You are both saying things that I agree with: you have options, and you have teammates. I’m just saying that having one Charisma skill would be pretty nice for most Monks, especially the archetypes like Shadow, Astral Self, and eventually Ascendant Dragon that have abilities/playstyles that either put you in an impromptu situation where YOU specifically need to make a sudden check, such as a caught Shadow Monk needing to convince people they are actually a guard, or have an ability that triggers off of the Monk being the one making the Charisma check.
By building your own background you can easily get deception/and or persuasion. Many races also gives you at least one of those skills. And as mentioned, if you are trying to convince people you are a guard you should probably be dressed as one. Which should, depending on the situation, give some kind of advantage or bonus to the appropriate roll. You don't need proficiency in disguise kit to dress up in a guard's uniform. :)
You technically don't, you're right, but if you want to take advantage of the Skills and Tools Together from Xanathar's, you need proficiency in the tool you're using.
A uniform isn't a tool and doesn't require proficiency. Using a disguise kit is more about altering the appearance of the person rather than say, dressing up. So you can't use a uniform as a disguise kit and vice versa. You can still try to fool someone that you are a guard but you wouldn't get any help a disguise kit if you also used one of those unless you had proficiency in DG, no.
But in this case the uniform isn't a tool but something that just facilitates the deception. Depending on the situation I might allow it to convey some sort of bonus (anything from a lower DC to advantage on the roll) but on the other hand it might also be a hindrance if you don't know how to act like a guard or if you come across the guard captain who knows all their personel.
No. What wearing a Guard Uniform, and acting something like a guard does. What that does is actually lower the DC. Not add advantage onto it. If your looking and acting completely unlike a guard while trying to convince somebody you are one then you have a much harder difficulty. That's the point of difficulty to begin with. How hard it is to pull off what your trying to do.
Well, that's completely up to the DM. Which is my example is me. :)
What the disguise kit can do is to actually add further details to make you look like a guard other than just a uniform. Because Guards often aren't just a uniform. They may have various other details, even down to particular race, in common or you may need to make yourself look as best like somebody else as you can to help pull t off. Which is where the Disguise Kit may come into play to help you pull off the disguise through the tool proficiency and skill combination.
Yeah, no-one ever said it didn't. I just pointed out the difference between wearing a uniform as a disguise and using a disguise kit.
Two points:
The rules I mentioned above are meant to create a deeper and richer experience, but since it's optional it does not have to be implemented during a game.
It's also a rule that makes tools mechanically useful, so if you're going to ignore the rules then you're deliberately creating a shallow experience; whether you mean to or not.
You are both saying things that I agree with: you have options, and you have teammates. I’m just saying that having one Charisma skill would be pretty nice for most Monks, especially the archetypes like Shadow, Astral Self, and eventually Ascendant Dragon that have abilities/playstyles that either put you in an impromptu situation where YOU specifically need to make a sudden check, such as a caught Shadow Monk needing to convince people they are actually a guard, or have an ability that triggers off of the Monk being the one making the Charisma check.
By building your own background you can easily get deception/and or persuasion. Many races also gives you at least one of those skills. And as mentioned, if you are trying to convince people you are a guard you should probably be dressed as one. Which should, depending on the situation, give some kind of advantage or bonus to the appropriate roll. You don't need proficiency in disguise kit to dress up in a guard's uniform. :)
You technically don't, you're right, but if you want to take advantage of the Skills and Tools Together from Xanathar's, you need proficiency in the tool you're using.
A uniform isn't a tool and doesn't require proficiency. Using a disguise kit is more about altering the appearance of the person rather than say, dressing up. So you can't use a uniform as a disguise kit and vice versa. You can still try to fool someone that you are a guard but you wouldn't get any help a disguise kit if you also used one of those unless you had proficiency in DG, no.
But in this case the uniform isn't a tool but something that just facilitates the deception. Depending on the situation I might allow it to convey some sort of bonus (anything from a lower DC to advantage on the roll) but on the other hand it might also be a hindrance if you don't know how to act like a guard or if you come across the guard captain who knows all their personel.
No. What wearing a Guard Uniform, and acting something like a guard does. What that does is actually lower the DC. Not add advantage onto it. If your looking and acting completely unlike a guard while trying to convince somebody you are one then you have a much harder difficulty. That's the point of difficulty to begin with. How hard it is to pull off what your trying to do.
Well, that's completely up to the DM. Which is my example is me. :)
What the disguise kit can do is to actually add further details to make you look like a guard other than just a uniform. Because Guards often aren't just a uniform. They may have various other details, even down to particular race, in common or you may need to make yourself look as best like somebody else as you can to help pull t off. Which is where the Disguise Kit may come into play to help you pull off the disguise through the tool proficiency and skill combination.
Yeah, no-one ever said it didn't. I just pointed out the difference between wearing a uniform as a disguise and using a disguise kit.
Two points:
The rules I mentioned above are meant to create a deeper and richer experience, but since it's optional it does not have to be implemented during a game.
It's also a rule that makes tools mechanically useful, so if you're going to ignore the rules then you're deliberately creating a shallow experience; whether you mean to or not.
[REDACTED]
What makes you think that anyone reading this thread doesn't already know everything you just said? Or that anyone is "ignoring the rules"?
[REDACTED] Just because there are people that play the game differently from you doesn't mean that they're doing it wrong and it certainly doesn't mean that their games are shallow.
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
There is also a lot of faults on basing it on Treant Monks Little Diatribe. I want to draw your attention to something. Treant is so hooked on over powered stuff and power levels way higher than the balance of 5e that he sees a CR 9 as the proper threat for level 5 characters. Characters reaching the primary Tier 2 milestone, he feels it is appropriate that they be challenged by what is almost a Tier 3 creature. This is what should effectively be considered a Deadly Encounter. Which basically means that there is Good Potential for 1 or more characters may outright die in this encounter. But he thinks that should be your normal average enemy. This is not going to be the average threat for most games.
That alone should tell you that perhaps his analysis is flawed even if you wish to ignore things like special extreme circumstances that he uses to try and do things like mitigate the impact of the Monks Movement abilities. Because here's the reality. His niche, extreme circumstance of a horse? For as much as he says that it outdoes a monk. It actually outdoes things like a Rogue by even more. Another class that is considered highly mobile. And it's still a flawed comparison because the Monk can still ride a Horse on top of everything that they do. It also costs them less resources in general due to things like Dismounts and such than it does for most other classes. it actually takes particular subclass specific builds to do better. But he's not telling you any of that in his analysis. He's pretending it's just a Monk Problem.
Concerning horses and the monk's mobility I have to agree, their mobility is incredible. Even if other characters use horses readily I think a good DM would make sure a horse aren't always advantageous.
But when it comes to how he compares different classes, if he can make other classes face CR 9 creatures, but he can't do the same with monk, isn't that a good indicator monks aren't that strong?
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
Well, yeah. Other classes can surpass the Monk when it comes to pure damage dealing, but that's because the Monk have things they don't. And if you attack using GWM at level 1 you'll only have a to hit chance of about 30% (assuming a standard Strength modifier of +3 and an average AC of 15) which will be detrimental to your average damage output.
