Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

[MinotaurWarrior]

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

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

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

[Dr. Cliché]

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

I know. That was what I was referring to.

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

There are two differences:

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

There are two differences:

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

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

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

Cogently argued, sir. Consider me persuaded.

[Sorinth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sorinth]

I know. That was what I was referring to.




There are two differences:

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

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

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




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

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

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

[x3n0n]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

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

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

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

[MrStabby]

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

[Sorinth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

Encounters are supposed to last 2-3 rounds

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

[Sorinth]

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

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

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

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

[Sorinth]

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

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

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

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

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

[Yunru]

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

Ref:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jas61292]

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

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Protolisk]

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

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

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

[Makorel]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

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

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

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

[Evaar]

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

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

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

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

[HPisBS]

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

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

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

Just something fun.

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

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

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

Would this revision compensate for that?

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HPisBS]

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

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

Butterfly's Footwork
Wondrous Item, Rare

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

Spoiler: Rarer

Show

Butterfly's Advanced Footwork
Wondrous Item, Very Rare

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

Butterfly's Legendary Footwork
Wondrous Item, Legendary

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

[micahaphone]

Butterfly's Footwork
Wondrous Item, Rare

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

Spoiler: Rarer

Show

Butterfly's Advanced Footwork
Wondrous Item, Very Rare

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

Butterfly's Legendary Footwork
Wondrous Item, Legendary

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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