a Kensei is higher then that of a Monk without subclass features, how can you even argue otherwise.

[Rukelnikov]

Is going from a d8 to a d10 not considered a damage boost anymore? I mean seriously, the DPR of a Kensei is higher then that of a Monk without subclass features, how can you even argue otherwise.

Not what I'd consider noticeable, and by T4 that damage boost doesn't apply anymore.

And even then IF we count Kensei as giving a noticeable damage boost, that's still 3 out of 10 subs that give damage.

[Sorinth]

Not what I'd consider noticeable, and by T4 that damage boost doesn't apply anymore.

And even then IF we count Kensei as giving a noticeable damage boost, that's still 3 out of 10 subs that give damage.

So shadow's level 17 feature isn't a damage boost? What about Long Death dropping a bunch of ki and dealing 20d10 points of damage (save for half), is that not a damage boost? They all have damage boosts whether you like them or not.

[Amechra]

I am curious about this statement, specifically. Where is this evidence and/or what is it?

"Evidence" was hyperbole (and a consequence of me doing feverish math stuff).

Basically, whenever I crunch the numbers for what martial damage looks like without feats, most builds end up in very similar places in terms of at-will damage, with a consistency where I pretty much have to assume that it was intentional. Comparatively, the at-will damage that you get from something like XBE+SS or PAM+GWM is comparable to what you'd get from a smiting Paladin, which is... yeah.

My suspicion is that the original development team basically assumed that players would either stop at one feat or mainly pick up feats at high levels (where balance is swingier anyway).

...

Also, for the purposes of looking at damage numbers... I tend to find that the normal method of just tallying up damage averages is kinda useless — after all, a build dealing 2-3 additional damage on average becomes less and less relevant as monsters get tougher. I've recently started calculating the amount of damage that a build can deal to a creature of a given CR (https://blogofholding.com/?p=7338), and then dividing that creature's HP by that number. That gives you the rough number of rounds it'd take for that build to kill that creature, which I think is a much more useful number.

That approach also has the really nice feature that you don't actually have to point to a specific build and call it your baseline — you can just say that, I dunno, "a competent damage-dealer should be able to drop a creature of such-and-such CR in four rounds or less" and go from there.

[sethdmichaels]

-You also get Improved Patient Defense, which gives you a reaction attack when someone attacks you or something like that (possibly with some accuracy or damage bonus to fine-tune the power). It would still cost Ki, but it requires sacrificing less of your damage output in most cases.
i love playing a monk, but a reaction attack or reaction defense option definitely feels like a missing design space (you could also fill it with a melee version of deflect missiles)

[Dork_Forge]

Kensei's damage boost are kinda meh outside of ranged kensei. What are you really getting?

Deft strike, spend 1 ki for MA damage, that's very similar to FoB, MA+Stat * Accuracy. It becomes better if you only use it for crits, but then its still not that relevant since it won't come into play often.

Sharpen the Blade is table dependant, how we play, by lvl 11 you probably have recently gotten or are about to get a +2 weapon or comparable, so 3 ki and a bonus action for +1 att and damage. Its decent to good, but it will only lose in usefulness as levels go by, unless you manage to get a powerful magic weapon with no +att and dam, which are not very common.

Unerring Accuracy is good, its almost like having an extra attack.

You seem to regard it as Deft Strike vs FoB, why not FoB + DS? It increases their damage ceiling, and works like Divine Smite in that you declare after the hit which is fantastic.


I'd like to know which are those bonuses people talk about, cause IMO only Mercy and Astral do get them.

Kensei?

Doesn't get a bonus at lvl 3, you do more damage with martial arts.

Gets a "bonus" on lvl 6 which is less efficient than FoB for melee, does work for ranged due to Ki fueled Attack.

Gets a "bonus" at lvl 11 that only devaluates as lvls go by and is largely item dependant.

Gets a good bonus at lvl 17.

I think your table's style of play is highly colouring your perception of the Kensei, but I'm curious: What's your actual game experience with the subclass?


Not what I'd consider noticeable, and by T4 that damage boost doesn't apply anymore.

And even then IF we count Kensei as giving a noticeable damage boost, that's still 3 out of 10 subs that give damage.

It's a damage boost... Is it huge, no, but that doesn't stop people raving for the same damage boost in MA die. Damage is damage and the Kensei gets it at every milestone.

Are you really having a hard time seeing any damage features on other subclasses?

4E: AOEing with something like Fireball, now with even a bonus action attack

Open Hand: They're not a damage-based subclass, but they still get Quivering Palm

Shadow: bunch of options for advantage and Opportunist

Death: Touch of the Long Death

Drunken: Drunkard's Luck, Intoxicated Frenzy

Sun Soul: AOE as a bonus action, better version of Fireball, Sun Shield

Ascendant Dragon: Breath of the Dragon AOE mixed into attacks, Explosive Fury

And then the three already discussed, damage isn't the focus of every Monk subclass, but they all deliver some form of damage bump at least once.

[Witty Username]

You seem to regard it as Deft Strike vs FoB, why not FoB + DS? It increases their damage ceiling, and works like Divine Smite in that you declare after the hit which is fantastic.


At 6th level, 2 ki a turn is a lot, especially if one is trying to use features like ki focused aim and stunning strike. a monk can pretty easily run out of ki in a couple of turns even as late as 11 or 12th level if they use both deft strike and flurry of blows at the same time if they have to use much else along with.
Even if using both is sometimes the right move, it is useful to keep in mind which gets more value for your dollar. I think Flurry of blows takes that, since the deft strike average damage is about half the average damage of an unarmed strike. Still may be useful to cherry tap with deft strike if your enemy is only a few points off of down.


From my last play session, where this was exactly my train of thought as a Mercy Monk 3

"I'll just use a regular Martial Arts attack, should be enough to kill enemy. If it isn't, I can always apply Hand of Harm".

And then I missed.

Turns out, a hit would probably have killed the enemy.

So, that's a situation where Flurry is better than Hands of Harm.

I would need to know more about what was going on, my gut is that if the monk already missed twice, then it is likely flurry would have missed as well, which is 1 ki down for no damage. That is part of the mind set on using hands of harm though, it is as much about reducing the amount of ki wasted over an adventuring day. In this scenario you lost some effectiveness in a turn, but your play is conserving a bit of resources. Even with Flurry you wouldn't have been guaranteed the damage but would have used the ki either way. Given at level 3, only having 3 ki, making every ki count does have value. It also helps that Mercy monk has a good ki to HP exchange rate with hands of healing if you get to a short rest with ki left over.
In short, a bad outcome does not necessarily mean a wrong decision was made.

[diplomancer]

I would need to know more about what was going on, my gut is that if the monk already missed twice, then it is likely flurry would have missed as well, which is 1 ki down for no damage. That is part of the mind set on using hands of harm though, it is as much about reducing the amount of ki wasted over an adventuring day. In this scenario you lost some effectiveness in a turn, but your play is conserving a bit of resources. Even with Flurry you wouldn't have been guaranteed the damage but would have used the ki either way. Given at level 3, only having 3 ki, making every ki count does have value. It also helps that Mercy monk has a good ki to HP exchange rate with hands of healing if you get to a short rest with ki left over.
In short, a bad outcome does not necessarily mean a wrong decision was made.

I was unlucky, rolled poorly twice - a 4 and a 5, if I remember correctly (once with my regular attack, once with my Martial Arts bonus Action). I think I needed an 8 to hit, though I didn't know that yet at that time. Sure, I could have rolled poorly one more time... Maybe it was the right decision, but when the enemy's turn came up and he critted against me, it sure didn't feel like it!

I should also add that I'm playing with a home-brewed Tabaxi who can get half of the benefits of a Short Rest back with a "catnap", a 10-minute Short Rest... so conserving Ki is not as important as usual, though I'm beginning to think that the party's nova-ing playstyle means that makes less difference than I expected at first.

[Dork_Forge]

At 6th level, 2 ki a turn is a lot, especially if one is trying to use features like ki focused aim and stunning strike. a monk can pretty easily run out of ki in a couple of turns even as late as 11 or 12th level if they use both deft strike and flurry of blows at the same time if they have to use much else along with.
Even if using both is sometimes the right move, it is useful to keep in mind which gets more value for your dollar. I think Flurry of blows takes that, since the deft strike average damage is about half the average damage of an unarmed strike. Still may be useful to cherry tap with deft strike if your enemy is only a few points off of down.



Yes it's initially a third of your Ki to do both, that doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes the prudent thing to do, and it gets easier every level.

