He makes some good points about how monks tend to lose effectiveness at higher levels. Most notably is the drop in damage per round at 9th-10th level.
Im here because Im making a monk as a backup character at 7th level. Hes an Arakocra with the mobile feat and while being able to fly 75 feet a round seems fun I dont want him to be ****** damage wise. What i was thinking is that perhaps uping the martial arts die to a d8 at level 9 would help balance him out and I was going to suggest this to the DM.
tldr: Would changing the Martial arts die to d8 at level 9, d10 at level 13, d12 at 17th level unbalance the game?
I don't think buffing the damage die would break anything. They seem to do less damage overall than the other martial classes. And as a skirmisher, probably less then Rogues using the same tactics.
Monks have always been one of my favorite classes to play and I played several of them in 1E AD&D, including one character from the revised Monk from Dragon Magazine (or was is Dungeon Magazine) that was pretty OP. I remember at 17th level being in a fight against Githyanki Knights (again, AD&D) where they carried their silver vorpal swords. My AC was high enough (actually low enough since AD&D went from 10 to -10) that the only way they could hit me was if they decapitated me with a nat 20. Yes there were magic items involved too for the AC.
But anyway, I haven't had a chance to play one in 5E yet, but hope to. But they do seem a little on the weak side. Sure, they can get AC 20 but only at level 16 if they only do ASI and no feats. A fighter can have a 19 at level 1 (chain mail, Shield, Defensive fighting style) If they want to be a skirmisher they would probably use Ki to disengage as a bonus action (which Rogues can do for free as a bonus action, no resource cost) to avoid OAs. But then they are only getting 1 attack, or 2 after 5th level, which drops the amount of damage they can do. If you want to stay in the thick of things you can Dodge, but again, you lose your ability to use the Bonus Action to attack so your effectiveness at dealing damage goes down.
I know monks have other abilities they can use, but I think too much is tied up in Ki usage that either increasing Ki points or damage or both would be beneficial.
I just looked up the Dragon Magazine Monk online and Wow. I forgot how potent they were. At level 21 (yep, 21) they had -5 AC (equivalent to 25 AC in 5E), movement of 30" (if I recall correctly 1"=10feet [edit: now that I think on it, the grid we used each square was 3.33feet so 3 squares/inches was 10 feet so that was 100’ movement] in AD&D, I think unencumbered movement was 12" normally and heavier armor slowed you as well), and 6d6 damage per unarmed strike and 4 attacks per round. So that's 24d6 damage/round if all hit. The PHB Monk at level 17, which was their cap, attacked 4 times for 8d4 damage per hit. Guess they really liked rolling a lot of dice.
I'm currently playing a shadow monk 6/assassin rogue 4 who has mobile. While it's a lot of fun to play you are correct the damage output even with sneak attack is lacking. I recently talked to my DM about it and he agreed to allow an artificer NPC to "enhance" my fists to increase my martial arts die to a d8 ahead of schedule. I can't speak to how unbalancing it is later on to advance your die early but at this stage in the game it has been fine and makes me feel a bit more useful in combat. It was pretty frustrating to land 4 blows in a round and do less damage than one swing of the hexblade's greatsword.
The counter to this of course is that you get other benefits to make up for the lack of pure damage in combat.
The counter to that is a lot of other classes also have other benefits as well. Fighters have action surge, battle master maneuvers, second wind, and don’t have to wait until level 16 to get a 20 AC. Rogues get sneak attack, cunning action (that doesn’t cost a resource like Ki), spells if Arcane Trickster. I haven’t played a Barbarian but I’m sure they have other benefits besides rage. And they all can put out damage better than Monks
It would certainly help with the washing up, mowing the lawn and taking out the rubbish. You haven't mentioned if your partner is also in the game. If they are waiting at home while you are off adventuring that seems a bit of a waste of a boosted Marital die.
I watched the video earlier today and I have had a number of thoughts go through my head.
First of all, I wonder if his math is correct. That many attacks and you gotta be doing something with them...but then again maybe it just feels like a lot of attacks. At my most familiar tier of play (between 6 and 10), the monk is making 3 or 4 attacks at a 1d6+4 while the greatsword fighter is making 2 attacks at a 2d6+4. That's 3d6+12/4d6+16 vs 4d6+8 comparison. After 11th level...well...the fighter gets a third attack, the paladin gets an extra die of damage, the warlock gets another beam of EB...and the monk is left behind. This is totally not an in depth statistical analysis but I will suggest that the monk is highly dependent on getting extra damage on each hit to be great or terrible. If the monk were to get the martial arts die boosted or get an extra point of damage or get an extra die from an item or spell or whatever, then that increase is on 3 or 4 attacks compared to 2 attacks.
