What makes monks competitive with Paladins, if they are?

[Deathtongue]

So you've got a 9th level monk, presumably in a 9th level party, fighting 23,000 adjusted XP worth of Frost Giants. (2.5x Deadly encounter.) Monks can do okay in this situation, but there's nothing that puts it in the monk's wheelhouse. In my judgment the monk absolutely should not attempt to stun a Frost Giant NOWNOWNOW--that's poor tactics. It makes more sense for the monk to act as a decoy here: e.g. teleport/run behind the giants, shoot them with a bow a couple of times to annoy them, drop prone just beyond the range from which they could attack you in melee on their next turn. You're trying to tempt them to either throw rocks at you (disadvantage) or waste movement getting into melee range to smash you next turn.

Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.

There's relatively little to gain by nova'ing on these giants. Presumably the rest of your party can take care of themselves or you wouldn't be in a campaign where 2.5x Deadly fights are the norm.

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

[Deathtongue]

Mmmm. Monks already have a good opportunity attack after Stunning Strike comes online, and a lot of their defense comes from imposing disadvantage, which scales better with a higher AC--so my thinking is that if you've got a free feat and you want to tank instead of skirmish, Defensive Duelist is a better use for your reaction than Sentinel is.

I have found vhuman Prodigy (Athletics) + Defensive Duelist monks to be quite fun and very different from the typical Mobile monk.

Tanking? I disagreed with a lot of points in Treantmonk's video, but one thing he was dead-on about was monks assuming they had access to a lot of resources that they really didn't. In this case, ki points to Stun as an OA, bonus actions to use Patient Defense, and... a free feat?

Okay, you're a VHuman Prodigy monk who took Defense Duelist. What do your stats look like at Level 6-7? 8-11? I'm guessing 16/16, then 18/16? Then for most of T3, 20/16? 18 with disadvantage-on-demand isn't terrible -- not great, but not terrible. But your AC is looking pretty sus in rounds where you don't have disadvantage-on-demand, that is, rounds in which you used your bonus action for anything else. Like Flurry of Blows, Martial Arts, Step of the Wind, quite a few monk subclass features... Defensive Duelist helps, but unlike Shield it's only for one attack. But if you are using your bonus action every round for PD, your offense takes a huge hit. Especially if it's against bruiser monsters who can shrug off monk damage and Stunning Strike.

Granted, I don't want to be too hard on the monk. It's very hard to tank in 5E D&D unless A) your DM is playing along with you (eh, Davey wants to roleplay his sword-and-board paladin a protector, it'd be a jerk move for the monsters to just swarm past him) B) you're playing something overpowered like a Sorceradin or C) you're playing a very specific build like a Ancestors Barbarian + Cavalier Fighter. But this is not good advice. At best it'll lead to your T3 monk doing 2d8+8 damage, 1d8+4 on a OA, getting ignored. More likely it'll lead to your monk getting turned into paste if you catch more than 2-3 attacks and didn't put up Patient Defense.

[MinotaurWarrior]

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

They happen in games where you shouldn't play a Monk or a warlock.


What does a Paladin do when you've got a day with 16 short rests and 16 deadly encounters where the XP budget is spent on solo monsters?

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the points about frost giants turning various party members into pudding is ... spot on. They do damage in great big clumps. I had a level 12 Champion who had some trouble when he had two frost giants all up in his grill ... and this was sword and board with an AC of 24

[Dork_Forge]

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your balls-to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

So not only have you chosen a 2.5x Deadly encounter, you're also choosing a number of encounters per day that favours Long Rest classes, that reads more like bias against the Monk rather than actual deficiancies in the class. In a situation like that why wouldn't the entire party just kite the Frost Giants or avoid them altogether? What are most classes you actually approve of doing in this encounter?

[Unoriginal]

Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.

So your argument is that a Monk can't solo a Frost Giant because the Frost Giant will kill the Monk's teammates if the Monk tries.

Do you apply the same restriction to all characters who have to prove they can solo a Frost Giant in order to prove they are Competitive (TM), or...?


