Is Treantmonk's homebrew "fixed" Monk overtuned?

[Unoriginal]

I get that's the baseline game expectation, it's the same in 3.PF as well (even if it is never true at the table). But how well does that hold up in actual play scenarios?

Hard to say, but from what I've seen a solo CR X creature without Legendary Actions or the like being able to handle 2 to 4 rounds of focus fire from a group of X level is not outlandish.

[Sorinth]

Can't say I'm a fan of most of these changes but considering I disagreed with Treantmonk's take on the Monks problems to begin with it's not really surprising.

If you want your Monk to play more like a Fighter then these changes will probably work out well enough for you.

[SharkForce]

Hard to say, but from what I've seen a solo CR X creature without Legendary Actions or the like being able to handle 2 to 4 rounds of focus fire from a group of X level is not outlandish.

so, quick looking, I'm gonna go with 180ish hit points as a decent estimate for "average" CR 11 creature.

no magic items, target is AC 17 ... party is not expending major resources (it's a medium encounter)...

a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric party can reasonably do:

fighter: ((1d10 + 14) * 3 + 1d4 + 14) * 0.40 = 30 damage per round, ignoring criticals, fighting style, and ignoring expending resources for the moment (polearm and GWM)

rogue: (1d6 + 5) * 0.91 + 1d6 * 0.7 + 6d6 * 0.997 = 7.73 + 2.45 + 20.94 = 31.12 damage per round, ignoring criticals and any subclass or other abilities to improve damage (two short swords, advantage on the first attack, only 1 out of 3 rolls needs to land for sneak attack damage to hit)

cleric: 3d8 + 5 * 0.60 = 11.1 (we'll give a saving throw a worse chance to work than attack rolls, but will assume the cleric is getting wisdom to cantrip damage)

wizard: 3d10 * 0.7 = 11.55 (firebolt, no attribute to damage)

so that's 83.77 damage per round.

assuming the fighter makes an optimal damage build, admittedly.

but it also ignores criticals, fighting style for the fighter, only the rogue ever getting advantage, and only on one attack... neither the wizard nor the cleric have even been willing to expend level 2 or 3 spell slots, which are not a major cost at this point (the cleric could easily add spirit weapon or bless, the wizard could throw in a tasha's hideous laughter for potential advantage on attacks for the fighter and rogue as probably the biggest low-cost damage boost)

frankly, I don't think you're going to find a lot of enemies that are going to make it anywhere close to 4 rounds under these conditions, and while I admit that the fighter using a polearm/GWM build is a bit generous on the DPR front... a bog-standard greatsword with appropriate fighting style (and due to not having 2 feats maxed out strength) is only ~2 less damage per round on average. if the rogue can't get advantage on the main hand attack each round, dpr there drops a little bit to around 27.5)

(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).


so personally, I don't see the 2-4 round assumption here. a particularly tough CR 11 monster is only going to last 4 rounds against a 4-person CR 11 party if they're *really* not even trying (probably because it is entirely kitable or something). or I guess maybe if they're all really bad at dealing damage.

now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

[Sorinth]

(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).

...

now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

Monks are a resource using class so I'm not sure it matters that their damage without using resources is poor, just like it doesn't matter that the Wizard/Cleric damage is even worse unless they use resources.


But honestly the simple answer is the monk trades offence for defence. The fighter in your example is weaker defensively then the monk. Now you could build a fighter to maybe be as good or better defensively then the monk (There's more then just AC to consider), but doing that will bring the damage down to be in line with the monk.

[Dr. Cliché]

Random question - do you think Monks should get to choose a Fighting style like Fighters and such?

Not that they need all the fighting styles but there are some (Blind Fighting, Thrown Weapon Fighting etc.) that seem perfectly suited to them.

As it stands, it's slightly odd that Monks suck at throwing darts (since they can't draw them fast enough without the aforementioned fighting style). It's also odd that a Lv1-4 Fighter can be better at fist-fighting than a Lv1-4 Monk. In fact, the Monk needs to be Lv11 before he exceeds the Fighter in fist damage.