If your Human Fighter takes PAM at level 4 they will only have a about a +1 to hit if they attack using GWM, which , at level 5, is bad.
But do you feel that the Monk lacks something in general that needs to be compensated with a higher damage output?
To answer your last question first I really don't think giving monks more ki-points would break them. Or let them use certain abilities without spending any ki.
Considering your first point fighting an enemy with 15 ac seems like a lot to me at this level. From my personal experience enemies it's usually around 11-13 at this point?
Of course, you shouldn't always be using GMW, but if you use it tactically, find out roughly what the enemy's AC is, and find ways to gain advantage (like the battlemaster's trip attack). If you do all that you can outdamage the monk by a lot like I already pointed out.
To answer your last question first I really don't think giving monks more ki-points would break them. Or let them use certain abilities without spending any ki.
Not saying it would break them, but do they need it? If so, why?
Considering your first point fighting an enemy with 15 ac seems like a lot to me at this level. From my personal experience enemies it's usually around 11-13 at this point?
Probably. The example was just to illustrate the point. And the point still stands. If you use GWM, especially when your Strength and PB both are low, you run the risk of missing more often which means that you damage average will be lower.
Of course, you shouldn't always be using GMW, but if you use it tactically, find out roughly what the enemy's AC is, and find ways to gain advantage (like the battlemaster's trip attack). If you do all that you can outdamage the monk by a lot like I already pointed out.
But if you don't use the GWM then you can't add the GWM damage to the average so then your math doesn't work out. But yes, Fighters can, and should outdamage monks. At lower levels the difference isn't really that big, though.
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
I have a few issues with this. First and foremost, you're including a feat and weapon combination that monks cannot effectively make use of. Second, what you just described is next to impossible to pull off. Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack requires a critical hit, so you're already shortchanging the damage. And because of the -5 penalty to attack, they're effectively rolling a 5% chance of even dealing that damage. To sum up, there's a lot of faulty math here. And, whether you mean to or not, it presents a disingenuous argument.
All things being equal, the monk will do comparable damage to the fighter at those early levels. A monk, armed with a quarterstaff or spear will deal just as much damage as a fighter with two scimitars or shortswords and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. The monk will actually outperform a fighter armed with a greatsword or maul. And that's okay. Damage isn't everything. The fighter will, likely, have more hit points and, if they choose Strength over Dexterity, a higher AC. Even an archer fighter will have the advantage of increased range (via a longbow) and a higher attack modifier.
Both classes have some fantastic tools at their disposal. It's not a competition, so please don't treat it as such.
What makes you think that anyone reading this thread doesn't already know everything you just said? Or that anyone is "ignoring the rules"?
Okay, let's try this again.
Everyone wants to think they know the rules. And, most of the time, they do. But we're all human, and we can all make mistakes. Sometimes, it's helpful to remind people in case they forgot or missed something. For example, on the previous page, you made what I see as an erroneous claim. The only playable race that can grant proficiency with either Deception or Persuasion is Changeling. It's possible to create a character with one of those skills via a Custom Lineage or swap a race's normally prescribed skill proficiency with another. But these are optional rules found in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything; they're not standard. And, again, we all err so that's okay. We shouldn't be holding these things against one another. They're learning opportunities.
Custom backgrounds are a thing players can do; if that's what their DM decides to allow. And they can always just make sure one of their background skills is something they're already proficient in so they can pick any other skill they want.
Rules, even optional ones, add mechanical depth. You can still have a rich experience without them. You don't have to play with feats, but they're fun. And if you prefer pulpier games where PCs can just knock out guards, take their uniforms, and they always fit perfectly, then fine. But that is a tone which needs to be established early on in a campaign, ideally during a session zero, and it's not universal.
It's far more constructive to communicate these things to us, the people you're ostensibly having a discussion with, rather than be dismissive of our feedback. Because if you're not going to engage, then why are you here?
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
I have a few issues with this. First and foremost, you're including a feat and weapon combination that monks cannot effectively make use of. Second, what you just described is next to impossible to pull off. Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack requires a critical hit, so you're already shortchanging the damage. And because of the -5 penalty to attack, they're effectively rolling a 5% chance of even dealing that damage. To sum up, there's a lot of faulty math here. And, whether you mean to or not, it presents a disingenuous argument.
All things being equal, the monk will do comparable damage to the fighter at those early levels. A monk, armed with a quarterstaff or spear will deal just as much damage as a fighter with two scimitars or shortswords and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. The monk will actually outperform a fighter armed with a greatsword or maul. And that's okay. Damage isn't everything. The fighter will, likely, have more hit points and, if they choose Strength over Dexterity, a higher AC. Even an archer fighter will have the advantage of increased range (via a longbow) and a higher attack modifier.
Both classes have some fantastic tools at their disposal. It's not a competition, so please don't treat it as such.
Actually.. My math is on point here. In my example here I am using a glaive, and using pole arm master for the bonus attack. With Polearm master you can use your bonus action to attack with the butt of the weapon, but using a d4 instead of a d10 for damage, and I accounted for this discrepancy when I calculated the average damage.
What I did in my example was to first use a trip attack, and assuming the target is tripped follow up with 2 attacks using the -5 attack penalty (One as the second attack of my attack action, and one as a bonus action). Because I have advantage because the target is proned, the -5 is not that big of a deal. I then took 2 more attacks with the -5 penalty using action surge, both also with advantage.
This is a potential round for a fighter at level 5, I don't know if you'd count that as early levels or not.
The reason I am using a weapon monks can't use is because I am trying to compare the average damage potential of the two classes.
For comparison the average damage output for a monk, assuming all attacks land (and none crit) is the following:
4(1d6+4)=30, for a kensei it could be: 2(1d10+4)+2(1d6+4)=19,5+15=34,5
What I am trying to show here is that monks aren't outperforming other classes in damage at all if the players of the other classes know what they are doing.
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
I have a few issues with this. First and foremost, you're including a feat and weapon combination that monks cannot effectively make use of. Second, what you just described is next to impossible to pull off. Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack requires a critical hit, so you're already shortchanging the damage. And because of the -5 penalty to attack, they're effectively rolling a 5% chance of even dealing that damage. To sum up, there's a lot of faulty math here. And, whether you mean to or not, it presents a disingenuous argument.
All things being equal, the monk will do comparable damage to the fighter at those early levels. A monk, armed with a quarterstaff or spear will deal just as much damage as a fighter with two scimitars or shortswords and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. The monk will actually outperform a fighter armed with a greatsword or maul. And that's okay. Damage isn't everything. The fighter will, likely, have more hit points and, if they choose Strength over Dexterity, a higher AC. Even an archer fighter will have the advantage of increased range (via a longbow) and a higher attack modifier.
Both classes have some fantastic tools at their disposal. It's not a competition, so please don't treat it as such.
Actually.. My math is on point here. In my example here I am using a glaive, and using pole arm master for the bonus attack. With Polearm master you can use your bonus action to attack with the butt of the weapon, but using a d4 instead of a d10 for damage, and I accounted for this discrepancy when I calculated the average damage.