If the 9th lvl Monk is fighting a Frost Giant alongside a party of several equal level adventurers, then the Monk should:

-Get in the Frost Giant's face so that the Giant doesn't throw a rock at the teammates

-Attack the Giant, twice, as they're likely to hit vs AC 15

Then either:

-Use Patient Defense so that the Giant will have an hard time hitting them when retaliating (yes, Monks aren't damage sponges, but they *can* do the Speedy Gonzales Distraction version of tanking).

-Use Flurry of Blows to deal more damages, if there are other people in the team who will come in melee and who can draw aggro.

Alternatively, if the DM uses that optional rule, the Monk can also:

-Get on the Giant's face
-Climb on the Giant

So that the Giant will likely waste their next turn trying to remove the Monk from them.

[OldTrees1]

What does a Paladin do when you've got a day with 16 short rests and 16 deadly encounters where the XP budget is spent on solo monsters?

Oh, Inspiring Leader + Aura of Protection + Aura of Warding for example
Out of combat: The Paladin stands around and gives pretty speeches.
In combat: The Paladin stands around and occasionally hits things with a stick. (I suggest little to no smites)
It is rather impressive how much the Paladin specializes in standing.

But yes, I do see how their example is highly biased towards long rest classes. Paladins are weird in that they specialize in both a no rest style and a long rest style.

[Unoriginal]

Oh, Inspiring Leader + Aura of Protection + Aura of Warding for example
Out of combat: The Paladin stands around and gives pretty speeches.
In combat: The Paladin stands around and occasionally hits things with a stick. (I suggest little to no smites)
It is rather impressive how much the Paladin specializes in standing.

Well it's better than the 3.X version which, according to many DMs, specialized in falling.

[x3n0n]

Tanking? I disagreed with a lot of points in Treantmonk's video, but one thing he was dead-on about was monks assuming they had access to a lot of resources that they really didn't. In this case, ki points to Stun as an OA, bonus actions to use Patient Defense, and... a free feat?

Okay, you're a VHuman Prodigy monk who took Defense Duelist. What do your stats look like at Level 6-7? 8-11? I'm guessing 16/16, then 18/16?

To be fair, Max plays at a table that rolls for stats, making occasional feat-heavy builds more practical. With point buy, I probably wouldn't take that feat combo in tier 2.

I didn't run the numbers, but I'm assuming this is a case of "with PD, you're probably ok for a while and have 2 attacks instead of 3 while doing so; however, using DD means losing any reaction you could use for an OA (and vice versa), and stunning cuts your PD duration a lot".

As others have said, who else is on the team? If all ranged attackers, move-to-range sounds fine. If a teammate is sturdy in melee, maybe you go with the above plan to buy time for squishies, or you start with a "use half of my ki to stun" round, reducing pressure on the melee partner, but making it clear that you can't do that for long. (Maybe they've got a nova ability that can use the stun?) Meanwhile, whoever is not in melee is hopefully supporting you, either with significant ranged damage or with additional control effects (blind, Pattern, or whatever).

I think this is another case of context being relevant: the default (skirmisher) plan isn't always good enough, but it often is. When it isn't, you fall back on a plan that does not play to your strengths as much, but can hopefully play into your teammates' strengths.

Edit: I missed a point I wanted to mention in the late paragraph: it's really easy to make the wrong decision as a Monk and have it matter. (Contrasted with the Paladin, who, as eloquently described above, should do a lot of standing around, and will often contribute useful things by doing so.) If your party is frequently in multi-Deadly encounters, there are lots of opportunities to screw up, but hopefully also to recognize when you made a mistake and try not to make it next time.

[OldTrees1]

Well it's better than the 3.X version which, according to many DMs, specialized in falling.

And late in 3.X you could have a Paladin that specialized in standing while they were falling.

[Eldariel]

The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work. Otherwise the frontline simply takes even more damage while the skirmisher is probably not contributing at their maximum capacity, meaning enemy offense gets inadvertedly focused (generally fairly optimal for the enemy) while the party is doing less than their best to reduce enemy offensive potential.

Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

Of course, if the whole party is kite-capable, things change dramatically and suddenly it becomes a winning tactic for so many encounters.

