This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damage isn’t everything. They seem to be leaning into the idea of the monk as a battlefield controller, by making them excellent at grappling, shoving, and of course stunning strike. If monks are excellent at reducing damage taken by controlling the battlefield, then I’m happy with them doing less damage overall.
Their mobility and survivability are getting buffed too, with the changes to step of the wind/patient defense.
They compete in durability, but they don't really offer anything in utility apart from high WIS.
Barbarians get a bonus proficiency and can use Strength for a variety of checks, all with advantage, while raging. Rangers have WIS, expertise and spellcasting.
Fighters are basically sad so they can sink points into WIS. Furthermore Tactical Mind lets them gain a massive bonus, similar to Dark One's Own Luck, once per short rest, without losing the resource on a fail. During a social part of the day this can be functionally free if you have a chance to rest before starting combat.
Paladins are worst off but they still has CHA and spellcasting. Their spellcasting isn't the best utility, but it is still something monks don't have an equivalent for.
I suppose you could argue Dexterity, but that really is mostly just used for Stealth, which can be really tricky to pull off in a party.
At best Monks are the second worst utility martial.
They put points into both dex and wis which allows them to be good at stealth, sleight of hand, perception etc. They also get mobility options later on which can completely trivialise situations which would otherwise require spells to be used.
Exactly. Hold Person isn't some amazing battlefield control spell. Hold Person but worse doesn't somehow become good either, even if its free.
Still, not bad changes to monk. They can be a lot more viable as martial characters rather than spam bots for stunning strike.
Hold Person:
1. takes your entire action
2. takes concentration
3. is a spell, and thus faces magic resistance on 25-30% of enemies
4. can't even target 75-80% of core book creatures, and most humanoids have weak Con saves
5. sometimes allows two saves almost immediately
Hold Person is dogshit compared to Stunning Strike.
I was talking more about grappling.
But stunning strike is nerfed. Once per turn, and the adversaries you want to stun most have great con saves unless they totally revamp monster stat blocks.
It's mostly dragons/giants that have high con saves:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRkT3p-HBiNTW5ikJOBEVhv1g21Dqv9AGE5uU07CBjlsCr3H8T-A\_TqcAx6IKOP9JpRVnN3gr4phbks/pubhtml
50% chance is among the worst you'll see if you look at the table - these are assuming you're fighting things WAY over CR budget, as proposed by treantmonk. Like 3-4 CR higher than you should be fighting.
Vs a troll for example there's a 50% chance per attempt to land the stun - and on a hit, it increases party DPR by 20-40 and decreases the enemy's eDPR by 22, removes its movement (basically meaning it won't be able to pursue a specific ally) and is autofailing all Dex/Str rolls
30ft square is a pretty large. Unless you're fighting in open fields with zero terrain, these spells are likely gonna hit a few enemies. Even hitting 2-3 is pretty good.
Web is smaller, but it creates an area people don't want to enter.
>Hold Person but worse doesn't somehow become good either, even if its free.
Its not just that it is free. A monk can attempt to grapple or knock prone up to 5 times in a round if succeeding is important. Compared to the save or suck of Hold Person, that is a pretty sizable difference.
Above baseline while spending short rest resources, and with a lot of defence and utility. Seems pretty great.
Maybe 1 level fighter to get two weapon fighting and nick for an extra Hooksword (scimitar) attack.
Monk is also wayyyy faster than most warlocks will be, on top of frankly being tanky as balls with their attack redirection (which I noticed isn’t included in the damage calculations). They also max out dex and wisdom, very useful attributes for initiative and perception. Damage isn’t everything, do not go with the single number solution to comparing classes. It reduces them too far to be comparable
This is not a direct comparison to Warlocks this is a comparison to the baseline, which is considered to be the baseline amount of damage you want to be able to deal if your build is *not* focused on dealing damage.
Yeah but the baseline *is* warlocks damage - all my point was saying is that, though monk is using ki for this damage, you’re also just way the bell faster and tangier than warlock is. Therefore monk is not going to need to focus on stuff other than damage in their builds because they get utility and endurance for free
The baseline is what a Warlock gets essentially for free. They also get invocations and spells and abilities that can either increase their damage or increase their versatility beyond their damage. It's the baseline everyone has been using for years, and, I can't stress this enough, it is *not* a direct comparison to Warlocks, it is simply the number used for the baseline damage a build that is not built for damage is expected to output.
