Is Treantmonk's homebrew "fixed" Monk overtuned?

[Unoriginal]

But not more than 1d10+Cha (ranged, at that).

Then again, I think that eldritch blast is bad game design, so...

Basic Eldritch Blast does not add CHA to damage.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Basic Eldritch Blast does not add CHA to damage.

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.

[Frogreaver]

His baseline is a warlock casting basic eldritch blast cantrip every round not a GWM Fighter.

Doesn't he include hex in that as well?

[stoutstien]

Doesn't he include hex in that as well?

Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

[Amechra]

But who fantasizes about playing a martial artist so they can, er, "hit the enemy so hard that they, like, stop moving for a couple of moments."

Pressure-point strikes are a pretty martial-artist-y thing. You aren't hitting them hard, you're hitting them in just the right spot to exploit weaknesses and shatter bones.

I'd honestly be pretty happy if all Monks got Hands of Harm (and the relevant upgrades) from the Way of Mercy instead of Stunning Strike. Or, at least, I'd be happy about it if immunity to being poisoned weren't so ridiculously common.

[Hael]

Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

Yea but then he also includes flurry of blows as an infinite resource as well. It's not a terrible dpr assumption and it does show that there is a scaling problem (and his fix just puts it barely ahead of nonsubclass hex+EB).

My experience with monks is that they have a lot of negative rounds as well (unless they are the Kensai ranged build) whereas EB is almost always guarenteed damage (to multiple targets) with very little negative damage issues as well (overkill damage)

[Unoriginal]

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.

Doesn't he include hex in that as well?

Aye. with no action cost and no loss of damage from switching targets.

So, the "basic Eldritch Blast every round" that Treantmonk uses as comparison for DPR, including at-will DPR, is an Eldritch Blast from a Warlock who 1) made an Invocation choice investment to make EB better 2) is using a 1rst level, 1-hour-long, Concentration-using spell to make EB better 3) has a DM with generous, not-how-the-book-describes-the-spell rulings concerning said 1rst level spell?

Am I understanding this correctly?

Yea but then he also includes flurry of blows as an infinite resource as well.

...Yeah, he either does not know how the game work, or how math does.

[mr_stibbons]

Do you think that Treantmonk cares about something like that? He absolutely counts Agonizing Blast in his "calculations", is all I'm saying.

He absolutely takes it into account. The full baseline is "Warlock using eldritch blast and hex, starting with 16 Cha, taking agonizing blast at level 2 and increasing Cha at level 4 and 8". And sure, there are other ways to build warlock, but that's the kind of build that shows up in every "beginner's guide to building 5e warlocks" ever. It's not using any obscure optimization tricks or creative strategies, and doesn't require any optional rules. That's why it's a baseline.

Now, it's at low levels it's a bit unfair, you really can't assume hex stays up in all combats at level 1, but optimizing dpr at level 1-2 is kinda pointless. At higher levels, 5+, I think it is pretty useful as a damage benchmark. The thing is, the bench line isn't a character that has been super optimized for damage-it has no subclass, no race, 1 cantrip, 1 spell known and 1 eldritch invocation. It has a lot of space to pick up other tools, be that survivability, mobility, lockdown spells, utility effects or yet more damage. If your level 5+ character can't easily beat a warlock a lightweight investment in damage per round, it's safe to say that you are not doing good dpr. The fact that many martial builds have trouble beating this thing at level 11 is an indictment of how messed up high level play is.

[Abracadangit]

*Raises hand*

To be fair, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. MOST people like the idea of Stunning Strike. Heck, I LIKE the idea, I just don't know that it syncs with the ideal core thesis of the monk. But right now, their thesis IS to stun people. So there we go.

Pressure-point strikes are a pretty martial-artist-y thing. You aren't hitting them hard, you're hitting them in just the right spot to exploit weaknesses and shatter bones.

I'd honestly be pretty happy if all Monks got Hands of Harm (and the relevant upgrades) from the Way of Mercy instead of Stunning Strike. Or, at least, I'd be happy about it if immunity to being poisoned weren't so ridiculously common.

It's true that pressure points are a martial artsy thing -- but are they core monk? I feel like in most kung fu media, pressure points are the purview of either a) the old master who disables opponents with a touch, or b) the cold, calculating, tactical type, who strikes at soft spots/nerve centers to bring about pain or paralysis. I know there are some wuxia protagonists that do pressure point stuff, but my point is it feels like it's supposed to be in a subclass somewhere, instead of "The Thing Monks Are All About."

Right, something like Hands of Harm! More riders to Flurry of Blows that don't end up costing us more ki, but lets us buy more for the points we're already spending.

[Frogreaver]

So, the "basic Eldritch Blast every round" that Treantmonk uses as comparison for DPR, including at-will DPR, is an Eldritch Blast from a Warlock who 1) made an Invocation choice investment to make EB better 2) is using a 1rst level, 1-hour-long, Concentration-using spell to make EB better 3) has a DM with generous, not-how-the-book-describes-the-spell rulings concerning said 1rst level spell?