Second, yeah I think the monk could totally have martial arts boosted by one size no problem no worry. At level one, they're probably swinging a short sword or a staff for a d6 or d8 anyway for some of their attacks. It also isn't hard to accept that a monk's punch or kick starts out equal to a blow from that staff and goes up to being equal to a blow from a two handed maul at level 20. And having a free ki point each round to just flurry every round (or monk dodge or step of the wind) would be helpful...and doing more ki stuff takes from your reservoir.
Third, I've had this thought for a while...basic unarmed combat from anyone other than a monk, someone with that one UA fighting style, or that one feat is really, really weak. One point of damage plus ability modifier isn't much. Improvised weapons do a d4 of damage...why can't my beefy fighter's mailed fist? If I were to remake the game, I'd give unarmed combat a base d3 damage, that way a dagger or club is a slight improvement, and give a monk a d6 to be special. And then give some classes proficiency with unarmed. And maybe give finesse only to specialists like the monks, fighting stylers, and feat buyers. Think of how many heroes from fiction and legend had a number of fights with their fists...but aren't "monks".
And then fourth, I thought about what if there was no monk class and all of the monk concepts were just made using other classes like unarmed specializing fighters or sorcerers with spells representing elemental martial arts.
Anyway, rambling...monks getting a bigger martial arts die sounds good to me. Figuring out ways to give a monk an extra point or two of damage through magic handwraps or weighted gloves, great. Or maybe an extra die of damage from flaming gloves. Every incremental boost is magnified because of the number of attacks. Let them flurry a bunch and dodge and dash. By increasing their unarmed damage we can increase the unarmed damage of non-monks as well. And then maybe rethink what it means to be a monk other than punching people.
I watched the video earlier today and I have had a number of thoughts go through my head.
First of all, I wonder if his math is correct. That many attacks and you gotta be doing something with them...but then again maybe it just feels like a lot of attacks. At my most familiar tier of play (between 6 and 10), the monk is making 3 or 4 attacks at a 1d6+4 while the greatsword fighter is making 2 attacks at a 2d6+4. That's 3d6+12/4d6+16 vs 4d6+8 comparison. After 11th level...well...the fighter gets a third attack, the paladin gets an extra die of damage, the warlock gets another beam of EB...and the monk is left behind. This is totally not an in depth statistical analysis but I will suggest that the monk is highly dependent on getting extra damage on each hit to be great or terrible.
You're right about the math, a bit more detail on how he reached his baseline would have been nice. I think deep into the comments he explains his numbers more. I think he also goes on to compare it to a paladin using smite on every attack but i think that was more of a digression. But I do think his graph follows your math pretty well, especially when he charts using flurry of blows on every attack.
I like your idea of having the die boosted from the get go. I think one of the themes from his video is "lets see what we can make the monk do well" and the answer is well it can do a lot of things, but not as well as another class could. Also you're right that the monk is pretty much the only way to do unarmed combat well, so why not make it do it very well and have that be the point of the monk. Although at lower levels it would be wrecking shop? Who knows, maybe wotc could elaborate on fist weapons.
Damage Calculation this is the link to his video of how he calculates damage.
not sure on the math exactly for his Monks Suck video but he usually seems consistent on his methods as he does other builds and how they compare to the baseline
Edit: personally I think Patient Defense and Step of the Wind should not cost Ki. Rogues do it with hide instead of dodge, and dash/disengage as a bonus action with no other resource cost. Why do monks have to spend a resource that affects their melee prowess the most on this? The base monk only has 2 abilities at level 14 and 18 that uses Ki outside of Melee. All the other Ki points focus on fighting, same for a lot of subclasses. So why use Ki for something Rogues can do for free?
And I think the die should go up one. 1E AD&D monk at 17th level (their level cap) was doing 4 attacks at 8d4 (8-32 damage) each attack. But that was altogether a different beast 😊
Hey, me again. Had some more thoughts in the shower.
1. So, after 5th level, Flurry of Blows is basically spending a ki point to do a limited attack-only unarmed-only version of Action Surge as a bonus action. You do two attacks as an action and then do two more attacks just as if it were Action Surge but it costs a ki point and it's your bonus action.
