New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 684
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Subang Jaya, Malaysia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Rangers are worse than Monks. They are so terrible past level 5. What are they looking forward to? Land's Stride? Hide in Plain Sight? Favored Enemy upgrades?? Evasion>Land's Stride, Purity of Body>>>Hide in Plain Sight, and Diamond Body>>>>>Vanish.
    Last edited by Jerrykhor; 2020-07-30 at 02:44 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Rangers are worse than Monks. They are so terrible past level 5. What are they looking forward to? Land's Stride? Hide in Plain Sight? Favored Enemy upgrades?? Evasion>Land's Stride, Purity of Body>>>Hide in Plain Sight, and Diamond Body>>>>>Vanish.
    Rangers look forward to spells. Even at 9th level, Conjure Animals is very good, for instance.

    On topic, I've only played a Monk once, from 1st to 6th level. It was with rolled stats, which allowed me to begin with 18 dex, 16 wis (ghostwise halfling). Felt pretty good; at 1st level DM was surprised with the damage output, at later levels most of my ki was spent either on patient defense or pass without trace. Flurry of blows was pretty rare, only when I thought one more hit might be sufficient to kill the enemy. I felt that, unless you're Open Hand, flurry of blows is not a very effective use of ki.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2020-07-30 at 02:54 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Subang Jaya, Malaysia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Rangers look forward to spells. Even at 9th level, Conjure Animals is very good, for instance.

    On topic, I've only played a Monk once, from 1st to 6th level. It was with rolled stats, which allowed me to begin with 18 dex, 16 wis (ghostwise halfling). Felt pretty good; at 1st level DM was surprised with the damage output, at later levels most of my ki was spent either on patient defense or pass without trace. Flurry of blows was pretty rare, only when I thought one more hit might be sufficient to kill the enemy. I felt that, unless you're Open Hand, flurry of blows is not a very effective use of ki.
    Yeah ok they have spells, but their spells are nothing to write home about, besides a few notable ones like Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit and Hunters Mark. There's a reason people don't talk about Ranger spellcasting - The spell list is kind of ****, can't change their spells on long rest and not unique like Paladins. Conjure Animals is probably the best on the list, and yet it is heavily reliant on DM ruling. I dont think anyone look forward to Ranger 9 just to get a spell that druids can cast at level 5. The other level 3 spells on the list are also pretty ****.

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

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I finally got around to watching Treantmonk's video from the OP, and I'm not impressed. Notes:

    (1) The methodology Treantmonk is using seems to be, "a class which isn't clearly better than every other class in at least one niche stinks." This methodology is highly suspect. It would imply, for example, that gestalt multiclassing is underpowered if it slows down your levelling--Treantmonk's methodology would imply that being a Moon Druid 8 AND ALSO a Warlock 8 is clearly worse than being a Warlock 10 or a Moon Druid 10. Obviously that's false. Having the tools of both classes increases your chances of having the right solution to any given problem and makes you (roughly speaking) twice as relevant. 80% of 200% is 160%, not 80%. Versatility is great if you don't give up too much to get it.
    I think this definition is not without merit. I am not saying it is always the best, but it is useful - if not for measuring overall power then at least levels of fun for some players. I would use a similar criterion when chosing a class. "What role do I want to fill?" and "what class to play such that no one else in the party will be doing my role better?" are two really significant questions I have when chosing a character I will enjoy. It isn't about overall power but it is about fun. I would be inclined to give a bit of a pass on this and to their credit communicating the benchmark you use is providing the needed context.