[Unoriginal]

so, quick looking, I'm gonna go with 180ish hit points as a decent estimate for "average" CR 11 creature.

no magic items, target is AC 17 ... party is not expending major resources (it's a medium encounter)...

a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric party can reasonably do:

fighter: ((1d10 + 14) * 3 + 1d4 + 14) * 0.40 = 30 damage per round, ignoring criticals, fighting style, and ignoring expending resources for the moment (polearm and GWM)

rogue: (1d6 + 5) * 0.91 + 1d6 * 0.7 + 6d6 * 0.997 = 7.73 + 2.45 + 20.94 = 31.12 damage per round, ignoring criticals and any subclass or other abilities to improve damage (two short swords, advantage on the first attack, only 1 out of 3 rolls needs to land for sneak attack damage to hit)

cleric: 3d8 + 5 * 0.60 = 11.1 (we'll give a saving throw a worse chance to work than attack rolls, but will assume the cleric is getting wisdom to cantrip damage)

wizard: 3d10 * 0.7 = 11.55 (firebolt, no attribute to damage)

so that's 83.77 damage per round.

assuming the fighter makes an optimal damage build, admittedly.

180/83.77= 2.14 rounds. Depending on the initiative order, it means the monster will have between 2 and 3 turns to act before getting killed.

The assumption holds to scrutiny, I'd say.

(incidentally, if I was to put a PHB monk in there, we'd be looking at (3d8 + 15) * 0.7 = 19.95 without spending any resources like the group above... with flurry, it goes up to 26.6 damage, so still below the "not spending any resources" damage of either fighter or rogue in a no-feats no-strategy scenario. are you starting to see why people think monk damage needs a bit of help at higher levels yet?).

How did the Fighter get +14 to damage in a no-feats scenario?

so personally, I don't see the 2-4 round assumption here. a particularly tough CR 11 monster is only going to last 4 rounds against a 4-person CR 11 party if they're *really* not even trying (probably because it is entirely kitable or something). or I guess maybe if they're all really bad at dealing damage.

I mean, solo vs 4 PCs does indeed advantages the PCs a lot. A CR 11 group of enemy has better chances to last that long.

now, yes, a monk *can* increase their damage by stunning, flurrying, etc... but why are we expecting the monk to expend ki on this fight to match the no-resource fighter or rogue? I mean, these aren't exactly high character optimization builds here, and I don't feel like my assumptions are wildly generous.

If you don't mind, let me ask you this, first:

If you took the Fighter, Rogue and Monk vs the monster of your example, with the twist that the attacks were made at disadvantage, how would it modify the situation?

[KorvinStarmast]

The only think I like about Treantmonk's offerings are
1) how his builds in written form walk anyone through how to build a multiclass level by level. That is superior to a lot of the GiTP 'build' offerings that assume a level 20 and build backwards.

2) his (early) emphasis on battlefield control in his spell caster builds. Have not seen any of his stuff lately since I don't need it.

To answer the title question:
Is Treantmonk's homebrew "fixed" Monk overtuned?
It's unnecessary

1. Per Dork_Forge's suggestion, ki points need to be 1 per level + wis modifier.
2. I'd not object to seeing one more ASI at level 10, like a rogue gets.
3. Four Elemental Monk: cut ki cost form 2 to 1 for elemental stuff.

Monk is an enjoyable class, he's offering a fix for what isn't broken. (Beyond 4e being a bit underwhelming)

[Zalabim]

Create a quick monster says ~228 HP and AC 17. Now consider the Roc. That's CR 11, 248 HP, AC 15. With a party of fighter (greatsword FS 3 attacks), rogue (Light crossbow 6d6 sneak attack), cleric (sacred flame +5 wisdom), wizard (firebolt not evoker). If everyone just hits and never has a problem with the creature's 120' flight and Grab+restrain-on-hit talons, they deal 40+30.5+18.5+16.5=105.5 damage. That's 37 damage shy of ending the combat in potentially 2 rounds.

Looking at average damage, it's 31.25+31.08+11.1+13.2=86.63. Ends in 3 rounds, on average, barring an extra 75 average damage.