2. Crazy thought. If one were to remake the monk class, what if instead of upping the martial arts die as you level up, you up the number of attacks instead? So at 5th you get a second attack at d6 but at 11th you get a third attack still at d6 and at 17th you get a fourth attack but still at a d6? And then plus two attacks with a bonus action with ki (or for free)? Or, instead have the bonus action Flurry be one attack at 2nd, two attacks at 5th, three attacks at 11th, and four attacks at 17th? I wonder how that math would work out?
Monks are, even without subclass abilities, already one of the best and most versatile classes in the game. Getting hung up on just one aspect of the entirety of their abilities is pretty silly, even if you do have some theoretical math to back it up. The argument that "their abilities can be replicated with spells" is really weird and doesn't really matter. You might as well say "some of the wizards' abilties can be replicated by Monk stuff!" Some classes have overlapping abilities, so what?
But yeah, if pure DPR is teh only thing you care about in your game monks aren't the best class. But that's missing the point since monks do other stuff as well. They aren't necessarily the "best" at any given task but they are pretty darn good at a lot of things. I mean, what other class can defeat any kind of monster with their bare hands, run up walls, fall down tall buildings, dodge fireballs and have better saving throws (including death saving throws) than any one else and all this without the need for *any* gear what so ever?
TLDR; The monks are really frigging good as is and don't need fixing.
Okay, now, there's three major problems I have with the video analysis here I thought I would point out.
Monks aren't comparable to Fighters, Paladins or Barbarians. They're in the same skirmisher category as Rogues and Rangers. They're the ones we should be comparing the monk to. Monks, Rangers and Rouges have a bit more of a linear growth compared to the tier jumps other classes have, plus a healthy selection of exploratory and mobility features, both huge in tactical battle systems.
Secondly, I haven't heard anything about how Stunning Blow figures into the dps. Stunning Blow grants advantage on top of everything else; its a huge, huge part of the monk arsenal. And not just for the monk, but the entire party. That's a HUGE jump in damage. So your party's Fighter and Paladin's extra damage just got more damage-y thanks to you. Rogues will thank you for all the free advantage. Casters will enjoy the disadvantage on Dex saves for more damage. And, of course, the enemy isn't attacking back, which is very good too.
Lastly, monks are heavily short-rest dependent; for some reason (undoubtedly taken from 4e, but not sure why), the game is balanced around the idea of some rest between every 2 encounters. This can turn out to be an issue in actual game play when taking a rest doesn't make sense, and affect player perception of the monk.
Frankly, that video comes off as just some guy who armchair theorycrafts in a solitary white room, and doesn't actually play the monk, and came into the video prejudiced against the monk, trying to come up with every way its bad, without finding the ways its actually good.
Comparing monk to skirmishers like ranger and rogue I can understand, but considering one of those (ranger) is also considered subpar as a class, sets the bar pretty low to begin with. Then there is rogues who, with sneak attack, which isn’t too difficult to set up, I think would outpace monks for damage. They have the mobility (disengage) without a resource cost (Ki). Though not the movement increase. More skills with expertise. Evasion like monks. Can halve damage with uncanny dodge, compared to patient defense which costs Ki.
Stunning strike is a good feature and I’m not sure how much that fit into his calculations but considering his example from Critical Role of 73 attempts with only 25 successes shows it only works about 1/3 of the time, unless they had a really bad luck with their die rolls.
I’m not sure if monks are as bad as he makes them out to be but he is an optimizer so he has that bias or approach.
but many of the monks Ki focuses around unarmed fighting, at least base class, so when they fall behind I think it can use improvement. And some of their other flexibility features may or may not even come up in the game. Slow fall is nice but a feature that maybe comes up 2 or 3 times in an entire campaign isn’t much of a feature. Or at least is super dependent on the type of game your GM runs.
Comparing monk to skirmishers like ranger and rogue I can understand, but considering one of those (ranger) is also considered subpar as a class, sets the bar pretty low to begin with. Then there is rogues who, with sneak attack, which isn’t too difficult to set up, I think would outpace monks for damage. They have the mobility (disengage) without a resource cost (Ki). Though not the movement increase. More skills with expertise. Evasion like monks. Can halve damage with uncanny dodge, compared to patient defense which costs Ki.
Stunning strike is a good feature and I’m not sure how much that fit into his calculations but considering his example from Critical Role of 73 attempts with only 25 successes shows it only works about 1/3 of the time, unless they had a really bad luck with their die rolls.