What I did in my example was to first use a trip attack, and assuming the target is tripped follow up with 2 attacks using the -5 attack penalty (One as the second attack of my attack action, and one as a bonus action). Because I have advantage because the target is proned, the -5 is not that big of a deal. I then took 2 more attacks with the -5 penalty using action surge, both also with advantage.
This is a potential round for a fighter at level 5, I don't know if you'd count that as early levels or not.
The reason I am using a weapon monks can't use is because I am trying to compare the average damage potential of the two classes.
For comparison the average damage output for a monk, assuming all attacks land (and none crit) is the following:
4(1d6+4)=30, for a kensei it could be: 2(1d10+4)+2(1d6+4)=19,5+15=34,5
What I am trying to show here is that monks aren't outperforming other classes in damage at all if the players of the other classes know what they are doing.
Okay...
You still had to make at least a 5th-level character (Tier 2, so not "early") with an archetype to pull this off. And they still have a...18-19 Strength modifier, or else a magic weapon you're not expressly accounting for. And you aren't giving any such considerations to the monk. Yes, it's cute you included the Way of the Kensei. Except, with Tasha's, that's no longer essential.
So let's level the playing field. For the sake of argument, your fighter has a 16-17 Strength, for a +3 modifier. The +1 glaive or halberd isn't something you'd find in an official adventure, but this can be a custom game. And we'll use the same standard array for the monk.
They can hit for 19 (2d8+10) + 7 (1d6+4) for an average of 26 damage/round. That's respectable for using their ASI to boost their attack stat. And if their race is already proficient with a battleaxe, longsword, or warhammer, then they can increase that to 28 damage/round. They can also use Stunning Strike to grant advantage and prevent the enemy from attacking at all. So, just taking away the GWM feat, the monk is on par. And while the damage potential isn't as high because of the feat, you're assuming every attack hits. That might work for monster CR, and I've relied on it myself for some quick comparisons, but it's not an accurate representation. We both know this.
And, once again, dealing damage isn't everything. You treat the fighter as if they need to do everything themself and that's just not the case. No character is an island.
White room theorycrafting is a fallacy.
And I still don't know what point you're trying to make here. This was a fun little diversion, but it's also wildly off-topic.
I was using a +3 modifier for my comparison, using a variant human to get both great weapon master and polearm master by level 5 (you'll have gotten them both by level 4). Neither was I using a magic weapon in my calculations for either the monk or the fighter. A glaive has 1d10 damage btw.
The reason I am not considering the composition of your party is because at that point you're considering party compositions, not the classes by themselves. Also, being less reliant on your teammates for damage is undeniably advantageous, your teammates might be forced to do other things than setting you up for max damage.
If we account for some attacks missing, well statistically you're more likely to hit on 2 attacks than 4, as the more rolls you make the greater the probability for one of them being bad.
It's true the monk might land a stunning strike, but they won't be able to capitalize on it to the same extent a gmw user might.
Okay, let's set the record straight on feats. They are a significant boost in power. They don't just give characters more options, but they can significantly amplify their existing options. So, if the justification for why you think X class is better than Y class is because X can use feats that Y cannot then there isn't a conversation to be had. Whatever balance might exist between the classes (and they're deliberately asymmetrical) is defenestrated by feats. Any discussion needs to recognize this simple, immutable fact. And that means either cutting feats out of the equation completely; or else bending over backward to be as favorable as possible to everyone.
The fighter does only one thing really well, and that's kill stuff. It has more potential attacks and ASIs than anyone else; the latter of which translates to higher ability scores and accumulating more feats. The monk, conversely, is a versatile skirmisher that can deal not-insignificant damage, control the battlefield, and even "tank" under the right circumstances. The monk does a little bit of everything. It's honestly kind of impressive.
Knocking enemies prone is cute, but anyone can do it. Leaving an enemy stunned until the end of their next turn, stripping away their ability to move and act, and leaving them in a far more vulnerable position is just better. Every attack or spell stopped by Stunning Strike is a credit to the monk; saving the party resources later on. No fighter can do that. AThe monk's melee damage might be less than the fighter's. So what? Because all I'm getting from you is that Treantmonk can't break the game with a monk the way he can with some other classes. And, honestly, that's a good thing. He shouldn't be trying to break the game. I take it as a testament to how well the monk is made that he can't mess with it.
You might think that fighter is more self-sufficient and helping the party by freeing everyone else up to focus on other things, they're not actually working with the group. It's more of a, "Guys, I got this, go play over there," kind of schtick. And that's just...no, man, no.
Feats aren't a significant boost in power, not for monks. Monks relies on abilities for AC and their dc for stunning strikes, taking a feat is often a detriment to their power, not increasing their dexterity at 4 means forgoing +1 to attack, damage and AC. Fighters on the other hand are only skipping +1 to hit and damage, which is still significant but not as detrimental as their AC is more tied to gear, and few of the archetypes rely on a second attribute for their abilities, allowing them to start with a higher con than monks. Point is they can take feats for other benefits monks have to pay a higher price for. If your goal is to compare the potential damage of different classes, how can you not count feats?
I chose fighter as a comparison because of how basic they are. You can make a similar comparison to barbarian or paladin with similar results. In fact, you'll get the most damage from a fighter by multiclassing into barbarian for reckless attack, which will give you advantage on every attack (but also lower your survivability, admittedly). This would be another major boost to your damage, making you get even stronger compared to the monk.
The point of knocking enemies prone was to show how a fighter could get advantage, so they could really unleash with their great weapon master feat. It was the easiest way I could think of as a fighter, but barbarians have reckless attack, oath of vengeance paladins have vow of enmity.
And stunning strike I've found to be too unreliable. At early levels you have to spend a precious ki point on it, and the targets you often want to stun are usually the ones most difficult to stun, and against other targets you're often better off using flurry of blows to take them down quickly, that damage is more reliable.
If you think the fighter is a bad teammate you should take a look at the many manouvers a battlemaster has, or the abilities of the Psi Warrior, the buffs a rune knight can grant their teammates, or the echo knight's shadow martyr.
The one advantage monk has over the other classes is mobility, but even this can be to your detriment. Because of your high dex you might often find yourself first in the initiative order, great right? Sometimes yes, other times no. If you're first in the initiative order and you charge in on your first round you might find yourself surrounded and with your team unable to catch up, in other words you might have just placed yourself in quite the predicament.
Look, my point here isn't to shit all over the monk, it sounds like you really like the class Jounichi, and I can tell why. It might even be my own favorite class in 5e. However, I have to recognize it's flaws, and if you play a monk along with a group of experienced players who know how to optimize, you might find yourself disappointed with your monk.
What makes you think that anyone reading this thread doesn't already know everything you just said? Or that anyone is "ignoring the rules"?
Okay, let's try this again.
Bless your heart.
Everyone wants to think they know the rules. And, most of the time, they do. But we're all human, and we can all make mistakes. Sometimes, it's helpful to remind people in case they forgot or missed something.
