That's fair. I admit that Open Handed Monks specifically have very valid reasons to Flurry, and can contribute a lot more than simple damage when they use Flurry.
D&D 5E Monk vs Warlock: Checking the Baseline
jgsugden
Legend
A level 8 monk is often Dex 20, but will have proficiency +3, only - +4 comes at level 9. So we get +8 for d8+6X2, with unarmed strike of d6+5. You're underestimating this basic monk damage. My 7th level monk has a flame tongue short sword and an insignia of claws as an example of a monk that gioes far beyond these assumptions.
We can make this much simpler: They should have the same attack bonuses, so the damage should be all that matters.
At 8th level, the monk is does d8+d8+d4+(3 times dexterity).
The Warlock with Hex is dealing d10 + d10 + d6 + d6 + (2 times charisma) when they have Hex available, or just (d10 + 10d + 2 X charisma) when the hex is not.
Monk is (11.5 + 15 = 26.5) versus Warlock (18 + 10) with Hex, or (Warlock without Hex (11 + 10). When you factor in those flurry of blows, which the monk can do 4 to 8 times per SR (or 2 to 3 times per encounter) in which the monk adds another 8.5 to their average damage for those attacks, which more than closes the distance.
Further - monk damage is broken down into more attacks, so there is less damage wasted on overkill, more opportunities to break the damage down amongst more foes, comes with more incidental 'no action required' benefits (such as those of the Open Hand Flury proning/pushing, or stunning), and does not need to worry about cover reducing accuracy.
All in all - and I say this having played both a monk and a warlock in the past year for significant time - the monk contributes more to damage unless you do something like a Sorlock.[/quote]
Last edited:
No, the post I responded to had the monk bump Wis at 8 not Dex. So I am using that model.
This gives the warlock an accuracy edge.
Warlocks magic tool gives the +1 to hit on every attack. And a LR spell slot. Monk's give them +1 to hit and damge on 2 of their attacks. This boosts warlock relative accuracy further.
I should have used level 9.
I described flurry. You can compare it with warlock short rest slots. At level 9, the warlock is dropping 2 5th level spells; say static for 28 aoe damage each (and save or suck and int based).
The warlock does need to get fancy with hex to be able to use it and drop 2 aoes.
The monk flurry damage should be compared against warlock spell options.
Or a hex+scorching ray for 18d6 damage on a single target, twice. That is akin to two 35 damage flurries (subtracting at-will EB damage) with 9 ki the monk drops less than that. (genie and fiend warlocks get it). That is apples to apples.
I admit I am doing an efficirncy trick with hex. Which might make this more than baseline.
Last edited:
jgsugden
Legend
So you use a suboptimal build to prove it is suboptimal? Wisdom is essentially irrelevant in your analysis, so you're essentially penalizing the monk an ASIto prove it is not as strong as the warlock...
If you build the monk in the same mode as the warlock - bumping the prime combat ability score at 4 and 8, then my simplifed math holds.
And quite frankly - assuming that concentration is not broken for a warlock is not a safe assumption. And that you can use that hex damage on every attack is also questionable.
No, I was responding to and using the build and assumptions of someone else, and repairing it. I am sorry this offends or confuses you, but I explained it already, so stop saying what I am doing when I told you what I did and why I did it.
Feel free to go talk to the original source of the assumptions about it. If you talk about it as if they are my assumptions again, you can go away and play with yourself under the ignore button.
And now I as the OP will step in.
A common note in the Monks suck thread was the notion that the Monk was "MAD". Further, there was a lot of discussion about how monks should be maximizing Wis over dex to get the best Stun chance. So I went down the middle to see how the Monk would fare. I think the idea that the Warlock would focus all his stats on Charisma, while a Monk splits between a Dex and Wis...is a very reasonable scenario when people develop the character.
Gammadoodler
Hero
I believe the common wisdom is 'you can't stun what you don't hit'. Think this is pretty consistent with other MAD classes focused on attacks.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
What made you go with that number?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
If I might reply, 60-65% (I err towards 60% myself) is the accepted probability of hitting the average AC of opponents pretty much at any level in the game. I've actually run the numbers with over 700 monsters/NPCs at different levels, etc. and that range is appropriate IMO.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Yep. I use 65% myself, but I'd say anywhere between 55-70% (which is hitting on a 7-10) is fine as an approximation for most games.
Similar Threads
