log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Comparing Monk DPR

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
A level 5 rogue averages 18 damage on a hit. He's only reliably killing CR 1/2 and below enemies in a single hit...
Okay? Well also worth noting, unless your DM doesn’t allow or reward improvisational use of skills, which rogues excel at, rogues tend to have advantage and crit more often at low levels. Fighters eventually get too many hits to compete for number of crits with, but rogues still get more out of a crit.

Anyway, way to ignore the rest of the post because you have no refutation.

Attacking and not killing something doesn't make that something useless in any sense of the word.
I didn’t say it did.
I think you overrate your ability to make it necessary for the players to adopt a normally inferior tactic.
Years of experience with very tactical players from several groups, including home and public games, tells me I’m not. 🤷‍♂️
It’s been over a decade since I had a “slog” or a fight where everyone lines up and spams attacks, and even longer since I’ve seen players be able to execute optimal strategies without significant payoffs on any sort of regular basis.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Post Deleted. Changed my mind. Better to stay silent than to get into a pissing match.
If there was soemthing particular in my post that triggered a pissing match response, let me know.

I really don’t care about or have any regard for who has been playing longer type measuring contests, so I’d be happy to avoid that in the future as well.
 

Noxrim

Villager
To get the discussion back on track, I did a little analysis of my own, since I have some spread sheets from my own efforts at class analysis.

I too believe the monk is largely fine at levels 1-10. It's level 11+ where they start to get weird. I think looking at the subclasses will reveal what's going on here:

...
I like these suggestions a lot. Gives each subclass a unique way to improve at higher levels.
 

Vezin117

First Post
Hello everyone.
I have been playing around with the "Baseline" proposed by Treantmonk in his video. I graphed it then used to to compare to different builds that I was coming up with. I then wanted to use the same program to test how the Monk compares to different builds, given how it was claimed that Monks are the worst class in the game. I just wanted to see it for myself.
There have been posts here before that discusses this [1, 2, 3], but I wanted to share my findings using graphical representation, and compared to other classes.

Without further ado, here are my assumptions:
The Armor Class that I used for the monsters throughout the levels are:
AC 14 at level 1.
AC 15 at level 4.
AC 16 at level 5.
AC 17 at level 8.
AC 18 at level 9.
AC 19 at level 13.
AC 20 at level 17.

Basically, I wanted the base line to have 60% chance of hitting at all levels, and this kind seems like a good average AC at all levels. I am using the same AC for all classes, so this shouldn't give anyone advantage over the others, but let me know if I made a mistake here.
I am also not using any magic items, as those vary per game.

As for our case, I am starting with a party of Fighter, Warlock, Rogue, and Monk, as follows:

Here are my assumptions for the Warlock (baseline):
  • Starts at 16 Charisma.
  • Takes Agonizing Blast (Invocation) at level 2.
  • ASI to increase Charisma at levels 4 and 8.
  • Maintaining Hex


Assumptions for Rogue:
  • Starts at 16 Dexterity.
  • ASI to increase Dexterity at levels 4 and 8.
  • Always has access to Sneak Attack.
  • Has two chances of applying it through Two-Weapons Fighting (could also use Hide for advantage).

Assumptions for Fighter:
  • Starts at 16 Strength.
  • Uses longsword (Sword and Shield).
  • Uses Dueling Fighting Style.
  • ASI to increase Strength at levels 4 and 6.
  • No damaging abilities from subclass (imagine a Cavalier tank that tries to help allies with high AC and health).

Assumptions for Monk:
  • Starts at 16 Dexterity.
  • ASI to increase Dexterity at levels 4 and 8.
  • Uses Dedicated Weapon (Optional Feature) to two-hand a longsword for attacks.
  • Not using Flurry of Blows


Many argue that the most played levels are 1-10, so here are my findings for that range:
t5DaQj2.png


As we can see here, the Rogue is doing very well above baseline due to the gradual increase in Sneak Attack every 2 levels. The Fighter, focusing on being a defensive tank and not worrying about DPR, is doing less than the baseline as expected.
And the Monk, without using any Ki, is above the baseline as all levels. Keep in mind that the Warlock is using Hex throughout the day and the Monk is still keeping up. Not using any Ki also means that they have access to all the Ki defensive options, offensive bursts, stunning, and utilities and subclass abilities whenever needed.

