I considered damage, support, and utility/versatility.
Paladins nova hard and have good support to boot. Wizards are the gods of utility and high level arcane casters can put up the numbers. For best support is probably cleric, but druid is a close second and generally has better versatility, so I went with that as my third.
Weakest was a little harder. Rangers are obvious since its damage can't compete with any class, it's support can't compare to bard, cleric, or druid, and it has limited utility compared to half the classes too. I chose rogues second because while they have strong utility, it is limited to skills and locks and low versatility outside that, damage and support can't compete with a full caster or even a fighter or paladin. I flip-flopped a bit on the third, bards are probably the weakest casters, but more than make up for it in support and versatility, so I went with monk despite its steady damage and powerful stun locks it does less damage than half the melee classes and its support is limited to those stuns, not much versatility or utility.
i think you have forgotten about hunters mark and how powerful it can be, especially for an two weapon fighting ranger. As of now, yeah they are a little rough arround the edges but especially now that we have class feature variants UA that will hopefully be official and you can hunters mark everyone and their mom at level one without having to worry about getting hit too much and loosing your concentration, also almost all of the subclasses other than the monster hunter ripoff can make more than two attacks per turn with their 11th level feature.
also isint the point of monks that they are utillity: the class? isint that like almost all that they are good for?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Ludicrous math leads to ludicrous conclusions. 75 hp? Puhleez.
Making the assumption that a fighter can't also be a variant human and grab an extra 2hp per level is ludicrous. The monk is stuck with far too few hp to be a front line combatant. If the monk wants to stay put in the front line they are forced to burn their bonus action every turn for dodge rather than for a flurry of blows.
It isn’t that fighters suck, they’re one of the best and most flexible classes, obviously.
I hold this same opinion regarding the monk. Being on the lower end of 5E classes does not mean the monk sucks. Only that the monk needs a little help in specific areas to be on the same level as the other classes. In 5E there really is little daylight between any of the classes.
Ludicrous math leads to ludicrous conclusions. 75 hp? Puhleez.
Making the assumption that a fighter can't also be a variant human and grab an extra 2hp per level is ludicrous. The monk is stuck with far too few hp to be a front line combatant. If the monk wants to stay put in the front line they are forced to burn their bonus action every turn for dodge rather than for a flurry of blows.
It isn’t that fighters suck, they’re one of the best and most flexible classes, obviously.
I hold this same opinion regarding the monk. Being on the lower end of 5E classes does not mean the monk sucks. Only that the monk needs a little help in specific areas to be on the same level as the other classes. In 5E there really is little daylight between any of the classes.
Do your games not have ranged attackers or force melee players to make dexterity saving throws?
If you're operating under the assumption that every enemy is a melee enemy, your conclusions are very limited. Limited to just the weird combats your group seems to run.
Ludicrous math leads to ludicrous conclusions. 75 hp? Puhleez.
Making the assumption that a fighter can't also be a variant human and grab an extra 2hp per level is ludicrous. The monk is stuck with far too few hp to be a front line combatant. If the monk wants to stay put in the front line they are forced to burn their bonus action every turn for dodge rather than for a flurry of blows.
It isn’t that fighters suck, they’re one of the best and most flexible classes, obviously.
I hold this same opinion regarding the monk. Being on the lower end of 5E classes does not mean the monk sucks. Only that the monk needs a little help in specific areas to be on the same level as the other classes. In 5E there really is little daylight between any of the classes.
Do your games not have ranged attackers or force melee players to make dexterity saving throws?
If you're operating under the assumption that every enemy is a melee enemy, your conclusions are very limited. Limited to just the weird combats your group seems to run.
Obviously the monk is not a ranged combatant so no reason to talk about it. Unless you refer to the once a round deflect missiles (its a reaction in case you did not realize it) the monk can do? Hardly worth talking about.
What about all the con saves characters are forced to make? I believe its the second most common save in the game? The monk does not get prof in all saves until 14th level. That's a long stretch before worrying about that. Lots of STR, CON, INT and CHA saves to be forced to roll until then.
