it's not actually a 50% lower average die. That's the problem. There are other numbers involved in the calculation as well such as the static modifier. which at low level is usually as significant or even more significant to the damage that a person is doing than the damage from the actual dice on average.
A die avg 6 vs 3 is 50% lower regardless of the static modifier that apply to both, this across all level. What is mild in the end is the difference of damage with everything added but 1d4 vs 1d10 alone is significant enought that Monk's unarmed strike take 17 levels to get there.
That die isn't the whole Story. As i pointed out. In Depth. The die difference is not the full story and people should not treat it as the full story. It's a perceptual misdirection that we are doing to ourselves when we do so, Except when we are doing something that is clearly pointing out that we are only focusing on one tiny aspect. But that is not how people are usually actually looking at it or talking about it so it's not actually how we should be framing it. And no, It is not as significant as your making it out to be because of all of the other factors. What your stating isn't even true at all levels, And then things like multiple attacks alter the numbers as well as I pointed out. Your misrepresenting that damage.
I would take those numbers with a huge grain of salt as you do not take into account AC or class features that could affect them.
Also any monk can get a d10 weapon starting at level 2 if they have a racial prof for the weapon or a relevant feat/MC.
But the +2 AC is the biggest thing kensei has going for it.
You are Correct. I didn't complicate it further with Taking AC into account. But the interesting thing about that is that The Miss Chance because of AC actually makes the difference smaller when it does alter it. Because the larger damage numbers actually lose more when they are missed. If you figure that Your chance of getting the hits about 65% of the time Then the average damage of the d10 hit is more like 5.2 down from 8. the 1d4 on the other hand goes from 5 down to 3.25. Making the difference in damage more like 1.95 at level 3. The full 13 damage that I listed in basic becomes more like 8.45 and the damage from the 10 is 6.5 damage a turn when you consider them at level 3. (the 1d6 at level 5 goes from 7 to 4.55 average damage per hit at that die.)
I left it out because it largely wasn't needed for the basic representation that shows things for the conversation. Because Exacting Numbers don't dramatically change the base idea of what's going on with the attack damage. It just changes the numbers themselves rather than the point of the kind of damage being made. Bringing all the numbers close together but usually not changing their order in significant fashion.
Its kind of a lame ability. The AC is almost always better than a full weapon attack at lower levels... but a weapon based monk who is incentivized not to use their weapon to attack is kinda silly. Its a strong ability, but not thematically satisfying.
I would take those numbers with a huge grain of salt as you do not take into account AC or class features that could affect them.
Also any monk can get a d10 weapon starting at level 2 if they have a racial prof for the weapon or a relevant feat/MC.
But the +2 AC is the biggest thing kensei has going for it.
You are Correct. I didn't complicate it further with Taking AC into account. But the interesting thing about that is that The Miss Chance because of AC actually makes the difference smaller when it does alter it. Because the larger damage numbers actually lose more when they are missed. If you figure that Your chance of getting the hits about 65% of the time Then the average damage of the d10 hit is more like 5.2 down from 8. the 1d4 on the other hand goes from 5 down to 3.25. Making the difference in damage more like 1.95 at level 3. The full 13 damage that I listed in basic becomes more like 8.45 and the damage from the 10 is 6.5 damage a turn when you consider them at level 3. (the 1d6 at level 5 goes from 7 to 4.55 average damage per hit at that die.)
I left it out because it largely wasn't needed for the basic representation that shows things for the conversation. Because Exacting Numbers don't dramatically change the base idea of what's going on with the attack damage. It just changes the numbers themselves rather than the point of the kind of damage being made. Bringing all the numbers close together but usually not changing their order in significant fashion.
I find it somewhat important as the accuracy bonus from certain subclass and classes do create a fair damage Adv especially with the right feats but this is a fair point well taken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That die isn't the whole Story. As i pointed out. In Depth. The die difference is not the full story and people should not treat it as the full story. It's a perceptual misdirection that we are doing to ourselves when we do so, Except when we are doing something that is clearly pointing out that we are only focusing on one tiny aspect. But that is not how people are usually actually looking at it or talking about it so it's not actually how we should be framing it. And no, It is not as significant as your making it out to be because of all of the other factors. What your stating isn't even true at all levels, And then things like multiple attacks alter the numbers as well as I pointed out. Your misrepresenting that damage.
You are Correct. I didn't complicate it further with Taking AC into account. But the interesting thing about that is that The Miss Chance because of AC actually makes the difference smaller when it does alter it. Because the larger damage numbers actually lose more when they are missed. If you figure that Your chance of getting the hits about 65% of the time Then the average damage of the d10 hit is more like 5.2 down from 8. the 1d4 on the other hand goes from 5 down to 3.25. Making the difference in damage more like 1.95 at level 3. The full 13 damage that I listed in basic becomes more like 8.45 and the damage from the 10 is 6.5 damage a turn when you consider them at level 3. (the 1d6 at level 5 goes from 7 to 4.55 average damage per hit at that die.)
I left it out because it largely wasn't needed for the basic representation that shows things for the conversation. Because Exacting Numbers don't dramatically change the base idea of what's going on with the attack damage. It just changes the numbers themselves rather than the point of the kind of damage being made. Bringing all the numbers close together but usually not changing their order in significant fashion.
Its kind of a lame ability. The AC is almost always better than a full weapon attack at lower levels... but a weapon based monk who is incentivized not to use their weapon to attack is kinda silly. Its a strong ability, but not thematically satisfying.
I find it somewhat important as the accuracy bonus from certain subclass and classes do create a fair damage Adv especially with the right feats but this is a fair point well taken.