Greenflame Blade Cantrip from SCAG, Courtesy of EXTRA LIFE

Cool. How did you get the link? It's not showing up as live on either the Extra Life page or the D&D website page.


The wording of the cantrip feels a little awkward to me but I think I like the overall effect. If I'm reading it correctly, it essentially works like this:

1st level
1st target: normal attack effects
2nd target: ability mod fire dmg

5th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 1d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 1d8+mod fire dmg

11th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 2d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 2d8+mod fire dmg

17th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 3d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 3d8+mod fire dmg


Is that right?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

By that logic the Fighter's attacks don't scale period. I mean 1/rest thet go from 1 to 2 at second level, but that doesn't count. They go from 1 to 2 permanently at level 5, but that doesn't count. Ditto 11, 17 and 20.

At least the Monk gets die increases and treated as magical

I don't understand what logic you're using here. The Monk's attacks increase by 30% at level 5, and maybe another 10% over the next fifteen levels. What's what I mean by "basically don't scale at all"--the magnitude of the increase between 2nd and 20th level is small.

The fighter on the other hand increases his attacks by 300% over the same period. The scaling is significant.

 

[CapnZapp]

10% after level 5?!?

Either you are mistaken or the high level monk is the world's puniest attacker...

 

[aramis erak]

I don't understand what logic you're using here. The Monk's attacks increase by 30% at level 5, and maybe another 10% over the next fifteen levels. What's what I mean by "basically don't scale at all"--the magnitude of the increase between 2nd and 20th level is small.

The fighter on the other hand increases his attacks by 300% over the same period. The scaling is significant.

10% after level 5?!?

Either you are mistaken or the high level monk is the world's puniest attacker...

Monk, unarmed: 2x(1d4+3) (max start) to 4x(1d10+5) is 11 to 42, a 381.81% gain over 17 levels.
Plus any extra from feats or gear. Extracting the 17th root, it's about 8.2% per level.
Using weapons, 1d8+3 + 1d4+3 starting, improving by a couple points to 13, merely 223.07% for 7.14% per level.

The fighter goes from 2d6+3 max start, to 4x(2d6+5), for 10 to 48, over 20 levels. 380% improvement over 20, for about (extracting the 20th root) about 8.16% per level.
Rogue goes from a peak of 1d8+1d6+3 to 1d8+10d6+5, for 11 to 50.5, for 259% improvement over 20 levels; 7.92% per level.

The monk is a lower gain per level... but has other specials to make up for it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay. Thank you, but a few points.

I myself am not interested in relative gain (the percentage numbers), only in comparing absolute numbers, since that's the only relevant number impacting the game. That is, nobody cares if you do twice as much damage as you did thirty sessions ago or five times as much. Only if my character do about the same damage as yours, at any given point in time.

HOWEVER that is my view. The discussion here IS about those relative numbers.

BUT, and here's the rub, they talk about the increase after level 5!

So I guess my point is simply that your numbers (level one vs level twenty) do little to refute or support the claim under discussion.

Which is "monk only gains 10% after level five".

My response to this is: if this is true, the monk is either incredibly OP at level five, incredibly lame at level twenty, or, more likely, both.

IF this claim is true.

 

[Zalabim]

At level one, monk does 13, fighter does 11.33.

At level 5, monk does 32 with flurry, 24.5 without flurry, and fighter does 24.66, and has action surge, and 4d8 SD.

At level 11, monk does 38 with flurry, has extra Ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has action surge and 5d10 SD.

At level 17, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has 2 action surges and 6d10 SD.

The Open Hand monk has Quivering Palm.

At level 20, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes or enough for empty body, and fighter does 53.33 and has 2 action surges and 6d12 SD.

Going a bit from memory here, but my description would be that monk does less damage but has advantage more often (the gap is still about .88:1), while fighters will benefit more from combat feats (hasn't used bonus action or reaction), advantageous situations (like a party member stunning an enemy), and magic weapons (since they make four or more weapon attacks) (as will barbarians, paladins, etc to different degrees). The monk just doesn't have much to optimize. They already get advantage, bonus action, and reaction attacks (deflect missiles sometimes, if nothing else).

Sidenote: Monks love the girdles of X giant's strength.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Which is "monk only gains 10% after level five".

