Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8070901" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Before we get into this [USER=72555]@NotAYakk[/USER] , I want to remind you. Your own post started this discussion by comparing the average damage of a Warlock using Eldritch Blast+Agaonizing Blast+Hex, to a monk's damage, without flurry, with no consideration for accuracy at all. My post was pointing out that to that standard, many classes fall short of that at-will damage. You have now taken it to discussing how accurate a rogue can be (which does not overly change their average damage) and how Paladin smites can never miss, which by the way, takes us into Daily resources. I think it is fair to say that your original point was weak, and you are now struggling to defend your position on monk damage being inferior by looking at daily allotments and accuracy, since the RAW numbers of at-will damage without accuracy components are not in your favor.I'll say that isn't the whole story, either homebrew, using the new fighting style feat (if Variant Human) or a multi-classed fighter is the only way that you get that +8. Rogue's don't get to deal their mod with an off-hand strike, so your base number there should be 5d6+4 (21.5) which I admitted if you dual-wielded  would be the damage. Well, we started with you initialing going forward sans accuracy. I put forth a rogue using a shortbow, which is my standard experience. Not dual-wielding. If you want to shout that the Rogue's damage on average should be higher than 18 (4d6+4) because of accuracy concerns when dual-wielding... fine. It still won't change the initial point that Monk damage is perfectly fine when compared to rogues, fighters, and paladinsOkay? Smite damage is a daily resource, Ki isn't. And if you only smite on crits, that is great for spiking damage in the moment, but if you never crit, it won't matter. Also, what BS is this idea that Monks can't choose to not utilize their Ki on "not tough" fights? If it isn't worth smiting on, why would it suddenly be worth spending Ki on? Maybe because Ki is a less valuable resource so it can be spent a little bit more freely? But, they can still choose to save it if it doesn't feel like it is worth using. Also, I love how know we are talking about Smite damage being 100% accurate, when previously it was about how much damage it was. So wait, now it isn't about how much damage they do, but how well they are able to focus that damage due to random criticals? But actually, it doesn't matter, because the truth is that your analysis is only proving my point. See, you have taken one of the strongest damage dealing classes in the game, and given it full daily resource expenditure with a limited number of attacks, and given us accuracy numbers. So, let's dig in.  That 83.25 seems odd to me,  If we assume all of the 2nd level spells  crit, that is 12d8, and the four 1st levels are 8d8. That is 20d8 which is 90 damage. I think this is because of your previous math involving stating that the paladin does 4.9 damage per die? But frankly, this isn't needed because Smite is 100% accurate. But, we do need their damage for their normal attacks. 2d10+1d4+12 is 25.5, on an accuraccy of 60% I should multiply those together to get an approximation of 15.3 damage per round, correct? 30 rounds over the course of the day is 15.3*30 + 90 (because smite is 100% accurate, and we are assuming the 2nd level crits) that total damage for the day is 549 damage. Now, let us pull up the Monk. If we are assuming 30 rounds, split evenly, then the monk will get to make four attacks about half the time. So, We calculate their non ki as 24.5 and their ki turns as 32. Both those times 60% gets us 14.7 and 19.2. Multiple both of those by 15 to get our full day, and we have (14.7*15)+(19.2*15) = 508.5Now, you might be confused, because I said you proved my point for me, and this shows that the Paladin is coming ahead by 40.5 damage. And, even though I didn't calculate the critical hit damage into either side, the ratio should be fairly close. So, am I just confused? No. We've shown a paladin with a damage dealing feat that improves their damage output is better than a Monk with no feat. That should have been blatantly obvious anyways, and the monk is pretty darn close. And, I used my 90 damage instead of your 83.But, what about a paladin without a feat? A Sword and Board Paladin keeps the same smite damage, but their longsword drops them to 2d8+10, or 19. Times 60% is 11.4 times 30 with our +90 is... 432. Over 70 pts lower than the monk. Greatsword? 4d6+10 (assuming heavily in favor of the GW fighting Style) is 24 times 60% is 14.4 times 30 with the +90 is...522. Only 14 points higher than the monk, and very likely that is only because I counted GW style to be equivalent to a +2 on every strike. So, it is highly likely, that a monk who spends every single attack on Ki, can match or exceed a paladin who smites every single turn, and never uses their bigger smites except on crits... unless that Paladin has Polearm Master. Or to put it another way, the only way a paladin can guarentee to exceed the monks "crappy damage" is to have a feat that lets him increase his damage. So... how is the monk's damage so poor again?Right, because there is no feat to help increase monk damage. No items to help increase monk damage. That isn't a problem with the monk. That is a problem with feat and magic item support. Just because their damage is already as maximized as it can be doesn't mean it is bad though.Wow, another combat feat to let the fighter match the monk's natural number of attacks, and on a human who was able to max their main attack stat by level 6. And their average damage is only a whole point higher at 25.5 instead of 24.5. So impressive. And then of course you add a -5/+10 feat, so that you can actually beat their damage by a respectable amount. And then PAM again. So... yes. Shockingly builds that can utilize combat feats can just barely excceed the monk's base damage. That 27.5 being a whole 3 points on average better than a monk with zero combat feats. And why do they have no combat feats? Because there is no feat that lets the monk improve their damage output. Unlike every single example you have put forth. So, again, maybe the solution isn't to say that monk's suck at damage, but to give them a feat that lets them improve their damage. Or an item. Because, let us just for a moment decide the monk gets a feat that allows them to add +2 damage to every strike they make. This is less than what PAM gives to a round of combat (which is an average of 6.5)That means their damage goes up to 30.5 and 40, at 60% and that is (18.3*15)+(24*15) = 634.5 damage, compared to the Halberd paladin's 549. It crushes it.Heck, even at +1 damage we end up with 580.5 which is still 30 pts higher.So, literally, if the monk received a bonus that was +2 damage to every hit, they would outperform every smiting paladin build you have proposed. And that is less than the boost those builds get from PAM or XBE. I think maybe, the issue isn't that monk damage sucks compared to paladin damage, or fighter damage, or rogue damage. I think maybe, just maybe, the issue is that monks have no way to increase their damage via feats or spells. Like literally every build trying to put down monk damage is doing.Banishment deal zero damage. Your expectation that you should count all the damage that might be done by the party ignores the fact that the monk's stunning strike might also very well lead to the entire party burning down the boss. Also, a failed banishment does 0 damage. While a failed stunning strike still deals full damage. I have no idea what you mean by a "crowd control "kill all allies"" and while yes, Banishment could last long enough for the party to recover, you might also lose concentration because of a minion's attack and get zero benefit from it except however long the Aboleth was gone. Again. Banishment is great, but saying Stunning strike sucks because banishment is a 4th level spell that can do something similiar seems to be like saying Persuasion sucks because dominate person exists. They aren't meant to be directly comparable anyways.</blockquote>

Verification