If we wanted to talk about ranged combat then the monk would loose on every level. The only subclass that has any ranged option is the kensai and I would not consider that anywhere near a top tier archer without heavy multiclassing. Unlike the fighter.
A monk is his own ranged weapon, with bonus action dashes or disengages and +10-20 movement. But that said, they also do monk weapon damage and use Dex with (thrown) daggers and javelins and handaxes, and three subclasses are potentially built around it (elements, Kensei, sun soul)... so yes they are competent ranged characters when necessary, though less able to specialize in it without multiclassing than Fighters. But we’re not talking about ranged spec Fighters, we’re comparing monks with 2H melee striker Fighters I thought, who have no particular ranged tricks?
Of all the CON saves a character will be asked to make, 2/3 are probably poison or disease, to which the monk is immune.
The monk is the master of mobility but the battle master has options at range. Most every combat maneuver is an option in melee or range. So trip attacks with a javelin, disarm with a thrown dagger and intimidating strike with a hammer to the face.
Plenty of vicious spells require CON saves. Cone of cold, flesh to stone, and blindness/deafness to name a few. Of course the monk isn't immune to poison and disease until 10th level...
No, but the damage differential vanishes before T3 (in T2, two d8+5 attacks and two d6+5 per round, 36 avg, versus two 2d6+15 attacks, 44 avg. raw adjusted to 33 avg. from hit malus; in T1, one d8+5 and two d6+5 per round, 21 avg, versus one 2d6+15 attack, 22 avg raw adjusted to 16 from hit malus), which is why you framed your position in terms of a level 12 Fighter vs Monk in the first place. Don't move the goalposts on me by saying that the Fighter gets credit for his level 12 features but the Monk doesn't.
Of course there are spells in every class of save that no one wants to be caught by, but the monk has proficiency in two good save classes (STR to avoid getting grabbed, DEX to avoid damage), further trivializes his DEX saves by getting the benefit of a pass on a failure and a total negation on a pass, has immunity to the most common versions of enemy-caused CON saves, as an action can negate failing the most common effects of WIS and CHA saves... and in a couple of levels will have proficiency in all saves and the ability to reroll failures. The Fighter has nothing resembling any of this, just STR and CON saves.
Tripping and disarming and frightening from thrown range are pretty good combat tricks for a Fighter, but I wouldn't say that they're far and away better than using your reaction to make an enemy waste its ranged attack shooting itself in the face, and the monk can do its version far far more often in a combat and over the course of a day than the fighter can do his.
No, but the damage differential vanishes before T3 (in T2, two d8+5 attacks and two d6+5 per round, 36 avg, versus two 2d6+15 attacks, 44 avg. raw adjusted to 33 avg. from hit malus; in T1, one d8+5 and two d6+5 per round, 21 avg, versus one 2d6+15 attack, 22 avg raw adjusted to 16 from hit malus), which is why you framed your position in terms of a level 12 Fighter vs Monk in the first place. Don't move the goalposts on me by saying that the Fighter gets credit for his level 12 features but the Monk doesn't.
You constantly bring up monk's getting proficiency in all saves and accuse me of moving the goalpost? I picked 12 level because I felt the contrast would be strongest but let's look at 5th for a moment. (A level that is probably going to be more familiar to most players)
A 5th level monk gets two attacks per round and then has a few options you gloss over. They can use a bonus action to make one (1) open hand attack for free OR they may elect to spend ki to make another attack with flurry of blows, use their bonus action to dodge, or use their bonus action to disengage. So before we play with features the monk can truly only say they get 2 weapon attacks and a bonus action attack. So that's 1d8+4 x2 plus 1d6+4 = 24 damage. With 5 ki they can use their special features up to 5 times per short rest. A 5th level human variant monk using standard array is also looking at a 17 AC and 33 hp.
At 5th level a fighter also gets two attacks. We'll assume GWM instead of a attribute bump. GWM has a circumstantial bonus attack but we'll leave that out of the calculations for now but keep in mind we do not have to take the -5/+10 to make that extra attack. Two attacks at 2d6+13 comes to just about 28 damage per round. A battle master has four superiority dice to fuel his maneuvers and lets take riposte, precision attack and trip attack. Like the monk these abilities refresh on a short rest. Our fighter is much more comfortable with his 19 AC and 49 hp.
