The problem with ignoring the chance to hit, is that several Weapon Masteries affect it - Topple and Vex provide a source of Adv, and Graze has greater benefit the lower your chance to hit is.
Graze is a non-starter because it's only available on [wprop]Heavy[/wprop weapon, which isn't germane to the thought experiment above.
As for Topple and Vex, both have access. If we factor them in, then the order of attacks suddenly matters. And let us not forget the other weapon/mastery choices. How do you weigh the tactical implications of a longsword (Sap) or warhammer (Push)?
The problem with ignoring the chance to hit, is that several Weapon Masteries affect it - Topple and Vex provide a source of Adv, and Graze has greater benefit the lower your chance to hit is.
Graze is a non-starter because it's only available on [wprop]Heavy[/wprop weapon, which isn't germane to the thought experiment above.
As for Topple and Vex, both have access. If we factor them in, then the order of attacks suddenly matters. And let us not forget the other weapon/mastery choices. How do you weigh the tactical implications of a longsword (Sap) or warhammer (Push)?
Fighters and Paladins can both use Heavy Weapons so could get Graze. However, if we are limiting ourselves to two-weapon fighting Fighters and Paladins (because we are anti-optimizers who enjoy suboptimal builds) then we still have to factor in Weapon Mastery effects because a Monk cannot use Weapon Masteries with their unarmed strikes, and they cannot use their MA die with weapons.
The problem with ignoring the chance to hit, is that several Weapon Masteries affect it - Topple and Vex provide a source of Adv, and Graze has greater benefit the lower your chance to hit is.
Graze is a non-starter because it's only available on [wprop]Heavy[/wprop weapon, which isn't germane to the thought experiment above.
As for Topple and Vex, both have access. If we factor them in, then the order of attacks suddenly matters. And let us not forget the other weapon/mastery choices. How do you weigh the tactical implications of a longsword (Sap) or warhammer (Push)?
Fighters and Paladins can both use Heavy Weapons so could get Graze. However, if we are limiting ourselves to two-weapon fighting Fighters and Paladins (because we are anti-optimizers who enjoy suboptimal builds) then we still have to factor in Weapon Mastery effects because a Monk cannot use Weapon Masteries with their unarmed strikes, and they cannot use their MA die with weapons.
But the monk's Unarmed Strike (via Martial Arts) can benefit from Topple and Vex.
You're talking about a minimum of four sets of calculations for each applicable mastery (Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex), and we're still only looking at...personal DPR? How do you factor in the increased survivability of following a Vex with a Sap, rather than leveraging advantage for damage? Hell, you'd have to include the odds of having advantage on certain attacks to be throrough about it.
This is why white room theorycrafting is utterly useless. It doesn't care about everyone else this one character is adventuring with.
I said a few pages ago that I'm not doing that unless someone can give me a good reason to. I don't care about squeezing every last point of damage out of a turn because damage isn't everything. So long as two classes are at least in the same ballpark, they're fine.
1) Nobody factors in survivability / defense when they do class power calculations. This is I agree stupid because you do 0 damage if you're dead, and you do damage to your own party if you are charmed. But it is what it is. So Sap and Push have a value of 0 for DPR.
2) Vex is pretty easy to calculate the expected proportion of time you'll have advantage, I made a spread sheet to do and and over the course of 10 attacks (i.e. a typical combat), Vex turns 0.65 chance to hit into 0.8 chance to hit on average.
3) Topple could be calculated pretty easily too, I haven't yet but assume the enemy has a 50% chance to fail and on a failure that gives adv to the remaining attacks. So: P(hit attack 1) = 0.65 P(hit attack 2) = 0.65*0.5*0.88 + (1-0.65*0.5)*0.65 P(hit attack 3) = (1-0.65*0.5-(1-0.65*0.5)*0.65*0.5)*0.65 + (0.65*0.5+(1-0.65*0.5)*0.65*0.5)*0.88
Though if you are uber optimizing and swapping weapons for different masteries between attacks this gets more complicated.