Am I understanding this correctly?

...Yeah, he either does not know how the game work, or how math does.

If not RAW, it seems at least RAI that hex can concentrated on essentially all day. Why give it up to a 24 hour duration otherwise.

I also don't feel agonizing blast is a stretch as caster warlocks wanting to build for combat nearly always take that invocation.

I don't even mind the combination AB+Hex+EB as that's a pretty low optimization threshold.

The issue I have with the comparison is that alot of what the monk brings to the table offensively is ignored. Stunning Strike is a Debuff that increases your DPR and your teams DPR. That needs accounted for somewhere.

[strangebloke]

I think this goes to just us playing the games very differently. In the games I've seen it's generally pretty normal for the attacking creatures to try and engage up close with the backline as their primary method of attack. Range is powerful, but suffering Disadvantage on all your attacks is pretty brutal. And as such a useful frontline (that almost always take the Sentinel feat, because of course they do) become a tool of pretty extreme importance at least in T1 and T2 play. By T3 teleportation and flight starts becoming a lot more prevalent which does dramatically decrease the effectiveness of the tanks. And we have to get into a whole other debate about role scaling and the mess of higher level play. But I'll drop that topic for now.

yeah this particular debate is going nowhere fast. My personal take is that if you do need a wall character, its pretty easy for an otherwise-ranged character to fill that role. Like say a cleric casting spirit guardians and then dodging/casting spiritual weapon on the next turn.

So in my opinion, the solution here is either fix them up so they can do the frontline job. Or you have to make them so much better at the agile striker to be comparable with the archers. Considering they are by nature taking much more risk to accomplish this than the archer is.

They've got better defenses than most backliners and more consistency than most frontline walls. They deal good damage when compared against most other builds, losing out to the usual suspects. SS archer, GWM warrior, and Eldritch blast with riders. Which yes. Those builds deal insane damage. Thanks, we know.

Monks are fun in that they can play a wide variety of ways depending on the needs of the party in the situation. Sure its not very efficient to run in and patient defense, but you're a pretty effective wall when you do. You can do the striking thing. You can fixate on Stunning to control the battlefield. You can kite if you want. You can just lob arrows down range.

They're fun to play as a result, and most people I've seen use them have really enjoyed it. The problem comes in that they're just slightly undertuned overall, and that their builds are prescribed. You don't actually have to max dex or wis to function, people just do because there's no feats that are actually that good for a monk.

Yeah the issue with the Rest mechanic is, in my opinion, one of the more glaring flaws in the game.

Eh. I think it works well if you treat "short rest" as "after every encounter" and long rest as "next time you get to town." Which admittedly isn't how the game is written.

[Abracadangit]

Eh. I think it works well if you treat "short rest" as "after every encounter" and long rest as "next time you get to town." Which admittedly isn't how the game is written.

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

What makes it so weird is that we do have a few encounter-based ability triggers in 5E, like the Arcane Archer/Battle Master recharging uses if they start a fight with none.

[strangebloke]

I 100% think that short rest/long rest was intended to be the spiritual successor of per encounter/per day abilities from 4e. But at some point that 2-3 encounters per short rest/6-8 per long rest started up, and then that became the way things are done.

I gripe about warlocks' pact magic slots a lot, but I wouldn't even gripe as bad if everyone short rested after every encounter. Then it's really not so bad! But nobody does that ("Didn't we just short rest?"), so monks and warlocks get to play this game of tactically managing their resources for every 2-3 encounters and feeling starved for things to do.

yeah I've been preaching short rests after every 1-2 encounters for a while now. Works pretty well either under a "long rest is 8 hours, short rest is 10 minutes" paradigm or a "long rest is 7 days, short rest is 8 hours" paradigm (though the latter has a lot of implications to say the least.)

[Unoriginal]

He absolutely takes it into account. The full baseline is "Warlock using eldritch blast and hex, starting with 16 Cha, taking agonizing blast at level 2 and increasing Cha at level 4 and 8". And sure, there are other ways to build warlock, but that's the kind of build that shows up in every "beginner's guide to building 5e warlocks" ever. It's not using any obscure optimization tricks or creative strategies, and doesn't require any optional rules. That's why it's a baseline.

Using any ressource for something disqualify it as a baseline for anything that is supposed to be at-will.

Now, it's at low levels it's a bit unfair, you really can't assume hex stays up in all combats at level 1, but optimizing dpr at level 1-2 is kinda pointless.

You cannot assume Hex stays up in all combats at any level.

Also, this is about analyzing and comparing DPR. All levels are equally relevant, in term of data.

At higher levels, 5+, I think it is pretty useful as a damage benchmark. The thing is, the bench line isn't a character that has been super optimized for damage-it has no subclass, no race, 1 cantrip, 1 spell known and 1 eldritch invocation.

No 5e character has 16 CHA at character creation without having a race, unless the stats were rolled (and as such shouldn't be used for a baseline).