So before we figure in any special features the fighter is doing more damage, has a higher AC and more hit points. Looking at special features the monk can stun with DC 14 Con save and the fighter can trip with a DC 14 Str save. Stun is the better effect but the fighter adds 1d8 damage to his maneuver. The monk can sacrifice some damage per round for a AC boost and the fighter can precision attack to help mitigate that -5 for GWM to increase his damage. Next the monk can bump his damage with a flurry but the fighter can use a reaction to riposte an attacker not only boosting his damage but adding another d8. Finally, let's not forget that whenever the fighter drops an opponent or scores a critical he gets a bonus attack with this greatsword.
Outside of those features the monk can slow fall and deflect arrows. Both are pretty circumstantial but nothing to sneeze at. The fighter, however, has action surge and second wind on the table and both of those abilities will always be useful if more limited use.
Maybe this example does a better job of breaking down why I would put the monk near the bottom of the class list? Decide for yourself.
How do you get 19 AC for a Fighter using a Great Weapon? You can't wield a great weapon and use a shield at the same time. Are you assuming Full Plate and Defense Fighting Style?
If you're going to give the Fighter armor that is worth 1500 gold, you might as well give the Monk a +1 weapon just to be fair.
I'll admit that I wrote off Superiority Dice too much at low levels, where the number of Ki that the monk has and the number of Superiority the Fighter has are closer to equal. Later on Ki is more flexible, but at T1 and early T2, the Fighter gets an early spike.
Level 5 Battlemaster is doing either 2d6+3 x 2 (average 20), 2d6+3 and 2d6+13 (avg 25 after malus), or 2d6+13 x 2 (avg 30 after malus). Four attacks (we'll call it four rounds per short rest), he can add another 4.5 to that from a Superiority Die. If he has GW fighting style, call it about another 1 DPR per swing (so +2 DPR at 5). So total, probably 32 avg, or 36.5 if he has Superiority left.
Level 5 Long Death is doing 1d8+4 x 2 and 1d6 + 4 (avg 24.5) all day long. Five rounds per short rest, he can either dodge (-7.5 DPR) or flurry (+7.5 DPR). So 24.5 avg, or 32 if he has Ki left and doesn't need to dodge.
To go out in left field, at this same point a Rogue is doing 1d6+4 x 2 and 3d6 (avg 25.5), a Barbarian is doing 2d6+4+2 x 2 (average 26), and a Warlock 1d12+4+1d6 x 2 (avg. 24.5). Clearly, both Fighter and Monk are at the top of the T1 damage pile.
We've made our cases at this point I guess, though we could continue to pick apart each other's math and assumptions for days :)
You're assuming that the target has 9 AC with those numbers (basically, you're assuming that a 2 is enough to hit if you're the Monk).
If you put the target's AC at a more reasonable number like 13, the results are different. Great Weapon Master is much better against targets with very low AC. Which you conveniently chose for your calculations.
Let's say that you're facing a normal target, one that has 13 AC.
Then your GWM Fighter using the -5/+10 has a 5% chance to crit, needs a 12 just to hit, so a 40% chance for a normal hit, and a 55% chance to miss. Or if he chooses to attack normally, he gets a 5% chance to crit, a 65% chance for a normal hit, and a 30% chance to miss. That gives a 5% chance of 4D6+13, a 40% chance of 2D6+13, and a 55% chance of 0. Or a 5% chance of 4D6+3, a 65% chance of 2D6+3, and a 30% chance of 0. That's 1.35+8 = 9.35 average damage or 0.85+6.5 = 7.35 average damage for each attack, or 18.7 or 14.7 total damage, not including the bonus action attacks you would get occasionally.
And a Monk would have a 5% chance to crit, a 70% chance for a normal hit, and a 25% chance to miss. Which is 0.65+5.95=6.6 damage on a weapon attack and 0.55+5.25=5.8 average damage on an unarmed strike. Which is 19 average damage from two weapon attacks and one unarmed strike. That's superior to the Fighter, regardless of whether or not the Fighter chooses to use the -5/+10.