My issue was treating it like either/or, when it isn't the case, nor does it have to be every turn. In fact, depending on your table's encounter rate, you really shouldn't be spending Ki every single turn for a while. When looking at damage bumps it was essentially ignoring a bump for playstyle reasons.*

*Note something like this isn't a big deal when I play a Monk, because I don't really use Stunning Strike often

[Tanarii]

At 6th level, 2 ki a turn is a lot,

Given at level 3, only having 3 ki,
Typically from what I've seen, a 6th level monk has enough ki to spend 2 every other round (or one per round), and a 3rd level monk enough to spend 1 every other round. That might feel like a pinch to some players, but most of mine seemed to feel it was sufficient at those levels. I never really heard kvetching about it.

Unlike wizards or sorcerer players, some of whom were forever kvetching about being out of spell slots.

[Amechra]

Yes it's initially a third of your Ki to do both, that doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes the prudent thing to do, and it gets easier every level.

I kinda want to focus on this, because it pretty much encapsulates why I made this thread. Due to the Monk's limited ability to nova (excluding Stunning Strike, of course), you will eventually run into a point where you have more ki than you can feasibly spend.

I mean, unless you're doing the very silly thing I used to do when I started playing, where I would regularly flurry + try to stun on every attack. :smalltongue:

[Zalabim]

Once you have a good amount of ki, you should be comfortable to use focused aim whenever it does come up, as well as flurry all the time, as well as trying to stun if your first attack hits. Keep going to level 18 and you get empty body to spend on. Focused aim is your most obviously valuable use for ki, but you have to learn your enemy's AC and it'll still only come up 10% of the time, or 6% when you have advantage assuming you normally hit on an 8. That results in 1 ki spent on flurry, .75 spent on stunning, and between .28 and 0.4 spent on focused aim each turn.

Now a player can choose to be more or less conservative than this. If you won't try to stun an enemy that is already stunned from last round, then round two spends a little less ki. If you will only flurry when the enemy is stunned, then that spends a lot less ki. This is also without considering any subclass's use for ki, which you might prefer over a low chance to stun. Finally, leftover ki can now be used for extra healing, so the monk should only have excess ki when everyone else has excess resources because there's just not that much combat.

[Reach Weapon]

Kensei? [...] Gets a "bonus" on lvl 6 which is less efficient than FoB for melee, does work for ranged due to Ki fueled Attack.
I don't understand how it's "less efficient":
Deft Strike is "on hit", so it's like getting your first Flurry of Blows strike as an automatic hit, while you still can take the second with 1st level Martial Arts. If Ki-Fueled Attack is in play, that bonus attack may be with your Kensei weapon, likely a boost from d6 to d10.

[Frogreaver]

When I last did the analysis for party damage increase due to stunning strike (very variable as parties can be all over the place) but for a fairly typical party the increase damage due to stunning strike advantage and focus fire was roughly equivalent to what you could gain with flurry.

Theoretically this should mean that as the monk continues to level and gain more ki he probably never runs out of damage increasing abilities to spend it on.

[Witty Username]

Typically from what I've seen, a 6th level monk has enough ki to spend 2 every other round (or one per round), and a 3rd level monk enough to spend 1 every other round. That might feel like a pinch to some players, but most of mine seemed to feel it was sufficient at those levels. I never really heard kvetching about it.

Unlike wizards or sorcerer players, some of whom were forever kvetching about being out of spell slots.

That will depend on the players and the table. Generally at my tables wizards/sorcerers (well, wizards, we have had one sorcerer technically but they were a multiclass, primarily paladin) haven't had that problem for example, because at nearly all levels of play an encounter can be effectively ended with a single spell cast with proper selection.

That being said we also tend to not short rest much, even our party with two warlocks would tend to short rest maybe once a adventuring day.

[strangebloke]

Deft Strike is incredibly efficient and people who think its bad haven't checked out the class since Tasha's. With KFA and a basic longsword, deft strike does add less total possible damage than FOB, but some of deft strike's damage is guaranteed to land, which makes it more useful against high AC foes.

But the big thing with deft strike / KFA is to get some sort of damage rider. Get you a flametongue, or a longbow with sharpshooter, and that's where the real fun begins. Now I would argue that getting a magic sword isn't the most impossible thing. But if you don't get one, (or do one that doesn't have a +X bonus) you can make your own magic weapon with STB.

KFA is so good that with the right damage riders its worth it to literally burn ki on focused aim just to trigger it, and deft strike letting you deal d6 damage instead is almost literally free damage.

[Tanarii]

That will depend on the players and the table. Generally at my tables wizards/sorcerers (well, wizards, we have had one sorcerer technically but they were a multiclass, primarily paladin) haven't had that problem for example, because at nearly all levels of play an encounter can be effectively ended with a single spell cast with proper selection.If one out of four characters can effectively end each of say 5-6 Medium encounters with one of their 5-6 spells from their two highest slot levels, why aren't they soloing? They don't need anyone else. That seems unlikely to me, and hasn't been my experience except in some very specific instances. Such as catching a large number of low level enemies off guard in fireball formation., or otherwise having the perfect tool for the job.

Arcane full casters need to spend slots for some rounds of each battle just to pull their fair weight as one of many party members in Tier 2, and are typically outclassed in Tier 1. They also usually can't hang well if the adventuring day goes longer than usual, unless they really pace themselves, and even then they are underperforming compared to their already par or lower.


That being said we also tend to not short rest much, even our party with two warlocks would tend to short rest maybe once a adventuring day.If you're doing 5MWDs long rest classes are over valued and short rest ones are under valued. (No short rests translated to 5MWDs, because PCs can't string together too many encounters without them.)

[Witty Username]

If you're doing 5MWDs long rest classes are over valued and short rest ones are under valued. (No short rests translated to 5MWDs, because PCs can't string together too many encounters without them.)

4 encounter average, generally 1 spell slot used each person abouts. sometimes less. I generally use deadly encounters as medium encounters fail to damage (sometimes single powerful enemies other times large groups, 1 instance both).

Most parties will need short rests to string together multiple encounters but not all, for heavy caster parties short rests only significantly restore HP which unless the encounters trend deadly won't harm the party HP wise. Past Tier 2 anyway. 1 short rest a day and warlocks can handle a 6 encounter day without too much trouble.

As for why you need other people? I realize I need to describe "effectively ended". Generally, I would use this to describe an encounter where the party will use no further resources, including HP. This will change depending on the party but generally spells that incapacitate multiple enemies will cause this effect, and are available from 1st level. This won't mean, wizard cast fireball everybody dies, so much as wizard casts grease, all the zombies die before getting into melee.

[Dork_Forge]

Most parties will need short rests to string together multiple encounters but not all, for heavy caster parties short rests only significantly restore HP which unless the encounters trend deadly won't harm the party HP wise. Past Tier 2 anyway. 1 short rest a day and warlocks can handle a 6 encounter day without too much trouble.


This isn't true:

Bards want their Bardic Inspiration dice back

Clerics want their Channel Divinities back

Druids want their Wild Shape uses back

Wizards presumably want their slots back

Warlocks want their slots back

Depending on subclasses chosen, fullcasters can become more and more dependent on their short rest resources.

The notion that an encounter needs to be deadly or beyond to harm the parties HP totals is also odd to me, unless you mean 'harm beyond what some healing spells/abilities can undo.'

Even easy/medium encounters can chip damage the party down to the point where it would be uncomfortable to then run into other encounters.

[Amechra]

4 encounter average, generally 1 spell slot used each person abouts. sometimes less. I generally use deadly encounters as medium encounters fail to damage (sometimes single powerful enemies other times large groups, 1 instance both).

I think that might be the point of disagreement.

Someone who habitually plays games with that average 4 deadly encounters is going to evaluate options differently from someone who plays with an average of 6-8 medium/hard encounters.

For a simple example, let's say you're playing a 6th level Wizard, you want to use your highest level spell slot each combat, use Arcane Recovery to recover a 3rd level slot, and you get a short rest every 2 encounters or so.


In a 4-encounters-per-day game, you end the day with four 1st level slots and two 2nd level slots.
In an 8-encounters-per-day game, you end the day with three 1st level slots.

In the first game, the Wizard can comfortably use Shield once per fight and still have all of their 2nd level slots left over for utility purposes and/or an additional combat spell. You're basically at full power for the entire day, and you aren't at any risk when it comes to running out of spells.

Add on four more encounters, however... you're out of third level spells halfway through the day, and enter the last fight without anything better than a 1st level slot. Spell slots are going to be way more precious for you.

...

Now, if you're usually running the first kind of game, of course you need them all to be deadly encounters. Your players are going to be bringing their A-game to every fight, after all — there's never going to be a moment where your Wizard is going to hesitate of cast Fireball or to Haste up the party Fighter, or where your Wizard won't snap-use Shield when they need it. Meanwhile, in the second style of game, playing like that will steadily grind the party down — "should I spend a 3rd level slot here?" is an actual question your players need to ask. Heck, the second style of game doesn't even need to actually include eight encounters a day — there just needs to be a plausible threat that you might have to go that long without taking a long rest.

