D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Asisreo]

I'm not ready to concede that just yet. It might turn out that way, but what I said before that we should really do is roll it out a bunch of times (and not clog up this thread further with a fake play-by-post match). But you went ahead with it anyway.

There's about a 16% chance 4 or 5 of my attacks hit on my first turn, in which case you go down in one turn regardless of damage rolls and deflect missiles roll. There's also about a 30% chance 3 of 5 attacks hit, and when that happens there's about a 27% chance you go down anyway, due to the particular combination of damage rolls and deflect missiles roll. So that's another 8% chance overall that you go down on my first turn. Overall 24% chance you go down on my first turn, and that's if you win initiative and have a chance to use agile parry before I go.

So in order for you to get three turns before I've had two, you need to (a) go first (about a 75% chance), (b) survive my first turn (about a 76% chance), and (c) successfully stun me on your second turn (about a 57% chance). Individually, each of these is more likely than not, but combined it's only a 32% chance. That's the problem with assuming the most likely outcome --- do it often enough and you no longer have the most likely outcome.

Even if all your attacks hit and you roll max damage on all of them, you don't down me in one turn. There's a chance you might do it in two without me getting a turn if (a) you win initiative, (b) you manage to stun me in the first turn, and (c) get lucky on your to-hit and damage rolls. We could try to work that out analytically, but it's pretty messy, so I think it's probably better left to just running the experiment with dice.

I'm trying to say that conclusive evidence will never be found without several adventures (not campaigns) being ran with a log of the actions and dice rolled. After a sufficient amount of those, we'll be able to analyze the monk with a complete and comprehensive analysis.

The only things that have been done so far is playing with numbers.

Imagine a worker at a car manufacturing facility comes up with: "here's the numbers. The computations show this engine to be faster, more durable, and safer than the competitior's."

The first thing they'll say is: thanks for the computation...where's the data?"

"The data is the computation, right?"

"Haha! The data is the computations! Look, we make cars, not jokes. The computations are nice but we need to now if that's what matches in-practice. What if the parameters in real life are different from your theoretical calculations?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm trying to say that conclusive evidence will never be found without several adventures (not campaigns) being ran with a log of the actions and dice rolled. After a sufficient amount of those, we'll be able to analyze the monk with a complete and comprehensive analysis.

The only things that have been done so far is playing with numbers.

Imagine a worker at a car manufacturing facility comes up with: "here's the numbers. The computations show this engine to be faster, more durable, and safer than the competitior's."

The first thing they'll say is: thanks for the computation...where's the data?"

"The data is the computation, right?"

"Haha! The data is the computations! Look, we make cars, not jokes. The computations are nice but we need to now if that's what matches in-practice. What if the parameters in real life are different from your theoretical calculations?"

Tonight I can write a Monte Carlo aim for this if you guys want to spell out specifics. That is, exactly what steps to follow for each turn for one fight. Then I’ll run it a million times.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is why 1 on 1 PvPs are silly. the SS CE fighter is great, but in this situation -not so much. Try an Eldritch Knight fighter (the actual tankiest fighter) with sword and shield - monk is not likely to even hit (AC 21 but pumped to 26 as soon as the monk rolls between 21 and 25).

But even that's not the point - Monks are quite good against a single target they want to lock down - IF they are willing to commit all/most of their ki to do so and especially if that single target doesn't have support.

And even more so - the focus really should be how much does the class (here monk, but any class should be analyzed this way) contribute to the success of the group.

Might be fun to see a level 8 EK vs Monk with Mage Slayer. Not sure which subclass I’d pick for the monk...

 

[Asisreo]

Tonight I can write a Monte Carlo aim for this if you guys want to spell out specifics. That is, exactly what steps to follow for each turn for one fight. Then I’ll run it a million times.

That isn't going to work either.

I know you want to extract the DM from this all, but they're probably the most important factor, and can bring a conclusion to certain topics of debate.