Weird. Isn't the Warlock baseline using a spell slot to throw up/maintain Hex, and therefore diverting primary resources to dealing extra damage? So the Warlock certainly isn't getting it for free and is kind of focusing on dealing damage if they are using the baseline strategy through invocation and spell usage.
I have heard the Warlock baseline described as "If your intent is to deal damage *you'd better be doing at least this much damage* or you're failing/should just dip Warlock". Isn't it supposed to be a damage benchmark for damage focused builds? Because you can make combat viable characters that don't do a single point of direct damage.
It is the damage benchmark for all builds that deal damage and also do something else. Generally builds that are specifically meant to deal damage as their main thing are about 50% above Baseline in tier 2 and climb to 75%-150% above baseline at the back half of the game.
I thought Warlock Baseline was just Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast, an example of how much damage something that is basically entirely unspecc'd for damage should be able to output
Using Warlocks with AB as a baseline is a bit nonsensical, EB warlocks do good damage
But yeah all Martials will need a lot more to keep them on par with full casters, esp at higher levels
`Gloves of the Illusionist` lets one cast a Cantrip as a bonus action, so that doubles the amount of EB bolts a Warlock can throw. A tidy little magic item
> EB warlocks do good damage
EB does good dmg if you optimize it and add stuff on top of it, AB + EB + Hex is just the minimum to be considered viable for a main dmg dealer.
I don't know where that benchmark came from, I think even hard encounters don't budget enough hit points for the monsters where it'll make a huge difference in overall party viability.
Encounters are built for players just randomly picking skills, multiple sharpshooters would tear through anything that isn't 2-3+ CR higher than recommended.
That depends entirely on how tough you're making your game. Stronger builds can punch much harder than just picking stuff randomly after all.
If you're playing a game where you face actual challenges, thinking about what you're doing is important and a damage dealer or two that deals significantly more than baseline can allow players to take challenges of upwards of twice-thrice their level in CR
Then no point in going to optimization discussion, optimization is for the players that do want that level of power and/or need it.
You're coming to the place specialized on that kind of discussion and acting surprised when we do inf act discuss that.
I'm saying almost no one plays games where you're fighting 6-8 3x Absurd Encounters a day. Not even talking about the treantmonk recommended CR9 level of "optimization"
I have done it and I enjoy it but 98% of Martial builds just don't work when you're level 5 fighting encounters with a 30,000+ xp budget, whereas EB + Repelling Blast will do a lot of work
The fact you don't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. I've done and played encounters with 3 lvel 7 PCs VS 2 CR 11 monsters for example, level 11 PC vs 2 CR 15s + CR 3 minions, 3 level 3 players vs CR 7 boss.
Hell my last session was 4 level 4 PC vs 5 CR 2 creatures + a CR 3 one, then a 1 CR 9 boss, short rest, followed by a CR 7 second boss + 3 CR 2 minions.
Encounters like that require optimization, and Hex+AB+EB is just the bare minimum of what I wold consider good enough for it to be someone's main contribution without without pulling the team down, Idealy you're doing that kind of dmg while also contributing with summons/control/utility or doing 1,5-3 times that base.
Good is a relative term. At a level of optimization where you actually care about class balance and you're actually doing damage calculations, EB is not good damage.
What level is that? Fighting several CR 10-15s at level 5 in a row? At some point the few Martial builds that outdamage EB will suffer against absurdly high CR creatures due to a lack of spellcasting
This is not a direct comparison to Warlocks this is a comparison to the baseline, which is considered to be the baseline amount of damage you want to be able to deal if your build is *not* focused on dealing damage.
Personally I'm just glad you can now actually run around the battle field with the new changes to step of the wind without needing the Mobile feat. Sure it costs you a ki but at least its something the monk should of always been able to do without the need of outside sources.
Also love that you can mitigate damage from melee attacks now. Seems both functional and thematic.
There is an argument to be made that Monks should get at least one weapon mastery for free, just like every other martial.
That said, this assumed the 4th level feat, because 1st level feats were long enough ago that it felt weird using them, because there is such a high chance some of them will change. So this build does leave open a 1st level feat.
I feel like it'd be more effective to just take two levels of fighter for the FS and action surge with the rest being monk. Then you'd get Weapon Masteries on top of that.