And, honestly? It's not too hard to see why Monks would suck in a "four deadly encounters" style of game, since their peak damage isn't that great (because they're eventually supposed to be able to deal that damage every turn) and they're hyper-sensitive to how many rounds of combat you tend to see between short rests. "Upgrading" an encounter to deadly either demands more offense from the party (which the Monk isn't really designed to deliver) or makes combats longer (which the Monk doesn't like).

Like, let's make a little comparison between two hypothetical 7th level parties, with a GW Paladin (no feats) and a Monk who tries to Stunning Strike 1-2 times per short rest.

Game 1:
In this game, we have 8 medium/hard encounters a day, which each last an average of 3 rounds. The party gets short rests every 2 encounters.


The Monk gets to use flurry of blows every turn, dealing ~(32*hit) damage a round. They can stun 1/short rest without it eating into their "running hot" turns.
The Paladin whacks people with a Greatsword, dealing ~(22.6*hit) damage a round (with a lower to-hit, because they're pumping Charisma for their aura). They have four 1st level smites that deal +(10.5*hit) damage and five 2nd level smites that deal +(15.75*hit) damage (thanks to Harness Divine Power).

The Paladin deals comparable damage to the Monk if they smite at all, and far more damage if they use their 2nd level smites. The thing is that the Paladin gets to use roughly one smite per fight, so the Monk ends up dealing more damage on average, and the Paladin's big advantage is that they've got great defenses and that sweet aura.

Game 2:
In this game, we have 4 deadly encounters a day, which each last an average of 5 rounds. The party gets one short rest in the middle of the day.


If the Monk tries to stun every combat (which is a reasonable thing to attempt, honestly), the Monk can only flurry every other turn, dealing ~(24.5*hit) damage otherwise.
The Paladin is exactly the same, but...

In this scenario, the Paladin can smite twice per encounter — in other words, they get a comparable number of rounds where they're running at full power to the Monk (2 vs. 2-3), and they deal more damage when running at full power (38.35*hit vs. 32*hit). Now the Paladin is better at offense and still has that great AC and nice aura, so the Monk feels... lackluster.

...

You know, now I wonder what you'd have to do to simulate a longer adventuring day in a game where you wanted the grindy resource-management stuff but couldn't be bothered to regularly run 6-8 encounters per long rest. Maybe have long rest classes "burn" some number of spell slots/ability uses? The problem with that approach is that it'd be a pain to do that in a way that didn't either feel pointless ("oh, yeah, sure, my 13th level Wizard only spent two 1st level spell slots in those 'encounters'.") or overly punitive ("I hate how my 13th level Wizard has to check off their 6th and 7th level spell slots after every long rest...")

[Sindeloke]

You know, now I wonder what you'd have to do to simulate a longer adventuring day in a game where you wanted the grindy resource-management stuff but couldn't be bothered to regularly run 6-8 encounters per long rest. Maybe have long rest classes "burn" some number of spell slots/ability uses? The problem with that approach is that it'd be a pain to do that in a way that didn't either feel pointless ("oh, yeah, sure, my 13th level Wizard only spent two 1st level spell slots in those 'encounters'.") or overly punitive ("I hate how my 13th level Wizard has to check off their 6th and 7th level spell slots after every long rest...")

Ways I've seen advocated to fix the 6-8/day issue:

- All short rest abilities become long rest abilities, and get 3x as many uses. The only real advantage of this is that it's simple as dirt; it doesn't really help balance that much, since, as you observe, short rest abilities tend to be lower impact and don't lend themselves to nova behavior; 3x as many Trip dice don't do much for your battlemaster if you don't have any rounds to use them in.

- All spellcasters get only one spell slot per level, ever, but levels 1-5 come back on a short rest. This is sort of similar to what you're suggesting by increasing ability costs - just a flat reduction in daily resources. The end result of this is actually that a caster gets more of their more powerful spells than they would normally until tier 3, but they still have a lot fewer spells overall, so it's hard to white-room what difference it would make. I'd love to try this sometime and see what actually happens.

- Change the rest schedule. A short rest is your 7 hours of sleep and your morning meal. A long rest is a 2-day lazy weekend in the city that can only happen once per seven days. This works extremely well and is my go-to suggestion for literally any game that is not 100% pure dungeon-grind.

As for the monk specifically, I maintain that even with the level 11 fall-off compared to other resource-based damage, the main issue isn't the monk's potential damage, it's the monk's opportunity cost. You can make something cost resources, or give it a significant trade-off, but only the monk suffers both. A paladin who smites for damage is giving up one thing: the utility otherwise offered by that spell slot (usually crowd control or healing). She still has her plate armor and potentially a shield. She still has 1-3 active auras. She still has her d10 HD and, if she's outside, her 60+ft mount speed. A samurai who spends action surge and fighting spirit for damage is giving up one thing: the utility otherwise offered by that action surge (usually movement or extra defense). He still has his plate armor and potentially a shield, his d10 HD, his bonus action heal. A phantom rogue who uses her wails from the grave to echo her sneak attack damage is giving up nothing at all! But a monk who flurries for damage is giving up the utility otherwise offered by that ki point (usually crowd control or healing), but also his bonus action, which means he is also giving up the dodge, disengage, extra movement that's supposed to compensate for his d8 and mediocre AC.

Change Flurry to give another attack as part of the attack action, and half the monk's problems are solved. Add "improved flurry" at level 11 so that it gives two extra attacks and we satisfy @Yakk's math. ezpz.

[Talamare]

Oh man, I legit came to post this minor homebrew we have been working on

Basically at Lv6 we added

"When you spend Ki, you may use Flurry of Blows without spending Ki as a Free Action. Flurry of Blows may only be used once per round."

So, now you can do Dodges, Shadow Steps, and whatever you want. You will still get your Flurry of Blows off
You are arguably even encouraged to spend Ki in ways that aren't Flurry, since the way its worded you if you choose to just do a straight Flurry, you're kinda missing out since you can't use it twice.

It definitely makes Monk WAY WAY more fun to play

[Talamare]

Typically from what I've seen, a 6th level monk has enough ki to spend 2 every other round (or one per round), and a 3rd level monk enough to spend 1 every other round. That might feel like a pinch to some players, but most of mine seemed to feel it was sufficient at those levels. I never really heard kvetching about it.

Unlike wizards or sorcerer players, some of whom were forever kvetching about being out of spell slots.

Hahahaha

That's because of Mindset more than anything

I've been playing with a Monk in 3 diff groups for the last 2 years
Monks will be out of Ki within the 2nd fight usually and often just kinda stay quiet about it unless someone brings it up

Wizs and Sorcs will have like 10 spell slots UNUSED and start complaining that they are almost out of spell slots
I swear, the moment I hear a Wiz/Sorc complain that they are low on spell slots, I just assume that means they are at worst around half

[Dork_Forge]

Oh man, I legit came to post this minor homebrew we have been working on

Basically at Lv6 we added

"When you spend Ki, you may use Flurry of Blows without spending Ki as a Free Action. Flurry of Blows may only be used once per round."

So, now you can do Dodges, Shadow Steps, and whatever you want. You will still get your Flurry of Blows off
You are arguably even encouraged to spend Ki in ways that aren't Flurry, since the way its worded you if you choose to just do a straight Flurry, you're kinda missing out since you can't use it twice.

It definitely makes Monk WAY WAY more fun to play

That is a mind-bogglingly high buff, this didn't cause any issues at all?

[Talamare]

That is a mind-bogglingly high buff, this didn't cause any issues at all?

Currently Lv9, so 2? months of adventuring since that buff

Nothing really "dramatic" happened

All he does and can do is punch things.

We have a wizard basically providing a magical answers to most puzzles and he can't tank like the Barb who basically does about as much damage.
Even if he's highest damage of the night (which even then is rarely true because he doesn't have any AoE) it barely matters.

Honestly, it just makes playing Monk FEEL good

[Dork_Forge]

Currently Lv9, so 2? months of adventuring since that buff

Nothing really "dramatic" happened

All he does and can do is punch things.

We have a wizard basically providing a magical answers to most puzzles and he can't tank like the Barb who basically does about as much damage.
Even if he's highest damage of the night (which even then is rarely true because he doesn't have any AoE) it barely matters.

Honestly, it just makes playing Monk FEEL good

What kind of Monk is he and how experienced/skilled is the player?

For some/most Monks this is opening the way to 5 attacks a round, which is kind of nuts.

[Talamare]

What kind of Monk is he and how experienced/skilled is the player?

For some/most Monks this is opening the way to 5 attacks a round, which is kind of nuts.

Mercy, He's played DnD before, but hes not an optimizer or anything

How do you get 5 attacks per round?