-----------
Starting at level 1 with the unarmed fighting style, a fighter can punch for 1d8+str, or grapple someone and deal 1d8+str +1d4 automatic damage. If the grapple is held for 3 rounds that's either 4d8+12 (about 20.4) just punching or 3d8+9+3d4 (about 22.8)if the grapple works, or 15.3 if it doesn't). Assuming +5 athletics against +1 for the defender, grapplling works 66% of the time, so about 20.3 damage.

Starting at level 1 with martial arts, a monk can punch for 1d4+dex twice. So over four rounds that's 8d4+24 (about 29.6). If you also want to grapple, and are strict about grapple's special attack not being an attack with an unarmed strike or monk weapon so martial arts doesn't trigger, then assuming +3 athletics against the same +1 for the defender, the monk succeeds 57.25% of the time and still does 22.2 average damage.

[strangebloke]

Monks are a resource using class so I'm not sure it matters that their damage without using resources is poor, just like it doesn't matter that the Wizard/Cleric damage is even worse unless they use resources.


But honestly the simple answer is the monk trades offence for defence. The fighter in your example is weaker defensively then the monk. Now you could build a fighter to maybe be as good or better defensively then the monk (There's more then just AC to consider), but doing that will bring the damage down to be in line with the monk.

Yeah its really telling how people use PAM/GWM fighters and melee rogues who mysteriously have advantage on the first attack to compare against monks who aren't allowed to use any of their 33+ ki points per day on offence. Not saying monks don't need some help but analysis like this is inherently flawed.

also since when was level 11 specifically a reasonable point of comparison?

[KorvinStarmast]

also since when was level 11 specifically a reasonable point of comparison?

It's when most campaigns have already ended or are about to end.

[verbatim]

You know what, I think I actually agree. Why not? Heck, let them wear plate. It would open up Strength monks in a natural way and the AC boost won't last forever.

IDK the most 5e-esque way to word this but i think making AC = 10 + pick 2 (strength, dex, wisdom) would also accomplish this whilst increasing the diversity of viable monk builds.

[Willie the Duck]

Previously, I'd had a discussion with a friend about what class to play if you'd rolled all 18s for your stats. Monk was brought up, and his response was, 'Nope. I understand how this benefits the monk, but for me all 18s would not make a monk playable.' I started to argue, but then realized that he was right -- for a certain type of player, there isn't anything you can give a monk (or ranger, or frontline rogue/bard, or sometimes even non-moon druid), short of giving them a whole other class on top of being a monk, that would make the class fun and useful. It's what they might want in that it is 'the martial artist' class, but it's not what they wanted in a martial artist. A rogue is similar. I have had a lot of players who wanted to play 'a rogue,' but it quickly became clear that they wanted to play a dex-based lightly armored frontline fighting character with some decent skill support, not the careful maneuvering for position and exacting management of regular and bonus-action economy character that the 5e D&D rogue actually is. I think any fix, including this specific one*, runs headlong into this basic issue.
*and I think TM is trying to fix the monk for this type of player, as it is mostly increasing the numbers by X, Y, or Z.

For players who like monks (the class mostly as is, not just the concept of a martial arts themed character**), I think the monk is fundamentally fine, if a bit undertuned and/or having a short list of specific problems. As ProsecutorGodot alludes to, grappling and throwing are very iconic monk concepts that MAD and the 5e game system conspire to make monks bad at. Also that most other SR-recharging martials eventually get to get a small amount of their abilities back if they start an encounter with an empty tank and monks should get that as well (although perhaps instead another re-look at how often the party short rests is the real problem to solve). And, as Talionis points out, the Dex/Con/Wis-dependent Monk has a real problem picking up feats, and it'd be nice to solve that issue. Those are about the only things that IMO ought to be fixed for the player that is already putting the class to good use (as Korvin alludes to).
**and it really is too bad that the monk doesn't serve all players who would like to play the martial artist concept, but twisting it to do so probably won't work, and will alter it for those who are playing it for what it is.

My take is that you could add just two changes to Monk and they're fine:
-Martial Arts allows you to use Dexterity in place of Strength for Grapples and Shoves
-If you have no Ki points, you regain 1 after X amount of time or when you roll initiative, stacks with Perfect Self at 20th level.

