D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

"right there" means a bit behind. You asked if I could beat the Monk damage from levels 1-10 with any non-variant human class, I said I could. You asked me to show how a rogue could do it, I showed you. Then you point out I didn't beat it by much? I never claimed all classes can trounce the monk in damage from levels 1-10 if we avoid variant human, I just said that it could be done, because the monk is the worst, not that it is the worst by miles.

I'll concede that the TWF rogue does more damage than the monk, as long as you concede that the monks damage is close to that rogues. That the damage is close is important for my next point - stunning strike and open hands prone will be enough to close the gap and then some, ultimately putting the monk ahead in damage. Which I think brings us to your next point...

Yes, we can muddy the waters if we add in class abilities, but let's not pretend the Monk is the only class with these. Calculating DPR is not perfect, for more reasons than you mention. However, it beats, "my gut tells me..." or "in my experience..." as these are rife with emotional bias.

It's not muddying the waters. It's a harder calculation that requires more assumptions. We can make those assumptions and math it out. It's the correct thing to do.

As for the question regarding BB, it's tough to guess the amount of times 2ndary damage will come into play, I assume 1/4 attacks. This might be high or low depending on the table, but it's my best guess.

At a 60% chance to hit you only hit 4.8 out of 8 attacks per short rest. You are actually assuming that Booming Blade will trigger 41.67% of the times you hit. That's much too high of a percentage. And heck, if we are assuming Booming Blade to be triggered we have to factor in OA's as well, right?

My personal experience is that OA's are rare. I'd say I get 1 about 5-10% of the time. Which means booming blade triggers will only trigger 60% of your OA rate. In my case I'd estimate 3-6%.

 

[FrogReaver]

He does claim that a straight-classed dual-wielding rogue is fairly bad at damage. They're the second-worst combat class if you don't multiclass (and rogues at least can get a significant boost if they do multiclass; monks really don't have a way to do this, short of ignoring most of their monk abilities). Reasonable people can disagree about whether the non-combat abilities they get make up for that, but if monks are slightly behind rogues in combat and also don't have rogues' non-combat features, what are they bringing to the table?

I don't believe monks actually are behind at combat when all their abilities are factored in. Or alternatively is you are say a shadow monk I believe you are better out of combat than the rogue. Pass without trace on short rest recharge for 2 KI is that good.

Agreed. The analysis I did assumed they used all their ki on Flurry of Blows, so for that damage level, they can't use stunning strike at all, but yes, at higher levels they can flurry every turn and make stun attempts sometimes. But also their direct damage potential falls even further behind at higher levels, so the value they get from stun would need to be higher to close the gap.

I have been as well. Though there may be merit in stunning strike actually yielding more DPR than Flurry even at level 5. My suspicion there needs confirmed.

You're skilled at quantitative analysis; why don't you take a crack at it? It'd be a useful contribution to try to put everything the monk does together in some common units... But then once you've done that, I'd suggest doing the same analysis for a warlock that spams Hypnotic Pattern / Synaptic Static and then pew pews (they won't have Hex up, so they will fall below the direct damage baseline, but that's fine, since they're bringing other things to the table), as well as for a Battlemaster archer using Menacing Attack, say, or a Ranger supplementing their weapon damage with conjured animals.

The warlock comparison is an interesting one. Not perfectly suited for this discussion. But I'll visit it one day.

 

[FrogReaver]

Very rough stunning strike analysis for now:

When stunning strike lands:
1. Assume the party focuses on the stunned enemy
2. Assume you have a GWF and a Firebolt using Wizard and another character that is attack something else (or using a save targeting cantrip like toll the dead)
3. Assume each character has 60% chance to hit. Advantage will be 84% chance to hit.
4. Assume level 5.
5. Excluding crits for quick calcs
6. Flurry of blows does 7.5 damage per unarmed strike = 4.5 DPR

Then party attack damage with flurry of blows = 67.67 = 40.6 DPR
Party attack damage when stunning strike lands (assumes on average 1 of the remaining attacks has stunning strike apply) = 46.5 DPR
Party damage when stunning strike doesn't land = 36.102