Edit - He only decently consistently does 4 attacks per round

[Dork_Forge]

Mercy, He's played DnD before, but hes not an optimizer or anything

How do you get 5 attacks per round?

Edit - He only decently consistently does 4 attacks per round

Since that buff detaches Flurry from the bonus action, you can use either the normal Martial Arts attack, or Ki-Fueled Strike from Tashas for a weapon attack.

Given that he's a Mercy Monk he could crank out 5 attacks and a Hand of Harm, which is no-nonsense damage even if he didn't use a quarterstaff for the largest damage die on some of the attacks.

[Talamare]

Since that buff detaches Flurry from the bonus action, you can use either the normal Martial Arts attack, or Ki-Fueled Strike from Tashas for a weapon attack.

Given that he's a Mercy Monk he could crank out 5 attacks and a Hand of Harm, which is no-nonsense damage even if he didn't use a quarterstaff for the largest damage die on some of the attacks.

The detach was for being able to use all the bonus action ki abilities.

I do see now how its possible, but I guess its not as obvious

Ki Fueled - "If you spend 1 ki point or more as part of your action on your turn, you can make one attack with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon as a bonus action before the end of the turn."

I don't think any of us would say using Hands of Harm is part of the action, but maybe it is?

Basic Martial Arts Bonus Action doesn't really work, If you attack normally and Martial Arts normally you didn't spend any Ki... so no free flurry

but I did find the exception that would break this, and now I'm a lil surprised he just doesn't do it.

Stunning Strike...

Which can be easily fixed, we can just make Stunning Strike cost a bonus action. Which makes me wonder if the DM said that (its the only reason I can imagine?)

[Sorinth]

If you want a buff for when monk damage starts to drop off I would suggest giving monks a 2nd bonus action every round with the limitation being they can't take the same action twice.

In most instances it's just an extra attack but if they want to burn ki they can do a lot of fun stuff.

[Yakk]

I don't think any of us would say using Hands of Harm is part of the action, but maybe it is?
Well, it spends the Ki. And it does it as part of the action. I don't see what is missing?

[Tanarii]

Someone who habitually plays games with that average 4 deadly encounters is going to evaluate options differently from someone who plays with an average of 6-8 medium/hard encounters.
The books are balanced for 3 Deadly encounters, 6 Medium or 4.5 Hard ones. It just expects a short rest between each Deadly encounter. I can't see anyone pulling off 4 Deadly encounters without any Short rests though. So not really relevant to views on Long Rest classes vs Short Rest classes if someone runs full adventuring day of Deadly vs not. What's relevant is doing one super-duper-Deadly as a 5MWD.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Based on my experimentation (and experience), it seems the relevant variable here isn't really fights between short/long rests. Its rounds. Fights matter when you have medium-ish duration effects (rage lasts 1 minute + ending conditions, so it'll last 10 rounds of active fighting (assuming you're actively fighting), but is unlikely to survive between combats. Most 10-minute spells might affect 2 combats, whether that's 4 rounds or 20 rounds. Monks don't really have such things. Instead, they mostly have instantaneous effects that they can burn per round.

Also in my experience (and this might be skewed), the difficulty of the fight (as measured "by the book") rarely correlates super well with the length of the fight in rounds. A super-deadly solo may only last 3 rounds because it's getting nova'd by the entire party. While a Hard-ish fight with multiple waves of minion-caliber monsters (such as goblins at level 10 or so) can last a darn long time, even if no single monster lasts more than a turn.

My numbers suggest (non-conclusively) that the sweet spot is roughly 6-9 rounds per short rest. At that point, a mid-level monk has enough to flurry/equivalent every round (or most rounds if they're burning ki on other stuff) and the resulting average damage output is similar to (but very differently-shaped) than a GS GWF-style champion. At least in a feat-less game. Adding in feats throws this entirely out, because GWM is a massive chunk of damage and monks (in the main, disregarding the niche of SS kensai) don't have anything similar.

[Yakk]

The problem is that the baseline T3 monk's spike damage doesn't keep up with the sustained damage of other classes.

Featless, modest (for the level) magic items (not crazy optimized):
Fighter 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 6d6(B2)+18 damage (43)
Monk 11, +1 quarterstaff, 20 dex does 4d8+22 damage (40) when they flurry.

At level 5 meanwhile:
Fighter 5, Greatsword, 18 strength does 4d6(B2)+8 damage (24.7)
Monk 5, quarterstaff, 18 dex does 2d8+2d6+16 damage (32)

And at level 20:
Fighter 20, Flametongue Greatsword, 23 strength (belt) does 8d6(B2)+8d6+24 = 85.3 damage
Monk 20, Flametongue Shortsword, 20 dex does 4d10+4d6+20 = 56 damage

We could also compare with the Rogue or the Paladin. Paladin gets trickier, but even at will at level 11:
Paladin 5 is Fighter 5.
Paladin 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 4d6(B2)+2d8+12 damage (37.7), almost matching the Monk's burst
Rogue 5 is Dual SS, 18 dex, 5d6+4 (21.5) (high accuracy on 3d6 of it, two chances to land it)
Rogue 11, Dual +1 Short Swords, 20 dex does 8d6+7 (35), but with 2 chances to land 6d6 of it (sneak attack), which means it exceeds the above Fighter against reasonable ACs.

The Rogue similarly starts outpacing the Monk, with Burst Monk ~= Baseline Rogue by T3, and the gap getting huge in T4. The Paladin's sustained reaches within an epsilon of the Monk burst, and they keep on building up Smite slots to burst like crazy.

The Barbarian, Monk and Ranger all have the problem that their T3/T4 damage increase is effectively absent. In theory their subclasses could provide it, but even the most aggressive of those subclasses fail at it.


---

If we allowed Monks to burn 2 Ki to get 3 attacks on a Flurry at 11, and 3 Ki to get 4 attacks at level 17, it would up their Burst again (at the cost of endurance).

And maybe a faster Monk damage die progression in T3/T4 (after all, it is a crime they don't roll d12s in T4).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that the baseline T3 monk's spike damage doesn't keep up with the sustained damage of other classes.

Featless, modest (for the level) magic items (not crazy optimized):
Fighter 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 6d6(B2)+18 damage (43)
Monk 11, +1 quarterstaff, 20 dex does 4d8+22 damage (40) when they flurry.

At level 5 meanwhile:
Fighter 5, Greatsword, 18 strength does 4d6(B2)+8 damage (24.7)
Monk 5, quarterstaff, 18 dex does 2d8+2d6+16 damage (32)

And at level 20:
Fighter 20, Flametongue Greatsword, 23 strength (belt) does 8d6(B2)+8d6+24 = 85.3 damage
Monk 20, Flametongue Shortsword, 20 dex does 4d10+4d6+20 = 56 damage

We could also compare with the Rogue or the Paladin. Paladin gets trickier, but even at will at level 11:
Paladin 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 4d6(B2)+2d8+12 damage (37.7), almost matching the Monk's burst
Rogue 11, Dual +1 Short Swords, 20 dex does 8d6+7 (35), but with 2 chances to land 6d6 of it (sneak attack), which means it exceeds the above Fighter against reasonable ACs.

The Rogue similarly starts outpacing the Monk, with Burst Monk ~= Baseline Rogue by T3, and the gap getting huge in T4. The Paladin's sustained reaches within an epsilon of the Monk burst, and they keep on building up Smite slots to burst like crazy.

The Barbarian, Monk and Ranger all have the problem that their T3/T4 damage increase is effectively absent. In theory their subclasses could provide it, but even the most aggressive of those subclasses fail at it.

That doesn't match my results. Yes, the baseline (no subclass, flurry only monk) falls slightly below 1 RED in late T4 (0.94 RED at level 19/20). But neither the Astral monk nor the Mercy monk ever do, and their output is quite similar to the relevant comparisons.

https://admiralbenbo.org/red-calculator/calculator.html

[Yakk]

That doesn't match my results. Yes, the baseline (no subclass, flurry only monk) falls slightly below 1 RED in late T4 (0.94 RED at level 19/20). But neither the Astral monk nor the Mercy monk ever do, and their output is quite similar to the relevant comparisons.

https://admiralbenbo.org/red-calculator/calculator.html
I don't have much faith in that code?

extraDamage = base.accuracy*this.handOfHarm(level, uses, rounds);
Hands of harm damage is capped by number of rounds you get at least 1 hit; this formula multiplies accuracy rate by value that doesn't take into account accuracy.

Now this might not matter at the precision of the calculation, but it indicates your code has logic errors. My ability to find one in under 3 minutes gives me an estimate of how many logic errors your script has as a whole (aka, a lot).

Your script is complex. You have a complex accuracy calculation, and no option for "keep it simple" to make it easy for me to sanity check it. Ie, a "60% accuracy" option; your choices are 95% accuracy, and a bunch of complex ones based off of tables.

