The rules of the game were created to provide order, but they don't have to be absolute. If as game master I find an idea of the player interesting and feasible in reality, I don't look for the rule to block the game, I adapt and look for a way to make the game interesting and good ideas must be rewarded. For me, if a monk butts an enemy in the water and the monk attacks him running on the surface of the water, the enemy is clearly in a "prone" position with no possibility to get up except with the spell walk on water, there is always the possibility to hide under water.... But what if the sorcerer uses the "cone of col" spell to freeze the lake's supprefice? These are the interesting things about D&D.... If I stopped at just the rules... what roleplaying game would it be?
The party rarely gets to choose the battlefield and there shouldn't be convenient hazards that allow you to win every fight by knocking enemies into them.
I think Aanx's point is that the DM should try to make battlefields varied and interesting, to give players opportunities to exploit; part of the fun on Monks is that we have a lot of ways to do that when battlefields are larger than a 30 foot kill box, have obstacles, varied enemy groups etc., as speed alone makes it easy for us to be where we want to be. It probably shouldn't be in the realm of instant kill opportunities, not unless the DM is purposefully swarming you with enemies or such, but it's nice to have some variety, because every fight being a kill box that maximises one specific playstyle is one of the worst things that can happen in the game.
Also worth keeping in mind; even if a fall or fire isn't an instant kill, extra damage is extra damage. If a free 5 foot push can add d6 or 2d6 or whatever damage then that's still a big deal.
It might not be realistic for someone to be able to swim and fight while wearing armor, but it's also not realistic to punch someone who's wearing plate and have them A) be hurt by the blow and B) be knocked backward 20 feet.
Actually the case of hitting someone in plate armour is already covered; their high AC doesn't represent them being hard to hit at all (they very likely aren't), but rather that it's hard to hit them somewhere that will actually hurt them. When you beat their AC it doesn't mean you punched a hole in the plate (most ordinary weapons simply can't), but that you managed to strike a weak point, probably between the joints or where the armour rests more fully on the body of the wearer (more force transfers to their body underneath).
The case of swimming in armour is actually a perfect example of where the rules are deficient; basically the entirety of the swimming rules in the basic game begin and end with the special types of movement section, it devotes literally a single paragraph and it's shared between climbing, swimming and crawling. There's another section on suffocating (which could occur from drowning) but it doesn't really detail how you'd be drowning in the first place so I guess in RAW it's only for Watery Sphere, Water Elementals and so-on?
I would fully expect a DM to add more to these things; climbing and swimming should almost always require checks (except for those who can run on water) and I'd definitely expect to see disadvantage on heavy armour (probably medium armour). These may not be strictly RAW, but DM fiat is pretty much the first rule of the game; the DM runs the show, and you tell them what you're trying to do. They're allowed to let it happen, roll some dice, or get you to roll some dice, that's D&D 101.
Monks should definitely try to use everything they can, as they can easily have the tools to make the most of them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It might not be realistic for someone to be able to swim and fight while wearing armor, but it's also not realistic to punch someone who's wearing plate and have them A) be hurt by the blow and B) be knocked backward 20 feet.
Actually the case of hitting someone in plate armour is already covered; their high AC doesn't represent them being hard to hit at all (they very likely aren't), but rather that it's hard to hit them somewhere that will actually hurt them. When you beat their AC it doesn't mean you punched a hole in the plate (most ordinary weapons simply can't), but that you managed to strike a weak point, probably between the joints or where the armour rests more fully on the body of the wearer (more force transfers to their body underneath).
Hitting someone could also represent how tired they are and how much longer they can go on fighting.
Someone in full plate has high armor AC but no DEX mod, so its less likely they will be hit because people can't penetrate their armor. However, their health points could represent how tired it makes them to move around. The tireder you get, the likelier you it will be to be hit in a weak spot and killed.
On the other end, someone in leather armor has a low armor AC but a high DEX mod. So if they are hit, it could represent them becoming tired from dodging out of the way, instead of an arrow piercing their armor and them somehow still being able to fight.
It's quite confusing and there's a lot of room for interpretation, but that's the way I look at it. The best examples I can think of are monks and barbarians with their Unarmored Defence feature. It really doesn't make sense for a trained fighter to hit a monk with a greatsword and the monk shrugs it off to keep fighting. Anyone (except maybe barbarians) who is hit with a greatsword, no matter where they were hit, isn't going to be fighting again anytime soon. However, If they spent a lot of energy dodging or guiding the weapon out of the way, it might tire them out making themselves more and more likely to be hit later in the fight.
I love drow, rogues and Chinese weapons. I mean come on, rope darts are awesome.
My current character is a drow shadow monk, with a "unique" honor code (give him some time, he's working through some stuff). He also sucks on the socialization side of interacting with all other living creatures. which is very fun to RP.
It might not be realistic for someone to be able to swim and fight while wearing armor, but it's also not realistic to punch someone who's wearing plate and have them A) be hurt by the blow and B) be knocked backward 20 feet.
Actually the case of hitting someone in plate armour is already covered; their high AC doesn't represent them being hard to hit at all (they very likely aren't), but rather that it's hard to hit them somewhere that will actually hurt them. When you beat their AC it doesn't mean you punched a hole in the plate (most ordinary weapons simply can't), but that you managed to strike a weak point, probably between the joints or where the armour rests more fully on the body of the wearer (more force transfers to their body underneath).
Hitting someone could also represent how tired they are and how much longer they can go on fighting.
