The Monk: I like it, but there are some problems...

The class is flavorful and neat. Unlike the rogue, it is far more than just a "weaker fighter." I like it a lot! However, I worry about the parity of the fighter vs. any other martial character. The fighter's extra attack is just that strong! In order to keep things balanced monks will probably have to get a flat once-per turn damage boost at every level that a fighter gets an extra attack. That, or allow them to use "Flurry of Blows" once per turn without having to spend an expertise die (but they still roll one of their expertise dice worth of damage) each time a fighter gets an extra attack. 

In any case, whatever it gets, it can't be as good as a fighter's extra attack. FoB is better than deadly strike, and the monk can get deadly strike. Meanwhile, with a high enough Dex+Wis Combo, the monk has the potential to have the best AC we have seen to date. It needs to have a maximised Dex and a Wis of 16+ to achieve that. So, its unlikely to happen until higher levels, but still... the monk still has all of its other neat features. What is required is a slight tweak. Anything to drastic and I think the monk would overshadow the fighter. 

The 5e of D&D: its like a more balanced version of 2e, but with the character customization frills of 3e and 4e. I love it!

Dave, did you just say that the fighter oveshadows the monk in one paragraph, and that the monk could overshadow the fighter in the next? I think you're worrying about damage totals when the class is still in its conceptual state.

Take a look at Surrealistik's ki system. That could enhance the monk's potential in the game, whether or not the monk compares in terms of raw damage.

The class is flavorful and neat. Unlike the rogue, it is far more than just a "weaker fighter." I like it a lot! However, I worry about the parity of the fighter vs. any other martial character. The fighter's extra attack is just that strong! In order to keep things balanced monks will probably have to get a flat once-per turn damage boost at every level that a fighter gets an extra attack. That, or allow them to use "Flurry of Blows" once per turn without having to spend an expertise die (but they still roll one of their expertise dice worth of damage) each time a fighter gets an extra attack. 

In any case, whatever it gets, it can't be as good as a fighter's extra attack. FoB is better than deadly strike, and the monk can get deadly strike. Meanwhile, with a high enough Dex+Wis Combo, the monk has the potential to have the best AC we have seen to date. It needs to have a maximised Dex and a Wis of 16+ to achieve that. So, its unlikely to happen until higher levels, but still... the monk still has all of its other neat features. What is required is a slight tweak. Anything to drastic and I think the monk would overshadow the fighter. 




How about basing the Monks damage dice on their Wisdom modifier?

Wisdom     Damage
Modifier       Dice
+0 or less    1d4
+1              1d6
+2              1d8
+3              1d10
+4              1d12
+5              2d6


"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Why does it always come to coMplaining about damage being balanced with other classes.  Maybe the monk and rouge should do less damage and be happy w other abilities like stealth and knowledges.  This game is about more than damage andmaking people feel like the only contribution to a game is killing monsters

If you read the blog post announcing the monk class, he stated that there was little point in improving the damage die as most of your damage would come from expertise dice anyways.


It is true that an increase in your damage die is negligable, even if you are wielding two weapons (i.e. getting double the bonus).


The most important things are accuracy and increasing your chance of getting critical hits. critical hits add a TON of damage, and thats the only reason why flurry of blows can help the monk compete with a fighter. However, until you get 3d10 dice, the fighter has a large advantage from levels 6-9 in terms of damage/round. Once you get to level 10 it is almost equal, with the monk doing a few points less damage on average but having more chances to finish off an enemy with low health. 


I think before you get to level 6, it should be about equal. 


That being said, I think it would be nice if monks did upgrade to a d10 at level 6 as a consolation prize for the huge power gap. Maybe upgrade it every 3 levels?


My only complaint not having experienced monk gameplay yet is they didn't bother to add any monk items to the magic item list.

Their unarmed attack could equal their highest expertise dice?  Or, if they are unarmed, they gain an extra expertise dice whatever size the rest of their dice are, gain their dex bonus to the damage for FoB, but not be able to make non-FoB attacks?  Or, maybe give them their STR bonus to FoB damage?  Then you have to make the choice between the extra damage or the extra AC?

(Though I still think the fighters extra attack is the problem, and should be changed to something else.)
So, ignoring people who don't seem to understand basic math, or people whose solution to gaming seems to be "don't look at how the rules work, just play the game, even while you are supposed to be playtesting how the rules work," the monk and the fighter are well balanced until level 6. At level 6 the fighters extra attack makes him overpowered compared to the monk. The monk, however, still contributes in some neat ways. What is needed is some sort of level 6 ability that gives the monk a slight damage boost. 
Its not just ignore it and just play the game.  Why is every class having its worth quantified in damage and weather or not it is comparable to the fighter.  The fighter should do more damage, when you get adventurers together and bring everyones abilities to the table a fighter should be your trained killer.  That is not to say that everyone else should sit back and watch the fighter go to work but when it comes to stealth, investigation, social interactions, obscure knowlege, ect then it lets others shine. 

If the fighter does more damage compared to the other classes and everyone wants a fighter then they are going to be very disappointed when their one dimensional party has to do something other than kill someone.  How will the fighter get across the 20' wide pool of acid, he cant stride across liquids like a monk or teleport like a wizard will be able to. 

I think I agree with Entrigan in spirit, if not in phrasing.

Monks are doing appreciable damage right now. I don't feel we need to change anything just yet. Perhaps boost them to an unarmed d8 between lv 6 and 10 just so flurry of blows isn't 1 strike d6, 3 strikes d10, a jump that big is a little wonky. As things stand between the fighter and the monk though I'm happy. You may think those immunities are too situational to compare with the fighter's extra attack, but they can be incredibly powerful when brought into play.