I’m not sure if monks are as bad as he makes them out to be but he is an optimizer so he has that bias or approach.
but many of the monks Ki focuses around unarmed fighting, at least base class, so when they fall behind I think it can use improvement. And some of their other flexibility features may or may not even come up in the game. Slow fall is nice but a feature that maybe comes up 2 or 3 times in an entire campaign isn’t much of a feature. Or at least is super dependent on the type of game your GM runs.
Patient defence often lets you avoid damage, sometimes from multiple attacks, all together. Monks are also immune to certain types of damages (pretty much including bluedgeoning from falling). Succeeding on more than a third of the Stunning Strikes is pretty darn good but is not a very good measure of that particular ability since it relies on what kind of opponent you use it against. Slow Fall is a very handy ability and it's just as useful as you make it. It pretty much allows you to always have an exit strategy whenever you need one. Trick enemies to jump off buildings, fake your own death, etc. The possibilities are many.
It's really quite simple. Monks don't fall behind, so they don't need improvement. After at around 6th level the Ki point cost will realistically never be an issue (very few combats last for more than five rounds). Yes, they dont do as much damage as a sneak attacking rogue but few things do. They are also the fastest class which is very useful even outside of combat but makes them superior skirmishers. Again, if all you care about is pure damage output, monks aren't it. But monks aren't supposed to be pure damage outputers.
Maybe offer the Monk's enhanced martial arts dice option as a feat? Call it "Fists of an angry God". The character has to give up an ASI increase to get the higher damage output. I was also advocating for changing the Monk's default capstone power to making the martial arts dice a d20 at level 20.
Maybe offer the Monk's enhanced martial arts dice option as a feat? Call it "Fists of an angry God". The character has to give up an ASI increase to get the higher damage output. I was also advocating for changing the Monk's default capstone power to making the martial arts dice a d20 at level 20.
Am I just a bad person and consider the monk being very powerful...even if Damage output isn't its highest priority it is LITERALLY the most survivable class.
It gets resources that fully replenish on a short rest
Potential for 4 attacks(that you consider weak) at level 5 for a few turns.
It has more movement than anything else, and kicks it up higher with ki points
It can stun fairly reliably
SLOW FALL, that takes no action, resource.
It gets Proficiency in ALL SAVES at a point
Deflect a ranged attack per turn
Evasion
Ability to break a Charm or Frighten condition
Immunity to Poison and Disease
Like this is just Core monk...Sure it may not get huge damage numbers by should that be its only merit...
Comparing monk to skirmishers like ranger and rogue I can understand, but considering one of those (ranger) is also considered subpar as a class, sets the bar pretty low to begin with. Then there is rogues who, with sneak attack, which isn’t too difficult to set up, I think would outpace monks for damage. They have the mobility (disengage) without a resource cost (Ki). Though not the movement increase. More skills with expertise. Evasion like monks. Can halve damage with uncanny dodge, compared to patient defense which costs Ki.
Stunning strike is a good feature and I’m not sure how much that fit into his calculations but considering his example from Critical Role of 73 attempts with only 25 successes shows it only works about 1/3 of the time, unless they had a really bad luck with their die rolls.
I’m not sure if monks are as bad as he makes them out to be but he is an optimizer so he has that bias or approach.
but many of the monks Ki focuses around unarmed fighting, at least base class, so when they fall behind I think it can use improvement. And some of their other flexibility features may or may not even come up in the game. Slow fall is nice but a feature that maybe comes up 2 or 3 times in an entire campaign isn’t much of a feature. Or at least is super dependent on the type of game your GM runs.
Rangers aren't as bad as you're making them out to be if we're talking about DPS benchmarks - most of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger stems from the admittedly crap F.E. and N.E. features (exploration features), and the terribly made Beastmaster (which has no bearing on any other subclass). Hunter is generally considered competative enough with damage, and later subclasses have a bit of power
And while saying that rogues doesn't have to spend resources to Disengage is true, stating it so simply ignores that Rogues very much do need to keep in mind when, where and how they use their Cunning Action. You need to use your C.A. to hide and set up your next attack, or get in position near to an ally to make an attack, etc. Monks, if they so desired, could simply run right up to an enemy mage in the back and start hitting them, whereas a rogue would need to use their Cunning Action to set up a Sneak Attack; indeed, rogue's bonus action (either through Cunning Action or two-weapon fighting while gluing yourself next to an ally) is the primary reason Sneak Attack is so reliable.
