The only reason to spend Ki on Patient defense is to encourage enemies to ignore you for a round, or keep you up for a round while you manipulate an important object or stabilize a dying comrade or something equally niche. That’s it. If that’s what you really, really need then it’ll make your day.
Having an enemy ignore me while I wail on them is not a winning strategy for them generally.
I mean if I have 10 ki are you as DM going to ignore me for 10 stright turns while I am use patient defense and continue to hit you? At some point they are going to have to attack me if they want to win and that point will not come while they are alive if they wait for me to run out of ki to do it.
RAW patient defenses causes disadvantage when enemies attack you, which true to its word puts the enemies at a "disadvantage" if they attack you. If the DM never attacks you while you are using PD, then this changes it from disadvantage on attacks to effectively immunity from attacks and that makes the ability OP. It makes it more useful not less useful.
As long as you’re using Patient Defense you aren’t wailing on me with FoB or SS. That means you’re hitting with pillows compared to the Sharpshooter Howitzer, the EB spamming gattling Warlock, and the walking sledgehammer with PAM & GWM. That means I can focus on those hitting harder than you until you and your pillows are all that’s left and you’re out of Ki because you spent it all on being the least attractive target in the room.
You are wrong. Math matters.
Ranged builds:
A 6th level Kensie using a longbow, sharpshooter against AC 17 will do 15DPR
A 6th Warlock is doing 7 DPR vs AC 17 with Eldritch blast unless he took an invocation to boost damage (in which case it is 11).
AA 6th level Fighter using a longbow, sharpshooter and archery fighting style against an enemy with a 17 AC is doing 15DPR.
Melee:
A 6th-level Monk using a warhammer dedicated weapon and patient defense against AC 17 is doing 14DPR.
A 6th-level fighter using GWM, GWF and PAM is doing 15 DPR against AC 17.
So your Warlock is doing less damage, your "SS howitzer" is doing the same. Your GWM/GWF/PAM fighter is doing 1 point more.
So the Monk is doing just about as much damage while also making enemies have disadvantage on attacks.
Something thing worth discussing is the numbers above are mean numbers rounded to the nearest integer, however the variance on the GWM and SS builds (including the Monk SS) is much higher than it is on the melee Monk build (or the warlock for that matter). There is a difference in the mean damage calculated and the damage the enemy takes as the latter is bounded and limited by his or her hit points when a hit happens. Because of this if you compare 2 numbers with the same mean damage, the case with the lower variance will result in more damage inflicted on the enemy over time and many battles.
The only reason to spend Ki on Patient defense is to encourage enemies to ignore you for a round, or keep you up for a round while you manipulate an important object or stabilize a dying comrade or something equally niche. That’s it. If that’s what you really, really need then it’ll make your day.
Having an enemy ignore me while I wail on them is not a winning strategy for them generally.
I mean if I have 10 ki are you as DM going to ignore me for 10 stright turns while I am use patient defense and continue to hit you? At some point they are going to have to attack me if they want to win and that point will not come while they are alive if they wait for me to run out of ki to do it.
RAW patient defenses causes disadvantage when enemies attack you, which true to its word puts the enemies at a "disadvantage" if they attack you. If the DM never attacks you while you are using PD, then this changes it from disadvantage on attacks to effectively immunity from attacks and that makes the ability OP. It makes it more useful not less useful.
As long as you’re using Patient Defense you aren’t wailing on me with FoB or SS. That means you’re hitting with pillows compared to the Sharpshooter Howitzer, the EB spamming gattling Warlock, and the walking sledgehammer with PAM & GWM. That means I can focus on those hitting harder than you until you and your pillows are all that’s left and you’re out of Ki because you spent it all on being the least attractive target in the room.
🤷♂️
I mean .. You aren't wrong
At best the monk is hitting for 21 damage a turn with a d10 weapon and max Dex at level 10.... And that's not accounting for AC at all. Once you do that number drops and it's not in the monks favor.
Where you are really wrong though is when you claim that AC makes it less in the Monk's favor. The exact opposite is true. The number drops when you consider AC and it favors the Monk substantially. The differences only seem big when you do not consider AC.
As you noted the mean damage on a hit that is not a crit is 21 for a 10th level Monk using a D10 weapon and 20 dex.
The mean damage assuming a hit and no crit for a PAM/GWM with 3 attacks, 18 str, going with a +10 damage is 55.
So this is a huge number, over twice as much. But when adjust that for AC20 it looks completely different:
At AC20 10th level 20 Dex Monk averages 15DPR (1.1 crit damage+21damage x 0.65 chance to hit).
At AC20 an 18 STR PAM/GWM averages 13DPR (1.65 crit damage+55damage x 0.2 chance to hit).
Even with a d8 weapon he is still ahead of a GWM/PAM vs AC 20. As you drive down the AC that moves more in favor of the GWM/PAM, but not overwhelmingly so. Even at AC 14 you are talking about 28 (GWM/PAM) vs 21 (Monk).
My understanding is that there are subclasses of the monk more suited in melee combat, but ultimately he will never be a tank with only d8 hit points. Heck, I think a rogue is even a better tank than the monk because of the features (Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and Elusive).
Perhaps a frontline combatant yes, but only as long as he can escape and get to safety at the end of his turn.
My understanding is that there are subclasses of the monk more suited in melee combat, but ultimately he will never be a tank with only d8 hit points. Perhaps a frontline combatant yes, but only as long as he can escape and get to safety at the end of his turn.
This depends how you define a tank, as people seem to overly fixate on durability, but you can be a durable character without being a tank; put another way, durability is useful for a tank, but it's not critical.
The key question for a tank, and why Monks can have trouble in the role, is "how are you convincing enemies to attack you instead of someone else?".
Barbarians aren't tanks because they can take a lot of punishment, they're tanks because they can use Reckless Attack to encourage enemies to hit them instead; this will depend on your DM, but if we assume enemies try to maximise their damage output like players do, then they should attack the reckless barbarian as even if they're only dealing half damage against them it's better than missing more against someone else. A Barbarian can supplement this with Ancestral Guardian (one of your targets has disadvantage vs. creatures other than you).
Sentinel is a more important feat for tanking than Great Weapon Master, because it actually lets you prevent enemies from escaping you; Monks have the same access to this that a Barbarian does.
Monks aren't that bad in the role of tanks, but it's another example of Stunning Strike being their main trick for making it work mechanically; because an enemy can't move away if it's stunned, and stunning them has the bonus of making them easier for you to hit and maximise your own damage against them (and other party members if they're near, though if you're tanking they might not be). Patient Defence is an option for tanking, but it's more of a personal defence only as it actively discourages enemies from wanting to attack you. In terms of hit-points Monks are fine, d8 might be less than d10, but it's not that much less; with a decent Constitution you can still take a fair amount of punishment, and if you can use Patient Defence and/or Stunning Strike at the right times you can avoid some of it (it's not just the damage you can take, it's the damage you can avoid). It also doesn't necessarily matter if you do go down; your goal is to keep enemies away from allies, not to outlast them, though it's not the ideal outcome.
Lastly, a big part of tanking is how your DM runs things; outside of the handful of abilities that actively penalise enemies for attacking someone else, there isn't a huge amount that actually stops a creature from just ignoring the party's "tank". This is because you only get one attack of opportunity, so that's not a huge incentive. This means tanking is as much about positioning as anything else, because if you can block a corridor then enemies have no choice but to fight the only target they can reach, and they're going to have to do it whether that target is a Raging Barbarian, or Patiently Defending Monk etc. The other factor is how the DM makes enemies behave; if the Monk goes in hard for a round or two, then defends, the DM might decide the enemies keep fighting the Monk despite the increase in difficulty to hit, because they want revenge or didn't notice other targets and the like, but requires a DM who remains narratively rather than mechanically minded during combat. That said, it's also somewhat on the players to give their DMs non-mechanical reasons to attack them over someone else, i.e- enemies might lose interesting in a Monk who is just silently blocking their every attack, but they might keep fighting one who is taunting them as they do it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In the thing that I was the enemy, I certainly wouldn't attack the one who has the most hit points but the one who has the least and is easier to eliminate. My list in this case would be, first the spellcasters and fighters with little life and last the barbarian, attacking him in groups without mercy. And since the monk is good at defending himself and not doing considerable harm, one might as well just ignore him. Although the stunning strike is problematic in many ways.