If you drop the target's AC below 13, the GWM Fighter can come out ahead. But as you increase the AC above 13, the Monk pulls farther and farther ahead of the Fighter in damage. If you fight something with an AC of 18, you'll find that GWM isn't nearly as spiffy.
So you're great at beating up on unarmored targets, congratulations. But if you fight enemies with decent AC, the Monk is going to come out ahead.
In my experience, discussion of average damage stops at assuming average damage when every swing connects, unless comparing a feature like GWM that specifically has a to-hit malus. Otherwise, the analysis of what AC we're aiming for at what tier just gets too obtuse and chaotic for anyone to read through.
In my experience, discussion of average damage stops at assuming average damage when every swing connects, unless comparing a feature like GWM that specifically has a to-hit malus. Otherwise, the analysis of what AC we're aiming for at what tier just gets too obtuse and chaotic for anyone to read through.
That's correct. If the difference in the chance to hit was between having a +7 to hit and a +6 to hit, it's not a big difference and assuming every swing connects won't mess things up much. But when the difference is between a +7 to hit and a +1 to hit, it does mess things up to assume that every swing connects for the +7 to hit and the +1 to hit connects 70% of the time.
Getting tired of the monk good or bad argument. Truth is most most builds of most classes are relatively the same in power, and only specific builds of certain classes stand out (with the few exceptions like any paladin being able to nova).
Which class would you rather debate the power ranking of, Dx?
I don't want any debated. I just want to see why people think classes are worthy of the title strongest/weakest.
well then alow me to present an argument for bards, becuase with them "jack of all trades" and "master of one" are not mutually exclusive, i can be one of the finest debuff mages or one of the finest summoners, one of the finest herbologists, one of the finest archers or one of the finest swordsmen, one of the finest ambush high damge bois, an bard can truly take on any role, or they can choose to embrace their roles as jacks of all trades and never really focus their build on anything, their expertise means that they can be better at most things out of combat and even some things in combat (athletics expertise becuase you can grapple), jack of all trades means not only are you better at counterspelling stuff than many other classes, but it also means you will never truly be bad at anything, with the bard you can also embrace the supportive role of the bard, or lean heavily into roleplay.
Simply put, if there is something another class can do, bards can do it as well, and chances are they might in some instances be just as good or even better than that other class, maybe they are not nessesarily the strongest always but their power is probably pretty high up there and their versatillity is entirely unmatched by any other class
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
(levels 6-13 specifically) are a struggle where their survivability is impaired compared to other classes. And that efffects their usefulness.
most of the monks best stuff either come early. Before other classes get a lot of their cool stuff. Or don’t come until end game kinda timeline.
you could literally go class by class comparisons of class features, not even subclass specific, for every level between 6-13 for monks vs other classes, and they are towards the bottom. And the ones that get less stuff... atleast build up spell slots.
base experiment:
take 4 people party’s.
have each party have 1 healer. (Cleric/Druid/bard/whatever)
alright. Now. There’s literally hundreds of millions of combinations still. (Classes, levels, pairings, races, standard array, different stats for each person in party in different spot, feats for variant humans, proficiencies, etc etc etc.) So you get decent sized samples.
then. Simulate each group through the exact same Scenario encounters. Maybe it’s 1 deadly. Maybe 3-4 ones. Maybe there’s traps and other things at hand, maybe there’s not. Etc.
i think you have forgotten about hunters mark and how powerful it can be, especially for an two weapon fighting ranger. As of now, yeah they are a little rough arround the edges but especially now that we have class feature variants UA that will hopefully be official and you can hunters mark everyone and their mom at level one without having to worry about getting hit too much and loosing your concentration, also almost all of the subclasses other than the monster hunter ripoff can make more than two attacks per turn with their 11th level feature.
also isint the point of monks that they are utillity: the class? isint that like almost all that they are good for?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Making the assumption that a fighter can't also be a variant human and grab an extra 2hp per level is ludicrous. The monk is stuck with far too few hp to be a front line combatant. If the monk wants to stay put in the front line they are forced to burn their bonus action every turn for dodge rather than for a flurry of blows.
