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
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 on there.
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.
It is also NOT twice as much.
You are looking at the wrong picture then....+6 sharpshooter (+11 minus 5 for sharpshooter). I think you forgot the +2 from archery style which gives +2
If you are wasting ki to hit with a d6+5.... I have a bridge to sell you. Focused aim is such a waste it's not even worth mentioning.... That is absolutely terrible value.
26 damage is over 22 damage (11 doubled) so yes more than double.
You made the SS comparison and that is where the damage is so wrong it's not even close .... When I saw that I had to comment.
Damage is +5 because you have 20 DEX...no reason not to at level 10 as you have 3 ASI/Feats to work with.
You are looking at the wrong picture then....+6 sharpshooter (+11 minus 5 for sharpshooter). I think you forgot the +2 from archery style which gives +2
I did not forget the archery style. When you talked about ranged and I mentioned a shortbow you talked about a wizard and that is what I was assuming. I used archery in every fighter DPR number I posted about.
If you are wasting ki to hit with a d6+5.... I have a bridge to sell you. Focused aim is such a waste it's not even worth mentioning.... That is absolutely terrible value.
Math, is math. I assumed a +3 for focused aim, it could be as high as +6. This is a big deal. Using focused aim means a 10th level monk can hit a 17 AC on any roll above a 2, vs someone with SS/CBE +10 needing a 15 (or a 12 on a fighter with archery) .
There are some assumptions that go into this and those can be questioned. With a baseline of +3 against an AC of 17 you are cutting your number of misses almost in half and you will burn 1.5 extra key every 4 turns. On most tables you can do this pretty easily at 10th level while also using patient defense and not run out of ki. It is harder to do if you are using it with sharpshooter and you may be faced with a shortage of ki in that case.
to compare FA to FOB - burning ki for Focused Aim will almost always get you one more hit on the enemy in a turn. You are more or less burning ki to get a hit with your best weapon. Using ki for FOB will get you one more attack, it is an attack that will do generally do less damage than your best weapon and it will hit less often.
26 damage is over 22 damage (11 doubled) so yes more than double.
But 11 is not the right number. Not counting focused aim, which at 10th level is more effective than Archery, is not really a fair comparison.
Also I will point out this thread is all about the BBEG going on to attack someone else. CBE man does not have a melee weapon to do an AOO when the bad guy leaves his reach. He has nothing to keep him engaged.
You made the SS comparison and that is where the damage is so wrong it's not even close .... When I saw that I had to comment.
Please tell me exactly which post and number you are talking about as this is not clear to me.
Like I said it is possible I made an error, but I don't think I did.
Damage is +5 because you have 20 DEX...no reason not to at level 10 as you have 3 ASI/Feats to work with
A 10th -level character has 2 ASIs which he would have used on XBE and SS. A 10th level fighter has 3.
If you are rolling stats a 20 is possible, but on point buy that means he should be at +4 Dex for a fighter or Rogue and +3 for everyone else, not +5 unless he got a feat at 1st level.
Since we are talking about a fighter now, with archery, SS, CBE and an 18 dex against AC17 has a 55% chance to hit and does 17.5 damage on a hit. Adding in the crit damage results in an average DPR of 24
You are looking at the wrong picture then....+6 sharpshooter (+11 minus 5 for sharpshooter). I think you forgot the +2 from archery style which gives +2
I did not forget the archery style. When you talked about ranged and I mentioned a shortbow you talked about a wizard and that is what I was assuming. I used archery in every fighter DPR number I posted about.
If you are wasting ki to hit with a d6+5.... I have a bridge to sell you. Focused aim is such a waste it's not even worth mentioning.... That is absolutely terrible value.
Math, is math. I assumed a +3 for focused aim, it could be as high as +6. This is a big deal. Using focused aim means a 10th level monk can hit a 17 AC on any roll above a 2, vs someone with SS/CBE +10 needing a 15 (or a 12 on a fighter with archery) .
There are some assumptions that go into this and those can be questioned. With a baseline of +3 against an AC of 17 you are cutting your number of misses almost in half and you will burn 1.5 extra key every 4 turns. On most tables you can do this pretty easily at 10th level while also using patient defense and not run out of ki. It is harder to do if you are using it with sharpshooter and you may be faced with a shortage of ki in that case.
to compare FA to FOB - burning ki for Focused Aim will almost always get you one more hit on the enemy in a turn. You are more or less burning ki to get a hit with your best weapon. Using ki for FOB will get you one more attack, it is an attack that will do generally do less damage than your best weapon and it will hit less often.
26 damage is over 22 damage (11 doubled) so yes more than double.
But 11 is not the right number. Not counting focused aim, which at 10th level is more effective than Archery, is not really a fair comparison.
Also I will point out this thread is all about the BBEG going on to attack someone else. CBE man does not have a melee weapon to do an AOO when the bad guy leaves his reach. He has nothing to keep him engaged.