Perhaps as the fighter gains more things we may feel the monk needs a small damage boost, but for now I think he fits well in his niche

There is a difference between complete equality/complete parity, when it comes to damage, and keeping things close enough that people are still playing in the same ballpark. I don't need to see the monk get complete parity with the fighter, in terms of damage. But its damage per round, right now, is not close enough. I posted the exact numbers, with statistical probability and critical hits factored in, in a thread called Monk vs. Fighter (the math). A link can be found in my signature. If the monk got one free use of FoB per turn it would still have a lower DPR than the fighter; I would, however, probably be happy with those numbers (playtesting would be required for me to know for sure). Right now, however, it is unacceptably low. The class looks great! It is not the abject failure that the rogue is. But its DPR is too low compared to the fighters.

And, for the record, fighters are not as bad in non-combat encounters as Entrigan is trying to pass off. They get Mighty Exertion. Mighty Exertion is the exact same thing as the rogue's Skill Expertise, except that it only applies to Strength based checks (whether they are skill checks or not, and whether the fighter is trained in the checks or not). At my last count, there are 6 skills which the power could regularly be used with, plus any Strength checks that are not skill checks. So, let’s not pull the "a fighter needs to do more damage because that is all it does" card. That card is a lie. The fighter is quite capable outside of combat as well. Any time the group needs to make drive checks, ride checks, swim check, climb checks, intimidation checks, or escape artist checks the fighter is as likely to be the go-to character as anyone else. Same is true whenever you just happen to need to break something.  

The difference between the monk and the fighter with the longsword in your math is about 10 points of damage a round. I agree the gap could be a little smaller, but the monk also has ki abilities that, while not damage dealing, are quite useful. As it currently stands the fighter gets the fewest skills and no abilities outside of his manuevers, except the second attack. With the monks 4 uses of either Wholeness of body (for increased self healing) and Stuning Strike I believe that gap is lessened conceptually.

Still, I'll trow my at in with the monk unarmed damage increasing to a d8 somewhere around lv 6. That puts them on-par with the best bludgeoning weapons. True, it makes their choice of weaponry less desirable, put I'd say most people use the monk with their fists anyways as most of their abilities require them to be unarmed.

It won't close the gap enough perhaps, but I don't feel the monk needs to close the gap quite that much just yet.

A fighter with a longsword and a shield will do 9.80625 more points of damage per round and will have +1 AC over the Monk. A fighter with a greatsword will do 13.95625 more points of damage per round and will have the same AC as the Monk. Those numbers are not small. They mean that the monk deals only between 71-64% of the fighter's damage, depending on the fighter's weapon choice. The fighter also gets one more maneuver than the monk. The monk, meanwhile, will get to either heal 13 points of damage 5 times a day or try and stun a target 5 times per day, or some combination of the two, but only 5 times per day. It will also be trained in 2 extra skills. You really think that balances out to the damage discrepancies we are seeing? REALLY!? This is why I believe that some of you just don't understand basic math. That discrepancy is HUGE. And how do you propose to fix it? At 6th level a monk should get 1d8 unarmed damage. REALLY!? So, at 6th level, to combat this discrepancy, the monk should get a (give or take) 1-2 point increase in DPR. Awesome sauce and epic fail.


That sort of imbalance is a deal breaker for me. Right now I am not bothered. This is their first take. And, their first take is cool and interesting. It shows a lot of promise. But, if as of release the monk does not get a significant boost in power at 6th level (and every other level where a fighter gets an extra attack) I probably won’t buy into this edition. While I want the retro feel of pre 4e games, I am not willing to pay for a drastically imbalanced product ever again. The sort of upgrade that I think would cut it would be one free use of FoB per turn. That reduces the discrepancies we are seeing by 5 points. So, the sword and board fighter will deal about 5 more points of damage a round. Meanwhile, the greatsword fighter will deal about 9 more points of damage a round. Balanced against the Monk’s other nice features, that seems fair. Anything less does not. 

Adding that 2 extra DPR brings the monk to around 77% of the longsword fighter right? Isn't dealing 75% of the fighter damage what we were going for?

We could also increase the monk's healing, to make it more worthwhile, but it is fairly powerful in itself as it gives the monk the highest "potential" hp of any class. That is worth a bit of damage I think as the monk can still also attack four different targets to the fighter's two targets
As per Fimbria, I think my Ki idea:

docs.google.com/document/d/1raDwKyHG1dg7...

is an innovative solution for closing the gap, while simultaneously making the class more interesting and unique as a whole.

Adding that 2 extra DPR brings the monk to around 77% of the longsword fighter right? Isn't dealing 75% of the fighter damage what we were going for?



No, it is not. It is ok if the rogue, overall, deals about 75-80% of a fighter's DPR (but in spikes instead of constant output). NOBODY has said that is also ok for the monk. The rogue's main shtick is skill use. Its strong benefits in that area are the reason people have said 75-80% is ok. Monks do not have anywhere near a rogue's benefit in that area of the game. They have 2 less skills. All they get is the fighter's Mighty Exertion. They do not have access to something like Skill Mastery. What is more, NOBODY has said they are ok with that 75-80% number being true for a longsword fighter. It is explicitly listed as being the desired amount for the max output of the rogue compared to the max output of the fighter (which means we are talking a two-handed weapon fighter). 