I hold this same opinion regarding the monk. Being on the lower end of 5E classes does not mean the monk sucks. Only that the monk needs a little help in specific areas to be on the same level as the other classes. In 5E there really is little daylight between any of the classes.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Do your games not have ranged attackers or force melee players to make dexterity saving throws?
If you're operating under the assumption that every enemy is a melee enemy, your conclusions are very limited. Limited to just the weird combats your group seems to run.
Obviously the monk is not a ranged combatant so no reason to talk about it. Unless you refer to the once a round deflect missiles (its a reaction in case you did not realize it) the monk can do? Hardly worth talking about.
What about all the con saves characters are forced to make? I believe its the second most common save in the game? The monk does not get prof in all saves until 14th level. That's a long stretch before worrying about that. Lots of STR, CON, INT and CHA saves to be forced to roll until then.
If we wanted to talk about ranged combat then the monk would loose on every level. The only subclass that has any ranged option is the kensai and I would not consider that anywhere near a top tier archer without heavy multiclassing. Unlike the fighter.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
A monk is his own ranged weapon, with bonus action dashes or disengages and +10-20 movement. But that said, they also do monk weapon damage and use Dex with (thrown) daggers and javelins and handaxes, and three subclasses are potentially built around it (elements, Kensei, sun soul)... so yes they are competent ranged characters when necessary, though less able to specialize in it without multiclassing than Fighters. But we’re not talking about ranged spec Fighters, we’re comparing monks with 2H melee striker Fighters I thought, who have no particular ranged tricks?
Of all the CON saves a character will be asked to make, 2/3 are probably poison or disease, to which the monk is immune.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The monk is the master of mobility but the battle master has options at range. Most every combat maneuver is an option in melee or range. So trip attacks with a javelin, disarm with a thrown dagger and intimidating strike with a hammer to the face.
Plenty of vicious spells require CON saves. Cone of cold, flesh to stone, and blindness/deafness to name a few. Of course the monk isn't immune to poison and disease until 10th level...
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
No, but the damage differential vanishes before T3 (in T2, two d8+5 attacks and two d6+5 per round, 36 avg, versus two 2d6+15 attacks, 44 avg. raw adjusted to 33 avg. from hit malus; in T1, one d8+5 and two d6+5 per round, 21 avg, versus one 2d6+15 attack, 22 avg raw adjusted to 16 from hit malus), which is why you framed your position in terms of a level 12 Fighter vs Monk in the first place. Don't move the goalposts on me by saying that the Fighter gets credit for his level 12 features but the Monk doesn't.
Of course there are spells in every class of save that no one wants to be caught by, but the monk has proficiency in two good save classes (STR to avoid getting grabbed, DEX to avoid damage), further trivializes his DEX saves by getting the benefit of a pass on a failure and a total negation on a pass, has immunity to the most common versions of enemy-caused CON saves, as an action can negate failing the most common effects of WIS and CHA saves... and in a couple of levels will have proficiency in all saves and the ability to reroll failures. The Fighter has nothing resembling any of this, just STR and CON saves.
Tripping and disarming and frightening from thrown range are pretty good combat tricks for a Fighter, but I wouldn't say that they're far and away better than using your reaction to make an enemy waste its ranged attack shooting itself in the face, and the monk can do its version far far more often in a combat and over the course of a day than the fighter can do his.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You constantly bring up monk's getting proficiency in all saves and accuse me of moving the goalpost? I picked 12 level because I felt the contrast would be strongest but let's look at 5th for a moment. (A level that is probably going to be more familiar to most players)
A 5th level monk gets two attacks per round and then has a few options you gloss over. They can use a bonus action to make one (1) open hand attack for free OR they may elect to spend ki to make another attack with flurry of blows, use their bonus action to dodge, or use their bonus action to disengage. So before we play with features the monk can truly only say they get 2 weapon attacks and a bonus action attack. So that's 1d8+4 x2 plus 1d6+4 = 24 damage. With 5 ki they can use their special features up to 5 times per short rest. A 5th level human variant monk using standard array is also looking at a 17 AC and 33 hp.