You made the SS comparison and that is where the damage is so wrong it's not even close .... When I saw that I had to comment.
Please tell me exactly which post and number you are talking about as this is not clear to me.
Like I said it is possible I made an error, but I don't think I did.
Damage is +5 because you have 20 DEX...no reason not to at level 10 as you have 3 ASI/Feats to work with
A 10th -level character has 2 ASIs which he would have used on XBE and SS. A 10th level fighter has 3.
If you are rolling stats a 20 is possible, but on point buy that means he should be at +4 Dex for a fighter or Rogue and +3 for everyone else, not +5 unless he got a feat at 1st level.
I've shown my math... Where's yours?
Focused aim is good but unless you have actual damage on your attack it's very much not worth the ki.
Overall it's going to make a difference but you are wasting more ki and thus making your monk worse for piddly damage.... It's not worth it in the build you mention... It's just not.
The damage for the SS+CBE build is 26 as you easily go v. Human and get the two feats and a 20 in Dex.
If you get to pick a monk that gets racial d10 weapon then let's be fair....
Overall if you take a little bit of damage off it's not going to matter much ... It's either well over double or slightly below double but it's significantly more and shows how far off your math was.
You aren't discussing in good faith so I'll leave you to think the monk is a good damage dealer despite so much evidence to the contrary.... I'll wait to see what monk gets in 2024
Also at 5th level, when you miss with an attack roll, you can spend 1 to 3 ki points to increase your attack roll by 2 for each of these ki points you spend, potentially turning the miss into a hit.
For my personal taste, "Focused Aim," I don't like it at all. I may not know how to use it well, but it seems like a waste of resources. It does not converge well with the amount of ki resources of the monk, if ki was less important to the monk it would be interesting. However, I prefer examples like the ones below than Focused Aim.
Steady Aim (Optional) - Rogue
At 3rd level, as a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
Feinting Attack (battle master maneuver)
You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.
Precision Attack (battle master maneuver)
When you make a weapon attack roll against a creature, you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll. You can use this maneuver before or after making the attack roll, but before any effects of the attack are applied.
Also at 5th level, when you miss with an attack roll, you can spend 1 to 3 ki points to increase your attack roll by 2 for each of these ki points you spend, potentially turning the miss into a hit.
For my personal taste, "Focused Aim," I don't like it at all. I may not know how to use it well, but it seems like a waste of resources. It does not converge well with the amount of ki resources of the monk, if ki was less important to the monk it would be interesting. However, I prefer examples like the ones below than Focused Aim.
Steady Aim (Optional) - Rogue
At 3rd level, as a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
Feinting Attack (battle master maneuver)
You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.
Precision Attack (battle master maneuver)
When you make a weapon attack roll against a creature, you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll. You can use this maneuver before or after making the attack roll, but before any effects of the attack are applied.
Steady Aim is powerful mechanically, and I played with Monks that have this. However it is only useful for one atack a turn and your movement goes to 0 when you do it. It works well on a way of shadow monk because they can move without using movement. So they can steady aim, attack with advantage, shadow step and then attack with advantage again. It also stacks with focused aim.
Focused aim is broadly equivalent to precision, precision is better at lower levels when the fighter has more ki, focused aim is better at higher levels when a Monk has more uses. Fa is substantially more powerful than feinting attack because you use it after you missed and have more uses. This assumes we are talking about the battlemaster using these. Someone who got them through a feat or fighting style will only have them once a short rest and with a lower die. I do like martial adept on some ranged non-battlemasters, but I tend to prefer menacing attack, disarming attack or quick toss.
I don't see any math for your claims, I see a spreadsheet with entries which fail to account for everything and have questionable entries. I showed you the math for an 10th level Monk using a shortbow two posts before this comment and I showed you the 4-step process I used to calculate it with assumptions and numbers included.
I can produce the actual math for any of the numbers I posted on this thread. Just tell me which ones you find questionable. I asked for that in the last post. Which ones do you want?
Focused aim is good but unless you have actual damage on your attack it's very much not worth the ki.
But FOB is a good use of ki when using the ki does less is less AND hits less?
Overall it's going to make a difference but you are wasting more ki and thus making your monk worse for piddly damage.... It's not worth it in the build you mention... It's just not.
It depends on level and math matters.
Using focused aim is rare on a Monk at high level because you rarely miss at high levels.
For example you only need an 8 to hit someone with AC 17 at 10th level. You can literally hit on everything except a 1 if you want to. If you are playing a halfling you can hit on everything higher than a 1 and you can even hit on a 1 95% of the time.
If you are attacking twice a turn against AC 17 AND using FA every single time you miss with a 2+ on the d20 ..... if you spam your ki like this you will use an average of on average of 2.2ki per turn and your ki will last for 5 turns between short rests.
The numbers I posted above actually assume LESS use of focused aim than this. The numbers I posted assumed using 1 ki for FA per 2.5 turns (1ki for every 5 attacks). With the lower number I used you should be able to ration your ki such that it is nearly always available assuming average-length battles with normal rest intervals at level 10.