Something isn't adding up to me. Advantage on .65 is .8775, and the average of two such attacks comes to .76375; not .8.
So, how are you calculating the odds of the first attack granting .8775 for the second attack? Because there's a .35 chance it confers no such bonus.
I don't have time to show the math now, but you can just keep applying Vex on each attack, so if you hit on attack 1, then you have a better chance of hitting on attack 2 and continuing your Vex combo for continuous advantage. So while there is a .35 chance of not having advantage on the second attack, this chance is less than .35 for the third attack.
Note that Vex continues until the end of your next turn so you can just keep that combo going.
Vex
If you hit a creature with this weapon and deal damage to the creature, you have Advantage on your next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn.
So if you ignore the chance of your target dying and breaking the combo, the long term average is ~0.82 to hit. If you have easy to kill enemies that only last ~2 rounds then it is more like ~0.78 chance to hit.
Something isn't adding up to me. Advantage on .65 is .8775, and the average of two such attacks comes to .76375; not .8.
So, how are you calculating the odds of the first attack granting .8775 for the second attack? Because there's a .35 chance it confers no such bonus.
I don't have time to show the math now, but you can just keep applying Vex on each attack, so if you hit on attack 1, then you have a better chance of hitting on attack 2 and continuing your Vex combo for continuous advantage. So while there is a .35 chance of not having advantage on the second attack, this chance is less than .35 for the third attack.
It's a finite state machine: lack advantage, have advantage. It starts in the lack advantage state.
In the Lack Advantage state, you have a 65% to switch to the Has Advantage state and thus you spend an average of 1.538 attacks in that state.
In the Has Advantage state, you have a 12.25% chance to switch to the Lack Advantage state and thus you spend an average of 8.163 attacks in that state.
Over infinite attacks, we expect to spend (8.163) / (8.163 + 1.538) = 84% of the time in the Has Advantage state. In any real situation, because we start in the lack advantage state, the actual rate will be lower.
Something isn't adding up to me. Advantage on .65 is .8775, and the average of two such attacks comes to .76375; not .8.
So, how are you calculating the odds of the first attack granting .8775 for the second attack? Because there's a .35 chance it confers no such bonus.
I don't have time to show the math now, but you can just keep applying Vex on each attack, so if you hit on attack 1, then you have a better chance of hitting on attack 2 and continuing your Vex combo for continuous advantage. So while there is a .35 chance of not having advantage on the second attack, this chance is less than .35 for the third attack.
Note that Vex continues until the end of your next turn so you can just keep that combo going.
Vex
If you hit a creature with this weapon and deal damage to the creature, you have Advantage on your next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn.
So if you ignore the chance of your target dying and breaking the combo, the long term average is ~0.82 to hit. If you have easy to kill enemies that only last ~2 rounds then it is more like ~0.78 chance to hit.
yes
essentially the simple way to think of it, is it approaches 84% the more attacks you make on the same creature. However its starts off at 65%, So, the shorter your fight the less effective it is.
it also doesnt allow breaks in the chain, so less effective for multi weapon styles.
Is it really weaker, though? At 1st-level, 1d8+1d4 is functionally the same as 2d6. At 5th-level, 2d8+1d6 is better than 3d6; and only slightly behind the 3d8 that is possible in the 2014 PH. But then, monks will eventually dish out 3d10. Magic items can enhance that, and monks aren't expending resources like a ranger might on Hunter's Mark. Monks are also less dependent on magic items. That ranger is going to want two magic weapons. The monk only needs one.
Of course, then we get into the nitty-gritty of the OneD&D playtest (specifically Playtest 6) and...both can merge TWF into the Attack. Which means a 1st-level monk can attack for 15.5 (2d6+1d4+6) at the cost of a bonus action. The ranger can outpace them, but they're spending one of their measly two spell slots to dish out upwards of 16 (3d6+1d4+3). But that comes with (a) being forced to attack in melee and (b) land blows against two targets; which the ranger can do if it uses its bonus action to move Hunter's Mark.