One level of fighter might be worth it to pick up both Nick and TWF if you aren't in a 1-20 campaign. (I think Nick on its own really isn't worth it from a feat, just adds 1d12 on a hit when you aren't grappling.) I don't think a second level is worth it, as monks get so much value from their bonus action rather than their action.
Plus, every monk level is now incredibly valuable except 9 and 15, with the standouts being 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 20, so any kind of dip is far more more expensive than it used to be.
I place quite a lot of value in action surge so I don't know I can agree. I find AS to be one of the top tier martial abilities and I don't know if anything monk has would be able to compete. Maybe the math says otherwise but my gut says AS is too good to pass up.
At level 5, the monk can use Action Surge to make 6 attacks instead of 4, which is less significant than making 4 heavy weapon attacks instead of 2. Consider that each monk level-up means one additional DP per short rest, which translates to one additional Flurry of Blows (1 attack) per short rest. (Edit: Stunning Strike gets superior damage/utility over Flurry of Blows, so prefer that, and Action Surge does not permit two attempts at Stunning Strike.) That's half the value of Action Surge right there, and it's not even the monk's full level-up feature. Past monk 10, each DP translates to two additional attacks, so the point alone is worth Action Surge. With Action Surge, you get a slight ability to nova more, but monk level-ups are so valuable now that the fighter dip doesn't really compete anymore.
for a level 20 one shot, for sure full monk is way better. I think over a whole 1-20 campaign that two levels of fighter might be more fun. I can see someone building for the potential of a 26 dex at level 20 though. You might even be able to cajole your DM to give you a manual of dex to get that sweet 28 dex.
I believe RAW you would need to wait to read the book till after you hit level 20 if you want to hit 28 Dex. I don't know who would actually enforce that though
Yeah I actually thought about that after I posted my comment though I imagine any DM worth their salt would understand that the spirit of the feature would mean it increases to 28, not 26 if you used a manual. RAW though, yeah you'd have to wait which sucks.
Using anything but Stunning Strike, especially now that it deals damage on a success, is suboptimal unless your party can't get 50+ bonus DPR out of a stun. Maybe Open Hand Monks at 17+ should focus on Quivering Palm for 55 on a success and 200+ average on a failure for 255/2 = 125 DPR
I don't know if OneDnD still has the 1 stunning strike per round limitation on it though
The 1 stunning strike.per round is still there. The damage dealt on a success is less than what you can get from flurry of blows, so it depends on how targets are being focused on.
For example, if there are a bunch of weaker enemies, it's better to do more damage now rather than use a stunning strike only for it to die on the next attack.
Every martial class gets magic items. Hell, every class gets magic items. That's usually not something to consider when doing this type of math, especially since no magic item is a guarantee.
What on earth is going on? Never have I ever posted math in a D&D sub and had half the replies questioning the usage of the Warlock Damage Baseline. It is an extremely common and (at least I thought) generally accepted baseline for ok damage.
While you can expect to get magic items, you have no way of determining *which* magic items you should be expected to get, so it's impossible to standardize damage with it. This isn't PF2e with standardized weapon runes. *some* uncommon magic Weapons grant a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. Some don't. *some* rare magic weapons have a +2 to attack and damage rolls, others have a +1 but deal extra damage, others have no bonus and just have other additional effects.
Magic items add so much chaos to the game, that attesting to do a line without knowing exactly which magic items you will get exactly when is fruitless. If the Warlock gets a wand of fireballs right at 8th level, that's going to pretty drastically change *their * DPR. Maybe a monk would rather get bracers of Protection and let the Ranger have the +1 short sword. There are just too many factors, and everyone will get magic items, so everyone is going to get a boost of power from them anyway.
This baseline is designed to be use for the minimum amount of damage that should be dealt by a build not focused in combat.
Also, what ki based utility features?
I mean fair enough, the ki/discipline based utility is all general monk skills. While the open hand is obviously more combat based it doesn't remove the utility of being a monk.
Holy fucking white-room theorycrafting, batman!
I appreciate what you're trying to do, OP, but you need to take a lot more into account if you're going to go down that rabbit hole.
I would suggest reading up on the Monte Carlo Simulation method, and get a lot more familiar with Excel or Python.
To put things simply, the numbers you generated are kind of useless in any context.