If I assume I will spam it every time I miss the DPR number will be higher than what I posted, but I think that is disingenuous when talking about a Monk who is expecting to use it for PD regularly.
The damage for the SS+CBE build is 26 as you easily go v. Human and get the two feats and a 20 in Dex.
Sure but now you are putting a bunch of caveats on this.
You are also going down a completely different path. The post of this thread is not which build does more damage, but which build is more survivable, can tank better and the specific point of contention is which can keep BBEGs off of other players.
If you get to pick a monk that gets racial d10 weapon then let's be fair....
Start with a 17 dexterity and take weapon master feat at 4th level. You don't even get behind on ASIs because it is a half feat. Since we are talking about 1st level feats you can even use custom lineage and even start with an 18 dex and be ahead on dex doing this (although to be fair you will have a lower wisdom if you go this route).
Since Tasha's Weapon Master is almost universal on single-class Monks without racial weapons. IME I see far more Monks with WM than I see individual classes with XBE/SS or GWM/PAM combinations (to be clear I am talking about specific class-feat pairings, not absolute feat numbers). WM is common on single class Rogues as well though.
You aren't discussing in good faith so I'll leave you to think the monk is a good damage dealer despite so much evidence to the contrary.... I'll wait to see what monk gets in 2024
I think the people that keep throwing up these max DPR builds in a discussion on tanking are the ones not discussing in good faith.
I never said the Monk was a good damage dealer, I said he can be a good tank and I take issue with the claim that enemies will just attack someone else because the does not do enough damage. Yet people are throwing up over-the-top builds designed for max DPR to try and defend that indefensible position instead of using a more realistic comparison.
When taking about a tanking there are generally two archetypes - those that do this through a very high hit points or damage reduction and punishing AOOs (your stereotypical Barbarian) and those that do this using a very high AC (your stereotypical sword and board). The latter is what is most comparable to the Monk, yet people keep throwing up strawmen designed for DPR as some sort of poof that you can't control the battlefield as a Monk.
The CBE/SS is an example of this. This character can't stop movement at all. His unarmed strike AOO does 0 damage unless he invested heavily in strength. Yet this is the character that is good at keeping enemies in place and preventing them from moving around the battlefield and attacking who he wants? THAT is not discussing the topic in good faith!
I don't see any math for your claims, I see a spreadsheet with entries which fail to account for everything and have questionable entries. I showed you the math for an 10th level Monk using a shortbow two posts before this comment and I showed you the 4-step process I used to calculate it with assumptions and numbers included.
I can produce the actual math for any of the numbers I posted on this thread. Just tell me which ones you find questionable. I asked for that in the last post. Which ones do you want?
Focused aim is good but unless you have actual damage on your attack it's very much not worth the ki.
But FOB is a good use of ki when using the ki does less is less AND hits less?
Overall it's going to make a difference but you are wasting more ki and thus making your monk worse for piddly damage.... It's not worth it in the build you mention... It's just not.
It depends on level and math matters.
Using focused aim is rare on a Monk at high level because you rarely miss at high levels.
For example you only need an 8 to hit someone with AC 17 at 10th level. You can literally hit on everything except a 1 if you want to. If you are playing a halfling you can hit on everything higher than a 1 and you can even hit on a 1 95% of the time.
If you are attacking twice a turn against AC 17 AND using FA every single time you miss with a 2+ on the d20 ..... if you spam your ki like this you will use an average of on average of 2.2ki per turn and your ki will last for 5 turns between short rests.
The numbers I posted above actually assume LESS use of focused aim than this. The numbers I posted assumed using 1 ki for FA per 2.5 turns (1ki for every 5 attacks). With the lower number I used you should be able to ration your ki such that it is nearly always available assuming average-length battles with normal rest intervals at level 10.
If I assume I will spam it every time I miss the DPR number will be higher than what I posted, but I think that is disingenuous when talking about a Monk who is expecting to use it for PD regularly.
The damage for the SS+CBE build is 26 as you easily go v. Human and get the two feats and a 20 in Dex.
Sure but now you are putting a bunch of caveats on this.
You are also going down a completely different path. The post of this thread is not which build does more damage, but which build is more survivable, can tank better and the specific point of contention is which can keep BBEGs off of other players.
If you get to pick a monk that gets racial d10 weapon then let's be fair....
Start with a 17 dexterity and take weapon master feat at 4th level. You don't even get behind on ASIs because it is a half feat. Since we are talking about 1st level feats you can even use custom lineage and even start with an 18 dex and be ahead on dex doing this (although to be fair you will have a lower wisdom if you go this route).
Since Tasha's Weapon Master is almost universal on single-class Monks without racial weapons. IME I see far more Monks with WM than I see individual classes with XBE/SS or GWM/PAM combinations (to be clear I am talking about specific class-feat pairings, not absolute feat numbers). WM is common on single class Rogues as well though.