Personally I think Monk could use two more ASI to help mitigate being MAD and allow Monks access to more feats.

Monk is an enjoyable class, he's offering a fix for what isn't broken. (Beyond 4e being a bit underwhelming)

[Amechra]

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.

I feel like they should be a core Monk thing, because it's a clean way to give Monks their own "thing" that doesn't overlap with the Fighter or Barbarians. Heck, the fact that they fight with Dexterity kinda points to them being a "precision over power" kinda class.

I personally just really like the "you can buy a damage bump 1/turn → your damage bump also poisons people → your damage bump is free if you're flurrying" progression.

...

To me, one of the annoying parts of the Monk isn't that it's MAD — it's that it's skewed in such an uneven way.

With the Paladin, you want both Charisma and Strength (let's ignore Hexblades for right now). However, you can choose to focus on one stat or the other — you can focus on Strength and Divine Smite, or you can focus on Charisma and bump up your spells and Aura.

With the Monk, every use of Wisdom that the class gives you relies on Dexterity. Stunning Strike? You've got to hit first. Unarmored Defense? Dex+Wis. There are exceptions in some of the subclasses, but pumping up your Dexterity is pretty much always the right choice.

[mr_stibbons]

Previously, I'd had a discussion with a friend about what class to play if you'd rolled all 18s for your stats. Monk was brought up, and his response was, 'Nope. I understand how this benefits the monk, but for me all 18s would not make a monk playable.' I started to argue, but then realized that he was right -- for a certain type of player, there isn't anything you can give a monk (or ranger, or frontline rogue/bard, or sometimes even non-moon druid), short of giving them a whole other class on top of being a monk, that would make the class fun and useful. It's what they might want in that it is 'the martial artist' class, but it's not what they wanted in a martial artist. A rogue is similar. I have had a lot of players who wanted to play 'a rogue,' but it quickly became clear that they wanted to play a dex-based lightly armored frontline fighting character with some decent skill support, not the careful maneuvering for position and exacting management of regular and bonus-action economy character that the 5e D&D rogue actually is. I think any fix, including this specific one*, runs headlong into this basic issue.
*and I think TM is trying to fix the monk for this type of player, as it is mostly increasing the numbers by X, Y, or Z.

For players who like monks (the class mostly as is, not just the concept of a martial arts themed character**), I think the monk is fundamentally fine, if a bit undertuned and/or having a short list of specific problems. As ProsecutorGodot alludes to, grappling and throwing are very iconic monk concepts that MAD and the 5e game system conspire to make monks bad at. Also that most other SR-recharging martials eventually get to get a small amount of their abilities back if they start an encounter with an empty tank and monks should get that as well (although perhaps instead another re-look at how often the party short rests is the real problem to solve). And, as Talionis points out, the Dex/Con/Wis-dependent Monk has a real problem picking up feats, and it'd be nice to solve that issue. Those are about the only things that IMO ought to be fixed for the player that is already putting the class to good use (as Korvin alludes to).
**and it really is too bad that the monk doesn't serve all players who would like to play the martial artist concept, but twisting it to do so probably won't work, and will alter it for those who are playing it for what it is.

I think this does speak to some of the hidden issues with the monk-the class is advertised as every martial arts fantasy you could want to have, but tries to cram that in to a single linear progression. You're only real choice with the class is your subclass, you don't really get to pick your weapon in the base class, just do you want to do piercing damage, bludgeoning damage or do less damage for no good reason. But the fantasy of the martial artist isn't that narrow. People are not wrong for wanting a monk who can stand on the frontline and rely on their evasion to survive, that's a some pretty common imagery of martial artists in fiction. Their should be ways to build the class in that way, or to be a masterful grappler, or to hit and run, or to be a high risk, high reward damage dealer. One of the other common threads of martial arts fiction is that everyone has their idiosyncratic martial arts style that makes them fight differently. Embrace that (and no, the subclasses don't work for this, because all but two subclasses are different flavours of obviously supernatural effects, and Open hand still treads real close to being supernatural at high levels. You are choosing which flavour of supernatural you are, with drunken master as a "not obviously supernatural" option. This is not a problem, but it leaves room for more differentiation of monks based on their mundane fighting styles.)