As for stunning strike, I can't really say much about percentages, other than in actual play experience, when its used tactically, it can reshape the entire battlefield. Targeting beings that traditionally have low CON saves, such as mages, also produces far better results than 1/3 success rate. I've also heard anecdotal stories about monks stunlocking bosses to make challenging fights trivial.
Considering there's plenty of optimized monk guides out there, trying to excuse the video's poor analysis as "optimizer bias" falls kind of flat. While I don't doubt the video is biased against monks, it has nothing to do with optimization, and very likely to do with not understanding how to actually play the class. Its a bit of a consistent problem with the class, really; I wonder if its presentation or people expecting to play Goku or some guy out of a chinese power fantasy novel or something?
Yes, the class has a lot of unarmed fighting. And it has skills that enhance unarmed fighting ability. Like, oh, stunning blow and ki-enhanced strikes. And, every level, you improve your unarmed ability by getting more and more ki-points. Letting you flurry, stun, etc more and more. And not one ki per day. One ki per short rest. Which, admittedly, is going to depend on your DM. Fundamentally, the Monk's combat ability is tied to the ability to take short rests. And the ability to take short rests is going to depend on your group, your plot and your DM.
Am I just a bad person and consider the monk being very powerful...even if Damage output isn't its highest priority it is LITERALLY the most survivable class.
Nah. I mean, I personally would say the paladin is quite a bit better at surviving things than the monk. But its a very solid suite of abilities.
Am I just a bad person and consider the monk being very powerful...even if Damage output isn't its highest priority it is LITERALLY the most survivable class.
Nah. I mean, I personally would say the paladin is quite a bit better at surviving things than the monk.
It depends on how tall a building you can manage to push the Paladin off. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was watching an interesting video from treantmonk about "why monks suck"
https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk?t=1423
He makes some good points about how monks tend to lose effectiveness at higher levels. Most notably is the drop in damage per round at 9th-10th level.
Im here because Im making a monk as a backup character at 7th level. Hes an Arakocra with the mobile feat and while being able to fly 75 feet a round seems fun I dont want him to be ****** damage wise. What i was thinking is that perhaps uping the martial arts die to a d8 at level 9 would help balance him out and I was going to suggest this to the DM.
tldr: Would changing the Martial arts die to d8 at level 9, d10 at level 13, d12 at 17th level unbalance the game?
I don't think buffing the damage die would break anything. They seem to do less damage overall than the other martial classes. And as a skirmisher, probably less then Rogues using the same tactics.
Monks have always been one of my favorite classes to play and I played several of them in 1E AD&D, including one character from the revised Monk from Dragon Magazine (or was is Dungeon Magazine) that was pretty OP. I remember at 17th level being in a fight against Githyanki Knights (again, AD&D) where they carried their silver vorpal swords. My AC was high enough (actually low enough since AD&D went from 10 to -10) that the only way they could hit me was if they decapitated me with a nat 20. Yes there were magic items involved too for the AC.
But anyway, I haven't had a chance to play one in 5E yet, but hope to. But they do seem a little on the weak side. Sure, they can get AC 20 but only at level 16 if they only do ASI and no feats. A fighter can have a 19 at level 1 (chain mail, Shield, Defensive fighting style) If they want to be a skirmisher they would probably use Ki to disengage as a bonus action (which Rogues can do for free as a bonus action, no resource cost) to avoid OAs. But then they are only getting 1 attack, or 2 after 5th level, which drops the amount of damage they can do. If you want to stay in the thick of things you can Dodge, but again, you lose your ability to use the Bonus Action to attack so your effectiveness at dealing damage goes down.
I know monks have other abilities they can use, but I think too much is tied up in Ki usage that either increasing Ki points or damage or both would be beneficial.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I just looked up the Dragon Magazine Monk online and Wow. I forgot how potent they were. At level 21 (yep, 21) they had -5 AC (equivalent to 25 AC in 5E), movement of 30" (if I recall correctly 1"=10feet [edit: now that I think on it, the grid we used each square was 3.33feet so 3 squares/inches was 10 feet so that was 100’ movement] in AD&D, I think unencumbered movement was 12" normally and heavier armor slowed you as well), and 6d6 damage per unarmed strike and 4 attacks per round. So that's 24d6 damage/round if all hit. The PHB Monk at level 17, which was their cap, attacked 4 times for 8d4 damage per hit. Guess they really liked rolling a lot of dice.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm currently playing a shadow monk 6/assassin rogue 4 who has mobile. While it's a lot of fun to play you are correct the damage output even with sneak attack is lacking. I recently talked to my DM about it and he agreed to allow an artificer NPC to "enhance" my fists to increase my martial arts die to a d8 ahead of schedule. I can't speak to how unbalancing it is later on to advance your die early but at this stage in the game it has been fine and makes me feel a bit more useful in combat. It was pretty frustrating to land 4 blows in a round and do less damage than one swing of the hexblade's greatsword.