In terms of the monk, I want to see something more along the lines of 85+% of the greatsword fighters DPR. My suggestion actually falls short of that. But that is ok. They can fix it in small increments. We can start with a free use of FoB at level 6, playtest it, and then see how things play out. Anything less than that is flat out unacceptable, however. 

We could also increase the monk's healing, to make it more worthwhile, but it is fairly powerful in itself as it gives the monk the highest "potential" hp of any class. That is worth a bit of damage I think as the monk can still also attack four different targets to the fighter's two targets



It takes an action to use. It is neat, but it is not that powerful. Now, if they remove the action stipulation, maybe....
Had to post in here because I came specifically looking for opinions on this very subject and it appears cyber-Dave is fighting the world here even though his basic root cause is just. 

Id been discussing this with my players and crunching my own numbers and came to the very same conclusion that the monk DPR was grossly underpowered with the fighter.  This coming after my group had already decided the rogue was too severely neutered. We all agreed that rogue damage used to be far too high bit this was a bit ridiculous.

anyway, my own numbers come out roughly the same as Cyber-Dave's and that's just a problem. It should be known that im not in any way "outraged" etc by this, but if we players do not discuss this its quite oossible no change will come.

i feel that rogue and monk damages are comparable in a good way.  By my own numbers I found the rogue a bit stronger if they ALWAYS get their sneak attack Which is appropriate; getting advantage is supposed to be something you should have to work for and higher damage is deserved by the player putting in those extra tactics.  Plus the rogue has the option for I higher damage weapons for a small boost.  The problem here really seems to me to be the fighter and it's extra attack.

for one thing, I really don't understand why the fighter gets an extra attack at all.  The fighter is not just a damage dealer but also one who classically will be in heavier armor, possibly holding a shield and A small weapon while other times holding a great axe, followed moments later by a use of a bow just before he goes to dual wielding... Which is where the seconds attack should come in, when dual wielding. There is no reason for the character who quite often is the tank should consistently do not just more but A LOT more damage than the other 2 martial classes By way of multiple attacks. If any classes should get multiple attacks its the lightly armored, faster, dexterity based classes!!!

personally, I would adjust things by:

1- upgrade monk base fist damage (currently 1d6) to equal 1 expertise die.  So basically a flurry at level 10 would be 4d10+5.

2- rogue, the most definitive "dex" class should get the extra attack at level 6. If they use a big finesse weapon like say a katana they actually get up to 2d8+3d10+10 with the negative that sneaks are harder get come by than the other class specialties.

3- the fighter loses his second attack by default, instead gains a special bonus to damage when using a 2handed weapon (like say double str mod) putting his high end damage of... Say a dwarf fighter with Great axe at 2d6+3d10+10 which is a quite respectable amount and good considering he has to give up his shield bonus to do it but the same fighter with a sword n board combo (actually an axe n board but w/e) would only do a mere 4d10+5.

:o   What shocking balance!!!

extra- I would also add a special dual wield rule for the fighter to use Where he does get a second attack if he uses 2 weapons. A few possible balances for that which I haven't done math to check yet are he gets 2 attacks but no bonus from str/dex or he gets 2 attacks at full damage but disadvantage.


I don't claim to be some expert on class balance but none of this seems too incredible to me and fits the game nicely.  by all means, check the math on these and pick apart the ideas.


allow me to remind everyone that monks CANNOT use flurry of blows with any kind of weapon at all! The rules clearly state "unarmed" only (so no chucks or sais etc, not even a staff) AND there is not yet any kind of handwraps or the like for monks to be able to flurry with a magic weapon like the other classes.

also, rogues must always get a sneak attack to do the kind of damage listed per round which isn't really practical. If the rogues in your campaign are getting theirs every turn than you are either just being lenient in the interest of fun, or you are not really employing any tactics of any kind with your NPCs...

Finally, since drawing weapons is no longer an action (last time I checked the packet at least) it is not difficult for the fighter to switch weapons each round and be a very versatile member of the team.

Adding that 2 extra DPR brings the monk to around 77% of the longsword fighter right? Isn't dealing 75% of the fighter damage what we were going for?



No, it is not. It is ok if the rogue, overall, deals about 75-80% of a fighter's DPR (but in spikes instead of constant output). NOBODY has said that is also ok for the monk. The rogue's main shtick is skill use. Its strong benefits in that area are the reason people have said 75-80% is ok. Monks do not have anywhere near a rogue's benefit in that area of the game. They have 2 less skills. All they get is the fighter's Mighty Exertion. They do not have excess to something like Skill Mastery. What is more, NOBODY has said they are ok with that 75-80% number being true for a longsword fighter. It is explicitly listed as being the desired amount for the max output of the rogue compared to the max output of the fighter (which means we are talking a two-handed weapon fighter). 

In terms of the monk, I want to see something more along the lines of 85+% of the greatsword fighters DPR. My suggestion actually falls short of that. But that is ok. They can fix it in small increments. We can start with a free use of FoB at level 6, playtest it, and then see how things play out. Anything less than that is flat out unacceptable, however. 

We could also increase the monk's healing, to make it more worthwhile, but it is fairly powerful in itself as it gives the monk the highest "potential" hp of any class. That is worth a bit of damage I think as the monk can still also attack four different targets to the fighter's two targets



It takes an action to use. It is neat, but it is not that powerful. Now, if they remove the action stipulation, maybe....