Expensive, situationally competitive, and risky. The ranger needs to be in melee. That increases the odds of getting hit and losing concentration. It gets better after Favored Enemy at 2nd-level, because it's no longer dependent on spell slots, but just barely.
A 5th-level ranger could hit for a mean of 30.5 (2d8+2d6+1d4+12), but that once again comes with the caveat of needing to hit two targets. If they only hit one, the mean drops to 27. A 5th-level monk, on the other hand, can smack enemies for a mean of roughly 26 (2d6+1d4+1d8+12). And that's without access to Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting; which could change. They're expending their bonus action, sure, but not any other resources. Which means they can throttle up hard.
I don't think I need to go into how fighter and paladin match up. Both are better off with Fighting Style: Dueling and a shield, and paladins can't pick up TWF as a style without a feat at 4th-level or higher. That's giving up a lot of power for a tiny gain. An 11th-level paladin with Radiant Strikes could hit for a mean of 37 (5d8+1d4+12), but that's both of their feats with nothing else having been improved. Actually, that's also with the playtest version of Dual Wielder from the Expert packet. Which is technically no longer valid, but I'm including it for the sake of generosity. They could easily dish out 30 (4d8+12) while still carrying a shield, which might have its own magic bonuses and feat.
Meanwhile, an 11th-level monk could hit for 30 (2d6+1d4+1d10+15), or 29.5 (2d8+1d10+15) if they have a versatile weapon in two hands, without a fighting style or expending a Discipline Point. Yes, a monk with 20 Dexterity has parity with a paladin with 18 Strength. And the extra hit from Flurry of Blows hits harder than a Divine Strike using a 1st-level spell slot. Even if we lowball the monk to only having 18 Dexterity, that's potentially 36.5 (2d6+1d4+2d10+16), or 36 (2d8+2d10+16) if they have a versatile weapon in two hands, versus 39 (6d8+12).
That's...not too shabby.
The only reason accuracy wasn’t accounted for in my maths is that fighter and monk were making the same amount of attacks and no magic items were involved. Differing numbers off attacks means you need to account for accuracy.. and the monk is the one making more, smaller attacks.
Accuracy is only a meaningful concern if their to-hit chance per blow is different. If the chance of each blow landing is the same, say 65%, then the same multiplier is applied universally. It's either that or we start making tactical assumptions; like holding Divine Smite in reserve until a Critical Hit is realized because it's a force multiplier. And that technically has two different variables which can be applied.
If we were including advantage, or an expanded critical hit range, then I'd be inclined to agree. But as this math is simply assuming (a) the blow lands and (b) a reliable damage result per hit, I'm not concerned. Because, if the to-hit chance is 65%, 92% of the blows which land aren't going to be critical hits.
Like, seriously, the damage reduction from calculating to-hit chance is going to negatively impact the higher totals more than the lower totals. It narrows the gap.
I think we are too far In the weeds here
the math has already been done including accuracy and criticals, some even simulating vex/topple etc.
people are just trying to show simplified numbers to make it clear.
the results of testing/math show;
relative to other martials, assuming monk has full resources
in 5ER
monk damage is strong at level one, normalish at 4-5 and progressively weaker 6-20
by lvl 11, its extremely noticeably weak.
casters can equal, or outdo martials in damage, so you can say the same of all the classes.
yall can redo the math if you want but the results won't change.
those numbers assume monk has resources, but monk is one of the most resource intensive classes, being both extremely weak when not using resources, and highly likely to run out of resources in one encounter. Warlock is the only class as likely to run out in one fight, but it has a number of systems to ensure resourceless utility/dmg.
combined this means monk is essentially a trap class. Starts great, and by the time you are heavily invested, it becomes bad. Doesnt help that its one of the worst multiclasses, so even if you MC out when you see it waning, you probably just have a bad character.