The counter to this of course is that you get other benefits to make up for the lack of pure damage in combat.
The counter to that is a lot of other classes also have other benefits as well. Fighters have action surge, battle master maneuvers, second wind, and don’t have to wait until level 16 to get a 20 AC. Rogues get sneak attack, cunning action (that doesn’t cost a resource like Ki), spells if Arcane Trickster. I haven’t played a Barbarian but I’m sure they have other benefits besides rage. And they all can put out damage better than Monks
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It would certainly help with the washing up, mowing the lawn and taking out the rubbish. You haven't mentioned if your partner is also in the game. If they are waiting at home while you are off adventuring that seems a bit of a waste of a boosted Marital die.
Wait a minute, I see what happened......
Took me a few moments too.
I watched the video earlier today and I have had a number of thoughts go through my head.
First of all, I wonder if his math is correct. That many attacks and you gotta be doing something with them...but then again maybe it just feels like a lot of attacks. At my most familiar tier of play (between 6 and 10), the monk is making 3 or 4 attacks at a 1d6+4 while the greatsword fighter is making 2 attacks at a 2d6+4. That's 3d6+12/4d6+16 vs 4d6+8 comparison. After 11th level...well...the fighter gets a third attack, the paladin gets an extra die of damage, the warlock gets another beam of EB...and the monk is left behind. This is totally not an in depth statistical analysis but I will suggest that the monk is highly dependent on getting extra damage on each hit to be great or terrible. If the monk were to get the martial arts die boosted or get an extra point of damage or get an extra die from an item or spell or whatever, then that increase is on 3 or 4 attacks compared to 2 attacks.
Second, yeah I think the monk could totally have martial arts boosted by one size no problem no worry. At level one, they're probably swinging a short sword or a staff for a d6 or d8 anyway for some of their attacks. It also isn't hard to accept that a monk's punch or kick starts out equal to a blow from that staff and goes up to being equal to a blow from a two handed maul at level 20. And having a free ki point each round to just flurry every round (or monk dodge or step of the wind) would be helpful...and doing more ki stuff takes from your reservoir.
Third, I've had this thought for a while...basic unarmed combat from anyone other than a monk, someone with that one UA fighting style, or that one feat is really, really weak. One point of damage plus ability modifier isn't much. Improvised weapons do a d4 of damage...why can't my beefy fighter's mailed fist? If I were to remake the game, I'd give unarmed combat a base d3 damage, that way a dagger or club is a slight improvement, and give a monk a d6 to be special. And then give some classes proficiency with unarmed. And maybe give finesse only to specialists like the monks, fighting stylers, and feat buyers. Think of how many heroes from fiction and legend had a number of fights with their fists...but aren't "monks".
And then fourth, I thought about what if there was no monk class and all of the monk concepts were just made using other classes like unarmed specializing fighters or sorcerers with spells representing elemental martial arts.
Anyway, rambling...monks getting a bigger martial arts die sounds good to me. Figuring out ways to give a monk an extra point or two of damage through magic handwraps or weighted gloves, great. Or maybe an extra die of damage from flaming gloves. Every incremental boost is magnified because of the number of attacks. Let them flurry a bunch and dodge and dash. By increasing their unarmed damage we can increase the unarmed damage of non-monks as well. And then maybe rethink what it means to be a monk other than punching people.
You're right about the math, a bit more detail on how he reached his baseline would have been nice. I think deep into the comments he explains his numbers more. I think he also goes on to compare it to a paladin using smite on every attack but i think that was more of a digression. But I do think his graph follows your math pretty well, especially when he charts using flurry of blows on every attack.
I like your idea of having the die boosted from the get go. I think one of the themes from his video is "lets see what we can make the monk do well" and the answer is well it can do a lot of things, but not as well as another class could. Also you're right that the monk is pretty much the only way to do unarmed combat well, so why not make it do it very well and have that be the point of the monk. Although at lower levels it would be wrecking shop? Who knows, maybe wotc could elaborate on fist weapons.