The only reason to spend Ki on Patient defense is to encourage enemies to ignore you for a round, or keep you up for a round while you manipulate an important object or stabilize a dying comrade or something equally niche. That’s it. If that’s what you really, really need then it’ll make your day.
Having an enemy ignore me while I wail on them is not a winning strategy for them generally.
I mean if I have 10 ki are you as DM going to ignore me for 10 stright turns while I am use patient defense and continue to hit you? At some point they are going to have to attack me if they want to win and that point will not come while they are alive if they wait for me to run out of ki to do it.
RAW patient defenses causes disadvantage when enemies attack you, which true to its word puts the enemies at a "disadvantage" if they attack you. If the DM never attacks you while you are using PD, then this changes it from disadvantage on attacks to effectively immunity from attacks and that makes the ability OP. It makes it more useful not less useful.
As long as you’re using Patient Defense you aren’t wailing on me with FoB or SS. That means you’re hitting with pillows compared to the Sharpshooter Howitzer, the EB spamming gattling Warlock, and the walking sledgehammer with PAM & GWM. That means I can focus on those hitting harder than you until you and your pillows are all that’s left and you’re out of Ki because you spent it all on being the least attractive target in the room.
🤷♂️
I mean .. You aren't wrong
At best the monk is hitting for 21 damage a turn with a d10 weapon and max Dex at level 10.... And that's not accounting for AC at all. Once you do that number drops and it's not in the monks favor.
Where you are really wrong though is when you claim that AC makes it less in the Monk's favor. The exact opposite is true. The number drops when you consider AC and it favors the Monk substantially. The differences only seem big when you do not consider AC.
As you noted the mean damage on a hit that is not a crit is 21 for a 10th level Monk using a D10 weapon and 20 dex.
The mean damage assuming a hit and no crit for a PAM/GWM with 3 attacks, 18 str, going with a +10 damage is 55.
So this is a huge number, over twice as much. But when adjust that for AC20 it looks completely different:
At AC20 10th level 20 Dex Monk averages 15DPR (1.1 crit damage+21damage x 0.65 chance to hit).
At AC20 an 18 STR PAM/GWM averages 13DPR (1.65 crit damage+55damage x 0.2 chance to hit).
Even with a d8 weapon he is still ahead of a GWM/PAM vs AC 20. As you drive down the AC that moves more in favor of the GWM/PAM, but not overwhelmingly so. Even at AC 14 you are talking about 28 (GWM/PAM) vs 21 (Monk).
Yes because the average AC for an enemy at level 10 is 20....
the weapon feats are only less with AC 18+ and even then they do better with at will advantage and the BA attack.
Overall I'm not sure what you are on about but the monk is not doing scary damage at all. They are barely plinking at the the creature unless they try to stun as that is the only thing that makes you even relatively threatening.
This is also why the monk drops hard as a melee Frontline past level 11 is if you don't FoB your damage is the worst of the martials.
Cantrips start to outpace you.... So the situation only gets worse.
In the thing that I was the enemy, I certainly wouldn't attack the one who has the most hit points but the one who has the least and is easier to eliminate. My list in this case would be, first the spellcasters and fighters with little life and last the barbarian, attacking him in groups without mercy. And since the monk is good at defending himself and not doing considerable harm, one might as well just ignore him. Although the stunning strike is problematic in many ways.
The problem there is you're looking at an encounter from too high a level; that's metagaming.
Lets say you have a party with a Barbarian, a Monk, a Ranger and a Wizard, and they're attacking a bandit camp with no fancy plan; the Barbarian and Monk are going to rush in and engage and provide a distraction, while the Ranger will fire from a distance at key targets, and the Wizard is going to try to buff/debuff and/or control. In that kind of scenario the ranged adventurers are not only not the most obvious threat from the camp's perspective, they're also not likely to be reachable in a single turn even if they were, so it's reasonable for the DM to have the enemies focus on the melee attackers they can see and maybe only have a few of the outlying bandits go after the ranged threats, because that's how a group of bandits ambushed in a camp might actually react to that kind of setup.
If you were to do the "correct" metagaming response, the first bandit able to see the Ranger and/or Wizard would simply inform his buddies, and the whole mob of bandits just bum-rushes those two while the Barbarian and Monk struggle to do anything to stop them, because from an optimisation perspective it makes most sense to eliminate the Ranger and the Wizard because it'll be a lot easier to deal with the other two without them. That's not going to feel like a realistic encounter, and it's not going to be any fun for the players. It also doesn't actually make any sense unless the bandits have a leader with a good INT score who can see the whole battlefield, as individual bandits shouldn't have that sort of awareness when there's a guy in pyjamas doling out free punch directly to their/their buddy's face.
This is why there's a definite narrative component to running combat encounters, and visibility and obstruction are things that need to be considered outside of the online whiteroom, as there are otherwise too many ways that enemies can exploit the rules to simply ignore whatever plan the players can come up with. Even the tankiest of tank Barbarian builds actually can't stop an enemy group from just ignoring them without some kind of plan or justification for why they shouldn't, same is true of a Monk, it's down to the player to say "I'm doing X to try and achieve Y" and for the DM to say "that's reasonable, and you rolled well, so Y happens". This is also why dragons don't simply use their breath weapon in endless fly-bys, circling out of range until it recharges; that would be the optimal thing to do, but it sure wouldn't be any fun to play against as dragons aren't the easiest things to knock prone to interrupt it (and even then they can just go right back to doing it). There's a balancing act between what is the most effective thing for an individual creature to do, and what would they actually do.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In the thing that I was the enemy, I certainly wouldn't attack the one who has the most hit points but the one who has the least and is easier to eliminate. My list in this case would be, first the spellcasters and fighters with little life and last the barbarian, attacking him in groups without mercy. And since the monk is good at defending himself and not doing considerable harm, one might as well just ignore him. Although the stunning strike is problematic in many ways.
The problem there is you're looking at an encounter from too high a level; that's metagaming.
Lets say you have a party with a Barbarian, a Monk, a Ranger and a Wizard, and they're attacking a bandit camp with no fancy plan; the Barbarian and Monk are going to rush in and engage and provide a distraction, while the Ranger will fire from a distance at key targets, and the Wizard is going to try to buff/debuff and/or control. In that kind of scenario the ranged adventurers are not only not the most obvious threat from the camp's perspective, they're also not likely to be reachable in a single turn even if they were, so it's reasonable for the DM to have the enemies focus on the melee attackers they can see and maybe only have a few of the outlying bandits go after the ranged threats, because that's how a group of bandits ambushed in a camp might actually react to that kind of setup.
If you were to do the "correct" metagaming response, the first bandit able to see the Ranger and/or Wizard would simply inform his buddies, and the whole mob of bandits just bum-rushes those two while the Barbarian and Monk struggle to do anything to stop them, because from an optimisation perspective it makes most sense to eliminate the Ranger and the Wizard because it'll be a lot easier to deal with the other two without them. That's not going to feel like a realistic encounter, and it's not going to be any fun for the players. It also doesn't actually make any sense unless the bandits have a leader with a good INT score who can see the whole battlefield, as individual bandits shouldn't have that sort of awareness when there's a guy in pyjamas doling out free punch directly to their/their buddy's face.