But then, what happens when we go to higher levels:
O1TyIyu.png


While the trend continues for other classes, the Monk just kinda plateaus here. It is not even keeping up with the tank fighter in the group. I can't imagine that would feel good to be the Monk at this point.
But... At these levels, if we assume a short rest every 2 encounters, and each encounter lasts around ~5 rounds, it is not too much of a stretch to assume that the Monk can now spend Ki for Flurry of Blows on all attacks. So what happens then:
rKUHXO9.png

The Monk still can't keep up with the baseline at this point, but at least manages to not be weaker than the fighter.. Until higher levels at least. This Monk is also spending a significant amount of Ki to deal damage that there isn't much left for other uses of Ki. Keep in mind that the Rogue is still not using any resources and can comfortably do more damage than that of the Warlock. The fighter is focusing on giving disadvantage, reducing damage, keeping high AC and health while still doing more damage at higher levels.

I have been avoiding using feats since many people argue that feats are optional rules. And while that is true, if we entertain the idea that most games take place between 1-10, and so we must focus on these levels, we should also be using feats, since the majority of tables also use these rules right?

So in this scenario we have a new contender, the crossbow expert fighter:
  • Starts at 16 Dexterity, and Crossbow Expert (Vuman or Custom Lineage).
  • Uses Archery Fighting Style.
  • ASI to increase Dexterity at levels 4 and 8.
  • Sharpshooter at level 6.
  • EDIT: I forgot to mention that this Fighter is using Champion's Improved Critical and Superior Critical for calculations.

Here is what we have:
G5pnsIU.png


Once we start adding more optimized builds and using feats, the Monk really falls behind, even when using Flurry of Blows at higher levels. This is okey if you are comparing a build optimized for damage vs a build that is optimized for something else, but the Monk here doesn't even have the option to optimize to be able to compete.

My conclusion:
The Monk does okey at the important levels (1-10) and even does better than the "baseline" of Hex+AB Warlock, but it really struggles at higher levels. It also really falls behind once we start adding feats and more "optimized" builds.
The problem is that Monks cannot be more optimized. They lack good feats like Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master. Tashas does give them the half feats so it is getting better, but I believe that they need more support in terms of access to good feats to compete with other martials.
They also definitely need help at higher levels from the base class shell itself. Spending all resources on damage, they still can't do good damage compared with other classes without using feats.

So overall, my personal opinion:
  • Buff base class Monk at levels 11+.
  • Give Monks feats to compete and have options and be able to optimize (in different ways).

What are your thoughts?
The monk optional feature reads:

"The chosen weapon must meet these criteria:

  • The weapon must be a simple or martial weapon.
  • You must be proficient with it.
  • It must lack the heavy and special properties."
Monks are not proficient with long-swords.
 





auburn2

Adventurer
When you are doing a DPR chart comparing classes, you do not take race into account.

Removing the long-sword from this chart would drop the damage of the monk down.
I think more monks can use a d10 weapon than can't. Aside from the races that can use it, you can also get it with a feat, by multiclassing or by being a Kensai.

Any time you are looking at DPR you need to assume people are using the best weapons available because if you don't it is meaningless. If there was a restriction against using it (like with Sneak attack or with this case the heavy property) then don't count it, but otherwise assume the character is going to have proficeincy, because if his goal is maxing DPR he will. You are assuming his race gave him a 16Dex at level 1 right? So it is safe to assume he has a D10 weapon too.

A lot of characters will pick an "inferior" weapon for role play reasons but those are specific reasons, if you are talking DPR you should assume the best weapon available.
 
Last edited:

Vezin117

First Post
I think more monks can use a long sword than can't. Aside from the races that can use it, you can also get it with a feat, by multiclassing or by being a Kensai.
You don't balance a class with the hopes the player is going to pick a race that can use long-swords...

So the monk in this chart is actually worse at damage than suggested.
 

auburn2

Adventurer
You don't balance a class with the hopes the player is going to pick a race that can use long-swords...

So the monk in this chart is actually worse at damage than suggested.
So then why do you assume a 16 Dexterity at level 1 when he needs a racial bonus to get that?

Assuming a d10 weaponthrough a racial bonus is no different than assuming a 16 dexterity and in both cases niether are specific to the Monk class.

If you don't assume these things you won't be using the correct numbers.
 

Vezin117

First Post
So then why do you assume a 16 Dexterity at level 1 when he needs a racial bonus to get that?

Assuming a d10 weaponthrough a racial bonus is no different than assuming a 16 dexterity and in both cases niether are specific to the Monk class.

