New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 684
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Also I noticed that you solicited builds but didn't respond to my build. So, I want to re-draw your attention to Alert Shadow Monks as pretty good tanks from level 3 onwards (as well as being amazing good scouts). Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist Elemonks are also fun.
    Okay. I mean, no offense, I just don't find builds reliant on high rolled stats persuasive. Maybe it's the standard at every table except the ones I've played at, but generally builds posted on here are budgeted according to point-buy.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn View Post
    This. So much this. Monks aren't the best at any one thing, but they are incredibly versatile from round to round at being able to do lots of different things. They're never going to do quite as much damage as a main damage dealer like a Paladin, but they can deal respectable damage. They can't tank just as well as a Barbarian, but they can tank for a few rounds when needed. They offer flexibility, which is its own strength that is hard to quantify.
    I disagree. I think the Monk gives up too much damage per round by trying to dodge or move with its bonus action. Conversely the Monk gives up a ton of survivability by using its bonus action to attack instead of one of the aforementioned options. Similarly, using Stunning Strike eats at your damage potential and even on four hits it doesn't always go through. Before anyone asks yes I have played and seen monks been played and have not been particularly impressed. In my experience these options the Monk has aren't really options because I never feel like I'm doing enough damage unless I Flurry, and sometimes not even then.

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

    Other thoughts:

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

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Your calculation (31.5 without flurry of blows, 42 with it) supposes a 100% hit rate. Treantmonk's calculation, iirc, assumes either a 65% or a 70% hit rate.
    He claims to have used a 60% hit rate, but I really don't see how he's calculated his baseline damage.

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

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

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    I started to address that with this part:


    I originally wrote out more but thought I was belaboring the point. I anticipated the "versatility" response, but let's really think through that. Couldn't you just pick a Battlemaster Fighter and expect to out-damage, out-tank, and effectively compete with a Monk's control?
    If you have a way for Battlemasters to immediately zoom to priority targets across the battlefield and Stun them, sure? Also, the Battlemaster is an average tank at best. So the BM has Damage and marginally better Survivability (and at higher levels Survivability kinda flips to the Monk), and the Monk has Mobility and Control, as well as Damage at low levels due to easy bonus action attacks (unless we compare to a Variant Human PAM, which is an outlier in a bunch of different ways).
    Last edited by AdAstra; 2020-07-28 at 07:05 PM.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer



  6. - Top - End - #36
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    He claims to have used a 60% hit rate, but I really don't see how he's calculated his baseline damage.

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

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

  7. - Top - End - #37

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Makorel View Post
    I disagree. I think the Monk gives up too much damage per round by trying to dodge or move with its bonus action.
    That's why Alert + Darkness works so well for Shadow Monks. Darkness lasts for 10 minutes, not just 1 like most buffs, and you get to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks and prevent opportunity attacks, since opportunity attacks require seeing the target. (Technically by RAW you also gain advantage on your ranged attacks, but DMs will find ways to prevent that even if it requires changing the rules on Darkness.)

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

    (The real power of Shadow Monks though is in Pass Without Trace.)
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-07-28 at 07:15 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    If you have a way for Battlemasters to immediately zoom to priority targets across the battlefield and Stun them, sure? Also, the Battlemaster is an average tank at best. So the BM has Damage and marginally better Survivability (and at higher levels Survivability kinda flips to the Monk), and the Monk has Mobility and Control, as well as Damage at low levels due to easy bonus action attacks (unless we compare to a Variant Human PAM, which is an outlier in a bunch of different ways).
    I do not agree that a Monk is ever a better tank than a Battlemaster who's actually using the abilities the class grants. Fighters get extra feats, so can afford at least one Resilient pick. Fighters get bonus action Second Wind. Fighters get two uses of Indomitable per day by the time the Monk has Diamond Soul. And that's assuming no magic armor, no magic shields.

