monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
Yup. This is one of the strengths of the monk. And of course, unless the fighter is using two weapons (which has to be light unless a feat is taken), the Monk will have more attacks even without using Ki points.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Well, not necesserily. The only fighting style that directly affects damage is Dueling. Fighters probably get some kind of magic weapon but since a monk can easily use a spear (or quarterstaff) they will have a comparable damage die for most of the game.
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
Very good points. But overall the Monk is a very strong class.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
or if you want to be funky you can technically use the d10 weapon attack as a bonus action immediately after you used stunning strike with said weapon, something that is defenetly not what you are supposed to be using the feature for
also Diamond soul makes me question why Indomidable is so bad
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
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
or if you want to be funky you can technically use the d10 weapon attack as a bonus action immediately after you used stunning strike with said weapon, something that is defenetly not what you are supposed to be using the feature for
also Diamond soul makes me question why Indomidable is so bad
What do you mean? Why people think it's bad (it is) or what makes it bad? The answer to both is that if you fail on a save (usually your dump stat saves) then a reroll won't help you.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
or if you want to be funky you can technically use the d10 weapon attack as a bonus action immediately after you used stunning strike with said weapon, something that is defenetly not what you are supposed to be using the feature for
also Diamond soul makes me question why Indomidable is so bad
What do you mean? Why people think it's bad (it is) or what makes it bad? The answer to both is that if you fail on a save (usually your dump stat saves) then a reroll won't help you.
Think they're just saying how it's worse than DS by a pretty large margin. And it's not for your dump saves (although with DS + magic items a monk's worst is likely to be at least +6), it's for when you roll poorly on a decent/good save, which happens enough for me that Indomitable wouldn't cut it.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
or if you want to be funky you can technically use the d10 weapon attack as a bonus action immediately after you used stunning strike with said weapon, something that is defenetly not what you are supposed to be using the feature for
also Diamond soul makes me question why Indomidable is so bad
What do you mean? Why people think it's bad (it is) or what makes it bad? The answer to both is that if you fail on a save (usually your dump stat saves) then a reroll won't help you.
at 13th level, a fighter gains their second daily usage of indomidable, and thus gets to reroll a failed save one additional time per long rest.
at 14th level, a monk gets the same feature, only instead of being limited to uses per long rest, each use costs 1 ki point. A monk will have 14 ki points at 14th level, and all lost ki points are regained over the course of a short or long rest, so with the default 2 short rests per long rests that is 42 uses per long rest (not that any sane monk would find themselves ever doing that, at most i'd be like 5 uses). And they get that feature in addition to gaining proficiency in ALL saving throws.
they may be different classes and different, but Diamond soul is better by such an significant margin that it starts to strech belief for these to be given 1 level appart. Yes ki points are a precious resource that is generally vital to the combat and utillity features of the class, but they are still not that precious. Yes fighters have a d10 hit dice giving them 1 hit points more hit point each level compared to the monk's pitiful d8, but that is not really a big difference in face of this.
What you said has nothing to do with what i said, what i am pointing out is that one feature is an objectively better version of another feature, and the objectively better feature is given 1 level after the objectively worse feature.
I was not asking "why is the feature so bad?". I was making the claim that "the feature is bad in relationship to this other, better feature"
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
I do wish high level fighter was more than just "here's another attack"
Even the high level fighter subclass stuff is mostly attacks.
I wish the fighter's extra attacks scaled at the same pace as cantrips, so they get 4 attacks at level 17 and capstone can be something else (for better or worse).
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
I take it you mean colossus slayer?
And that would be 11 average damage with a scimitar or shortbow, or 12 average damage with a rapier or longbow (since scimitar and longbow do different damages...) using expected modifier of +3. It is also only once per turn not per attack, but you only have 1 attack at level 3 anyway.
Also... So? A barbarian can do 12 average damage with advantage at that level. A monk can do 18.5 average damage at that level. Rogues can do 14.5 average damage also with advantage. Don't even ask about spellcasters None of those are factoring subclasses either by the way.
I guess I just really want to know what you meant and why it is supposed to be impressive.
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
I take it you mean colossus slayer?
And that would be 11 average damage with a scimitar or shortbow, or 12 average damage with a rapier or longbow (since scimitar and longbow do different damages...) using expected modifier of +3. It is also only once per turn not per attack, but you only have 1 attack at level 3 anyway.
Also... So? A barbarian can do 12 average damage with advantage at that level. A monk can do 18.5 average damage at that level. Rogues can do 14.5 average damage also with advantage. Don't even ask about spellcasters None of those are factoring subclasses either by the way.
