Monk vs. Fighter (the math)

Assuming an 80% hit rate (which seems about par for the course for a fighter/monk with a 20 in their primary stat) at level 10:


Monks First Attack: 1d6+5 (average 8.5) (critical 11+6d6—average 32): Damage statistically dealt per attack—7.975


Each Flurry Attack:  1d10 (average 5.5) (critical 10 + 6d6—average 31): Damage statistically dealt per attack— 5.675


Monks damage statistically dealt per round: 25


 Fighter At-Will Attack (great sword): 2d6+5 (average 12)  (critical 17+6d6—average 38): Damage statistically dealt per attack—10.9


Fighter At-Will Attack (longsword): 1d8+5 (average 9.5)  (critical 13+6d6—average 34): Damage statistically dealt per attack—8.825


Damage Add from Deadly Strike per Round: 3d10 (average 16.5) (critical 30)


Damage statistically added with two attacks in a round: 17.15625


Damage statistically added with one attack in a round: 13.875


Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 24.775

Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 22.7


Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 38.95625

Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 34.80625 


Summation, the fighter’s second attack causes a drastic imbalance between other martial classes at the moment. But, based on my number crunching, without that second attack a fighter does not compare favorably to the spellcasting classes. My conclusion: every level at which a fighter gets a second attack, other martial classes must gain some mechanic which also boosts their DPR in some shape or form. For example, if the monk got one free use of FoB per turn then I think things would even out. That only puts its damage at 30.675, but it has enough nice, unique, features that I would still want to play one when it is stacked against a fighter. Some playtesting would be required to double check that, but it puts things in the ballpark I would be happy with.  

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!

What would the math look like with the fighter using a longsword and shield? I feel that is more common than a greatsword weilding fighter, who obviously should be dishing out tons of damage
I added that information to the original thread for you. It doesn't change my conclusions.
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.




i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"

the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.



In a properly balanced game those words should NEVER be spoken. A different class should be able to bring about equally favorable results albeit by very different means. Nobody should ever feel that an encounter was only accomplished because a specific class was present.
I'm starting to fear that the optimal party is a party comprised completely of fighters.   If they can use bows, do melee damage using a cleave attack and deadly strike, and parry, they will be pretty tough to beat with their damage potential, higher HP and higher AC.  Their only weakness would really be vs. wisdom or dex saves (unless they are dex build fighters), but even there, they are only affected 10-20% more than a PC with higher wisdom or dex.

Generally, I don't like to base playing a PC on combat optimization, but this will be an issue for some.  Are there really that many incentives to play a rogue, wizard, cleric or monk (other than roleplaying)?

Cyber-Dave, from all of your calculations on all classes so far, do you think that all classes other than fighter need something that they can do once or twice an encounter that would become a "damage spike/striker" type of attack?   Spells that spike (once in a while) for both Wizards and Clerics....sneak attack that spikes once in a while....monk's flurry of blows that will spike...once in a while.  If I could deliver one or two really nice attacks per combat (or take control of an enemy with a spell, or stun, blind, or control groups), and  if I had other abilities I could bring to exploration and interaction.  I'd give up the consistancy of the fighter's dps (along with his bonus hit points and high AC).  

   
   

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Illusionist Wizards are balls to the wall awesome due to their DC bump, and the at-will minor illusions that combine audio and visual elements, assuming their user is creative, and the DM doesn't cheat and respects these illusions when his critters fail their disbelief checks.

Other than that, Dex specced longbow Fighters with Improved Initiative and Bushwhacker's are pretty much master race.
i actually think something like this is a step in the right direction for the design of martial classes in 5e.

Assuming an 80% hit rate (which seems about par for the course for a fighter/monk with a 20 in their primary stat) at level 10:


Monks First Attack: 1d6+5 (average 8.5) (critical 11+6d6—average 32): Damage statistically dealt per attack—7.975


Each Flurry Attack:  1d10 (average 5.5) (critical 10 + 6d6—average 31): Damage statistically dealt per attack— 5.675


Monks damage statistically dealt per round: 25


 Fighter At-Will Attack (great sword): 2d6+5 (average 12)  (critical 17+6d6—average 38): Damage statistically dealt per attack—10.9


Fighter At-Will Attack (longsword): 1d8+5 (average 9.5)  (critical 13+6d6—average 34): Damage statistically dealt per attack—8.825