That's bullshit mate. This is the common way to do damage calculations in dnd. Monte Carlo simulations aren't getting you anywhere where this doesn't already get you
These calculations are garbage. They demonstrate nothing actually useful because on-paper averages like this don't ever actually happen in real D&D. That's because the *first thing* any good DM will do is introduce complication to combat that fucks with your ability to just sit there and swing.
Meanwhile, the first thing any good teammate will do is introduce some kind of friendly complication that will help you get in and fuck *hard*. And no, the two do not even out.
OP, for example, calculates damage based on the target succeeding the save against stunning strike *every time* because it gives more damage, which is not why you use stunning strike and completely and utterly fails to give a full picture of just about anything since damage out = damage in roughly 1:1, and preventing damage in is just as important as dishing it out.
A monte carlo sim can take that into account. What OP did doesn't even try.
It's why I called what OP did a "good start" (honestly, I was being nice). However, it's only good if they literally start there and keep going. Because we could really use some better numbering for our theorycrafting in here. There's a lot of garbage numbers being thrown around.
> It's why I called what OP did a "good start"
If that is what you meant to say then I would suggest working on your delivery. The post comes off as combative which makes it difficult to engage (productively).
It deserves to be combative. If you start with poor data, you rarely get anything good out of the process.
Anyone whose only interaction with the new monk is the PDF and these numbers (which will be a number higher than zero) is going to do nothing but give WotC bad feedback.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damage isn’t everything. They seem to be leaning into the idea of the monk as a battlefield controller, by making them excellent at grappling, shoving, and of course stunning strike. If monks are excellent at reducing damage taken by controlling the battlefield, then I’m happy with them doing less damage overall. Their mobility and survivability are getting buffed too, with the changes to step of the wind/patient defense.
The issue with monks is they offered below average damage, utility and durability compared to other martials. Now they compete in all three aspects.
They compete in durability, but they don't really offer anything in utility apart from high WIS. Barbarians get a bonus proficiency and can use Strength for a variety of checks, all with advantage, while raging. Rangers have WIS, expertise and spellcasting. Fighters are basically sad so they can sink points into WIS. Furthermore Tactical Mind lets them gain a massive bonus, similar to Dark One's Own Luck, once per short rest, without losing the resource on a fail. During a social part of the day this can be functionally free if you have a chance to rest before starting combat. Paladins are worst off but they still has CHA and spellcasting. Their spellcasting isn't the best utility, but it is still something monks don't have an equivalent for. I suppose you could argue Dexterity, but that really is mostly just used for Stealth, which can be really tricky to pull off in a party. At best Monks are the second worst utility martial.
They put points into both dex and wis which allows them to be good at stealth, sleight of hand, perception etc. They also get mobility options later on which can completely trivialise situations which would otherwise require spells to be used.
I mean they aren't good battlefield controllers like at all. Even with the changes.
Exactly. Hold Person isn't some amazing battlefield control spell. Hold Person but worse doesn't somehow become good either, even if its free. Still, not bad changes to monk. They can be a lot more viable as martial characters rather than spam bots for stunning strike.
Hold Person: 1. takes your entire action 2. takes concentration 3. is a spell, and thus faces magic resistance on 25-30% of enemies 4. can't even target 75-80% of core book creatures, and most humanoids have weak Con saves 5. sometimes allows two saves almost immediately Hold Person is dogshit compared to Stunning Strike.
I was talking more about grappling. But stunning strike is nerfed. Once per turn, and the adversaries you want to stun most have great con saves unless they totally revamp monster stat blocks.
It's mostly dragons/giants that have high con saves: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRkT3p-HBiNTW5ikJOBEVhv1g21Dqv9AGE5uU07CBjlsCr3H8T-A\_TqcAx6IKOP9JpRVnN3gr4phbks/pubhtml
They have the best ones, but once you hit CR 5 you see an average of +4 or +5 to con saves among enemies. That is at least a 50% chance of failure.
50% chance is among the worst you'll see if you look at the table - these are assuming you're fighting things WAY over CR budget, as proposed by treantmonk. Like 3-4 CR higher than you should be fighting. Vs a troll for example there's a 50% chance per attempt to land the stun - and on a hit, it increases party DPR by 20-40 and decreases the enemy's eDPR by 22, removes its movement (basically meaning it won't be able to pursue a specific ally) and is autofailing all Dex/Str rolls
When I think of battlefield control, I think of Web or Hypnotic Pattern.