First of all, even if people make mistakes there is no need what so ever to be rude and condecending. Second of all, rules don't add depth. They add mechanical complexity. Can this be used to add depth to the game? Absolutely. Can you have a deep and engaging game without rules? The prevalence of games light on, or even completely without, rules proves this without a shadow of a doubt. People having fun differently from you are not wrong. Some might like the storytelling aspect more than the rolling of numbered clicky-clacks.
But sure, let's take this opportunity to learn, shall we?
According to the PHB you are wrong. The Variant Human and the Half-Elf both allows you to pick a a skill (two for half elves) of your choice. Nothing says that those skills can't be Deception or Persuasion. Plane Shift: Zendikar also says that you are wrong since Zendikar Merfolk get proficiency in both skills. Volo's guide to monsters seems to share this opinion since the Kenku can pick Deception as a skill of choice. To add to this choir, according to Mythic Odysseys of Theros AND Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica you are wrong since the Minotaur and the Satyr both get Persuasion. Unless there is a typ in Eberron - Rising from the Last War the Warforged can also pick one of these two skills. I might have missed a few races but suffice to say, Changeling is absolutely not "The only playable race that can grant proficiency with either Deception or Persuasion", wouldn't you agree?
It's possible to create a character with one of those skills via a Custom Lineage or swap a race's normally prescribed skill proficiency with another. But these are optional rules found in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything; they're not standard. And, again, we all err so that's okay. We shouldn't be holding these things against one another. They're learning opportunities.
As you point out, there are even more ways to gain those skills with optional rules. And more rules add more depth so why wouldn't you want to play with them. Learning is fun. :)
Custom backgrounds are a thing players can do; if that's what their DM decides to allow. And they can always just make sure one of their background skills is something they're already proficient in so they can pick any other skill they want.
Again, just more ways of getting access to the skills in question. Not sure why a DM wouldn't allow the players to customizing their background. Page 125 of the PHB says that players can do that to their heart's desire. It's only the background feature that, if the player can't find a suitable one, needs to be worked out with the DM (page 126).
Rules, even optional ones, add mechanical depth. You can still have a rich experience without them. You don't have to play with feats, but they're fun. And if you prefer pulpier games where PCs can just knock out guards, take their uniforms, and they always fit perfectly, then fine. But that is a tone which needs to be established early on in a campaign, ideally during a session zero, and it's not universal.
Not sure what you are talking about since no-one in this thread has mentioned anything of the sort but yes, people are allowed to have fun differently than you. Glad we agree. :)
It's far more constructive to communicate these things to us, the people you're ostensibly having a discussion with, rather than be dismissive of our feedback. Because if you're not going to engage, then why are you here?
I am always welcoming of constructive feedback and I am sure you feel the same.
There is also a lot of faults on basing it on Treant Monks Little Diatribe. I want to draw your attention to something. Treant is so hooked on over powered stuff and power levels way higher than the balance of 5e that he sees a CR 9 as the proper threat for level 5 characters. Characters reaching the primary Tier 2 milestone, he feels it is appropriate that they be challenged by what is almost a Tier 3 creature. This is what should effectively be considered a Deadly Encounter. Which basically means that there is Good Potential for 1 or more characters may outright die in this encounter. But he thinks that should be your normal average enemy. This is not going to be the average threat for most games.
That alone should tell you that perhaps his analysis is flawed even if you wish to ignore things like special extreme circumstances that he uses to try and do things like mitigate the impact of the Monks Movement abilities. Because here's the reality. His niche, extreme circumstance of a horse? For as much as he says that it outdoes a monk. It actually outdoes things like a Rogue by even more. Another class that is considered highly mobile. And it's still a flawed comparison because the Monk can still ride a Horse on top of everything that they do. It also costs them less resources in general due to things like Dismounts and such than it does for most other classes. it actually takes particular subclass specific builds to do better. But he's not telling you any of that in his analysis. He's pretending it's just a Monk Problem.
Concerning horses and the monk's mobility I have to agree, their mobility is incredible. Even if other characters use horses readily I think a good DM would make sure a horse aren't always advantageous.
But when it comes to how he compares different classes, if he can make other classes face CR 9 creatures, but he can't do the same with monk, isn't that a good indicator monks aren't that strong?
No. It's not. Because Optimizations don't work quite the same way for all martial classes let alone all martial classes. And Treant also tends to abuse certain things to make other classes take on those CR 9 creatures.
One Example is that the diatribe your working off from him. Unless he's changed it recently which is possible but from what I remember of it. he's all about doing Dexterity and only Dexterity for as long as possible. He refuses to acknowledge any other real way to make a monk. Even though there are things that suggest you should be getting Wisdom up a bit sooner. Even for what is considered the typical tactics of hit it as much as possible and stun everything which even Treant advocates.
A Monk that Can reliably stun even if it's hits are a little less reliable under some circumstances are actually more powerful than one that can max out it's dexterity. Partly because Stun becomes a lot more reliable. But when you compare something like Stunning Strike against a Higher Level CR monster thus potential for a bit higher Con Save and you actively tank the Monks Save DC's at the same time. Your actually asking to lose the comparison. Which is something Treant Does whether he realizes it or not and doesn't actually address or consider ways to fix.
But this is not something that he actually does to any other kind of Character when he's picking that CR9 creature.
So yes. in Fact when Trying to build all these things to beat CR Monsters could in fact be wrong when he does it. You shouldn't take everything that he says or everything that he builds as Gospel or an accurate representation. His builds also tend to have the problem that they fall down in other places to fight those CR 9 monsters or are in fact artificially inflated in other ways. Ways that he may not necessarily do for the Monk.
Even at Level 1. A monk using just their fists is basically doing the same damage as a Fighter or or the like with a Two Handed weapon. If your looking for mathematical proof of it your looking a 2d6+3 for the Fighter which averages out to about 10 damage. For the monk your looking at 2(1d4+3) for the monk hitting twice for both fits. To make it simpler to understand you can also look at the what the monk is doing as 2d4+6. Which is actually an average damage of 11 at level 1 without using anything fancy. When you start adding in tactics like using a Quarterstaff for the 1d8 the monk is doing even more damage. Many people don't realize this because Level 1 is seen as boring so many games start at level 2 or 3 instead.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
I have a few issues with this. First and foremost, you're including a feat and weapon combination that monks cannot effectively make use of. Second, what you just described is next to impossible to pull off. Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack requires a critical hit, so you're already shortchanging the damage. And because of the -5 penalty to attack, they're effectively rolling a 5% chance of even dealing that damage. To sum up, there's a lot of faulty math here. And, whether you mean to or not, it presents a disingenuous argument.
All things being equal, the monk will do comparable damage to the fighter at those early levels. A monk, armed with a quarterstaff or spear will deal just as much damage as a fighter with two scimitars or shortswords and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. The monk will actually outperform a fighter armed with a greatsword or maul. And that's okay. Damage isn't everything. The fighter will, likely, have more hit points and, if they choose Strength over Dexterity, a higher AC. Even an archer fighter will have the advantage of increased range (via a longbow) and a higher attack modifier.
Both classes have some fantastic tools at their disposal. It's not a competition, so please don't treat it as such.