You aren't discussing in good faith so I'll leave you to think the monk is a good damage dealer despite so much evidence to the contrary.... I'll wait to see what monk gets in 2024
I think the people that keep throwing up these max DPR builds in a discussion on tanking are the ones not discussing in good faith.
I never said the Monk was a good damage dealer, I said he can be a good tank and I take issue with the claim that enemies will just attack someone else because the does not do enough damage. Yet people are throwing up over-the-top builds designed for max DPR to try and defend that indefensible position instead of using a more realistic comparison.
When taking about a tanking there are generally two archetypes - those that do this through a very high hit points or damage reduction and punishing AOOs (your stereotypical Barbarian) and those that do this using a very high AC (your stereotypical sword and board). The latter is what is most comparable to the Monk, yet people keep throwing up strawmen designed for DPR as some sort of poof that you can't control the battlefield as a Monk.
The CBE/SS is an example of this. This character can't stop movement at all. His unarmed strike AOO does 0 damage unless he invested heavily in strength. Yet this is the character that is good at keeping enemies in place and preventing them from moving around the battlefield and attacking who he wants? THAT is not discussing the topic in good faith!
That's all you needed to say.... Monks are not good damage dealers and that's all the point was.
They don't do good damage and therefore will be less of a threat unless they are stunning.... Case Closed.
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.
Do you not realise that you are literally advocating that a DM's job in D&D is to exploit the game mechanics to humiliate their players? I seriously hope you don't DM, because I'd hate to be a player in a game run with that mentality.
As the exact same thing applies to Barbarians and any other tank; there is almost always a way for the DM to bypass a player if they are determined to metagame as you want them to. They should not want to, because if they do, they are a terrible DM. The purpose of the game mechanics is to give some structure to combat and aid the narrative, the rules aren't there for DM's to exploit to "defeat" their players.
But then this is the biggest problem with discussion of the game online, especially around Monks, and especially in this sub-forum; every time these discussions come up I'm increasingly convinced that there are a huge numbers of people on this forum who have either never actually played a single game of D&D in their life, or if they have are for some insane reason willing to go out of their way to invent a weirdly perverse version of the game just so they can "win" an online argument.
If a DM pulls the shit you're describing, they will very quickly be a DM without any players, and I think you know this. I also think you know that you're arguing in bad faith, because you seem to have some obsessive need to "win" every argument and "defeat" the nasty horrible people who enjoy playing monks and have DMs that actually want them to have fun, and that says a great deal more about you than about the Monk class and how it's actually supposed to be played in the game as it's actually supposed to be run, rather than the twisted rules lawyer nightmare you seem to imagine it should be.
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.
Do you not realise that you are literally advocating that a DM's job in D&D is to exploit the game mechanics to humiliate their players? I seriously hope you don't DM, because I'd hate to be a player in a game run with that mentality.
As the exact same thing applies to Barbarians and any other tank; there is almost always a way for the DM to bypass a player if they are determined to metagame as you want them to. They should not want to, because if they do, they are a terrible DM. The purpose of the game mechanics is to give some structure to combat and aid the narrative, the rules aren't there for DM's to exploit to "defeat" their players.
But then this is the biggest problem with discussion of the game online, especially around Monks, and especially in this sub-forum; every time these discussions come up I'm increasingly convinced that there are a huge numbers of people on this forum who have either never actually played a single game of D&D in their life, or if they have are for some insane reason willing to go out of their way to invent a weirdly perverse version of the game just so they can "win" an online argument.
If a DM pulls the shit you're describing, they will very quickly be a DM without any players, and I think you know this. I also think you know that you're arguing in bad faith, because you seem to have some obsessive need to "win" every argument and "defeat" the nasty horrible people who enjoy playing monks and have DMs that actually want them to have fun, and that says a great deal more about you than about the Monk class and how it's actually supposed to be played in the game as it's actually supposed to be run, rather than the twisted rules lawyer nightmare you seem to imagine it should be.
But I'm bored of this topic; it now has the dubious distinction of being one among many dozens of topics I have unsubscribed from for either starting or becoming troll bait. I suggest others do the same as it's a waste of everyone's time.
Not at all....
Listen wanting to create a world that has good internal logic and rules the players and DM can both rely on is a good thing.
Making monsters intelligent and using their natural abilities to their advantage isn't "bad DMing" it's just... Playing the game.
Evil Dragons are not going to play fair... Why would they?
I would suggest reading about DM tactics that make the game fun for the DM and the party.
Your also vaguely suggesting that the party couldn't deal with this scenario for some reason ....I think you are committing a sin yourself if you think so as patronizing the players and their ability to adapt isn't fun.
I think that you should look at it as not everyone is going to subscribe to your way of playing the game.