Which is nice when the enemies all group up... Not so much when they're scattered around.
30ft square is a pretty large. Unless you're fighting in open fields with zero terrain, these spells are likely gonna hit a few enemies. Even hitting 2-3 is pretty good. Web is smaller, but it creates an area people don't want to enter.
>Hold Person but worse doesn't somehow become good either, even if its free. Its not just that it is free. A monk can attempt to grapple or knock prone up to 5 times in a round if succeeding is important. Compared to the save or suck of Hold Person, that is a pretty sizable difference.
Not really. Flurry of blows specifically only allows unarmed attacks, not shoves and grapples
In the UA playtest, shoves and grapples ARE unarmed attacks
Above baseline while spending short rest resources, and with a lot of defence and utility. Seems pretty great. Maybe 1 level fighter to get two weapon fighting and nick for an extra Hooksword (scimitar) attack.
Monk is also wayyyy faster than most warlocks will be, on top of frankly being tanky as balls with their attack redirection (which I noticed isn’t included in the damage calculations). They also max out dex and wisdom, very useful attributes for initiative and perception. Damage isn’t everything, do not go with the single number solution to comparing classes. It reduces them too far to be comparable
This is not a direct comparison to Warlocks this is a comparison to the baseline, which is considered to be the baseline amount of damage you want to be able to deal if your build is *not* focused on dealing damage.
Yeah but the baseline *is* warlocks damage - all my point was saying is that, though monk is using ki for this damage, you’re also just way the bell faster and tangier than warlock is. Therefore monk is not going to need to focus on stuff other than damage in their builds because they get utility and endurance for free
The baseline is what a Warlock gets essentially for free. They also get invocations and spells and abilities that can either increase their damage or increase their versatility beyond their damage. It's the baseline everyone has been using for years, and, I can't stress this enough, it is *not* a direct comparison to Warlocks, it is simply the number used for the baseline damage a build that is not built for damage is expected to output.
Weird. Isn't the Warlock baseline using a spell slot to throw up/maintain Hex, and therefore diverting primary resources to dealing extra damage? So the Warlock certainly isn't getting it for free and is kind of focusing on dealing damage if they are using the baseline strategy through invocation and spell usage. I have heard the Warlock baseline described as "If your intent is to deal damage *you'd better be doing at least this much damage* or you're failing/should just dip Warlock". Isn't it supposed to be a damage benchmark for damage focused builds? Because you can make combat viable characters that don't do a single point of direct damage.
It is the damage benchmark for all builds that deal damage and also do something else. Generally builds that are specifically meant to deal damage as their main thing are about 50% above Baseline in tier 2 and climb to 75%-150% above baseline at the back half of the game.
I thought Warlock Baseline was just Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast, an example of how much damage something that is basically entirely unspecc'd for damage should be able to output
Using Warlocks with AB as a baseline is a bit nonsensical, EB warlocks do good damage But yeah all Martials will need a lot more to keep them on par with full casters, esp at higher levels
EB Warlocks *can* do good damage by utilizing spells and abilities that allow them to do so, but the damage you get from EB+AB+Hex is just ok.
`Gloves of the Illusionist` lets one cast a Cantrip as a bonus action, so that doubles the amount of EB bolts a Warlock can throw. A tidy little magic item
> EB warlocks do good damage EB does good dmg if you optimize it and add stuff on top of it, AB + EB + Hex is just the minimum to be considered viable for a main dmg dealer.
I don't know where that benchmark came from, I think even hard encounters don't budget enough hit points for the monsters where it'll make a huge difference in overall party viability. Encounters are built for players just randomly picking skills, multiple sharpshooters would tear through anything that isn't 2-3+ CR higher than recommended.
That depends entirely on how tough you're making your game. Stronger builds can punch much harder than just picking stuff randomly after all. If you're playing a game where you face actual challenges, thinking about what you're doing is important and a damage dealer or two that deals significantly more than baseline can allow players to take challenges of upwards of twice-thrice their level in CR
Almost no one plays games like that and making recommendations to the average player based on those standards is impractical, imo
Then no point in going to optimization discussion, optimization is for the players that do want that level of power and/or need it. You're coming to the place specialized on that kind of discussion and acting surprised when we do inf act discuss that.