Actually.. My math is on point here. In my example here I am using a glaive, and using pole arm master for the bonus attack. With Polearm master you can use your bonus action to attack with the butt of the weapon, but using a d4 instead of a d10 for damage, and I accounted for this discrepancy when I calculated the average damage.
What I did in my example was to first use a trip attack, and assuming the target is tripped follow up with 2 attacks using the -5 attack penalty (One as the second attack of my attack action, and one as a bonus action). Because I have advantage because the target is proned, the -5 is not that big of a deal. I then took 2 more attacks with the -5 penalty using action surge, both also with advantage.
This is a potential round for a fighter at level 5, I don't know if you'd count that as early levels or not.
The reason I am using a weapon monks can't use is because I am trying to compare the average damage potential of the two classes.
For comparison the average damage output for a monk, assuming all attacks land (and none crit) is the following:
4(1d6+4)=30, for a kensei it could be: 2(1d10+4)+2(1d6+4)=19,5+15=34,5
What I am trying to show here is that monks aren't outperforming other classes in damage at all if the players of the other classes know what they are doing.
Your damage for the PAM and GWM example is not on point. Even is I take your word that you compensated that PAM is not 1d10 for the Bonus Action attack with but a 1d4.
Your math is also not correct because you've halved your ability to actually land blows. this means that your average DPS is actually half of what your stating. This is important with GWM because the reality is that GWM actually somewhat harder to use for that fighter at lower levels because they do not have the Proficiency bonus or the stat bonus to help offset it. And with a Two Handed Weapon you will not have a fighting style increasing your attack to make it more viable either.
This means that the monk at level 5 is going to be able to hit more often for slightly lower damage per hit to actually still stay with or above your fighter in question. Your actually nerfing your own fighter in an effort to make the same number of attacks. You'd be better suited to actually taking the ASI if your doing Variant Human with GWM as your level 1 feat. Because you really need the bonus to your attack to make more GWM attacks viable. Your next Opportunity to really pick up a feat is maybe level 6. Though I'd say you might consider pushing it off to level 8 because with level 6 your going to be able to max out your Primary Combat Stat because having that offset to GWM is important.
Your Also trying to mix in what you see as the strongest Subclass abilities. But here's the thing. Your Battle Master Abilities. They aren't sustainable. They aren't a good comparison. Your using at least one. But what you've Actually hidden is that to make this one turn viable you've automatically wasted at least 2 more on Precision attack. And then You've Waisted another resource you can only use once in your Action Surge in your attempt to show how Fighters are doing so much more damage. And GWM'd which means your going to need another Precision attack to offset GWM and you don't have a Precision attack to do that with for the final attack on Action Surge.
The Monk is going to however Reliably attack for 3 attacks over multiple turns even without anything from any Subclass or limited use resources what so ever. And they have various options to actually increase their damage. Everything from using a Quarter staff, to the fact that at level 5 their damage goes up to a d6 anyway. To having more Ki to spend on flurry of Blows if they wish over multiple turns to have 4 attacks.
So while your Fighter has spent everything that he has to deal 80 damage in that one round?
the Monk is going to be doing
1d8+4*2, + 1d6+4*2 which works out to 8.5*2 (17 average damage) + 7.5*2 (15 damage) for a total of 32 Average Damage Over Multiple turns. when your Fighter has blown his load on one turn and ended up with doing something like 19 damage if not less on it's subsequent turns if they want to keep trying GWM or doing about 21 damage without trying for GWM . Meaning that by the end of the third turn the Monk has actually pretty much caught up with the Fighter and if there is a 4th turn they have a potential for surpassing the fighter. And yet the Monk has barely done anything but spend a few Ki points. Against a Character wieghed down with two feats and having spent subclass resources on top of that.
And that's all ignoring the fact that your trip may not in fact work like you want it to. Or the fact that the Monk is more MObile. Or the potential damage the Monk can Do by being Kensei or having a dedicated weapon or anything else.
This is part of the problem with White Room Math in the end. Your trying to show the Fighter as Superior so you went for a one round format. Spent all of your resources on it. But didn't give the monk anywhere near the same considerations Or considered at all what happens when the fight is not over in a single round. There are all kinds of different things the monk could have done in the white room situation that you totally didn't account for. Some that they can sacrifice a bit of damage for. Some that would actually increase their damage. And you Upped the Level to try and force a disparity. But here's the problem. The math has been done a lot. The Disparity your looking for. It's at a much higher level than level 5. We're looking at tier 3 and tier 4 when a large part of the classes and the subclasses either are or are coming online and limited resources are often expanded in some fashion. But that Disparity for the Most part is not huge even then. Fighters and Barbarians will pick up or find ways to make a third attack, maybe even a fourth in certain cases. But Monk will have higher damage dice and a host of other abilities doing other things facilitating their ability to be able to hit enemies better or approach situations differently that most other martials will not have at their disposal.
By using great weapon master you're taking a -5 to hit, not a -10, thereby reducing you chance to hit by 25%. That means up to a certain AC you're better off using it than not using it, and smarter people than me have figured out the cut off point is around 16-17 AC, against a higher AC than that gmw stops being beneficial and monks have an advantage in damage against those ACs.
Also, I did account for the 1d4 bonus attack with pole arm master. Damage should be something like this: 1d4+3+10(GMW) -> Average: 15.5
At level 5 battlemasters aren't that far behind monks in their limited resources, at a 4 instead of 5, and both resources should be regained at a short rest.
A very basic fighter/barbarian build should start outperforming monks towards the end of tier 2 and the discrepancy is going to grow from there.
I also want you to note this fighter build is hardly the best build out there damage wise.
Found someone who had calculated much of this for me btw, and as you can tell the monk dmg is decent at early levels but falls off towards the end of 2nd tier:
And from what I can tell many of these builds aren't optimized.
Also while fists scale in damage, other builds and especially fighters are going to make better use of their magic weapons than monks will, even with dedicated weapon.
By using great weapon master you're taking a -5 to hit, not a -10, thereby reducing you chance to hit by 25%. That means up to a certain AC you're better off using it than not using it, and smarter people than me have figured out the cut off point is around 16-17 AC, against a higher AC than that gmw stops being beneficial and monks have an advantage in damage against those ACs.
Also, I did account for the 1d4 bonus attack with pole arm master. Damage should be something like this: 1d4+3+10(GMW) -> Average: 15.5
At level 5 battlemasters aren't that far behind monks in their limited resources, at a 4 instead of 5, and both resources should be regained at a short rest.
A very basic fighter/barbarian build should start outperforming monks towards the end of tier 2 and the discrepancy is going to grow from there.
I also want you to note this fighter build is hardly the best build out there damage wise.
Found someone who had calculated much of this for me btw, and as you can tell the monk dmg is decent at early levels but falls off towards the end of 2nd tier:
And from what I can tell many of these builds aren't optimized.
Also while fists scale in damage, other builds and especially fighters are going to make better use of their magic weapons than monks will, even with dedicated weapon.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not how math works.
If you have a +5 modifier to your attack and are up against a goblin with 15 AC, then you need a 10 or better on the D20 to hit. That's a 55% chance of success. But if you try and use Great Weapon Master, that +5 modifier becomes +0. Now you need a 15 or better, which is only a 30% chance of success.
