D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[FrogReaver]

Show me. Remember, they don't get Ki until level 2. From lookng at it, they can do exactly what any other PC proficient with short swords can do.

just pointing out the issue. You said something obviously incorrect Here. It’s indefensible. Instead of saying “oops my bad” you try to make every comment opposing this into something about your other points.

 

[Mistwell]

but that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was ANY character with short swords...

Your claim was they do more damage than any other character with short swords. So, we're both wrong. They do about the same damage as most non-magical classes at first level (they might squeak out 1 point more than some), and less than at least one non-magical class at first level (less than a rogue).

This demonstrates the claim they do the most damage at first level is false.

 

[FrogReaver]

Your claim was they do more damage than any other character with short swords. So, we're both wrong. They do about the same damage as most non-magical classes at first level (they might squeak out 1 point more than some), and less than at least one non-magical class at first level (less than a rogue).

This demonstrates the claim they do the most damage at first level is false.

that was @zardanaar’s claim.

 

[Mistwell]

just pointing out the issue. You said something obviously incorrect Here. It’s indefensible. Instead of saying “oops my bad” you try to make every comment opposing this into something about your other points.

You responded they do more damage than any other character with short swords. That is equally obviously incorrect here. It's indefensible. Instead of saying "oops my bad" you try to make every comment opposing this into something about your other points too.

It would have been better if you hadn't just committed the same sin I did before you stepped on your soap box man.

 

[Mistwell]

that was @zardanaar’s claim.

"I think you just proved they do a lot more damage than what any character with a shirtsword can do."

That's YOUR quote my man. YOU said that!

You then edited your comment AFTER I HAD ALREADY RESPONDED TO YOU WITH A QUOTE to act like you said "most" instead of "any". Which was damn disingenuous of you. You then tried to claim someone else said what you said, which was doubly disingenuous. What's up Frog?

 

[Eltab]

most other characters with a shirtsword can do.

What an awesome Cursed Weapon this could be.

 

[FrogReaver]

"I think you just proved they do a lot more damage than what any character with a shirtsword can do."

That's YOUR quote my man. YOU said that!

you are misunderstanding what I meant. Any character in the general sense just like you talked about any character with short swords doing the monks damage. Admittedly it wasnt as clear as it could have been as I went back to try and clarify but it was after you already quoted it.

but hopefully you can see how that was a reference to your words about any character with a short sword.

If I had intended to say the monk does more damage than every other class I would have used the word every.

 

[NotAYakk]

Fighter 2 SS is 2d6+6(13), +1d6+3(6.5)/rest at 2
Rogue 2 SS is 3d6+3(13.5), +0 at 2
Monk Spear is 1d8+1d4+6(13), +2d4+6(11)/rest at 2
Fighter 2HS is 2d6+3(11.3), +2d6+3(11.3)/rest at 2

BM fighter is +18/rest at 3. Which is crazy good.

At 3, Rogue hits 4d6+3 (17) at-will, then 5d6+4 at 5 (21.5)
Monk gains 1d4+3/rest at 3, and hits 2d8+1d6+12(24.5) at 5 with 5d6+20(37.5)/rest
2HS fighter hits 4d6+8(25ish) at-will and 25/rest.
2WF fighter is 3d6+12(22.5) and 15/rest at 5.

You'll note the monk is competitive with at-will damage and per-rest damage.

The real issue is that Monk has zero feat support for increasing damage, and to keep up with AC has to burn ASIs first on dex, then wis, and burn attunement on bracers. All to match the AC of a fighter who wears 0 attunement +2 armor.

Meanwhile the fighter has PAM/GWF or SS/XBE to super-scale.

Rogues also lack feat support. But their constant drum of +1,75 DPR/level makes them at least tactically friendly. And twf means their damage is crazy accurate compared to other classes. At 50% hit rate, most of their damage is 75% reliable!

 

[Mistwell]

you are misunderstanding what I meant

No. When you claimed Zard said the quote which you had said, and then when you edited your comment to change the word "all" to "most" after you realized you were incorrect after lecturing me about being wrong, that was not me "misunderstanding" what you meant. We both know that's not what just happened here.

My point is they do not do the most damage at first level (the topic of this thread) and they also don't keep up with others at later levels, and they don't even do the thing they're best at (lock down foes) nearly as well as magical classes can do.

Monks need a boost. Particularly in feats, but in subclasses too. Personally, I think they need double the number of Ki points than they currently get.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. When you claimed Zard said the quote which you had said, and then when you edited your comment to change the word "all" to "most" after you realized you were incorrect after lecturing me about being wrong, that was not me "misunderstanding" what you meant. We both know that's not what just happened here.

My quote in both cases was 100% correct. Yours was 100% incorrect. You made such a silly mistake and that bugs ya, I get it.

I say things that are incorrect many times and it bugs me when I do as well but this wasn’t one of them.

Zard on the other hand was absolutely incorrect. Though to be in the company or rogues, barbarians, twf fighters are level 1 is still impressive.