Even beyond that though, monk is ineffective at the things its supposed to be good at. Hit and run? rogue, Ranger, barbarian, are probably better at it. Close range fighting? everyone is better than you. Enemy shutdown/control? Rogue, Ranger, Mastery and grapple(both of which monk is bad at) is best shutdown/control for martials, and casters are better than martials at control/shutdown.
pure fun factor/flavor? monk doesnt get any cool or iconic stuff past 5 usually. Some subclasses do, but with ki/action economy the few that do offer something are usually not viable. The baseline pre 5 kit is mostly in opposition to each other, so you will usually only use one (FOB) +stun.
The class is not ok, and 5er has made it relatively worse by (rightfully) improving most martials versatility and setting damage closer to each other without power attack. (except monk) As well as various nerfs, for some reason.
Sooo, lets get beyond the monk is fine part of this, and redoing the numbers we probably have all done or seen already.
it also doesnt allow breaks in the chain, so less effective for multi weapon styles.
Since it's not possible to have both flex and vex on the same attack, it will always get eaten at end-of-turn by two weapon fighting styles. This works out to
One Attack, One Off-Hand Attack: first attack 65%. Second attack is 79.8%. Average hits 1.448 (72.4%)
Two Attacks, One Off-Hand Attack: first attack 65%, second attack 79.8%, third attack 83.2%. Average hits 2.28 (76%).
Any additional attacks are close enough go 84% to not be worth calculating. This means expected hits is (0.84*nAtt) - 0.34.
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
ok, well nothing is going to change your mind then, math and logic has no effect.
I'll focus on suggestions about how to make monk satisfactory for monk players then, who by all indications are not satisfied with status quo or UA6
Different metrics. Different things of importance to different people, different levels of value of those things.
For some, all that mattes is DPR. For others, utility, For others, the vibe of the class For others the particular builds possible. For others, yet another thing (ki use, style, subclasses, special abilities).
Until everyone can agree on the metrics that should be used (and DPR is not going to be that one), and they can get the devs to follow those metrics, it ain't solving anything and the circle continues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
But the monk's Unarmed Strike (via Martial Arts) can benefit from Topple and Vex.
You're talking about a minimum of four sets of calculations for each applicable mastery (Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex), and we're still only looking at...personal DPR? How do you factor in the increased survivability of following a Vex with a Sap, rather than leveraging advantage for damage? Hell, you'd have to include the odds of having advantage on certain attacks to be throrough about it.
This is why white room theorycrafting is utterly useless. It doesn't care about everyone else this one character is adventuring with.
I said a few pages ago that I'm not doing that unless someone can give me a good reason to. I don't care about squeezing every last point of damage out of a turn because damage isn't everything. So long as two classes are at least in the same ballpark, they're fine.
I'll point out too that while the Monk Bad crowd treats personal DPR as the sole metric of character viability, the majority of such folks treat Stunning Strike as the only feature Monks have worth spending their points on, even though such a feature serves to benefit the party as a whole more than it benefits the Monk solely.
It goes in lockstep with the many times I've pointed out that a Monk's multiple uses of Flurry of Blows per short rest ultimately exceeds the damage the Fighter does with Action Surge, only to be told by such "theorycrafters" that such is wrong—after I did the math in the very post they reply to. They insist that the Monk has poor damage, while insisting that a Monk has to be played in a manner that limits its damage output and blows through its resources so that other players have to expend less of their own resources.
But the monk's Unarmed Strike (via Martial Arts) can benefit from Topple and Vex.
You're talking about a minimum of four sets of calculations for each applicable mastery (Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex), and we're still only looking at...personal DPR? How do you factor in the increased survivability of following a Vex with a Sap, rather than leveraging advantage for damage? Hell, you'd have to include the odds of having advantage on certain attacks to be throrough about it.
This is why white room theorycrafting is utterly useless. It doesn't care about everyone else this one character is adventuring with.
I said a few pages ago that I'm not doing that unless someone can give me a good reason to. I don't care about squeezing every last point of damage out of a turn because damage isn't everything. So long as two classes are at least in the same ballpark, they're fine.
I'll point out too that while the Monk Bad crowd treats personal DPR as the sole metric of character viability, the majority of such folks treat Stunning Strike as the only feature Monks have worth spending their points on, even though such a feature serves to benefit the party as a whole more than it benefits the Monk solely.