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

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

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    And yet you can still spend your bonus action on Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows
    You need to make an attack on your turn to make the bonus action attacks, so not on the turn you cast Darkness.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Monk saves are not as good as you think they are until Diamond Soul comes online. In fact, they are arguably the worst in the game. Str + Dex save proficiency and Dex + Wis means the only save you're really good before 14th level at is Dex. In theory monks have Stillness of Mind to help out, but in practice it's written in such a way that monks are more likely than not to fail saves against Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Dominate Person, etc., and then Stillness of Mind never comes into play. (IMO it should be a reaction instead of an action.)
    I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die. Great saves, and pretty good AC so they won't be terrible by any means but I would be very concerned if they were the primary tank. Though I'd probably also be concerned if a Monk was the primary tank so maybe you have a point there. But anyways this kind of highlights my problem with his analysis, he'll point out a build that does something better then a monk for every facet and therefore conclude monks suck. But it's a different build every time. So AC he's comparing against a Sword and Board Fighter with Defence fighting style, but for damage he's comparing with 2-weapon fighting (And then later some baseline that seems impossible), then for saves it's Paladin/War Wizard, etc... It's a terrible way of analyzing something.

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

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    ...

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

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

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

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

    And so on.

  12. - Top - End - #42

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    Battlemaster Fighters can apply most of their maneuvers on ranged attacks, so in the event the Fighter has a need to get across the battlefield and finds she cannot, she can still apply control effects. A Monk will have an easier time if the situation calls for him to zip across the battlefield, but not if he is immobilized, and his control effect must be applied in melee. If there's an enemy that needs to be controlled and is unlikely to make a Constitution save and the battlefield is such that the party needs to zip across but they haven't been immobilized, then the Monk is going to be better at Control than the Fighter. That's a lot of ifs.
    And that last "if" is unnecessary. If you're fighting a beholder, a mind flayer, or a half-dozen neogi, you'd rather have a monk on your team than a Battlemaster, even if you're locked in a cage with the monster with no battlefield zipping required. Battlemasters have very limited ability to prevent enemies from using spells and powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Makorel View Post
    You need to make an attack on your turn to make the bonus action attacks, so not on the turn you cast Darkness.
    Yes, hence the importance of the 10 minute duration I mentioned: you would rather precast to avoid casting it in the middle of combat. Precasting a 1 minute spell is very tough to time correctly unless you're about to kick down a door with known bad guys in the other side. 10 minutes is less difficult.

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

    For saves, the main thing about Monk and saves is that their primary stats lineup with the most important saves so they will always have decent saves against the big 3. Other classes will have one good save against one of the big 3, and be ok against Con, and weak against the last save. So even without Diamond Soul the Monk is strong saving throw wise because their ASI naturally lineup with the saves. But again like everything else the Monk isn't the undisputed champ when it comes to saves, they are just good. Which is basically the Monk's motto, good at everything but not #1 at any one thing.
    Good points. It is indeed a terribly haphazard analysis method. Treantmonk's channel isn't about careful analysis, it's just about explaining his opinions, some of which are persuasive and others which are not. Same as all the rest of us on this thread.

    I generally view Dex as the weakest of the "big three," but YMMV. My main point is just that we tend to mentally associate monks with terrific saves, but until Diamond Soul comes online all they've got is Str and Dex proficiency and Evasion (which boosts Dex). Your average T2 wizard is better at fighting off a Wis attack than your average T2 monk is, and e.g. a hobgoblin War Wizard blows them out of the water, and their Con saves are downright anemic. Then suddenly at level 14 monks are suddenly the best. (Shrug.) Just sayin'.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-07-28 at 07:47 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.
    Ok that's pretty strange to use as the baseline for a martial but ok.

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

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

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

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

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

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

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

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yakmala's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    His baseline damage is a Warlock using Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Agonizing Blast. That's explicitly stated in the video. Level 1 to Level 2 would be the boost from Agonizing Blast. 17th level is the 4th beam being tacked on.
    And that is actually the main problem with his calculation. Agonizing Blast, ok, it's a cost that almost all Warlocks will take. But Hex is less at will then Flurry of Blows, specially because of the Concentration. A Warlock who spends his whole adventuring day concentrating on Hex loses a lot of good opportunities, which means that, in practice, many times they will NOT be concentrating on Hex. Not to mention, you know, losing concentration.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2020-07-28 at 07:59 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Ok that's pretty strange to use as the baseline for a martial but ok.

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

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

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

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

  19. - Top - End - #49

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Umm... No? It's something any class can do with a 2 level dip.
    ... If they take a dependency on boosting Charisma, and give up on concentrating on anything besides Hex.

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

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    as if the war wizard would be tanking in the first place.
    This isn't as farfetched as you assume. There are a lot of legitimately fantastic Wizard tank builds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    I've never seen the Iron Wizard in actual play but I have a hard time believing that straight War Wizard will be a particularly good tank with it's d6 hit die.
    I've seen plenty of them in actual play, throughout all tiers of play. And they're good. Like "get behind me, Fighter, you're too squishy" good.