Damage Add from Deadly Strike per Round: 3d10 (average 16.5) (critical 30)


Damage statistically added with two attacks in a round: 17.15625


Damage statistically added with one attack in a round: 13.875


Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 24.775

Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 22.7


Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 38.95625

Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 34.80625 


Summation, the fighter’s second attack causes a drastic imbalance between other martial classes at the moment. But, based on my number crunching, without that second attack a fighter does not compare favorably to the spellcasting classes. My conclusion: every level at which a fighter gets a second attack, other martial classes must gain some mechanic which also boosts their DPR in some shape or form. For example, if the monk got one free use of FoB per turn then I think things would even out. That only puts its damage at 30.675, but it has enough nice, unique, features that I would still want to play one when it is stacked against a fighter. Some playtesting would be required to double check that, but it puts things in the ballpark I would be happy with.  




well sure, when you add all 3d10 each round it out damages easily... you are rolling 3d10.

but more realistically, the fighter may have used one or two of these for a parry attempt

calculate it like that

I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.




i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"

the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.



you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.


thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.

they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.




i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"

the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.



you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?



the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.

I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.




i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"

the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.



you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?



the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.



it works on the basis of this being a roleplaying game with a lot of noncombat events.


I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.




i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"

the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.



you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?



the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.



it works on the basis of this being a roleplaying game with a lot of noncombat events.





people shouldn't be without a horse in the race that takes up the majority of the game in a lot of groups.

just like it's not right for all fighters to be better at damage than all the other classes, all fighters shouldn't be forced to be totally inept outside of initiative. 
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.


thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.

they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o



I'm with these guys; why is it so bad that the Fighter is better at fighting?

Also, I think that an 80% hit rate is far, far too high.  That's the bigger issue for me.  I'd prefer to see the developers spend time correcting that instead of trying to make every other class good at what should be the Fighter's exclusive territory, i.e. being good at fighting.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.


thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.

they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o



I'm with these guys; why is it so bad that the Fighter is better at fighting?

Also, I think that an 80% hit rate is far, far too high.  That's the bigger issue for me.  I'd prefer to see the developers spend time correcting that instead of trying to make every other class good at what should be the Fighter's exclusive territory, i.e. being good at fighting.




It isn't bad that the fighter is better at fighting. What's the problem is that no one is close to a fighter in fighting. Also, fighter's aren't really good at much else outside of combat. Instead of having classes that interact in the three pillars we have 1 choice for one pillar and another in the others. Bringing other martial classes a little closer to the fighter, so you don't feel like you hobbled yourself in combat for not choosing a fighter, is good and needs to be met the other way with making fighter's slightly better outside of combat.

well sure, when you add all 3d10 each round it out damages easily... you are rolling 3d10.

but more realistically, the fighter may have used one or two of these for a parry attempt

calculate it like that





It is already calculated like that. A fighter can spend a die doing something else that is more effective than damage at a particular moment in combat. A monk can too. If they both spend an equal amount of dice on something else, then their damage calculations will change in ratio. The final conclusions will be the same. The only way you can get a number which "balances out" is if you calculate a fighter spending less then all of his ED on damage, a monk spending all of his ED on damage, and then ignore that the ED dice lost to something other than damage still exist, and a monk will lose ED dice to something other than damage as well. In other words, they don't balance out at all unless you disingenuously ignore important data. See, if a monk spends all of its ED on something other than damage and a fighter does as well the fighter will still be dealing much more damage than the monk. In fact, at that point in time the monk will be dealing less than 50% of the fighter’s DPR. 

Also, fighter's aren't really good at much else outside of combat.




That is not true. Fighters are also great at climbing, jumping, swimming, driving vehicles, riding, intimidating people, and breaking stuff. In fact, they are quite good at stuff outside of combat ever since Mighty Exertion got added to the game! The notion that they are not is now something of a misperception. 

I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.



So tell me something: what currently makes someone say "good thing Jimmy rolled up a monk!" What stops someone from saying, "god, I wish Jimmy had just rolled a fighter instead of a monk."

I am fine with fighter's being able to do a little more damage than the other martial classes. But, right now, the gap is way too big.  

I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.



So tell me something: what currently makes someone say "good thing Jimmy rolled up a monk!" What stops someone from saying, "god, I wish Jimmy had just rolled a fighter instead of a monk."

