D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Asisreo]

I agree it can be interesting, but it doesn't say too much one way or another about quantitative estimates. Monte Carlo simulations more generally would be an improvement over calculations on a spreadsheet --- for me, the gold standard would be to write down a standardized set of encounters that make up an adventuring day that are varied in terms of difficulty level, whether there are a few powerful monsters or lots of little ones, with a good cross-section of casters and melee brutes, etc., with some rules about how the monsters act, and simulate a few different party comps through those encounters, and see how it turns out (and how many resources they have left at the end). I guess that's more or less what @Asisreo is suggesting, but actually putting that into code in a way that can be automated enough times for the d20 variance to wash out is... pretty intractable.

So, realistically, it seems to me a person has three choices:
1. They can settle for good faith attempts to quantify effectiveness in simpler ways, which necessarily abstract away a lot of detail, but if guided by reasonable estimates and iterated with input from people with lots of different table experiences, is hopefully a decent approximation. Maybe that's computing some averages for benchmark encounters!
2. They can decide none of this matters --- they don't actually care about character's objective power levels and just want to play the game.
3. They can decide they do care about power levels, but reject any attempt to quantify it objectively, and instead 'go with their gut' and express their opinions online as though they reflected a greater reality than someone doing 1.

I personally favor 1, and welcome constructive input from anyone and everyone who has a (realistic) way to refine the estimates. I also have no problem with someone who picks 2 --- D&D is fun in lots of different ways, and plenty of people can have fun without ever getting into the quantitative side of it. I do take issue with 3 though -- specifically the second half of three where they loudly complain and take it personally if people give quantitative measures that conflict with their subjective experience. Note, again, that dismissing quantitative analysis entirely is entirely different from constructively criticizing the specific methodology being used. It's also different from saying that 'mechanical effectiveness' isn't what's important to you. I'm all for trying to improve on methodology, and I also completely respect people with different priorities. But if you actually want to be part of a conversation about mechanics, you need to offer up something constructive; not just say 'spreadsheet, spreadsheet, white room, white room' over and over.

I've given what needs to be done in order to conclusively determine whether a monk is underpowered or not. I'll give my reasonings here:

This game was not balanced by way of spreadsheets, simulations, approximations, or estimations. This game was balanced around playtesting. Stuff like UA and the D&DNext playtest was based on approximations and spreadsheets but alot of the material there was scratched because of the feedback during actual play. It wasn't fun for the majority of the playtesters.

It's been said recording action logs of an adventure would be too difficult and the getting a large enough sample size would be impossible, but it's not as hard as one thinks. Think like this: Computer TTRPG's already record dice rolls and anything a person might say in the chat. It wouldn't be so hard to extract the data from a no-mic/chat-only session and start a macro that organizes the data into easier to parse information. Who did what damage due to what action at what time. Stuff like that would be easy for a log like roll20. If you're worried about the sample size, if only 50 DM's from all over the internet participated 4-5 times, we could get a decent gauge on everything.


The reason I'm upset with the whiteroom analysis is that it's misleading data. It claims to be purely objective but there's no reasons to just take assumptions at base value without supporting evidence, especially when the assumptions directly intervene with what's supposed to be empirical data.

 

[Esker]

Because that's simply another way of saying "my [pet class/ character build / angsty uber concept that's only mine and is really kewl] needs more official support from WotC". And, @Mistwell, you're far too sensible and mature to throw that kinda thing out there.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

It's interesting, though... when people criticize a class's power level, it tends to be perceived as shitting on the fun of people who want to play that class. But it's actually the opposite --- pointing out that a class is underpowered is speaking on behalf of people who like playing it, because why shouldn't someone be able to both play a class whose flavor appeals and be mechanically effective?

Not sure how "this entire class is really lackluster" is special pleading for some special narrow concept though.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not really what we're talking about?

Like, whenever we say "Fighters suck outside of combat, they should get something more" there's ALWAYS this massive pushback of "The Fighter is fine! Shut up and stop ruining our fun!" like we insulted them or something... geez.

Me and others just see some flaws in the game in aspects we care about and want to talk what would help those improve... becaue this is a friggin' discusion board and COVID-19 took away my only game and this is the only friggin' way I can interact with the game, so can people just LET US HAVE SOME FUN DISCUSSING WAYS TO BUFF THINGS THEY SEEM TO THINK ARE FINE?!

I get it if we were talking nerfs, but this is BUFFS were talking about! Why does it matter?! They're not even accusing us of just wanting to be OP or some munchkin stuff. No, they're just dismissing our concern and acting insulted.

Fighters are the most popular class in the game. Asking to increase options for them seemed greedy.
Monks are one of the least popular classes in the game. Asking to increase options for them seems appropriate.

 

[Esker]

It's been said recording action logs of an adventure would be too difficult and the getting a large enough sample size would be impossible, but it's not as hard as one thinks. Think like this: Computer TTRPG's already record dice rolls and anything a person might say in the chat. It wouldn't be so hard to extract the data from a no-mic/chat-only session and start a macro that organizes the data into easier to parse information. Who did what damage due to what action at what time. Stuff like that would be easy for a log like roll20. If you're worried about the sample size, if only 50 DM's from all over the internet participated 4-5 times, we could get a decent gauge on everything.