I'm sorry for the misconception, but when you don't state what the goal is for your changes beyond "closing the gap" it's hard for people to adequately judge how far it needs to go. Also, why I understand you are getting frustrated, please don't treat me like the enemy. I'm just a poor college student trying to help with an awesome game and I can't number crunch like you guys can.

I see the sword-n-board fighter as the most common fighter, so I was trying to blance the monk that way. I figured allowing the two-handed fighter to be quite a bit better was also the intention. Thinking on it now I can see how balancing the monk to be slightly less than the 2-handed fighter puts them on par with the longsword. However, While the 2-handed fighter must give up AC for that extra damage, the monk will not lose his AC which I feel may be an important consideration for how close we get him to the 2-handed fighter.

Had to post in here because I came specifically looking for opinions on this very subject and it appears cyber-Dave is fighting the world here even though his basic root cause is just. 

Id been discussing this with my players and crunching my own numbers and came to the very same conclusion that the monk DPR was grossly underpowered with the fighter.  This coming after my group had already decided the rogue was too severely neutered. We all agreed that rogue damage used to be far too high bit this was a bit ridiculous.

anyway, my own numbers come out roughly the same as Cyber-Dave's and that's just a problem. It should be known that im not in any way "outraged" etc by this, but if we players do not discuss this its quite oossible no change will come.

i feel that rogue and monk damages are comparable in a good way.  By my own numbers I found the rogue a bit stronger if they ALWAYS get their sneak attack Which is appropriate; getting advantage is supposed to be something you should have to work for and higher damage is deserved by the player putting in those extra tactics.  Plus the rogue has the option for I higher damage weapons for a small boost.  The problem here really seems to me to be the fighter and it's extra attack.

for one thing, I really don't understand why the fighter gets an extra attack at all.  The fighter is not just a damage dealer but also one who classically will be in heavier armor, possibly holding a shield and A small weapon while other times holding a great axe, followed moments later by a use of a bow just before he goes to dual wielding... Which is where the seconds attack should come in, when dual wielding. There is no reason for the character who quite often is the tank should consistently do not just more but A LOT more damage than the other 2 martial classes By way of multiple attacks. If any classes should get multiple attacks its the lightly armored, faster, dexterity based classes!!!

personally, I would adjust things by:

1- upgrade monk base fist damage (currently 1d6) to equal 1 expertise die.  So basically a flurry at level 10 would be 4d10+5.

2- rogue, the most definitive "dex" class should get the extra attack at level 6. If they use a big finesse weapon like say a katana they actually get up to 2d8+3d10+10 with the negative that sneaks are harder get come by than the other class specialties.

3- the fighter loses his second attack by default, instead gains a special bonus to damage when using a 2handed weapon (like say double str mod) putting his high end damage of... Say a dwarf fighter with Great axe at 2d6+3d10+10 which is a quite respectable amount and good considering he has to give up his shield bonus to do it but the same fighter with a sword n board combo (actually an axe n board but w/e) would only do a mere 4d10+5.

:o   What shocking balance!!!

extra- I would also add a special dual wield rule for the fighter to use Where he does get a second attack if he uses 2 weapons. A few possible balances for that which I haven't done math to check yet are he gets 2 attacks but no bonus from str/dex or he gets 2 attacks at full damage but disadvantage.


I don't claim to be some expert on class balance but none of this seems too incredible to me and fits the game nicely.  by all means, check the math on these and pick apart the ideas.


allow me to remind everyone that monks CANNOT use flurry of blows with any kind of weapon at all! The rules clearly state "unarmed" only (so no chucks or sais etc, not even a staff) AND there is not yet any kind of handwraps or the like for monks to be able to flurry with a magic weapon like the other classes.

also, rogues must always get a sneak attack to do the kind of damage listed per round which isn't really practical. If the rogues in your campaign are getting theirs every turn than you are either just being lenient in the interest of fun, or you are not really employing any tactics of any kind with your NPCs...

Finally, since drawing weapons is no longer an action (last time I checked the packet at least) it is not difficult for the fighter to switch weapons each round and be a very versatile member of the team.



I like the idea of the monk unarmed attack being equal to their expertise die at higher levels, this fixes my issue with why his fists are suddenly 2 die types higher when he flurries. I'm not certain about how that balances though which is why I didn't suggest it.

I understand the fighter's 2nd attack is causin many math problems, but I don't think removing it is the right way to go for the fighter. While he is versatile in his weapon choices, most people tend to stick with 1 or 2 weapons for their fighter. Usually their melee weapon and then a ranged weapon.

Also changing their bonus to only work when dual-wielding is seems to push the player into choosing that option, which goes against your arguement for the fighter switching weapons. If my class ability only works when dual-weilding I'll dual-weild, just like 90% of monks always go unarmed. This also applies to your two-weapon bonus. Furthermore, despite the fighter using big weapons and heavy armor I do not see a conceptual problem with a second attack, precise control of a heavy weapon can allow you to turn a single swing into 2 attacks as you bring to weapon back to you after the first attack.

 On the rogue, it is actually very easy at the moment to get sneak attack every round. Currently you either need advantage or it is in the reach of a creature friendly to you (awkward phrasing to say flanking or within reach of a reach weapon, though it also allows you to befriend a monstrous ally who has reach across 20-30 feet and sneak attack everyone in that area). Basically, if the rogue and fighter fight side by side the rogue can sneak attack every turn.

I'm not saying changes aren't needed, but giving the second attack to the rogue doesn't seem quite right. It's possible but then the fighter is again left with no unique ability, only bigger numbers, which is a problem


I'm sorry for the misconception, but when you don't state what the goal is for your changes beyond "closing the gap" it's hard for people to adequately judge how far it needs to go. Also, why I understand you are getting frustrated, please don't treat me like the enemy. I'm just a poor college student trying to help with an awesome game and I can't number crunch like you guys can. 

