Level 4 is tier 1 so isn't relevant for the Tier 2 comparison. And level 8 means that the fighter has Strength 20 and a feat while the Monk has Dex 20 but no feat.Why don't you rerun those numbers at level 4 or level 8 and get back to me?
It is - but did you miss the point where the fighter has +1 to hit? Which more or less cancels that out.Also as a point of fact 25.5 is greater than 23.
Level 4 is tier 1 so isn't relevant for the Tier 2 comparison. And level 8 means that the fighter has Strength 20 and a feat while the Monk has Dex 20 but no feat.
It is - but did you miss the point where the fighter has +1 to hit? Which more or less cancels that out.
The thing is that you are right in tier 1. Monks are good at damage in tier 1 - I am only disagreeing about Tier 2.Level 4 is relevant when my original statement is a Monk generally does more damage in "tier 1 and tier 2".
I have literally never played a game without feats and I don't think I've played with anyone who doesn't use feats. Not using feats is rare enough to be a house rule.And to be clear I stated specifically using only fighter class abilities without feats. Feats are an optional rule and not a class ability and they are wide open.
And I have never played an 8th level sword and board fighter with PAM. As a matter of fact I have never even had a sword and board PAM fighter at my table. Not saying it is a bad build but it is not common. The majority of sword and board fighters are not going to have this feat at 8th level, they are going to have a different feat, or an ASI in another ability. There about 70 different feats you can take, probably 40 of them are viable and you are going to be behind a Monk at 8th level after you take some 35 of those as well as if you take an ASI in another ability (in addition to also being behind at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and slightly behind at 6th and 7th). That pretty much covers ALL of tier 1 and tier 2 which is what my statement was.I have literally never played a game without feats and I don't think I've played with anyone who doesn't use feats. Not using feats is rare enough to be a house rule.
PAM is not relevant to most fighters (a lot yes, most no), yet you still used it to boost your numbers.And if you want to nerf the fighter by house rule then fine. But it's not relevant to actual play for most people. Monks also win unarmed competitions. So what?
And two handing versatile weapons is not relevant to most monks (a lot yes, most no), yet you still used it to boost your numbers and objected when I offered more normal numbers first for level 6 comparisons.PAM is not relevant to most fighters (a lot yes, most no), yet you still used it to boost your numbers.
And two handing versatile weapons is not relevant to most monks (a lot yes, most no), yet you still used it to boost your numbers and objected when I offered more normal numbers first for level 6 comparisons.
I have no idea what you are talking about.You seem to be using an optimised Schrodinger's Monk that simultaneously benefits from the damage of flurry and following the good tactics of using the dodge bonus action to claim it keeps up with the fighter. Which, yes, an optimised Schrodinger's Monk beats a nerfed fighter, designed with feats in mind but not using them.
Same. 10 Minutes 2/Day for me. Lines up nicely with ritual casting, and makes for quicker decision making on the whole.I went to the 10 minute short rest a while ago so that it matches up timewise with rituals. So now when the wizard or cleric spends 10 minutes to cast a ritual the group needs, the others can take a short rest and get back their HP (and/or class abilities.)