So the character you are talking about:

1) uses the cantrip which deals the most damage in the whole game.

2) has a race chosen in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

3) has spent/is going to spend their first two ASIs in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

4) has invested in an invocation to deal more damage with that cantrip rather than doing something else

5) uses a different, not-at-will, Concentration-using spell in order to deal more damage with that cantrip

6) has a DM whose rulings make using said not-at-will spell easier.

But according to you said character is not super-optimized for damage?

It has a lot of space to pick up other tools, be that survivability, mobility, lockdown spells, utility effects or yet more damage.

A Warlock with that EB-damage-based build with have significantly less space to *use* other tools.

Being able to cast Bigby's Hand as a Fathomless Warlock is far less impressive when you use up your Concentration and your spell slots on Hex like you where already doing before you got your Pact Boon.

If your level 5+ character can't easily beat a warlock a lightweight investment in damage per round,

As demonstrated above, it is not a "lightweight investment".

The fact that many martial builds have trouble beating this thing at level 11 is an indictment of how messed up high level play is.

The fact that martials builds' at-will DPRs are being compared to a not-at-will-ressources-using build's DPR is an indictment of nothing.


Using a damage-focused, not-at-will build's performance as the yardstick for at-will DPR and then acting as if it was a no-investment-or-near baseline everyone should match to get in the Cool Kids' Clubhouse is simply not sound.

This show that Treatmonk either does not understand how methodology and standards for comparisons are established, does not understand 5e as a game/system, is knowingly dishonest by presenting biased datas, or is doing a mix of the three in various proportions. I leave that judgment to each individual.

[Frogreaver]

Let's evaluate how much damage flurry of blows adds (assumes level 5)

Assuming target AC of 15 with +4 Dex bonus and attack bonus of +7. Flurry of blows allows 1 more attack than you would normally make @ 1d6+4 damage. Flurry of blows adds about +5.05 DPR.

For Stunning Strike we will have to assume a party. I'm going to look at a basic Greatsword Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. Each will be using their basic attacks and focus firing the stunned enemy.

When an enemy is stunned I calculate this up to 18.2375 DPR (times the chance you stun with a single stunning strike). This is usually going to average to about +9 DPR, give or take a bit. Of course in parties more optimized for Damage, this number can go up much higher.

So in terms of overall team DPR with a focus fire strategy, stunning strike causes significantly more DPR than Flurry of blows.

[Rynjin]

First, 4 elements might be fairly poorly executed design wise and wonky, it's one of the most powerful subclass of the monk. It brings option most other monks haven't, notably the ability to cc and move ennemies at range targeting 2 different save. The utility cannot be understated. And this is before computing things like fly.
Second the base chassis isn't bad. It has one of the best cc ability of the entire game in stunning strike, has excellent mobility (something often overlooked because more often than not people's encounter design is lacking), they also have solid defensive options and being short rest based means that they shine in long adventuring days.
Which doesn't mean they don't have problems, most of their features come online early and the later levels feels lacking. The fact the dev haven't really though of implementing items in line with classic magical weapons for the unarmed attacks is dumb (but is easy to remedy). They are mad but honestly, I think it's good design, it's the sad characters that are the problems imo.

The problem, as always, comes back to Ki. The class is not mobile, because its mobility is tied to the same resource as its damage. It's likewise not versatile, because that versatility eats away at the singular resource it has to DO anything.

I HATED playing a Four Elements Monk because of how damn expensive everything is. Sun Soul was a bit better, though definitely less "versatile" I'll give you that.

I mean, its not 'broken' but he's clearly comparing unoptimized monk builds against optimized fighter builds while failing to account for ki scaling, and so yes by definition this build is 'overtuned.' An unoptimized idiot monk getting 8d6+12 pretty much every round at level 11 with access to subclass options and stunning strike is pretty absurd. Doubly absurd if you count the Tasha's buffs.

Why is 8d6+12 per round "absurd" in 5e? I'll admit, I'm not the hugest 5e expert, but one thing I do know for a fact: monster HP is exactly the same as it always was. 8d6+12 is 40 damage per round. A CR 11 enemy has around 160 HP on average, with a couple huge outliers (a Roc has...250 for some reason, and a Remorhaz close to 200).

So it would take a solo Monk about 4 rounds to beat down a solo CR 11 enemy. That seems well within the bounds of how long a combat should last. With help, the party could hack one down in about 2 rounds. Seems perfect for an encounter with a single enemy.

Unless most 5e players consider encounters taking close to 10 rounds on average at the mid-levels a feature, not a bug?

[Unoriginal]

So in terms of overall team DPR with a focus fire strategy, stunning strike causes significantly more DPR than Flurry of blows.

Not incorrect, but you're not including several key factors. Among them:

-Is it easier for the Monk's additional attack to land or for the monster to fail their CON saves?

-Does the monster that get focused on has Legendary Resistances?

-How much does the DPR of the Monk help the DPR of the team overall?