I see the sword-n-board fighter as the most common fighter, so I was trying to blance the monk that way. I figured allowing the two-handed fighter to be quite a bit better was also the intention. Thinking on it now I can see how balancing the monk to be slightly less than the 2-handed fighter puts them on par with the longsword. However, While the 2-handed fighter must give up AC for that extra damage, the monk will not lose his AC which I feel may be an important consideration for how close we get him to the 2-handed fighter.



1) I am really sorry if it came across that I view you as the enemy. I am just getting really frustrated at the imbalances amongst the martial classes (given that balance is supposed to be one of the design goals of this edition) and forum posters who defend that imbalance on completely illogical grounds. I didn't mean to be rude, and I am sorry if I came across that way.

2) Please keep in mind, a monk can't choose to give up some attack potential for extra AC. A fighter being able to choose between a 2 handed sword option or a sword and board option is already a benefit over the monk. The one build monks do get should not be further penalized in the damage department as a result. 

i feel that rogue and monk damages are comparable in a good way.  By my own numbers I found the rogue a bit stronger if they ALWAYS get their sneak attack Which is appropriate; getting advantage is supposed to be something you should have to work for and higher damage is deserved by the player putting in those extra tactics.  Plus the rogue has the option for I higher damage weapons for a small boost.  The problem here really seems to me to be the fighter and it's extra attack.



What!?!? You have made a mistake somewhere in your calculations. I can prove to you, mathematically, that if the rogue gets Sneak Attack every round the monk is still more powerful. I can show you the math if you need me to...

for one thing, I really don't understand why the fighter gets an extra attack at all.



Because without it the magic using classes trump the fighter.


I'm sorry for the misconception, but when you don't state what the goal is for your changes beyond "closing the gap" it's hard for people to adequately judge how far it needs to go. Also, why I understand you are getting frustrated, please don't treat me like the enemy. I'm just a poor college student trying to help with an awesome game and I can't number crunch like you guys can. 

I see the sword-n-board fighter as the most common fighter, so I was trying to blance the monk that way. I figured allowing the two-handed fighter to be quite a bit better was also the intention. Thinking on it now I can see how balancing the monk to be slightly less than the 2-handed fighter puts them on par with the longsword. However, While the 2-handed fighter must give up AC for that extra damage, the monk will not lose his AC which I feel may be an important consideration for how close we get him to the 2-handed fighter.



1) I am really sorry if it came across that I view you as the enemy. I am just getting really frustrated at the imbalances amongst the martial classes (given that balance is supposed to be one of the design goals of this edition) and forum posters who defend that imbalance on completely illogical grounds. I didn't mean to be rude, and I am sorry if I came across that way.

2) Please keep in mind, a monk can't choose to give up some attack potential for extra AC. A fighter being able to choose between a 2 handed sword option or a sword and board option is already a benefit over the monk. The one build monks do get should not be further penalized in the damage department as a result. 



1) it is okay. I mightbe getting a little sensitive since the forums seem to be getting more and more combative and less informative.

2) A monk gets 10+wis mod+dex mod AC. If a monk gets +5 in both his AC is 20, which is better than a fighter without magical armor. It does require maxing his stats, but Dex and Wis are primary stats for the monk so it isn't too far out. The monk then, once he has high enough stats, can have the same defense as a sword and board fighter. They cannot choice to lose this AC for better damage, but if we build to close to the greatsword fighter then he has comparable damage to the best a fighter can dish out, and AC to match the fighter's best AC at the same time. I'd say this is better than being able to choose betwen defense and offense
ok here ya go dave, i had to look around and find my notes (did them in lieu of listening to a history lecture the other day):

Monk, lvl6 with +4 attack bonus and +5 dex mod vs Rogue, lvl6 with +3 attack bonus and +5 dex mod and using (for the sake of a level playing field) a 1d6 weapon and has 100% sneak attack chance.

the monster they are attacking has AC 15 for this test.


Rogue
(15.5).91 + (21.5).0975
14.105 + 2.09625
16.20125 DPR

*15.5 is 1 weapon attack plus 2 sneak attack dice plus dex mod, .91 is the rogue's chance to hit with advantage, 21.5 is the bonus damage that would be done on a critical hit, .0975 is the chance to roll a natural 20 (crit) with advantage

 Monk
(8.5).75 + ((3.5).75)2 + ((16.5).05)3
6.375 +5.25 + 2.475
14.1 DPR
 

*8.5 is 1 weapon attack plus dex mod, 3.5 is 1 weapon attack with a 2x multiplier since the trial is done twice, 16.5 is bonus damage done on a critical hit, .05 is the chance for a critical per roll, and there is a 3x multiplier as all 3 rolls have a chance for this bonus damage



I might as well include the Fighter data while I'm here.  Fighter will again be using (a laughable) 1d6 weapon for the sake of comparison:

Fighter
((8.5).75)2 + (7).9375 + ((16.5).05)2 + (5).0975
12.75 + 6.5625 + 1.65 + .4875
21.45 DPR

 *8.5 is 1 weapon hit plus strength mod with a 2x multiplier since he gets 2 attacks, 7 is the average damage of deadly strike, .9375 is the chance the fighter will get a hit with either attack and thus be able to use deadly strike, 16.5 is the bonus damage to the regular attacks gained from a critical with a 5% chance and a 2x multiplier for the second attack, 5 is the bonus damage recieved from a critical added to the deadly strikes, .0975 is the chance that either of the original 2 attacks will crit which would allow for the deadly strike damage to be maxed



By these values, fighter is definitely higher, rogue next, and monk last and this is with EVERYONE using a 1d6 weapon.  that is of course absurd, but at least the numbers are on a level field.