It goes in lockstep with the many times I've pointed out that a Monk's multiple uses of Flurry of Blows per short rest ultimately exceeds the damage the Fighter does with Action Surge, only to be told by such "theorycrafters" that such is wrong—after I did the math in the very post they reply to. They insist that the Monk has poor damage, while insisting that a Monk has to be played in a manner that limits its damage output and blows through its resources so that other players have to expend less of their own resources.
the problem with your math, is you ignore relevant facts. fighting styles, features
I also responded to your math with a full analysis, and you ignore it.
the math for monk is not based on using stunning strike, its based on having infinite FOB, and fighter can beat infinite FOB without using action surge. Action surge is just a bonus.
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
ok, well nothing is going to change your mind then, math and logic has no effect.
I'll focus on suggestions about how to make monk satisfactory for monk players then, who by all indications are not satisfied with status quo or UA6
Cut the crap.
"Logic and reason" isn't solely determined by how much damage a class can put out in a single round. It's just the only metric you care about.
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
ok, well nothing is going to change your mind then, math and logic has no effect.
I'll focus on suggestions about how to make monk satisfactory for monk players then, who by all indications are not satisfied with status quo or UA6
Cut the crap.
"Logic and reason" isn't solely determined by how much damage a class can put out in a single round. It's just the only metric you care about.
Well, if you're admitting that Monk can't do as much damage as other classes, what do they have to make up for it? Just mobility?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
ok, well nothing is going to change your mind then, math and logic has no effect.
I'll focus on suggestions about how to make monk satisfactory for monk players then, who by all indications are not satisfied with status quo or UA6
Cut the crap.
"Logic and reason" isn't solely determined by how much damage a class can put out in a single round. It's just the only metric you care about.
you have never suggested any metric in which the monk is not sub par.
They don't just have low dpr, they have low survivability, low combat utility, low out of combat utility. The best thing they have is movement, but theirs is not better than flight or steeds, or other spells people have access to.
Also note, mobility serves little purpose if you can't actually do anything useful when you get there.
And you were claiming their dpr was fine before. Hence me saying let's stop redoing the dpr math, its been done, and they are behind.
But the monk's Unarmed Strike (via Martial Arts) can benefit from Topple and Vex.
You're talking about a minimum of four sets of calculations for each applicable mastery (Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex), and we're still only looking at...personal DPR? How do you factor in the increased survivability of following a Vex with a Sap, rather than leveraging advantage for damage? Hell, you'd have to include the odds of having advantage on certain attacks to be throrough about it.
This is why white room theorycrafting is utterly useless. It doesn't care about everyone else this one character is adventuring with.
I said a few pages ago that I'm not doing that unless someone can give me a good reason to. I don't care about squeezing every last point of damage out of a turn because damage isn't everything. So long as two classes are at least in the same ballpark, they're fine.
I'll point out too that while the Monk Bad crowd treats personal DPR as the sole metric of character viability, the majority of such folks treat Stunning Strike as the only feature Monks have worth spending their points on, even though such a feature serves to benefit the party as a whole more than it benefits the Monk solely.
It goes in lockstep with the many times I've pointed out that a Monk's multiple uses of Flurry of Blows per short rest ultimately exceeds the damage the Fighter does with Action Surge, only to be told by such "theorycrafters" that such is wrong—after I did the math in the very post they reply to. They insist that the Monk has poor damage, while insisting that a Monk has to be played in a manner that limits its damage output and blows through its resources so that other players have to expend less of their own resources.
FFS.
You do read what I put, right? At the levels monk generally outclasses fighter in terms of damage (1-4), action surge is better than flurry of blows, because it’s a higher damage attack that you get, and it doesn’t draw on a shared resource pool for fighter’s other abilities. Unlike flurry of blows, which does. I never said action surge was always more damage than flurry of blows.
