1) I wish fighter got their 4th attack earlier, at 17th level.IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak. Ranger, leaving aside XGE, definitely feels underwhelming too.
You quoted my post, which was specifically responding to an assertion re the need for Monks to do less damage than BM Fighters by that person's whiteroom DPR calcs.Hmm. I didn't think I was responding to you, or to any particular assertion regarding the BM (Bowel Movement) Fighter.
Recent US DoD research indicates we kind of need to drink coffee like hours before we expect it to be effective, so very understandable!Fair enough! Posts tend to blend together after enough time.
Well, looking back at them, it appears I pretty much stated the same thing in both my replies. So I am consistent, if not always good with the memory.
I blame society, and/or a lack of coffee this morning.
Ahh Ruin Explorer, the exemplar of blustery opinion and misplaced certainty that their perspective is Indubitably, the only correct opinion. It is a charming reminder of the grand days when a British man’s opinion, in his own mind, ( the only one that matters, really) was worth 12x the ‘truthiness’ value of any facts someone might bother with, ( 20x a frenchman’s).Oh buddy... you just nuked your own argument from orbit. Was it the only way to be
Monks are okay, certainly not as bad as Rangers, in 5E, but they're not perfect.
Sure. Fun can be had in spite of mechanical weaknesses. Certain kinds of fun can even be had by leveraging them, often not conventional nor plays-well-with-others kinds of fun, but still.The cold fact is that in most editions where they've appeared, Monks have been mechanically pretty awful, so what you're proving is that the people you've played with have enjoyed the hell of terribly-designed classes. Which I'm sure is true, I too have seen pretty awful character classes provide fun
Well, yeah, the whole "best at fighting" (with weapons, without magic) mandate: the tricked out BM blowing his Action Surge and all his CS dice should not be out-damaged by the Monk blowing all his Ki. Not unless they're both fighting unarmed, of course.Monks are a mobile DPR oriented character. BM Fighters are more versatile and survivable, but you apparently think they should not only be vastly tougher than Monks (higher AC and HP) but also do more damage
Luke Skywalker, shakes his head and states “Everything in that sentence is wrong “.IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak.
Or just looking past DPR when assessing what makes a class strong.If the 5e Fighter is too weak for you in relationship to the other 5e classes, then you must either want such power increases (Double Weapon Specialization?), as to overshadow the other 5e classes, or you have a really high opinion of spells.
That an American* can type this without literally dying of hypocrisy this is what is truly astonishing here, I say to you, sir! As arrogant as the British empire was at it's peak, the US has outshone it like the sun to the moon, certainly for well over a hundred years. Not so much the pot calling the kettle black as the deepest ocean calling a river "wet"!It is a charming reminder of the grand days when a British man’s opinion, in his own mind, ( the only one that matters, really) was worth 12x the ‘truthiness’ value of any facts someone might bother with, ( 20x a frenchman’s).
The most obvious issues are:You have also never addressed how 5e monks have a magic item problem, that you intimated earlier in the thread.
Mmmm. No. "Best at fighting" absolutely does not necessarily mean "highest DPR" (which Fighter only arguably has anyway). It's best all-rounder in mixing it up physically. And a BM Fighter is a vastly better all-rounder than a Monk.Well, yeah, the whole "best at fighting" (with weapons, without magic) mandate: the tricked out BM blowing his Action Surge and all his CS dice should not be out-damaged by the Monk blowing all his Ki. Not unless they're both fighting unarmed, of course.
I saw an idea on here that fighters could get an "improved" fighting style. Basically the fighting style they chose got better/did something special (I think one of the examples was Archery letting you take an Opportunity Attack when they moved within 30 ft of you) and that could be neat. It would give them a small buff and show off that they're better at fighting than other classes.1) I wish fighter got their 4th attack earlier, at 17th level.
2) Indomitable should be on a short rest.
3) I'd like them to get a 2nd fighting style sometime during tier 2.
Makes those changes, and I'm pretty good with single class fighter.
I get that.I was one of the people I'm talking supposedly about in 1E through early 3E, the people who play mechanically unsound classes and have a good time anyway (didn't stop me pointing out the issues they had on the boards, mind). Unfortunately late 3E, after really seeing the tiers play out (as you may recall I was somewhat in denial about LF/QW initially), broke me of that, and 5E hasn't cured me.
I'd put it "no on else clearly has a higher DPR," and maybe add "not just the highest DPR," but, yes, essentially I can agree with that.Mmmm. No. "Best at fighting" absolutely does not necessarily mean "highest DPR" (which Fighter only arguably has anyway).
My 5th level Kensai Monk with a 16 WIS did the following using no ki points or feats, just a bonus action each round.The most obvious issues are:
A) Only AC-boosting item Monks can benefit from is Bracers of Defense (correct me if I'm wrong), so they can get +2 AC like, ever, and only if they get that specific item (or a close relative thereof that the DM makes up). Whereas many other melees can benefit from magic armour (up to +3) and potentially a shield (so total +5 potential), and can invest in CON, leveraging HP, rather than relying on pushing up DEX (which admittedly broadly useful) and WIS (which is far less so).
B) Flurry of Blows has to be used unarmed - not even with Monk weapons (there may be a subclass which breaks this, I forget). That means you don't get the very significant hit and damage bonuses on your Flurry attacks. It's not 3E "Flurry of Misses" bad, but it's a distinct disadvantage.
Longsword could have been d10 with kensai via versatile.My 5th level Kensai Monk with a 16 WIS did the following using no ki points or feats, just a bonus action each round.
Longsword +1: +9/D8+5
I can't think of vary many classes that can keep up with this damage without expending resources at that level range. Even if you move to 6th level and up the cantrip damage for the casters they are still behind the two bow attacks curve set here.
That or they spend ki points avoiding damage instead of inflicting it.When it comes to Monks, people always seem to forget about Stunning Fist and how good that ability is.
You are correct! I retired that character awhile ago and forgot that I was rolling D10s on those. Even more supports the argument, though. I also didn't mention that I would drop the one Punch frequently to Dodge as my bonus action when tanking.Longsword could have been d10 with kensai via versatile.
Monks deal good damage, they get hurt by feats.
And as a monk you can get right the back of the enemy lines (dash to run faster if necessary, dodge to get past the frontliners without taking hits, and you can do both of those in one turn) to get to any potential mages/ranged damage dealers. Grab Mage Slayer for the former and just completely ruin their day and let your casters focus on other things rather than just countering the other caster.That or they spend ki points avoiding damage instead of inflicting it.
Cowardly rogue syndrome aka using your bonus action defensively or running around like a headless chicken drags your damage down.