2) A monk gets 10+wis mod+dex mod AC. If a monk gets +5 in both his AC is 20, which is better than a fighter without magical armor. It does require maxing his stats, but Dex and Wis are primary stats for the monk so it isn't too far out. The monk then, once he has high enough stats, can have the same defense as a sword and board fighter. They cannot choice to lose this AC for better damage, but if we build to close to the greatsword fighter then he has comparable damage to the best a fighter can dish out, and AC to match the fighter's best AC at the same time. I'd say this is better than being able to choose betwen defense and offense



So, the stat spread of D&DN is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. At level 4 and 8 you get a +1 to two ability scores. The only way to have a +5 stat bonus is to get a stat to 20. The only way to get a stat to 20 is to play a human, put that 15 into Wis, put your class bonus into Wis, put your race bonus into Wis, and increase Wis at levels 4 and 8. A fighter is going to do the same to its primary attack stat. You can't, because you just did that to Wis. You will probably put your 14 and the other two level based bonuses into your primary attack stat. So, to do what you just proposed, you will end up with a fighter who has an AC of at least 18 (heavy armor), possibly 19 (shield), and a +5 to hit and damage. A monk will have an AC of 20, but it will only have a +3 bonus to hit and damage. That amounts to a very large hit in its DPR (5.05 points to be exact). A monk having that bonus at level 10 is "too far out." Realistically, an optimized monk is going to have a Wis of 16, and an AC of 18, at level 10. That is the same AC a two-handed sword fighter will have at level 10. If the monk wants a higher AC they will take a hit to their DPR just like a fighter will by choosing to use a sword and board. 

In fact, a fighter can achieve an AC of 20. You build a Dex fighter, spike Dex, use light armor, end up with a +5 bonus to AC from dex, and still get a +5 bonus to hit and damage. You then use a shield and a 1d6 finesse weapon. Your AC will be 20 and your DPR will be 33.10625; the monks DPR, with that AC, will be 19.95. Are you seeing the problem? And, this is ignoring the fact that the fighter can, at-will, swap out his +1 to AC for a katana and boost his DPR to 34.80625 . Or he can pick up a longbow and get a great DPR at range. All of which are options a monk does not have…

Do you see why I do the calculations the way I do? You have to balance things out at their maximized levels, because once you get to the space inside the boundaries, both classes can do the sorts of things you propose. If things are not balanced out at the highest end, at the fringes, then the things inside the space created by those fringe boundaries will not end up balanced either. 


EDIT: Big FUBAR on my part. Lowering your Dex also lowers your AC. In other words, a monk simply cannot get an AC of 20 by level 10. A fighter, however, as I showed, can. And, when doing so, his DPR will be 33.10625. That is 8.10625 points above what a monk can achieve. And the fighter will have 2 points higher AC. And the fighter will have better ranged capabilities. And the fighter will be able to stow his shield and shortsword for a katana in order to boost his DPR to 34.80625, while still achieving an AC of 19, which is one point better than the monk's AC.  

Wait a sec Dave, how is it that your calculation says the monk with AC 20 only has a +3 bonus to hit? I'm not following that math at all
Wait a sec Dave, how is it that your calculation says the monk with AC 20 only has a +3 bonus to hit? I'm not following that math at all

Because the monk has put its 15 starting stat, class bonus, and stat bonus into its Wisdom at character creation. That leaves it with a 14 to put into Dex. At level 4 that will become a 15. At level 8 that will become a 16. A 16 nets you a +3 bonus to hit and damage. 

There is also a number of mistakes in your math. I am in the process of writing a post which shows what the numbers should look like.  

So, first of all, I don’t understand why (Saffah) your monk and fighter have a +5 ability bonus at level 6. The best they could manage is +4. So, let us drop that to +4. That means the monk has a 70% chance of hitting AC 15. The rogue has a 65% chance of hitting that AC.


And, let’s not even the playing field. The rogue is using a 1d8 katana.


Rogue’s damage: 1d8 katana (4.5 average) + 2d6 sneak attack (7 average) + 4 (total average: 15.5)


Rogue’s critical hit:  8 + 12 + 4 + 4d6 (14 average) for a total average of 38


Formula to calculate the rogue’s statistical damage per round: (15.5*0.60)+(38*0.05)=11.2


A monk’s damage with its first hit: 1d6 fist (3.5 average) + 4 (total average: 7.5)


Monk’s critical with its first hit: 6+4+4d6 (14 average) for a total average of 24


A monk’s damage with each of its flurry of blows: 1d6 (3.5 average)


Monk’s critical with each of its flurry of blows: 6+4d6 (14 average) for a total average of 20


Formula to calculate a monk’s statistical damage per round with its first hit: (7.5*0.65)+(24*0.05)=6.075


Formula to calculate a monk’s statistical damage per round with each of its flurry of blows: (3.5*0.65)+(20*0.05)= 3.275


Monk’s DPR: 6.075+3.275+3.275= 12.625


With a 1d6 fist a monk is dealing a greater DPR than a rogue with a katana…


That being said, those numbers are fairly well balanced against each other. Neither is well balanced against the fighter. The rogue, however, is far less conceptually interesting (as it is just a weaker fighter). The monk needs a minor power boost. The rogue also needs a power boost, but more importantly it needs to be made conceptually interesting.


