D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

So I've been thinking more about the impact of stunning strike. It greatly depends on the number of opponents. So let's start by looking at a few cases: 1 opponent, 2 opponents, 3 opponents and 4 opponents. I'll start by comparing to party damage as it's the most direct comparison.

A single opponent has 1 action per turn, takes R rounds to kill and S successful stuns where S = Chance to stun * number of ki spent on stun. You have Monk level ki. I'll assume you'll spend Monk level / 2 ki in a single encounter.

So the DPR equivalent benefits of a successful stun = S/R = (Monk Level)*(Chance of stun)/(2*R).

We can evaluate that at level 8 for a 20% chance to stun for a 5 round encounter. That's the equivalent of doing 16% more party DPR.
For a 4 round encounter it's the equivalent of 20% party DPR. If you assume a 30% chance to stun then it becomes 24% and 30% respectively. For 40% chance to stun it becomes 32% and 40% respectively. For 50% chance to stun it becomes 40% and 50% respectively. Keep in mind that's party damage.

it starts getting quite a bit more complicated and much less effective for more enemies. The solo enemy is really the best case scenario for a stunning monk. We can go a bit deeper in analysis but the numbers cited here pretty clearly indicate that stunning strike is better against solo enemies than substituting a high DPR class in for the Monk.

Which to me shows some very significant campaign related factors are at play for determining the usefulness of monks.
A. Proportion of solo encounters
B. The campaign enemies con saves and those enemies proportions.
C. Cumulative effect of numerous other minor factors

 

[Asisreo]

It's one of the magic items I mentioned earlier in the thread as something I'd like for the game and was included in the objections people made for trying to buff the monk.

So we agree the item isn't a big deal. Cool. Let's talk about a subclass.

I'd like to see a subclass which draws on a pool of power other than Ki. For example, a subclass which gives a small amount of spells, like an Arcane Trickster subclass for rogues. The spells would not draw from Ki, just from spell slots like normal (Enlightened Fist). Or similarly a subclass which draws on a pool like superiority dice which isn't Ki.

Would the existence of such a subclass change the nature of a monk so much that it shouldn't be in the game, even though Enlightened Fist existed in prior versions of the game with nobody claiming it had changed the nature of the monk too much?

Yes, that would substantially change the monk class. Do you not agree?

Part of the monk class is balancing Ki and using it effectively, not just trying to dump it as fast as possible. The monk has limited resources but it really isn't as limited as it's being believed. Giving them spell slots makes them have an unnecessary amount of resources.

But, forgive me for turning it around on you:

If the reason you believe monks "suck" is because monks must use their Ki resource, wouldn't removing that basically mean the one subclass you made is better than the other 6 by pure virtue of destroying the flaw of the monk?

 

[Mistwell]

If that's what people want to actually want to talk about, the OP was not a way to start that discussion.

Empirically, it was? That was not why I started the thread, and wasn't a big part of the video either. But I don't think it's so far off topic, given part of the argument is "Monk is the worst melee focused class". I have not had trouble ignoring that part of the thread, have you?

 

[Asisreo]

So I've been thinking more about the impact of stunning strike. It greatly depends on the number of opponents. So let's start by looking at a few cases: 1 opponent, 2 opponents, 3 opponents and 4 opponents. I'll start by comparing to party damage as it's the most direct comparison.

A single opponent has 1 action per turn, takes R rounds to kill and S successful stuns where S = Chance to stun * number of ki spent on stun. You have Monk level ki. I'll assume you'll spend Monk level / 2 ki in a single encounter.

So the DPR equivalent benefits of a successful stun = S/R = (Monk Level)*(Chance of stun)/(2*R).

We can evaluate that at level 8 for a 20% chance to stun for a 5 round encounter. That's the equivalent of doing 16% more party DPR.
For a 4 round encounter it's the equivalent of 20% party DPR. If you assume a 30% chance to stun then it becomes 24% and 30% respectively. For 40% chance to stun it becomes 32% and 40% respectively. For 50% chance to stun it becomes 40% and 50% respectively. Keep in mind that's party damage.

it starts getting quite a bit more complicated and much less effective for more enemies. The solo enemy is really the best case scenario for a stunning monk. We can go a bit deeper in analysis but the numbers cited here pretty clearly indicate that stunning strike is better against solo enemies than substituting a high DPR class in for the Monk.

Which to me shows some very significant campaign related factors are at play for determining the usefulness of monks.
A. Proportion of solo encounters
B. The campaign enemies con saves and those enemies proportions.
C. Cumulative effect of numerous other minor factors

Wouldn't more enemies decrease the CR of each enemy? Like, fighting 1 CR 8 monster is different than fighting 8 CR 1 monsters, their CON would probably be dramatically different.

Especially at 20% chance of success. Assuming your DC is 14, they'd need a +9 con.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

This is actually a great point. Most builds are within a +1 weapon of each other.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wouldn't more enemies decrease the CR of each enemy? Like, fighting 1 CR 8 monster is different than fighting 8 CR 1 monsters, their CON would probably be dramatically different.

Especially at 20% chance of success. Assuming your DC is 14, they'd need a +9 con.

More enemies would decrease the CR and thus Decrease the con save, but it also means you are facing even more actions. It ends up making the impact of your stun smaller. If you want we can explore that more.

 

[Esker]

1 isn't especially meaningful to dnd, because DnD is at least as defined by unquantifiables as it is by quantifiables.