You didn't cut your chance of success by 25%. A 25% reduction from 55 is 41.25%. On a D20, that means you need a 13 or better. Going from a 55% chance of success down to a 30% chance of success is more like a 45% drop.
And that math is dependent on both the attack modifier and the AC of the target. It's subject to change. Just having the goblin attack with its shortbow, dropping its scimitar and shield, and thusly lowering its AC to 13, makes a huge difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two points:
[REDACTED]
What makes you think that anyone reading this thread doesn't already know everything you just said? Or that anyone is "ignoring the rules"?
[REDACTED] Just because there are people that play the game differently from you doesn't mean that they're doing it wrong and it certainly doesn't mean that their games are shallow.
Well.. The other classes can quickly catch up and surpass the monk, despite the monk's dmg at the first levels I am not sure if this is possible out of the gate, but if the fighter started with great weapon master and a heavy 2-handed weapon, they could take a -5 penalty to their hit, and that would already raise their average damage to 20. At 4 they could pick up polearm master as well, and get a glaive. A perfect round for a battlemaster could then look like this (at, let's say level 5 for the extra attack):
1st attack: Trip attack: 13 damage average. Target is tripped.
2nd attack: GWM: 18.5 dmg.
Bonus action attack: GWM: 15.5 damage.
Total average damage: 47
Now let's add action surge into the mix:
2 attacks: GWM: 2(1d10+3+10) Average dmg: 37
That's a total damage of 84, which is average rerolling 1's not accounted for, if the battlemaster manages to trip 1 creature.
Great weapon master is how monks fall off so quickly in damage compared to the others. Barbarians can do this as well, and they can always get advantage to make it as plausible as possible for their attacks to hit despite the -5.
Some paladins as well have ways to get advantage so their GWM attacks land.
Concerning horses and the monk's mobility I have to agree, their mobility is incredible. Even if other characters use horses readily I think a good DM would make sure a horse aren't always advantageous.
But when it comes to how he compares different classes, if he can make other classes face CR 9 creatures, but he can't do the same with monk, isn't that a good indicator monks aren't that strong?
Well, yeah. Other classes can surpass the Monk when it comes to pure damage dealing, but that's because the Monk have things they don't. And if you attack using GWM at level 1 you'll only have a to hit chance of about 30% (assuming a standard Strength modifier of +3 and an average AC of 15) which will be detrimental to your average damage output.
If your Human Fighter takes PAM at level 4 they will only have a about a +1 to hit if they attack using GWM, which , at level 5, is bad.
But do you feel that the Monk lacks something in general that needs to be compensated with a higher damage output?
To answer your last question first I really don't think giving monks more ki-points would break them. Or let them use certain abilities without spending any ki.
Considering your first point fighting an enemy with 15 ac seems like a lot to me at this level. From my personal experience enemies it's usually around 11-13 at this point?
Of course, you shouldn't always be using GMW, but if you use it tactically, find out roughly what the enemy's AC is, and find ways to gain advantage (like the battlemaster's trip attack). If you do all that you can outdamage the monk by a lot like I already pointed out.
Not saying it would break them, but do they need it? If so, why?
Probably. The example was just to illustrate the point. And the point still stands. If you use GWM, especially when your Strength and PB both are low, you run the risk of missing more often which means that you damage average will be lower.
But if you don't use the GWM then you can't add the GWM damage to the average so then your math doesn't work out. But yes, Fighters can, and should outdamage monks. At lower levels the difference isn't really that big, though.
I have a few issues with this. First and foremost, you're including a feat and weapon combination that monks cannot effectively make use of. Second, what you just described is next to impossible to pull off. Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack requires a critical hit, so you're already shortchanging the damage. And because of the -5 penalty to attack, they're effectively rolling a 5% chance of even dealing that damage. To sum up, there's a lot of faulty math here. And, whether you mean to or not, it presents a disingenuous argument.
All things being equal, the monk will do comparable damage to the fighter at those early levels. A monk, armed with a quarterstaff or spear will deal just as much damage as a fighter with two scimitars or shortswords and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. The monk will actually outperform a fighter armed with a greatsword or maul. And that's okay. Damage isn't everything. The fighter will, likely, have more hit points and, if they choose Strength over Dexterity, a higher AC. Even an archer fighter will have the advantage of increased range (via a longbow) and a higher attack modifier.
Both classes have some fantastic tools at their disposal. It's not a competition, so please don't treat it as such.
Okay, let's try this again.
Everyone wants to think they know the rules. And, most of the time, they do. But we're all human, and we can all make mistakes. Sometimes, it's helpful to remind people in case they forgot or missed something. For example, on the previous page, you made what I see as an erroneous claim. The only playable race that can grant proficiency with either Deception or Persuasion is Changeling. It's possible to create a character with one of those skills via a Custom Lineage or swap a race's normally prescribed skill proficiency with another. But these are optional rules found in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything; they're not standard. And, again, we all err so that's okay. We shouldn't be holding these things against one another. They're learning opportunities.
Custom backgrounds are a thing players can do; if that's what their DM decides to allow. And they can always just make sure one of their background skills is something they're already proficient in so they can pick any other skill they want.
Rules, even optional ones, add mechanical depth. You can still have a rich experience without them. You don't have to play with feats, but they're fun. And if you prefer pulpier games where PCs can just knock out guards, take their uniforms, and they always fit perfectly, then fine. But that is a tone which needs to be established early on in a campaign, ideally during a session zero, and it's not universal.
It's far more constructive to communicate these things to us, the people you're ostensibly having a discussion with, rather than be dismissive of our feedback. Because if you're not going to engage, then why are you here?
Actually.. My math is on point here. In my example here I am using a glaive, and using pole arm master for the bonus attack. With Polearm master you can use your bonus action to attack with the butt of the weapon, but using a d4 instead of a d10 for damage, and I accounted for this discrepancy when I calculated the average damage.
What I did in my example was to first use a trip attack, and assuming the target is tripped follow up with 2 attacks using the -5 attack penalty (One as the second attack of my attack action, and one as a bonus action). Because I have advantage because the target is proned, the -5 is not that big of a deal. I then took 2 more attacks with the -5 penalty using action surge, both also with advantage.
This is a potential round for a fighter at level 5, I don't know if you'd count that as early levels or not.
The reason I am using a weapon monks can't use is because I am trying to compare the average damage potential of the two classes.
For comparison the average damage output for a monk, assuming all attacks land (and none crit) is the following:
4(1d6+4)=30, for a kensei it could be: 2(1d10+4)+2(1d6+4)=19,5+15=34,5
What I am trying to show here is that monks aren't outperforming other classes in damage at all if the players of the other classes know what they are doing.
Okay...
You still had to make at least a 5th-level character (Tier 2, so not "early") with an archetype to pull this off. And they still have a...18-19 Strength modifier, or else a magic weapon you're not expressly accounting for. And you aren't giving any such considerations to the monk. Yes, it's cute you included the Way of the Kensei. Except, with Tasha's, that's no longer essential.