  


Because the monk has put its 15 starting stat, class bonus, and stat bonus into its Wisdom at character creation. That leaves it with a 14 to put into Dex. At level 4 that will become a 15. At level 8 that will become a 16. A 16 nets you a +3 bonus to hit and damage. 

There is also a number of mistakes in your math. I am in the process of writing a post which shows what the numbers should look like.  




umm... If you had to sacrifice one of your two primaries to achieve a 20, why wouldn't it be Wis? Get a 20 Dex for your +5 to AC and since you wield finesse weapons you have a +5 attack bonus as well. Then that 16 is in Wis giving you an AC 18 and to-hit of +5 just like the fighter.

Also, I, for some reason, though that the +5 was at 19-20, not 20-21. I was going by odds first instead of evens. Guess I should have double checked the chart

Because the monk has put its 15 starting stat, class bonus, and stat bonus into its Wisdom at character creation. That leaves it with a 14 to put into Dex. At level 4 that will become a 15. At level 8 that will become a 16. A 16 nets you a +3 bonus to hit and damage. 
 




umm... If you had to sacrifice one of your two primaries to achieve a 20, why wouldn't it be Wis? Get a 20 Dex for your +5 to AC and since you wield finesse weapons you have a +5 attack bonus as well. Then that 16 is in Wis giving you an AC 18 and to-hit of +5 just like the fighter.




I have no idea why you would choose to take a 20 in Wis. It should be Dex. My point was that you need a 20 in Wis in order to get a 20 AC. Where I FUBARED big is that I ignored the fact that doing so would not only decrease your bonus to hit and damage from Dex but also your bonus to AC from Dex. So, your AC would still be 18. In other words, there is no way for a monk to get a 20 AC by level 10. All he can manage is an AC of 18. A fighter, however, can manage an AC of 20. In doing so he will still have a DPR of 33.10625, which is about 8 points higher than the monks. In other words, a monk has absolutely nothing going for it at all... which, again, shows why you have to balance things from the highest end numbers. IE: a monks fists vs. a fighter's greatsword.  

Have some company over so I can't get too detailed at the moment Dave, but you are definitely making some mistakes there, i'll try to get some time later to review it more.

Just some quick points for you to take into account quick:

first i think you are confusing the 2 characters you're working with for these comparisons.  Like when I post about damage i think you are referring to your max AC monk for values rather than the damage monk.  obviously you can't max everything at once neccessarily.  Everything must be on a level playing field to do calculations though.  So for example, when I do the numbers, the monk is of course going to have his best stats in the dexterity to get his hit chance up.  All characters in the test are going to be assumed to be putting their maximum in the primary damage stat in a damage comparison.

2nd, i don't have the time atm to go into detail reading your math just yet but the rogue put up a big flag that both me and the guys at my house were like "OOOOOH NO /point fingers n laugh".  when you do you rogue's accuracy, you are forgetting that if he's getting a sneak attack, he has advantage.  there's no question of that, as advantage is a prerequisite of the sneak attack in the first place.  therefore you need to adjust that accuracy rating.  in the case you used where his base accuracy is 60%, you need to have it become (0.6 + ((1 - 0.6) * 0.6).  That is the chance for the rogue to hit with advantage (in textbooks would be called something like the union of A and B).

additionally, the rogue's chance for a critical hit would also be increased by that same system, (0.05 + ((1 - 0.05) * 0.05).

3rd, as for the bonus damage from criticals, i saw you mention something about you weren't sure how to do that.  the method i've been using is to simply say if the average damage of a 1d6 roll is ((1 + 6) / 2) = 3.5 then to increase that to maximum you would add (also on average) 2.5.  so anywhere i see a max damage roll (for a 1d6 at least) that's an increase of 2.5.

4th, i think you are just assuming that everyone uses a point-buy system.  Honestly I don't know any players (IRL that is, I'm sure people here are diffrent) that likes that method.  With both the rolling method and the standard array system the player can have at least 1 17-18 to put into their primary stat. a 17 being all you need in order to get dexterity to 20 by level 6.  (racial bonus + class bonus + level 4 stat increase, and an 18 would allow any race to have 20 dex at level 6)

anyway, i'll look more later when i have time.


first i think you are confusing the 2 characters you're working with for these comparisons.  Like when I post about damage i think you are referring to your max AC monk for values rather than the damage monk.  obviously you can't max everything at once neccessarily.  Everything must be on a level playing field to do calculations though.  So for example, when I do the numbers, the monk is of course going to have his best stats in the dexterity to get his hit chance up.  All characters in the test are going to be assumed to be putting their maximum in the primary damage stat in a damage comparison.



Sorry, what? I did all the calculations assuming an 19 in your primary stat for attack and damage. I think you are getting different posts on different topics mixed up... I am not really sure what you are talking about. I am keeping the playing field level. I am giving all characters in the test their maximum value in their primary stat. At least in my post responding to you. There is another post where I talk to Chaos about what a monk would have to give up to get a 20 AC (and I did mess up in that post, but not in the way you are claiming, but we have already been over that in this thread).