If you don't assume these things you won't be using the correct numbers.
Every race can get 16 in their main stat at the start. That's baseline across all races...
 



FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Not without using a racial bonus they can't. If I choose to put my +1 in Charisma I can not have a 16 dexterity.

It is assumed the character will have a 16 dex, just like it is assumed he will have a d10 weapon.
IMO, it really depends on the comparison. I find the 16 dex more acceptable than the d10 weapon as 16 dex is achievable for many races and the d10 weapon isn't. But I also think it's fair to look at the top end DPR a class can do utilizing other standard options. Subclass/Race are 2 of the biggest.
 

Vezin117

First Post
Standard array only goes up to 15. Without a racial bonus you cannot get a 16+...
Not without using a racial bonus they can't.

It is assumed the character will have a 16 dex, just like it is assumed he will have a d10 weapon.
Then drop the +1 to the stat. I'm assuming most people doing these charts are just adding it to make the stat an even number.

Long-sword proficiency is a much more specific racial trait that is much harder to come by than a simple +1 to your main stat.

And saying "Monk does good damage as long as they are using this one specific weapon, with this one specific race" is not a way to prove that monk does decent damage. That's why you don't use race in balance decisions.
 
Last edited:

auburn2

Adventurer
Then drop the +1 to the stat. I'm assuming most people doing these charts are just adding it to make the stat an even number.

Long-sword proficiency is a much more specific racial trait that is much harder to come by than a simple +1 to your main stat.

And saying "Monk does good damage as long as they are using this one specific weapon, with this one specific race" is not a way to prove that monk does decent damage. That's why you don't use race in balance decisions.
First of all it is not just longsword proficiency, it is longsword, battleaxe or warhammer profiency as all of them can do d10 damage.

Second most races CAN get one of these at level 1, just like they CAN put their +1 or +2 bonus into dexterity. Whether they do or not is a completely different discussion and if you want to compare without considering what "can" be done then you should assume a flat 10 and no ability bonuses at all.

Finally no character, of any class, can effectively wield a greatsword, glaive or maul without a racial trait too. Even fighters and barbarians can not use a great axe or a great sword without disadvantage unless they have a racial trait that makes them medium or large size. So like a Monk longsword, being able to wield a greatsword is also something a barbarian can only get from a race! If you are not going to assume the best weapon for a Monk because he needs a racial ability to get it at 1st level then don't give the fighter a weapon that many races can't use either.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
First of all it is not just longsword proficiency, it is longsword, battleaxe or warhammer profiency as all of them can do d10 damage.

Second most races CAN get one of these at level 1, just like they CAN put their +1 or +2 bonus into dexterity. Whether they do or not is a completely different discussion and if you want to compare without considering what "can" be done then you should assume a flat 10 and no ability bonuses at all.

Finally no character, of any class, can effectively wield a greatsword, glaive or maul without a racial trait too. Even fighters and barbarians can not use a great axe or a great sword without disadvantage unless they have a racial trait that makes them medium or large size. So like a Monk longsword, being able to wield a greatsword is also something a barbarian can only get from a race! If you are not going to assume the best weapon for a Monk because he needs a racial ability to get it at 1st level then don't give the fighter a weapon that many races can't use either.

IMO, your justification is so far out in left field that it actually weakens your position.
 

Vezin117

First Post
First of all it is not just longsword proficiency, it is longsword, battleaxe or warhammer profiency as all of them can do d10 damage.

Second most races CAN get one of these at level 1, just like they CAN put their +1 or +2 bonus into dexterity. Whether they do or not is a completely different discussion and if you want to compare without considering what "can" be done then you should assume a flat 10 and no ability bonuses at all.

Finally no character, of any class, can effectively wield a greatsword, glaive or maul without a racial trait too. Even fighters and barbarians can not use a great axe or a great sword without disadvantage unless they have a racial trait that makes them medium or large size. So like a Monk longsword, being able to wield a greatsword is also something a barbarian can only get from a race! If you are not going to assume the best weapon for a Monk because he needs a racial ability to get it at 1st level then don't give the fighter a weapon that many races can't use either.
Your argument is a poor one and ignores common sense and the scientific method.

When you balance and compare things you have to control variables. Race is a variable and to control it, you take a vanilla human with +1 to all stats and use it for every class. That way everyone can get 16 in their main stat. Then you balance all classes around that.

Some races will make classes better, some will make some classes worse. But, all classes should be balanced outside of the race.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top