I am fine with fighter's being able to do a little more damage than the other martial classes. But, right now, the gap is way too big.  


My friend and I just played a cleric, monk, fighter, wizard all 6th level, against the dragons one at a time to stress test the system.  Since two of the dragons can effectively halve movement speeds with a power (white and black) the fighter ended up taking pot shots at the dragons (it was a STR based fighter) whilst the monk was able to step of the wind.  Query: does higher mobility compensate for lack of damage?  Granted a DEX based fighter would be a different story but then his damage would also be a little more comparable to the monks in melee.    


I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem.  Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him."  To me, these numbers do just that:  they support the fighter's schtick.

Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say.  This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.

 

So tell me something: what currently makes someone say "good thing Jimmy rolled up a monk!" What stops someone from saying, "god, I wish Jimmy had just rolled a fighter instead of a monk."

I am fine with fighter's being able to do a little more damage than the other martial classes. But, right now, the gap is way too big.  


 
My friend and I just played a cleric, monk, fighter, wizard all 6th level, against the dragons one at a time to stress test the system.  Since two of the dragons can effectively halve movement speeds with a power (white and black) the fighter ended up taking pot shots at the dragons (it was a STR based fighter) whilst the monk was able to step of the wind.  Query: does higher mobility compensate for lack of damage?  Granted a DEX based fighter would be a different story but then his damage would also be a little more comparable to the monks in melee.    



A DEX based fighter could deal 34.80625 DPR per round, in melee, with a katana. If it chose to use a one handed finesse weapon its DPR would drop by about 2-3 points. It would also have a very powerful ranged attack, which would help against those dragons quite a bit. So, while it is true that a Dex based fighter's damage is a "little" more comparable, the keyword is "little" and not "comparable. They are still trumping monks by quite a bit. 

And to answer your query, mobility does compensate for a lack of damage to some degree. Right now, however, the numbers are imbalanced far beyond that degree. If the monk could manage a DPR of about 30-34 I would be content. A fighter would still be capable of achieving a higher DPR, but a monk could do cool things like step of the wind. It balances out. A DPR of 25 vs. 34-38, however, is imbalanced to a degree that obviates the value of a monks other abilities. 
 


Cyber-Dave, from all of your calculations on all classes so far, do you think that all classes other than fighter need something that they can do once or twice an encounter that would become a "damage spike/striker" type of attack?   Spells that spike (once in a while) for both Wizards and Clerics....sneak attack that spikes once in a while....monk's flurry of blows that will spike...once in a while.  If I could deliver one or two really nice attacks per combat (or take control of an enemy with a spell, or stun, blind, or control groups), and  if I had other abilities I could bring to exploration and interaction.  I'd give up the consistancy of the fighter's dps (along with his bonus hit points and high AC).  



No. I think Clerics and Wizards compare favorably to fighters. Each is very strong. There is a good reason to play each. Each is better and worse at every area of the game in some shape or form.

The rogue is total crap in combat. A worthless class. Out of combat Skill Mastery and Mighty Exertion break the bounded accuracy system. They are too good at making DC 22 and DC 25 skill check. A monk is very neat and interesting. It is, however, slightly underpowered. 
Cyber-Dave: Doesn't the monk get Deadly Strike access?  Wouldn't that put them on much closer parity than Flurry as Flurry is in part a means to deal with mooks?  I pre-apologize if you already posted those numbers.  Math sometimes makes my eyes cross.
Yeah I just looked, monks can get deadly strike by 4th level.  So they should be only a little lower than fighters overall if you choose that as a maneuver and both use it.  They can use it with quarterstaff also which narrows the gap just slightly more.  The extra attack obviously means overall more damage for the fighter still of course but no one is indicating that's the issue.
Yea, it doesn't actually work that way. You have a fixed number of dice per round. Each die spent on FoB actually increases your DPR more than each die spent on Deadly Strike. FoB is MORE powerful, DPR wise, than Deadly Strike. The best reason for a monk to take Deadly Strike is to boost its damage with weapons other than its unarmed attacks and so that when the monk rolls a critical on its first attack it can just dump all its ED into that critical hit via Deadly Strike. That damage boost, however, would be minor. A couple points per round, statistically speaking, total (though you would see it all in big spurts). So, no, it would not close the gap. What boosts the fighters power so far above the monks is its second attack. Nothing in the monks arsenal gives it the ability to close that gap. At 6th level (and not before) it needs some sort of boost. My suggestion is one free use of FoB per turn. Maybe, and I mean maybe, the monk needs that and a slight boost to its unarmed damage (1d6 becomes 1d8 at 6th level as well). Some playtesting is required to fine tune the monks actual performance at the table. I would suggest giving it that free use of FoB first so that we can test how it operates with just that before we give it anything else. 

