This is misleading, as a +5% increase to hit usually increases your damage/attack by significantly more than 5%. Lets say you hit a given enemy on a 16 or better and deal an average of 10 damage per hit (a lot of damage I know, but using 10 makes the math easy). you chance to hit is 25%. 25% times 10 damage = 2.5 damage per attack. If you get a plus one to hit (from +2 dex), your chance to hit is now 30%, which increase your damage to 3 per attack, a 20% increase from 2.5. In some cases a +1 to hit can increase your damage per attack by 100%. (if you had a 5% chance to hit and increase it to 10%
Except here's the thing. For Every stun that you land. Your getting increasingly higher than what is an effective +1 to hit through the advantage that it grants. So your potentially increasing your damage more passively both through hitting more often and through better chance of crits through stun while it's active than you are through that +1. But that +1 is worth slightly more when they are not stunned. So how much you short Rest and regain all you ki in between fights actually shifts the balance between them... By a fair bit actually.
On top of that the more you add on other abilities that also have Saves the more useful the Wisdom actually becomes.
Though I do advocate tempering it with Dexterity increases even when you have several Save Based abilities. One at either level 8 or level 12 is probably wise to help you attain that initial hit which makes Stun more viable. I even advocate this with something like the 4 elements monk which is very strong when it is wisdom First because basically all of it's elemental disciplines are save based which makes them much stronger to have high Wisdom First.
People say the same thing about warlocks. Or paladins. Or rogues. Or basically anything that isn't a fighter or a wizard. I've seen "this class is pointless after [X]th level, you're just better off multiclassing" everywhere.
Classes are designed so their most frequently useful (and, often, least powerful) tools come first, to get the basics of the class in place. After that, they get abilities that are useful less often but which are more powerful when they do come up. You may not value the movement capabilities of the monk, but for other players that's one of the main draws of the class. I've seen the opinion a million times that Tongue of Sun and Moon is a dead level you suffer through to get Diamond Soul...right up until the monk is the only one who can negotiate with the ancient death warden who speaks a language lost to the sands of time. Empty Body is typically considered borderline pointless, despite it being Greater Invisibility whenever you like as long as your ki holds out.
A lot of these opinions amount to "this feature isn't useful in combat, therefor it sucks", or analysis in a vacuum where it's assumed that no situation where the ability is useful and the need is pressing will ever emerge. it's why everyone thinks of monks as being nothing but stunbots whose sole and entire purpose is to Stunning Strike everything, at all times, with every single ki point.
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of playing that way?
Some People might be Shocked by Yurei and I agreeing. But she's right on all of this.
I'll note that Empty Body running out means potentially 5 full minutes of invisibility since it's an invisibility power that doesn't break due to attacking in combat.
And I'll add on further. People advocate Stunbot style play on Monks and then for whatever reason actually argue for ASI usage that actually hinder's Stunbot style of play. Then base their whole opinion on how good the Monk is based upon that. It doesn't make a lot of sense. That seems like a frustating and boring way to play monks to me. which is why I have gone and tested out other ways to play and sought to understand things like 4 Elements Monk. Through that I've found there really is a lot more to monk and some of the weaknesses of not only the Monk but certain Subclasses aren't necessarily portrayed correctly. Some are exagerated and some are over looked under the guise of "Well the monk isn't that great anyway so it might be the fault of the main class."
This is misleading, as a +5% increase to hit usually increases your damage/attack by significantly more than 5%. Lets say you hit a given enemy on a 16 or better and deal an average of 10 damage per hit (a lot of damage I know, but using 10 makes the math easy). you chance to hit is 25%. 25% times 10 damage = 2.5 damage per attack. If you get a plus one to hit (from +2 dex), your chance to hit is now 30%, which increase your damage to 3 per attack, a 20% increase from 2.5. In some cases a +1 to hit can increase your damage per attack by 100%. (if you had a 5% chance to hit and increase it to 10%
Except here's the thing. For Every stun that you land. Your getting increasingly higher than what is an effective +1 to hit through the advantage that it grants. So your potentially increasing your damage more passively both through hitting more often and through better chance of crits through stun while it's active than you are through that +1. But that +1 is worth slightly more when they are not stunned. So how much you short Rest and regain all you ki in between fights actually shifts the balance between them... By a fair bit actually.
On top of that the more you add on other abilities that also have Saves the more useful the Wisdom actually becomes.
Though I do advocate tempering it with Dexterity increases even when you have several Save Based abilities. One at either level 8 or level 12 is probably wise to help you attain that initial hit which makes Stun more viable. I even advocate this with something like the 4 elements monk which is very strong when it is wisdom First because basically all of it's elemental disciplines are save based which makes them much stronger to have high Wisdom First.
Oh no absolutely, an argument can be made either way, I just wanted to point out that the statistics quoted weren't presenting the full picture (which is an easy mistake to make--probability is complicated)
Except here's the thing. For Every stun that you land. Your getting increasingly higher than what is an effective +1 to hit through the advantage that it grants. So your potentially increasing your damage more passively both through hitting more often and through better chance of crits through stun while it's active than you are through that +1. But that +1 is worth slightly more when they are not stunned. So how much you short Rest and regain all you ki in between fights actually shifts the balance between them... By a fair bit actually.
On top of that the more you add on other abilities that also have Saves the more useful the Wisdom actually becomes.
Though I do advocate tempering it with Dexterity increases even when you have several Save Based abilities. One at either level 8 or level 12 is probably wise to help you attain that initial hit which makes Stun more viable. I even advocate this with something like the 4 elements monk which is very strong when it is wisdom First because basically all of it's elemental disciplines are save based which makes them much stronger to have high Wisdom First.
Some People might be Shocked by Yurei and I agreeing. But she's right on all of this.
I'll note that Empty Body running out means potentially 5 full minutes of invisibility since it's an invisibility power that doesn't break due to attacking in combat.
And I'll add on further. People advocate Stunbot style play on Monks and then for whatever reason actually argue for ASI usage that actually hinder's Stunbot style of play. Then base their whole opinion on how good the Monk is based upon that. It doesn't make a lot of sense. That seems like a frustating and boring way to play monks to me. which is why I have gone and tested out other ways to play and sought to understand things like 4 Elements Monk. Through that I've found there really is a lot more to monk and some of the weaknesses of not only the Monk but certain Subclasses aren't necessarily portrayed correctly. Some are exagerated and some are over looked under the guise of "Well the monk isn't that great anyway so it might be the fault of the main class."
Oh no absolutely, an argument can be made either way, I just wanted to point out that the statistics quoted weren't presenting the full picture (which is an easy mistake to make--probability is complicated)