A statistics question

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've taken statistics, but it was years ago and I'm no math whiz.

I've seen numerous assertions about how sucky monks are unless (and sometimes even IF) they have Str as their primary stat. Personally, I prefer a Dex/Wis/Str priority build, and have been pleased with the results.

Here's the question:

Is a Dex-based monk REALLY worse in combat than a Str-based monk?

At first analysis, the answer is yes- that Str-based monk will hit more often per combat, and will do more damage per hit...it speeds up combat.

But that seems to me to be just half of the analysis.

As a PC, a monk is almost always outnumbered by his opponents, at least until higher levels are reached and the party starts ganging up on demons, devils and dragons. While a +2 bonus to Str would affect every attack roll he makes by shifting probabilities in his favor 5%, the same bonus to Dex will have a -5% shift on every roll his foes make. In other words, he is more likely to last longer in combat and have more opportunities to deal damage.

So, statistically speaking, is it better to have a high Str to affect your own combat rolls, or a high Dex to affect the rolls of your opponents?

(I'm just talking in terms of character stats- no magic, no feats, etc.)

 

[Victim]

The question is more tactical than statistical. Nothing forces enemies to attack the monk - if enemies don't attack the monk, then his defense is useless. Think of the standard trick: kill the wizard first. Why is that the case? A wizard caught unprepared usually has both poor defenses, and is a dangerous foe. Those strengths and weaknesses make him a high priority target for intelligent enemies. A dex monk is basically the inverse; he's a pain to drop with good saves, AC, and immunities/SR, but is weak offensively. His great defense will probably shift attacks on to other members of the group as much as it stops things.

Also, damage is more important early, just like money. The STR monk can reduce incoming damage by eliminating attackers faster by doing his damage early, instead of over a long defensive fight.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

His great defense will probably shift attacks on to other members of the group as much as it stops things.

If they're not attacking him, he doesn't take damage, thus lasting even longer, and has even more chances to do damage.

The STR monk can reduce incoming damage by eliminating attackers faster by doing his damage early, instead of over a long defensive fight.

At low levels, the Str Monk's bonus damage is going to be 1/6 to 2/3 of his base damage- lets assume the best case. He successfully strikes 2 times and he does a total of 2d6 + 8 points of damage in 2 rounds...

But there are damage-dealing specialists out there, like Fighters and Barbarians. Odds are good that his alpha strike is going to be significantly smaller than the true Warrior classes- he tangles with one of those and he might not live 2 rounds to deal damage.

By way of contrast, the Dex Monk may be able to win by inflicting the "death of 1000 cuts" because the warrior has difficulties hitting him and even d6's add up over time.

(Note 1: Even if STR monks are better statistically, it probably won't change my preferences- I like Dex monks. This is more an exercise in analysis.)

(Note 2: Just anecdotaly, I ran a HERO campaign with just martial artists and there was a classic match between the Dex guy and a Str guy...the Dex guy landed lots of blows, but was KO'ed by the single blow from the Str guy that landed. Still, it was a close match.)

 

[ceratitis]

the player of the monk in our party seems to have the following ability:
"when ever you need to roll high on a d20 roll a d4 and add 16."
he almost never misses. when i played his char in a session he was missing we got our arses kicked 'cos all of a sudden there wasnt enough damage dealt.
Z

 

[Lorehead]

In practice, Dex-based builds aren't as good as Str-based ones in play. There are several reasons for this:

• Many attacks bypass AC entirely.
• Unless you dedicate your limited resources almost entirely to raising your AC, opponents can always hit at high levels.
• Because AC is a random, all-or-nothing defense, you can't rely on it. It will eventually let you down.
• Offense generally trumps defense in D&D; when you kill your enemy faster, you also take less damage.
• Your point that, if a monster doesn't attack the monk, he'll also have more chances to damage it, is not well taken. The monk would have those same chances to damage the monster if he emphasized Strength, and would do a better job of it, too.

All in all, most melee builds are better off emphasizing both Str and Con over Dex. More hit points will help you survive a much greater variety of attacks, never become irrelevant, and are more reliable.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've found monks to be very effective, if not necessarily the high damage dealers. The monk IMC (3.0) has a standard sequence:

Huge or smaller creatures: stunning blow followed by grapple & damaging attacks

>Huge: stunning blow, 2-3 damaging attacks to feel out the targets AC and then either trip attempts or more damage.