+1 at Cyber-Dave there

the problem isn't so much that monks need huge buffs etc or that flurry is weak, flurry is actually better as multiple attack rolls mean more constitent damage and additional (albeit smaller) criticals.  A fighter's deadly strike ability makes them more unreliable and bursty, a miss means they do NO damage, whereas a monk misses once and still has 2-3 more chances to attack often.

the real problem is that 2nd attack fighters get at 6th level.  it just seems to be this game breaking OP ability that just needs to be redesigned.  No matter how you do the math, that 2nd attack brings fighters way beyond everyone else in a way that makes the game seem just.... wrong. 
Okay I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what you guys are talking about.  So the second attack is amazing not just because of the weapon damage but because it's a second chance to do Deadly Strike if the first attack misses.  Did I phrase that as a question?  
for the most part yes.

in addtion, the weapons a fighter use are going to be larger, though that isn't usually a huge change, only a few damage per round difference but since there are 2 swings, that difference in die size is doubled.  he also gets 2x the ability stat, a monk may attack 4 times in a round but he only gets to apply his dex/str mod one time for a max of +5 damage.  A fighter in the same situation gets to apply his str/dex on each swing giving him +10 damage max, again, not a HUGE difference, but definitely something.  then there is as you brought up, 2 chances to deadly strike.  1st attack misses... oh well, 2nd attack comes in and he still gets a shot at that deadly strike.  again that's not a huge thing in itself but it's definitely a bonus.

then when you put alllll these little differences together, suddenly the fighter is an unstopple DPR machine that kinda makes all other classes useless.


some may say the others make up for it in out of combat skills etc but come on... in a game that is usually going to be a good 75% combat and 25% OOC, most people would rather just try to beat the information out of the informant and make the Strength based jump check (including the Mighty Excersion bonus from the new ability) to just try to jump over the upcoming floor trap than to roll a rogue or monk and do 50% or less damage in the other 3/4 of the game. :\
Pauln6 posted this on the Maneuver Mayhem thread talking about a way to balance Deadly Strike and Sneak Attack. I think it is a pretty good idea, solves a lot of math IMO, but it might make the monk's Flurry of Blows too powerful. Then I remembered we wanted the monk a little more powerful so I thought I'd repost his idea here and see how the math worked out for all this, since you seem to be on a roll this week Cyber-Dave

 My own personal view is that they should not make it too easy to bump up the damage or all those other manoeuvres could fall by the wayside and monster hp may need to be inflated.  Probably best to limit deadly strike to the highest of the dice rolled per attack IMO.  With multiple attacks and opportunity attacks, 2-weapon fighting specialties etc fighters could still dish out all of their expertise dice in damage if the circumstances are right but otherwise theiy're encouraged to be creative or waste their dice.  You could also halve 2-weapon fighting damage per the last playtest without as many complaints if you could add an expertise die to the result of each attack.  Maybe at level 10 you can add together the highest 2 dice to one attack per round etc as progression continues.  You would still need an optional rule to allow 'damage only' fighters to add more or all the ED all togther though.

Rogues can then have sneak attack that allows them to add all their damage together or alternatively, if you want to go for versatility again, just limit them to 1 expertise die as well unless they also have have surprise in addition to the other conditions required for sneak attack, in which case they can add all their dice together.  Since rogues don't get multiple attacks like fighters, you could also allow the number of dice you can add together for a single attack to increase at a faster rate than the fighter. 



If rogue's spike by dumping all expertise, and fighter's & monks only get 1 die per hit it allows a jump in the rogue while keeping the fighter a bit down. However, FLurry still allows multiple attacks and can use all the dice...

