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.
D&D 5E Comparing Monk DPR
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.
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
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.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
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.
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:
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
IMO, your justification is so far out in left field that it actually weakens your position.
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.