It's not like this class is recommended for new players anyway, so rather than throwing everything into a linear progression, cut some of the feature bloat and give them some more options to select.

[SharkForce]

180/83.77= 2.14 rounds. Depending on the initiative order, it means the monster will have between 2 and 3 turns to act before getting killed.

The assumption holds to scrutiny, I'd say.



How did the Fighter get +14 to damage in a no-feats scenario?



I mean, solo vs 4 PCs does indeed advantages the PCs a lot. A CR 11 group of enemy has better chances to last that long.



If you don't mind, let me ask you this, first:

If you took the Fighter, Rogue and Monk vs the monster of your example, with the twist that the attacks were made at disadvantage, how would it modify the situation?

- no, it means the monster will last 2.14 rounds assuming the party pretty much does nothing more than "I attack" and "I cast a cantrip". no spells, no action surge, no superiority dice (assuming the fighter has them), no crits, no subclass abilities other than the cleric's ability to add wisdom mod to cantrip damage. in my experience, that is not a reasonable assumption; people won't want to use *all* their resources, and shouldn't be blowing their highest level spell slots or all of their abilities, but they'll probably be spending *something*.

- they didn't get +14 to damage without feats. as I already told you in that post (if you had bothered paying any attention), the no-feats fighter with a greatsword and great weapon fighting style is only 2 points behind on average damage per round. 30 -2 = 28, which is still ahead of the monk (19.95 with no ki, 26.6 with ki), no feats required.

- the claim that you made was that a CR X creature will survive focus fire from the entire party for up to 4 rounds. this was a test to see if that claim holds up. if you think that the premise is bogus, then don't make it in the first place.

- first off, I'm unclear why it should matter what the situation would be if all their attacks were at disadvantage that is certainly not a remotely plausible standard scenario in my experience. secondly, quite frankly... do the math yourself. I'm not your lackey. it's *your* claim, *you* defend it.

regarding other points:

- if monks are a resource-using class, then why is their resource-using damage also still worse than the fighter and the rogue using no resources and barely any strategy? again, 27.5 (rogue, no advantage), 28 (fighter, no feats), 26.6 (monk using flurry of blows to desperately try to keep up). I mean, you'd think that at *least* when they spend resources they'd be looking good, so why aren't they?

- *is* the level 11 fighter that much weaker on defence than the level 11 monk? what makes you say that? the monk would have had 2 ASIs, giving AC 18 assuming they started at dex and wis 16 and put both ASIs into one of those. the fighter can wear platemail which is also AC 18. the fighter also can reroll one save per long rest, has an extra ASI to put towards defence if they want, and can recover 1d10+11 HP every short rest, as a separate resource that they don't need to spend just to meet a baseline towards being a functioning fighter, and while I've said that the d10 vs d8 hit die isn't a major difference, it is still a difference giving the fighter an additional 12 hit points on top of that. furthermore, the fighter doesn't have 2 critically important attributes which means they can afford to have a 16 con while the monk quite possibly had to settle for 14 con. at this point, the only way the monk is defensively stronger is if they're spending resources on patient defense, in which case their damage does indeed plummet... to around 13.3 damage, which to my eye is alarmingly close to "wizard casting firebolt". or I suppose if they are exclusively fighting enemies that force dex saves.

- one person getting advantage on one attack once per round is not that hard to pull off. it isn't particularly unrealistic at all. furthermore, if the wizard and cleric are being compared with no spells, why would we compare the monk that is spending resources to them? but sure, if you want the cleric to have an extra 1d8 + 5 damage on every round and the target to be prone and incapacitated around half the time, you can go ahead and compare your monk with ki expenditures. of course, you might ALSO find that I already DID include ki into the monk's 26.6 damage, and that the result was frankly pretty unsatisfying, leaving the monk *still* behind both the fighter and the rogue even if they aren't expending *any* resources and without getting advantage on *any* attacks.

- I used level 11 because that seemed to be the most recent comparison point people were using. a bit arbitrary, but not particularly more or less arbitrary than other levels.