-How much more DPR does the Monk add if the SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third?

-How much would the additional DPR from FoB help the group?

-FoB and Stunning Strikes are not mutually exclusive, so long as the Monk has ki:
- How much more likely is it for SS to land if the Monk used FoB ?
- How much additional DPR using both adds to the team's DPR if SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third? On the fourth?

Any of those factors will change the DPR of the Monk and of the team, sometime significantly.

That kind of stuff is a bother to calculate, because all the factors do affect performance in-game. And "the lvl 5 team focus fire on a single opponent with X AC" is seemingly pretty straightforward.

That's why so many people just go for the "featureless white room with best case scenarios" approach, which is much, much easier and also completely unhelpful because so innacurate to what happens with the game.

[Frogreaver]

Not incorrect, but you're not including several key factors. Among them:

-Is it easier for the Monk's additional attack to land or for the monster to fail their CON saves?

I assumed that on average at level 5 you would encounter a Con Save of around +4. Some enemies will be higher and some lower. Yielding about a 50% chance to stun when you use the ability. A intelligent tactical player, may use the distribution to his advantage and use stunning strike on more lower con save enemies and allow allies to use their abilities more to overcome the high con save ones.

-Does the monster that get focused on has Legendary Resistances?

At level 5 it's doubtful you are fighting anything with legendary resistance

-How much does the DPR of the Monk help the DPR of the team overall?

Not really sure what you are asking here.

-How much more DPR does the Monk add if the SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third?

Depends on whether the enemy was already stunned the previous round. *Note that stunning strike lasts until the end of your next turn. The first time you use it you get your remaining attacks at advantage and all your next turns attacks at advantage. But if you stun the enemy again the next round then those attacks were already counted at advantage for the previous stunning strike. So for my calculations the effects of advantage on any remaining attacks this turn were ignored. We could calculate the exact effect here but it would take a very tedious probability calculation that just isn't worth the invested time.

-How much would the additional DPR from FoB help the group?

-FoB and Stunning Strikes are not mutually exclusive, so long as the Monk has ki:
- How much more likely is it for SS to land if the Monk used FoB ?

They aren't mutually exclusive but you don't have the ki at level 5 to even attempt a stunning strike every round. I'm not sure why you would 'waste' Ki on the inferior FoB option in general cases (obvioulsy we can probably come up with some specific enemy where stunning strike is ineffective due to extremely high con saves, immune to stun, etc).

- How much additional DPR using both adds to the team's DPR if SS lands on the first strike? On the second? On the third? On the fourth?

At level 5 this would take away overall DPR - not add to it.

[Merudo]

I mean, its not 'broken' but he's clearly comparing unoptimized monk builds against optimized fighter builds while failing to account for ki scaling, and so yes by definition this build is 'overtuned.' An unoptimized idiot monk getting 8d6+12 pretty much every round at level 11 with access to subclass options and stunning strike is pretty absurd. Doubly absurd if you count the Tasha's buffs.

Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

[stoutstien]

Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

Mercy monk with a longsword or kensei SS are pretty self contained little kits.

[carkl3000]

Not needed, Monks have a lot of defensive tools and them being a d8 like the Rogue fits better, making them a d10 serves as a needless buff that homogenises martials.



This looks primarily like a feat or multiclass buff, both of which are bad design and don't help the core Monk



Not only does this feel weird, I'm not sure if this is based in 3.5 or something, it's ridiculous. The Martial Arts Die is used for too much, not only does this mean that an 11th level Monk is making Fireball look like chump change, it has spin off effects into other weapons and abilities. Horrendous and way too much.



No, too much and takes away from the Monk's identity. It's okay that they need a secondary stat, plenty of other classes and subclasses do.



No, this isn't needed. I can see why people compare SotW to Cunning Action, but they are not the same. The biggest thing missed here I think is that the Monk has a core speed boost, in comparative situations the Rogue is having to Dash more often because the Monk's base speed covers a lot of cases Dash would be needed.



No, and I think he misunderstands this ability, it's primarily just a way to convert left over Ki into health so it isn't wasted, it's not really intended to be a stand alone healing ability. For the aim of the ability the cost is fine, though the fact he proposed this along with that martial arts die increase is just ridiculous.



Why? Just why? Stunning Strike isn't expensive to use to begin with, it's not even like it has the opportunity cost of declaring before you attack. More needless stacking buffs.



This isn't particularly bad, I just don't think it's necessary.



No... Why cram something like this into a ribbon ability?



That's a massive buff, out of line imo for all that you get out of Empty Body.



Is this instead of the Ki regen? Either way... no

Buffing Con on a Monk isn't thematic, pushing their Dex over 20 isn't needed and just takes a dump on the uniqueness of the Barbarian's ability.



Playing this Monk would be a hot mess of overtuned whilst also draining a lot of flavour and identity out of the class. The fact he thinks these buffs are okay to add altogether (or at all in some cases) really just calls into question his sense of 5e balance.