... and when I compare "90% hit 5% crit 5% miss" to "CR = Level +3, DMG AC" the graphs look identical for "TWF rogue + 9 round monk". Something extremely wrong is going on.

TWF Rogues as accuracy drops have a better relative damage rate than anyone else, because their bulk damage (sneak attack) has 2 chances to land. At 90%+5% accuracy, their sneak attack is landing basically 100% of the time, and every d6 does 1.05 d6 of damage.

At 50% accuracy, their sneak attack lands 75% of the time with 0.83 d6 damage per d6. That is only 20% drop in damage from sneak attack.

Meanwhile, other kinds of weapon damage scale drop by closer to 50% from the same drop in accuracy.

So if I tweak the accuracy and the TWF rogue and monk graphs don't move relative to each other, something is going wrong. What? I don't know, add unit tests.

[Dork_Forge]

The problem is that the baseline T3 monk's spike damage doesn't keep up with the sustained damage of other classes.

Featless, modest (for the level) magic items (not crazy optimized):
Fighter 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 6d6(B2)+18 damage (43)
Monk 11, +1 quarterstaff, 20 dex does 4d8+22 damage (40) when they flurry.

At level 5 meanwhile:
Fighter 5, Greatsword, 18 strength does 4d6(B2)+8 damage (24.7)
Monk 5, quarterstaff, 18 dex does 2d8+2d6+16 damage (32)

And at level 20:
Fighter 20, Flametongue Greatsword, 23 strength (belt) does 8d6(B2)+8d6+24 = 85.3 damage
Monk 20, Flametongue Shortsword, 20 dex does 4d10+4d6+20 = 56 damage

We could also compare with the Rogue or the Paladin. Paladin gets trickier, but even at will at level 11:
Paladin 11, +1 Greatsword, 20 strength does 4d6(B2)+2d8+12 damage (37.7), almost matching the Monk's burst
Rogue 11, Dual +1 Short Swords, 20 dex does 8d6+7 (35), but with 2 chances to land 6d6 of it (sneak attack), which means it exceeds the above Fighter against reasonable ACs.

The Rogue similarly starts outpacing the Monk, with Burst Monk ~= Baseline Rogue by T3, and the gap getting huge in T4. The Paladin's sustained reaches within an epsilon of the Monk burst, and they keep on building up Smite slots to burst like crazy.

The Barbarian, Monk and Ranger all have the problem that their T3/T4 damage increase is effectively absent. In theory their subclasses could provide it, but even the most aggressive of those subclasses fail at it.

You're comparing classes that get their damage progression primarily through the core class with one that tends to get it from their subclass.*

* You also chose the most impactful weapon for the Figher comparison, almost any other choice changes the math in favor of the Monk.

As the comparison is explicitly about spike damage:

Kensei easily overcomes the greatsword Fighter with Sharpen the Blade +3 longsword and Deft Strike:

2d10+3d8+26 = 50.5 vs 43

Mercy Monk tops it easily with Hand of Harm (assuming +3 Wis):

5d8+25 = 47.5 vs 43

Astral Self basically equals it with Empowered Arms with no magic item:

5d8+20 = 42.5 vs 43

And exceeds it with a +1 item like the Isignia or Claws or whatever the tattoo is:

5d8+24 = 46.5 vs 43

Tattoo spike:

5d8+4d6+24 = 60.5 vs 43

Sun Soul throwing out a max Searing Sunburst and the closing with a +1 weapon KFA:

8d6+1d8+6 = 38.5 vs 43 assuming only one target, drastically higher assuming two or more

4E Monk does exactly the same as above casting Fireball and using KFA

Dragon Monk with Flurry, Breath of the Dragon, +1 weapon:

6d8+18 = 45 vs 43 assuming only one target hit

That's the majority (6 out of 10) subclasses that provide damage that changes things substantially based solely on additional damage (not accuracy) and disproves your bolded claim.

[Yakk]

Debugging. TWF rogue.

You claim 60% accuracy at level 11 in the CR=Level+3, DMG AC, and raw 22.85 damage per round.

My calculation:
1d6+5 main hand, 1d6 offhand. 1.2 hits/round, 0.1 crits/round, for 7.55 weapon damage.
60% chance first swing hits, 5% it crits. 24% first swing misses, second hits, and 2% first swing misses second crits.
So SA damage is 84% hits and 7% crits, for 0.91 * 6d6 or 19.11.

Total: over 26.7 damage per round

You are somehow missing almost 1/4 of the damage of a simple Rogue build.

If you compare a Monk against a Rogue that does 3/4 of real damage, then maybe your belief that monk damage is fine has an issue.

I'll check a vanilla rogue:
7d6+5 60% accuracy 5% crit is 18.925 damage per round.

How about a TWF Rogue that can't sneak attack on offhand?
+1d6 * .65 = 21.2. Pretty close honestly.

Wait! Maybe 60% hit chance doesn't include crits.

= 22.85 that's it.

Your TWF rogue can't use sneak attack on offhand, even if main hand misses. That explains your large amount of missing damage. This technique is a large amount of why Rogues are using TWF.

(At this point, a baseline rogue is TWF or using Steady Aim; in both cases, the accuracy of SA is similar, but Steady Aim gives a higher crit chance.)

The right value for 65% accuracy with 5% crit is:

1.3d6 weapon 0.65 * 5 static from weapon (7.8 weapon damage)
.65 + .65 * .35 SA hit chance (88%)
.05 + .35*.05 SA crit chance (7%)
6d6 SA damage at 95% delivery rate is 20.0 damage

Total: 27.8 damage per round for a level 11 TWF Rogue with 65% accuracy and 5% crit chance.

(There may be math errors above; I tried to include every step to it would be easy to find them. I found some myself as I wrote it and edited it, apologies. Some values are rounded.).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Debugging. TWF rogue.

You claim 60% accuracy at level 11 in the CR=Level+3, DMG AC, and raw 22.85 damage per round.

My calculation:
1d6+5 main hand, 1d6 offhand. 1.2 hits/round, 0.1 crits/round, for 7.55 weapon damage.
60% chance first swing hits, 5% it crits. 24% first swing misses, second hits, and 2% first swing misses second crits.
So SA damage is 84% hits and 7% crits, for 0.91 * 6d6 or 19.11.

Total: over 26.7 damage per round

You are somehow missing almost 1/4 of the damage of a simple Rogue build.

If you compare a Monk against a Rogue that does 3/4 of real damage, then maybe your belief that monk damage is fine has an issue.

I'll check a vanilla rogue:
7d6+5 60% accuracy 5% crit is 18.925 damage per round.

How about a TWF Rogue that can't sneak attack on offhand?
+1d6 * .65 = 21.2. Pretty close honestly.

Wait! Maybe 60% hit chance doesn't include crits.

= 22.85 that's it.

Your TWF rogue can't use sneak attack on offhand, even if main hand misses. That explains your large amount of missing damage. This technique is a large amount of why Rogues are using TWF.

(At this point, a baseline rogue is TWF or using Steady Aim; in both cases, the accuracy of SA is similar, but Steady Aim gives a higher crit chance.)

The right value for 65% accuracy with 5% crit is:

1.3d6 weapon 0.65 * 5 static from weapon (7.8 weapon damage)
.65 + .65 * .35 SA hit chance (88%)
.05 + .35*.05 SA crit chance (7%)
6d6 SA damage at 95% delivery rate is 20.0 damage

Total: 27.8 damage per round for a level 11 TWF Rogue with 65% accuracy and 5% crit chance.

(There may be math errors above; I tried to include every step to it would be easy to find them. I found some myself as I wrote it and edited it, apologies. Some values are rounded.).

The baseline is not TWF. The baseline (RED) is a shortbow (which since it's only 1 attack per round doesn't have that issue). There's likely issues with that other preset (the TWF one) as you found, but that doesn't address the issue that monks don't fall below 1 RED.

[Dork_Forge]

Debugging. TWF rogue.

(At this point, a baseline rogue is TWF or using Steady Aim; in both cases, the accuracy of SA is similar, but Steady Aim gives a higher crit chance.)


Sorry what? That cannot be true.

A Rogue using SA is rolling 2d20 on their turn.

A Rogue using TWF is rolling 2d20 on their turn.

Unless you're plugging in Elven Accuracy there's no way SA increases crit chance compared to TWF.

And the accuracy should be the same as well?

The only thing that should change is accuracy adjusted damage, since TWF loses the Dex mod.

[AdAstra]

Sorry what? That cannot be true.

A Rogue using SA is rolling 2d20 on their turn.

A Rogue using TWF is rolling 2d20 on their turn.

Unless you're plugging in Elven Accuracy there's no way SA increases crit chance compared to TWF.

And the accuracy should be the same as well?