Also, I’m pretty sure in my level-by-level post I pointed out fighter’s better AC, HP, and oftentimes mobility (due to their ability to take feats while the monk is desperate for ASIs), and that’s just in the base class. One of my favourite fighter subclasses is Psi Warrior. That damage reduction and, at level 7, fly speed, is great. And I am firmly in the Evil Minmaxer and Monk Bad crowd. Cue the ad hominem.
Also, stunning strike.. it is the only feature worth spending, because everything else pales in comparison. If it succeeds against a BBEG or single tough enemy that the whole party is fighting, it gives the WHOLE PARTY an extra turn. Very little is going to survive that. The only equivalent spell I can find is psychic lance. Which is 4th level, and as a result when spellcasters can do that once, monks can do that over and over again. Stunning strike is REALLY REALLY GOOD. Everything else is kinda meh.
So some people say Monk is bad because Stunning Strike is so good the rest of monk is balanced around that. I will admit to being the type of player who wouldn’t use FoB for a damage boost since it cost a Ki I could use to stun a creature. Unless I get told a creature is immune to stun I’m going to attempt to stun it with every ki I have. Now accept the one per turn Stunning strike. It’s a fair change with all the other changes they are making. One could argue with that nerf there should be some upgrades in other places. Another could argue that once per turn isn’t a Nerf, it’s forced resource management. I’m willing to remove Stun locking from the game. I’ve seen others post that Stunning Strike only works once then can’t be used for a minute or 10 minutes. With that done could we see improvements in the monk.
I personally don’t see monks as skirmishers in my fantasy, but their lower melee survivability makes them seem suited for that style of play. They have high movement speed but unless you take the mobile feat or you have 5e open hand or drunken master subclass they don’t have the mobility to be skirmishers.
My newest suggestion is to move Patient Defense from the Ki/Discipline feature at level 2 and make it part of the Unarmored Defense Feature at level 1. What this does it make PD not cost Ki/DP and gives you a choice from 1st level forward of how to use your bonus action. Every turn is a question of do I use this for Offense or Defense. This small change takes Monk from a bad skirmisher to a possible dodge tank front liner. That fits the monks fantasy better for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Graze is a non-starter because it's only available on [wprop]Heavy[/wprop weapon, which isn't germane to the thought experiment above.
As for Topple and Vex, both have access. If we factor them in, then the order of attacks suddenly matters. And let us not forget the other weapon/mastery choices. How do you weigh the tactical implications of a longsword (Sap) or warhammer (Push)?
Fighters and Paladins can both use Heavy Weapons so could get Graze. However, if we are limiting ourselves to two-weapon fighting Fighters and Paladins (because we are anti-optimizers who enjoy suboptimal builds) then we still have to factor in Weapon Mastery effects because a Monk cannot use Weapon Masteries with their unarmed strikes, and they cannot use their MA die with weapons.
But the monk's Unarmed Strike (via Martial Arts) can benefit from Topple and Vex.
You're talking about a minimum of four sets of calculations for each applicable mastery (Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex), and we're still only looking at...personal DPR? How do you factor in the increased survivability of following a Vex with a Sap, rather than leveraging advantage for damage? Hell, you'd have to include the odds of having advantage on certain attacks to be throrough about it.
This is why white room theorycrafting is utterly useless. It doesn't care about everyone else this one character is adventuring with.
I said a few pages ago that I'm not doing that unless someone can give me a good reason to. I don't care about squeezing every last point of damage out of a turn because damage isn't everything. So long as two classes are at least in the same ballpark, they're fine.
1) Nobody factors in survivability / defense when they do class power calculations. This is I agree stupid because you do 0 damage if you're dead, and you do damage to your own party if you are charmed. But it is what it is. So Sap and Push have a value of 0 for DPR.
2) Vex is pretty easy to calculate the expected proportion of time you'll have advantage, I made a spread sheet to do and and over the course of 10 attacks (i.e. a typical combat), Vex turns 0.65 chance to hit into 0.8 chance to hit on average.