Here's a standout: Way of the Astral Self at 20th would get to do 5 attacks if Flurrying, for a total of 18d6+25, or an average of 88 force damage. Not Flurrying brings that down to a measily 72.5.

And the problems would start to arise well before it got to Tier 4.

Why not build a Kensei Archer that now does 3d6 weapon damage on top of the SS damage and other boosts?


A Mercy Monk that 'smites' enough that a Paladin blushes, whilst also having their healing role morph from battle medic/emergency heals to deep healing?

I don't care too much about any of this, but if you think it's not thematic for a monk to have high constitution, you have no business talking about monks.

[Merudo]

Answer to damage, and particularly damage scaling issue. An issue that arguably increases as the monk gains levels, hence the non-standard progression. "+1 damage on hits" is not an upgrade that compares to the fighter's third attack or the paladin's improved divine strike or the sneak attack bonus a rogue gets every two levels, or even standard cantrip scaling.

Exactly this.

As is, a Monk using only unarmed attacks will do +3 DPR at level 11 (+4 if using Flurry of Blows).
Realistically, the Monk is using a quarterstaff two-handed, so they actually get +1 DPR (+2 if using Flurry of Blows).

A Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite at this level, increasing their DPR by +9 (+13.5 when using some sort of bonus action attack).
Treantmonk's fix raise Monk DPR by +7.5 at level 11 (+10 when using Flurry of Blows).

It seems very reasonable.

[mr_stibbons]

Using any ressource for something disqualify it as a baseline for anything that is supposed to be at-will.
You cannot assume Hex stays up in all combats at any level.

Also, this is about analyzing and comparing DPR. All levels are equally relevant, in term of data.

No 5e character has 16 CHA at character creation without having a race, unless the stats were rolled (and as such shouldn't be used for a baseline).

So the character you are talking about:

1) uses the cantrip which deals the most damage in the whole game.

2) has a race chosen in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

3) has spent/is going to spend their first two ASIs in order to deal more damage with that cantrip and be more precise with that cantrip (among other things).

4) has invested in an invocation to deal more damage with that cantrip rather than doing something else

5) uses a different, not-at-will, Concentration-using spell in order to deal more damage with that cantrip

6) has a DM whose rulings make using said not-at-will spell easier.

But according to you said character is not super-optimized for damage?

A Warlock with that EB-damage-based build with have significantly less space to *use* other tools.

Being able to cast Bigby's Hand as a Fathomless Warlock is far less impressive when you use up your Concentration and your spell slots on Hex like you where already doing before you got your Pact Boon.

As demonstrated above, it is not a "lightweight investment".

The fact that martials builds' at-will DPRs are being compared to a not-at-will-ressources-using build's DPR is an indictment of nothing.

Using a damage-focused, not-at-will build's performance as the yardstick for at-will DPR and then acting as if it was a no-investment-or-near baseline everyone should match to get in the Cool Kids' Clubhouse is simply not sound.

This show that Treatmonk either does not understand how methodology and standards for comparisons are established, does not understand 5e as a game/system, is knowingly dishonest by presenting biased datas, or is doing a mix of the three in various proportions. I leave that judgment to each individual.

Firstly, who said anything about at will? I certainly didn't, and Treantmonk does not compare that baseline to at will damage numbers, he tries to calculate average damage assuming characters are spending all their resources over 8 4 round combats with 2 short rests, as per the DMG. The idea that this is supposed to be At will DPR is a misconception-it's long rest DPR averaged.

Secondly, requiring a race that gives at least +1 to your classes primary stat is a pedantic nitpick, especially in a post-tasha's world, where if you are using those variant rulesany race in the game meets those qualifications. This is character building 101 stuff. There are a negligible number of point-buy characters who do not start with a 16 in their primary attack stat. And sure, maybe you would be better off picking a feat instead of improving CHA, but feats, as people on this forum like to point out, are an optional rule. +4 to you primary stat both times is an entirely reasonable assumption for any character.

Thirdly, a warlock has over their career 4 known cantrips without PotT, 15 known spells plus arcanum, and 8 eldritch invocations. One of each of those is a small investment on the grand scheme of things. Picking those all up as soon as possible is a little aggressive, sure. My position was that the baseline damage is a little high at low levels because of this.

Fourthly, yes, there are better spells for concentration DPR than hex. That's one of the many sources of extra damage I said an optimized warlock could use at higher levels. Yes, said warlock would not be casting hex if they were using those options. However, they could also learn high level spells that don't improve their DPR and still have the option to fall back on hex.

Lastly, every DPR calculation will have assumptions built into it. That's why you shouldn't treat it as the be all and end all. Even very complicated ones assume you do not get knocked unconscious, suffer any debilitating conditions, or lose concentration, yes, because it's impossible to estimate when any of that is going to happen. Also, they tend to ignore overkill, yes, because it's, again, impossible to estimate how often that happens (though the baseline encounter is 1 monster v 4 characters, which makes overkill pretty minimal). By favorable assumptions, you're saying that the warlock is allowed to switch their hex target between two attacks from one cast? (the baseline is not doing anything but hex with their bonus action after all) That's a pretty minor fudge, all things considered until very high levels-your chance of hitting with both rays is already pretty low, much less doing that and killing a target with your first ray.

