When to Flurry/When not to Flurry

[Doctor Shaft]

Okay, hopefully I've put this question in the right section. Here's the conundrum I've been pondering lately, and while there are a myriad of sources on how to build a good monk, the question of what kind of attack to use at which point crossed my mind today.

To give a littel background, I'm playing a monk in a bit of a sub-optimal world. And even then, I'm playing a crpg type instead of pnp, so a lot of tricks can't be used, or aren't useful. But that's really besides the point.

Anyway, it's 3.0, so I don't get the benefit of greater flurry or any of that, and there's no monk's belt to boost the attacks way high. The enemies rarely exceed the 25 range of AC, and possibly even rarely get to the range of 20-22. Of course, the flipside is that I'm also sparse on AC, doing 16 or so with very average stats.

So here's the question. Assuming you're in a place where all you really have is an average AC, some extra speed, and attacks equivalent of a level 7 character, how would one going about deciding what to use against different levels of AC? I looked at Thott's Melee Damage Tool, which was really convenient in telling me what works better "theoretically." However, the problem is that it really only gives you how much average damage you do against AC. But is that really helpful? It's great to know that flurry of blows consistenly does more average damage, even with a -2 penalty, than my normal set of two attacks, but does that guarentee that it should be used at all times during a melee encounter?

Another thing I was toying with was investing in a high damage weapon, like a great sword (I'm not going to be hitting high level anytime soon, so the idea that at level 15 or something I'll have great powers and okay attacks isn't something that's guarenteed). I'd have a lower AB with it (at least 2 less or so than with my fists, which I have an item and weapon focus in), but it would do more damage overall (for the time being). I figured I'd take a level of fighter, take focus in the sword, and go from there.

On average, it's still better than my fists without flurry against AC (apparently). But then flurry of blows is seeming just better in every situation (in the average damage department). But that's primarily because I get a higher AB using it (plus my unique item). So what's the deal? Is a monk always better with his fists. Should he never deviate from the fist path. Is a weapon, in a low magic, mostly mundane world, of martial status not worth any time or effort (remember, no fancy feats like whirling steel strike and all that stuff).

Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Demoquin]

My gf's monk always and i mean always ask "Can i flurry now?". After we keep explaining, yes, if you are next to the target.

I would always use Flurry as if you miss the first chance, say with your sword, then thats it. But with flurry, you can make 2 attacks hoping both will land. Flurry also works better when you really need to roll high as you get more of a chance to do so.

You could always use other weapons besides unarmed. All monk weapons you could flurry with. Use a staff if you want a 2 hander and it does count for a double weapon if you want TWF.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You could always use other weapons besides unarmed. All monk weapons you could flurry with. Use a staff if you want a 2 hander and it does count for a double weapon if you want TWF.

A staff won't be a special monk weapon for him.

As a general rule, my theory for Flurry of Blows in 3E is "Don't". But that's me

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

If you need a 20 to hit, flurrying gives you an approximately 10% chance of a hit, compared to 5% for not flurrying.

If you need a 19 to hit, both flurrying and not flurrying give you an approximately 10% chance of a hit.

If you need an 18 to hit, flurrying gives you an approximately 10% chance of a hit, compared to 15% for not flurrying.

If you need a 17 to hit, both flurrying and not flurrying give you an approximately 20% chance of a hit.

If you need a 16 to hit, flurrying gives you an approximately 30% chance of a hit, compared to 25% for not flurrying.

If you need a 15 to hit, flurrying gives you an approximately 40% chance of a hit, compared to 30% for not flurrying.

See the trend?

Unless you need an 18 to hit, you are usually better off flurrying. If you don't know what you need to roll to hit, you might as well flurry.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

To build on firelance's post, the general rule is:

Do I have a full attack action? I want to flurry.

Do I only have a standard attack? I can't flurry.

However, that doesn't consider haste effects or stunning fist/ other single attack effects. Haste makes a significant change in the effect of a flurry.