What do you think, too good for Flurry?
Great analysis, Cyber-Dave. I'm glad that there are other members of this playtest that are actually looking at the emperical results of the game mechanics. I've lately been too worn out to post about the more recent mechanical imbalances that I've been observing in the game's math.
To Chaos: It is a bit harder to calculate. You have a 78.4% of rolling higher than 7 with 3d10 take the best. But, the number you will roll most often is 10 (27.10% chance). I am not really sure how to calculate what your average damage add would be given that method. I am going to guestimate that 8 is fair. I will calculate what you would get with a flat +10. If it is a flat +10 then Deadly Strike will add +8 damage (statistically speaking, assuming an 80% hit rate). That means that the fighter's DPR would be 31.8 (with a greatsword). Now, in reality, damage would be lower than that. Guestimating at +8, we are talking a DPR of 28.3. That, however, assumes that you will roll three dice and take the best result. With two attacks you would be smarter to add at least one die to each attack. So, if we assume that you roll only one die on each attack then we are talking a DPR of 31.05. If for one of the dice you roll twice and keep the best result, are talking a very fractional damage add. It will become something like 32.175. That is far more balanced with the rogue and the fighter. I could live with those numbers, at least as far as the martial classes are concerned. 

I am a little worried, however, that given that solution all the martial classes will be a little underpowered compared to the casters. I need to run some numbers on that. 

Ok, so, in 11 straight rounds of spellcasting a wizard does:

Total Daily Damage AoE in 11 Rounds: 567
Total Daily Single Target damage in 11 rounds: 239.75 
Given your fix, a fighter would do:353.925
Every round after that would favor the fighter...

That actually does not seem so bad. It seems pretty fair. 

Ok, so I am sold. Leave the monk and rogue damage as is. Deadly Strike should be changed to "You roll any Expertise Dice you spend and add the best result as a damage bonus." Everything should be fairly balanced after that. What is really nice is that Deadly Strike will work best with a fighter's extra attacks...

Now, there is one anomally that will arise. At levels 4 and 5 a fighter will be slightly underperforming. He will only have on attack, but the most he will be able to add to his damage is 6 points. He is very likely to adding 4+ points of damage. But, a rogue and monk will be adding much more than that. So, I don't know how I feel about that... still, overall, it is the best suggestion (in terms of the mathematical result) I have seen to date. 

 P.S. Thanks Rienheart!
It would be fair to assume that rogues (and to a lesser extent, monks) are going to be spending more of their dice on defensive or mobility maneuvers than the fighter will over a sufficient number of rounds, would it not?  I know your model probably won't be able to accurately reflect those situations for a damage-oriented fighter vs. a defense-oriented fighter vs. monks vs. rogues, but it is something to keep in mind as you continue to do such a stellar job of number-crunching.  Thank you for all the data.

It really depends on the player. Depending on a player's preferences, it is very possible for the opposite to be true. A fighter could end up spending more dice on "Protect" than a monk or rogue would on any non-damaging maneuver for example. As such, it isn’t beneficial to make such assumptions when making calculations.  

Yea, it doesn't actually work that way. You have a fixed number of dice per round. Each die spent on FoB actually increases your DPR more than each die spent on Deadly Strike. FoB is MORE powerful, DPR wise, than Deadly Strike. The best reason for a monk to take Deadly Strike is to boost its damage with weapons other than its unarmed attacks and so that when the monk rolls a critical on its first attack it can just dump all its ED into that critical hit via Deadly Strike.



Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you would dump all your dice into Deadly Strike EVERY time your first blow landed, since that would prevent needing to roll any more attack rolls for the added damage. The reason FOB adds more DPR is that you can roll FOB even if you miss on your first attack, right?

That leads to another point here: FOB is really an awesome maneuver. It combines aspects of Deadly Strike (extra damage versus one enemy), Whirlwind Attack (extra damage versus multiple enemies), and Glancing Blow (reroll a second attack when you miss). Each of those fighter maneuvers is probably technically a bit better, so a fighter with all three of them will get more damage from his expertise dice than a monk (since he doesn't have to reroll as much)... but that's probably as it should be. 

As you mention, the only big issue here is that extra attack at 6th level. I'm hoping the realignment of maneuvers with the next packet, along with whatever the heck they're doing with Parry, will make the fighter distinctive enough that he doesn't need a unique extra attack per round to make him stand out. 

