D&D (2024) What's not going to cost discipline points for the Monk to do now?

[tetrasodium]

I'm just trying to figure out what your point is.

It was a fairly straightforward statement about a question you asked. Perhaps this will help alleviate your confusion.
Why is that deserving of an answer?

Yes. Barbarian can wear armor. Monk's can't.

Spoiler: Yes they can

Druids & other casters don't seem to have trouble occasionally picking up armor proficiencies they lack to wear better armor.

Even though druids don't have heavy armor proficiency I've seen multiple druids gain & wear plate. It's almost like monk as a class is a horribly designed tangle of problems that are deeply at odds with the overall game they were shoehorned into

 

[Kinematics]

Glad to clear up which version you were using since it seems like you added damage based on that... What unstated assumptions are you making on those two points as well as additional targets when you added it? You don't seem to have mentioned them.

If you're referring to the highlighted section in your image, I'm not using that for my calculations. Technically it's doable, but it's inordinately complicated since the PAM build is already using the bonus action for the PAM attack. You'd have to determine under which circumstances you'd replace a 1d4 attack with a 1d10 attack to make use of that.

I had it in earlier versions of my spreadsheet, but took it out in later ones because it was too complicated to deal with for too little benefit.

The damage I'm including is the second component, which requires hitting with a heavy weapon, which PAM requires, so they automatically work together. It only requires that you land at least one hit on your turn with the Attack action, to deal your proficiency bonus in damage.

It doesn't seem very complicated, so I didn't provide any extra details. I'll admit that I assumed people would be familiar with the playtest changes, since I've already gone through a lot of arguments and analysis on this back when it came out (which is like a year ago), and didn't add extra details here. (My posts are long enough already.)

Your damage calculations seem to dive into needlessly specific build comparisons on top of leaving far too much about the specifics unsaid for them to maintain value as a whiteroom. Also how can you be sure that there won't be a feat that a very specific monk build could take given the tiny slover of feats we have seen?

I only went into a single barbarian build because I didn't want to make this overcomplicated (and that was in turn referenced by @strawbellebelle , so I continued with that in the explicit math explanation). If I want to examine different barbarian builds, I'll do that in the barbarian thread. I just took a modest baseline build to see where different monk builds fell in comparison to an already known quantity.

slover -> sliver?

I can only compare with what we have available. Speculating on what WotC might add in the future is useless for our purposes of evaluating the current state of the playtest. If some new feat is added or changed (such as what happened with the Epic Boons), then we can go back and redo things from scratch to see where things now fall.

And I happily welcome anyone coming up with a different idea of how things could work, some new combination of feats or abilities. I will happily change my approach if something better comes along. It just tends to not happen, as threads devolve to petty arguments over unrelated matters. (See: Warlord and fighter arguments in the sorcerer thread.)

 

[Retros_x]

Just a quick anecdote that one of the most fun characters I ever played was a monk. He was often clutch because with his movement he could easily move to somewhere on the battlefield where some help was needed and could provide. Yes he can't tank like a barb but when the wizard suddenly is in danger and the barb is busy, the monk can jump in front of the wizard and hold the line with "patient defense" for a little while. Yes, his damage output is not very good, but with flurry of blows he can do burst damage if needed and even spread it on multiple enemies. And he is really good at stricking at backline enemies, especially mages. Monks are perfect magic user harrassers.

All this "monk bad" takes do just some raw math and theoretical encounter in an empty dungeon room. In real play the true strength of the monk is the flexibility he provides and if played right its quite the effective class. Often when people are disappointed with them they play the class in the role as damage dealers or tanks and of course they fail compared to the martial classes that were designed as damage dealers or tanks. But play the monk as a support/crowd control and suddenly they make sense.

IMO they don't need big buffs at all, give them more interesting feats that underline the flexibilty and give them even more options. And maybe communicate this playstyle better in the PHB. I think only in the lategame they need to get stronger, besides that they are fine.

 

[strawbellebelle]

At first I was going to call this a bad faith argument, but on further reflection I realize that not everyone is good at math, and, while I've posted a link to my spreadsheet for others to examine, not everyone is going to be willing to do that, so that's not the best way of explaining things either. My charts can thus come off as being supported by "Trust me, bro".

So to clear things up, here's a manual breakdown on the math involved.

You seem to be alluding to a barbarian using PAM vs a level 17+ monk, so I'll set things at level 17. Max attribute is 20, and both classes will be assumed to have reached that by that level.

The dice averages for their attacks are 5.5 + 5.5 + 2.5 = 13.5 for the barbarian and 6.5 + 6.5 + 6.5 + 6.5 = 26 for the monk. That clearly favors the monk.

Then you add the attribute mod — +5, 3 times for the barbarian and 4 times for the monk. Now we're at 28.5 vs 46. Favors the monk even more.

Then you add Rage damage for the barbarian — +4, 3 times, putting it at 40.5 vs the 46 of the monk. Significantly closes the gap, but still favors the monk.

Then you add the Graze weapon mastery. This requires factoring in accuracy. For an accuracy between 60% and 80% (a reasonable range to examine), the barbarian's total (with Graze) becomes between 30.3 and 35.4, while the monk has between 27.6 and 36.8. There's complete overlap now, with the monk potentially doing either less or more than the barbarian. They're almost tied at 70%.

Note: The monk isn't getting any weapon mastery because he's using unarmed strikes (1d12), and there are no weapon masteries for unarmed strikes (yet).