Grappling & tripping are loved by the party since it cuts the enemy's attack potential (grapple can only hurt other grapplers plus 3 chars with sneak attack get extra damage, trip requires action to stand and reduces AC while the thing is prone). Thanks to the monk's speed he often gets places first and disrupts the battle plan, like a one-monk blitzkreig. He can't fly but his jump is phenomenal and he'll often leap over the front ranks of troops to go for officers, cavalry, or siege weaponry. By surrounding himself with enemies that obscure line of sight, he hopes to provoke AE spells and monk saves + SR means he is far less likely to be affected.

It doesn't work on really large formations, but anything less than 100 people tends to be bothered by an anime character charging them at 40mph who jumps over the pike wall and laying people out in the middle of the phalanx.

 

[Victim]

If they're not attacking him, he doesn't take damage, thus lasting even longer, and has even more chances to do damage.



At low levels, the Str Monk's bonus damage is going to be 1/6 to 2/3 of his base damage- lets assume the best case. He successfully strikes 2 times and he does a total of 2d6 + 8 points of damage in 2 rounds...

But there are damage-dealing specialists out there, like Fighters and Barbarians. Odds are good that his alpha strike is going to be significantly smaller than the true Warrior classes- he tangles with one of those and he might not live 2 rounds to deal damage.

By way of contrast, the Dex Monk may be able to win by inflicting the "death of 1000 cuts" because the warrior has difficulties hitting him and even d6's add up over time.

(Note 1: Even if STR monks are better statistically, it probably won't change my preferences- I like Dex monks. This is more an exercise in analysis.)

(Note 2: Just anecdotaly, I ran a HERO campaign with just martial artists and there was a classic match between the Dex guy and a Str guy...the Dex guy landed lots of blows, but was KO'ed by the single blow from the Str guy that landed. Still, it was a close match.)

That's all pertinent. In a 1v1 fight. Parties squaring off to 1v1 individual foes is pretty much the weakest tactic in the game. Do you want the party to win, or the monk to live? Shifting damage to more vulnerable teammates helps the former how? Being the last person in the group to die isn't a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. A nigh invicible cleric is good, since he can use the time he stays up to help allies, in addition to dealing damage. Monks? Not so much.


Assuming that a fight lasts until the monk outlasts his enemies is a bad assumption. In most cases, one side or another is going to force a resolution to a fight within say 6 rounds. If the party is winning, then they'll be able to deal with the monk's share of enemies within that time. If the rest of the party loses, then the monk probably can't deal with all remaining enemies, and even if he does, the rest of the group has still lost. A character's contributions for the duration of a battle are critical. Hypothetical contributions after that time has elapsed become progressively less valuable. With the assumption that a character has a finite number of actions in a fight to spend, then effect per action is critical. Basically, action are perhaps the most important resource in the game (witness the change to Haste, and the power of Time Stop). A dex monk's individual actions tend to be less effective.

It's good that people have mentioned grappling and trips. Both of those mechanics tend to favor monks, except possibly at high levels. Guess what? Both Grapple and Trip use STR to determine their offensive effect. My monk can grapple and trip effectively BECAUSE he is STR based, not Dex based. Admitedly, STR has more of an effect with Trip since it's a more pure ability check. Even a Dex monk will probably have little trouble grappling low STR wizards and rogues with the Imp Grapple edge.

Also, the various penalties associated with grapple and trip are more significant to a Dex based monk. Losing one's Dex bonus in a grapple isn't as much of a problem if you only have a 13 or 14 for Imp Grapple anyway - but if you rely on the high AC from big, then forfeiting all that defense is a big deal. And in most cases, the AC penalty from being prone (from an unlucky trip and counter trip) will take off a bigger share of the Dex monk's defense.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

These opinions are all well and good, but I AM looking for crunchy numbers.

Its one thing to say that a combat will be finished in 6 rounds on average, and another to prove it. Personally, I can recall a half a dozen combats that went deep into double digit rounds, and none that lasted less than 4...but recall is faulty.

It is also relevant that most melee attacks depend on Str mods, but as I pointed out, most players (including DMs running NPCs with intelligent leaders among them) are tactically minded enough to try to take down the foe who is dishing out big hunks of damage. The monk who "nickel & dimes" his opponents may in fact do more damage in a combat just because he's not drawing attention with flashy amounts of damage per strike while avoiding hit after hit after hit...

After all, that has been my experience- but my experience may be massively atypical.

Without crunchy numbers, we're just voicing opinions.

 

[Agback]

These opinions are all well and good, but I AM looking for crunchy numbers.

