D&D 5E Monks Suck

[FrogReaver]

Not if you were pumping Wisdom over Dex, which is what you have to do to be good at stunning. And that wasn't even his example, his example was that two-headed weapon, not the two short swords. You're cherry picking purely because he posted a chart which also happened to include that information. And even with that you got FIVE LEVELs. Come on Froggie...Monks cannot do "good damage" and also focus on stunning.

I consider dual wield rogues to be good at damage. Not the best obviously but good at it. Do you?

 

[Mistwell]

"We showed it wasn't good with this set up"

"Come on, he used a setting specific build that did beat it, you are cherry picking the example of the generic build that couldn't"



Also, if you care about damage, then why are you immediately jumping that our stun will be bad. That isn't damage.

That is a misrepresentation of that series of events. He said he could show other classes could do better damage. Then someone said fine, show me a rogue. So he showed a rogue. And then the nit picking happened with sudden restrictions which had not been mentioned when he was just asked "show me a rogue".

In addition, you're playing a game with saying "jumping that our stun will be bad". He said they would stun primarily and then also "do good damage" and I challenged the later.

You know it's funny. In Treantmonk's video he said guys like you happen. That when he focuses on what people say and shows them it doesn't work as well as they claim, they immediately jump to the next thing and become a moving target. Talk about stun and they talk about damage. Talk about damage and they talk about defense. Talk about defense and they talk about movement. Talk about movement and they go back to talking about stun. You did it twice in one post. He was asked to show a rogue example with no limitations, and he did. Then suddenly he was told there were these special limitations, moving the goal post. Then I talked about damage, and you shifted to stun.

Can we have a genuine discussion without the goal post moves? This shouldn't be a game of whack-a-mole.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is a misrepresentation of that series of events. He said he could show other classes could do better damage. Then someone said fine, show me a rogue. So he showed a rogue. And then the nit picking happened with sudden restrictions which had not been mentioned when he was just asked "show me a rogue".

In addition, you're playing a game with saying "jumping that our stun will be bad". He said they would stun primarily and then also "do good damage" and I challenged the later.

The damage with stun only was only a few dpr lower than the damage with flurry.

 

[Mistwell]

The damage with stun only was only a few dpr lower than the damage with flurry.

You're flurrying now?

The issue with stun is you have to increase wisdom to be good at it, which comes at the expense of increasing dex. I think you're just assuming both increase, when they cannot. IF you increase stun, you decrease damage from lower Dex. IF you increase damage from higher Dex, you decrease the chance of stunning. And if you flurry all of this goes out the window because now you cannot stun. Pick a position.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This shouldn't be a game of whack-a-mole.

BUT THAT'S WHAT MONKS ARE BEST AT.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're flurrying now?

The issue with stun is you have to increase wisdom to be good at it, which comes at the expense of increasing dex. I think you're just assuming both increase, when they cannot. IF you increase stun, you decrease damage from lower Dex. IF you increase damage from higher Dex, you decrease the chance of stunning. And if you flurry all of this goes out the window because now you cannot stun. Pick a position.

I didn’t say optimize for stun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is a misrepresentation of that series of events. He said he could show other classes could do better damage. Then someone said fine, show me a rogue. So he showed a rogue. And then the nit picking happened with sudden restrictions which had not been mentioned when he was just asked "show me a rogue".

In addition, you're playing a game with saying "jumping that our stun will be bad". He said they would stun primarily and then also "do good damage" and I challenged the later.

You know it's funny. In Treantmonk's video he said guys like you happen. That when he focuses on what people say and shows them it doesn't work as well as they claim, they immediately jump to the next thing and become a moving target. Talk about stun and they talk about damage. Talk about damage and they talk about defense. Talk about defense and they talk about movement. Talk about movement and they go back to talking about stun. You did it twice in one post. He was asked to show a rogue example with no limitations, and he did. Then suddenly he was told there were these special limitations, moving the goal post. Then I talked about damage, and you shifted to stun.

Can we have a genuine discussion without the goal post moves? This shouldn't be a game of whack-a-mole.

I'm on mobile so things will be harder.

I'll note though, I'm responding to stun because you changed the goalpost. We are talking about damage as far as I coukd tell, and you immediately switched to "but what about your stun?"

Now, I'm sure the double bladed aereni elf does actually do more damage. I'm unfamiliar with them, but if they are better than just straight duel-weilding... They are an elf with dex. How does a double scimitar kensei monk stack up?

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're flurrying now?

The issue with stun is you have to increase wisdom to be good at it, which comes at the expense of increasing dex. I think you're just assuming both increase, when they cannot. IF you increase stun, you decrease damage from lower Dex. IF you increase damage from higher Dex, you decrease the chance of stunning. And if you flurry all of this goes out the window because now you cannot stun. Pick a position.

Wait. Why can't I stun and flurry? That is literally the biggest strength of the stunning strike.

I just did an analysis on GiTP showing that with a 20% stun rate per hit (jumping off another posters work) that translates to about a 60% chance of successfully stunning after 4 hits.

Which is a counter to the "lower Stun dc" because the iterative chance is still good if you really need it

 

[Esker]

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!

Winning initiative or not is something the Monte Carlo simulation accounts for, since over thousands of iterations, you'll get both sides winning sometimes, in proportion to how likely they are to win. What you get at the end is a win rate.

As for the starting conditions, you could vary those and see how the results change. That would be useful information.

All of that said, PvP is a bad yardstick for how classes fare in a campaign, with a party, against monsters. Kinda fun, though not really that relevant to the original debate. (For example, Hold Person is a situational spell in a real campaign, but may well be amazing in a PvP --- everyone (well, some newer races aside) is a humanoid, nobody has legendary actions, etc. Similarly, other PCs generally have higher ACs than the monsters they're facing, which makes non-AC-targeting abilities better in PvP, and makes -5/+10 feats worse. Etc.)

 

[Esker]

I consider dual wield rogues to be good at damage. Not the best obviously but good at it. Do you?

Huh, I would consider dual wield rogues to be below average at damage. At least below average among classes whose main contribution in combat is damage.