Calculation for 60%: (5.5+5+4)*60% + (5*40%) = 10.7; (2.5+5+4)*60% + (5*40%) = 8.9; 10.7+10.7+8.9 = 30.3

Calculation for 80%: (5.5+5+4)*80% + (5*20%) = 12.6; (2.5+5+4)*80% + (5*20%) = 10.2; 12.6+12.6+10.2 = 35.4

Then you add Great Weapon Master damage. This is useful for the barbarian, but not for the monk (H2H does not qualify for either of the GWM features). Monk doesn't have an equivalent feat for any additional damage boost (aside from Charger, which both can get). That's +6 damage once per turn, between 93.6% and 99.2% of the time (we're not using Reckless Attack yet, but its addition would be just a fraction of a point for this). +5.6 to +5.95 pushes the barbarian to between 35.9 and 41.35 vs the monk's 27.6 to 36.8. And now the barbarian is ahead. (+12% to +30%)

While the barbarian can use Reckless Attack (and gain more damage from Frenzy if it's the Berserker subclass) for advantage, the monk can use Stunning Strike for advantage as well, so I'm not going to do the math on that. The gains will be similar on both sides, though the barbarian's will be more reliable.


I didn't include Charger. Both can gain the same benefit from it, though monk is probably more likely to take it as a feat, in which case it mostly balances out the benefit of GWM, and the two classes are again closer to tied.

So, discounting advantage from Reckless Attack/Stunning Strike, not counting bonus feat damage from GWM/Charger, and not including subclass damage features, the monk and the barbarian generate similar damage output. It does require weapon mastery on the barbarian's part, but also that the monk always uses Flurry of Blows. A more realistic FoB usage rate would largely balance out the lack of weapon masteries, so the PHB damage is likely also similar.

So the thing to take away from this is that if you combine numerous features and feats that give certain characters poorly-balanced advantages that Monks can't benefit from, only then does the Barbarian outdamage the Monk. While Raging. Take away a single factor benefitting the Barbarian, and it swings the Monk's way.

It cements the fact that the problem isn't Monk Bad, but that common-sense adjustments like better balancing of Weapon Masteries or Polearm Master not giving an infinite-use extra attack will never happen because the most vocal respondents to the surveys will never allow the creators to take away their Optimization.

 

[mellored]

It was a fairly straightforward statement about a question you asked. Perhaps this will help alleviate your confusion.
Why is that deserving of an answer?

That's the opposite of straightforward, but ok.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's the opposite of straightforward, but ok.

If there is no reason why anyone should answer your overly specific loaded question why did you ask it?

If you're referring to the highlighted section in your image, I'm not using that for my calculations. Technically it's doable, but it's inordinately complicated since the PAM build is already using the bonus action for the PAM attack. You'd have to determine under which circumstances you'd replace a 1d4 attack with a 1d10 attack to make use of that.

I had it in earlier versions of my spreadsheet, but took it out in later ones because it was too complicated to deal with for too little benefit.

The damage I'm including is the second component, which requires hitting with a heavy weapon, which PAM requires, so they automatically work together. It only requires that you land at least one hit on your turn with the Attack action, to deal your proficiency bonus in damage.

It doesn't seem very complicated, so I didn't provide any extra details. I'll admit that I assumed people would be familiar with the playtest changes, since I've already gone through a lot of arguments and analysis on this back when it came out (which is like a year ago), and didn't add extra details here. (My posts are long enough already.)


I only went into a single barbarian build because I didn't want to make this overcomplicated (and that was in turn referenced by @strawbellebelle , so I continued with that in the explicit math explanation). If I want to examine different barbarian builds, I'll do that in the barbarian thread. I just took a modest baseline build to see where different monk builds fell in comparison to an already known quantity.

slover -> sliver?

I can only compare with what we have available. Speculating on what WotC might add in the future is useless for our purposes of evaluating the current state of the playtest. If some new feat is added or changed (such as what happened with the Epic Boons), then we can go back and redo things from scratch to see where things now fall.

And I happily welcome anyone coming up with a different idea of how things could work, some new combination of feats or abilities. I will happily change my approach if something better comes along. It just tends to not happen, as threads devolve to petty arguments over unrelated matters. (See: Warlord and fighter arguments in the sorcerer thread.)

It was said pretty well in 124. You extended a simple comparison of class to class so far that it instead became a comparison of unstated and unrelated elements like specific feats along with weapon mastery mechanics being overly generous in what they grant. That is not providing useful white room crunch for the purpose of monk compared to barbarian because it's illustrating issues in other areas of the playtest that are still in flux.

 

[mellored]

If there is no reason why anyone should answer your overly specific loaded question why did you ask it?

Your comments on post 106.

So what are your suggestions for the monk then?
What are it's weaknesses that need improving?
Is there something about it you think is too strong?

 

[mellored]

Just a quick anecdote that one of the most fun characters I ever played was a monk.

Just out of curiosity, how many short rest did you get?

 

[Kinematics]

You extended a simple comparison of class to class so far that it instead became a comparison of unstated and unrelated elements like specific feats along with weapon mastery mechanics being overly generous in what they grant.

How is it being overly generous in what they grant? I was applying exactly what they provide.

That is not providing useful white room crunch for the purpose of monk compared to barbarian because it's illustrating issues in other areas of the playtest that are still in flux.

Please elaborate. If it's illustrating other issues in the playtest, then that's exactly what should be getting discussed. If you think the comparison isn't useful, then please provide the parameters that you'd want to use instead. What context should be used for what you would consider a meaningful comparison?

And that the playtest is "still in flux" is meaningless waffling, and a bad faith distraction. We are only able to, and only should be considering the state of the game as of the current playtest.

 

[Retros_x]

Just out of curiosity, how many short rest did you get?

I think outsides of dungeons we did not had full adventuring days, so often a longrest before two short rests.