I guess I just really want to know what you meant and why it is supposed to be impressive.
since they are mentioning a scimitar it is safe to say they would be using two-weapon fighting to make an additional attack per turn, so (3.5 + 3)*2 + 4.5 or 17.5 damage per round assuming both attacks hit. 17 is still a different number from 15 and i am not entirely certain how they came up with it unless hunter's mark is involved
And of course the damage numbers for barbarians and monks assume the expenditure of limited resources, the ranger could try to throw in an extra d6 damage with hunter's mark or something, and in non-ranger subs class features that give an raw increase to damage are somewhat rare and often depend on expending class resources (for barb the only real examples at that level are Zealot, Storm, Beast and Berserker, all of whom require an rage, all the monk subclasses can do is burn more of your ki earlier in the fight for more damage right now)
like in terms of some sort of nova build this is by no means impressive, but getting to bump up your damage numbers infinity times per day is at least moderately impressive
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
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
I take it you mean colossus slayer?
And that would be 11 average damage with a scimitar or shortbow, or 12 average damage with a rapier or longbow (since scimitar and longbow do different damages...) using expected modifier of +3. It is also only once per turn not per attack, but you only have 1 attack at level 3 anyway.
Also... So? A barbarian can do 12 average damage with advantage at that level. A monk can do 18.5 average damage at that level. Rogues can do 14.5 average damage also with advantage. Don't even ask about spellcasters None of those are factoring subclasses either by the way.
I guess I just really want to know what you meant and why it is supposed to be impressive.
since they are mentioning a scimitar it is safe to say they would be using two-weapon fighting to make an additional attack per turn, so (3.5 + 3)*2 + 4.5 or 17.5 damage per round assuming both attacks hit. 17 is still a different number from 15 and i am not entirely certain how they came up with it unless hunter's mark is involved
And of course the damage numbers for barbarians and monks assume the expenditure of limited resources, the ranger could try to throw in an extra d6 damage with hunter's mark or something, and in non-ranger subs class features that give an raw increase to damage are somewhat rare and often depend on expending class resources (for barb the only real examples at that level are Zealot, Storm, Beast and Berserker, all of whom require an rage, all the monk subclasses can do is burn more of your ki earlier in the fight for more damage right now)
like in terms of some sort of nova build this is by no means impressive, but getting to bump up your damage numbers infinity times per day is at least moderately impressive
To me that's why fighters are generally the DPR kings as they have ASI to use feats or max their primary stat faster so hit more often. They have their own nova builds (Samurai) but Archery Style alone with Sharpshooter is a huge damage output mechanic that they share with ranger but fighters get a bit of an edge with Action Surge and with some subclass benefits like precision die. That latter bit is of course limited too but is nice as you can wait to see what you roll to use it.
Overall rangers do very well damage wise though as they sit comfortably towards the top overall. I would say either would be great if DPR is your main goal.
Rangers later on get a huge benefit in damage from Conjure Animals if you like the cheese of 8 summons...which I hate immensely but its good damage.
With Hex or Hunters Mark being a bonus action spell for anyone via Fey Touched with a +1 Int/Wis/Cha to boot… I’m not sure that any of the rangers that require bonus actions to do their trick are any further along the DPR curve than any other weapon user who can fit the feat. All roads lead back to fighter, they’re the best damage for weapon users, other martial classes dilute attack power for other themes.
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
I take it you mean colossus slayer?
And that would be 11 average damage with a scimitar or shortbow, or 12 average damage with a rapier or longbow (since scimitar and longbow do different damages...) using expected modifier of +3. It is also only once per turn not per attack, but you only have 1 attack at level 3 anyway.
Also... So? A barbarian can do 12 average damage with advantage at that level. A monk can do 18.5 average damage at that level. Rogues can do 14.5 average damage also with advantage. Don't even ask about spellcasters None of those are factoring subclasses either by the way.