[stoutstien]

The issue with the monk is their relative power scale in directly tied to how challenging the adventuring day is. Note I said challenge not deadly though monks do fine there as well.

If players can readily expect to grab 1 or 2 of the "big" feats and never have issues targeting or moving around the environment then of course the monk is going to seem anemic. It's a class full of counter tactics to allow them to always be where they want doing what the want but if that's not a problem half their kit goes unused.
Sure they do a little less damage than some others but they also rarely do 0 which is often the case with classes that lack tools if their only good option isn't valid.

[Zalabim]

- first off, I'm unclear why it should matter what the situation would be if all their attacks were at disadvantage that is certainly not a remotely plausible standard scenario in my experience. secondly, quite frankly... do the math yourself. I'm not your lackey. it's *your* claim, *you* defend it.

regarding other points:

- if monks are a resource-using class, then why is their resource-using damage also still worse than the fighter and the rogue using no resources and barely any strategy? again, 27.5 (rogue, no advantage), 28 (fighter, no feats), 26.6 (monk using flurry of blows to desperately try to keep up). I mean, you'd think that at *least* when they spend resources they'd be looking good, so why aren't they?

- one person getting advantage on one attack once per round is not that hard to pull off. it isn't particularly unrealistic at all. furthermore, if the wizard and cleric are being compared with no spells, why would we compare the monk that is spending resources to them? but sure, if you want the cleric to have an extra 1d8 + 5 damage on every round and the target to be prone and incapacitated around half the time, you can go ahead and compare your monk with ki expenditures. of course, you might ALSO find that I already DID include ki into the monk's 26.6 damage, and that the result was frankly pretty unsatisfying, leaving the monk *still* behind both the fighter and the rogue even if they aren't expending *any* resources and without getting advantage on *any* attacks.

- I used level 11 because that seemed to be the most recent comparison point people were using. a bit arbitrary, but not particularly more or less arbitrary than other levels.

Your quick CR 11 defenses example is missing about 20% of the HP that an actual quick CR 11 suggests, which is AC 17 and 228 HP. It then also has no other effective defenses or complications to the fight like every actual CR 11 that has less than the average defense. So that's why "what if the attacks were at disadvantage." It means, "what if the enemy wasn't a half-dead punching bag?" The Roc actually has a defensive CR of 11 (more HP, less AC), and still restrains victims with its talons and has enough flight speed to be a complication. While you did not include crits or fighting style, the fighter's fighting style could just as well be "defensive" and you actually added an extra 5% to every character's accuracy, slightly overshooting the value of critical hits. The roc in my example would well be described as lasting between 2 and 4 rounds in actual play, assuming someone comes up with a way for everyone to actually fight the thing.

A monk with 11 ki, 33 ki over the course of the day, using 2 or 3 ki in 1 out of 5.8333 of a full day's encounter XP, is not "using resources." That monk could also get extra hits with focused aim or try to stun to help the whole party or have a subclass ability that applies. As the monk meets the fighter's AC and has a lot of other abilities besides, the fighter should be dealing more damage than the monk. The rogue has limitations imposed by sneak attack and lower AC.

As I did do the math myself, I can add that a monk against a roc does 29.4 DPR with flurry and can try to stun even though there's only a 25% chance the roc fails its save. If it does work, the monk's next 6 or 7 attacks get advantage, the fighter and wizard get advantage, the cleric lands sacred flame automatically, and the rogue doesn't care because they already had their own advantage. The monk averages 1.995 more damage with each attack, the fighter's turn 8.6875, the wizard's turn 3.8775, and the cleric's turn 7.4. Figure between 32-33 extra average damage if the stun works, working 25% of the time, so about 8 more damage for the whole party. Giving only the monk's personal damage, and only 25% the time, still sees a personal average DPR around 32.5, for a very affordable use of Ki. A roc isn't the worst enemy for stunning strike, but it is a bad one.

Level 11 is fine, without even counting the later subclasses that get free bonus damage at that level.