From my point of view you are both in the right. Enemies must have a kind of strategic intelligence, but this is up to the master to evaluate the level of the game. After all, the master acts as a mediator. Knowing what the level of the players' game is, he can decide whether to create more or less intelligent enemies. In the end it is a game, and the goal is to have fun, but if it lacks a little realism and a little dificulty the game could become monotonous and uninteresting. The good master should create a fun and exciting story while avoiding the trivial, and to achieve this he should create his own story, strategies, type of enemies, location, etc... depending on the characters (characters, powers, abilities) of the players, so that everyone and not only half of the players or worse, only himself have fun. Having characters with well-defined characteristics is important. So that the master can prepare the stage for that character. What can make the master's role easier is for the players to behave according to the master's directives and not put a spoke in his wheels just to troll him. So the master has to addict and the players have to play along.
From my point of view you are both in the right. Enemies must have a kind of strategic intelligence, but this is up to the master to evaluate the level of the game. After all, the master acts as a mediator. Knowing what the level of the players' game is, he can decide whether to create more or less intelligent enemies. In the end it is a game, and the goal is to have fun, but if it lacks a little realism and a little dificulty the game could become monotonous and uninteresting. The good master should create a fun and exciting story while avoiding the trivial, and to achieve this he should create his own story, strategies, type of enemies, location, etc... depending on the characters (characters, powers, abilities) of the players, so that everyone and not only half of the players or worse, only himself have fun. Having characters with well-defined characteristics is important. So that the master can prepare the stage for that character. What can make the master's role easier is for the players to behave according to the master's directives and not put a spoke in his wheels just to troll him. So the master has to addict and the players have to play along.
I think this strikes a fair balance.
I'm not a fan of making every encounter the same or having evil enemies play "fair".
Evil intelligent creatures will do what they have to win... If that means they do some shady stuff every now and again (like counter spelling healing word on the friend who went down) then they will.
They also might choose to ignore the floppy monk who has been dodging all fight to attack someone actually doing damage ... Why wouldn't they?
If the monk player wants to draw attention then do something to warrant it... Not just sit there and expect an attack just because you used a BA dodge
If all the players in your group like it that way, that's fine. Then you have to think that there are also less experienced players. Normally a group has to help each other and the master even if he uses combat tactics, he has to leave the possibility for the group to defend and support each other. This is to improve team play and avoid stupid competitions of who kills the most and who does the most damage.
If all the players in your group like it that way, that's fine. Then you have to think that there are also less experienced players. Normally a group has to help each other and the master even if he uses combat tactics, he has to leave the possibility for the group to defend and support each other. This is to improve team play and avoid stupid competitions of who kills the most and who does the most damage.
Fair point.
Likely I would adjust what I throw at them more then how the creature would act to be honest but it's a very fair point to control that aspect better with newer players.
It comes down to the type of monster. If, in their stat block, they have Pack Tactics then it would make sense for them to fight as a pack and follow the alpha leader, if there is one. Especially if they are lower intelligence. A pack of wolves might gang up on the closest target and focus fire no matter what the other players do. Where the pack leader goes the others follow. If they are more intelligent (and have pack tactics) they will still fight as a group, but if the leader tells some to attack someone else they might split into smaller groups and fight. But if it’s 5 enemies and 5 PC’s they probably won’t go one v one.
It comes down to the type of monster. If, in their stat block, they have Pack Tactics then it would make sense for them to fight as a pack and follow the alpha leader, if there is one. Especially if they are lower intelligence. A pack of wolves might gang up on the closest target and focus fire no matter what the other players do. Where the pack leader goes the others follow. If they are more intelligent (and have pack tactics) they will still fight as a group, but if the leader tells some to attack someone else they might split into smaller groups and fight. But if it’s 5 enemies and 5 PC’s they probably won’t go one v one.
Oh yeah you play to intelligence for sure. No arguments there.
Never played full monk... I've always felt their deficiencies must be made up by multi-classing. Rogue fits nicely here for the damage boost, especially with swash and being able to sneak damn near every turn.
Never played full monk... I've always felt their deficiencies must be made up by multi-classing. Rogue fits nicely here for the damage boost, especially with swash and being able to sneak damn near every turn.
Their it is again we keep dancing around the core issue that monks purely by the mechanics of the game are flawed and wizards had not fix these issues yet in the core rules.
All it would take is for staff and spear to get reach and boom the rouge mechanics work great maybe some sub classes could use some more ki points but you have reach you can use polearm and sentinel combo great. Rules as written just play fighter or barbarian. Oh, you want unarmed strike to take the feat from Tash's that gives you a d8 now a level 1 human or level 4 other character of any class/race has the same unarmed strike damage as a level 15 monk at level 4.
The core issues is that your increased movement speed just doesn't do enough I really really love the flavor of open hand monk but just the flavor.
This is why using a ranged weapon that uses dex stat any way is a good choice. You don't need a lot of health dose the wizard? No, the wizard is back line. So, the best monk can just max wisdom and Dex stay in the back line a shot arrows. Tasha's allows you to choose bow as a monk weapon so you can flurry of blows with it. You can also take the feat that gives you two battle master maneuvers per short rest or sharpshooter. At range the monk can better use their movement gimmick to get out of area of effect spells or keep out of reach of the enemies forever kiting them.