This is why there's a definite narrative component to running combat encounters, and visibility and obstruction are things that need to be considered outside of the online whiteroom, as there are otherwise too many ways that enemies can exploit the rules to simply ignore whatever plan the players can come up with. Even the tankiest of tank Barbarian builds actually can't stop an enemy group from just ignoring them without some kind of plan or justification for why they shouldn't, same is true of a Monk, it's down to the player to say "I'm doing X to try and achieve Y" and for the DM to say "that's reasonable, and you rolled well, so Y happens". This is also why dragons don't simply use their breath weapon in endless fly-bys, circling out of range until it recharges; that would be the optimal thing to do, but it sure wouldn't be any fun to play against as dragons aren't the easiest things to knock prone to interrupt it (and even then they can just go right back to doing it). There's a balancing act between what is the most effective thing for an individual creature to do, and what would they actually do.
The bad thing is the CR of a creature is based on it using it's abilities in the optimal way....
So the DM kinda has to play them at their max or else the system punches down too much.
And also ... Why wouldn't a dragon just fly and breath attack? If we can think of it a dragon with 20+ INT will realize the group can't deal with it and kill them with fire.
I find it hard as the DM to metagame... You pick the most obvious target and intelligent enemies will ignore the guy who's moving around like a flopping fish (and hitting like one) to hit the guy casting spells that are actually doing something.
The only reason to spend Ki on Patient defense is to encourage enemies to ignore you for a round, or keep you up for a round while you manipulate an important object or stabilize a dying comrade or something equally niche. That’s it. If that’s what you really, really need then it’ll make your day.
Having an enemy ignore me while I wail on them is not a winning strategy for them generally.
I mean if I have 10 ki are you as DM going to ignore me for 10 stright turns while I am use patient defense and continue to hit you? At some point they are going to have to attack me if they want to win and that point will not come while they are alive if they wait for me to run out of ki to do it.
RAW patient defenses causes disadvantage when enemies attack you, which true to its word puts the enemies at a "disadvantage" if they attack you. If the DM never attacks you while you are using PD, then this changes it from disadvantage on attacks to effectively immunity from attacks and that makes the ability OP. It makes it more useful not less useful.
As long as you’re using Patient Defense you aren’t wailing on me with FoB or SS. That means you’re hitting with pillows compared to the Sharpshooter Howitzer, the EB spamming gattling Warlock, and the walking sledgehammer with PAM & GWM. That means I can focus on those hitting harder than you until you and your pillows are all that’s left and you’re out of Ki because you spent it all on being the least attractive target in the room.
🤷♂️
I mean .. You aren't wrong
At best the monk is hitting for 21 damage a turn with a d10 weapon and max Dex at level 10.... And that's not accounting for AC at all. Once you do that number drops and it's not in the monks favor.
Where you are really wrong though is when you claim that AC makes it less in the Monk's favor. The exact opposite is true. The number drops when you consider AC and it favors the Monk substantially. The differences only seem big when you do not consider AC.
As you noted the mean damage on a hit that is not a crit is 21 for a 10th level Monk using a D10 weapon and 20 dex.
The mean damage assuming a hit and no crit for a PAM/GWM with 3 attacks, 18 str, going with a +10 damage is 55.
So this is a huge number, over twice as much. But when adjust that for AC20 it looks completely different:
At AC20 10th level 20 Dex Monk averages 15DPR (1.1 crit damage+21damage x 0.65 chance to hit).
At AC20 an 18 STR PAM/GWM averages 13DPR (1.65 crit damage+55damage x 0.2 chance to hit).
Even with a d8 weapon he is still ahead of a GWM/PAM vs AC 20. As you drive down the AC that moves more in favor of the GWM/PAM, but not overwhelmingly so. Even at AC 14 you are talking about 28 (GWM/PAM) vs 21 (Monk).
Yes because the average AC for an enemy at level 10 is 20....
the weapon feats are only less with AC 18+ and even then they do better with at will advantage and the BA attack.
Overall I'm not sure what you are on about but the monk is not doing scary damage at all. They are barely plinking at the the creature unless they try to stun as that is the only thing that makes you even relatively threatening.
What I replied to was the theory that when you add AC the numbers drop "and it is worse for the Monk". That is factually untrue the numbers drop and get better for the Monk in comparison to the other guy, not worse. The damage done is closer at any AC when you factor in chance to hit. The higher the AC, the better it gets for the Monk in comparison to the other guy.
Further I posted numbers for both AC20 and for AC14 to illustrate my point.
A Monk with a 20 Dex Monk d10 weapon vs 17 AC is doing 18 DPR.
A Fighter with PAM/GWM 18 Str d10 weapon vs AC 17 is doing 21 DPR
So the difference is only 3 DPR at AC 17.
My point is this you talk about the Monk "just plinking" and admittedly he is doing less damage because he is putting resources towards defense and is not as high of a damage build to start with, but it is not a lot or an overwhelming amount like claimed, and it is important to note that this is a basic monk going against a martial build specificlly optimized for damage.
How many parties actually have the mythical GWM/PAM player? I think I have played with only party in the last 3 years that even had a player with both of those feats, and without both of those feats the difference is either less or even upside down.
This is also why the monk drops hard as a melee Frontline past level 11 is if you don't FoB your damage is the worst of the martials.
Cantrips start to outpace you.... So the situation only gets worse.
FWIW a 10th level wizard using Firebolt against AC17 is doing 7DPR, an 11th level wizard throwing firebolt is doing 10 DPR, so she is not outrunning a Monk with cantrips, even at 11th level.
Edit: I forgot about booming blade. Booming Blade, assuming a 16 strength and greatsword/maul is doing 17DPR at 11th level vs AC 17, but that is with a 16 strength using the highest damage weapon available and it is assuming he lands the movement damage.
The bad thing is the CR of a creature is based on it using it's abilities in the optimal way....
A creature's CR is based on its hit-points, its chance to hit, its potential average damage per round and so-on. It doesn't matter who they're attacking, and it also doesn't matter how much damage they actually do, because part of the back and forth of combat is avoiding damage.
Your players don't need to be standing there taking the "correct" damage for a monster to be justifying its CR, the CR is a rating of how difficult a creature can be, but your players aren't supposed to just let it be that difficult, because if they do then they'll get steamrolled.
And also ... Why wouldn't a dragon just fly and breath attack? If we can think of it a dragon with 20+ INT will realize the group can't deal with it and kill them with fire.
Because dragons are proud, they can be arrogant, because they might be protecting something, because a million other potential reasons why they won't simply do what is optimal, versus what makes sense for the character of that dragon. D&D is not played in the kind of whiteroom BS that we see endlessly online, and at the end of the day the goal of a DM is not to kill their players, it's to challenge them, which is not the same thing.
I find it hard as the DM to metagame... You pick the most obvious target and intelligent enemies will ignore the guy who's moving around like a flopping fish (and hitting like one) to hit the guy casting spells that are actually doing something.
If you're ignoring a character you can see to go for one you can't then that's metagaming, if you go for the best target rather than the most obvious target then you're metagaming, if you go out of your way to go around a character that's trying to block you then that can also be metagaming, if you're crunching damage numbers and looking up an excel spreadsheet to make the most optimal decision in any given moment, then that's metagaming.
Far too many people on these forums are utterly obsessed with the numbers, and optimisation, and seem to have forgotten that there's also supposed to be a game with a narrative. And honestly I find it sickening; D&D is supposed to be fun, not maths homework. But more importantly, DMs should not want to "defeat" their player's every plan, DMs should want players to bait monsters, to come up with ideas and strategies for how to do things that don't rely on having to exploit the rules and so-on.