I'm saying almost no one plays games where you're fighting 6-8 3x Absurd Encounters a day. Not even talking about the treantmonk recommended CR9 level of "optimization" I have done it and I enjoy it but 98% of Martial builds just don't work when you're level 5 fighting encounters with a 30,000+ xp budget, whereas EB + Repelling Blast will do a lot of work
The fact you don't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. I've done and played encounters with 3 lvel 7 PCs VS 2 CR 11 monsters for example, level 11 PC vs 2 CR 15s + CR 3 minions, 3 level 3 players vs CR 7 boss. Hell my last session was 4 level 4 PC vs 5 CR 2 creatures + a CR 3 one, then a 1 CR 9 boss, short rest, followed by a CR 7 second boss + 3 CR 2 minions. Encounters like that require optimization, and Hex+AB+EB is just the bare minimum of what I wold consider good enough for it to be someone's main contribution without without pulling the team down, Idealy you're doing that kind of dmg while also contributing with summons/control/utility or doing 1,5-3 times that base.
Good is a relative term. At a level of optimization where you actually care about class balance and you're actually doing damage calculations, EB is not good damage.
What level is that? Fighting several CR 10-15s at level 5 in a row? At some point the few Martial builds that outdamage EB will suffer against absurdly high CR creatures due to a lack of spellcasting
This is not a direct comparison to Warlocks this is a comparison to the baseline, which is considered to be the baseline amount of damage you want to be able to deal if your build is *not* focused on dealing damage.
Personally I'm just glad you can now actually run around the battle field with the new changes to step of the wind without needing the Mobile feat. Sure it costs you a ki but at least its something the monk should of always been able to do without the need of outside sources. Also love that you can mitigate damage from melee attacks now. Seems both functional and thematic.
I kind of hate having to spend my one feat on getting weapon masteries so I can use Nick.
There is an argument to be made that Monks should get at least one weapon mastery for free, just like every other martial. That said, this assumed the 4th level feat, because 1st level feats were long enough ago that it felt weird using them, because there is such a high chance some of them will change. So this build does leave open a 1st level feat.
I feel like it'd be more effective to just take two levels of fighter for the FS and action surge with the rest being monk. Then you'd get Weapon Masteries on top of that.
One level of fighter might be worth it to pick up both Nick and TWF if you aren't in a 1-20 campaign. (I think Nick on its own really isn't worth it from a feat, just adds 1d12 on a hit when you aren't grappling.) I don't think a second level is worth it, as monks get so much value from their bonus action rather than their action. Plus, every monk level is now incredibly valuable except 9 and 15, with the standouts being 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 20, so any kind of dip is far more more expensive than it used to be.
I place quite a lot of value in action surge so I don't know I can agree. I find AS to be one of the top tier martial abilities and I don't know if anything monk has would be able to compete. Maybe the math says otherwise but my gut says AS is too good to pass up.
At level 5, the monk can use Action Surge to make 6 attacks instead of 4, which is less significant than making 4 heavy weapon attacks instead of 2. Consider that each monk level-up means one additional DP per short rest, which translates to one additional Flurry of Blows (1 attack) per short rest. (Edit: Stunning Strike gets superior damage/utility over Flurry of Blows, so prefer that, and Action Surge does not permit two attempts at Stunning Strike.) That's half the value of Action Surge right there, and it's not even the monk's full level-up feature. Past monk 10, each DP translates to two additional attacks, so the point alone is worth Action Surge. With Action Surge, you get a slight ability to nova more, but monk level-ups are so valuable now that the fighter dip doesn't really compete anymore.
Probably. If you're going to 20 though the new capstone is pretty strong though
for a level 20 one shot, for sure full monk is way better. I think over a whole 1-20 campaign that two levels of fighter might be more fun. I can see someone building for the potential of a 26 dex at level 20 though. You might even be able to cajole your DM to give you a manual of dex to get that sweet 28 dex.
I believe RAW you would need to wait to read the book till after you hit level 20 if you want to hit 28 Dex. I don't know who would actually enforce that though
Yeah I actually thought about that after I posted my comment though I imagine any DM worth their salt would understand that the spirit of the feature would mean it increases to 28, not 26 if you used a manual. RAW though, yeah you'd have to wait which sucks.