Again, if monks had reach weapons, then they would be good. I also find it funny that one of the most amazing class fetures that allows the monk to treat there attacks as magic is so good but at the same time bad because you are the one in the party that doesn't need a magic weapon and you can't use flame tong until Tasha's. I like the monk I have played as a monk and yah the monk has some core issues that a good DM will probably fix but that doesn't change the fact that Wizards still really messed up.
In conclusion the monk dose better mechanically at range even though flavor wise the monk should be a melee skirmisher like the rouge. (Yes the rouge can be played at rang to I Know!)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are looking at the wrong picture then....+6 sharpshooter (+11 minus 5 for sharpshooter). I think you forgot the +2 from archery style which gives +2
If you are wasting ki to hit with a d6+5.... I have a bridge to sell you. Focused aim is such a waste it's not even worth mentioning.... That is absolutely terrible value.
26 damage is over 22 damage (11 doubled) so yes more than double.
You made the SS comparison and that is where the damage is so wrong it's not even close .... When I saw that I had to comment.
Damage is +5 because you have 20 DEX...no reason not to at level 10 as you have 3 ASI/Feats to work with.
I did not forget the archery style. When you talked about ranged and I mentioned a shortbow you talked about a wizard and that is what I was assuming. I used archery in every fighter DPR number I posted about.
Math, is math. I assumed a +3 for focused aim, it could be as high as +6. This is a big deal. Using focused aim means a 10th level monk can hit a 17 AC on any roll above a 2, vs someone with SS/CBE +10 needing a 15 (or a 12 on a fighter with archery) .
There are some assumptions that go into this and those can be questioned. With a baseline of +3 against an AC of 17 you are cutting your number of misses almost in half and you will burn 1.5 extra key every 4 turns. On most tables you can do this pretty easily at 10th level while also using patient defense and not run out of ki. It is harder to do if you are using it with sharpshooter and you may be faced with a shortage of ki in that case.
to compare FA to FOB - burning ki for Focused Aim will almost always get you one more hit on the enemy in a turn. You are more or less burning ki to get a hit with your best weapon. Using ki for FOB will get you one more attack, it is an attack that will do generally do less damage than your best weapon and it will hit less often.
But 11 is not the right number. Not counting focused aim, which at 10th level is more effective than Archery, is not really a fair comparison.
Also I will point out this thread is all about the BBEG going on to attack someone else. CBE man does not have a melee weapon to do an AOO when the bad guy leaves his reach. He has nothing to keep him engaged.
Please tell me exactly which post and number you are talking about as this is not clear to me.
Like I said it is possible I made an error, but I don't think I did.
A 10th -level character has 2 ASIs which he would have used on XBE and SS. A 10th level fighter has 3.
If you are rolling stats a 20 is possible, but on point buy that means he should be at +4 Dex for a fighter or Rogue and +3 for everyone else, not +5 unless he got a feat at 1st level.
Since we are talking about a fighter now, with archery, SS, CBE and an 18 dex against AC17 has a 55% chance to hit and does 17.5 damage on a hit. Adding in the crit damage results in an average DPR of 24
I've shown my math... Where's yours?
Focused aim is good but unless you have actual damage on your attack it's very much not worth the ki.
Overall it's going to make a difference but you are wasting more ki and thus making your monk worse for piddly damage.... It's not worth it in the build you mention... It's just not.
The damage for the SS+CBE build is 26 as you easily go v. Human and get the two feats and a 20 in Dex.
If you get to pick a monk that gets racial d10 weapon then let's be fair....
Overall if you take a little bit of damage off it's not going to matter much ... It's either well over double or slightly below double but it's significantly more and shows how far off your math was.
You aren't discussing in good faith so I'll leave you to think the monk is a good damage dealer despite so much evidence to the contrary.... I'll wait to see what monk gets in 2024
Focused Aim (Optional)
Also at 5th level, when you miss with an attack roll, you can spend 1 to 3 ki points to increase your attack roll by 2 for each of these ki points you spend, potentially turning the miss into a hit.
For my personal taste, "Focused Aim," I don't like it at all. I may not know how to use it well, but it seems like a waste of resources. It does not converge well with the amount of ki resources of the monk, if ki was less important to the monk it would be interesting. However, I prefer examples like the ones below than Focused Aim.
Steady Aim (Optional) - Rogue
At 3rd level, as a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
Feinting Attack (battle master maneuver)
You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.
Precision Attack (battle master maneuver)
When you make a weapon attack roll against a creature, you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll. You can use this maneuver before or after making the attack roll, but before any effects of the attack are applied.
Steady Aim is powerful mechanically, and I played with Monks that have this. However it is only useful for one atack a turn and your movement goes to 0 when you do it. It works well on a way of shadow monk because they can move without using movement. So they can steady aim, attack with advantage, shadow step and then attack with advantage again. It also stacks with focused aim.