need a 20: .05+.05 or .05+.05+.05= flurry
need a 19: .10+.10 1% chance of two hits, 18% chance of one hit, 81% chance of no hits, or .05+.05+.05: 85.7% chance of no hits, .0125% chance of 3 hits.=don't flurry
need an 18: .15+.15: 72.5% chance no hits, 2.25% chance of 2 hits; vs. .05+.05+.05=85.7% chance of no hits, .0125% chance of 3 hits
Need a 17: .2+.2=64% chance of no hits, 4% chance of 2 hits, 22% chance of 1 hit; .1+.1+.1 72.9% chance of no hits, .1% chance of 3 hits=don't flurry
Need a 16: .25+.25=56.25 % chance of no hits, 6.25% chance of 2 hits, 37.% chance of one hit; .15+.15+.15=61% chance of no hits, 0.3375% chance of 3 hits
Need a 15: .3+.3=49% chance of no hits, 9% chance of two hits, 42% chance of one hit; vs. .2+.2+.2=48.8% chance of no hits, 0.8% chance of w hits.
Need a 14: .35+.35=42.5% chance of no hits and 12.5% chance of 2 hits vs. .25+.25+.25=42.18% chance of no hits
Need a 13: .4+.4= 36% chance of no hits, 16% chance of 2 hits vs. .3+.3+.3=34.3% chance of no hits, 2.7% chance of 3 hits
Need a 12: .45+.45 = 30.25% chance of no hits, 20.25% chance of 2 hits vs .35+.35+.35=27.46% chance of no hits, 4.28% chance of 3 hits.
Need an 11: 25% chance of no hits, 25% chance of 2 hits; vs 21.6% chance of no hits, 6.4% chance of 3 hits

As you can see, if you need a 16, 17, 18, or 19, to hit and are hasted, flurrying is a bad idea in terms of average damage. If you need a 20, it's always good. Until you need an 11 or 12 to hit, the difference between flurrying and not flurrying isn't that large when hasted. If there is an important reason that you need one particular attack to hit (stunning fist, for instance), then flurrying is a bad idea.

Where the math gets more complex and I'm not quite certain whether flurrying is a good idea or not is when you think you need to hit at least two attacks. Average damage per round (excluding crits) should pull even when you need a 15 to hit, but the distribution of the average is different and flurrying gives you a (very slightly) greater chance to inflict at least some damage and a very marginal chance to inflict significantly more damage at some cost to the likelihood of inflicting two hits.

So, the general rule should be (and I think this applies to rapid shot too:

Always flurry or rapid shot when you're not hasted--except in the unlikely event that you need an 18 to hit.

If you are hasted, only flurry or rapid shot when you will hit A. only on a 20 or B. on a 15 or lower. Even if you will hit on an 11+, consider whether you have a particular attack that you want to hit (stunning fist, bane arrow, etc) and whether it is more important to hit at least once or to hit twice. If you need a particular attack to hit or it is more important to hit twice than to hit at least once, don't flurry/rapid shot.

Of course, I just realized that those calculations are for 3.5 haste or a 3.0 speed weapon. With 3.0 haste, you use the extra standard action to attack once, making any special attacks (such as stunning fist) and THEN you flurry as a full round action. That way you get the haste attack without the flurry penalties.

 

[moritheil]

This flurry thread is delicious.

Hyp, why do you not like 3E flurry? Mind telling us?

 

[Slaved]

Haste makes a significant change in the effect of a flurry.

I am sorry to point this out since it looks like you did a lot of work on it but at level 5, when the wizard gets haste, the monks flurry of blows changes from a penalty of -2 to a penalty of -1. This is for 3.5 of course but then so is that version of the haste spell.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Sure. But it doesn't make it useless.

1. A lot of characters take only 1-4 levels of monk.
2. Some people play 3e with 3.5 additions (like 3.5 haste)
3. The math is the same for rapid shot

An approximation of the math would show average damage reduced with the -1 flurry when 18s and 19s are needed to hit and flurry increasing average damage where a 17 is needed to hit. Around 16 or so, I would expect that the advantage becomes significant.

I am sorry to point this out since it looks like you did a lot of work on it but at level 5, when the wizard gets haste, the monks flurry of blows changes from a penalty of -2 to a penalty of -1. This is for 3.5 of course but then so is that version of the haste spell.

 

[lukelightning]

Bah. I would always flurry. I have this special ability and godarnit I'm gonna use it.

 

[Slaved]

Sure. But it doesn't make it useless.

Not at all! I just thought it was an important observation.

1. A lot of characters take only 1-4 levels of monk.

Why stop at 3 or 4? I could see 1, 2, 6, 9, or 11 as good options but 3 or 4?

An approximation of the math would show average damage reduced with the -1 flurry when 18s and 19s are needed to hit and flurry increasing average damage where a 17 is needed to hit. Around 16 or so, I would expect that the advantage becomes significant.

It looks like with the -1 flurry plus haste you should flurry whenever you dont need a 19 to hit, 18 is close enough to being even to not matter either way. That is very interesting.