The only thing that should change is accuracy adjusted damage, since TWF loses the Dex mod.

While the rest isn't really relevant, there's something to that specific bit, though it's still not like, correct. TWF will actually get very slightly more crits on average than having advantage, since rolling 2 20s with advantage only results in 1 crit (the difference is very minimal, though). However, with TWF, there is a chance that you will hit on your first attack, using Sneak Attack, and then crit on your second attack, which results in you losing out on those sweet doubled SA dice. So on average having advantage will produce slightly more sneak attack damage than just making two attacks. Of course, TWF will do slightly more damage in the first place, as well as the aforementioned slight increase in total number of crits, so I'm not sure how it averages out in the end.

EDIT: Okay going to do at least the math for this bit

So, over the course of 400 turns, at 2 attacks per turn, a TWF Rogue will average 40 crits, as you'd expect. On the other hand, a Steady Aim-ing Rogue will only get 39 crits, since again, 2 20s on the same attack is still only 1 crit for them. However, for TWF, assuming a 60% hit chance, 30% of those crits will not benefit from Sneak Attack because the Rogue already hit on the first attack.

[Yakk]

A Rogue using a Shortbow and Steady Aim at level 11, 65% accuracy, 5% crit chance.
88% accuracy, 10% crit chance
Damage is 7d6+5. So 28.41 damage per round.

That is a model of a real life, no magic item, no feat, rest-resource-free, ranged Rogue with no subclass.

A level 11 monk without a subclass, who say uses a longsword as a monk weapon for 1d10 weapon damage, 20 dex, flurry every round:
2d10+2d8+20 at 65% accuracy 5% crit is 27 damage per round.

Again, as I said, burst damage is under the at-will damage of the Rogue.

If you then add in a subclass to the Monk but not the Rogue, you add another 1d8+3 damage with 88% chance; hands of harm. Crit chance is about 7%, for +6.9 damage (nice) per round.

This monk does 33.9 damage per round, and can swap some damage for healing. Pretty solid! Burst damage is 19% higher than the Rogue's.

However, Rogue subclasses can offer additional damage (AT can self-haste and double up sneak attacks with readied actions, Phantom has plenty of soul trinkets by level 11 and can wails each round, etc), while this is close to the optimization ceiling of monks.

---

To me, baseline rogue is a TWF rogue with short swords, or a shortbow rogue who uses steady aim. These are very easy to model. In practice, you get 70% of the weapon damage and 100% of the sneak attack damage per round delivered (some SA damage misses, balanced by crits) in typical situations; so this is about 6+7/4*Level DPR.

Not a Rogue with a single short sword rogue without a source of advantage or any help from subclasses, feats or items. If you compare your monk to a PC that is unlikely to exist and find it is better than it, it doesn't tell you much.

It isn't as if the "actual rogue build" is all that much more complex than your baseline rogue; yours is roughly 5+7/6*Level, mine is 6+7/4*level. Same basic curve shape, just scales a bit better as sneak attack lands more reliably.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A Rogue using a Shortbow and Steady Aim at level 11, 65% accuracy, 5% crit chance.
88% accuracy, 10% crit chance
Damage is 7d6+5. So 28.41 damage per round.

That is a model of a real life, no magic item, no feat, rest-resource-free, ranged Rogue with no subclass.

A level 11 monk without a subclass, who say uses a longsword as a monk weapon for 1d10 weapon damage, 20 dex, flurry every round:
2d10+2d8+20 at 65% accuracy 5% crit is 27 damage per round.

Again, as I said, burst damage is under the at-will damage of the Rogue.

If you then add in a subclass to the Monk but not the Rogue, you add another 1d8+3 damage with 88% chance; hands of harm. Crit chance is about 7%, for +6.9 damage (nice) per round.

This monk does 33.9 damage per round, and can swap some damage for healing. Pretty solid! Burst damage is 19% higher than the Rogue's.

However, Rogue subclasses can offer additional damage (AT can self-haste and double up sneak attacks with readied actions, Phantom has plenty of soul trinkets by level 11 and can wails each round, etc), while this is close to the optimization ceiling of monks.

---

To me, baseline rogue is a TWF rogue with short swords, or a shortbow rogue who uses steady aim. These are very easy to model. In practice, you get 70% of the weapon damage and 100% of the sneak attack damage per round delivered (some SA damage misses, balanced by crits) in typical situations; so this is about 6+7/4*Level DPR.

Not a Rogue with a single short sword rogue without a source of advantage or any help from subclasses, feats or items. If you compare your monk to a PC that is unlikely to exist and find it is better than it, it doesn't tell you much.

It isn't as if the "actual rogue build" is all that much more complex than your baseline rogue; yours is roughly 5+7/6*Level, mine is 6+7/4*level. Same basic curve shape, just scales a bit better as sneak attack lands more reliably.

Steady Aim isn't included. Why? Because I'm mainly looking at the base performance. Not the power-creeped performance. I want to compare against the core game, not the ever-moving target of optimization potential with new, power-creeped books. And that's the baseline people are using here--the Basic Rules. Once you decide that you're including optional variant features, why not Feats or multiclassing?

You could measure the shortbow + SA in RED. But that's not what RED is.

Personally, I despise the idea that we need to measure against this ever-shifting, ever growing baseline. Because the monsters don't change to account for those things. Or at least they didn't -- maybe once 5.5e comes out that will be baseline. But for 5e, the existence of optional power creep doesn't change the system expectations. Which are reflected in the monsters and the Basic Rules.

[Yakk]

Sure, so the code is buggy and it uses a different baseline than I am. I don't see how it contradicts anything I said in the post you responded to initially?

I compared an actual subclassless monk with actual reasonable items to an actual subclassless fighter, barbarian, paladin and rogue in actual play today.

The result is that monk can burst damage at level 5 above the other classes. By level 11 their ability to burst damage is gone, as flurry every round doesn't outpace significantly the fighter or rogue or paladin and in some cases falls behind.

Actual people playing the actual game experience this. It is a common complaint. It is reflected in my math. It isn't reflected in your model, but your model compares the monk against a rogue I've never seen anyone play. (Even before steady aim, ranged rogues hid, or found some other way to get advantage.)

And from level 11 to 20, the base class Monk's damage barely moves (except for items), and other classes leverage items as well or better. Meanwhile, Fighters damage goes up 33% (extra attack 3), and Rogues almost (but not quite) double in damage output. Paladins go from 29d8 smite to 54d8 smite, and gain spells like Holy Weapon and Destructive Wave (which are more efficient than smites usually).

...

The way of mercy ability to burn an extra Ki at level 5-10, then get a free damage boost at 11, does close the gap. They still stay nearly completely static in damage output from 11 to 20; they almost double in level, and gain under 10% extra damage. Their problem is mainly just delayed.

Classes that rely on subclasses to provide offensive fuel in T3/T4 seem to almost all have this bug. The most aggressive subclasses still don't keep up with the other classes baseline features.

Compare Gloomstalkers level 11 feature (reroll a miss) with Fighter 11 (get an extra attack) for example. Gloom 11 it a top-tier Ranger 11 subclass offensive ability, and it is strictly worse than Fighter 11 (other than possibly saving arrows). Meanwhile, a myriad of other Ranger subclasses don't get anything nearly as good as Gloom 11.

Same goes with Monks. When you have a top-tier Monk subclass ability (like Hands of Harm and its L 11 upgrade), it competes with other classes. Then after it stops getting upgraded, the Mercy monk just falls off.

[x3n0n]

The result is that monk can burst damage at level 5 above the other classes. By level 11 their ability to burst damage is gone, as flurry every round doesn't outpace significantly the fighter or rogue or paladin and in some cases falls behind.

And from level 11 to 20, the base class Monk's damage barely moves (except for items), and other classes leverage items as well or better. Meanwhile, Fighters damage goes up 33% (extra attack 3), and Rogues almost (but not quite) double in damage output.



Maybe we are talking past each other.

I think OP's initial insight was that the level 3-10 Monk's "burst" (Flurry) can reasonably be considered to be low-resource, although not quite "at-will", once you get to 10ish ki per short rest.

Your new insight here is that subclass-less Monks can't really spend more ki to directly increase their damage output past that point. (They can attempt to stun, but that doesn't appear here. A successful stun on a high-value target is a lot of damage output for the whole team, but its likelihood per attempt tends to be pretty low for high-value targets at these levels between high Con saves and legendary resistances.)

Some Monastic Traditions do offer meaningful ki-to-damage options that can apply in tier 3 (like Mercy, Kensei, Astral Self, Four Elements), but I think people can reasonably disagree about the effectiveness of those options.

Edit: I see that you fleshed out your argument, and I agree that relying on subclasses to boost tier 3 damage output leads to uneven results at best. To be fair to Mercy Monk, Hands of Harm's *damage* contribution falls off in tier 3, but the poison and saved ki free up resources for non-damage contribution (like more Hand of Healing and discretionary Stunning Strike).