At 5th level a fighter also gets two attacks. We'll assume GWM instead of a attribute bump. GWM has a circumstantial bonus attack but we'll leave that out of the calculations for now but keep in mind we do not have to take the -5/+10 to make that extra attack. Two attacks at 2d6+13 comes to just about 28 damage per round. A battle master has four superiority dice to fuel his maneuvers and lets take riposte, precision attack and trip attack. Like the monk these abilities refresh on a short rest. Our fighter is much more comfortable with his 19 AC and 49 hp.
So before we figure in any special features the fighter is doing more damage, has a higher AC and more hit points. Looking at special features the monk can stun with DC 14 Con save and the fighter can trip with a DC 14 Str save. Stun is the better effect but the fighter adds 1d8 damage to his maneuver. The monk can sacrifice some damage per round for a AC boost and the fighter can precision attack to help mitigate that -5 for GWM to increase his damage. Next the monk can bump his damage with a flurry but the fighter can use a reaction to riposte an attacker not only boosting his damage but adding another d8. Finally, let's not forget that whenever the fighter drops an opponent or scores a critical he gets a bonus attack with this greatsword.
Outside of those features the monk can slow fall and deflect arrows. Both are pretty circumstantial but nothing to sneeze at. The fighter, however, has action surge and second wind on the table and both of those abilities will always be useful if more limited use.
Maybe this example does a better job of breaking down why I would put the monk near the bottom of the class list? Decide for yourself.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
How do you get 19 AC for a Fighter using a Great Weapon? You can't wield a great weapon and use a shield at the same time. Are you assuming Full Plate and Defense Fighting Style?
If you're going to give the Fighter armor that is worth 1500 gold, you might as well give the Monk a +1 weapon just to be fair.
I'll admit that I wrote off Superiority Dice too much at low levels, where the number of Ki that the monk has and the number of Superiority the Fighter has are closer to equal. Later on Ki is more flexible, but at T1 and early T2, the Fighter gets an early spike.
Level 5 Battlemaster is doing either 2d6+3 x 2 (average 20), 2d6+3 and 2d6+13 (avg 25 after malus), or 2d6+13 x 2 (avg 30 after malus). Four attacks (we'll call it four rounds per short rest), he can add another 4.5 to that from a Superiority Die. If he has GW fighting style, call it about another 1 DPR per swing (so +2 DPR at 5). So total, probably 32 avg, or 36.5 if he has Superiority left.
Level 5 Long Death is doing 1d8+4 x 2 and 1d6 + 4 (avg 24.5) all day long. Five rounds per short rest, he can either dodge (-7.5 DPR) or flurry (+7.5 DPR). So 24.5 avg, or 32 if he has Ki left and doesn't need to dodge.
To go out in left field, at this same point a Rogue is doing 1d6+4 x 2 and 3d6 (avg 25.5), a Barbarian is doing 2d6+4+2 x 2 (average 26), and a Warlock 1d12+4+1d6 x 2 (avg. 24.5). Clearly, both Fighter and Monk are at the top of the T1 damage pile.
We've made our cases at this point I guess, though we could continue to pick apart each other's math and assumptions for days :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're assuming that the target has 9 AC with those numbers (basically, you're assuming that a 2 is enough to hit if you're the Monk).
If you put the target's AC at a more reasonable number like 13, the results are different. Great Weapon Master is much better against targets with very low AC. Which you conveniently chose for your calculations.
Let's say that you're facing a normal target, one that has 13 AC.
Then your GWM Fighter using the -5/+10 has a 5% chance to crit, needs a 12 just to hit, so a 40% chance for a normal hit, and a 55% chance to miss. Or if he chooses to attack normally, he gets a 5% chance to crit, a 65% chance for a normal hit, and a 30% chance to miss. That gives a 5% chance of 4D6+13, a 40% chance of 2D6+13, and a 55% chance of 0. Or a 5% chance of 4D6+3, a 65% chance of 2D6+3, and a 30% chance of 0. That's 1.35+8 = 9.35 average damage or 0.85+6.5 = 7.35 average damage for each attack, or 18.7 or 14.7 total damage, not including the bonus action attacks you would get occasionally.