Focused aim is broadly equivalent to precision, precision is better at lower levels when the fighter has more ki, focused aim is better at higher levels when a Monk has more uses. Fa is substantially more powerful than feinting attack because you use it after you missed and have more uses. This assumes we are talking about the battlemaster using these. Someone who got them through a feat or fighting style will only have them once a short rest and with a lower die. I do like martial adept on some ranged non-battlemasters, but I tend to prefer menacing attack, disarming attack or quick toss.
I don't see any math for your claims, I see a spreadsheet with entries which fail to account for everything and have questionable entries. I showed you the math for an 10th level Monk using a shortbow two posts before this comment and I showed you the 4-step process I used to calculate it with assumptions and numbers included.
I can produce the actual math for any of the numbers I posted on this thread. Just tell me which ones you find questionable. I asked for that in the last post. Which ones do you want?
But FOB is a good use of ki when using the ki does less is less AND hits less?
It depends on level and math matters.
Using focused aim is rare on a Monk at high level because you rarely miss at high levels.
For example you only need an 8 to hit someone with AC 17 at 10th level. You can literally hit on everything except a 1 if you want to. If you are playing a halfling you can hit on everything higher than a 1 and you can even hit on a 1 95% of the time.
If you are attacking twice a turn against AC 17 AND using FA every single time you miss with a 2+ on the d20 ..... if you spam your ki like this you will use an average of on average of 2.2ki per turn and your ki will last for 5 turns between short rests.
The numbers I posted above actually assume LESS use of focused aim than this. The numbers I posted assumed using 1 ki for FA per 2.5 turns (1ki for every 5 attacks). With the lower number I used you should be able to ration your ki such that it is nearly always available assuming average-length battles with normal rest intervals at level 10.
If I assume I will spam it every time I miss the DPR number will be higher than what I posted, but I think that is disingenuous when talking about a Monk who is expecting to use it for PD regularly.
Sure but now you are putting a bunch of caveats on this.
You are also going down a completely different path. The post of this thread is not which build does more damage, but which build is more survivable, can tank better and the specific point of contention is which can keep BBEGs off of other players.
Start with a 17 dexterity and take weapon master feat at 4th level. You don't even get behind on ASIs because it is a half feat. Since we are talking about 1st level feats you can even use custom lineage and even start with an 18 dex and be ahead on dex doing this (although to be fair you will have a lower wisdom if you go this route).
Since Tasha's Weapon Master is almost universal on single-class Monks without racial weapons. IME I see far more Monks with WM than I see individual classes with XBE/SS or GWM/PAM combinations (to be clear I am talking about specific class-feat pairings, not absolute feat numbers). WM is common on single class Rogues as well though.
I think the people that keep throwing up these max DPR builds in a discussion on tanking are the ones not discussing in good faith.
I never said the Monk was a good damage dealer, I said he can be a good tank and I take issue with the claim that enemies will just attack someone else because the does not do enough damage. Yet people are throwing up over-the-top builds designed for max DPR to try and defend that indefensible position instead of using a more realistic comparison.
When taking about a tanking there are generally two archetypes - those that do this through a very high hit points or damage reduction and punishing AOOs (your stereotypical Barbarian) and those that do this using a very high AC (your stereotypical sword and board). The latter is what is most comparable to the Monk, yet people keep throwing up strawmen designed for DPR as some sort of poof that you can't control the battlefield as a Monk.
The CBE/SS is an example of this. This character can't stop movement at all. His unarmed strike AOO does 0 damage unless he invested heavily in strength. Yet this is the character that is good at keeping enemies in place and preventing them from moving around the battlefield and attacking who he wants? THAT is not discussing the topic in good faith!
That's all you needed to say.... Monks are not good damage dealers and that's all the point was.
They don't do good damage and therefore will be less of a threat unless they are stunning.... Case Closed.
Do you not realise that you are literally advocating that a DM's job in D&D is to exploit the game mechanics to humiliate their players? I seriously hope you don't DM, because I'd hate to be a player in a game run with that mentality.
As the exact same thing applies to Barbarians and any other tank; there is almost always a way for the DM to bypass a player if they are determined to metagame as you want them to. They should not want to, because if they do, they are a terrible DM. The purpose of the game mechanics is to give some structure to combat and aid the narrative, the rules aren't there for DM's to exploit to "defeat" their players.
But then this is the biggest problem with discussion of the game online, especially around Monks, and especially in this sub-forum; every time these discussions come up I'm increasingly convinced that there are a huge numbers of people on this forum who have either never actually played a single game of D&D in their life, or if they have are for some insane reason willing to go out of their way to invent a weirdly perverse version of the game just so they can "win" an online argument.
If a DM pulls the shit you're describing, they will very quickly be a DM without any players, and I think you know this. I also think you know that you're arguing in bad faith, because you seem to have some obsessive need to "win" every argument and "defeat" the nasty horrible people who enjoy playing monks and have DMs that actually want them to have fun, and that says a great deal more about you than about the Monk class and how it's actually supposed to be played in the game as it's actually supposed to be run, rather than the twisted rules lawyer nightmare you seem to imagine it should be.