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

    So it looks like this claim is just flat-out false. If a monk is spending ki to tank, other classes also have to spend resources to keep up, and then it's mostly just a question of which classes have the most resources and who can use their resources most efficiently. (Treantmonk tends to overlook that monks have relatively plentiful ki compared to e.g. Paladin spell slots, Fighter Action Surges, etc.)
    I suspect that some of this comes down to game style and what the DM does. If the DM gives early access to things like plate armour or magic armours and shields then AC 16-17 is not great. If the DM likes to use multiple lower level monsters or prefers melee to ranged attacks then deflect arrows isn't great either. It also depends on what you are comparing to - fighter, paladin, cleric and multiclass thereof all can get heavy armour and shields and either shield of faith or defence fighting style or other defensive bonuses. If you are looking at good tanks that can expend resources to be tough then this is where things like eldritch knight set the bar. I mean, I think they are being a bit harsh, but given they set out that they are looking for an area in which the monk is arguably the best as their criterion for success, comparing with the best seems pretty reasonable. I think arguments comparing resource using monk unfavourably with non resource using other classes are not that conclusive - but I will say that if you consider doing enough damage to persuade an enemy to target you to be an important part of "tanking" then the cost of that bonus action is pretty high.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    (3) Not everything Treantmonk says is wrong--he makes valid points about saving throws for example; monk's have an undeserved reputation for saving throw excellence which doesn't materialize until level 14.
    I think this is another campaign specific thing - if your DM doensn't like to force PCs to miss turns or similar then they are more likely to lean on damage spells than control spells and then in turn overrepresent dexterity saves. I can see monoks doing very well out of saves at some tables with great dex saves and evasion. Not how I would rate it but I can see both sides of this.


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

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

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

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

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



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

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I finally got around to watching Treantmonk's video from the OP, and I'm not impressed. Notes:
    (1) The methodology Treantmonk is using seems to be, "a class which isn't clearly better than every other class in at least one niche stinks."
    His claim is much stronger: Monks not only are surpassed in every niche - they actively suck in every niche (suck at tanking, suck at damage, and suck at control).

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

    So it looks like this claim is just flat-out false. If a monk is spending ki to tank, other classes also have to spend resources to keep up, and then it's mostly just a question of which classes have the most resources and who can use their resources most efficiently. (Treantmonk tends to overlook that monks have relatively plentiful ki compared to e.g. Paladin spell slots, Fighter Action Surges, etc.)
    Part of his argument is that Monks have less hit points than other tanking classes due to the d8 HP die and lower CON (typically 14) resulting from investing in both DEX and WIS.

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

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

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

    (b) If this is allowed to take resources into account, then of course wizards and paladins can exceed the baseline, but so can e.g. a Fireballing Elemonk.
    He posted DPR tables for some of the classes in his other videos, but I don't believe he did so for every class in the game.

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

    Additionally, the DPR he achieved with the Rogue is barely above the baseline.
    Last edited by Merudo; 2020-07-30 at 05:26 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    No, it isn't. Because if they had thought about any sort of baseline damage, then featless martials wouldn't be outshone by (almost?) every caster.
    If you're not playing with feats, you straight up shouldn't play marital DPS (other than because you enjoy it).
    That doesn't make much sense seeing how there are quite a few martials that can match and exceed treatmonk's baseline without feats.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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


    That, for example, is a fine set of spells for e.g. a Hunter or a Gloom Stalker. Of course, there are other spells worth picking up, but that covers all your basic bases. If you're a Gloomy or a Horizon Walker, you obviously do have a good set of extra spells. Certainly Paladin or Artificer tier in terms of utility; none of their abilities compares to True Polymorph or Shapechange or Wish. But still, for a class that hits things with a stick it does a fair number of things fairly well.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    That doesn't make much sense seeing how there are quite a few martials that can match and exceed treatmonk's baseline without feats.
    There are? Citations, please!

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrykhor View Post
    Also, if using Treantmonk's logic, Rangers spellcasting are not the best at anything, their martial abilities are also not the best, therefore he should say they are the worst class.
    I mean, he should if your flanderisation was correct.

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

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    There are? Citations, please!
    Well let's look at the basic SnB champion with duelist at lv 5. Over three round against AC range 13-20 and barring any loss due to repositioning, using AB in melee, and so on the fighter has an output of around 17.3 per round assuming one action surge somewhere in those three rounds. The warlock in the perfect scenario where they never have to reapply or move hex is averaging around 14.15.
    is it possible for the warlock to get multiple encounters in a row where they can take advantage of hex sure but if the question is simply can a basic "bad" player option meet the baseline of the warlock without feat the answer is yes.
    Last edited by stoutstien; 2020-07-30 at 07:02 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Umm... how are you getting those numbers?

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

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

    Edit 2: With a +7 to hit, the Warlock's accuracy across 13-20 would be:
    (0.75+0.6)/2=0.675, far removed from less than 40%
    Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 07:09 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Umm... how are you getting those numbers?