Basically if your games play out like this:
Monk: "I move to block the doorway, and use Patient Defence to stand my ground". DM: "Haha, you're not quite wide enough so the monster just goes around you and kills the Wizard because **** you for being a Monk".
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn.
Ancestral Protectors
Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, spectral warriors appear when you enter your rage. While you're raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which hinder its attacks. Until the start of your next turn, that target has disadvantage on any attack roll that isn't against you, and when the target hits a creature other than you with an attack, that creature has resistance to the damage dealt by the attack. The effect on the target ends early if your rage ends.
Sure, they're great abilities, but they only work if you're tanking a single creature*; if your DM is determined to ignore your tank and go attack something else instead, then neither of these prevents that, especially if the creature is going to be giving up a turn of attacks to go to another target anyway, or you're fighting multiple enemies and you've only succeeded in stopping one* while the rest go and hit the Wizard anyway.
This is what I mean by the narrative element; these kinds of abilities are supposed to help you be a better tank, they're not intended to let you force your DM to do something they're determined not to, because you shouldn't have to.
*Minor correction, as Goading Attack can be used on multiple targets, but you're still limited by how many attacks you can make, how many enemies you hit, and how many superiority dice you have left.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The bad thing is the CR of a creature is based on it using it's abilities in the optimal way....
A creature's CR is based on its hit-points, its change to hit, its potential average damage per round and so-on. It doesn't matter who they're attacking, and it also doesn't matter how much damage they actually do, because part of the back and forth of combat is avoiding damage.
Your players don't need to be standing there taking the "correct" damage for a monster to be justifying its CR, the CR is a rating of how difficult a creature can be, but your players aren't supposed to just let it be that difficult, because if they do then they'll get steamrolled.
And also ... Why wouldn't a dragon just fly and breath attack? If we can think of it a dragon with 20+ INT will realize the group can't deal with it and kill them with fire.
Because dragons are proud, they can be arrogant, because they might be protecting something, because a million other potential reasons why they won't simply do what is optimal, versus what makes sense for the character of that dragon. D&D is not played in the kind of whiteroom BS that we see endlessly online, and at the end of the day the goal of a DM is not to kill their players, it's to challenge them, which is not the same thing.
I find it hard as the DM to metagame... You pick the most obvious target and intelligent enemies will ignore the guy who's moving around like a flopping fish (and hitting like one) to hit the guy casting spells that are actually doing something.
If you're ignoring a character you can see to go for one you can't then that's metagaming, if you go for the best target rather than the most obvious target then you're metagaming, if you go out of your way to go around a character that's trying to block you then that can also be metagaming, if you're crunching damage numbers and looking up an excel spreadsheet to make the most optimal decision in any given moment, then that's metagaming.
Far too many people on these forums are utterly obsessed with the numbers, and optimisation, and seem to have forgotten that there's also supposed to be a game with a narrative. And honestly I find it sickening; D&D is supposed to be fun, not maths homework. But more importantly, DMs should not want to "defeat" their player's every plan, DMs should want players to bait monsters, to come up with ideas and strategies for how to do things that don't rely on having to exploit the rules and so-on.
Basically if your games play out like this:
Monk: "I move to block the doorway, and use Patient Defence to stand my ground". DM: "Haha, you're not quite wide enough so the monster just goes around you and kills the Wizard because **** you for being a Monk".
Then you're doing something wrong. 😝
Not really... The DM is just going to play the creature intelligently and if the plan doesn't work in the mechanics that the world offers... Then they plan doesn't work.
It's not bad to have internal consistency and some would argue it's actually better that way so the players know their plans will work or not.
I would argue that having to bend the rules or patronizing the class to make them a threat makes the player feel worse.
Overall it's better to fix the class imo than to force every DM to ignore these things.
If you like how monk is and your group can make it work then more power to you.... But I would enjoy options for making the monk better and I think that there is enough interest that we will see significant monk changes in 2024.
The only reason to spend Ki on Patient defense is to encourage enemies to ignore you for a round, or keep you up for a round while you manipulate an important object or stabilize a dying comrade or something equally niche. That’s it. If that’s what you really, really need then it’ll make your day.
Having an enemy ignore me while I wail on them is not a winning strategy for them generally.
I mean if I have 10 ki are you as DM going to ignore me for 10 stright turns while I am use patient defense and continue to hit you? At some point they are going to have to attack me if they want to win and that point will not come while they are alive if they wait for me to run out of ki to do it.
RAW patient defenses causes disadvantage when enemies attack you, which true to its word puts the enemies at a "disadvantage" if they attack you. If the DM never attacks you while you are using PD, then this changes it from disadvantage on attacks to effectively immunity from attacks and that makes the ability OP. It makes it more useful not less useful.
As long as you’re using Patient Defense you aren’t wailing on me with FoB or SS. That means you’re hitting with pillows compared to the Sharpshooter Howitzer, the EB spamming gattling Warlock, and the walking sledgehammer with PAM & GWM. That means I can focus on those hitting harder than you until you and your pillows are all that’s left and you’re out of Ki because you spent it all on being the least attractive target in the room.
🤷♂️
I mean .. You aren't wrong
At best the monk is hitting for 21 damage a turn with a d10 weapon and max Dex at level 10.... And that's not accounting for AC at all. Once you do that number drops and it's not in the monks favor.
Where you are really wrong though is when you claim that AC makes it less in the Monk's favor. The exact opposite is true. The number drops when you consider AC and it favors the Monk substantially. The differences only seem big when you do not consider AC.
As you noted the mean damage on a hit that is not a crit is 21 for a 10th level Monk using a D10 weapon and 20 dex.
The mean damage assuming a hit and no crit for a PAM/GWM with 3 attacks, 18 str, going with a +10 damage is 55.
So this is a huge number, over twice as much. But when adjust that for AC20 it looks completely different:
At AC20 10th level 20 Dex Monk averages 15DPR (1.1 crit damage+21damage x 0.65 chance to hit).
At AC20 an 18 STR PAM/GWM averages 13DPR (1.65 crit damage+55damage x 0.2 chance to hit).
Even with a d8 weapon he is still ahead of a GWM/PAM vs AC 20. As you drive down the AC that moves more in favor of the GWM/PAM, but not overwhelmingly so. Even at AC 14 you are talking about 28 (GWM/PAM) vs 21 (Monk).
Yes because the average AC for an enemy at level 10 is 20....
the weapon feats are only less with AC 18+ and even then they do better with at will advantage and the BA attack.
Overall I'm not sure what you are on about but the monk is not doing scary damage at all. They are barely plinking at the the creature unless they try to stun as that is the only thing that makes you even relatively threatening.
What I replied to was the theory that when you add AC the numbers drop "and it is worse for the Monk". That is factually untrue the numbers drop and get better for the Monk in comparison to the other guy, not worse. The damage done is closer at any AC when you factor in chance to hit. The higher the AC, the better it gets for the Monk in comparison to the other guy.
Further I posted numbers for both AC20 and for AC14 to illustrate my point.
A Monk with a 20 Dex Monk d10 weapon vs 17 AC is doing 18 DPR.
A Fighter with PAM/GWM 18 Str d10 weapon vs AC 17 is doing 21 DPR
So the difference is only 3 DPR at AC 17.
My point is this you talk about the Monk "just plinking" and admittedly he is doing less damage because he is putting resources towards defense and is not as high of a damage build to start with, but it is not a lot or an overwhelming amount like claimed, and it is important to note that this is a basic monk going against a martial build specificlly optimized for damage.
How many parties actually have the mythical GWM/PAM player? I think I have played with only party in the last 3 years that even had a player with both of those feats, and without both of those feats the difference is either less or even upside down.