[Sindeloke]

The result is that monk can burst damage at level 5 above the other classes. By level 11 their ability to burst damage is gone, as flurry every round doesn't outpace significantly the fighter or rogue or paladin and in some cases falls behind.

What if we do this:

Flurry of Blows
On your turn, when you take the attack action, you may spend 1 ki to make one extra attack, which can be made with either a monk weapon or your unarmed attack. If you spend more ki, you may make one additional attack per ki spent, up to one ki less than your proficiency bonus.

Not the most elegant wording, and the bump starts at level 5, which is early. But it allows the monk to burst pretty hard, and make interesting choices between sustaining decent damage across 10 rounds or bursting hard over 2-3.

[Dork_Forge]

However, Rogue subclasses can offer additional damage (AT can self-haste and double up sneak attacks with readied actions, Phantom has plenty of soul trinkets by level 11 and can wails each round, etc), while this is close to the optimization ceiling of monks.

No, ATs can't do that. They don't get 3rd level slots until 13th level, at which point they only get two of them and have to make drastic trade off: Throw away Uncanny Dodge, the option to Shield/Absorb Elements etc., take on the risk of losing concentration and so on. The Monk can hard nova multiple times a day (assuming 2 SR, three times a day), whilst the AT doesn't have that capacity, even though your example is taking place at a higher level for the Rogue.

The notion that Phantom Soul Rogues also have 'plenty of trinkets' is also baseless: It's entirely dependent on them both being within 30ft of a dying creature and having their reaction available to use until 17th level. The only thing that's certain is the maximum they can have, and that they can use it on other things.

Here's the big difference: As I've already shown in this thread most Monks get a straight damage increase at or by 11th level. The minority of Rogues get a bump, as they're more likely to get a way to ensure Sneak Attack or something else:

Of 8 Rogue subclasses only 3 (AT, Phantom, Soulknife) get additional damage.


To me, baseline rogue is a TWF rogue with short swords, or a shortbow rogue who uses steady aim. These are very easy to model. In practice, you get 70% of the weapon damage and 100% of the sneak attack damage per round delivered (some SA damage misses, balanced by crits) in typical situations; so this is about 6+7/4*Level DPR.

Not a Rogue with a single short sword rogue without a source of advantage or any help from subclasses, feats or items. If you compare your monk to a PC that is unlikely to exist and find it is better than it, it doesn't tell you much.

And I'd argue that your experience is of optimised Rogues, not a baseline or standard to be used conservatively:

The majority Rogues I've seen people play, even taking into consideration publication date bias, are Thieves and Swashbucklers, with by far the most popular weapons being a rapier or daggers.

Just like assuming that the Fighter will use a greatsword, assuming that every Rogue chooses the most optimum weapons and always seeks advantage is flawed. Especially when it's easier to just have an ally next to a monster, than get advantage on the attack.


Sure, so the code is buggy and it uses a different baseline than I am. I don't see how it contradicts anything I said in the post you responded to initially?

I compared an actual subclassless monk with actual reasonable items to an actual subclassless fighter, barbarian, paladin and rogue in actual play today.

The result is that monk can burst damage at level 5 above the other classes. By level 11 their ability to burst damage is gone, as flurry every round doesn't outpace significantly the fighter or rogue or paladin and in some cases falls behind.

Actual people playing the actual game experience this. It is a common complaint. It is reflected in my math. It isn't reflected in your model, but your model compares the monk against a rogue I've never seen anyone play. (Even before steady aim, ranged rogues hid, or found some other way to get advantage.)

And from level 11 to 20, the base class Monk's damage barely moves (except for items), and other classes leverage items as well or better. Meanwhile, Fighters damage goes up 33% (extra attack 3), and Rogues almost (but not quite) double in damage output. Paladins go from 29d8 smite to 54d8 smite, and gain spells like Holy Weapon and Destructive Wave (which are more efficient than smites usually).

Classes are not designed the same, so you cannot compare subclassless examples and expect a fair comparison, when the game does not expect subclassless 11th level characters, and neither did the devs.

I've never heard anyone complain about damage as a Monk, ever, it's only ever been on the echochamber of this forum.



The way of mercy ability to burn an extra Ki at level 5-10, then get a free damage boost at 11, does close the gap. They still stay nearly completely static in damage output from 11 to 20; they almost double in level, and gain under 10% extra damage. Their problem is mainly just delayed.

Not every class prioritises damage, but this also doesn't seem accurate: Increasing MA die, additional features, and access to a better version of Greater Invisibility must move the needle more than 10%.


Classes that rely on subclasses to provide offensive fuel in T3/T4 seem to almost all have this bug. The most aggressive subclasses still don't keep up with the other classes baseline features.

As I've already shown in this thread, this claim is false.


Compare Gloomstalkers level 11 feature (reroll a miss) with Fighter 11 (get an extra attack) for example. Gloom 11 it a top-tier Ranger 11 subclass offensive ability, and it is strictly worse than Fighter 11 (other than possibly saving arrows). Meanwhile, a myriad of other Ranger subclasses don't get anything nearly as good as Gloom 11.

Gloom's ability is to make another attack, not reroll the D20, that's better than just rerolling in general.

You're also not taking into account that the Ranger gets another 3rd level slot at this level for some reason?


Same goes with Monks. When you have a top-tier Monk subclass ability (like Hands of Harm and its L 11 upgrade), it competes with other classes. Then after it stops getting upgraded, the Mercy monk just falls off.


I'll reiterate again here: Damage is not the singular focal point of every class and subclass.

But since you made the claim: How does it fall off exactly?

You also seem to be looking only at features for HoH being upgraded: It gets upgraded automatically with the MA die, and the Monk has the option of pushing their Wis higher.

Though I'd like to see what you make off Astral Self, 5 attacks a turn with an added 1d10 is nothing to sniff at.

[Talamare]

I've never heard anyone complain about damage as a Monk, ever, it's only ever been on the echochamber of this forum.

This claim is False

The most common complaint I have seen while playing DnD is that whenever someone brings out a Monk about how useless they are, that they deal no damage and do nothing but bounce around in combat.

I live in a place with an extremely active DnD scene, we... well... we had... before covid... probably over 100+ local players... You practically get BULLIED for playing Monk


Edit

Well, it spends the Ki. And it does it as part of the action. I don't see what is missing?

I guess its a question of how you're trying to use the buff

So far he has yet to do 5 attacks with this change, maybe its an issue of he just hasn't noticed or he maybe hes choosing not to
The change has allowed him to be able to feel good about using his Step in the Wind and he has solid survivability with his Dodge.

We could do minor re-writes to any ability that might make the buff too strong, but I do see that the buff allows
Main Action Ki Spend + Bonus Action Attack + Flurry
Main Action Attack + Bonus Action Ki Spend + Flurry

Which makes the class more fun and versatile

[Dork_Forge]

This claim is False

The most common complaint I have seen while playing DnD is that whenever someone brings out a Monk about how useless they are, that they deal no damage and do nothing but bounce around in combat.

I live in a place with an extremely active DnD scene, we... well... we had... before covid... probably over 100+ local players... You practically get BULLIED for playing Monk

You don't get to tell me that my experience is false or untrue, unless, you're calling me a liar for some reason.

Besides playing with dozens of different people of the year, I currently run a server with over 200 members that hosts one shot events. Never in any of those games, or general discussion has a complaint or observation about the Monk's damage come up.

Does that anecdote make what you said false? I don't think so, it's still your experience.

Funny, that.

[AdAstra]

This claim is False

The most common complaint I have seen while playing DnD is that whenever someone brings out a Monk about how useless they are, that they deal no damage and do nothing but bounce around in combat.

I live in a place with an extremely active DnD scene, we... well... we had... before covid... probably over 100+ local players... You practically get BULLIED for playing Monk


Edit


I guess its a question of how you're trying to use the buff

So far he has yet to do 5 attacks with this change, maybe its an issue of he just hasn't noticed or he maybe hes choosing not to
The change has allowed him to be able to feel good about using his Step in the Wind and he has solid survivability with his Dodge.

We could do minor re-writes to any ability that might make the buff too strong, but I do see that the buff allows
Main Action Ki Spend + Bonus Action Attack + Flurry
Main Action Attack + Bonus Action Ki Spend + Flurry

Which makes the class more fun and versatile

Claiming that a person's anecdotal evidence is false rather than say, not representative of most people's experiences, using your own anecdotal evidence is, certainly a strategy of some kind. It's an attempt at a gotcha that doesn't actually use the same method of argument as the statement it's trying to mock.