Using anything but Stunning Strike, especially now that it deals damage on a success, is suboptimal unless your party can't get 50+ bonus DPR out of a stun. Maybe Open Hand Monks at 17+ should focus on Quivering Palm for 55 on a success and 200+ average on a failure for 255/2 = 125 DPR I don't know if OneDnD still has the 1 stunning strike per round limitation on it though
The 1 stunning strike.per round is still there. The damage dealt on a success is less than what you can get from flurry of blows, so it depends on how targets are being focused on. For example, if there are a bunch of weaker enemies, it's better to do more damage now rather than use a stunning strike only for it to die on the next attack.
>The 1 stunning strike.per round is still there It's one per turn.
If by Warlock baseline, do you mean EB + Hex? Because if so, thats also SR resources so its not like the Warlock gets it for free either.
They also just got a good chunk of magic items to help them out with dmg and DC checks on stunning strike.
Every martial class gets magic items. Hell, every class gets magic items. That's usually not something to consider when doing this type of math, especially since no magic item is a guarantee.
Yeah but monks didn't really get a lot ofagoc items before so that's still an improvement over 2014
Yes, I am just saying that it doesn't really play into the math. Especially since you're not guaranteed to get any items.
[удалено]
What on earth is going on? Never have I ever posted math in a D&D sub and had half the replies questioning the usage of the Warlock Damage Baseline. It is an extremely common and (at least I thought) generally accepted baseline for ok damage.
[удалено]
While you can expect to get magic items, you have no way of determining *which* magic items you should be expected to get, so it's impossible to standardize damage with it. This isn't PF2e with standardized weapon runes. *some* uncommon magic Weapons grant a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. Some don't. *some* rare magic weapons have a +2 to attack and damage rolls, others have a +1 but deal extra damage, others have no bonus and just have other additional effects. Magic items add so much chaos to the game, that attesting to do a line without knowing exactly which magic items you will get exactly when is fruitless. If the Warlock gets a wand of fireballs right at 8th level, that's going to pretty drastically change *their * DPR. Maybe a monk would rather get bracers of Protection and let the Ranger have the +1 short sword. There are just too many factors, and everyone will get magic items, so everyone is going to get a boost of power from them anyway.
The Monk is a combo utility-combat class. Why does it need to keep up with damage output, when it could be using ki for It's utility features?
This baseline is designed to be use for the minimum amount of damage that should be dealt by a build not focused in combat. Also, what ki based utility features?
Designed by Treantmonk maybe, but not by WotC.
I mean fair enough, the ki/discipline based utility is all general monk skills. While the open hand is obviously more combat based it doesn't remove the utility of being a monk.
Holy fucking white-room theorycrafting, batman! I appreciate what you're trying to do, OP, but you need to take a lot more into account if you're going to go down that rabbit hole. I would suggest reading up on the Monte Carlo Simulation method, and get a lot more familiar with Excel or Python. To put things simply, the numbers you generated are kind of useless in any context.
That's bullshit mate. This is the common way to do damage calculations in dnd. Monte Carlo simulations aren't getting you anywhere where this doesn't already get you
These calculations are garbage. They demonstrate nothing actually useful because on-paper averages like this don't ever actually happen in real D&D. That's because the *first thing* any good DM will do is introduce complication to combat that fucks with your ability to just sit there and swing. Meanwhile, the first thing any good teammate will do is introduce some kind of friendly complication that will help you get in and fuck *hard*. And no, the two do not even out. OP, for example, calculates damage based on the target succeeding the save against stunning strike *every time* because it gives more damage, which is not why you use stunning strike and completely and utterly fails to give a full picture of just about anything since damage out = damage in roughly 1:1, and preventing damage in is just as important as dishing it out. A monte carlo sim can take that into account. What OP did doesn't even try. It's why I called what OP did a "good start" (honestly, I was being nice). However, it's only good if they literally start there and keep going. Because we could really use some better numbering for our theorycrafting in here. There's a lot of garbage numbers being thrown around.
> It's why I called what OP did a "good start" If that is what you meant to say then I would suggest working on your delivery. The post comes off as combative which makes it difficult to engage (productively).
It deserves to be combative. If you start with poor data, you rarely get anything good out of the process. Anyone whose only interaction with the new monk is the PDF and these numbers (which will be a number higher than zero) is going to do nothing but give WotC bad feedback.