Damage Calculation
this is the link to his video of how he calculates damage.
not sure on the math exactly for his Monks Suck video but he usually seems consistent on his methods as he does other builds and how they compare to the baseline
Edit: personally I think Patient Defense and Step of the Wind should not cost Ki. Rogues do it with hide instead of dodge, and dash/disengage as a bonus action with no other resource cost. Why do monks have to spend a resource that affects their melee prowess the most on this? The base monk only has 2 abilities at level 14 and 18 that uses Ki outside of Melee. All the other Ki points focus on fighting, same for a lot of subclasses. So why use Ki for something Rogues can do for free?
And I think the die should go up one. 1E AD&D monk at 17th level (their level cap) was doing 4 attacks at 8d4 (8-32 damage) each attack. But that was altogether a different beast 😊
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Hey, me again. Had some more thoughts in the shower.
1. So, after 5th level, Flurry of Blows is basically spending a ki point to do a limited attack-only unarmed-only version of Action Surge as a bonus action. You do two attacks as an action and then do two more attacks just as if it were Action Surge but it costs a ki point and it's your bonus action.
2. Crazy thought. If one were to remake the monk class, what if instead of upping the martial arts die as you level up, you up the number of attacks instead? So at 5th you get a second attack at d6 but at 11th you get a third attack still at d6 and at 17th you get a fourth attack but still at a d6? And then plus two attacks with a bonus action with ki (or for free)? Or, instead have the bonus action Flurry be one attack at 2nd, two attacks at 5th, three attacks at 11th, and four attacks at 17th? I wonder how that math would work out?
Monks are, even without subclass abilities, already one of the best and most versatile classes in the game. Getting hung up on just one aspect of the entirety of their abilities is pretty silly, even if you do have some theoretical math to back it up. The argument that "their abilities can be replicated with spells" is really weird and doesn't really matter. You might as well say "some of the wizards' abilties can be replicated by Monk stuff!" Some classes have overlapping abilities, so what?
But yeah, if pure DPR is teh only thing you care about in your game monks aren't the best class. But that's missing the point since monks do other stuff as well. They aren't necessarily the "best" at any given task but they are pretty darn good at a lot of things. I mean, what other class can defeat any kind of monster with their bare hands, run up walls, fall down tall buildings, dodge fireballs and have better saving throws (including death saving throws) than any one else and all this without the need for *any* gear what so ever?
TLDR; The monks are really frigging good as is and don't need fixing.
Okay, now, there's three major problems I have with the video analysis here I thought I would point out.
Monks aren't comparable to Fighters, Paladins or Barbarians. They're in the same skirmisher category as Rogues and Rangers. They're the ones we should be comparing the monk to. Monks, Rangers and Rouges have a bit more of a linear growth compared to the tier jumps other classes have, plus a healthy selection of exploratory and mobility features, both huge in tactical battle systems.
Secondly, I haven't heard anything about how Stunning Blow figures into the dps. Stunning Blow grants advantage on top of everything else; its a huge, huge part of the monk arsenal. And not just for the monk, but the entire party. That's a HUGE jump in damage. So your party's Fighter and Paladin's extra damage just got more damage-y thanks to you. Rogues will thank you for all the free advantage. Casters will enjoy the disadvantage on Dex saves for more damage. And, of course, the enemy isn't attacking back, which is very good too.
Lastly, monks are heavily short-rest dependent; for some reason (undoubtedly taken from 4e, but not sure why), the game is balanced around the idea of some rest between every 2 encounters. This can turn out to be an issue in actual game play when taking a rest doesn't make sense, and affect player perception of the monk.
Frankly, that video comes off as just some guy who armchair theorycrafts in a solitary white room, and doesn't actually play the monk, and came into the video prejudiced against the monk, trying to come up with every way its bad, without finding the ways its actually good.
Comparing monk to skirmishers like ranger and rogue I can understand, but considering one of those (ranger) is also considered subpar as a class, sets the bar pretty low to begin with. Then there is rogues who, with sneak attack, which isn’t too difficult to set up, I think would outpace monks for damage. They have the mobility (disengage) without a resource cost (Ki). Though not the movement increase. More skills with expertise. Evasion like monks. Can halve damage with uncanny dodge, compared to patient defense which costs Ki.
Stunning strike is a good feature and I’m not sure how much that fit into his calculations but considering his example from Critical Role of 73 attempts with only 25 successes shows it only works about 1/3 of the time, unless they had a really bad luck with their die rolls.