So let's level the playing field. For the sake of argument, your fighter has a 16-17 Strength, for a +3 modifier. The +1 glaive or halberd isn't something you'd find in an official adventure, but this can be a custom game. And we'll use the same standard array for the monk.
They can hit for 19 (2d8+10) + 7 (1d6+4) for an average of 26 damage/round. That's respectable for using their ASI to boost their attack stat. And if their race is already proficient with a battleaxe, longsword, or warhammer, then they can increase that to 28 damage/round. They can also use Stunning Strike to grant advantage and prevent the enemy from attacking at all. So, just taking away the GWM feat, the monk is on par. And while the damage potential isn't as high because of the feat, you're assuming every attack hits. That might work for monster CR, and I've relied on it myself for some quick comparisons, but it's not an accurate representation. We both know this.
And, once again, dealing damage isn't everything. You treat the fighter as if they need to do everything themself and that's just not the case. No character is an island.
White room theorycrafting is a fallacy.
And I still don't know what point you're trying to make here. This was a fun little diversion, but it's also wildly off-topic.
I was using a +3 modifier for my comparison, using a variant human to get both great weapon master and polearm master by level 5 (you'll have gotten them both by level 4). Neither was I using a magic weapon in my calculations for either the monk or the fighter. A glaive has 1d10 damage btw.
The reason I am not considering the composition of your party is because at that point you're considering party compositions, not the classes by themselves. Also, being less reliant on your teammates for damage is undeniably advantageous, your teammates might be forced to do other things than setting you up for max damage.
If we account for some attacks missing, well statistically you're more likely to hit on 2 attacks than 4, as the more rolls you make the greater the probability for one of them being bad.
It's true the monk might land a stunning strike, but they won't be able to capitalize on it to the same extent a gmw user might.
Right...
Okay, let's set the record straight on feats. They are a significant boost in power. They don't just give characters more options, but they can significantly amplify their existing options. So, if the justification for why you think X class is better than Y class is because X can use feats that Y cannot then there isn't a conversation to be had. Whatever balance might exist between the classes (and they're deliberately asymmetrical) is defenestrated by feats. Any discussion needs to recognize this simple, immutable fact. And that means either cutting feats out of the equation completely; or else bending over backward to be as favorable as possible to everyone.
The fighter does only one thing really well, and that's kill stuff. It has more potential attacks and ASIs than anyone else; the latter of which translates to higher ability scores and accumulating more feats. The monk, conversely, is a versatile skirmisher that can deal not-insignificant damage, control the battlefield, and even "tank" under the right circumstances. The monk does a little bit of everything. It's honestly kind of impressive.
Knocking enemies prone is cute, but anyone can do it. Leaving an enemy stunned until the end of their next turn, stripping away their ability to move and act, and leaving them in a far more vulnerable position is just better. Every attack or spell stopped by Stunning Strike is a credit to the monk; saving the party resources later on. No fighter can do that. AThe monk's melee damage might be less than the fighter's. So what? Because all I'm getting from you is that Treantmonk can't break the game with a monk the way he can with some other classes. And, honestly, that's a good thing. He shouldn't be trying to break the game. I take it as a testament to how well the monk is made that he can't mess with it.
You might think that fighter is more self-sufficient and helping the party by freeing everyone else up to focus on other things, they're not actually working with the group. It's more of a, "Guys, I got this, go play over there," kind of schtick. And that's just...no, man, no.
Feats aren't a significant boost in power, not for monks. Monks relies on abilities for AC and their dc for stunning strikes, taking a feat is often a detriment to their power, not increasing their dexterity at 4 means forgoing +1 to attack, damage and AC. Fighters on the other hand are only skipping +1 to hit and damage, which is still significant but not as detrimental as their AC is more tied to gear, and few of the archetypes rely on a second attribute for their abilities, allowing them to start with a higher con than monks. Point is they can take feats for other benefits monks have to pay a higher price for. If your goal is to compare the potential damage of different classes, how can you not count feats?
I chose fighter as a comparison because of how basic they are. You can make a similar comparison to barbarian or paladin with similar results. In fact, you'll get the most damage from a fighter by multiclassing into barbarian for reckless attack, which will give you advantage on every attack (but also lower your survivability, admittedly). This would be another major boost to your damage, making you get even stronger compared to the monk.
The point of knocking enemies prone was to show how a fighter could get advantage, so they could really unleash with their great weapon master feat. It was the easiest way I could think of as a fighter, but barbarians have reckless attack, oath of vengeance paladins have vow of enmity.
And stunning strike I've found to be too unreliable. At early levels you have to spend a precious ki point on it, and the targets you often want to stun are usually the ones most difficult to stun, and against other targets you're often better off using flurry of blows to take them down quickly, that damage is more reliable.
If you think the fighter is a bad teammate you should take a look at the many manouvers a battlemaster has, or the abilities of the Psi Warrior, the buffs a rune knight can grant their teammates, or the echo knight's shadow martyr.
The one advantage monk has over the other classes is mobility, but even this can be to your detriment. Because of your high dex you might often find yourself first in the initiative order, great right? Sometimes yes, other times no. If you're first in the initiative order and you charge in on your first round you might find yourself surrounded and with your team unable to catch up, in other words you might have just placed yourself in quite the predicament.
Look, my point here isn't to shit all over the monk, it sounds like you really like the class Jounichi, and I can tell why. It might even be my own favorite class in 5e. However, I have to recognize it's flaws, and if you play a monk along with a group of experienced players who know how to optimize, you might find yourself disappointed with your monk.
Bless your heart.
First of all, even if people make mistakes there is no need what so ever to be rude and condecending. Second of all, rules don't add depth. They add mechanical complexity. Can this be used to add depth to the game? Absolutely. Can you have a deep and engaging game without rules? The prevalence of games light on, or even completely without, rules proves this without a shadow of a doubt. People having fun differently from you are not wrong. Some might like the storytelling aspect more than the rolling of numbered clicky-clacks.
But sure, let's take this opportunity to learn, shall we?
According to the PHB you are wrong. The Variant Human and the Half-Elf both allows you to pick a a skill (two for half elves) of your choice. Nothing says that those skills can't be Deception or Persuasion. Plane Shift: Zendikar also says that you are wrong since Zendikar Merfolk get proficiency in both skills. Volo's guide to monsters seems to share this opinion since the Kenku can pick Deception as a skill of choice. To add to this choir, according to Mythic Odysseys of Theros AND Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica you are wrong since the Minotaur and the Satyr both get Persuasion. Unless there is a typ in Eberron - Rising from the Last War the Warforged can also pick one of these two skills. I might have missed a few races but suffice to say, Changeling is absolutely not "The only playable race that can grant proficiency with either Deception or Persuasion", wouldn't you agree?
As you point out, there are even more ways to gain those skills with optional rules. And more rules add more depth so why wouldn't you want to play with them. Learning is fun. :)
Again, just more ways of getting access to the skills in question. Not sure why a DM wouldn't allow the players to customizing their background. Page 125 of the PHB says that players can do that to their heart's desire. It's only the background feature that, if the player can't find a suitable one, needs to be worked out with the DM (page 126).