2nd, i don't have the time atm to go into detail reading your math just yet but the rogue put up a big flag that both me and the guys at my house were like "OOOOOH NO /point fingers n laugh".  when you do you rogue's accuracy, you are forgetting that if he's getting a sneak attack, he has advantage.  there's no question of that, as advantage is a prerequisite of the sneak attack in the first place.  therefore you need to adjust that accuracy rating.  in the case you used where his base accuracy is 60%, you need to have it become (0.6 + ((1 - 0.6) * 0.6).  That is the chance for the rogue to hit with advantage (in textbooks would be called something like the union of A and B).

additionally, the rogue's chance for a critical hit would also be increased by that same system, (0.05 + ((1 - 0.05) * 0.05).



You guys should be a little more careful, because now I am the one "pointing fingers and laughing." You don't need advantage to deal sneak attack damage. In fact, most of the time you will not have advantage. You merely need an ally to be adjacent to your target. Now, sometimes a rogue will have advantage. But then, sometimes  the monk will too. The damage increase will raise in ratio. Sort of. Actually, in fact, it will be better overall for the monk, because he will now have 6d20 with which to try and roll a critical.

What is true, however, is that sometimes a rogue won't be able to deal Sneak Attack damage at all. A monk will always be able to deal flurry of blows. So, a monk will have an even higher overall DPR over the course of an encounter. My calculation for the rogue assumes Sneak Attack every round. If he doesn’t get Sneak Attack every round, it will actually be lower. The monk, however, has a flat DPR calculation.

3rd, as for the bonus damage from criticals, i saw you mention something about you weren't sure how to do that.  the method i've been using is to simply say if the average damage of a 1d6 roll is ((1 + 6) / 2) = 3.5 then to increase that to maximum you would add (also on average) 2.5.  so anywhere i see a max damage roll (for a 1d6 at least) that's an increase of 2.5.



What are you talking about? I said that calculating the damage for a proposed "roll expertise dice and take the highest number as a damage add" is somewhat complicated to calculate. Calculating the bonus damage from criticals is easy. And, in my math I did do so. It is the reason the monk’s flurry of blows is so much better than Sneak Attack or Deadly Strike. Although, I have no idea what you are trying to write there. That is not how you calculate the damage of a critical... unless I have misunderstood what you were trying to say. See my math. I show all my calculations. The formula for any given attack should be (X*Y) + (Z*0.05) where X is your average damage, Y is your statistical probability of hitting – 0.05, and Z is your average critical damage (maximize all dice and then add the average damage you would roll with your bonus critical dice).

4th, i think you are just assuming that everyone uses a point-buy system.  Honestly I don't know any players (IRL that is, I'm sure people here are diffrent) that likes that method.  With both the rolling method and the standard array system the player can have at least 1 17-18 to put into their primary stat. a 17 being all you need in order to get dexterity to 20 by level 6.  (racial bonus + class bonus + level 4 stat increase, and an 18 would allow any race to have 20 dex at level 6)

anyway, i'll look more later when i have time.



Yes, I am assuming a point-buy system. Or rather, the standard array system, which is just a pre-build of the point buy system. Rolling stats is imbalanced. It will result in imbalanced builds. If you want to see how well classes are balanced you build characters using the pre-assigned/point buy stats. If you randomize stats/roll stats sometimes you will create, randomly, imbalanced characters. That is what happens when you use an imbalanced system like rolling stats. That is also why we don’t calculate balance on the basis of rolled stats. We take the assumed point buy values and calculate from there. So, at level one, any given character will start with a 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 in their stats (before they are modified by class and race). If you play a human you can get a 15+2 (from race) + 1 (from class) as your highest starting stat. That means that the highest stat you can start with is 18. At level 4 that turns into a 19. A 19 grants you a +4 bonus to hit and damage. At level 8 that turns into a 20. So, no, at level 6 you cannot have a +5 bonus to hit and damage (unless you rolled your stats. But, we have been over that). 

I am 99.9% certain I did not make any mistakes in my math. When I look over what you wrote, it looks very wrong. Everyone who has done the math on Deadly Strike and Flurry of Blows is posting the same thing. Flurry of Blows deals a better average damage. Sneak Attack is just Deadly Strike with a restriction... I hate to say it, but I think you are wrong. Maybe I am missing something. Maybe I am out to lunch. But, in this instance, especially after reading your last post (which has information that is flat out untrue), I think you are just wrong... 
ah i see now what you mean.  We no longer have anyone playing rogues in my campaign (they all jumped ship for better classes) so I didn't know they made that old thug ability standard for all rogues.  i find that very... lame... actually, the point of the class used to be the tactical ability of getting that advantage and keeping it.  it would certainly alter the numbers. the rogue may not be a clear #1 over the monk in that case but they are still close which is fine to me.  I feel more strongly about the fighter being so much higher than the others.

redoing my original numbers the rogue would then be last at 11.925 DPR, a loss of about 26% of his damage (outrageous imo).


 and as to the other stuff dave, i don't really know what you were talking about, that was the point.  it felt like you were mixing numbers between your posts or something as i really didn't understand why you weren't using a max primary stat character in everything you said.

as to the point about point-buy, I suppose its just a matter of taste.  All my players use the roll system, they really hate the others.  I've always offered them the ability to standard array but none have ever wanted to use it.  I assume everyone else would do the same, and it's quite common for a player to have a 17+ ability score, and those that aren't would be human anyway im sure.

it makes little difference however and a wasted point to argue on as the exact value is of little consequence as long as all characters in a comparison have the same value.


anyway, sorry for any confusion.  my point remains however that the fighter is just doing too much.  what i'd like to see is fighter taken down a bit, rogue bolstered and monk i feel is mostly ok, as far as damage goes at least. 
Sign In to post comments