3) Topple could be calculated pretty easily too, I haven't yet but assume the enemy has a 50% chance to fail and on a failure that gives adv to the remaining attacks. So:
P(hit attack 1) = 0.65
P(hit attack 2) = 0.65*0.5*0.88 + (1-0.65*0.5)*0.65
P(hit attack 3) = (1-0.65*0.5-(1-0.65*0.5)*0.65*0.5)*0.65 + (0.65*0.5+(1-0.65*0.5)*0.65*0.5)*0.88
Though if you are uber optimizing and swapping weapons for different masteries between attacks this gets more complicated.
Something isn't adding up to me. Advantage on .65 is .8775, and the average of two such attacks comes to .76375; not .8.
So, how are you calculating the odds of the first attack granting .8775 for the second attack? Because there's a .35 chance it confers no such bonus.
I don't have time to show the math now, but you can just keep applying Vex on each attack, so if you hit on attack 1, then you have a better chance of hitting on attack 2 and continuing your Vex combo for continuous advantage. So while there is a .35 chance of not having advantage on the second attack, this chance is less than .35 for the third attack.
Note that Vex continues until the end of your next turn so you can just keep that combo going.
So if you ignore the chance of your target dying and breaking the combo, the long term average is ~0.82 to hit. If you have easy to kill enemies that only last ~2 rounds then it is more like ~0.78 chance to hit.
It's a finite state machine: lack advantage, have advantage. It starts in the lack advantage state.
...another samey day at the white room theorycraft proofing facility...
"hey, phil. you ever wonder if these a-nony-mous green necks is, like, someone's neck? wif feelins? an dreams?"
"oy, with the poetry. jes get ready to miss every t'ird swing. t'ose night classes teach you to count to t'ree, sully?"
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
yes
essentially the simple way to think of it, is it approaches 84% the more attacks you make on the same creature. However its starts off at 65%, So, the shorter your fight the less effective it is.
it also doesnt allow breaks in the chain, so less effective for multi weapon styles.
I think we are too far In the weeds here
the math has already been done including accuracy and criticals, some even simulating vex/topple etc.
people are just trying to show simplified numbers to make it clear.
the results of testing/math show;
relative to other martials, assuming monk has full resources
in 5ER
monk damage is strong at level one, normalish at 4-5 and progressively weaker 6-20
by lvl 11, its extremely noticeably weak.
casters can equal, or outdo martials in damage, so you can say the same of all the classes.
yall can redo the math if you want but the results won't change.
those numbers assume monk has resources, but monk is one of the most resource intensive classes, being both extremely weak when not using resources, and highly likely to run out of resources in one encounter. Warlock is the only class as likely to run out in one fight, but it has a number of systems to ensure resourceless utility/dmg.
combined this means monk is essentially a trap class. Starts great, and by the time you are heavily invested, it becomes bad. Doesnt help that its one of the worst multiclasses, so even if you MC out when you see it waning, you probably just have a bad character.
Even beyond that though, monk is ineffective at the things its supposed to be good at. Hit and run? rogue, Ranger, barbarian, are probably better at it. Close range fighting? everyone is better than you. Enemy shutdown/control? Rogue, Ranger, Mastery and grapple(both of which monk is bad at) is best shutdown/control for martials, and casters are better than martials at control/shutdown.
pure fun factor/flavor? monk doesnt get any cool or iconic stuff past 5 usually. Some subclasses do, but with ki/action economy the few that do offer something are usually not viable. The baseline pre 5 kit is mostly in opposition to each other, so you will usually only use one (FOB) +stun.
The class is not ok, and 5er has made it relatively worse by (rightfully) improving most martials versatility and setting damage closer to each other without power attack. (except monk) As well as various nerfs, for some reason.
Sooo, lets get beyond the monk is fine part of this, and redoing the numbers we probably have all done or seen already.
And on to the, possible fix phase.
Since it's not possible to have both flex and vex on the same attack, it will always get eaten at end-of-turn by two weapon fighting styles. This works out to
I'm still going to have to disagree. I haven't seen enough to make me think the class is so much weaker than everyone else that it's in dire need of a course correction.
ok, well nothing is going to change your mind then, math and logic has no effect.
