A person who is doing that is not playing them wrong. They are playing them sub-optimally. Which is neither right nor wrong. Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with RP or not. The campaign might have been set up with rolling stats in order (old school style).
1- pick race
2- pick class
3- determine state (roll, in order).
Or rolled and assigned however you want, but their best result was low.
There are people who _like_ to play that way, making do with, and improvisation from, a sub-optimal situation. It’s not my cup of tea, but there are lots of them out there. You can’t rule them out from a generalization.
And, as I pointed out, it doesn’t actually change the premise of this specific conversation, anyway.
If they are playing suboptimally then they are irrelevant to a discussion on power level of various class designs. They are still absolutely a valid player and play styles that should be accomodated in the game by providing a diversity of flavourful options and ensuring the game isn't entirely designed around power balance at the cost of character diversity (cough like 4e cough). But in a discussion on how to fix class power balance they are irrelevant since two characters of identical class and race can be wildly divergent in power depending on if you optimize the character to its strengths or play it suboptimally -> a Paladin with 18 Intelligence and 10 Strength and Charisma is simply never going to be as powerful as a Paladin with 16 STR and CHA, or any other class that puts their highest ability score in their primary stat, and they shouldn't be. A 3' tall little person is welcome to play basketball all they like but they shouldn't expect the rules of the game to be changed to allow them to be equally good at it as a 7' tall man.
How can be irrelevant when is part of the core? Even statistically your approximation is wrong, as is taking as average only the 10-11 stats numbers, in a 8-20 scale, taking into account only 2/12 cases, which is far from reality. Adding it to the formulae is even more precise, taking into account 10/12 cases even if taking the +0 values as not part of the formula.
The scale/chart is 1-30 (with 20 being the max for normal PCs), though you can't roll lower than 3, nor can you be modified down below 3 anymore. But 1 and 2 are on the chart (and are thus still part of the scale).
Even practically speaking for normal PC's, it's 3-20, not 8-20. It only bottoms out at 8 if you're doing standard array or point buy.
On average, you can expect there to be some bonus to their primary stat. And usually when comparing damage you are using averages.
Which is bad statistical analysis, if you're so bent on being rigorous about it instead of casual. (I was going to go into a mini-rant about average vs expected value*, but it's kind of academic for 90% of dice rolling). What you want is not just the average, which tells you nothing about the overall curve. If you're being rigorous instead of casual about it, you want to compare the overall curve, and therefore you want all 3 of minimum, maximum, and average*. For one, you might actually be shooting for the maximum as a hail marry. Or you might be depending on the minimum to not let you down. All 3 matter if you're trying to be rigorous about it. People who only list the average aren't being thorough, and are thus their analysis isn't any better than someone who is only giving maximums: they are both casual generalizations. The point being: if you're going to be critical of me only giving maximums, then you shouldn't be focusing on only giving averages: your analysis isn't an improvement in rigor.
But all of that is still not truly relevant to the thing that was being argued, because in a given situation shooting for the maximum might actually be your motivation for why you picked fists alone vs replacing one fist with a cantrip (which was the argument: why would you ever pick Primal Savagery over fists alone? with the added caveat that the person asking the question was asserting that fists alone is _always_ better -- which it isn't; giving the maximum brings that to light more clearly). I gave a case for why you would pick Primal Savagery to replace one of your Attack Action attacks: when you're shooting for maximum damage. And it turns out, the nitpicking doesn't really matter: Even if you set the stat modifier at the max (+5), fists alone only beats the average values at 1st through 4th level. Once you're 5th level, Primal Savagery always wins for averages, and for maximums. And each damage bracket above 4th level (5-10, 11-16, 17-20), fists alone does do a little better, but by 17th level the difference is only 2pts.
fists alonewith Primal Savagery
2d4 + 10 1d10
min 121
avg 15 5.5
max22 10
3d6 + 15 2d6 + 10 + 2d10
min 1814
avg 25.528
max3342
3d8 + 15 2d8 + 10 + 3d10
min 1815
avg 27.534.5
max 3946
3d10 + 152d10 + 10 + 4d10
min 1816
avg 31.543
max 4570
If you went with averages alone for your analysis, Primal Savagery is still better as a generalization in the big picture, and only noticeably worse at levels 1-4 (where you're highly unlikely to have that +5 stat modifier anyway). Adding in the stat modifier (in the above data) doesn't really change the analysis. Basically, starting at 5th level, the only reason you would NOT pick "substitute one Unarmed Strike with Primal Savagery" is if you're absolutely worried about minimum damage, or you're concerned about the acid damage vs target's resistance ... neither average damage (as others keep trying to suggest) nor maximum damage would cause you to pick fists alone. Even using a monk weapon with a level-appropriate bonus doesn't really change that analysis. And once you're 6th level, you don't truly have to worry about the damage type anymore (but you do have to spend ki points to transmute the damage type).
So why would you pick this sub-class? Because after 2 levels of it, you can expect to do more damage than if you're depending on fists alone. At levels 3 and 4, you would still pick fists alone over primal savagery unless you specifically need to overcome resistance to non-magical attacks, but starting at 5th level you would only pick fists alone in very specific circumstances. So at 3rd and 4th level, you might be more focused on buff and utility spells, or ranged spells you might have. At 3rd level, take Druidcraft and True Strike (if it switches to being a Reaction spell, the way Guidance and Resistance did). At 5th level, replace one or the other with Primal Savagery.
Instant Strike- You strike at unblock-able speed sacrificing power. Instead of rolling the attack you deal your attack modifier bludgeoning damage to your target. This can not be increased in any way except increasing you attack modifier.
This one is simply mathematically superior to all the others unless you are already all but guaranteed to hit, in which case the power strike is better. It is an illusion of choice.
That would mean weapon mastery graze is also superior to this and thus the best weapon mastery since it also guarantees damage and with graze you get a chance at dealing roll damage if you hit, with instant strike you are forfeiting that opportunity.
i should have multi quoted, but in you very next comment you said
You learn to use your body as a living weapon, your unarmed strikes fulfill the requirements of any feat, spell, or class feature that normally requires a weapon (including those limited to weapons of a particular type
You when take the Attack action on your turn you can choose one weapon mastery and have it apply to your unarmed strikes for that action.
That would mean monks should pretty much always just make there unarmed attacks do graze. Which would be the same illusion of choice.
Also note that instant strike wouldn’t allow you to add any abilities that required you to hit with an attack, so if you only instant strike you can never stunning strike. It’s a great source of guaranteed damage if you are within melee range, but still graze is better, and where I got inspiration for it from.
I gave a case for why you would pick Primal Savagery to replace one of your Attack Action attacks: when you're shooting for maximum damage.
The case is that cantrips scale their number of dice to compensate being single attack, and that's why they usually use the full action as spell. You can't do that even with what is supposed to be the one to do, the Eldritch Knight:
War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Even this subclass gets only one extra normal attack using its bonus action. The most you could get for a monk would be similar, using the bonus action to be its extra martial arts attack.
If all is about balancing monk class damage compared to other classes, it could be better give something like Divine Smite but for Ki, allowing to use Ki to roll extra dice after you know you hit. But in this case the recovering Ki at short rest should be redesigned the way is.
I gave a case for why you would pick Primal Savagery to replace one of your Attack Action attacks: when you're shooting for maximum damage.
The case is that cantrips scale their number of dice to compensate being single attack, and that's why they usually use the full action as spell. You can't do that even with what is supposed to be the one to do, the Eldritch Knight:
War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Even this subclass gets only one extra normal attack using its bonus action. The most you could get for a monk would be similar, using the bonus action to be its extra martial arts attack.
Have you seen the Bladesinger's Extra Attack variation? It does exactly what I put forward: you can substitute one of your Attack Action attacks with casting a Cantrip. That's the basis of what I put forward.
Another option would be to simply give them Quicken Spell (alongside Transmute Spell) at 6th level. That was one of my notes (I think it might be what was in the original post of the subclass).
If all is about balancing monk class damage compared to other classes, it could be better give something like Divine Smite but for Ki, allowing to use Ki to roll extra dice after you know you hit. But in this case the recovering Ki at short rest should be redesigned the way is.
It's not about generating damage. That argument was due to an ignorant assertion about how the proposed subclass would always be inferior to just using your fists.
It's about having an actual half-caster subclass for the Monk, as an alternative to the quasi-caster that currently exists (the Four Elements monk).
That said, a "Divine Smite but for Ki, allowing to use Ki to roll extra dice after you know you hit" feature already exists. It's part of the Kensei's 6th level benefit (Deft Strike). What you're basically proposing is allowing all Monks to have a Kensei ability. Which I'm not exactly opposed to, I'm just saying that that's what you're proposing.
This is a really interesting thread, but many folks here seems to be focus on one interpretation of the monk, or maybe they don't but in any case I need a place to liberate years of frustration with this class.
In my opinion the monk needs to be flexible, but only because is the only class that has martial arts. Because martial arts doesn't have a feat (like magic initiate, or fighting initiate or eldritch initiate) the monk needs to be this box to throw everything fighting unarmed, like a boxer, zumo fighter, etc, etc..
But ok let's keep playing the same Shaolin master from the KungFu show from 1972, and for that this class is actually ok, is flexible and full of utility but mediocre at everything.
For example if you want your monk to deal damage you use your bonus action and Ki pts to do flurry of blows, but even that way you find out you are not even on the same damage level of martial classes. Then your AC is also not on pair to them, and you don't have a bonus left if you want to expend the ki pts on patient defense. Also because you are very MAD your CON sucks and you have low hit points. So forget about continue doing damage.
However on this topic Jeremy Crawford always says that the feedback they had is players don't want unarmed strikes to be as powerful as weapons. I do hope the starting martial arts die is D6, but I leave the math to you.
If you want your monk to be a tank, you can be good at that for as many turns as you have KI pts for your patient defense, (or hit points), so you end up being a mediocre tank in the long run compared to any other tank class.
And talking about run, that is what you are supposed to be doing anyway according to some, hitting and running, using some kind of option with your blurry of blows like pushing or free disengage or something like that, but guess what you are also mediocre with that compared to the rogue, who can disengage for free and deals more damage.
So what I end up doing is theory-crafting impossible multi-class builds that takes too many levels, just to achieve any useful build, but that is also a problem because how MAD the class is. I honestly think if WTC really hates multi-classing that much why not remove it entirely and add more feats like pathfinder, or at least create or modify feats for the monks specially because mobile (the only feat that makes you catch up with rogues) is gone.
So in conclusion I guess what I dream is a monk that you can build with DEX or STR like a fighter! or build with high CON instead of WIS, a monk that have a feature for improving AC during the round with the reaction instead of the bonus, so you can play a boxer or street brawler, not the same ninja catching shurikens and arrows. There is a lot of possibilities if you allow the monk to use the reaction in different ways.
And about ki points, I think the problem is the progression, at low levels they are very few and high levels too many, plus must people don't go beyond level 10. So if progression is different, you remove the ASI requirements and allow better use of reaction for AC at minimum, the monk works much better because you can make a specific build that is good at something.
This is a really interesting thread, but many folks here seems to be focus on one interpretation of the monk, or maybe they don't but in any case I need a place to liberate years of frustration with this class.
In my opinion the monk needs to be flexible, but only because is the only class that has martial arts. Because martial arts doesn't have a feat (like magic initiate, or fighting initiate or eldritch initiate) the monk needs to be this box to throw everything fighting unarmed, like a boxer, zumo fighter, etc, etc..
But ok let's keep playing the same Shaolin master from the KungFu show from 1972, and for that this class is actually ok, is flexible and full of utility but mediocre at everything.
For example if you want your monk to deal damage you use your bonus action and Ki pts to do flurry of blows, but even that way you find out you are not even on the same damage level of martial classes. Then your AC is also not on pair to them, and you don't have a bonus left if you want to expend the ki pts on patient defense. Also because you are very MAD your CON sucks and you have low hit points. So forget about continue doing damage.
However on this topic Jeremy Crawford always says that the feedback they had is players don't want unarmed strikes to be as powerful as weapons. I do hope the starting martial arts die is D6, but I leave the math to you.
If you want your monk to be a tank, you can be good at that for as many turns as you have KI pts for your patient defense, (or hit points), so you end up being a mediocre tank in the long run compared to any other tank class.
And talking about run, that is what you are supposed to be doing anyway according to some, hitting and running, using some kind of option with your blurry of blows like pushing or free disengage or something like that, but guess what you are also mediocre with that compared to the rogue, who can disengage for free and deals more damage.
So what I end up doing is theory-crafting impossible multi-class builds that takes too many levels, just to achieve any useful build, but that is also a problem because how MAD the class is. I honestly think if WTC really hates multi-classing that much why not remove it entirely and add more feats like pathfinder, or at least create or modify feats for the monks specially because mobile (the only feat that makes you catch up with rogues) is gone.
So in conclusion I guess what I dream is a monk that you can build with DEX or STR like a fighter! or build with high CON instead of WIS, a monk that have a feature for improving AC during the round with the reaction instead of the bonus, so you can play a boxer or street brawler, not the same ninja catching shurikens and arrows. There is a lot of possibilities if you allow the monk to use the reaction in different ways.
And about ki points, I think the problem is the progression, at low levels they are very few and high levels too many, plus must people don't go beyond level 10. So if progression is different, you remove the ASI requirements and allow better use of reaction for AC at minimum, the monk works much better because you can make a specific build that is good at something.
The Rogue depends of being aside others to use Sneak Attack. Anyway SA is too powerful, but IMHO they made this way because Rogue is an usually few used class so they try in all manners to make it more "interesting". I'd put it an effective range like 30' when you are not hidden, or even in a more conservative way, up to 10' and only melee (as you are "stabbing"), so you could use it with Reach weapons (like whip).
What about adding STR + DEX for hitting and damage with martial arts (including monk weapons)?
Also, we have no feat for monks, even the old Mobile I think is not present in ODnD currently (but I'll preserve it from 5E), where are those feats to get extra Ki? Even the one that gives you some AC requires to use a weapon in one hand...why cannot be applied to martial arts?
The Rogue depends of being aside others to use Sneak Attack. Anyway SA is too powerful, but IMHO they made this way because Rogue is an usually few used class so they try in all manners to make it more "interesting". I'd put it an effective range like 30' when you are not hidden, or even in a more conservative way, up to 10' and only melee (as you are "stabbing"), so you could use it with Reach weapons (like whip).
Sorry what? Sneak Attack is too powerful? Sorry but no, if you look at the actual numbers a rogue getting sneak attack every round puts them at the middle of the pack of martial characters in terms of DPR. (As long as you aren't combining it with a Blade cantrip). But consider that rogue requires certain conditions to pull off sneak attack and they are slightly below average in terms of DPR for martials.
So in conclusion I guess what I dream is a monk that you can build with DEX or STR like a fighter! or build with high CON instead of WIS, a monk that have a feature for improving AC during the round with the reaction instead of the bonus, so you can play a boxer or street brawler, not the same ninja catching shurikens and arrows. There is a lot of possibilities if you allow the monk to use the reaction in different ways.
Sorry but no, the class closest to being able to build both as STR or DEX is Ranger and it still heavily leans towards DEX. The problem here is the conflict between fantasy and reality. In reality, a sumo wrestler would make an absolutely useless adventurer, same for even regular wrestlers. Wrestling is deliberately designed to NOT do serious damage to your opponent, so it would be utterly impotent in a game about killing things. As such there are right now in 5e lots of ways to make a wrestler, but they are rarely played because they kind of suck.
How to play a Wrestler in 5e Option 1: Rogue-Barbarian - Bear Totem-Barbarian (5), taking the Tavern Brawler Feat - This gives you unarmoured toughness, use of improvised weapons, Adv on grappling and a BA Grapple, then take 3-Rogue (either Thief or Soul Knife) - this gets you Expertise in Athletics and either more flexibility for improvised fighting or a magical weapon. Use a shield in one hand (reflavour it as a folding chair) and bare fists in the other.
Option 2 (Sumo):Artificer-RuneKnight - Artificer Armourer 5 (Guardian) giving you a thunder-damage dealing fists, use the Armour of Magical Strength Infusion, take Skill Expert as your Feat for Expertise in Athletics, then take 3-Rune Knight so you can grow to become Large.
The Rogue depends of being aside others to use Sneak Attack. Anyway SA is too powerful, but IMHO they made this way because Rogue is an usually few used class so they try in all manners to make it more "interesting". I'd put it an effective range like 30' when you are not hidden, or even in a more conservative way, up to 10' and only melee (as you are "stabbing"), so you could use it with Reach weapons (like whip).
Sorry what? Sneak Attack is too powerful? Sorry but no, if you look at the actual numbers a rogue getting sneak attack every round puts them at the middle of the pack of martial characters in terms of DPR. (As long as you aren't combining it with a Blade cantrip). But consider that rogue requires certain conditions to pull off sneak attack and they are slightly below average in terms of DPR for martials.
Let’s take a lvl 7 character with +4 at stat.
In the case of Rogue let’s assume is using a d6 weapon for easier, those are 5d6 + 4 = 21.5.
In the case of monk using a weapon d8 (both hands) are d8 + 4, d8 + 4, d6 + 4 = 8.5 + 8.5 + 7.5 = 24.5.
Later, each class has its own methods to improve it.
In the case of the Rogue is free and unlimited, but the cost is that depends on hiding or another friendly members. But it can use it even at very large range, specially with the corresponding feat + long bow…
In the case of others, usually requires some limited resource, like spell slots for Paladin or Ranger, or Ki for Monk.
Also, the criticals are devastating in the case of Sneak Attack and Divine Smite, clearly superior to others in the case of criticals.
Sneak Attack continues to improve with no need to worry about anything, and is unlimited and free. The others probably need to make sacrifices and choices to get that level of damage.
In addition, the others needs to get some class features to improve damage, while the Rogue gets it for free, as it continues getting things like auto-rolls for skills and many other things. So if the Rogue had the exact same damage than pure martials, and also getting all the Rogue gets in parallel, would it be balanced in any way?.
For all the things the Rogue gets, IMO Sneak Attack is overpowered, specially in the way it triggers. I’d like something more balanced, with less average damage in direct combat but greater in “stabbing” (surprise hidden attack).
So the over powered sneak attack even does not live up to monk(when not using any resources) which is considered the weakest class in the game by many.
But is pure martial, monk does not get any expertise or others. And is in the case of using the Bonus Action for the MA attack, which the Rogue has for other things for free, that could even be a 2nd weapon attack that with the corresponding it also adds the stat.
If you reduce to simple damage…it is overpowered, repeat, because is unlimited, free, and and auto-scales without replacing any kind of feature. I.e. at many levels others could get the feature that increases the damege, Rogue at level 11 gets the great Reliable Talent, plus an extra d6 for SA.
If you reduce to simple damage…it is overpowered, repeat, because is unlimited, free, and and auto-scales without replacing any kind of feature. I.e. at many levels others could get the feature that increases the damege, Rogue at level 11 gets the great Reliable Talent, plus an extra d6 for SA.
Sorry... I still do not understand what you are talking about here...
At level 7: Rogue with a d6 weapon - 5d6+4 = 21.5, with just light armour proficiency so AC = 16 Fighter with a Greataxe + GWM + fighting style - (2d12+8+10)*0.62 = 26.42 DPR Fighter with a Halberd and PAM - 2d10+8+1d4+4 = 25.5 DPR, or ~27 DPR with offensive Fighting Style using no resources at all. Fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting +FS+Dual Wielder - 3d8+12 = 25.5 DPR Fighter with a longbow + Archery + SS = (2d8+8+20)*0.77 (SS penalty/Archery) = 28.49 DPR
All of those are using no resources at all.
Fighters get class features that increase their damage (Fighting Style + Extra Attack + Extra Feat/ASI), Rogues get class features that increase their utility. Thus, fighters deal 24% more damage than rogues, while rogues have ~15% higher chance of succeeding on 6 ability checks.
I see it correct, damn is the fighter! If the Rogue would get the same base plus Expertise plus so many other things in parallel with the same base damage than the fighter, god what a Rogue.
Rogues don't get only ability checks, but also rolling always 10+, and etc, Uncanny Dodge, taking no damage when passing Dex ST...
You are adding a feat the fair would be to do the same for rogue. But in the case of Rogue Sniper + long bow and you have Sneak Attack up to 600' of range!! of distance, or even with shortbow to save a feat/multiclass level 320', not bad.
You are adding a feat the fair would be to do the same for rogue. But in the case of Rogue Sniper + long bow and you have Sneak Attack up to 600' of range!! of distance, or even with shortbow to save a feat/multiclass level 320', not bad.
I'm adding a feat b/c Fighters get an extra feat at level 6 as a class feature. Thus it is fair to compare Rogue with no feat to fighter + 1 feat at level 7. If I were to give the Rogue a feat, I would have to give Fighter 2 feats, which would make PAM/GWM and SS/XbowXpert blow Rogue out of the water DPR wise.
Yes Rogue gets more defensive features (Uncanny Dodge & Evasion) but they often have lower AC due to limited armour proficiency and lower HP than the Fighter.
Sure Rogue gets a guaranteed 10 on skill checks at 11, but Fighter gets a 3rd attack meaning their DPR will continue to outpace that of Rogue just as on skill checks the rogue continues to outpace the fighter.
To get back to the monk. I think the thing they're really missing is a way to disengage more easily without spending a ki point. They're supposed to be skirmishers who get in, hit and get back out. They can do the first one easy enough, but then need to choose between flurry of blows or step of the wind to get back out (or patient defense). And honestly, rogues can just disengage for free (well, using their bonus action), why do Monks need to spend a limited resource and a bonus action to do it? They need either some kind of better disengage mechanic, or maybe give their unarmed strikes the weapon mastery so they can get in an extra attack without the bonus action and be able to get out easier, or maybe both. But as it is, it just seems like they need to either only punch one time (twice at level 5) and get back away, or punch an extra time and just stand there, but without the AC or HP to really be a front line melee type.
There's too many things fighting for their bonus action, and it strips them of being able to be as mobile as I think they should be able to be.
To get back to the monk. I think the thing they're really missing is a way to disengage more easily without spending a ki point. They're supposed to be skirmishers who get in, hit and get back out. They can do the first one easy enough, but then need to choose between flurry of blows or step of the wind to get back out (or patient defense). And honestly, rogues can just disengage for free (well, using their bonus action), why do Monks need to spend a limited resource and a bonus action to do it? They need either some kind of better disengage mechanic, or maybe give their unarmed strikes the weapon mastery so they can get in an extra attack without the bonus action and be able to get out easier, or maybe both. But as it is, it just seems like they need to either only punch one time (twice at level 5) and get back away, or punch an extra time and just stand there, but without the AC or HP to really be a front line melee type.
There's too many things fighting for their bonus action, and it strips them of being able to be as mobile as I think they should be able to be.
That's because it is hidden in the subclasses.
Open Hand and Drunken Master get a free disengage as part of Flurry of Blows Sun Soul and Astral get reach so don't need to disengage Shadow gets free teleport as a BA at level 6
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they are playing suboptimally then they are irrelevant to a discussion on power level of various class designs. They are still absolutely a valid player and play styles that should be accomodated in the game by providing a diversity of flavourful options and ensuring the game isn't entirely designed around power balance at the cost of character diversity (cough like 4e cough). But in a discussion on how to fix class power balance they are irrelevant since two characters of identical class and race can be wildly divergent in power depending on if you optimize the character to its strengths or play it suboptimally -> a Paladin with 18 Intelligence and 10 Strength and Charisma is simply never going to be as powerful as a Paladin with 16 STR and CHA, or any other class that puts their highest ability score in their primary stat, and they shouldn't be. A 3' tall little person is welcome to play basketball all they like but they shouldn't expect the rules of the game to be changed to allow them to be equally good at it as a 7' tall man.
How can be irrelevant when is part of the core? Even statistically your approximation is wrong, as is taking as average only the 10-11 stats numbers, in a 8-20 scale, taking into account only 2/12 cases, which is far from reality. Adding it to the formulae is even more precise, taking into account 10/12 cases even if taking the +0 values as not part of the formula.
So no, removing them is not the correct way.
The scale/chart is 1-30 (with 20 being the max for normal PCs), though you can't roll lower than 3, nor can you be modified down below 3 anymore. But 1 and 2 are on the chart (and are thus still part of the scale).
Even practically speaking for normal PC's, it's 3-20, not 8-20. It only bottoms out at 8 if you're doing standard array or point buy.
Which is bad statistical analysis, if you're so bent on being rigorous about it instead of casual. (I was going to go into a mini-rant about average vs expected value*, but it's kind of academic for 90% of dice rolling). What you want is not just the average, which tells you nothing about the overall curve. If you're being rigorous instead of casual about it, you want to compare the overall curve, and therefore you want all 3 of minimum, maximum, and average*. For one, you might actually be shooting for the maximum as a hail marry. Or you might be depending on the minimum to not let you down. All 3 matter if you're trying to be rigorous about it. People who only list the average aren't being thorough, and are thus their analysis isn't any better than someone who is only giving maximums: they are both casual generalizations. The point being: if you're going to be critical of me only giving maximums, then you shouldn't be focusing on only giving averages: your analysis isn't an improvement in rigor.
But all of that is still not truly relevant to the thing that was being argued, because in a given situation shooting for the maximum might actually be your motivation for why you picked fists alone vs replacing one fist with a cantrip (which was the argument: why would you ever pick Primal Savagery over fists alone? with the added caveat that the person asking the question was asserting that fists alone is _always_ better -- which it isn't; giving the maximum brings that to light more clearly). I gave a case for why you would pick Primal Savagery to replace one of your Attack Action attacks: when you're shooting for maximum damage. And it turns out, the nitpicking doesn't really matter: Even if you set the stat modifier at the max (+5), fists alone only beats the average values at 1st through 4th level. Once you're 5th level, Primal Savagery always wins for averages, and for maximums. And each damage bracket above 4th level (5-10, 11-16, 17-20), fists alone does do a little better, but by 17th level the difference is only 2pts.
fists alone with Primal Savagery
2d4 + 10 1d10
min 12 1
avg 15 5.5
max 22 10
3d6 + 15 2d6 + 10 + 2d10
min 18 14
avg 25.5 28
max 33 42
3d8 + 15 2d8 + 10 + 3d10
min 18 15
avg 27.5 34.5
max 39 46
3d10 + 15 2d10 + 10 + 4d10
min 18 16
avg 31.5 43
max 45 70
If you went with averages alone for your analysis, Primal Savagery is still better as a generalization in the big picture, and only noticeably worse at levels 1-4 (where you're highly unlikely to have that +5 stat modifier anyway). Adding in the stat modifier (in the above data) doesn't really change the analysis. Basically, starting at 5th level, the only reason you would NOT pick "substitute one Unarmed Strike with Primal Savagery" is if you're absolutely worried about minimum damage, or you're concerned about the acid damage vs target's resistance ... neither average damage (as others keep trying to suggest) nor maximum damage would cause you to pick fists alone. Even using a monk weapon with a level-appropriate bonus doesn't really change that analysis. And once you're 6th level, you don't truly have to worry about the damage type anymore (but you do have to spend ki points to transmute the damage type).
So why would you pick this sub-class? Because after 2 levels of it, you can expect to do more damage than if you're depending on fists alone.
At levels 3 and 4, you would still pick fists alone over primal savagery unless you specifically need to overcome resistance to non-magical attacks, but starting at 5th level you would only pick fists alone in very specific circumstances. So at 3rd and 4th level, you might be more focused on buff and utility spells, or ranged spells you might have. At 3rd level, take Druidcraft and True Strike (if it switches to being a Reaction spell, the way Guidance and Resistance did). At 5th level, replace one or the other with Primal Savagery.
That would mean weapon mastery graze is also superior to this and thus the best weapon mastery since it also guarantees damage and with graze you get a chance at dealing roll damage if you hit, with instant strike you are forfeiting that opportunity.
i should have multi quoted, but in you very next comment you said
That would mean monks should pretty much always just make there unarmed attacks do graze. Which would be the same illusion of choice.
Also note that instant strike wouldn’t allow you to add any abilities that required you to hit with an attack, so if you only instant strike you can never stunning strike. It’s a great source of guaranteed damage if you are within melee range, but still graze is better, and where I got inspiration for it from.
The case is that cantrips scale their number of dice to compensate being single attack, and that's why they usually use the full action as spell. You can't do that even with what is supposed to be the one to do, the Eldritch Knight:
Even this subclass gets only one extra normal attack using its bonus action. The most you could get for a monk would be similar, using the bonus action to be its extra martial arts attack.
If all is about balancing monk class damage compared to other classes, it could be better give something like Divine Smite but for Ki, allowing to use Ki to roll extra dice after you know you hit. But in this case the recovering Ki at short rest should be redesigned the way is.
Have you seen the Bladesinger's Extra Attack variation? It does exactly what I put forward: you can substitute one of your Attack Action attacks with casting a Cantrip. That's the basis of what I put forward.
Another option would be to simply give them Quicken Spell (alongside Transmute Spell) at 6th level. That was one of my notes (I think it might be what was in the original post of the subclass).
It's not about generating damage. That argument was due to an ignorant assertion about how the proposed subclass would always be inferior to just using your fists.
It's about having an actual half-caster subclass for the Monk, as an alternative to the quasi-caster that currently exists (the Four Elements monk).
That said, a "Divine Smite but for Ki, allowing to use Ki to roll extra dice after you know you hit" feature already exists. It's part of the Kensei's 6th level benefit (Deft Strike). What you're basically proposing is allowing all Monks to have a Kensei ability. Which I'm not exactly opposed to, I'm just saying that that's what you're proposing.
This is a really interesting thread, but many folks here seems to be focus on one interpretation of the monk, or maybe they don't but in any case I need a place to liberate years of frustration with this class.
In my opinion the monk needs to be flexible, but only because is the only class that has martial arts. Because martial arts doesn't have a feat (like magic initiate, or fighting initiate or eldritch initiate) the monk needs to be this box to throw everything fighting unarmed, like a boxer, zumo fighter, etc, etc..
But ok let's keep playing the same Shaolin master from the KungFu show from 1972, and for that this class is actually ok, is flexible and full of utility but mediocre at everything.
For example if you want your monk to deal damage you use your bonus action and Ki pts to do flurry of blows, but even that way you find out you are not even on the same damage level of martial classes. Then your AC is also not on pair to them, and you don't have a bonus left if you want to expend the ki pts on patient defense. Also because you are very MAD your CON sucks and you have low hit points. So forget about continue doing damage.
However on this topic Jeremy Crawford always says that the feedback they had is players don't want unarmed strikes to be as powerful as weapons. I do hope the starting martial arts die is D6, but I leave the math to you.
If you want your monk to be a tank, you can be good at that for as many turns as you have KI pts for your patient defense, (or hit points), so you end up being a mediocre tank in the long run compared to any other tank class.
And talking about run, that is what you are supposed to be doing anyway according to some, hitting and running, using some kind of option with your blurry of blows like pushing or free disengage or something like that, but guess what you are also mediocre with that compared to the rogue, who can disengage for free and deals more damage.
So what I end up doing is theory-crafting impossible multi-class builds that takes too many levels, just to achieve any useful build, but that is also a problem because how MAD the class is. I honestly think if WTC really hates multi-classing that much why not remove it entirely and add more feats like pathfinder, or at least create or modify feats for the monks specially because mobile (the only feat that makes you catch up with rogues) is gone.
So in conclusion I guess what I dream is a monk that you can build with DEX or STR like a fighter! or build with high CON instead of WIS, a monk that have a feature for improving AC during the round with the reaction instead of the bonus, so you can play a boxer or street brawler, not the same ninja catching shurikens and arrows. There is a lot of possibilities if you allow the monk to use the reaction in different ways.
And about ki points, I think the problem is the progression, at low levels they are very few and high levels too many, plus must people don't go beyond level 10. So if progression is different, you remove the ASI requirements and allow better use of reaction for AC at minimum, the monk works much better because you can make a specific build that is good at something.
The Rogue depends of being aside others to use Sneak Attack. Anyway SA is too powerful, but IMHO they made this way because Rogue is an usually few used class so they try in all manners to make it more "interesting". I'd put it an effective range like 30' when you are not hidden, or even in a more conservative way, up to 10' and only melee (as you are "stabbing"), so you could use it with Reach weapons (like whip).
What about adding STR + DEX for hitting and damage with martial arts (including monk weapons)?
Also, we have no feat for monks, even the old Mobile I think is not present in ODnD currently (but I'll preserve it from 5E), where are those feats to get extra Ki? Even the one that gives you some AC requires to use a weapon in one hand...why cannot be applied to martial arts?
Sorry what? Sneak Attack is too powerful? Sorry but no, if you look at the actual numbers a rogue getting sneak attack every round puts them at the middle of the pack of martial characters in terms of DPR. (As long as you aren't combining it with a Blade cantrip). But consider that rogue requires certain conditions to pull off sneak attack and they are slightly below average in terms of DPR for martials.
Sorry but no, the class closest to being able to build both as STR or DEX is Ranger and it still heavily leans towards DEX. The problem here is the conflict between fantasy and reality. In reality, a sumo wrestler would make an absolutely useless adventurer, same for even regular wrestlers. Wrestling is deliberately designed to NOT do serious damage to your opponent, so it would be utterly impotent in a game about killing things. As such there are right now in 5e lots of ways to make a wrestler, but they are rarely played because they kind of suck.
How to play a Wrestler in 5e
Option 1: Rogue-Barbarian - Bear Totem-Barbarian (5), taking the Tavern Brawler Feat - This gives you unarmoured toughness, use of improvised weapons, Adv on grappling and a BA Grapple, then take 3-Rogue (either Thief or Soul Knife) - this gets you Expertise in Athletics and either more flexibility for improvised fighting or a magical weapon. Use a shield in one hand (reflavour it as a folding chair) and bare fists in the other.
Option 2 (Sumo):Artificer-RuneKnight - Artificer Armourer 5 (Guardian) giving you a thunder-damage dealing fists, use the Armour of Magical Strength Infusion, take Skill Expert as your Feat for Expertise in Athletics, then take 3-Rune Knight so you can grow to become Large.
Let’s take a lvl 7 character with +4 at stat.
In the case of Rogue let’s assume is using a d6 weapon for easier, those are 5d6 + 4 = 21.5.
In the case of monk using a weapon d8 (both hands) are d8 + 4, d8 + 4, d6 + 4 = 8.5 + 8.5 + 7.5 = 24.5.
Later, each class has its own methods to improve it.
In the case of the Rogue is free and unlimited, but the cost is that depends on hiding or another friendly members. But it can use it even at very large range, specially with the corresponding feat + long bow…
In the case of others, usually requires some limited resource, like spell slots for Paladin or Ranger, or Ki for Monk.
Also, the criticals are devastating in the case of Sneak Attack and Divine Smite, clearly superior to others in the case of criticals.
Sneak Attack continues to improve with no need to worry about anything, and is unlimited and free. The others probably need to make sacrifices and choices to get that level of damage.
In addition, the others needs to get some class features to improve damage, while the Rogue gets it for free, as it continues getting things like auto-rolls for skills and many other things. So if the Rogue had the exact same damage than pure martials, and also getting all the Rogue gets in parallel, would it be balanced in any way?.
For all the things the Rogue gets, IMO Sneak Attack is overpowered, specially in the way it triggers. I’d like something more balanced, with less average damage in direct combat but greater in “stabbing” (surprise hidden attack).
So the over powered sneak attack even does not live up to monk(when not using any resources) which is considered the weakest class in the game by many.
But is pure martial, monk does not get any expertise or others. And is in the case of using the Bonus Action for the MA attack, which the Rogue has for other things for free, that could even be a 2nd weapon attack that with the corresponding it also adds the stat.
If you reduce to simple damage…it is overpowered, repeat, because is unlimited, free, and and auto-scales without replacing any kind of feature. I.e. at many levels others could get the feature that increases the damege, Rogue at level 11 gets the great Reliable Talent, plus an extra d6 for SA.
Yeah but the monk sucks. And calling them a pure martial is a bit weird imo.
Sorry... I still do not understand what you are talking about here...
At level 7:
Rogue with a d6 weapon - 5d6+4 = 21.5, with just light armour proficiency so AC = 16
Fighter with a Greataxe + GWM + fighting style - (2d12+8+10)*0.62 = 26.42 DPR
Fighter with a Halberd and PAM - 2d10+8+1d4+4 = 25.5 DPR, or ~27 DPR with offensive Fighting Style using no resources at all.
Fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting +FS+Dual Wielder - 3d8+12 = 25.5 DPR
Fighter with a longbow + Archery + SS = (2d8+8+20)*0.77 (SS penalty/Archery) = 28.49 DPR
All of those are using no resources at all.
Fighters get class features that increase their damage (Fighting Style + Extra Attack + Extra Feat/ASI), Rogues get class features that increase their utility.
Thus, fighters deal 24% more damage than rogues, while rogues have ~15% higher chance of succeeding on 6 ability checks.
I see it correct, damn is the fighter! If the Rogue would get the same base plus Expertise plus so many other things in parallel with the same base damage than the fighter, god what a Rogue.
Rogues don't get only ability checks, but also rolling always 10+, and etc, Uncanny Dodge, taking no damage when passing Dex ST...
You are adding a feat the fair would be to do the same for rogue. But in the case of Rogue Sniper + long bow and you have Sneak Attack up to 600' of range!! of distance, or even with shortbow to save a feat/multiclass level 320', not bad.
I'm adding a feat b/c Fighters get an extra feat at level 6 as a class feature. Thus it is fair to compare Rogue with no feat to fighter + 1 feat at level 7. If I were to give the Rogue a feat, I would have to give Fighter 2 feats, which would make PAM/GWM and SS/XbowXpert blow Rogue out of the water DPR wise.
Yes Rogue gets more defensive features (Uncanny Dodge & Evasion) but they often have lower AC due to limited armour proficiency and lower HP than the Fighter.
Sure Rogue gets a guaranteed 10 on skill checks at 11, but Fighter gets a 3rd attack meaning their DPR will continue to outpace that of Rogue just as on skill checks the rogue continues to outpace the fighter.
To get back to the monk. I think the thing they're really missing is a way to disengage more easily without spending a ki point. They're supposed to be skirmishers who get in, hit and get back out. They can do the first one easy enough, but then need to choose between flurry of blows or step of the wind to get back out (or patient defense). And honestly, rogues can just disengage for free (well, using their bonus action), why do Monks need to spend a limited resource and a bonus action to do it? They need either some kind of better disengage mechanic, or maybe give their unarmed strikes the weapon mastery so they can get in an extra attack without the bonus action and be able to get out easier, or maybe both. But as it is, it just seems like they need to either only punch one time (twice at level 5) and get back away, or punch an extra time and just stand there, but without the AC or HP to really be a front line melee type.
There's too many things fighting for their bonus action, and it strips them of being able to be as mobile as I think they should be able to be.
That's because it is hidden in the subclasses.
Open Hand and Drunken Master get a free disengage as part of Flurry of Blows
Sun Soul and Astral get reach so don't need to disengage
Shadow gets free teleport as a BA at level 6