PDA

View Full Version : Variant on Monk Damage: number-crunching

Umael
2010-08-05, 02:40 PM
The base damage of a medium-sized level 1 monk doing unarmed damage is 1d6. At certain points during the game, the monk advances and does more base damage. I don't recall how many times the monk advances its base unarmed damage, but let's say 6.

What if each time the monk is allowed to advance its base unarmed damage, it gets the following three choices:

Increase the base damage die by one step, maxing out at d12.
Add +2 to the base damage
Increase the number of base damage dice by one, but subtract +2 from the base damage

So 1d6 can become:

1d8 (average 4.5)
1d6+2 (average 5.5)
2d6-2 (average 5)

Doing another iteration means the monk does:

1d10 (average 5.5)
1d8+2 (average 6.5)
2d8-2 (average 7)

or:
1d8+2 (average 6.5)
1d6+4 (average 7.5)
2d6 (average 7)

or:
2d8-2 (average 7)
2d6 (average 7)
3d6-4 (average 6.5)

...and so on.

Thoughts?

Aran Banks
2010-08-05, 03:03 PM
the "+2" option will always be the best with its higher average. It's also nicer because it offers a closer range (1d6+4 gives 5-10 instead of 3-11 from 1d8+2 or 2-12 from 2d6).

You might as well just make that the progression, though it really does hurt the flavor of the monk.

Umael
2010-08-05, 03:37 PM
the "+2" option will always be the best with its higher average. It's also nicer because it offers a closer range (1d6+4 gives 5-10 instead of 3-11 from 1d8+2 or 2-12 from 2d6).

You might as well just make that the progression, though it really does hurt the flavor of the monk.

1d6+2 ~ 5.5 average
1d8 ~ 4.5 average

1d6+4 ~ 7.5 average
1d10 ~ 5.5 average

1d6+6 ~ 9.5 average
1d12 ~ 6.5 average

1d6+8 ~ 11.5 average
2d12-2 ~ 11 average

1d6+10 ~ 13.5 average
3d12-4 ~ 15.5 average

So, no, always adding +2 will not make it better. However, perhaps the bonus cannot exceed the base die? And the minimum damage must be 1 (so 2d12-12 is not allowed, as minimum is 0)?

Dilb
2010-08-05, 04:28 PM
This is really fiddly and metagame-y without any real point. It also means all monks will definitely want to get as large as possible, as it allows non-linear increases in damage: i.e. 6 upgrades is more than twice as powerful as 3 upgrades.

A large monk, for instance, never gets any benefit from taking the +2 to damage, as he can add 1d8-2 right from the get go. A small monk never gets any benefit from not taking +2 to damage, as in 5 increases he'll never get to exploit the non-linear scaling.

There isn't even much of a benefit to the monk, as this only increases his damage at later levels, when he need to use weapons to get around DR half the time.

FlamingKobold
2010-08-05, 04:34 PM
The optimal progression is:

1d6 (avg 3.5)

>2d6 - 2 (avg 5). [better than 1d8 by .5]

>3d6 - 4 (avg 7.5). [better than 2d8 - 2 by .5]

>3d8 - 4 (avg 9.5). [better than 4d6 - 6 by 1.5]

>3d10 - 4 (avg 12.5). [better than 4d8 - 8 by 2.5]

>4d10 - 6 (avg 16). [better than 3d12 - 4 by .5]

woot math.

Edit: That being said, I don't like this. I just wanted people to know the best way to do it, as that was an argument above.

Edit2: This assumes medium monk. I could do it for large and small as well, though.

Edit3:

A large monk, for instance, never gets any benefit from taking the +2 to damage, as he can add 1d8-2 right from the get go.

No one does, in the long run.

A small monk never gets any benefit from not taking +2 to damage, as in 5 increases he'll never get to exploit the non-linear scaling.

False.

Umael
2010-08-05, 05:08 PM
This is really fiddly and metagame-y without any real point. It also means all monks will definitely want to get as large as possible, as it allows non-linear increases in damage: i.e. 6 upgrades is more than twice as powerful as 3 upgrades.

Given how messed up and unoptimized the monk is already, I hardly see this as an issue. Also, see FlamingKobold's reply.

Edit: That being said, I don't like this. I just wanted people to know the best way to do it, as that was an argument above.

What if you are not allowed bonus damage than base damage die, nor allowed negatives if it allows a minimum below zero? (I.e., 1d4+6 is not allowed, but 1d4+4 is, 3d6-2 is allowed, but 3d6-4 is not, etc.)

(Also, why don't you like this? Finding out what bothers people will help.)

FlamingKobold
2010-08-05, 05:45 PM
What if you are not allowed bonus damage than base damage die, nor allowed negatives if it allows a minimum below zero? (I.e., 1d4+6 is not allowed, but 1d4+4 is, 3d6-2 is allowed, but 3d6-4 is not, etc.)

(Also, why don't you like this? Finding out what bothers people will help.)

With that restraint, the max would be 3d10 - 2, with an average of 14.5.

I just don't see what it adds to the game, because while it will almost always increase damage for the monk, it a) has a definite "best" path, so it's not more customization, so much as a test of your ability to do calculus and b) it doesn't really add anything to the game, as in it's needlessly complicated.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-05, 05:58 PM
Why not just Monk instead of larger die: doubles number.
Only way to get larger die is larger size.

So progression -
(Large):
1d8>2d8>3d8>4d8>5d8
(meduim):
1d6>2d6>3d6>4d6>5d6
(Small):
1d4>2d4>3d4>4d4>5d4

Dilb
2010-08-05, 10:52 PM
No one does, in the long run.

But they do in the 'short' run, as in the first 3 upgrades they are better or even. With a large monk, there's literally no point in choosing, as there's a clear best option.

False.

No, a small monk starts at 1d4. In 5 increases, he can add 10 (12.5), or go

1d6 (3.5)
2d6 -2 (5)
2d8 -2 (7)
3d8 -4 (9.5)
3d10 -4 (12.5)

so by level 20 he's caught up with himself.

A monk is perfectly able to kill CR appropriate things, and typically does about 75% of the damage a trick-less fighter will do when he can flurry. At high levels they'll want to use enchanted weapons anyway, to get around DR.

What monks lack is any sort of decent ranged attack, skills and skillpoints, and general non-combat utility that the whole party can benefit from.

Aran Banks
2010-08-05, 11:47 PM
1d6+2 ~ 5.5 average
1d8 ~ 4.5 average

1d6+4 ~ 7.5 average
1d10 ~ 5.5 average

1d6+6 ~ 9.5 average
1d12 ~ 6.5 average

1d6+8 ~ 11.5 average
2d12-2 ~ 11 average

1d6+10 ~ 13.5 average
3d12-4 ~ 15.5 average

So, no, always adding +2 will not make it better. However, perhaps the bonus cannot exceed the base die? And the minimum damage must be 1 (so 2d12-12 is not allowed, as minimum is 0)?

So at level 20, you deal an extra 2 damage on average?

I'm fine with that exception.