[Asisreo1]

The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work. Otherwise the frontline simply takes even more damage while the skirmisher is probably not contributing at their maximum capacity, meaning enemy offense gets inadvertedly focused (generally fairly optimal for the enemy) while the party is doing less than their best to reduce enemy offensive potential.

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

If you're a skirmisher, you're essentially a backliner. You really shouldn't pretend like you are a frontliner and your teammates shouldn't expect you to be one.

Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

LMoP starts with goblins, who are primarily ranged combatants and particularly low HP high AC.

There is a misunderstanding when it comes to Kiting. A monk can kite for free on plenty of enemies.

Their extra movement allows a monk to hit their full 3 attacks while only taking 1 OA if they back up. In the cases of some brutes, that's roughly a third or a quarter of their overall damage due to multiattack. This is optimal.

[Unoriginal]

Now, just for laugh, let's assume we have a lvl 9 Monk with 20 DEX, 14 WIS and 14 CON.

Let's also assume that due to fascinating but better left unsaid circumstances, the Monk is only using their unarmed strikes.

So we have a lvl 9, AC 18, HP 66, +7 to hit, average 8 damages per hit, 9 ki points, save DC 14.


Generic Frost Giant has 138 HPs, which means that the Monk needs to land 18 hits to kill them. AC 15- 7 = 8= 40% of attack failure, or ~10% with advantage.

Meanwhile, the Monk having 66 HPs, it'd take 3 hits for the Giant to kill them. AC 18-9 = 9 = 45% of attack failure.

In other words, to statistically guarantee 3 hits, the Giant needs to do 6 attacks.

With a CON save at +8 vs DC 14, the Giant only has a 30% chance of failing, meaning that the Monk would need to spend ~3 ki points to achieve one stun.

I'm not great at math, but I'm pretty sure that with 9 ki points, the Monk can get three rounds of Flurry of Blows and 3 rounds of Stun, which would be enough to deal 88 damages before the Giant can do anything. In the next 3 rounds, the Monk would then be able to inflict an additional ~48 damages, for a total of 136 damages, before dying.

So in other words, if that hypothetical no-subclass no feat WIS 14 CON 14 Monk uses a quarterstaff rather than only their unarmed strikes, they CAN beat that Frost Giant alone. In a slugfest.

[Eldariel]

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

If you're a skirmisher, you're essentially a backliner. You really shouldn't pretend like you are a frontliner and your teammates shouldn't expect you to be one.

It's a very different thing to have a party fully kiting (this way, the party is taking minimal ranged damage from enemies while the enemy is taking full damage) or the party partially kiting and partially fighting in melee (melee takes full enemy damage, enemy takes full enemy damage). Partial kiting means the "kiters" basically provide no benefit to the party by kiting (whether they'd be fully ranged or just kiting doesn't make a difference, it just means enemy is attacking others) so they have to have sufficient ranged contributions to make it worth it to the party: that is, their ranged contribution has to be big enough that they wouldn't be better off just being another class instead (one able to better contribute while kiting).

It's also what we mean by kiting. If the Monk is kiting with ranged weapons, they probably aren't as efficient as dedicated ranged DPS or melee DPS (they can't use their biggest class features at range, except maybe Kensei). Thus their contributions are limited. Meanwhile, if they try to kite by getting into melee, landing blows, and getting out, they're putting their resources not only into the melee but also the Disengage action and using their bonus action on that meaning they aren't doing as much as they would be if they could dedicate to melee. The Mobile feat does help out here but there you're talking about a rather big investment (though a good one) for a class that's already ASI-starved. Of course, it's probably still worth it.


As for your example, Monk taking OA and trading 1-for-3 is far from optimal if the enemy gets to land their full attack on someone else too. This just means the enemy is dealing not only their full attack damage to the party but also their OA damage. It's only optimal if nobody is taking the full attack.

[Unoriginal]

The point of being a frontliner is to have the damage focused on you. If you can't take a few big swings, that's on you.

Unless you play the *only* frontliner it shouldn't be expected that the damage is focused on you alone.

[MaxWilson]

Great. Now the Frost Giants are turning the other party members into pudding while you're protecting yourself and plinking for nuisance damage.

