D&D 5E Who is best in damage output Barbarians? Monks?

[doctorbadwolf]

Because it's a VERY bad place to hang from?!

It’s a dragon! There is no good place to be!

Also less jokingly, I’d rather grab onto a wing and swing up onto the body as an acrobatic stunt than be stuck on the ground, as a melee character with a good chance of success at even tough Acrobatic stunts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, you did.

I explicitly didn't say that a DM who rules differently than I would is adversarial. I explicitly stated that I wouldn't draw a conclusion from this one ruling.

So, yes, you objectively misread it, if your description of what I said is honest.

I didn’t misread it. You are leaving out the important part. That a DM making that ruling would raise the possibility in your mind.

 

[Seramus]

Why are you two having this conversation?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Anyone who doesn't want to go swinging around on the underside of dragons hasn't got the right mindset to play a monk or a barbarian!

 

[Jushirambo]

Welcome to EnWorld !

A barbarian can cause a big splashy chunk of damage as long as he does not miss.
A monk can do a little damage more reliably because he makes multiple attacks to start with.

When I played a low-level monk I felt like Attack + Martial Arts = advantage on one attack. Because I attacked twice and usually hit once.
If the monk can arrange to not miss, he can do more damage with his smaller attacks because he adds his static modifiers over and over. (Until the barbarian gets Extra Attack and can do it too, then he catches up.)

tnx, really in low levels the precision of monk attacks added to the 3 attacks it can make it very lethal

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn’t misread it. You are leaving out the important part. That a DM making that ruling would raise the possibility in your mind.

Which is perfectly reasonable, and objectively does not mean the same thing as concluding that the DM is adversarial, even without the explicit statement that I wouldn’t draw that conclusion from that ruling alone.

You read that, and then told me that I’d said that I would determine that a DM is adverserial based on, IIRC, “a ruling don’t like.” Which is a direct misreading of what I wrote.