This is also why the monk drops hard as a melee Frontline past level 11 is if you don't FoB your damage is the worst of the martials.
Cantrips start to outpace you.... So the situation only gets worse.
FWIW a 10th level wizard using Firebolt against AC17 is doing 7DPR, an 11th level wizard throwing firebolt is doing 10 DPR, so she is not outrunning a Monk with cantrips, even at 11th level.
Edit: I forgot about booming blade. Booming Blade, assuming a 16 strength and greatsword/maul is doing 17DPR at 11th level vs AC 17, but that is with a 16 strength using the highest damage weapon available and it is assuming he lands the movement damage.
Yes if you completely ignore any subclass features and just assume the fighter is going to be doing nothing to try to get advantage and assume no crits then it's just about equal!
The lengths one must go to I swear....
Even in the best case the fighter is more damage so I still see no benefit... And in one level (funny how you picked level 10) the fighter busts the whole thing open and the monk just drops off the cliff with damage when they get a third attack.
So let's recap: give the monk the best case and the fighter the worst and you are still behind in damage...
As for cantrips....7 damage at range is still better than being in crit range of whatever is attacking the party. I would take being able to be 120ft away as that's significantly better defense than being 5ft away with DIS.
Overall the monk is doing bad damage at close enough range to get wrecked
Yes if you completely ignore any subclass features and just assume the fighter is going to be doing nothing to try to get advantage and assume no crits then it's just about equal!
First off the numbers I posted DO include crits. They do not include advantage because that is unpredictable and not relevant. Also I am not sure that generally favors a fighter.
I am not counting subclass features for either (with the exception of a Monk Sharpshooter several posts above), but I am considering relevant class features, most notably the extra ASI or Feat the fighter gets at 6th level and the Archery fighting style in the case of ranged attacks.
A couple things I am not considering aside from subclass abilities:
I am not considering the variance on the amount of damage in those numbers. Given two builds that roll the same mean damage per round; one that hits more often for less damage (Monk) and one that hits less often with higher damage (GWM/PAM). The one that hits less often over time is going to deliver more damage because of the lower variance and less damage lost when an enemy is put down. Over multiple turns this is going to favor the Monk in the amount of damage actually delivered vs rolled.
I am not considering opportunity attacks or action economy (taking dodge or dash to get to someone else) or opportunity attacks which are very relevant if you are deciding you are not going to attack the guy who is engaged with you and holding a melee weapon.
The lengths one must go to I swear....
I know right!
I keep posting actual numbers and people keep shrugging them off. The math is not that difficult but it is not trivial either.
Even in the best case the fighter is more damage so I still see no benefit...
The advantage is giving the enemy disadvantage on attacks while he is engaged with you and forcing him to sacrifice actions like disengage or dash and/or take opportunity attacks to go after someone else.
And in one level (funny how you picked level 10) the fighter busts the whole thing open and the monk just drops off the cliff with damage when they get a third attack.
I originally picked level 10 because a monk gets 10 ki at level 10 and 10 rounds is a whole minute so at this level a Monk can dodge that entire time as a bonus action.
I have no problem making a comparison at level 11 though. Exactly how much DPR do you consider to be a "drop off a cliff".... and when we are talking about this, lets includ the AOO the enemmy is causing every turn by moving to attack someone else.
So let's recap: give the monk the best case and the fighter the worst and you are still behind in damage...
Not true. You actually have this backwards. I am giving the fighter specific feats to boost damage. I am giving the fighter "the best case" and still the difference is small at virtually all ACs and disappears entirely at high ACs.
Overall the monk is doing bad damage at close enough range to get wrecked
Being close range is the whole reason he would use patient defense and it will substantially mitigate "getting wrecked" if he is attacked while using patent defense. Further, as I pointed out earlier, he cant "get wrecked" at all if the enemy does not attack him.
Your argument has a huge hole and you can't have it both ways. The Monk is either survivable because the enemy has disadvantage and will do less damage to him OR he is survivable because the DM refuses to attack him - The result is the same in either case, he is survivable and will not"get wrecked"
Yes if you completely ignore any subclass features and just assume the fighter is going to be doing nothing to try to get advantage and assume no crits then it's just about equal!
First off the numbers I posted DO include crits. They do not include advantage because that is unpredictable and not relevant. Also I am not sure that generally favors a fighter.
I am not counting subclass features for either (with the exception of a Monk Sharpshooter several posts above), but I am considering relevant class features, most notably the extra ASI or Feat the fighter gets at 6th level and the Archery fighting style in the case of ranged attacks.
A couple things I am not considering aside from subclass abilities:
I am not considering the variance on the amount of damage in those numbers. Given two builds that roll the same mean damage per round; one that hits more often for less damage (Monk) and one that hits less often with higher damage (GWM/PAM). The one that hits less often over time is going to deliver more damage because of the lower variance and less damage lost when an enemy is put down. Over multiple turns this is going to favor the Monk in the amount of damage actually delivered vs rolled.
I am not considering opportunity attacks or action economy (taking dodge or dash to get to someone else) or opportunity attacks which are very relevant if you are deciding you are not going to attack the guy who is engaged with you and holding a melee weapon.
The lengths one must go to I swear....
If you think there are specific fundamentals I am not considering that I should, let me know what those are. I am underpinning my argument with actual numbers.
Your basic argument is that no intelligent enemies are going to attack a dodging Monk. To start with there are many, many enemies that are not intelligent, second, avoiding attacking an enemy engaged with you to seek out a more lucrative target is rarely easy or optimal and third the difference in damage is not nearly what your claim without numbers would imply.
Moreover if intelligent enemies can just arbitrarily decide who to attack they would not attack either the dodging Monk or the bruising fighter. They would attack the enemy with the fewest hit points and least defenses. Usually a back-line Rogue or wizard. So if the enemy can just automatically ignore the Monk to attack somoene else, then logically he can just ignore the fighter to attack a better target as well.
Even in the best case the fighter is more damage so I still see no benefit...
The advantage is giving the enemy disadvantage on attacks while he is engaged with you and forcing him to sacrifice actions like disengage or dash and/or take opportunity attacks to go after someone else.
And in one level (funny how you picked level 10) the fighter busts the whole thing open and the monk just drops off the cliff with damage when they get a third attack.
I originally picked level 10 because a monk gets 10 ki at level 10 and 10 rounds is a whole minute so at this level a Monk can dodge that entire time as a bonus action.
I have no problem making a comparison at level 11 though. Exactly how much DPR do you consider to be a "drop off a cliff".... and when we are talking about this, lets includ the AOO the enemmy is causing every turn by moving to attack someone else.
So let's recap: give the monk the best case and the fighter the worst and you are still behind in damage...
Not true. You actually have this backwards. I am giving the fighter specific feats to boost damage. I am giving the fighter "the best case" and still the difference is small at virtually all ACs and disappears entirely at high ACs.
Overall the monk is doing bad damage at close enough range to get wrecked
Being close range is the whole reason he would use patient defense and it will substantially mitigate "getting wrecked" if he is attacked while using patent defense. Further, as I pointed out earlier, he cant "get wrecked" at all if the enemy does not attack him.
Your argument has a huge hole and you can't have it both ways. The Monk is either survivable because the enemy has disadvantage and will do less damage to him OR he is survivable because the DM refuses to attack him - The result is the same in either case, he is survivable and will not"get wrecked"
Your math is really bad and it's making it hard to have a good discussion...
Maybe recheck how you are doing it because you are way off...
Your math is really bad and it's making it hard to have a good discussion...
Maybe recheck how you are doing it because you are way off....