[REDACTED]
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 at all....
Listen wanting to create a world that has good internal logic and rules the players and DM can both rely on is a good thing.
Making monsters intelligent and using their natural abilities to their advantage isn't "bad DMing" it's just... Playing the game.
Evil Dragons are not going to play fair... Why would they?
https://www.themonstersknow.com/category/dragons/
I would suggest reading about DM tactics that make the game fun for the DM and the party.
Your also vaguely suggesting that the party couldn't deal with this scenario for some reason ....I think you are committing a sin yourself if you think so as patronizing the players and their ability to adapt isn't fun.
I think that you should look at it as not everyone is going to subscribe to your way of playing the game.
From my point of view you are both in the right. Enemies must have a kind of strategic intelligence, but this is up to the master to evaluate the level of the game. After all, the master acts as a mediator. Knowing what the level of the players' game is, he can decide whether to create more or less intelligent enemies. In the end it is a game, and the goal is to have fun, but if it lacks a little realism and a little dificulty the game could become monotonous and uninteresting. The good master should create a fun and exciting story while avoiding the trivial, and to achieve this he should create his own story, strategies, type of enemies, location, etc... depending on the characters (characters, powers, abilities) of the players, so that everyone and not only half of the players or worse, only himself have fun. Having characters with well-defined characteristics is important. So that the master can prepare the stage for that character. What can make the master's role easier is for the players to behave according to the master's directives and not put a spoke in his wheels just to troll him. So the master has to addict and the players have to play along.
I think this strikes a fair balance.
I'm not a fan of making every encounter the same or having evil enemies play "fair".
Evil intelligent creatures will do what they have to win... If that means they do some shady stuff every now and again (like counter spelling healing word on the friend who went down) then they will.
They also might choose to ignore the floppy monk who has been dodging all fight to attack someone actually doing damage ... Why wouldn't they?
If the monk player wants to draw attention then do something to warrant it... Not just sit there and expect an attack just because you used a BA dodge
If all the players in your group like it that way, that's fine. Then you have to think that there are also less experienced players. Normally a group has to help each other and the master even if he uses combat tactics, he has to leave the possibility for the group to defend and support each other. This is to improve team play and avoid stupid competitions of who kills the most and who does the most damage.
Fair point.
Likely I would adjust what I throw at them more then how the creature would act to be honest but it's a very fair point to control that aspect better with newer players.
It comes down to the type of monster. If, in their stat block, they have Pack Tactics then it would make sense for them to fight as a pack and follow the alpha leader, if there is one. Especially if they are lower intelligence. A pack of wolves might gang up on the closest target and focus fire no matter what the other players do. Where the pack leader goes the others follow. If they are more intelligent (and have pack tactics) they will still fight as a group, but if the leader tells some to attack someone else they might split into smaller groups and fight. But if it’s 5 enemies and 5 PC’s they probably won’t go one v one.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Oh yeah you play to intelligence for sure. No arguments there.
Never played full monk... I've always felt their deficiencies must be made up by multi-classing. Rogue fits nicely here for the damage boost, especially with swash and being able to sneak damn near every turn.
Their it is again we keep dancing around the core issue that monks purely by the mechanics of the game are flawed and wizards had not fix these issues yet in the core rules.
All it would take is for staff and spear to get reach and boom the rouge mechanics work great maybe some sub classes could use some more ki points but you have reach you can use polearm and sentinel combo great. Rules as written just play fighter or barbarian. Oh, you want unarmed strike to take the feat from Tash's that gives you a d8 now a level 1 human or level 4 other character of any class/race has the same unarmed strike damage as a level 15 monk at level 4.
The core issues is that your increased movement speed just doesn't do enough I really really love the flavor of open hand monk but just the flavor.
This is why using a ranged weapon that uses dex stat any way is a good choice. You don't need a lot of health dose the wizard? No, the wizard is back line. So, the best monk can just max wisdom and Dex stay in the back line a shot arrows. Tasha's allows you to choose bow as a monk weapon so you can flurry of blows with it. You can also take the feat that gives you two battle master maneuvers per short rest or sharpshooter. At range the monk can better use their movement gimmick to get out of area of effect spells or keep out of reach of the enemies forever kiting them.
Again, if monks had reach weapons, then they would be good. I also find it funny that one of the most amazing class fetures that allows the monk to treat there attacks as magic is so good but at the same time bad because you are the one in the party that doesn't need a magic weapon and you can't use flame tong until Tasha's. I like the monk I have played as a monk and yah the monk has some core issues that a good DM will probably fix but that doesn't change the fact that Wizards still really messed up.
In conclusion the monk dose better mechanically at range even though flavor wise the monk should be a melee skirmisher like the rouge. (Yes the rouge can be played at rang to I Know!)