I guess I just really want to know what you meant and why it is supposed to be impressive.
since they are mentioning a scimitar it is safe to say they would be using two-weapon fighting to make an additional attack per turn, so (3.5 + 3)*2 + 4.5 or 17.5 damage per round assuming both attacks hit. 17 is still a different number from 15 and i am not entirely certain how they came up with it unless hunter's mark is involved
And of course the damage numbers for barbarians and monks assume the expenditure of limited resources, the ranger could try to throw in an extra d6 damage with hunter's mark or something, and in non-ranger subs class features that give an raw increase to damage are somewhat rare and often depend on expending class resources (for barb the only real examples at that level are Zealot, Storm, Beast and Berserker, all of whom require an rage, all the monk subclasses can do is burn more of your ki earlier in the fight for more damage right now)
like in terms of some sort of nova build this is by no means impressive, but getting to bump up your damage numbers infinity times per day is at least moderately impressive
To me that's why fighters are generally the DPR kings as they have ASI to use feats or max their primary stat faster so hit more often. They have their own nova builds (Samurai) but Archery Style alone with Sharpshooter is a huge damage output mechanic that they share with ranger but fighters get a bit of an edge with Action Surge and with some subclass benefits like precision die. That latter bit is of course limited too but is nice as you can wait to see what you roll to use it.
Overall rangers do very well damage wise though as they sit comfortably towards the top overall. I would say either would be great if DPR is your main goal.
Rangers later on get a huge benefit in damage from Conjure Animals if you like the cheese of 8 summons...which I hate immensely but its good damage.
Mistyped on scimitar. Still, You are forgetting that you’re not even factoring in any races, Vhuman can get sharpshooter or ANY OTHER FEAT. Spellcasters can cast powerful spells, sure, but they can only do it a couple times. Got two encounters per long rest? If you’re not expecting more than one, your spellcaster is casting d10 cantrips at best. Some bards will be doing 1d4 if you choose even one utility cantrip. I factored in HM for the first post (2d8 or 9 plus 1d6 or 3 plus 3)
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Mistyped on scimitar. Still, You are forgetting that you’re not even factoring in any races, Vhuman can get sharpshooter or ANY OTHER FEAT. Spellcasters can cast powerful spells, sure, but they can only do it a couple times. Got two encounters per long rest? If you’re not expecting more than one, your spellcaster is casting d10 cantrips at best. Some bards will be doing 1d4 if you choose even one utility cantrip. I factored in HM for the first post (2d8 or 9 plus 1d6 or 3 plus 3)
If we're talking level 1, spellcasters only get 2 spell slots. But even at level 3, spellcasters get 6 spell slots. Clerics also get their Channel divinity once per short rest, Warlocks get 2 level 2 spell slots per short rest instead of 4 level 1 and 2 level 2 spell slots per long rest, Sorcerers get Sorcery points, Wizards get Arcane Recovery, etc.
Oh, and with Hex + Agonizing Blast, a Warlock is doing much more than just a D10 of damage per attack.
And a Cleric could be casting a cantrip (or smacking something with their weapon) with their action and also attacking with their Spiritual Weapon as a Bonus Action for the entire combat (at the cost of just one level 2 spell slot).
A Variant Human War Cleric could definitely choose Great Weapon Master because of how it works so well with their channel divinity.
The class I have played the most in 5th edition is the Fighter, and I've found it frustrating, so I am biased. To me, they seem to be the weakest class of all. Every other class seems to do a better job at the role I want to fill. I want to play as a tank and doff my shield, grab another longsword and do some real damage. I noticed that the party didn't have a tank, but Barbarians are much better for that. I wanted to do damage, but that's what a Rogue is all about and we had one in the party. Fighters prove to be a generalist, a back up class that can do a lot of different things, but not very well.
Everyone else sees the Ranger as the worst class, but they do fill a role they just don't quite do it all that well. And that's how they differ from Fighters, who really aren't any good at anything.
I went into the campaign with what I thought were good scores and high expectations. I found my self with a Wizard who had equal to or better scores than I had, who could cast healing spells and preferred to stay in melee using a great big hammer. an Arcane Trickster Rogue who played like an Assassin, a Hunter Ranger with better scores than I had, and an NPC Druid that was actually a character the DM played in other games, who had magic items and a couple thousand gold while the highest we had was a few hundred each and none of the rest of us had any magic items at all. I've been allowed to make a lot of changes, I've changed my sub-class, I've picked Battle Master and was allowed to change my Maneuvers from the ones that I had picked. I was able to trade out the feat I got at first level from being a Variant Human. I've managed to have fun, but I'm still of hardly any use to the party, and all I can do is hope that it gets better as we level.
monks aren't bad its just that their underplayed, a level two monk using a ki point can do as many attacks in that turn then a fighter at level twenty (not using action surge)
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
*level 5 monk. (Extra attack + flurry of blows = 4 attacks).
Of course a fighter can also attack 4 times at level 5 using action surge. Monks can do it more times, but not forever.