If we are sharing anecdotes, I've played in public games for a good long while, with a fair few monks. Within the general constraints of said games (rarely playing in tiers 3 and 4, lower levels of optimization among most players), I have yet to see a player underperform with a Monk. People often have to be reminded of things like bonus action attacks, but in actual use the tools are satisfactory at minimum. Stunning Strike tends to be an encounter-winning move in common fights with a centerpiece monster, and damage tends to be average or above average even without Flurry. I tend to pull out some pretty optimized stuff, and I find that Monks, if anything, tend to keep up with that better than most other classes, at least in early tiers, due to not needing feats or other ancillary stuff to get things like good bonus action attacks.

Frankly, ever since I've seen someone playing a Wizard who just roasted half an encounter with a Lightning Bolt opine that Rogues were overpowered because I was Hiding every turn, I've put little stock in a lot of playerbase gossip without actual evidence, or at least anecdotes about long-term experiences, of underperformance. A group that basically bullies people for playing monks sounds like a bunch of killjoys, and more importantly for this discussion, a self-reinforcing narrative where no one is likely to be exposed to counterexamples. I've tried to avoid phrasing my opinions on the weaknesses of certain options as "this thing is bad and shouldn't be used" for this sorta reason. It's too easy for a newer player to internalize an even more extreme version of what gets said and just take it as gospel. While that sorta thing's unavoidable to a degree, I'd at least like to ensure that people don't accidentally discard something they might have fun with just because of another player's offhand statement.

[Amechra]

For the record, any analysis that relies on just crunching the damage numbers at a small number of discrete levels tends to introduce a lot of accidental bias, simply because different classes get boosts at different levels — like, Monk 19 vs. Fighter 19 is going to give you very different results from Monk 20 vs. Fighter 20.

On top of that, any analysis that doesn't take into account the effects of accuracy tends to miss stuff — like, a competently-played Kensei deals more "effective" damage than a look at just their raw damage would lead you to believe, because a lot of their damage comes from Focused Aim turning marginal misses into hits (and coincidentally giving you a bonus action attack).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, ever since I've seen someone playing a Wizard who just roasted half an encounter with a Lightning Bolt opine that Rogues were overpowered because I was Hiding every turn, I've put little stock in a lot of playerbase gossip without actual evidence, or at least anecdotes about long-term experiences, of underperformance. A group that basically bullies people for playing monks sounds like a bunch of killjoys, and more importantly for this discussion, a self-reinforcing narrative where no one is likely to be exposed to counterexamples.

Yeah. This. That's one reason I try to focus on what the system's underlying expectations are, rather than working from anecdotal or build-comparison reports. The system math is neutral and stable. Anecdata is...all over the place, and highly skewed by perception. And build-comparisons aren't stable over time (power creep).

[x3n0n]

Your new insight here is that subclass-less Monks can't really spend more ki to directly increase their damage output past that point.

Self-reply: That's not quite true--with Tasha's, every Monk gets access to Focused Aim.

Assuming perfect knowledge of target AC, roughly 10% of attacks are misses that can be converted to hits at the cost of 1 ki each. (Roughly another 10% would take 2 ki, and finally another 10% for an eye-popping 3 ki.)

Over 10 rounds, an always-Flurrying Monk that also uses Focused Aim to convert misses by 1 or 2 will make 40 attacks and will convert roughly 4 of those attacks from misses to hits at the cost of 4 ki, for an addition of 0.4*(damage per hit) in damage per round.

Of course, that is worth a lot more if individual attacks deal more than (1d8+5), and worth a lot less if your guess about target AC is way off.

If you really have more ki than you can reasonably spend, you can also reach for the 2- or even 3-ki Focused Aim conversions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Debugging. TWF rogue.

You claim 60% accuracy at level 11 in the CR=Level+3, DMG AC, and raw 22.85 damage per round.

My calculation:
1d6+5 main hand, 1d6 offhand. 1.2 hits/round, 0.1 crits/round, for 7.55 weapon damage.
60% chance first swing hits, 5% it crits. 24% first swing misses, second hits, and 2% first swing misses second crits.
So SA damage is 84% hits and 7% crits, for 0.91 * 6d6 or 19.11.

Total: over 26.7 damage per round

You are somehow missing almost 1/4 of the damage of a simple Rogue build.

If you compare a Monk against a Rogue that does 3/4 of real damage, then maybe your belief that monk damage is fine has an issue.

I'll check a vanilla rogue:
7d6+5 60% accuracy 5% crit is 18.925 damage per round.

How about a TWF Rogue that can't sneak attack on offhand?
+1d6 * .65 = 21.2. Pretty close honestly.

Wait! Maybe 60% hit chance doesn't include crits.

= 22.85 that's it.

Your TWF rogue can't use sneak attack on offhand, even if main hand misses. That explains your large amount of missing damage. This technique is a large amount of why Rogues are using TWF.

(At this point, a baseline rogue is TWF or using Steady Aim; in both cases, the accuracy of SA is similar, but Steady Aim gives a higher crit chance.)

The right value for 65% accuracy with 5% crit is:

1.3d6 weapon 0.65 * 5 static from weapon (7.8 weapon damage)
.65 + .65 * .35 SA hit chance (88%)
.05 + .35*.05 SA crit chance (7%)
6d6 SA damage at 95% delivery rate is 20.0 damage

Total: 27.8 damage per round for a level 11 TWF Rogue with 65% accuracy and 5% crit chance.

(There may be math errors above; I tried to include every step to it would be easy to find them. I found some myself as I wrote it and edited it, apologies. Some values are rounded.).

Update: with the newest version of the RED tool, the TWF Rogue preset has been updated to properly proc sneak attack on either attack (conditionally, of course). Updates the damage (in baseline RED units, averaged over 20 levels) to 1.36 RED instead of 1.16 RED. The baseline (unit definition) stays the same, which doesn't affect any other calculations, but that preset is now working better (correctly? Meh...that may be a bit much to ask for :smallbiggrin:. But better). And now that I've got a proper build/deploy system, as well as more modularization, other changes will be much easier. As well as incorporating other classes.

[Witty Username]

Steady Aim isn't included. Why? Because I'm mainly looking at the base performance. Not the power-creeped performance. I want to compare against the core game, not the ever-moving target of optimization potential with new, power-creeped books. And that's the baseline people are using here--the Basic Rules. Once you decide that you're including optional variant features, why not Feats or multiclassing?

You could measure the shortbow + SA in RED. But that's not what RED is.

Personally, I despise the idea that we need to measure against this ever-shifting, ever growing baseline. Because the monsters don't change to account for those things. Or at least they didn't -- maybe once 5.5e comes out that will be baseline. But for 5e, the existence of optional power creep doesn't change the system expectations. Which are reflected in the monsters and the Basic Rules.

Real quick, isn't steady aim not meant to raise the point of rogue so much as to make it more consistent across tables? A rogue is expected to be attacking with advantage every turn due to cunning action: hide. Steady aim is a rules patch to allow rogues to get that source of advantage when hiding is not as plentiful as the designers expected, at least according to JC. Not really important for RED, since as I understood it it doesn't take into account accuracy, so advantage is meaningless anyway. Just pointing out that the balance point isn't really moved by steady aim.




In a 4-encounters-per-day game, you end the day with four 1st level slots and two 2nd level slots.
In an 8-encounters-per-day game, you end the day with three 1st level slots.



Kinda, I have personally noted for my table this math gets weird with medium or lower encounters. I have found encounters below the hard margin tend to be solved without spell resources (or hp damage for that matter). In tier 1 especially, the power budget for a medium encounter is very low, and tend to get obliterated by basic attacks and cantrips easily.
So for my experience it has tended

8 medium encounters, the wizard doesn't use regular spells, maybe 1 or 2 to cover variance in dice rolls when it comes up.
4 deadly encounters, the wizard uses most of their spells over the course of the day, with maybe the rest spent to cover misplays and bad dice.

This is admittedly, with most of my data being from a party with 2 warlocks in it (2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 artificer, very gross to make encounters for). the amount they can sheer obliterate at range is frustrating.

[Dork_Forge]

Real quick, isn't steady aim not meant to raise the point of rogue so much as to make it more consistent across tables? A rogue is expected to be attacking with advantage every turn due to cunning action: hide. Steady aim is a rules patch to allow rogues to get that source of advantage when hiding is not as plentiful as the designers expected, at least according to JC. Not really important for RED, since as I understood it it doesn't take into account accuracy, so advantage is meaningless anyway. Just pointing out that the balance point isn't really moved by steady aim.



I think the expectation that the Rogue gets Sneak Attack most (almost every) turn is reasonable, the expectation that they get advantage isn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the expectation that the Rogue gets Sneak Attack most (almost every) turn is reasonable, the expectation that they get advantage isn't.

At least as a baseline. I did implement a preset where it's just the default RED rogue, but with advantage on 100% of the time, if anyone wants to compare.