It is possible, everyone makes mistakes, but I don't think anything I posted on this thread is mathematically incorrect to the precision indicated (integers with 1 or 2 significant digits) with the assumptions I made when I calculated it. Tell me exactly what you think is wrong and I will spell it out for you how I arrived there.
The link you posted does not show me anything. To start with I do not use spreadsheets or calculators of unknown origin for the numbers I post. I either use actual math (which I used in everything on this thread) or I use a numerical statistical evaluation.
Your math is really bad and it's making it hard to have a good discussion...
Maybe recheck how you are doing it because you are way off....
It is possible, everyone makes mistakes, but I don't think anything I posted on this thread is mathematically incorrect to the precision indicated (integers with 1 or 2 significant digits) with the assumptions I made when I calculated it. Tell me exactly what you think is wrong and I will spell it out for you how I arrived there.
See my proof.... Both posts have fixes for your math
You are looking at 11 dpr for a monk with a Shortbow
Vs
26 damage with the SS+CBE.
So like over double the damage.
I think you are forgetting the BA attack on each build which puts it very much outside of the reach of the monk.
That attack also gets the +10 damage.
If you get advantage (like a barbarian would) the damage is leagues better and it only gets worse when you hit level 11
Your math is really bad and it's making it hard to have a good discussion...
Maybe recheck how you are doing it because you are way off....
It is possible, everyone makes mistakes, but I don't think anything I posted on this thread is mathematically incorrect to the precision indicated (integers with 1 or 2 significant digits) with the assumptions I made when I calculated it. Tell me exactly what you think is wrong and I will spell it out for you how I arrived there.
See my proof.... Both posts have fixes for your math
You are looking at 11 dpr for a monk with a Shortbow
You are just wrong. A few things to note:
1. The base attack bonus is +9 without sharpshooter and +8 with sharpshooter
2. Damage is 1d6+5 without sharpshooter and 1d6+14 with sharpshooter
3. I don't see focused aim accounted for anywhere.
DPR on a 10th level Monk with a shortbow is 14:
Here is how that is calculated:
1. DPR = (base damage*chance to hit+average crit damage)* number of attacks
2. Chance to hit is (21-AC+total attack bonus)*0.5
3. Base attack bonus is +9, focused aim can vary between 0 and 6, I assumed 3 as an average number. This makes total attack bonus +12
4. average crit damage is 3.5*.05
5. base damage is 3.5+5
Putting this all together and going back to equation 1:
DPR=(8.5*(21-17+12)*0.05+3.5*0.05)*2
DPR=13.95, rounded to 14
If you are getting a different number than that on your spreadsheet then you are making different assumptions on the build, entering things incorrectly or the spreadsheet itself is flawed.
26 damage with the SS+CBE.
So like over double the damage.
Yes and he is not dodging, has a higher AC and it is not the wizard you made the original comparison with.
Your post was about a wizard using firebolt from 120 feet. Now that wizard has CBE, SS and extra attack?
Finally the 26 is wrong. I don't completely understand that spreadsheet, but the follwing appears incorrect:
1. damage with a 16dex is 1d6+13, not 1d6 +15
2. Attack bonus is +7 with a 16 dexterity, not +6
3. The spreadsheet does not appear to account for the -5 for getting the +10 bonus.
When you account for these the average damage is 15 DPR, not 26. I don't know exactly what you got wrong in your spreadsheet, but 15 is the actual DPR for a 10th-level 16 Dex wizard with extra attack using SS and XBE.
I ask again. If you think my math is wrong, tell me where it is wrong.
You are wrong. Math matters.
Ranged builds:
A 6th level Kensie using a longbow, sharpshooter against AC 17 will do 15DPR
A 6th Warlock is doing 7 DPR vs AC 17 with Eldritch blast unless he took an invocation to boost damage (in which case it is 11).
AA 6th level Fighter using a longbow, sharpshooter and archery fighting style against an enemy with a 17 AC is doing 15DPR.
Melee:
A 6th-level Monk using a warhammer dedicated weapon and patient defense against AC 17 is doing 14DPR.
A 6th-level fighter using GWM, GWF and PAM is doing 15 DPR against AC 17.
So your Warlock is doing less damage, your "SS howitzer" is doing the same. Your GWM/GWF/PAM fighter is doing 1 point more.
So the Monk is doing just about as much damage while also making enemies have disadvantage on attacks.
Something thing worth discussing is the numbers above are mean numbers rounded to the nearest integer, however the variance on the GWM and SS builds (including the Monk SS) is much higher than it is on the melee Monk build (or the warlock for that matter). There is a difference in the mean damage calculated and the damage the enemy takes as the latter is bounded and limited by his or her hit points when a hit happens. Because of this if you compare 2 numbers with the same mean damage, the case with the lower variance will result in more damage inflicted on the enemy over time and many battles.
Where you are really wrong though is when you claim that AC makes it less in the Monk's favor. The exact opposite is true. The number drops when you consider AC and it favors the Monk substantially. The differences only seem big when you do not consider AC.
As you noted the mean damage on a hit that is not a crit is 21 for a 10th level Monk using a D10 weapon and 20 dex.
The mean damage assuming a hit and no crit for a PAM/GWM with 3 attacks, 18 str, going with a +10 damage is 55.
So this is a huge number, over twice as much. But when adjust that for AC20 it looks completely different:
At AC20 10th level 20 Dex Monk averages 15DPR (1.1 crit damage+21damage x 0.65 chance to hit).
At AC20 an 18 STR PAM/GWM averages 13DPR (1.65 crit damage+55damage x 0.2 chance to hit).
Even with a d8 weapon he is still ahead of a GWM/PAM vs AC 20. As you drive down the AC that moves more in favor of the GWM/PAM, but not overwhelmingly so. Even at AC 14 you are talking about 28 (GWM/PAM) vs 21 (Monk).
I’m done arguing with you. It’s like arguing with a politician.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My understanding is that there are subclasses of the monk more suited in melee combat, but ultimately he will never be a tank with only d8 hit points. Heck, I think a rogue is even a better tank than the monk because of the features (Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and Elusive).
Perhaps a frontline combatant yes, but only as long as he can escape and get to safety at the end of his turn.
This depends how you define a tank, as people seem to overly fixate on durability, but you can be a durable character without being a tank; put another way, durability is useful for a tank, but it's not critical.
The key question for a tank, and why Monks can have trouble in the role, is "how are you convincing enemies to attack you instead of someone else?".
Barbarians aren't tanks because they can take a lot of punishment, they're tanks because they can use Reckless Attack to encourage enemies to hit them instead; this will depend on your DM, but if we assume enemies try to maximise their damage output like players do, then they should attack the reckless barbarian as even if they're only dealing half damage against them it's better than missing more against someone else. A Barbarian can supplement this with Ancestral Guardian (one of your targets has disadvantage vs. creatures other than you).
Sentinel is a more important feat for tanking than Great Weapon Master, because it actually lets you prevent enemies from escaping you; Monks have the same access to this that a Barbarian does.
Monks aren't that bad in the role of tanks, but it's another example of Stunning Strike being their main trick for making it work mechanically; because an enemy can't move away if it's stunned, and stunning them has the bonus of making them easier for you to hit and maximise your own damage against them (and other party members if they're near, though if you're tanking they might not be). Patient Defence is an option for tanking, but it's more of a personal defence only as it actively discourages enemies from wanting to attack you. In terms of hit-points Monks are fine, d8 might be less than d10, but it's not that much less; with a decent Constitution you can still take a fair amount of punishment, and if you can use Patient Defence and/or Stunning Strike at the right times you can avoid some of it (it's not just the damage you can take, it's the damage you can avoid). It also doesn't necessarily matter if you do go down; your goal is to keep enemies away from allies, not to outlast them, though it's not the ideal outcome.