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

    Edit: I blame the heat for not reading proper.
    Against an AC range of 13-20 is still an unrealistic goalpost though, because the only creatures you'll be encountering with AC that high at level 5 are outliers.
    What AC range would you like? I use that one because it's the ACs that a level 5 party would see at my table. The 20 is from any NPC with plate and a shield such as a bandit leader who acquired some.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Personally I prefer to do a level/die roll table, like so (note that these tables were done on the fly, so are very simplified):
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
    I'd have to take your word for it I'm horribly dyslexic so table of numbers Cascade like a matrix loading screen for me.
    I was curious how the would both do in a scenario where actors you wasn't an issue other than critical misses. They are closer than I realized which is probably an indication how powerful the Duelist fighting style is when you take away the feat support for the other ones.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    The Sphere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

    Here's one done a few years ago, Also not my work. Easy to understand and shows a varying degree of option one would find at most tables with a mix brand of players.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

    92% of forum users no longer put made-up statistics in their signatures. If you're part of the 8% who still do, copy and paste this into your signature.

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

    Or, as I found out based on a previous suggestion, just above a Fighter with Duelist who doesn't use any of their subclass features.
    Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 08:32 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    The Sphere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Since when has "Agonising Blast + Hex" been "Min/Max cheese"?
    It's a 1d10 + 1d6 + CHA. How did that become a quintessential 'baseline' It seems you could pick anything else and skew the point of view on what these 'baselines' are. If your goal is to do big numbers from numbered rocks. You're focused on one element of play, and obviously not playing a monk.

    Not to mention, one hit and a failed con save, there goes your 1d6, and a spell slot down on another class with a limited resource. It just sounds like a flimsy baseline.
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

    92% of forum users no longer put made-up statistics in their signatures. If you're part of the 8% who still do, copy and paste this into your signature.

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by ScoutTrooper View Post
    It's a 1d10 + 1d6 + CHA. How did that become a quintessential 'baseline'
    Because it's easily achievable, consistently scaling damage that's independent of class level?
    Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 08:43 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2014

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Sane View Post
    It's more than that - it's an obvious combination, as close to unoptimized optimization as it gets.
    Yes, pretty much that. It's the first thing anyone looking at Warlock mechanically usually sees. It's online from level 2 (so basically almost instantly, unlike some other features), almost at-will (unless you lose Hex, and even then it's better than just shooting a Longbow), and who hasn't seen people dip Warlock 2 just for that stable martial-level DPR?
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Sane View Post
    It's more than that - it's an obvious combination, as close to unoptimized optimization as it gets.
    That's not how optimisation works. It doesn't have to be obscure.

    The fact that it's highly optimised AND easy to do doesn't mean it should be a baseline.
    Last edited by Mr Adventurer; 2020-07-30 at 10:12 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Because it's easily achievable, consistently scaling damage that's independent of class level?
    Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

    The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:
    • 1 of only 2 cantrips known
    • 1 of only 3 spells known
    • 1 of 2 spell slots
    • - your only concentration "slot"
    • and 1 of only 2 invocations known


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

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

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

    And nevermind that it compares that much customization against a base class's damage when that base class has an obvious way to focus on damage (Kensei).
    Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-30 at 10:22 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    QuickLyRaiNbow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by HPisBS View Post
    Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

    The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:
    • 1 of only 2 cantrips known
    • 1 of only 3 spells known
    • 1 of 2 spell slots
    • - your only concentration "slot"
    • and 1 of only 2 invocations known


    Common though such a setup may be for people who want to focus on damage, that much focus is hardly what I'd hold up as "standard."
    I'm not sure any warlock won't take eldritch blast and agonizing blast. I'm less comfortable with assuming hex and max Cha.
    In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow View Post
    I'm not sure any warlock won't take eldritch blast and agonizing blast. I'm less comfortable with assuming hex and max Cha.
    Surely, you've at least read about people eschewing EB before, right? I certainly have.

    Either way, the last time I played with someone with Warlock levels, they were a RogueLock. And, while I never saw their character sheet, I don't recall them ever using EB during the year+ that I was in that campaign. Strictly Sharpshooter, iirc.
    Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-30 at 10:29 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by HPisBS View Post
    Surely, you've at least read about people eschewing EB before, right? I certainly have.