And monks damage per hit stays consistently lower than fighter for... Basically ever (martial weapon die + fighting style > martial arts die).
Monks are great, imo they are more fun to play than fighters or rogues, but they are kind of jacks of all trades (not the bard kind) so they don't stand out. What they are best at is being a pest: hard to catch, hard to escape, hard to hit, hard to debuff, stunning strike, can't disarm, stunning strike, you get the idea. But never "look how much damage I did," or "my ability can solve this problem"
Yup. This is one of the strengths of the monk. And of course, unless the fighter is using two weapons (which has to be light unless a feat is taken), the Monk will have more attacks even without using Ki points.
Well, not necesserily. The only fighting style that directly affects damage is Dueling. Fighters probably get some kind of magic weapon but since a monk can easily use a spear (or quarterstaff) they will have a comparable damage die for most of the game.
Very good points. But overall the Monk is a very strong class.
I am playing a Mercy Monk in a friend's campaign and we just reached level 5. Using the Dedicated Weapon feature for a Warhammer has made me feel like a beast at early levels (1-4) . Every turn being able to dish out 1d10+Dex plus one or two 1d4+Dex unarmed strikes while the fighter and paladin only get one attack has felt huge. I still don't think that my monk deals the most damage by any means, but I do feel that being able to wield a d8/d10 versatile weapon like a warhammer or longsword does give a fantastic boost in the first tier of play.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yeah Dedicated Weapon was one of the coolest adds from Tasha's. I also like Ki Fueled Strike as that allows you to do something ki related with your action and still get that sweet d10 weapon attack as a BA.
or if you want to be funky you can technically use the d10 weapon attack as a bonus action immediately after you used stunning strike with said weapon, something that is defenetly not what you are supposed to be using the feature for
also Diamond soul makes me question why Indomidable is so bad
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 considered making Indomitable be Legendary Resistance -- instead of a reroll, you just succeed.
What do you mean? Why people think it's bad (it is) or what makes it bad? The answer to both is that if you fail on a save (usually your dump stat saves) then a reroll won't help you.
Think they're just saying how it's worse than DS by a pretty large margin. And it's not for your dump saves (although with DS + magic items a monk's worst is likely to be at least +6), it's for when you roll poorly on a decent/good save, which happens enough for me that Indomitable wouldn't cut it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
at 13th level, a fighter gains their second daily usage of indomidable, and thus gets to reroll a failed save one additional time per long rest.
at 14th level, a monk gets the same feature, only instead of being limited to uses per long rest, each use costs 1 ki point. A monk will have 14 ki points at 14th level, and all lost ki points are regained over the course of a short or long rest, so with the default 2 short rests per long rests that is 42 uses per long rest (not that any sane monk would find themselves ever doing that, at most i'd be like 5 uses). And they get that feature in addition to gaining proficiency in ALL saving throws.
they may be different classes and different, but Diamond soul is better by such an significant margin that it starts to strech belief for these to be given 1 level appart. Yes ki points are a precious resource that is generally vital to the combat and utillity features of the class, but they are still not that precious. Yes fighters have a d10 hit dice giving them 1 hit points more hit point each level compared to the monk's pitiful d8, but that is not really a big difference in face of this.
What you said has nothing to do with what i said, what i am pointing out is that one feature is an objectively better version of another feature, and the objectively better feature is given 1 level after the objectively worse feature.
I was not asking "why is the feature so bad?". I was making the claim that "the feature is bad in relationship to this other, better feature"
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 do wish high level fighter was more than just "here's another attack"
Even the high level fighter subclass stuff is mostly attacks.
I wish the fighter's extra attacks scaled at the same pace as cantrips, so they get 4 attacks at level 17 and capstone can be something else (for better or worse).
Level 3 hunter ranger
average damage if you go after another characters (scimitar or longbow): 15 damage. Per attack. This means that a CR 2 creature (witch you will likely be facing) is killed by you or one after you.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
I take it you mean colossus slayer?
And that would be 11 average damage with a scimitar or shortbow, or 12 average damage with a rapier or longbow (since scimitar and longbow do different damages...) using expected modifier of +3. It is also only once per turn not per attack, but you only have 1 attack at level 3 anyway.
Also... So? A barbarian can do 12 average damage with advantage at that level. A monk can do 18.5 average damage at that level. Rogues can do 14.5 average damage also with advantage. Don't even ask about spellcasters None of those are factoring subclasses either by the way.