My response to this is: if this is true, the monk is either incredibly OP at level five, incredibly lame at level twenty, or, more likely, both.

IF this claim is true.

At level five, the monk has up to two weapon attacks for d8+5 and two unarmed strikes for d6+5 (e.g. Wood Elf who spends Level 4 ASI on Dex--although boosting Dex is not necessarily the best choice). Average 36 if all attacks hit. At level twenty, he has two weapon attacks for d10+5 and two unarmed strikes for d10+5. Average 42. If he's a Shadow Monk he might or might not get a reaction attack on top.

You could call that "incredibly lame at level 20", but as I mentioned in my first post, I don't think the monk is lame because DPR is not her role. She's a scout and intel specialist, and an emergency responder who is ready to jump on any leaks and plug them with Stunning Strike x4. Most of the time the (Shadow) monks in my part(ies) don't even enter melee, they hang back and plink with (sometimes-poisoned) arrows until their unique talents are needed.

That is, nobody cares if you do twice as much damage as you did thirty sessions ago or five times as much.

I should think most players would care rather a lot if they do the same damage at level 20 that they did at level 5. D&D is about progression. It takes a special kind of mindset to value intel and defensive progression over DPR progression; so I would expect most players to find monk progression between levels 6 and 17 somewhat unsatisfying, except for increases in ki. At level 18 you get Empty Body which I think most players would find satisfying though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

At level one, monk does 13, fighter does 11.33.

At level 5, monk does 32 with flurry, 24.5 without flurry, and fighter does 24.66, and has action surge, and 4d8 SD.

At level 11, monk does 38 with flurry, has extra Ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has action surge and 5d10 SD.

At level 17, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has 2 action surges and 6d10 SD.

The Open Hand monk has Quivering Palm.

At level 20, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes or enough for empty body, and fighter does 53.33 and has 2 action surges and 6d12 SD.

Going a bit from memory here, but my description would be that monk does less damage but has advantage more often (the gap is still about .88:1), while fighters will benefit more from combat feats (hasn't used bonus action or reaction), advantageous situations (like a party member stunning an enemy), and magic weapons (since they make four or more weapon attacks) (as will barbarians, paladins, etc to different degrees). The monk just doesn't have much to optimize. They already get advantage, bonus action, and reaction attacks (deflect missiles sometimes, if nothing else).

Sidenote: Monks love the girdles of X giant's strength.

You touched on this, but neglecting feats in the analysis means you are vastly underestimating fighter DPR progression. It's kind of a major class feature, unless you're in a game where feats are disallowed. Consider a Mounted Combatant Polearm Master GWM Battlemaster with Str 20, or a Sharpshooter Eldritch Knight (Crossbow Expert?). The former maxes out around 120 damage (if all attacks hit), not 53. The latter maxes out at only 100 DPR, or 80 at long range, but has more tactical options. Monk can't compete with either of those options in DPR terms--and doesn't have to.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In case the numbers didn't make it clear--monk isn't weak in DPR at high level. They fall somewhere in between Hunter Ranger and Valor Bard. That puts them below the top tier damage dealers who are packing d10 HD (and warlocks with Agonizing Blast), but above everyone else. Plus, they have enough ki that they can probably spend it just about every round for increased damage.

They do, however, peak early. A low level monk is a monster striker--no feats or optimization required. The monk we had in LMoP had the weakest stats (I allowed players to roll and choose to keep it or use point buy, and he had the lowest rolls), but was consistently out-damaging the sword and board fighter and competing with the rogue.

They really shine in all the special abilities--of which they get a huge number.

 

[Xeviat]

You're still comparing the monk's 4 attacks at level 5 to their 4 attacks at level 20, but are failing to point out that the monk can only do 4 attacks 5 times per short rest at level 5, yet they can do it 20 times per short rest at level 20. It's like getting a second use of action surge. More uses, more damage per short rest.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You're still comparing the monk's 4 attacks at level 5 to their 4 attacks at level 20, but are failing to point out that the monk can only do 4 attacks 5 times per short rest at level 5, yet they can do it 20 times per short rest at level 20. It's like getting a second use of action surge. More uses, more damage per short rest.

Yes, that's true. Their max damage doesn't scale much, but their ability to sustain it longer does.