    Either way, the last time I played with someone with Warlock levels, they were a RogueLock. And, while I never saw their character sheet, I don't recall them ever using EB. Strictly Sharpshooter.
    And yet, you'll never see anyone who's focus is on using Eldritch Blast for damage not take it.

    It's not, as a previous poster tried to claim, optimising between several options with your limited pick: It's taking the one damage boosting option out of a bunch of otherwise not damage boosting choices.
    Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 10:31 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    QuickLyRaiNbow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by HPisBS View Post
    Surely, you've at least read about people eschewing EB before, right? I certainly have.

    Either way, the last time I played with someone with Warlock levels, they were a RogueLock. And, while I never saw their character sheet, I don't recall them ever using EB. Strictly Sharpshooter.
    Pure warlock? Genuinely no, and there's no reason to beyond thinking it's overpowered and wanting to avoid overpowered things. A multiclass option that's using warlock for a bit of utility (telepathy for a scout, maybe?) - perhaps, especially if they're already building into a different ranged archetype like a crossbow/sharpshooter rogue. But warlock dips are more common for charisma synergies, and nearly every cha synergy build that takes more than one level of warlock takes eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's the best low-investment at-will ranged damage available.
    In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

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

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

    As I understand it, Treantmonk was looking at this from two different angles. Which I disagree with, because of the obvious next step, but it vaguely makes sense if you follow along.

    Part 1 is that Monks have the worst hp. I would argue they are only slightly behind Rangers and Paladins who are also putting Con as a Tertiary stat (they both have spellcasting they want to see improved) and rogue is debatable in RAW hp, but he is clearly right that Fighters and Barbarians will have a nice chunk of hp more than the Monk. Followed by Ranger and Paladin.

    Part 2 is that those AC numbers you put is not what he was using. But, what he was using was a really weird system of measurements. First, he was not talking about full casters, only the melee classes I mentioned, and secondly he was looking at their best AC if they focused on AC.

    So, Monk has 16

    But Sword and Board Fighter/Paladin/Ranger with defensive have 19. Barbarian has 18 because they can use a shield. Rogues are a little worse. But he never really addresses that.

    Then he points out that Monks can max out at 20, but the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger can get 21, and the Barbarian can get 26 AC with their capstone and a shield.



    Now, where this analysis falls flat for me is two fold. 1) Like I said if the party is getting all this gear beyond starting equipment, we need to have gear for monks. It is interesting to note that the Barbarian's unarmored defense is really treated more like a ribbon. They do not lose any abilities for wearing medium armor, and so it is generally better for them to do so. Monk's don't have that option. 2) This assessment is put side-by-side with the PAM-GWM Fighter or Barbarian, and the Ranger with their longbow, with the appropriate styles. Ignoring that this monk who is increasing their Defenses isn't focused on that.

    A monk who focuses on offense, raising Dex through 8 gets an 18 AC. Which is just as good as any warrior with two-handed weapons. And the monk can choose to go defensive in an instant, where the Greatsword wielding paladin really can't. They don't get to switch styles and be defensive immediately. And I think this was the greatest flaw in Treantmonk's analysis. He looks at each piece separately, and compares each facet of a single monk's arsenal against a build focused on that aspect from another class.



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

    It might be because the term "baseline". To me, that is really a term that is more of a "lowest reasonable value" than it is "how much is the average of good"

    To give an example, the "baseline" in public education is really a D+, that is the lowest you can have and still graduate. I believe (though I could be mistaken) that that is also true in college. "Average" is above the baseline. And going for solid B's (while not impressive by most people's standards) is setting a high bar compared to the baseline.





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

    And yet it can be argued that you shouldn't play martial DPS even with feats, because Casters can still do better than you.

    Casters outperforming martials has been a thing for decades, just because it is still true doesn't mean the designers didn't think about a baseline for martial damage when designing martials and monsters.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    I mean, he should if your flanderisation was correct.

    But he has not once said something has to be the best, it merely need do something adequately. And when even the Beast Master Ranger can meet the Baseline damage, it's good for, if nothing else, damage.
    How? (I use +4 for ease of math, nothing else, if all mods are the same the ratio is the same regardless)

    Warlock has 1d10+1d6+4 by level 2. That is 13

    Ranger is doing 1d8+1d6+4. That gets us 12, which is under. By level 3 they could have the beast attack instead.

