Results 181 to 210 of 684
Thread: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-30, 02:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Subang Jaya, Malaysia
- Gender
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.
-
2020-07-30, 02:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 03:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Subang Jaya, Malaysia
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 03:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
2020-07-30, 05:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2018
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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).
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.
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.
My Druid Guides: Circle of the Moon ; Circles of Dreams, Land, Shepherd, and Spores
My Unofficial Errata & Compendium
-
2020-07-30, 05:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-30, 06:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Location
- Maine
- Gender
-
2020-07-30, 06:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 06:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
-
2020-07-30, 06:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-30, 06:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Location
- Maine
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 07:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 07:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Location
- Maine
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?
All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS
-
2020-07-30, 07:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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
-
2020-07-30, 07:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Location
- Maine
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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
-
2020-07-30, 08:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
- Location
- The Sphere
- Gender
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=sharing78% 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.
-
2020-07-30, 08:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 08:32 AM.
-
2020-07-30, 08:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
- Location
- The Sphere
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 08:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Last edited by Yunru; 2020-07-30 at 08:43 AM.
-
2020-07-30, 09:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
-
2020-07-30, 10:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2015
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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).
-
2020-07-30, 10:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
-
2020-07-30, 10:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 10:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Gender
-
2020-07-30, 10:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 10:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
-
2020-07-30, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.
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.
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.
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
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
-
2020-07-30, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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
Edit:
You said "never" lol.
But even without multiclassing, BladeLock is still a thing.Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-30 at 10:44 AM.
-
2020-07-30, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
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.)