Preliminary conclusion - as long as the party is focus firing then stunning strike is better than a normal flurry of blows. The weighted average damage will be about the same but the enemy will have a chance of being stunned.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rough analysis for Open Hand monk prone effect:

Party attack damage with flurry of blows and no prone = 67.67 = 40.6 DPR
Party attack damage with flurry of blows and 100% prone (no benefit to monk) = 43.9

Essentially +3.3 DPR due to the prone - when flurry of blows is used. Possibly more if the ranged allies target a different enemy, although then the benefits of focus fire are lost. By level 5 you can use it 5/8's of the time. That's an average of +2.1 DPR. By level 8 it's 100% of the time and so the average is +3.3 DPR then. Except those values need reduced by the chance you have of landing the prone. I'm using 60% for now. So +1.26 DPR at level 5 to +1.98 DPR at level 10.

Which is enough to for the monk to be ahead of the 2 swords rogue from level 5-10.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Hey, sorry, I owe you a response. (I've been on the road all day.)

True that it's the most overt example, but I think it's indicative of the general tone of the piece, which is to suggest that somehow how "good" you are at D&D directly correlates to how effectively you optimize. Sure, I get it, the piece is about optimization. But that doesn't mean you have to be so dismissive and insulting toward people who play a different way.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to direct young players to it, even though I think it would help them think about wizards in a way other than just blasting. Any more than I would direct young baseball players to a YouTube that thought it was high humor to belittle kids who struggled with catching and throwing:

The Waste of Space
What else do you call him? The Waste of Space is the kid who hasn't spent hours practicing, and still holds his hands backwards on the bat, or maybe watches the runner rather than the ball when playing 1st Base. I could go on, but you know who I mean, there is probably one on your current team. If there isn't...well...maybe there is...cough cough...ahem.

That is absolutely the general tone of that piece, but that piece, originally written over 15 years ago, also begins with a disclaimer about the style.

will find me far less opinionated than you find the style of this guide.
This guide is written from the point of view of a wizard, but not just any wizard, a snobbish bookworm, "I am the greatest" wizard.
Treantmonk himself plays other classes too. Wizard is my favorite, but I really do...honest.

In the literally hundreds of pieces of content since this guide was written, I do not use that style.

Though if we are to discuss that piece in particular, and the context of the quote, I am talking about filling roles in combat, and the "waste of space" is included along with "big stupid fighter", "glass cannon" and "god wizard" as roles one can fill in combat in D&D. In the piece, I ridicule and belittle every concept other than the wizard concept, but they are character concepts that are being ridiculed.

Now I do attach a player to the style when I say "that guy who plays..", which is again, not a style I've used again in the hundreds of pieces since.

So if you could stop telling people I belittle people for laughs, like this is who I am as a person, I would appreciate it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

God wizards are wusses who don't know how to walk away from an explosion without looking back.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So if you could stop telling people I belittle people for laughs, like this is who I am as a person, I would appreciate it.

Fair enough. It’s the only thing of yours I’ve read. So I’ll just say I don’t like the insult humor of that particular piece.

Peace out.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you read a lot of Enworld, you may notice that @Snarf Zagyg LOVES bards. A WHOLE LOT. When I think BARD LOVER, I think @Snarf Zagyg. Or maybe the opposite...

Bards are just a shiver, looking for the first available spine to run up.

 

[Oofta]

Bards are just a shiver, looking for the first available spine to run up.

But dead bards can make good cover, so there is that.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is absolutely the general tone of that piece, but that piece, originally written over 15 years ago, also begins with a disclaimer about the style.



In the literally hundreds of pieces of content since this guide was written, I do not use that style.

Though if we are to discuss that piece in particular, and the context of the quote, I am talking about filling roles in combat, and the "waste of space" is included along with "big stupid fighter", "glass cannon" and "god wizard" as roles one can fill in combat in D&D. In the piece, I ridicule and belittle every concept other than the wizard concept, but they are character concepts that are being ridiculed.

Now I do attach a player to the style when I say "that guy who plays..", which is again, not a style I've used again in the hundreds of pieces since.

So if you could stop telling people I belittle people for laughs, like this is who I am as a person, I would appreciate it.

IMO Even the tone you wrote this post in sounds belittling.