I'll focus on suggestions about how to make monk satisfactory for monk players then, who by all indications are not satisfied with status quo or UA6
Different metrics. Different things of importance to different people, different levels of value of those things.
For some, all that mattes is DPR. For others, utility, For others, the vibe of the class For others the particular builds possible. For others, yet another thing (ki use, style, subclasses, special abilities).
Until everyone can agree on the metrics that should be used (and DPR is not going to be that one), and they can get the devs to follow those metrics, it ain't solving anything and the circle continues.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
the problem with your math, is you ignore relevant facts. fighting styles, features
I also responded to your math with a full analysis, and you ignore it.
the math for monk is not based on using stunning strike, its based on having infinite FOB, and fighter can beat infinite FOB without using action surge. Action surge is just a bonus.
monk in the long term is not even close.
https://i.imgur.com/x9da34A.png
Cut the crap.
"Logic and reason" isn't solely determined by how much damage a class can put out in a single round. It's just the only metric you care about.
Well, if you're admitting that Monk can't do as much damage as other classes, what do they have to make up for it? Just mobility?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
you have never suggested any metric in which the monk is not sub par.
They don't just have low dpr, they have low survivability, low combat utility, low out of combat utility. The best thing they have is movement, but theirs is not better than flight or steeds, or other spells people have access to.
Also note, mobility serves little purpose if you can't actually do anything useful when you get there.
And you were claiming their dpr was fine before. Hence me saying let's stop redoing the dpr math, its been done, and they are behind.
FFS.
You do read what I put, right? At the levels monk generally outclasses fighter in terms of damage (1-4), action surge is better than flurry of blows, because it’s a higher damage attack that you get, and it doesn’t draw on a shared resource pool for fighter’s other abilities. Unlike flurry of blows, which does. I never said action surge was always more damage than flurry of blows.
Also, I’m pretty sure in my level-by-level post I pointed out fighter’s better AC, HP, and oftentimes mobility (due to their ability to take feats while the monk is desperate for ASIs), and that’s just in the base class. One of my favourite fighter subclasses is Psi Warrior. That damage reduction and, at level 7, fly speed, is great. And I am firmly in the Evil Minmaxer and Monk Bad crowd. Cue the ad hominem.
Also, stunning strike.. it is the only feature worth spending, because everything else pales in comparison. If it succeeds against a BBEG or single tough enemy that the whole party is fighting, it gives the WHOLE PARTY an extra turn. Very little is going to survive that. The only equivalent spell I can find is psychic lance. Which is 4th level, and as a result when spellcasters can do that once, monks can do that over and over again. Stunning strike is REALLY REALLY GOOD. Everything else is kinda meh.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
So some people say Monk is bad because Stunning Strike is so good the rest of monk is balanced around that. I will admit to being the type of player who wouldn’t use FoB for a damage boost since it cost a Ki I could use to stun a creature. Unless I get told a creature is immune to stun I’m going to attempt to stun it with every ki I have. Now accept the one per turn Stunning strike. It’s a fair change with all the other changes they are making. One could argue with that nerf there should be some upgrades in other places. Another could argue that once per turn isn’t a Nerf, it’s forced resource management. I’m willing to remove Stun locking from the game. I’ve seen others post that Stunning Strike only works once then can’t be used for a minute or 10 minutes. With that done could we see improvements in the monk.
I personally don’t see monks as skirmishers in my fantasy, but their lower melee survivability makes them seem suited for that style of play. They have high movement speed but unless you take the mobile feat or you have 5e open hand or drunken master subclass they don’t have the mobility to be skirmishers.
My newest suggestion is to move Patient Defense from the Ki/Discipline feature at level 2 and make it part of the Unarmored Defense Feature at level 1. What this does it make PD not cost Ki/DP and gives you a choice from 1st level forward of how to use your bonus action. Every turn is a question of do I use this for Offense or Defense. This small change takes Monk from a bad skirmisher to a possible dodge tank front liner. That fits the monks fantasy better for me.