[Dork_Forge]

I'll be replying to the rest of this thread later, but in the mean time:

I don't care too much about any of this, but if you think it's not thematic for a monk to have high constitution, you have no business talking about monks.

You're not even going to justify why you're dismissing my business talking about a part of the game?

What part of the Monk aesthetic is being a fat bag of hp?

Evasion is thematic.

Unarmoured defense that uses Wisdom to reflect technique is thematic.

Being able to use Dex for things other can only use Str for is thematic.

Getting a Con boost like a Barbarian does is just weird and only justifiable by saying the Monk is a martial.

If you're looking for Monks are super healthy and what not, then look at Diamond Soul and the fact they stop aging, being affected by diseases and poisons.

That 'fix' was a lazy rip from another class that pushes his agenda to decouple Monks from Wisdom.

If you don't like something I said, then present an argument against it, instead of writing off my entire opinion and point of view because you don't like one thing, without considering why I said it.

[strangebloke]

Why is 8d6+12 per round "absurd" in 5e? I'll admit, I'm not the hugest 5e expert, but one thing I do know for a fact: monster HP is exactly the same as it always was. 8d6+12 is 40 damage per round. A CR 11 enemy has around 160 HP on average, with a couple huge outliers (a Roc has...250 for some reason, and a Remorhaz close to 200).

So it would take a solo Monk about 4 rounds to beat down a solo CR 11 enemy. That seems well within the bounds of how long a combat should last. With help, the party could hack one down in about 2 rounds. Seems perfect for an encounter with a single enemy.

Unless most 5e players consider encounters taking close to 10 rounds on average at the mid-levels a feature, not a bug?

CR works differently in this edition. A single CR 11 monster would be considered an entire encounter. So yes, a party of four monks beating the entire encounter to death in 1-2 rounds is absurd.

Granted, this is where the other shoe drops. The CR rules are a joke and lead to absurdly trivial encounters even against inexperienced players with bad builds. But the reason 8d6+12 is absurd is actually because that's a stupidly terrible build that started with 16 DEX and then refused to do anything to improve damage for ten levels. A more optimized monk build with these rules could do something like 75 damage in a single turn without taking any accuracy penalty.

Obviously still subject to accuracy but that's pretty absurd by 5e standards.

Curious about what you have in mind when talking about an optimized level 11 Monk build?

I feel like people are going to be tired of me bringing these up, but the long and short of it is that monks do really well against hard targets with elven accuracy given the large number of ways they have to get advantage, and how much of their damage comes from dice (and therefore profits off crits). Granted that even so level eleven tends to be a bad level for most monks, but things brighten a lot at twelve because of how ASI-starved monks are. For some quick examples against an AC 19 enemy:

(for a benchmark) 12th level Fighter with GWF and GWM, assuming you get the GWM BA every turn
4*[2d6+1.4+5+10]*0.30 = 28.08

12th level Astral Self Monk using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6 = 33.4

12th level Mercy Monk with 20 DEX and 18 WIS using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6+4 = 37.4

12th level Drow Shadow Monk with Elven accuracy and Fighter Initiate:Blindfighting using Darkness to create a sphere of advantage/disadvantage and flurry of blows
4*[(2d6+5)*0.875+2d6*.15] = 46.2

12th level Vhuman Kensei with Sharpshooter and Fighting Initiate:Archery spending 1 ki/round for deft strike/ki-fueled strikes and with HTB active
3*[2d6+5+10+3]*0.55+2d6 = 48.25

The Drow Shadow monk is important because all its doing is getting consistent advantage, which is something all monks can do pretty easily with stunning strike or the open hand monk's proning ability.

Now in the interest of playing fair, its obvious that I'm not considering a lot of the fighter's strength here. No action surge or subclasses. The high-AC opponent favors the monks here too. But overall I feel fine calling 2d6 unarmed strike "overtuned." If you run the numbers for action surge it only just edges out the Kensei sharpshooter.

Exactly this.

As is, a Monk using only unarmed attacks will do +3 DPR at level 11 (+4 if using Flurry of Blows).
Realistically, the Monk is using a two handed quarterstaff, so they actually get +1 DPR (+2 if using Flurry of Blows).

A Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite at this level, increasing their DPR by +9 (+13.5 when using some sort of bonus action attack).
Treantmonk's fix raise Monk DPR by +7.5 at level 11 (+10 when using Flurry of Blows).

It seems very reasonable.

Its almost like you're completely ignoring that at least 3 monk subclasses get massive boosts to damage at 11th level, and you're cherrypicking the worst level relative to fighters

[Frogreaver]

CR works differently in this edition. A single CR 11 monster would be considered an entire encounter. So yes, a party of four monks beating the entire encounter to death in 1-2 rounds is absurd.