I guess I just really want to know what you meant and why it is supposed to be impressive.
since they are mentioning a scimitar it is safe to say they would be using two-weapon fighting to make an additional attack per turn, so (3.5 + 3)*2 + 4.5 or 17.5 damage per round assuming both attacks hit. 17 is still a different number from 15 and i am not entirely certain how they came up with it unless hunter's mark is involved
And of course the damage numbers for barbarians and monks assume the expenditure of limited resources, the ranger could try to throw in an extra d6 damage with hunter's mark or something, and in non-ranger subs class features that give an raw increase to damage are somewhat rare and often depend on expending class resources (for barb the only real examples at that level are Zealot, Storm, Beast and Berserker, all of whom require an rage, all the monk subclasses can do is burn more of your ki earlier in the fight for more damage right now)
like in terms of some sort of nova build this is by no means impressive, but getting to bump up your damage numbers infinity times per day is at least moderately impressive
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
To me that's why fighters are generally the DPR kings as they have ASI to use feats or max their primary stat faster so hit more often. They have their own nova builds (Samurai) but Archery Style alone with Sharpshooter is a huge damage output mechanic that they share with ranger but fighters get a bit of an edge with Action Surge and with some subclass benefits like precision die. That latter bit is of course limited too but is nice as you can wait to see what you roll to use it.
Overall rangers do very well damage wise though as they sit comfortably towards the top overall. I would say either would be great if DPR is your main goal.
Rangers later on get a huge benefit in damage from Conjure Animals if you like the cheese of 8 summons...which I hate immensely but its good damage.
With Hex or Hunters Mark being a bonus action spell for anyone via Fey Touched with a +1 Int/Wis/Cha to boot… I’m not sure that any of the rangers that require bonus actions to do their trick are any further along the DPR curve than any other weapon user who can fit the feat. All roads lead back to fighter, they’re the best damage for weapon users, other martial classes dilute attack power for other themes.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Mistyped on scimitar. Still, You are forgetting that you’re not even factoring in any races, Vhuman can get sharpshooter or ANY OTHER FEAT. Spellcasters can cast powerful spells, sure, but they can only do it a couple times. Got two encounters per long rest? If you’re not expecting more than one, your spellcaster is casting d10 cantrips at best. Some bards will be doing 1d4 if you choose even one utility cantrip. I factored in HM for the first post (2d8 or 9 plus 1d6 or 3 plus 3)
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
If we're talking level 1, spellcasters only get 2 spell slots. But even at level 3, spellcasters get 6 spell slots. Clerics also get their Channel divinity once per short rest, Warlocks get 2 level 2 spell slots per short rest instead of 4 level 1 and 2 level 2 spell slots per long rest, Sorcerers get Sorcery points, Wizards get Arcane Recovery, etc.
Oh, and with Hex + Agonizing Blast, a Warlock is doing much more than just a D10 of damage per attack.
And a Cleric could be casting a cantrip (or smacking something with their weapon) with their action and also attacking with their Spiritual Weapon as a Bonus Action for the entire combat (at the cost of just one level 2 spell slot).
A Variant Human War Cleric could definitely choose Great Weapon Master because of how it works so well with their channel divinity.
The class I have played the most in 5th edition is the Fighter, and I've found it frustrating, so I am biased. To me, they seem to be the weakest class of all. Every other class seems to do a better job at the role I want to fill. I want to play as a tank and doff my shield, grab another longsword and do some real damage. I noticed that the party didn't have a tank, but Barbarians are much better for that. I wanted to do damage, but that's what a Rogue is all about and we had one in the party. Fighters prove to be a generalist, a back up class that can do a lot of different things, but not very well.
Everyone else sees the Ranger as the worst class, but they do fill a role they just don't quite do it all that well. And that's how they differ from Fighters, who really aren't any good at anything.
I went into the campaign with what I thought were good scores and high expectations. I found my self with a Wizard who had equal to or better scores than I had, who could cast healing spells and preferred to stay in melee using a great big hammer. an Arcane Trickster Rogue who played like an Assassin, a Hunter Ranger with better scores than I had, and an NPC Druid that was actually a character the DM played in other games, who had magic items and a couple thousand gold while the highest we had was a few hundred each and none of the rest of us had any magic items at all. I've been allowed to make a lot of changes, I've changed my sub-class, I've picked Battle Master and was allowed to change my Maneuvers from the ones that I had picked. I was able to trade out the feat I got at first level from being a Variant Human. I've managed to have fun, but I'm still of hardly any use to the party, and all I can do is hope that it gets better as we level.
<Insert clever signature here>