[Rynjin]

Why would you assume a CR 11 creature has 228 HP? All of the CR 11 creatures I can find:

Behir: 168
Djinni: 161
Efreeti: 200
Gynosphinx: 136
Horned Devil: 148
Remorhaz: 195
Roc: 248

The trend seems to be toward between 150 and 170 HP. The mean HP is 179, which we'll round to 180 for convenience.

Where is 228 being pulled from?

[Zalabim]

Why would you assume a CR 11 creature has 228 HP? All of the CR 11 creatures I can find:

Behir: 168
Djinni: 161
Efreeti: 200
Gynosphinx: 136
Horned Devil: 148
Remorhaz: 195
Roc: 248

The trend seems to be toward between 150 and 170 HP. The mean HP is 179, which we'll round to 180 for convenience.

Where is 228 being pulled from?

The Dungeon Master's Guide. I know it's a rare sourcebook that not everyone has access to.

[Rynjin]

The Dungeon Master's Guide. I know it's a rare sourcebook that not everyone has access to.

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

IIRC, those are the effective numbers. A monster with a (defensive) CR of 11 with the appropriate AC should have that much hp, assuming that they have no other defensive abilities, each of which would raise their effective defensive CR and lower the hit point limit.

[Dork_Forge]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

Is there ANY monster that has between 221 and 235 HP at CR 11? Now I'm curious.

It's a formula, not a straight hp number, but yes monsters with hp in that narrow range do exist at CR 11:

- The Hungry (225)

- Marid (229)

- Animated Statue of Lolth (230)

The creating monster guidelines are a give and take of different factors, if you're unfamiliar then I recommend reading through them. That said one can hardly be judged harshly for using the edition's DMG as a standard to go by.

[Rynjin]

It's a formula, not a straight hp number, but yes monsters with hp in that narrow range do exist at CR 11:

- The Hungry (225)

- Marid (229)

- Animated Statue of Lolth (230)

Ah, cool. Because I had just gotten done looking through Volo's Guide and had found zero matches so far, combined with the Monster Manual entries above.

So exactly 3 monsters out of I'm guessing 20 or so.

Edit: it's not a matter of "judging harshly", but monster creation guidelines have always been super wack, and I'm more interested in like real use scenarios, where it looks like HP in the 180 to at most 200 range is BY FAR the most common.

[Dork_Forge]

Ah, cool. Because I had just gotten done looking through Volo's Guide and had found zero matches so far, combined with the Monster Manual entries above.

So exactly 3 monsters out of I'm guessing 20 or so.

Edit: it's not a matter of "judging harshly", but monster creation guidelines have always been super wack, and I'm more interested in like real use scenarios, where it looks like HP in the 180 to at most 200 range is BY FAR the most common.

If you want to use straight hp numbers, then for them to be meaningful you need to consider why they are what they are, and quantifying non AC/HP defenses is difficult and not something people using white room numbers like to attempt.


Which is, as pointed out by multiple people I'm sure, but I think recently Stoutstein, when you do nothing but look at damage numbers you ignore the value of a lot of the Monk's kit in actual play.

[Rynjin]

If you want to use straight hp numbers, then for them to be meaningful you need to consider why they are what they are, and quantifying non AC/HP defenses is difficult and not something people using white room numbers like to attempt.


Which is, as pointed out by multiple people I'm sure, but I think recently Stoutstein, when you do nothing but look at damage numbers you ignore the value of a lot of the Monk's kit in actual play.

Well, just going by the Monster Manual ones since those are easiest:

Behir: AC 17, no (relevant) special defenses.
Djinni: AC 17, arguable special defense (fast flight), but no damage reduction capability.
Efreeti: same as above but more HP.
Gynosphinx: AC 17 DR/magic, but not relevant at level 11 due to Ki Strike
Horned Devil: AC 18, absolutely obliterates Monk's damage due to DR/Silver because Ki Strike doesn't scale in 5e for some reason
Remorhaz: no relevant special defenses (though does do retaliatory damage)
Roc: AC 15, no relevant special defenses

Out of 7 monsters in Core, 3 monsters have no special defenses, 3 have arguable special defenses which apply to all melee attackers equally, and one has defenses which unequivocally advantage a weapon user.