What? It's a 2.5x Deadly encounter, they happen. Especially if you're playing in a campaign that does 0-2 encounters per workday, like AL or online or just a lot of face-to-face games. if you can't bring your - - - -to-the-wall 'do or die, this is the finale' A-Game here then WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive) and partly thanks to the monk's pre-fight PWT + recon. Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over when the last giant threw down his weapons and resentfully surrendered.

If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.

Monk broadly has two ways to contribute in such a scenario: burst offense or resource-based offense + defense (to both, make the enemy interested in hitting you and less likely to do so). Both of which require extreme amounts of resources. Generally, a group heavy enemies is the worst possible encounter for a Monk and those are frustratingly common in printed adventures (e.g. LMoP opens with all even value opponents or heavy melees for the whole first chapter and much of the second, with both rather heavy on life-or-death encounters - and much the same goes for e.g. HotDQ and DoTISP).

Monk speed also lends itself to (DMG Disarm + run off with the weapon)-based offense, which is ki cheap or ki-free depending on situation/feats/subclass.

I didn't use that against these Frost Giants but if things had gone differently, it was an option.

Edit: I missed a point I wanted to mention in the late paragraph: it's really easy to make the wrong decision as a Monk and have it matter. (Contrasted with the Paladin, who, as eloquently described above, should do a lot of standing around, and will often contribute useful things by doing so.) If your party is frequently in multi-Deadly encounters, there are lots of opportunities to screw up, but hopefully also to recognize when you made a mistake and try not to make it next time.

So very true. That's one of the nice things about monks. If you're in the mood for Easy Mode play just play a Necromancer or Shepherd Druid. If you're in the mood for Hard Mode but still very impactful play, consider a monk. You'll have lots of post-game insights into what you could have done better.

The issue with kiting is that unless you're solo, the whole party has to be kiting-capable for it to work...

Of course, if the whole party is kite-capable, things change dramatically and suddenly it becomes a winning tactic for so many encounters.

There's also an in-between state where some of the party is just barely fast enough to stay away from the monsters, but not fast enough to contribute to killing the monsters while they run away. This is a scenario where the hypothetical Mobile monk may encourage everyone else to retreat while he holds the monsters off, and then resumes kiting everything to death once the party is 70'+ away from the nearest monster.

So I don't entirely agree that the whole party has to be kiting-capable, as long as they are kiting-cooperative. If the idiot Barbarian insists on meleeing the Black Puddings, kiting won't work for anyone, monk or no monk.

[Asisreo1]

It's a very different thing to have a party fully kiting (this way, the party is taking minimal ranged damage from enemies while the enemy is taking full damage) or the party partially kiting and partially fighting in melee (melee takes full enemy damage, enemy takes full enemy damage). Partial kiting means the "kiters" basically provide no benefit to the party by kiting (whether they'd be fully ranged or just kiting doesn't make a difference, it just means enemy is attacking others) so they have to have sufficient ranged contributions to make it worth it to the party: that is, their ranged contribution has to be big enough that they wouldn't be better off just being another class instead (one able to better contribute while kiting).

It's also what we mean by kiting. If the Monk is kiting with ranged weapons, they probably aren't as efficient as dedicated ranged DPS or melee DPS (they can't use their biggest class features at range, except maybe Kensei). Thus their contributions are limited. Meanwhile, if they try to kite by getting into melee, landing blows, and getting out, they're putting their resources not only into the melee but also the Disengage action and using their bonus action on that meaning they aren't doing as much as they would be if they could dedicate to melee. The Mobile feat does help out here but there you're talking about a rather big investment (though a good one) for a class that's already ASI-starved. Of course, it's probably still worth it.


As for your example, Monk taking OA and trading 1-for-3 is far from optimal if the enemy gets to land their full attack on someone else too. This just means the enemy is dealing not only their full attack damage to the party but also their OA damage. It's only optimal if nobody is taking the full attack.

Here's the thing:

A monk's damage is significant not only because of the actual number, but also because of how safe and consistent the damage is.

Take a paladin NOVA'ing for example. The plan is to get in there and divine smite with everything they have for 2-3 rounds of the fight. Quickly go in-and-out. The problem is for him to do that, he needs to get into melee and he's the most prone to the enemy's counterattacks. That means he's taking the most damage and risks going down, effectively dropping his damage to 0 the next round.