I’m not sure if monks are as bad as he makes them out to be but he is an optimizer so he has that bias or approach.
but many of the monks Ki focuses around unarmed fighting, at least base class, so when they fall behind I think it can use improvement. And some of their other flexibility features may or may not even come up in the game. Slow fall is nice but a feature that maybe comes up 2 or 3 times in an entire campaign isn’t much of a feature. Or at least is super dependent on the type of game your GM runs.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Patient defence often lets you avoid damage, sometimes from multiple attacks, all together. Monks are also immune to certain types of damages (pretty much including bluedgeoning from falling). Succeeding on more than a third of the Stunning Strikes is pretty darn good but is not a very good measure of that particular ability since it relies on what kind of opponent you use it against. Slow Fall is a very handy ability and it's just as useful as you make it. It pretty much allows you to always have an exit strategy whenever you need one. Trick enemies to jump off buildings, fake your own death, etc. The possibilities are many.
It's really quite simple. Monks don't fall behind, so they don't need improvement. After at around 6th level the Ki point cost will realistically never be an issue (very few combats last for more than five rounds). Yes, they dont do as much damage as a sneak attacking rogue but few things do. They are also the fastest class which is very useful even outside of combat but makes them superior skirmishers. Again, if all you care about is pure damage output, monks aren't it. But monks aren't supposed to be pure damage outputers.
Maybe offer the Monk's enhanced martial arts dice option as a feat? Call it "Fists of an angry God". The character has to give up an ASI increase to get the higher damage output. I was also advocating for changing the Monk's default capstone power to making the martial arts dice a d20 at level 20.
Cry HAVOC! and let slip the mustelids of war...
But why?
Am I just a bad person and consider the monk being very powerful...even if Damage output isn't its highest priority it is LITERALLY the most survivable class.
It gets resources that fully replenish on a short rest
Potential for 4 attacks(that you consider weak) at level 5 for a few turns.
It has more movement than anything else, and kicks it up higher with ki points
It can stun fairly reliably
SLOW FALL, that takes no action, resource.
It gets Proficiency in ALL SAVES at a point
Deflect a ranged attack per turn
Evasion
Ability to break a Charm or Frighten condition
Immunity to Poison and Disease
Like this is just Core monk...Sure it may not get huge damage numbers by should that be its only merit...
Rangers aren't as bad as you're making them out to be if we're talking about DPS benchmarks - most of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger stems from the admittedly crap F.E. and N.E. features (exploration features), and the terribly made Beastmaster (which has no bearing on any other subclass). Hunter is generally considered competative enough with damage, and later subclasses have a bit of power
And while saying that rogues doesn't have to spend resources to Disengage is true, stating it so simply ignores that Rogues very much do need to keep in mind when, where and how they use their Cunning Action. You need to use your C.A. to hide and set up your next attack, or get in position near to an ally to make an attack, etc. Monks, if they so desired, could simply run right up to an enemy mage in the back and start hitting them, whereas a rogue would need to use their Cunning Action to set up a Sneak Attack; indeed, rogue's bonus action (either through Cunning Action or two-weapon fighting while gluing yourself next to an ally) is the primary reason Sneak Attack is so reliable.
As for stunning strike, I can't really say much about percentages, other than in actual play experience, when its used tactically, it can reshape the entire battlefield. Targeting beings that traditionally have low CON saves, such as mages, also produces far better results than 1/3 success rate. I've also heard anecdotal stories about monks stunlocking bosses to make challenging fights trivial.
Considering there's plenty of optimized monk guides out there, trying to excuse the video's poor analysis as "optimizer bias" falls kind of flat. While I don't doubt the video is biased against monks, it has nothing to do with optimization, and very likely to do with not understanding how to actually play the class. Its a bit of a consistent problem with the class, really; I wonder if its presentation or people expecting to play Goku or some guy out of a chinese power fantasy novel or something?
Yes, the class has a lot of unarmed fighting. And it has skills that enhance unarmed fighting ability. Like, oh, stunning blow and ki-enhanced strikes. And, every level, you improve your unarmed ability by getting more and more ki-points. Letting you flurry, stun, etc more and more. And not one ki per day. One ki per short rest. Which, admittedly, is going to depend on your DM. Fundamentally, the Monk's combat ability is tied to the ability to take short rests. And the ability to take short rests is going to depend on your group, your plot and your DM.
Nah. I mean, I personally would say the paladin is quite a bit better at surviving things than the monk. But its a very solid suite of abilities.
It depends on how tall a building you can manage to push the Paladin off. ;)