I think that'd be really interesting to see. One worry is that there's likely a correlation between player skill and playing certain classes, so this sort of "in vivo" analysis would likely suffer from whatever biases toward certain classes are held by more skilled players. But it'd still be worth doing.

The reason I'm upset with the whiteroom analysis is that it's misleading data. It claims to be purely objective but there's no reasons to just take assumptions at base value without supporting evidence, especially when the assumptions directly intervene with what's supposed to be empirical data.

It's only "objective" insofar as its assumptions are reasonable, and made in good faith. "Good faith" here to me means that you aren't cherry-picking to support a predetermined conclusion, aren't moving goal posts, and use some kind of data as motivation. The really important thing is to be fully transparent about one's methods, and allow for refinement if someone points out a more nuanced approach (as long as they do so constructively, are equally transparent about what methodology they'd prefer, and preferably actually attempt to put together their own analysis).

 

[Asisreo]

It's interesting, though... when people criticize a class's power level, it tends to be perceived as shitting on the fun of people who want to play that class. But it's actually the opposite --- pointing out that a class is underpowered is speaking on behalf of people who like playing it, because why shouldn't someone be able to both play a class whose flavor appeals and be mechanically effective?

Not sure how "this entire class is really lackluster" is special pleading for some special narrow concept though.

Emphasis mine

There's the reasoning why people can get upset. You're speaking on their behalf and looking down on their favorite class.

It's the fact that it's the people who don't like the class of monk that want to change it, buff it into something else. If damage is buffed alot, you're expected to be less of a skirmisher and more of a glass cannon, which changes the playstyle.

Feats and Magic items are fine, but the fact that they're being called buffs mean that a monk would either need to take them or know they're making their character worse.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Query: If I were joining your group for a hypothetical campaign where you were inclined to exclude monks, assuming a swashbuckler sort of character concept would be appropriate in general, and I wanted to play a Monk (probably kensei or drunken master flavored as someone who employs a style of fighitng that causes enemies to overreach and get in eachother's way, like a trickier Spanish Circle) as a sort of Aramis-style musketeer/man of god, would you allow that?

Because I think honestly the PHB should have focused the lore less on Asian themes, and let the class breath a bit more, and that is 90% of why it feels off for some campaigns.

I'm currently playing a kensai monk who never uses either of those terms. She's a swordswoman, who was (is) the only student of an elderly, and stereotypically hermetic/grumpy, master who teaches an ancient style that is no longer in fashion. "Kids these days all want to wear plate!"

For the first two levels she used a wooden sword (refluffed staff) because she hadn't yet earned the right to use a real sword.

 

[Mistwell]

buff it into something else.

Let's talk about that. We can start with the magic item suggestion.

If we add a hand wrapping that increases unarmed attack damage by +1, is that buffing the monk into "something else"? Are they now different in tone or theme because they might be able to find or acquire such a magic item...while all the other melee classes can find magic weapons?

This is an item which existed in prior versions of the game and I never once heard people claim it changed the nature of the monk to be something else than what they thought it should be.

 

[Asisreo]

I think that'd be really interesting to see. One worry is that there's likely a correlation between player skill and playing certain classes, so this sort of "in vivo" analysis would likely suffer from whatever biases toward certain classes are held by more skilled players. But it'd still be worth doing.

This candid structure is exactly what's needed. If skilled players tend to one class while casual players go with another, that's another factor that can actually be recorded in, probably via a questionnaire

It's only "objective" insofar as its assumptions are reasonable, and made in good faith. "Good faith" here to me means that you aren't cherry-picking to support a predetermined conclusion, aren't moving goal posts, and use some kind of data as motivation. The really important thing is to be fully transparent about one's methods, and allow for refinement if someone points out a more nuanced approach (as long as they do so constructively, are equally transparent about what methodology they'd prefer, and preferably actually attempt to put together their own analysis).

People call it "moving the goalpost" and arguing "in bad faith" but those are basically buzzwords. The fact that someone can think of a new parameter worth considering, even when the correlation seems weak, means that it wasn't a complete analysis and should be understood well.

If someone says "monks damage is good" and it's proven that it isn't, saying "well their survivability is good" does not mean they moved the goalpost because there is no goalpost. There is no winning or losing, it's about having a complete analysis of a monk, in this instance.

Also, you can't prove whether something is good or not. You can prove that they are better or worse in relation to something else, but something being good or bad is an opinion. Being the lowest damage doesn't prove it's bad.

 

[Asisreo]

Let's talk about that. We can start with the magic item suggestion.

If we add a hand wrapping that increases unarmed attack damage by +1, is that buffing the monk into "something else"? Are they now different in tone or theme because they might be able to find or acquire such a magic item...while all the other melee classes can find magic weapons?

This is an item which existed in prior versions of the game and I never once heard people claim it changed the nature of the monk to be something else than what they thought it should be.

Of course it wouldn't change the nature of the monk. A +1 bonus isn't enough to change that.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course it wouldn't change the nature of the monk. A +1 bonus isn't enough to change that.

Assume it's like a long sword though, so it will have +2 and +3 versions which are rarer and rarer with the higher bonuses. Now has it changed the nature of the class, despite having existed in prior versions of the game?