For instance, everyone says that poison is a bad damage type because of the number of creatures resistant or immune to it, but what matters is not the number of creatures in the MM that resist poisons, but how frequently a creature with poison resistance appears in campaigns.

A zombie, while common, may not be more common than the standard human bandit or goblin, of which aren't resistant to poison at all.



Relevant to monks:

Stunning strike is said to be underwhelming because high con enemies are more common, but most people base that off of the number of monsters with con proficiencies. We can guess whether a monster is more or less frequent in any given campaign, but until we actual understand what's happening in any given campaign, we cannot say that high-con enemies are more or less rare in real life.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That isn't going to work either.

I know you want to extract the DM from this all, but they're probably the most important factor, and can bring a conclusion to certain topics of debate.

For instance, everyone says that poison is a bad damage type because of the number of creatures resistant or immune to it, but what matters is not the number of creatures in the MM that resist poisons, but how frequently a creature with poison resistance appears in campaigns.

A zombie, while common, may not be more common than the standard human bandit or goblin, of which aren't resistant to poison at all.



Relevant to monks:

Stunning strike is said to be underwhelming because high con enemies are more common, but most people base that off of the number of monsters with con proficiencies. We can guess whether a monster is more or less frequent in any given campaign, but until we actual understand what's happening in any given campaign, we cannot say that high-con enemies are more or less rare in real life.

How is poison damage relevant to the monk vs fighter 1v1 slugfest?

 

[Mort]

Might be fun to see a level 8 EK vs Monk with Mage Slayer. Not sure which subclass I’d pick for the monk...

These 1 on 1s depend on too many factors!

Here for example, do they start at beyond 5 feet apart? If they do and the EK wins initiative, then casts blur - that's very bad for the monk (and I mean bad, assuming full access to spells for the EK, the monk is looking at having to hit AC 26 with disadvantage - something like a 4% chance per hit). If the monk wins initiative or if they start only 5' apart, that's much better for the monk - if he goes all in on the ki and stunning strikes especially.

Edit: and while fun as an exercise it won't really prove (or even show) anything - It's a group game not street-fighter!

 

[Asisreo]

How is poison damage relevant to the monk vs fighter 1v1 slugfest?

It wasn't. That's why I listed an example that was relevant to monks.

Though, I don't see how a slugfest is relevant to whether a monk sucks since it isn't about PvP.

 

[FrogReaver]

These 1 on 1s depend on too many factors!

Here for example, do they start at beyond 5 feet apart? If they do and the EK wins initiative, then casts blur - that's very bad for the monk (and I mean bad, assuming full access to spells for the EK, the monk is looking at having to hit AC 26 with disadvantage - something like a 4% chance per hit). If the monk wins initiative or if they start only 5' apart, that's much better for the monk - if he goes all in on the ki and stunning strikes especially.

Edit: and while fun as an exercise it won't really prove (or even show) anything - It's a group game not street-fighter!

Even if the ek goes 2nd casting blue and having shield nearly ensures a victory.

 

[FrogReaver]

It wasn't. That's why I listed an example that was relevant to monks.

Though, I don't see how a slugfest is relevant to whether a monk sucks since it isn't about PvP.

Yep, 1v1 scenarios are fun but not really relevant.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think this thread has gone into two different directions.
"Monks suck,"
and
"Monks suck compared to <something else>."

The first one reminds me of the early days of 3E, when some folks were appalled at the idea of monks being introduced as a "core" class in the Player's Handbook. Some folks never liked the monk, and they never will.

The second argument is pretty much par for the course with any class in 5th Edition. Subjectively, each class is either awesome or terrible when compared to another class, depending on the criteria you pick. Damage per round, spell slots per rest, movement speed, anything can be a reason to celebrate (or complain) if you want it to be.

I'm in the first camp. Unless I'm running a Wuxia, kung fu, or anime-style campaign, something along the lines of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" or "Seven Samurai," I'm probably going to drop them from my list. (And if I happen to be running such a game, I'd probably go this route.) The mechanics aren't the issue; I just don't care for the theme.