And a Monk would have a 5% chance to crit, a 70% chance for a normal hit, and a 25% chance to miss. Which is 0.65+5.95=6.6 damage on a weapon attack and 0.55+5.25=5.8 average damage on an unarmed strike. Which is 19 average damage from two weapon attacks and one unarmed strike. That's superior to the Fighter, regardless of whether or not the Fighter chooses to use the -5/+10.
If you drop the target's AC below 13, the GWM Fighter can come out ahead. But as you increase the AC above 13, the Monk pulls farther and farther ahead of the Fighter in damage. If you fight something with an AC of 18, you'll find that GWM isn't nearly as spiffy.
So you're great at beating up on unarmored targets, congratulations. But if you fight enemies with decent AC, the Monk is going to come out ahead.
In my experience, discussion of average damage stops at assuming average damage when every swing connects, unless comparing a feature like GWM that specifically has a to-hit malus. Otherwise, the analysis of what AC we're aiming for at what tier just gets too obtuse and chaotic for anyone to read through.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's correct. If the difference in the chance to hit was between having a +7 to hit and a +6 to hit, it's not a big difference and assuming every swing connects won't mess things up much. But when the difference is between a +7 to hit and a +1 to hit, it does mess things up to assume that every swing connects for the +7 to hit and the +1 to hit connects 70% of the time.
Getting tired of the monk good or bad argument. Truth is most most builds of most classes are relatively the same in power, and only specific builds of certain classes stand out (with the few exceptions like any paladin being able to nova).
Which class would you rather debate the power ranking of, Dx?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't want any debated. I just want to see why people think classes are worthy of the title strongest/weakest.
well then alow me to present an argument for bards, becuase with them "jack of all trades" and "master of one" are not mutually exclusive, i can be one of the finest debuff mages or one of the finest summoners, one of the finest herbologists, one of the finest archers or one of the finest swordsmen, one of the finest ambush high damge bois, an bard can truly take on any role, or they can choose to embrace their roles as jacks of all trades and never really focus their build on anything, their expertise means that they can be better at most things out of combat and even some things in combat (athletics expertise becuase you can grapple), jack of all trades means not only are you better at counterspelling stuff than many other classes, but it also means you will never truly be bad at anything, with the bard you can also embrace the supportive role of the bard, or lean heavily into roleplay.
Simply put, if there is something another class can do, bards can do it as well, and chances are they might in some instances be just as good or even better than that other class, maybe they are not nessesarily the strongest always but their power is probably pretty high up there and their versatillity is entirely unmatched by any other class
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I’ve said it before. Multiple times.
monks are great tier 1 and tier 4.
tiers 2 and 3.
(levels 6-13 specifically) are a struggle where their survivability is impaired compared to other classes. And that efffects their usefulness.
most of the monks best stuff either come early. Before other classes get a lot of their cool stuff. Or don’t come until end game kinda timeline.
you could literally go class by class comparisons of class features, not even subclass specific, for every level between 6-13 for monks vs other classes, and they are towards the bottom. And the ones that get less stuff... atleast build up spell slots.
base experiment:
take 4 people party’s.
have each party have 1 healer. (Cleric/Druid/bard/whatever)
1 utility. (Rogue/wizard/sorcerer/warlock/monk/whatever)
1 tank
1 “face”
alright. Now. There’s literally hundreds of millions of combinations still. (Classes, levels, pairings, races, standard array, different stats for each person in party in different spot, feats for variant humans, proficiencies, etc etc etc.) So you get decent sized samples.
then. Simulate each group through the exact same Scenario encounters. Maybe it’s 1 deadly. Maybe 3-4 ones. Maybe there’s traps and other things at hand, maybe there’s not. Etc.
Blank
Ranger is the BEST
What pillar of the game?
What duration? For example, one round nova (paladin/warlock!), one combat, one day?
How do you count force-multiplier abilities (e.g. auras, bless, inspiration)?
This seems like an unaskable question.