A wizard can cast a large spell but they're prone to ranged attacks and very prone to melee. Even with shield, 18-19 AC alone doesn't really protect you as well in the later tiers.

Its better to remain at range because most creatures rely on melee. Specifically the ones monks are worrying about anyways.

For the enemy, attacking the monk with any ranged damaging option is usually the worst since they have evasion and deflect missile. Meanwhile, the monk is still contributing decent damage.

Plus, if a monk really needs to just go NOVA, take Elemonk's Water Whip and dump all your Ki points into it round 1. At level 9, that's 55 non-resistable damage immediately during the first round, at the cost of all their Ki points, of course.

[noob]

Personally I see a surprisingly high amount of guides advising wearing a bow or a crossbow as a paladin.
So paladins can do ranged fighting if wanted.

[x3n0n]

[about kiting and "partial kiting"]

Thank you!

This helps me understand why people prefer Open Hand to Drunken Master: OH provides an opportunity for moderate control/disruption that benefits multiple party members at minimal ki cost. (Both prone and 15' shove can potentially reduce the pressure on other melee allies, if they can afford to retreat slowly: not as much as a stun, but OH Technique targets other saves and doesn't cost as much ki per attempt.) I find the subclass abilities at 6 and especially 11 anemic, but lv3 is better than I appreciated in context of a party with other frontliners.

[Eldariel]

Here's the thing:

A monk's damage is significant not only because of the actual number, but also because of how safe and consistent the damage is.

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage. Monk isn't particularly good at either. They can spike with Flurry but that isn't quite as efficient as other sources of spiking, and they can deal decent consistent damage but not top tier (aside from Tier 1 where their consistent damage is top tier aside from Vumans, but they can only apply it in melee and there they're extremely vulnerable).

[Unoriginal]

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive). Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over.

I think Deathtongue was implying the Giant would not be distracted and attack the rest of the PCs rather than the Monk.

Not sure why, but that seems to be what they meant.

If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.

100% true. Especially when it's possible for the Monk to beat the Giant in a solo fight by going nova.

[Frogreaver]

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage. Monk isn't particularly good at either. They can spike with Flurry but that isn't quite as efficient as other sources of spiking, and they can deal decent consistent damage but not top tier (aside from Tier 1 where their consistent damage is top tier aside from Vumans, but they can only apply it in melee and there they're extremely vulnerable).

White room scenarios, as our example here, consistently fail to consider the rest of the adventure day. Spike damage will always be much higher valued in these white rooms because there is never an issue with running out of resources in them.

Most definitely the paladin can contribute more than the monk in this encounter. Then he’s out of gas the rest of the day. Though it’s not like the monk is failing to contribute. Stun Granting advantage and denying enemy attacks tends to be a more significant effect than it’s being given credit for here.

[Valmark]

I ran this encounter for fun as tactical practice. The notional Giants got lucky on their round 1 boulders and knocked the monk down by 58 HP (close to Unconscious) but everybody else was fine, partly thanks to the monk's little distraction (and partly due to the monk's bad luck attracting the attention of another giant who was originally not planning on chucking a boulder but wanted to get in on the bowling action after both his buddies hit and the monk was still alive) and partly thanks to the monk's pre-fight PWT + recon. Sharpshooter didn't even spend an Action Surge. Seven of the Druid's Giant Owls died but who cares, there was still one owl and eight snakes left over when the last giant threw down his weapons and resentfully surrendered.

If on the other hand this is the toughest fight of the night, maybe the toughest fight you'll see all month, then why is it a problem for the monk to decide to nova and spend a lot of ki to knock out a giant?

Make up your mind. Either it's an unusually tough fight for your 9th level party or it's not.

Monk speed also lends itself to (DMG Disarm + run off with the weapon)-based offense, which is ki cheap or ki-free depending on situation/feats/subclass.

I didn't use that against these Frost Giants but if things had gone differently, it was an option.

Did you use the tactic were the monk shoots with a bow and drops prone to bait the giants? Because like Deathtongue was saying, the giants don't really have a reason to target the monk. In fact I'd ignore the character that didn't do much to me at all AND is incovinient to attack.