Not sure what you are talking about since no-one in this thread has mentioned anything of the sort but yes, people are allowed to have fun differently than you. Glad we agree. :)
I am always welcoming of constructive feedback and I am sure you feel the same.
Cheers!
That was uncalled for.
No. It's not. Because Optimizations don't work quite the same way for all martial classes let alone all martial classes. And Treant also tends to abuse certain things to make other classes take on those CR 9 creatures.
One Example is that the diatribe your working off from him. Unless he's changed it recently which is possible but from what I remember of it. he's all about doing Dexterity and only Dexterity for as long as possible. He refuses to acknowledge any other real way to make a monk. Even though there are things that suggest you should be getting Wisdom up a bit sooner. Even for what is considered the typical tactics of hit it as much as possible and stun everything which even Treant advocates.
A Monk that Can reliably stun even if it's hits are a little less reliable under some circumstances are actually more powerful than one that can max out it's dexterity. Partly because Stun becomes a lot more reliable. But when you compare something like Stunning Strike against a Higher Level CR monster thus potential for a bit higher Con Save and you actively tank the Monks Save DC's at the same time. Your actually asking to lose the comparison. Which is something Treant Does whether he realizes it or not and doesn't actually address or consider ways to fix.
But this is not something that he actually does to any other kind of Character when he's picking that CR9 creature.
So yes. in Fact when Trying to build all these things to beat CR Monsters could in fact be wrong when he does it. You shouldn't take everything that he says or everything that he builds as Gospel or an accurate representation. His builds also tend to have the problem that they fall down in other places to fight those CR 9 monsters or are in fact artificially inflated in other ways. Ways that he may not necessarily do for the Monk.
Your damage for the PAM and GWM example is not on point. Even is I take your word that you compensated that PAM is not 1d10 for the Bonus Action attack with but a 1d4.
Your math is also not correct because you've halved your ability to actually land blows. this means that your average DPS is actually half of what your stating. This is important with GWM because the reality is that GWM actually somewhat harder to use for that fighter at lower levels because they do not have the Proficiency bonus or the stat bonus to help offset it. And with a Two Handed Weapon you will not have a fighting style increasing your attack to make it more viable either.
This means that the monk at level 5 is going to be able to hit more often for slightly lower damage per hit to actually still stay with or above your fighter in question. Your actually nerfing your own fighter in an effort to make the same number of attacks. You'd be better suited to actually taking the ASI if your doing Variant Human with GWM as your level 1 feat. Because you really need the bonus to your attack to make more GWM attacks viable. Your next Opportunity to really pick up a feat is maybe level 6. Though I'd say you might consider pushing it off to level 8 because with level 6 your going to be able to max out your Primary Combat Stat because having that offset to GWM is important.
Your Also trying to mix in what you see as the strongest Subclass abilities. But here's the thing. Your Battle Master Abilities. They aren't sustainable. They aren't a good comparison. Your using at least one. But what you've Actually hidden is that to make this one turn viable you've automatically wasted at least 2 more on Precision attack. And then You've Waisted another resource you can only use once in your Action Surge in your attempt to show how Fighters are doing so much more damage. And GWM'd which means your going to need another Precision attack to offset GWM and you don't have a Precision attack to do that with for the final attack on Action Surge.
The Monk is going to however Reliably attack for 3 attacks over multiple turns even without anything from any Subclass or limited use resources what so ever. And they have various options to actually increase their damage. Everything from using a Quarter staff, to the fact that at level 5 their damage goes up to a d6 anyway. To having more Ki to spend on flurry of Blows if they wish over multiple turns to have 4 attacks.
So while your Fighter has spent everything that he has to deal 80 damage in that one round?
the Monk is going to be doing
1d8+4*2, + 1d6+4*2 which works out to 8.5*2 (17 average damage) + 7.5*2 (15 damage) for a total of 32 Average Damage Over Multiple turns. when your Fighter has blown his load on one turn and ended up with doing something like 19 damage if not less on it's subsequent turns if they want to keep trying GWM or doing about 21 damage without trying for GWM . Meaning that by the end of the third turn the Monk has actually pretty much caught up with the Fighter and if there is a 4th turn they have a potential for surpassing the fighter. And yet the Monk has barely done anything but spend a few Ki points. Against a Character wieghed down with two feats and having spent subclass resources on top of that.
And that's all ignoring the fact that your trip may not in fact work like you want it to. Or the fact that the Monk is more MObile. Or the potential damage the Monk can Do by being Kensei or having a dedicated weapon or anything else.
This is part of the problem with White Room Math in the end. Your trying to show the Fighter as Superior so you went for a one round format. Spent all of your resources on it. But didn't give the monk anywhere near the same considerations Or considered at all what happens when the fight is not over in a single round. There are all kinds of different things the monk could have done in the white room situation that you totally didn't account for. Some that they can sacrifice a bit of damage for. Some that would actually increase their damage. And you Upped the Level to try and force a disparity. But here's the problem. The math has been done a lot. The Disparity your looking for. It's at a much higher level than level 5. We're looking at tier 3 and tier 4 when a large part of the classes and the subclasses either are or are coming online and limited resources are often expanded in some fashion. But that Disparity for the Most part is not huge even then. Fighters and Barbarians will pick up or find ways to make a third attack, maybe even a fourth in certain cases. But Monk will have higher damage dice and a host of other abilities doing other things facilitating their ability to be able to hit enemies better or approach situations differently that most other martials will not have at their disposal.
By using great weapon master you're taking a -5 to hit, not a -10, thereby reducing you chance to hit by 25%. That means up to a certain AC you're better off using it than not using it, and smarter people than me have figured out the cut off point is around 16-17 AC, against a higher AC than that gmw stops being beneficial and monks have an advantage in damage against those ACs.
Also, I did account for the 1d4 bonus attack with pole arm master. Damage should be something like this: 1d4+3+10(GMW) -> Average: 15.5
At level 5 battlemasters aren't that far behind monks in their limited resources, at a 4 instead of 5, and both resources should be regained at a short rest.
A very basic fighter/barbarian build should start outperforming monks towards the end of tier 2 and the discrepancy is going to grow from there.
I also want you to note this fighter build is hardly the best build out there damage wise.
Found someone who had calculated much of this for me btw, and as you can tell the monk dmg is decent at early levels but falls off towards the end of 2nd tier:
Someone's spreadsheet
And from what I can tell many of these builds aren't optimized.
Also while fists scale in damage, other builds and especially fighters are going to make better use of their magic weapons than monks will, even with dedicated weapon.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not how math works.
If you have a +5 modifier to your attack and are up against a goblin with 15 AC, then you need a 10 or better on the D20 to hit. That's a 55% chance of success. But if you try and use Great Weapon Master, that +5 modifier becomes +0. Now you need a 15 or better, which is only a 30% chance of success.
You didn't cut your chance of success by 25%. A 25% reduction from 55 is 41.25%. On a D20, that means you need a 13 or better. Going from a 55% chance of success down to a 30% chance of success is more like a 45% drop.
And that math is dependent on both the attack modifier and the AC of the target. It's subject to change. Just having the goblin attack with its shortbow, dropping its scimitar and shield, and thusly lowering its AC to 13, makes a huge difference.