Granted, this is where the other shoe drops. The CR rules are a joke and lead to absurdly trivial encounters even against inexperienced players with bad builds. But the reason 8d6+12 is absurd is actually because that's a stupidly terrible build that started with 16 DEX and then refused to do anything to improve damage for ten levels. A more optimized monk build with these rules could do something like 75 damage in a single turn without taking any accuracy penalty.

Obviously still subject to accuracy but that's pretty absurd by 5e standards.


I feel like people are going to be tired of me bringing these up, but the long and short of it is that monks do really well against hard targets with elven accuracy given the large number of ways they have to get advantage, and how much of their damage comes from dice (and therefore profits off crits). Granted that even so level eleven tends to be a bad level for most monks, but things brighten a lot at twelve because of how ASI-starved monks are. For some quick examples against an AC 19 enemy:

(for a benchmark) 12th level Fighter with GWF and GWM, assuming you get the GWM BA every turn
4*[2d6+1.4+5+10]*0.30 = 28.08

12th level Astral Self Monk using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6 = 33.4

12th level Mercy Monk with 20 DEX and 18 WIS using flurry of blows
4*[2d6+5]*0.55+2d6+4 = 37.4

12th level Drow Shadow Monk with Elven accuracy and Fighter Initiate:Blindfighting using Darkness to create a sphere of advantage/disadvantage and flurry of blows
4*[(2d6+5)*0.875+2d6*.15] = 46.2

12th level Vhuman Kensei with Sharpshooter and Fighting Initiate:Archery spending 1 ki/round for deft strike/ki-fueled strikes and with HTB active
3*[2d6+5+10+3]*0.55+2d6 = 48.25

The Drow Shadow monk is important because all its doing is getting consistent advantage, which is something all monks can do pretty easily with stunning strike or the open hand monk's proning ability.

Now in the interest of playing fair, its obvious that I'm not considering a lot of the fighter's strength here. No action surge or subclasses. The high-AC opponent favors the monks here too. But overall I feel fine calling 2d6 unarmed strike "overtuned."


Its almost like you're completely ignoring that at least 3 monk subclasses get massive boosts to damage at 11th level, and you're cherrypicking the worst level relative to fighters

Slight Quibble. At that Accuracy rating the Fighter would do more DPR without using -5/+10

Major Quibble. That Fighter isn't using any sublcass abilities and most of your monk ones are.

[Kane0]

OK so I guess i'll start with TM's premise and work back from that rather than critique his end result.

1. Lacking defense
2. Features reliance on Ki (which leads to some features being underused)
3. Stillness of Mind doesn't work as intended
4. Some features are mechanically lacklustre
5. Capstone sucks
6. Level 11 and 17 Monk falls behind
7. Martial arts die doesn't always work

Plus things to avoid and things to note:
- Don't overcomplicate, especially with multiple resources to track
- More Ki (fixes early monk and not late monk, which isn't where the problem lies)
- No complete rewrites/redesigns. Small tweaks.
- Don't overtune. Too little is better than too much.
- This isn't ignoring to ignore subclasses, those will be looked at later

TM's actual suggested changes:
1. d10 HP
2. can use light and medium armor
3. MA die starts higher and increases faster
4. DC is dex based
5. Step of with Wind costs 0
6. Quickened healing costs 1
7. Stunning strike uses its own resource
8. Stillness of mind works even if you ordinarily couldnt use it
9. Timeless body reduces exhaustion
10. Empty Body uses bonus action
11. Perfect self increases DEX and CON by 4

So lets go through the first points first
1. I can see the argument here. Monks are typically 1-3 AC and a handful of HP behind other warrior types plus can't use a shield or natively get a fighting style. However on the other hand they do have access to bonus action dodge/disengage/dash, and as they progress also damage mitigation in the form of slow fall, deflect arrows, evasion, purity of body, diamond soul and empty body. Monk bonus speed and stunning strike might also contribute to your longevity.
But on the other other hand again, many of those features come at the cost of Ki expenditure and damage output by conflicting with martial arts/flurry (which makes them unlikely to be used often or at all) and others come along too late to carry much impact.
I think TM has a point, though perhaps not an incredibly strong one. If we can address the monk always being forced to pick between their attacks and their mobility/defense I think that would go a long way to correcting this problem without simply making monks sturdier.

2. I agree. Much like above the Monk is constantly being forced to carefully weigh where his Ki is being used as well as what their BA is going to be used on. Splitting some of these off would help.

3. Fully agreed, I think this was intended to counteract dominations and such as well but the strict wording prevents it

4 & 5. Yes, this is a problem many martials face in Tiers 3 and 4 where their features just... aren't great. I think TM specifically is referring to Timeless body, but i'd call that a ribbon.