Like 1v1s, spreadsheets are interesting, but that is really all they are.

That sounds like a solid 2 position. Which is fine. But you don't need to take part in a conversation about how the quantifiables shake out. Nobody here is telling you the unquantifiables don't matter.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, that would substantially change the monk class. Do you not agree?

I do not agree. Enlightened Fist felt like a perfectly normal concept for the monk. I never saw anyone say "This doesn't feel like all the others".

Part of the monk class is balancing Ki and using it effectively, not just trying to dump it as fast as possible. The monk has limited resources but it really isn't as limited as it's being believed. Giving them spell slots makes them have an unnecessary amount of resources.

I have not heard this argument for other classes. Fighters get a subclass which casts spells. Rogues get a subclass which casts spells. Druids have spell-focused and wildshape-focused subclasses. Wizards have subclasses which enable them to fight in melee. Rangers can focus on beasts or spellcasting. Warlocks can focus on....heck anything! I just don't get this "don't give a class the option to focus on a secondary sub-focus" thing. I've never heard of that as being a theme for the monk - they just look neglected is all.

But, forgive me for turning it around on you:

If the reason you believe monks "suck" is because monks must use their Ki resource, wouldn't removing that basically mean the one subclass you made is better than the other 6 by pure virtue of destroying the flaw of the monk?

It doesn't destroy the flaw of the monk it just makes it so they don't have to choose to draw-down their combat abilities in exchange for using a non-combat ability which only their subclass gave them in the first place. By making it all one pool to draw from, they've made non-combat options for the monk something they just don't want to use. I think it's one reason monks are so unpopular.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That sounds like a solid 2 position. Which is fine. But you don't need to take part in a conversation about how the quantifiables shake out. Nobody here is telling you the unquantifiables don't matter.

Lol you don’t get to tell people they don’t belong in a thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Better or worse in relation to something else is all we're doing. And we're not even doing that with any claim that we have the One True Measure of effectiveness. I absolutely agree that "lowest damage" is not equivalent to "bad". But "lowest damage" together with "a bunch of lackluster other stuff that also is outclassed by other classes" is, if true (and establishing that requires something quantitative), by any reasonable person's defintion of mechanical quality... "bad".

And this is where I am pushing back from.

I fully and gladly admit that a monk after 11th level is hurting and could use some help. Some gear, some feats, something, because everything after that in the base class is really kind of just mild utility.

But, their damage is not the lowest (on average) compared to all other possible builds. Maybe it is middle of the road, but it is certainly not the lowest.

Their hp is a bit on the low side, but that is helped by some solid defensive options and their mobility which is a viable tactic to consider to help their defenses.

As for things they could get, an item that allows a d4 or d6 extra damage on their attacks would be big. I think by right around 11th level, their dice become d8's so they no longer really benefit from the staff, so getting a set of rare knuckle dusters that add that die of of damage massively jumps up their damage output.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, that 20% number I dropped is getting used a lot, and out of context. Now that I am not on my phone let me post the original and my response from GiTP. To be clear, this was about stunning a beholder and how it is useful. I have changed nothing from Yunru's response

Ummm... the numbers are static, so the average is easily calculated?
A Monk has the following chances to fail to stunning strike a Beholder, assuming boosting Dex, then boosting Wis:
Levels 1-3: To hit; 60% chance of failure. To Stun; 60% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 16%
Level 4: To hit; 55% chance of failure. To Stun; 60% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 18%
Levels 5-7: To hit; 50% chance of failure. To Stun; 55% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 22.5%
Level 8: To hit: 45% chance of failure. To Stun; 55% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 24.75%
Levels 9-11: To hit: 40% chance of failure. To Stun; 50% chance of failure. Chance to stun per attack: 30%
Level 12: To hit: 40% failure. To stun: 45% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 33%
Levels 13-15: To hit: 35% failure. To stun: 40% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 39%
Level 16: To hit: 35% failure. To stun: 35% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 42.25%
Levels 17-20: To hit/stun: 30% failure. Chance to stun per attack: 49%


Something which requires you to invest resources every round clearly isn't a strict improvement over something that lasts multiple rounds without further investment, especially at lower levels where a Stunning Strike might be attempted 2-4 times, but is capped at around 6 or 7.

My rebuttal

I'm not following all of your math (it seems like you multiplied the chance to hit and the change to stun together?) but I do know that you stopped short.

So, assuming you are right about everything up there, and ignoring anything below level 5 (because you don't even have stunning strike) let us pull up a Binomial Probability calculator (which I'm told is the correct way of doing this)

I used this one Binomial Probability Calculator

At level 5 you said it was a 22.5% chance of success, over 4 trials (ie four attacks) and only looking for a single success, that gives us a cumulative success rate of 63.9%

Just going to focus on that for a second. A level 5 character has a nearly 64% chance of essentially skipping a legendary CR 13 monster. And if you get lucky, and that happens on the first or second strike (which is about a 40% chance according to the calculator) then you can do it again.

Level 8, 24.75% over four attacks is cumulative success rate of 67.9%

9 thru 11 (the levels you are most likely to fight a beholder) 30% over four attacks is a cumulative success rate of 76% (75.99)

Level 12? You gave us 33% and that works out to 79.85%


So, you have better than 50/50 odds of a single successful stun (assuming I'm using the correct program) Which seems to prove the point quite well.