Lastly, a big part of tanking is how your DM runs things; outside of the handful of abilities that actively penalise enemies for attacking someone else, there isn't a huge amount that actually stops a creature from just ignoring the party's "tank". This is because you only get one attack of opportunity, so that's not a huge incentive. This means tanking is as much about positioning as anything else, because if you can block a corridor then enemies have no choice but to fight the only target they can reach, and they're going to have to do it whether that target is a Raging Barbarian, or Patiently Defending Monk etc. The other factor is how the DM makes enemies behave; if the Monk goes in hard for a round or two, then defends, the DM might decide the enemies keep fighting the Monk despite the increase in difficulty to hit, because they want revenge or didn't notice other targets and the like, but requires a DM who remains narratively rather than mechanically minded during combat. That said, it's also somewhat on the players to give their DMs non-mechanical reasons to attack them over someone else, i.e- enemies might lose interesting in a Monk who is just silently blocking their every attack, but they might keep fighting one who is taunting them as they do it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In the thing that I was the enemy, I certainly wouldn't attack the one who has the most hit points but the one who has the least and is easier to eliminate. My list in this case would be, first the spellcasters and fighters with little life and last the barbarian, attacking him in groups without mercy. And since the monk is good at defending himself and not doing considerable harm, one might as well just ignore him. Although the stunning strike is problematic in many ways.
Yes because the average AC for an enemy at level 10 is 20....
Oh wait it's actually 17
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2nn6ld/the_monster_quick_stats_by_cr_table/
the weapon feats are only less with AC 18+ and even then they do better with at will advantage and the BA attack.
Overall I'm not sure what you are on about but the monk is not doing scary damage at all. They are barely plinking at the the creature unless they try to stun as that is the only thing that makes you even relatively threatening.
This is also why the monk drops hard as a melee Frontline past level 11 is if you don't FoB your damage is the worst of the martials.
Cantrips start to outpace you.... So the situation only gets worse.
The problem there is you're looking at an encounter from too high a level; that's metagaming.
Lets say you have a party with a Barbarian, a Monk, a Ranger and a Wizard, and they're attacking a bandit camp with no fancy plan; the Barbarian and Monk are going to rush in and engage and provide a distraction, while the Ranger will fire from a distance at key targets, and the Wizard is going to try to buff/debuff and/or control. In that kind of scenario the ranged adventurers are not only not the most obvious threat from the camp's perspective, they're also not likely to be reachable in a single turn even if they were, so it's reasonable for the DM to have the enemies focus on the melee attackers they can see and maybe only have a few of the outlying bandits go after the ranged threats, because that's how a group of bandits ambushed in a camp might actually react to that kind of setup.
If you were to do the "correct" metagaming response, the first bandit able to see the Ranger and/or Wizard would simply inform his buddies, and the whole mob of bandits just bum-rushes those two while the Barbarian and Monk struggle to do anything to stop them, because from an optimisation perspective it makes most sense to eliminate the Ranger and the Wizard because it'll be a lot easier to deal with the other two without them. That's not going to feel like a realistic encounter, and it's not going to be any fun for the players. It also doesn't actually make any sense unless the bandits have a leader with a good INT score who can see the whole battlefield, as individual bandits shouldn't have that sort of awareness when there's a guy in pyjamas doling out free punch directly to their/their buddy's face.
This is why there's a definite narrative component to running combat encounters, and visibility and obstruction are things that need to be considered outside of the online whiteroom, as there are otherwise too many ways that enemies can exploit the rules to simply ignore whatever plan the players can come up with. Even the tankiest of tank Barbarian builds actually can't stop an enemy group from just ignoring them without some kind of plan or justification for why they shouldn't, same is true of a Monk, it's down to the player to say "I'm doing X to try and achieve Y" and for the DM to say "that's reasonable, and you rolled well, so Y happens". This is also why dragons don't simply use their breath weapon in endless fly-bys, circling out of range until it recharges; that would be the optimal thing to do, but it sure wouldn't be any fun to play against as dragons aren't the easiest things to knock prone to interrupt it (and even then they can just go right back to doing it). There's a balancing act between what is the most effective thing for an individual creature to do, and what would they actually do.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The bad thing is the CR of a creature is based on it using it's abilities in the optimal way....
So the DM kinda has to play them at their max or else the system punches down too much.
https://www.enworld.org/threads/jeremy-crawford-explains-how-original-cr-was-calculated-and-changes-going-forward.685761/
And also ... Why wouldn't a dragon just fly and breath attack? If we can think of it a dragon with 20+ INT will realize the group can't deal with it and kill them with fire.
I find it hard as the DM to metagame... You pick the most obvious target and intelligent enemies will ignore the guy who's moving around like a flopping fish (and hitting like one) to hit the guy casting spells that are actually doing something.
What I replied to was the theory that when you add AC the numbers drop "and it is worse for the Monk". That is factually untrue the numbers drop and get better for the Monk in comparison to the other guy, not worse. The damage done is closer at any AC when you factor in chance to hit. The higher the AC, the better it gets for the Monk in comparison to the other guy.
Further I posted numbers for both AC20 and for AC14 to illustrate my point.
A Monk with a 20 Dex Monk d10 weapon vs 17 AC is doing 18 DPR.
A Fighter with PAM/GWM 18 Str d10 weapon vs AC 17 is doing 21 DPR
So the difference is only 3 DPR at AC 17.
My point is this you talk about the Monk "just plinking" and admittedly he is doing less damage because he is putting resources towards defense and is not as high of a damage build to start with, but it is not a lot or an overwhelming amount like claimed, and it is important to note that this is a basic monk going against a martial build specificlly optimized for damage.
How many parties actually have the mythical GWM/PAM player? I think I have played with only party in the last 3 years that even had a player with both of those feats, and without both of those feats the difference is either less or even upside down.
FWIW a 10th level wizard using Firebolt against AC17 is doing 7DPR, an 11th level wizard throwing firebolt is doing 10 DPR, so she is not outrunning a Monk with cantrips, even at 11th level.
Edit: I forgot about booming blade. Booming Blade, assuming a 16 strength and greatsword/maul is doing 17DPR at 11th level vs AC 17, but that is with a 16 strength using the highest damage weapon available and it is assuming he lands the movement damage.
A creature's CR is based on its hit-points, its chance to hit, its potential average damage per round and so-on. It doesn't matter who they're attacking, and it also doesn't matter how much damage they actually do, because part of the back and forth of combat is avoiding damage.
Your players don't need to be standing there taking the "correct" damage for a monster to be justifying its CR, the CR is a rating of how difficult a creature can be, but your players aren't supposed to just let it be that difficult, because if they do then they'll get steamrolled.
Because dragons are proud, they can be arrogant, because they might be protecting something, because a million other potential reasons why they won't simply do what is optimal, versus what makes sense for the character of that dragon. D&D is not played in the kind of whiteroom BS that we see endlessly online, and at the end of the day the goal of a DM is not to kill their players, it's to challenge them, which is not the same thing.
If you're ignoring a character you can see to go for one you can't then that's metagaming, if you go for the best target rather than the most obvious target then you're metagaming, if you go out of your way to go around a character that's trying to block you then that can also be metagaming, if you're crunching damage numbers and looking up an excel spreadsheet to make the most optimal decision in any given moment, then that's metagaming.
Far too many people on these forums are utterly obsessed with the numbers, and optimisation, and seem to have forgotten that there's also supposed to be a game with a narrative. And honestly I find it sickening; D&D is supposed to be fun, not maths homework. But more importantly, DMs should not want to "defeat" their player's every plan, DMs should want players to bait monsters, to come up with ideas and strategies for how to do things that don't rely on having to exploit the rules and so-on.