6. Monks don't get a big boost to damage output at level 10/11 in the base class, I think the intent was that the subclass does that job sort of like how the Ranger handles it. TM will be looking at subclasses as well so that needs to be taken into account here. But I will agree the MA die increase doesn't do the job on it's own.

7. TM is very right in saying that regular weapon die often match or beat martial arts die until late levels, and even then it's an average of 1-2 damage. Granted the Monk isn't a powerhouse damage machine to begin with (except for pre-extra attack levels) but the base class doesn't have anything there actually boosting damage at all except for MA die.


So in that light, lets take a look at his corrections:
1. This goes straight to problem 1, and it's not bad. Not what I would do myself and I doubt it would make a noticable impact in actual play, but it directly addresses the identified problem and does so without breaching his 'to avoid' items.

2. This also addresses problem 1, however only affects feat/multiclass games unless you start with a race that grants armor proficiency. Honestly this is a pretty minor change but does imply that TM doesn't value Wis in his monks or feels they are too MAD which may be true but not significantly moreso than paladins, EKs, ATs, rangers, non hexblade bladelocks, blade/valor bards, etc

3. This links to problems 6 and 7, maybe 4 too. I agree that it could use a raise but perhaps not as drastic as he suggests. I would just bump it up one die size than it currently is so you start at d6 (at least matching racial natural weapons) and end at d12/2d6 (the best standard weapons you can get). More than that and i'd be cautious of breaching the 'overtuned' note.

4. This doesn't appear to directly correspond to any issue identified to TM. Between this and change 2 it appears to imply that TM doesn't value Wis in his monks or feels they are too MAD. Which may be true but not significantly moreso than paladins, EKs, ATs, rangers, non hexblade bladelocks, blade/valor bards, etc. Regardless, I wouldn't pursue this one.

5 and 6. These appear to points 1, 2 and 4 but don't actually correct 1 in practice. It does reduce Ki reliance but doesn't stop Monks from burning it all on Flurry and Stun.

7. Addresses 2, and likely successfully. I support detaching Stun from Ki entirely. TM mentions that players he has spoken to love burning all their Ki on this, and from a design point of view I think that is against their own best interests to let them do. TM leans on the other side of that fence and wants to leave that gate open, to each their own.

8. plugs straight into 3, nothing more to add here.

9. I don't see this addressing anything other than maybe 4, but as I've said this is a ribbon. Even with this it's still basically a ribbon, so it's a difference without a change and I argue violates the self-imposed 'overcomplicate' rule

10. Addresses 1 and 4 I suppose? It still hits the core monk problem of 'do I bonus action punch or bonus action [anything else]?'

11. It makes the capstone considerably more powerful, but not any more interesting. Still, does what TM wants to achieve and doesn't break any of his rules so sure.


So having said all that, changes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 either hit the mark (more or less) or are inoffensive enough to leave alone or only mildly tweak where I think 4 and 9 don't achieve his own stated goals and should be discarded.
However.
All the above doesn't change one problem with monks that I perceive and TM has not identified: Monks are required to choose between their offense and mobility/defence by means of their BA in a manner that other classes aren't, or at least to the same extent. Even if bonus action dodge, disengage, dash, self-healing and invisibility/damage resistance were all cost 0 you still have to weigh it against attacking and potentially stunning another one or two times, significantly cutting into your combat performance in terms of damage and control.

But all this is just my opinion, take it with just as much salt as you grant TreantMonk.

[carkl3000]

I'll be replying to the rest of this thread later, but in the mean time:



You're not even going to justify why you're dismissing my business talking about a part of the game?

What part of the Monk aesthetic is being a fat bag of hp?

Evasion is thematic.

Unarmoured defense that uses Wisdom to reflect technique is thematic.

Being able to use Dex for things other can only use Str for is thematic.

Getting a Con boost like a Barbarian does is just weird and only justifiable by saying the Monk is a martial.

If you're looking for Monks are super healthy and what not, then look at Diamond Soul and the fact they stop aging, being affected by diseases and poisons.

That 'fix' was a lazy rip from another class that pushes his agenda to decouple Monks from Wisdom.

If you don't like something I said, then present an argument against it, instead of writing off my entire opinion and point of view because you don't like one thing, without considering why I said it.

Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.

[Frogreaver]

Have you ever watched a kung fu movie? Ki should not be tied to wisdom OR dexterity. Anything related to Ki or a monk's special abilities should 100% be linked to their constitution.

95% of any good vintage martial arts movie is the hero being beaten in the ribs with a stick, or punching sand, or beating their head against a rock, or kicking a tree, or lifting a red hot iron brazier. 2% is the hero getting his ass beat by the bad guy at the beginning of the movie because he's too weak and 3% is the hero beating the ass of the bad guy at the end of the movie because he learned how to be tough.

To be fair, that toughness is as much mind as it is body. Wisdom represents the Mental aspect of his toughness. I'd argue that the mental aspect of toughness is more important than the physical aspect in those movies. It's not whether their body can take the punishment, it's whether they can train their mind to allow them to do so.