    I guess if they are using a Giant Snake that is an average of 18, which exceeds it (assuming the enemy fails the save against poison). Which beats the baseline by having the snake attack and not the ranger.


    Level 5 gets us to 2d10+2d6+8, which is 26
    Compared to (if I add them) 30



    So, is that it? That we can use the giant snake, assume the enemy fails the save against poison, and that jumps our numbers up? I guess it is fine, if you want to do that and make those assumptions. But if we apply the standards to this that we did the Monk.


    AC isn't good. 11 to 20 hp is horrendous, and the snake is a frontline fighter, it is also more than half you damage out put, and the snake venom is a con save (and not a high one) so most CR enounters will make the save, droping out damage by half. Which means 13 and 25, back below the baseline. And, once the snake is killed, then you are doing Only 12 and 24, still below the base line. Oh, and I've been including hunter's mark on all these, which is a spell that takes concentration and can be lost (just like hex)

    And you know what, just for giggles. Let's assume a Variant human, so our Monk can get hunter's mark. Just to see what happens.

    Monk at level 2, assuming they get the mark and flurry? 1d8+2d4+3d6+12 = 32 damage

    Level five? 2d8+6d6+16 = 45 damage.

    Now, I will grant, it takes a little bit of set up. That bonus action is crowded, just like for a dual-wielding ranger. But, since there is an argument that the monk can't possibly be built to beat the baseline.... Well, I doubled the baseline easily


    Quote Originally Posted by HPisBS View Post
    Sure, it's "easily achievable" - even with just a 2 level dip.

    The thing is, that also requires a very particular set of selections using nearly all of a particular base class's mix-and-match option categories:
    • 1 of only 2 cantrips known
    • 1 of only 3 spells known
    • 1 of 2 spell slots
    • - your only concentration "slot"
    • and 1 of only 2 invocations known


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

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

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

    And nevermind that it compares that much customization against a base class's damage when that base class has an obvious way to focus on damage (Kensei).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Adventurer View Post
    That's not how optimisation works. It doesn't have to be obscure.

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

    I do like the claim that this combo is "independent of class level" indicating that you can put this one any class. The problem is, that means you need to focus on Charisma as a main stat. Which most classes don't do.

    Also, it is very likely the warlock's at will damage is over-tuned, to compensate for their lack of spell slots. Note that other full casters with cantrips are doing either 1d10's or 1d8's straight. No mod. No hex damage.

    Meaning that unless they are casting leveled spells, they are also below "the baseline" of this combo

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    It's not, as a previous poster tried to claim, optimising between several options with your limited pick: It's taking the one damage boosting option out of a bunch of otherwise not damage boosting choices.
    The previous poster was me lol. And no, it really is a combination of several options. And at level 2, which other previous posters have held up, it really is out of very limited picks.

    • 1 of only 2 cantrips known
    • 1 of only 3 spells known
    • 1 of 2 spell slots
    • - your only concentration "slot"
    • and 1 of only 2 invocations known
    You could just as well choose to use your limited picks to help you deal melee damage instead. That would start coming online a level later, but still.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow View Post
    Pure warlock? Genuinely no, and there's no reason to beyond thinking it's overpowered and wanting to avoid overpowered things. A multiclass option that's using warlock for a bit of utility (telepathy for a scout, maybe?) - perhaps, especially if they're already building into a different ranged archetype like a crossbow/sharpshooter rogue. But warlock dips are more common for charisma synergies, and nearly every cha synergy build that takes more than one level of warlock takes eldritch blast and agonizing blast because it's the best low-investment at-will ranged damage available.
    You said "never" lol.

    But even without multiclassing, BladeLock is still a thing.
    Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-30 at 10:44 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    I do like the claim that this combo is "independent of class level" indicating that you can put this one any class. The problem is, that means you need to focus on Charisma as a main stat. Which most classes don't do.
    I've yet to see anyone who's character role in combat is "deal damage" not focus on the stat they deal damage with. Sure, you can't just drop it on a preexisting character willy-nilly, but you sure can right at the beginning when you first design the character.

    (Re: Ranger: There's an entire video about it with numbers and stuff that I honestly haven't watched because I just don't like the Ranger. But re: the comparison: The Ranger may also fail at all the other things, but they doesn't fail to meet the damage threshold, so there's a niche they can fill.)

Posting Permissions

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