So your argument is that a Monk can't solo a Frost Giant because the Frost Giant will kill the Monk's teammates if the Monk tries.

To be fair, Deathtongue replied to Max who argued that the Monk should contribute by distracting the Giants in that way. Logically one would argue against that.

[Unoriginal]

Safe damage doesn't really have value unless, again, the rest of the party isn't taking damage. What matters is how good the character is at spiking damage (taking down high priority targets/tough encounters ASAP to minimize incoming effects and thus protect the party) and OTOH how good the class is at average damage.

This is not factual, though.

Safe damage always has value. Even if the rest of the characters take damage, what matters in an everyone-fights-to-death-or-uncounsciousness struggle is that the enemies' HPs go down to 0 faster than the PCs'. Safe, reliable damage always helps with that.

It's not as flashy as big burst damage, and doesn't make you feel safe like PC protectin capacities, but as long as the reliable damage can be applied it does help significantly.

[Eldariel]

This is not factual, though.

Safe damage always has value. Even if the rest of the characters take damage, what matters in an everyone-fights-to-death-or-uncounsciousness struggle is that the enemies' HPs go down to 0 faster than the PCs'. Safe, reliable damage always helps with that.

It's not as flashy as big burst damage, and doesn't make you feel safe like PC protectin capacities, but as long as the reliable damage can be applied it does help significantly.

Safety doesn't matter as long as someone is taking damage. It doesn't make the party go down any slower. A riskier, higher damage build is preferable unless, again, the party as a whole can avoid hits. Average damage dealer staying alive has no comparative value to the party; what IS important is that the highest offense characters stay alive and get to use their high offense as much as possible. Safety of an individual doesn't matter unless their output is higher than their allies'.

Optimal combat has the highest offense types safe (either due to high defenses or due to others defending them) and the highest defense types splitting enemy offense in such a manner that they don't go down. Monk is neither highest offense nor highest defense so their safety or the lack thereof is mostly irrelevant with regards to optimising the input/output of the party.


Note: Offense isn't solely damage but any but any way of disabling the opposition.

[MaxWilson]

I think Deathtongue was implying the Giant would not be distracted and attack the rest of the PCs rather than the Monk.

Not sure why, but that seems to be what they meant.

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use those against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.

Did you use the tactic were the monk shoots with a bow and drops prone to bait the giants? Because like Deathtongue was saying, the giants don't really have a reason to target the monk. In fact I'd ignore the character that didn't do much to me at all AND is incovinient to attack.

To be fair, Deathtongue replied to Max who argued that the Monk should contribute by distracting the Giants in that way. Logically one would argue against that.

Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

[Valmark]

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use it against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.



Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

Alright, makes more sense then. Wouldn't have run the Giants that way but it's plausible. Either I would have had the Giants get to melee with the monk if they thought it was the only enemy or Ready some throws for the first who moves (though this is also because Ready actions in my IRL group last until your next turn instead of until the end of the round, so they could throw at the monk when he stood up).

Or have the Giants get the **** out of there if they think it's an ambush. But I'd probably make them gang up on the monk (or try to).

[Dork_Forge]

You're probably right, but when I ran this scenario that would have been an implausible attitude for the giants to take so I didn't, especially after hitting with two boulders (despite disadvantage) and seeing the target still moving. Frost Giants aren't dummies, they understand the value of focused fire against apparently-high-HP targets.

The monk's Pass Without Trace pre-fight recon also bought the party enough intel and time to precast some vital spells and choose good hiding spots in the woods. Giants were not "surprised" in 5E terms (didn't lose any actions) but were surprised in military terms (found they had taken actions detrimental to themselves, due to not understanding the nature of their enemy).

This is how I run my actual game at the table--you'll have actual tactical advantages if you are good at understanding enemy psychology, i.e. good at roleplaying the enemy. So it's how I ran this notional fight as well, including the surrender at the end. Frost Giants aren't just stat blocks who exist to deplete PC HP, they have thoughts and feelings too, and you can use those against them. (Some die rolling may be involved if the DM isn't sure how they'd necessarily react.) That's why it's a roleplaying game instead of a wargame: psychology.