    Hit die size is a less important factor than people often assume. Even by level 20, the difference between a d6 and d10 HD is just 40 hit points. You can make up more HP value than that with a single spell.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    This isn't as farfetched as you assume. There are a lot of legitimately fantastic Wizard tank builds.



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

    Hit die size is a less important factor than people often assume. Even by level 20, the difference between a d6 and d10 HD is just 40 hit points. You can make up more HP value than that with a single spell.
    My Mark of Warding Abjurer is the tankiest character I've ever had.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    ... If they take a dependency on boosting Charisma, and give up on concentrating on anything besides Hex.

    Cha 14 Eldritch Blast might be an reasonable aopriximation for minimum viable DPR, but Cha 20 Hex + Eldritch Blast is probably not a reasonable assumption.
    Yes and? This isn't off-the-cuff decisions, this is planned builds. They'll have high Charisma because that's how they plan to do damage.
    So no, it is a valid assumption.
    Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-28 at 08:03 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    And that is actually the main problem with his calculation. Agonizing Blast, ok, it's a cost that almost all Warlocks will take. But Hex is less at will then Flurry of Blows, specially because of the Concentration. A Warlock who spends his whole adventuring day concentrating on Hex loses a lot of good opportunities, which means that, in practice, many times they will NOT be concentrating on Hex.
    Warlock certainly loses opportunities but that's the point; it's not too good or too bad.

    However if you're really hung up on the damage being at will then a Greatsword Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting will do about the same damage. At worst it's a point less damage at every tier than a Warlock with EB/AB/Hex. The only dip is that Fighter gets their fourth attack at level 20.
    Last edited by Makorel; 2020-07-28 at 08:08 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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


    Yes, because we all know that 1st level spell slots are so hard to come by, especially when a two level dip gets you all the spell slots you need for baseline along with everything else needed. But okay, let's compare like for like. When the Monk gets At-Will Flurry of Blows it still doesn't keep up.
    So a Barbarian will take a 2 level dip in Warlock and achieve those baselines? What about a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, are they really maxing their Charisma which is needed to 2 level dip and hit that baseline?

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

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

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    How is the fact that you have disadvantage in melee factored in?
    By not being in melee when casting? (Or having Crossbow Expert.)
    And you have 2 slots per short rest until level 11 so yeah spending one on a spell is a much bigger deal then spending 1 Ki on Flurry of blows.
    Except that one spell slot has an effect for the entirety of the battle, vs the Ki's single point of impact.
    Not too mention we are assuming you never lose concentration which doesn't seem likely.
    You're a Ranged attacker, why is that unlikely?

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

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

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

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2020

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Except that one spell slot has an effect for the entirety of the battle, vs the Ki's single point of impact.
    Or you get hit and have to recast which you may not even have the slots for since you only get 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    You're a Ranged attacker, why is that unlikely?
    Enemies with ranged attacks? AOE damage? Just running up and hitting the squishy backline? Honestly if you never get threatened as a ranged attacker then your DM is going very easy on you.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    It's hypocritical to constantly harp on the monk having to use Ki but then using 50% of your spell slots to get a baseline damage. The level 11 monk with the same 6 encounters and 2 short rests can spend 5.5 Ki per encounter, and since combats are supposed to last 2-3 rounds on average the whole spending a Ki to flurry every round isn't actually a big deal.
    Level 2: The Warlock spends half their short rest resource to add 1d6 damage to each turn.
    The Monk spends all their short rest resource to add 1d4+3, twice.
    Level 5: The Warlock spends one spell slot for 8 hours of Hex, then rests, for an effectively free 1d6 every attack (of which there's now 2) for 7 hours.
    The Monk spends resources to add the same one instance of damage per Ki, or to attempt to stun.
    Level 11: The Warlock spends a spell slot (of which they've now 3) and long or short rests (24 hour duration) for effectively free 1d6 per attack (of which there's now 3).
    The Monk has no new options.

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

    And that's just EB+Hex.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Or you get hit and have to recast which you may not even have the slots for since you only get 2.
    If you have as little as a +0 modifier, you have to take 22 damage in one go to have a 50% chance of failing. That's nowhere near as common as you're trying to make out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •