I hate how fast these arguments move. Makes catching up so difficult.
Edit: Ah, I see most of it was skippable.
My bad.
Still, my point is that a Fighter doesn't need to commit as much bild point to his AC, without sacrificing damage or HP, than a Monk. A Fighter also has much more build flexibility because it's not as MAD as a Monk. I could easily build a 16 DEX 16 CHA Fighter if I wanted to and would still be able to contribute as much as the Fighter would went 16 STR and 16 CON, and I'd be able to use the Battlemaster's Rally maneuver more effectively.
Monks need to invest in DEX and WIS and can basically spare a +1 to something else and that's all. Maybe STR if they want to grapple a little? Or INT for some lore related check?
One thing you are missing here is that the Monk can increase their Defense and Offense simultaneously. If you want a GW Fighter, your best AC is 18, because you aren't using a shield. But, without spending resources, a monk can match your Greatsword damage, and have the same AC.
A fighter who goes sword and board has more AC, but less damage, so the monk is doing more damage, without resource spending.
Then, the monk can choose, without changing their build or swapping any equipment, round by round, if they want to do even more damage, or if they want to sacrifice damage for even better defense.
Now, if you want to look damage, but I can do something utility, true, Fighter can go Cha. But, Wisdom and Dexterity are some of the most valuable skill attributes in the game. In fact, other than Cha, every other major skill is in Wisdom and Dex, which is what the monk is improving anyways. So, they have some natural synergy with some of the most important skills in the game, again, without changing anything about going all in on damage.
Right, we don't forget that. But we do say, "lots of stuff is immune or resistant to poison, it's clearly the worst choice if you have a choice between types of damage to do, and let's all acknowledge it's not a good choice if given a choice."
Right?
Partially true.
If I'm playing a rogue or other class that can apply poison to my weapon, using poison is a great choice. Sure, the PHB poison sucks, but look at something like getting giant snake venom. +3d6 damage is awesome. I'd love an extra 3d6 against gnolls, or beholders, or any number of nasty enemies. In fact, as long as I don't use it against something immune to poison, this is pure damage profit.
And I feel like that is where you are making your mistake. Poison Spray is terrible as your only damaging cantrip, because poison damage is easy to be immune to, but Poison Spray is awesome as your back-up melee option, or free cantrip because that damage is solid against a lot of enemies.
If most foes have a good Con score, then stun isn't as useful. That's my point. And for those who have played monks, they should be admitting yes it gets wasted against foes often enough that it's worth talking about. Because you don't get the choice in a lot of battles. And YOU'RE BANKING EVERYTHING ON THIS ONE POWER WITH ONE SAVE TYPE. We were debating if others can "stun" better, and the answer is yes they can. Indeed, they don't need to focus on just Con saves. They can choose other saves as well, like Wisdom saves.
Why is it so controversial to talk about the reality of the game - we all know more foes have better Con scores than other things, because Con is necessary for anyone. We all know it comes up a huge amount of the time. Why are we pretending the monk doesn't have this issue when we all know they do?
WE ARE YELLING LOUDLY!!
I'm not banking on Stunning Strike. It is good, yes, but I'm not devoting my entire self to that one trick. I'm just acknowledging it is a good trick.
Can casters do better debuffing? Sure. I won't deny that hold person is better than stunning strike. Of course, the monk is a better melee class than the cleric (generally) and while the Cleric cast Hold person and that was their entire turn, the monk could have possibly (though maybe not intelligently) attack four times, dealing four instances of damage and making four attempts at stunning instead of 1.
Yes, it can fail, and it isn't always going to work, but that's the nature of gambling.
They DO NOT have a 50-50 shot against brutes. They have a less than 50-50 shot, which is the post you're responded to. WE CALCULATED THE NUMBERS. The odds are they will fail against foes even weaker than their level, and will very likely fail versus their level or higher. And that's THE AVERAGE. An actual brute is likely even harder than that, because those mage foes are dragging the average down.
I believe they were your averages correct? Where CR 12 was listed with an Average Con of 16?
Most Monsters do not get save profs, meaning that is a +3 Con Save. A monk with a save DC of 14 (which by level 9 means wisdom 16, which we have assumed, which puts this monster above their level) succeeds if the monster rolls a 10 or roll. 10 on a d20, is about 50%. Even if we say this is a bigger than average creature, with 18 Con, then we are looking at a +4 save, which means 45% chance of landing, which is still close enough to say about 50/50 odds when summarizing the average.
Oh wait.
I NEED TO YELL SO YOU HEAR THAT I DID THE CALCULATIONS AND FOUND 50/50 IS FAIRLY REASONABLE
They wouldn't be going into a fight against each other, we're past that discussion, the Monk is good one on one. We're back to the discussion on baseline damage expectation.
Is a depleted Monk as strong as a depleted Fighter or depleted Rogue. No ressources that are restored on a rest at all, At-Will abilities only. How does their DPS or AC or defences, stack. If they're all on equal enough footing (say, less then 20% variance?), then from that point we can better judge if their rest-based ressources are plentiful enough or not.
Fully depleted Sword and Board, with dueling, are the numbers I posted before. Sticking with level 5?
Assume Chainmail, they have AC 18, and deal 1d8+6. Two attacks means 21 damage (I don't add accuracy stuff, I let other people worry about that, since it affects everyone equally most of the time)
Monk, assuming no subclass, likely has 16 AC. They deal 1d8+4 and 1d6+4. Three attacks, (because basic attack means no ki spent) 24.5 damage. If we assume the Kensei like people have been using, then you get a free +2 AC, bumping you to 18 AC. Same AC and fighter, better damage. Also, deflect missiles if we are looking at range.
Rogue, assuming Swashbuckler for solo sneaking, has a 16 AC. They deal 1d8+3d6+4. Single attack, 19 damage. But, they do still have uncanny dodge.
The accuracy calculations probably tilt this more in favor of the monk's damage, since they have the most attacks.
What weapon would the monk use? They can't go into melee since they're out of ki to disengage or use Flurry of Blow shenanigans. Kensei Archer and a Rogue would probably be the best build in that situation.An Archer fighter COULD technically kite if the enemy isn't faster
Why not? They don't have terrible AC here, and they deal far more damage.