Basically if your games play out like this:
Monk: "I move to block the doorway, and use Patient Defence to stand my ground".
DM: "Haha, you're not quite wide enough so the monster just goes around you and kills the Wizard because **** you for being a Monk".
Then you're doing something wrong. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So these would be ideal skills for a tank.
Goading Attack
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn.
Ancestral Protectors
Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, spectral warriors appear when you enter your rage. While you're raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which hinder its attacks. Until the start of your next turn, that target has disadvantage on any attack roll that isn't against you, and when the target hits a creature other than you with an attack, that creature has resistance to the damage dealt by the attack. The effect on the target ends early if your rage ends.
Sure, they're great abilities, but they only work if you're tanking a single creature*; if your DM is determined to ignore your tank and go attack something else instead, then neither of these prevents that, especially if the creature is going to be giving up a turn of attacks to go to another target anyway, or you're fighting multiple enemies and you've only succeeded in stopping one* while the rest go and hit the Wizard anyway.
This is what I mean by the narrative element; these kinds of abilities are supposed to help you be a better tank, they're not intended to let you force your DM to do something they're determined not to, because you shouldn't have to.
*Minor correction, as Goading Attack can be used on multiple targets, but you're still limited by how many attacks you can make, how many enemies you hit, and how many superiority dice you have left.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Not really... The DM is just going to play the creature intelligently and if the plan doesn't work in the mechanics that the world offers... Then they plan doesn't work.
It's not bad to have internal consistency and some would argue it's actually better that way so the players know their plans will work or not.
I would argue that having to bend the rules or patronizing the class to make them a threat makes the player feel worse.
Overall it's better to fix the class imo than to force every DM to ignore these things.
If you like how monk is and your group can make it work then more power to you.... But I would enjoy options for making the monk better and I think that there is enough interest that we will see significant monk changes in 2024.
Yes if you completely ignore any subclass features and just assume the fighter is going to be doing nothing to try to get advantage and assume no crits then it's just about equal!
The lengths one must go to I swear....
Even in the best case the fighter is more damage so I still see no benefit... And in one level (funny how you picked level 10) the fighter busts the whole thing open and the monk just drops off the cliff with damage when they get a third attack.
So let's recap: give the monk the best case and the fighter the worst and you are still behind in damage...
As for cantrips....7 damage at range is still better than being in crit range of whatever is attacking the party. I would take being able to be 120ft away as that's significantly better defense than being 5ft away with DIS.
Overall the monk is doing bad damage at close enough range to get wrecked
Edit:
Also your math is bad....
I have proof from the damage calculator.
Monk DPR is only 14 with d10 weapon.
Fighter is 21 DPR with PAM/GWM... So 7 damage.
Source: https://imgur.com/a/BKc5RIv
First off the numbers I posted DO include crits. They do not include advantage because that is unpredictable and not relevant. Also I am not sure that generally favors a fighter.
I am not counting subclass features for either (with the exception of a Monk Sharpshooter several posts above), but I am considering relevant class features, most notably the extra ASI or Feat the fighter gets at 6th level and the Archery fighting style in the case of ranged attacks.
A couple things I am not considering aside from subclass abilities:
I am not considering the variance on the amount of damage in those numbers. Given two builds that roll the same mean damage per round; one that hits more often for less damage (Monk) and one that hits less often with higher damage (GWM/PAM). The one that hits less often over time is going to deliver more damage because of the lower variance and less damage lost when an enemy is put down. Over multiple turns this is going to favor the Monk in the amount of damage actually delivered vs rolled.
I am not considering opportunity attacks or action economy (taking dodge or dash to get to someone else) or opportunity attacks which are very relevant if you are deciding you are not going to attack the guy who is engaged with you and holding a melee weapon.
I know right!
I keep posting actual numbers and people keep shrugging them off. The math is not that difficult but it is not trivial either.
The advantage is giving the enemy disadvantage on attacks while he is engaged with you and forcing him to sacrifice actions like disengage or dash and/or take opportunity attacks to go after someone else.
I originally picked level 10 because a monk gets 10 ki at level 10 and 10 rounds is a whole minute so at this level a Monk can dodge that entire time as a bonus action.
I have no problem making a comparison at level 11 though. Exactly how much DPR do you consider to be a "drop off a cliff".... and when we are talking about this, lets includ the AOO the enemmy is causing every turn by moving to attack someone else.
Not true. You actually have this backwards. I am giving the fighter specific feats to boost damage. I am giving the fighter "the best case" and still the difference is small at virtually all ACs and disappears entirely at high ACs.
Being close range is the whole reason he would use patient defense and it will substantially mitigate "getting wrecked" if he is attacked while using patent defense. Further, as I pointed out earlier, he cant "get wrecked" at all if the enemy does not attack him.
Your argument has a huge hole and you can't have it both ways. The Monk is either survivable because the enemy has disadvantage and will do less damage to him OR he is survivable because the DM refuses to attack him - The result is the same in either case, he is survivable and will not"get wrecked"
Your math is really bad and it's making it hard to have a good discussion...
Maybe recheck how you are doing it because you are way off...
Edit: proof your math is bad
https://imgur.com/a/gYfKPl8
It is possible, everyone makes mistakes, but I don't think anything I posted on this thread is mathematically incorrect to the precision indicated (integers with 1 or 2 significant digits) with the assumptions I made when I calculated it. Tell me exactly what you think is wrong and I will spell it out for you how I arrived there.
The link you posted does not show me anything. To start with I do not use spreadsheets or calculators of unknown origin for the numbers I post. I either use actual math (which I used in everything on this thread) or I use a numerical statistical evaluation.
See my proof.... Both posts have fixes for your math
You are looking at 11 dpr for a monk with a Shortbow
Vs
26 damage with the SS+CBE.
So like over double the damage.
I think you are forgetting the BA attack on each build which puts it very much outside of the reach of the monk.
That attack also gets the +10 damage.
If you get advantage (like a barbarian would) the damage is leagues better and it only gets worse when you hit level 11
You are just wrong. A few things to note:
1. The base attack bonus is +9 without sharpshooter and +8 with sharpshooter
2. Damage is 1d6+5 without sharpshooter and 1d6+14 with sharpshooter
3. I don't see focused aim accounted for anywhere.
DPR on a 10th level Monk with a shortbow is 14:
Here is how that is calculated:
1. DPR = (base damage*chance to hit+average crit damage)* number of attacks
2. Chance to hit is (21-AC+total attack bonus)*0.5
3. Base attack bonus is +9, focused aim can vary between 0 and 6, I assumed 3 as an average number. This makes total attack bonus +12
4. average crit damage is 3.5*.05
5. base damage is 3.5+5
Putting this all together and going back to equation 1:
DPR=(8.5*(21-17+12)*0.05+3.5*0.05)*2
DPR=13.95, rounded to 14
If you are getting a different number than that on your spreadsheet then you are making different assumptions on the build, entering things incorrectly or the spreadsheet itself is flawed.
Yes and he is not dodging, has a higher AC and it is not the wizard you made the original comparison with.
Your post was about a wizard using firebolt from 120 feet. Now that wizard has CBE, SS and extra attack?
Finally the 26 is wrong. I don't completely understand that spreadsheet, but the follwing appears incorrect:
1. damage with a 16dex is 1d6+13, not 1d6 +15
2. Attack bonus is +7 with a 16 dexterity, not +6
3. The spreadsheet does not appear to account for the -5 for getting the +10 bonus.
When you account for these the average damage is 15 DPR, not 26. I don't know exactly what you got wrong in your spreadsheet, but 15 is the actual DPR for a 10th-level 16 Dex wizard with extra attack using SS and XBE.
I ask again. If you think my math is wrong, tell me where it is wrong.