I did a computer simulation of 2 million attacks at levels 1,5,6,8, and 10, with a greatsword fighter and a monk. The numbers listed are average Damage Per Round. It takes into account an attack bonus of 7, then 8, and finally 9 at level 10, and a damage bonus of 4, and then 5. Both are humans with 18 in their primary stat and 20 at level 8.
 Crit damage is 2d6 + 1d6 at 3,5,7,and 9


As you can see the monk is actually stronger than the fighter at lower levels, then once the 2nd attack kicks in, the fighter jumps ahead, but the monk doesn't do as bad if you allow flurry of blows to get extra damage from criticals. Currently the rules are a bit vague as to whether that is intended or not, I am leaning towards including it especially at level 6 when the fighter jumps ahead.


Glancing blow is very important for fighters against high AC monsters, it gives a nice bonus to damage.



Flurry doesn't crit vs can crit
MONSTER AC 12
Fighter
 1: 10.25 
 5: 14.6     vs 14.9 with Glancing Blow
 6: 24.11   vs 24.27
10: 36.63  vs  36.8

Monk
 1: 11.5     vs 11.9
 5: 18.86   vs 20
 6: 18.86   vs 20
 8: 21.3     vs 24.3
10: 27       vs 30.2

Flurry can't Crit vs can crit, fighter Using Glancing Blow
MONSTER AC 18
Fighter
1: 7.3
5: 10.7
6: 17.6
8: 20.7
10: 28.4

Monk
 1: 7.1     vs 7.4
 5: 12      vs 13.3
 6: 12      vs 13.3
 8: 13.7   vs 15.54
10: 20.1  vs 23.2



That being said... the monk does get hurricane strike, which in some cases is more useful than deadly strike. For example, you can knock an enemy off a cliff pretty easily with 2 expertise dice. Yes... its situational... and yes, if you miss your attack then its worthless, but it is lots of fun when it does work!


It would be nice if you could choose to spend your flurry of blows AFTER making an attack instead of as part of the same action.



Overall, I am pretty satisfied with monk damage levels as long as you get the criticals on flurry. I do think that criticals should perhaps scale more like expertise dice though. Remember, monks will do more consistent damage and can avoid wasting damage on one enemy by spreading out the damage more evenly. You can also move between each attack, giving more flexibility.

@NicolBolas: How is a fighter using Glancing Blow against these monsters? Unless there was a rules-update I missed, Glancing Blow only functions on an attack roll of 10+. Since a Fighter with +7 attack bonus can't miss an AC12 monster with a 10+ result, then Glancing Blow never triggers. Likewise, Glancing Blow should stop functioning against the monster with 18 AC once the fighter's attack bonus is greater than 8.
It says "attack result" not the "number on the die".

Most recent packet:


"When you miss a target with a melee weapon attack but your attack result is a 10 or higher"


August packet:


"Once per turn when you miss a creature with a weapon attack but roll at least a 
10 on the d20"


An attack result is including your +7.... Maybe I am reading it wrong. For AC 12 it makes little difference, for AC 18 it would obviously make a large difference. If it works as you suggest, then it is worthless.

Thanks for pointing that out, I never caught the change in terminology. I'd then assume your interpretation is correct because I can't think of another reason to alter the wording. The only thing that bothers me about this is why do they bother requiring the 10+ result? Since low-average fighters have an attack bonus of +6, the ability score increases and attack bonus increases eventually guarantee that practically every fighter can get Glancing Blow damage on the roll of a 1.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you would dump all your dice into Deadly Strike EVERY time your first blow landed, since that would prevent needing to roll any more attack rolls for the added damage. The reason FOB adds more DPR is that you can roll FOB even if you miss on your first attack, right?

That leads to another point here: FOB is really an awesome maneuver. It combines aspects of Deadly Strike (extra damage versus one enemy), Whirlwind Attack (extra damage versus multiple enemies), and Glancing Blow (reroll a second attack when you miss). Each of those fighter maneuvers is probably technically a bit better, so a fighter with all three of them will get more damage from his expertise dice than a monk (since he doesn't have to reroll as much)... but that's probably as it should be. 

As you mention, the only big issue here is that extra attack at 6th level. I'm hoping the realignment of maneuvers with the next packet, along with whatever the heck they're doing with Parry, will make the fighter distinctive enough that he doesn't need a unique extra attack per round to make him stand out. 



No. You would only dump everything into DS if you rolled a critical hit. If you don't roll a critical hit, you will score a higher DPR by using FoB. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />No. You would only dump everything into DS if you rolled a critical hit. If you don't roll a critical hit, you will score a higher DPR by using FoB. 



Oh, because the secondary attacks from FOB can crit. Got it!