Nobody else had revealed themselves yet--the monk was the first one who popped out and drew their attention. He was the most appropriate (and apparently the ONLY) target to attack. Giant #1 threw a boulder while walking towards the monk (instead of Dashing, which was a smart move I hadn't originally expected), Giant #2 threw a boulder at the monk while advancing forward to see what was ahead in the woods, and Giant #3 advanced while intending to use his action to smash whatever threats were in the woods but then changed his mind and threw a third boulder after seeing two boulders hit the prone monk but not kill him--focusing fire seemed wise at that point. And it actually was wise, given what he knew at the time, which didn't include a druid with a bunch of conjured snakes and owls waiting in ambush. Who knew?

The decisions made were intelligent, but wrong.

You've spoke about this in a couple posts now but I've not seen it mentioned so I'll ask, did the Monk use Deflect Missiles to mitigate damage? It looks like the Monk took average damage from the rocks, but I think you rolled dice instead of averages (?) so I thought it best to check.

[MaxWilson]

Alright, makes more sense then. Wouldn't have run the Giants that way but it's plausible. Either I would have had the Giants get to melee with the monk if they thought it was the only enemy or Ready some throws for the first who moves (though this is also because Ready actions in my IRL group last until your next turn instead of until the end of the round, so they could throw at the monk when he stood up).

Or have the Giants get the **** out of there if they think it's an ambush. But I'd probably make them gang up on the monk (or try to).

Just want to note that if the giants had all Dashed over to the monk they wouldn't have gotten ANY attacks that round, and then the Fighter would open up with his crossbow while the Monk would just cast Darkness + Step of the Wind away again next round (moving 65' towards the party this time). Everybody else waits for the giants to Dash close enough to hit them within the Darkness (snakes will have advantage there because of Blindsight). Note that Darkness prevents the giants from getting any opportunity attacks. Anyway, point is that this strategy also doesn't end well for the giants, it just makes the monk spend 3 ki instead of 58 HP.

You've spoke about this in a couple posts now but I've not seen it mentioned so I'll ask, did the Monk use Deflect Missiles to mitigate damage? It looks like the Monk took average damage from the rocks, but I think you rolled dice instead of averages (?) so I thought it best to check.

Yes he did. I believe it was one hit for 31 damage, mitigated down to 8 HP by Deflect Missile (9 on d10 + 5 for Dex + 9 for level = 23 mitigated), then a low-damage hit for 22 HP, and a third lucky hit for another 28. At first I thought the monk was KO'ed but then I checked and found he had 66 HP (Con 14, 7 HP per level + 3 = 7*9+3 = 66). But he withdrew behind cover after that and just shot arrows for the rest of the combat.

[Unoriginal]

Safety doesn't matter as long as someone is taking damage.

Safety does matter ESPECIALLY if someone is taking damage.

It doesn't make the party go down any slower.

It makes the enemy go down faster.

A riskier, higher damage build is preferable unless, again, the party as a whole can avoid hits. Average damage dealer staying alive has no comparative value to the party; what IS important is that the highest offense characters stay alive and get to use their high offense as much as possible. Safety of an individual doesn't matter unless their output is higher than their allies'.

The whole group's safety matter, and the whole group's offensive capacities are important. I don't know anyone who play D&D by having one golden boy carry the team with high offense while the others are just here to keep the golden boy alive.

Optimal combat has the highest offense types safe (either due to high defenses or due to others defending them) and the highest defense types splitting enemy offense in such a manner that they don't go down. Monk is neither highest offense nor highest defense so their safety or the lack thereof is mostly irrelevant with regards to optimising the input/output of the party.


Note: Offense isn't solely damage but any but any way of disabling the opposition.

"Optimal combat" has no bearing on actual combat. It's like the old "I can save you cow as long as it's a perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless space" story.

Maybe "optimally" this is what would happen, but factually what happens is much messier, and a theoretically optimal play does not work in practice when all the factors that made it optimal do not apply.

A Monk is factually reliable, which makes the class more than suitable enough even when compared to classes which perform better in theoretical optimization.