A DEX-first character with an attack bonus of A and armour class of B, who does C points of damage on an average hit is fighting an opponent who has an attack bonus of X, an armour class of Y, and does an average of Z points per hit.

The character hits (10 + A - Y) times out of twenty. Call that H for simplicity. His or her average damage output is HC/20. Now raise his STR bonus by 1. H and C both go up by one. Average damage output goes up to (HC + H + C + 1)/20, or in other words by (1/H + 1/C + 1/HC) * 100%.

The opponent hits (10 + X - B) times out of twenty. Call that M. Average damage output is MZ. Reduce the character's DEX bonus by 1. M goes up by one but Z is not affects. Damage output goes up to (MZ + Z)/20, or by 1/M * 100%.

The trade of DEX for STR is a good deal if 1/H + 1/C + 1/HC > 1/M. In other words, it depends on opponents, but the STR is good for low-level monks with a small damage die and for monks who fight enemies with a high armour class. The DEX is good for monks that fight enemies with a lousy attack bonus.

If you expect to fight hordes of monsters who can rarely hit you, DEX is good. If you expect to fight tough opponents, go for the STR.

Example: 1st-level monk with AB +2, AC 13, d6+2, 9 hp fights a CR 1 monster, say, a troglodyte with a longspear AB +1, AC 15, d8, 13 hp. Monk hits on a roll of 13 or better, ie. 8 times out of twenty and does 5.5 hp per hit for an average of 2.2 hp per turn, and the trog hits on a 12 or better (9 times per twenty turns) for 3.5 hp per hit, which comes out to 1.575 hp/turn. It will take the monk on average of 5.91 round to down the trog, in which time he or she will suffer 9.31 hp damage. In short, it's close, but we expect the troglodyte to win.

Now suppose that we swap the monk's 16 DEX for his 14 STR. His AB becomes +3, AC 12, d6+3, still 9 hp.The monk now hits on an 12 (9 rolls out of 20) for an average of 6.5 hp per hit. Average damage output: 2.93 hp per turn, The trog will go down in 4.44 combat turns. The trog now hits on 10/20 turns, and still does 3.5, for an average of 1.75 hp per turn. The monk now expects to survive the fight taking 7.78 hit points damage instead of 9.31.

Now suppose that the monk is fighting a monster with a lower AC. The extra one hit in twenty turns will be a smaller proportion. But given comparable CR, the monster's AB will be lower too, so the monks loss of one AC will likewise be a smaller proportional effect. The damage bonus will, however, be proportionally the same.

Extra DEX is only superior in the case of an opponent whose chance of hitting on any attack is low compared with the monk's chance of hitting it. ie. with low AC and low AB. Those generally aren't a challenge (unless they have lots of attacks, lots of hit points, or attacks with special effects).

 

[jeffh]

These opinions are all well and good, but I AM looking for crunchy numbers.

Its one thing to say that a combat will be finished in 6 rounds on average, and another to prove it. Personally, I can recall a half a dozen combats that went deep into double digit rounds, and none that lasted less than 4...but recall is faulty.

You yourself brought up the likely effect of high AC (combined with other monk defenses) as being to shunt attacks off onto other party members. Assuming that's even true, that's not "cruchy numbers" and cannot, as far as I can see, be captured using math alone.

As your own response at that point indicates, numbers have their limitations in any situation that gives people as many different options as even a moderately complicated D&D combat. In the D&D case, they are at their most useful in analyzing one-on-one situations and tell less and less of the story the more combatants you add on either side. But one on one situations are atypical - as someone pointed out, splitting up the group to take on enemies one on one is frequently a poor idea in D&D. Characters are useful or not according to their contributions to success at the group's shared goals, which may or may not have anything to do with their performance in one-on-one battles.

Your estimation of combat lengths suggests to me that your group plays very differently from any that I've been a part of in recent memory, and (combined with the one-on-one orientation, your dismissal of sound tactical advice as "opinion", and your apparent indifference to the effects of shunting off attacks on other party members) possibly suggests a group that doesn't work together very well combined with a GM who pulls most of his punches. If that (particularly the latter) is the case then first of all, it doesn't matter much what tactical approach you use, as long as you don't end up feeling completely overshadowed, because there's little likelihood that the group's success or failure a) depends on your choices, b) is in any doubt in the first place, and c) matters very much to you.

I can tell you that a lot of fights in my current games last just one or two rounds, and one that hits double digits is a rare and memorable event.