[Tanarii]

How did this end up being about solo creatures again? 5 CR 3s have the same difficulty as 1 CR 11. By DMG guidelines that'd be around 500 hps. Admittedly CR 3s usually don't have defensive CR3 and offensive CR3, but neither do CR11. Point is still that the same difficulty encounter with more than one creature, and especially a far more reasonable 3-6 creatures, could easily result in double the hit points to deal with. Which is of course where AoEs start to shine. Clearly we should be talking about why the elemental monk is the best.

[Thunderous Mojo]

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.

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.

This is akin to saying that any Semi Truck that can haul three tractor trailers is a failure unless the Semi Truck can also match the top speed of a McLaren Speedtail.

People, reasonable people, in everyday life, understand that a Minivan and Sportscar are separate classes of cars and have different performance numbers.

Monks and Warlocks are entirely separate classes, yet persons, (the same old persons),...want separate classes to all perform the same.

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

That is precisely the point, by second level, a Warlock can by selecting a single Cantrip, a Single Spell, and a Single Invocation have an attack routine that deals effective damage in all 4 Tiers.

This Warlock strategy is so effective, that some people can not ignore 'The Good' of the combo and not play it....hence the perpetual churn of "Warlock choice X should be an Automatic class feature, not a CHOICE/TAX" Threads.

If the Fighter's Archery Fighting Style in addition to the Accuracy Boost, also gave a damage boost at 2nd level, and an additional Extra Attack at 17th level....that would be more comparable to the easy Ramp up DPR of Eldritch Blast.

My observation is the folks that don't like monks, tend to describe their games as "7th level being High Level play", PCs tend to focus Exclusively on either Ranged or Melee combat, and not on being able to be effective at both combat modes, the monk PCs are often described as being under-equipped, and the play seems to take place primarily in Flatland Style two dimensional dungeons.

[SharkForce]

a theoretical CR 11 monster can have whatever HP you want to imagine it has.

an *actual* for-real published CR 11 monster rarely has the amount of HP you're proposing. seeing as how WotC's guidelines can be extremely sketchy at times and they almost never follow them, what kind of idiot would I be if I just followed them blindly myself?

yes, the occasional CR 11 enemy has AC 17 and 230 HP. most of them have significantly less (in a few cases, a LOT less... I think I saw one with around 140 HP, although that was also an outlier I presume).

and practically speaking, against a roc I have serious doubts that the monk is going be averaging nearly 30 points of damage on low-resource mode, considering that requires ranged attacks which the monk is only getting 2 of without spending ki, and with ki you're generally looking at only 3, which will still put it at around 21-22 DPR (assuming that particular monk actually *has* a suitable ranged weapon of some variety, which in my experience is usually not the case).

you are right of course that I accidentally gave an extra 5% to hit, but seeing as I gave it to everyone equally, I frankly couldn't care less. the ratio stands.

a typical CR 11 monster might last 3 rounds against a fairly standard level 11 party that simply does not even care enough to do much of anything in terms of strategy or resource expenditure. more likely it will be less.

unless of course one of them is a monk that can only keep up with consistent damage-dealers by spending resources, which in turn generally means not having much ki for other stuff, to bring this all back into the main subject of this thread.

monks genuinely need a boost. whether the changes TM proposes are the exact boost that they should get, well, maybe not, I don't know. frankly, while I like a few of them several of them aren't really my preferred solution. but monks are not getting a boost into the stratosphere with these changes, they're getting a boost into being able to contribute as much as someone else who fills a similar role.

[Foolwise]

Horned Devil: AC 18, absolutely obliterates Monk's damage due to DR/Silver because Ki Strike doesn't scale in 5e for some reason

Not seeing your reasoning here. A monk's unarmed strikes are magical with Ki-Empowered Strikes. The strikes overcome the Horned Devil's DR because they are now magical for that very reason. Saying otherwise would be the same as telling a player the devil resisted their Flametongue's damage because the blade wasn't silvered.

[Kane0]

So, just to be clear, you're using monster creation guidelines that seemingly nothing in the bestiary actually follows?

The MM largely missed the memo I think. That or they deliberately went under the mark to play it safe.