Someone in full plate has high armor AC but no DEX mod, so its less likely they will be hit because people can't penetrate their armor. However, their health points could represent how tired it makes them to move around. The tireder you get, the likelier you it will be to be hit in a weak spot and killed.
On the other end, someone in leather armor has a low armor AC but a high DEX mod. So if they are hit, it could represent them becoming tired from dodging out of the way, instead of an arrow piercing their armor and them somehow still being able to fight.
It's quite confusing and there's a lot of room for interpretation, but that's the way I look at it. The best examples I can think of are monks and barbarians with their Unarmored Defence feature. It really doesn't make sense for a trained fighter to hit a monk with a greatsword and the monk shrugs it off to keep fighting. Anyone (except maybe barbarians) who is hit with a greatsword, no matter where they were hit, isn't going to be fighting again anytime soon. However, If they spent a lot of energy dodging or guiding the weapon out of the way, it might tire them out making themselves more and more likely to be hit later in the fight.
Defense using wisdom reminds me of the NEN defense from Hunter X Hunter. I imagine the Monks defense is based by their dexterity plus their ki armor.
While Barbarians use their bravery to defend themselves, I imagine their body covered in scars that have made their skin as hard as a shark's, their muscle mass is so dense that the enemy's weapon cannot penetrate the Barbarian's muscle layer and when they go into a rage this defense is only enhanced to the point that their muscles are so reactive and tense that they are like made of metal. You can also add a layer of filth for all the years the barbarian hasn't had a shower.
It might not be realistic for someone to be able to swim and fight while wearing armor, but it's also not realistic to punch someone who's wearing plate and have them A) be hurt by the blow and B) be knocked backward 20 feet.
Actually the case of hitting someone in plate armour is already covered; their high AC doesn't represent them being hard to hit at all (they very likely aren't), but rather that it's hard to hit them somewhere that will actually hurt them. When you beat their AC it doesn't mean you punched a hole in the plate (most ordinary weapons simply can't), but that you managed to strike a weak point, probably between the joints or where the armour rests more fully on the body of the wearer (more force transfers to their body underneath).
Hitting someone could also represent how tired they are and how much longer they can go on fighting.
Someone in full plate has high armor AC but no DEX mod, so its less likely they will be hit because people can't penetrate their armor. However, their health points could represent how tired it makes them to move around. The tireder you get, the likelier you it will be to be hit in a weak spot and killed.
On the other end, someone in leather armor has a low armor AC but a high DEX mod. So if they are hit, it could represent them becoming tired from dodging out of the way, instead of an arrow piercing their armor and them somehow still being able to fight.
It's quite confusing and there's a lot of room for interpretation, but that's the way I look at it. The best examples I can think of are monks and barbarians with their Unarmored Defence feature. It really doesn't make sense for a trained fighter to hit a monk with a greatsword and the monk shrugs it off to keep fighting. Anyone (except maybe barbarians) who is hit with a greatsword, no matter where they were hit, isn't going to be fighting again anytime soon. However, If they spent a lot of energy dodging or guiding the weapon out of the way, it might tire them out making themselves more and more likely to be hit later in the fight.
Defense using wisdom reminds me of the NEN defense from Hunter X Hunter. I imagine the Monks defense is based by their dexterity plus their ki armor.
While Barbarians use their bravery to defend themselves, I imagine their body covered in scars that have made their skin as hard as a shark's, their muscle mass is so dense that the enemy's weapon cannot penetrate the Barbarian's muscle layer and when they go into a rage this defense is only enhanced to the point that their muscles are so reactive and tense that they are like made of metal. You can also add a layer of filth for all the years the barbarian hasn't had a shower.
Wisdom could also represent a monk being able to read their opponent, using something like insight. If you can tell where you opponent is going to hit, It's much easier to dodge away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love drow, rogues and Chinese weapons. I mean come on, rope darts are awesome.
My current character is a drow shadow monk, with a "unique" honor code (give him some time, he's working through some stuff). He also sucks on the socialization side of interacting with all other living creatures. which is very fun to RP.
I mean you are badly overestimating how much damage both falling and mundane fires deal and there are no penalties at all for swimming in armor. Not to mention that the frequency with which you'll actually find yourself in a battlefield where such hazards are even present and exploitable is not as often as you'd think unless your GM is hooked on geo effects.
I found an interesting video... If the rules say there isn't a big disadvantage, but if I were a DM and saw this video I wouldn't be of the same opinion as the rules.
The rules of the game were created to provide order, but they don't have to be absolute. If as game master I find an idea of the player interesting and feasible in reality, I don't look for the rule to block the game, I adapt and look for a way to make the game interesting and good ideas must be rewarded. For me, if a monk butts an enemy in the water and the monk attacks him running on the surface of the water, the enemy is clearly in a "prone" position with no possibility to get up except with the spell walk on water, there is always the possibility to hide under water.... But what if the sorcerer uses the "cone of col" spell to freeze the lake's supprefice? These are the interesting things about D&D.... If I stopped at just the rules... what roleplaying game would it be?
I think Aanx's point is that the DM should try to make battlefields varied and interesting, to give players opportunities to exploit; part of the fun on Monks is that we have a lot of ways to do that when battlefields are larger than a 30 foot kill box, have obstacles, varied enemy groups etc., as speed alone makes it easy for us to be where we want to be. It probably shouldn't be in the realm of instant kill opportunities, not unless the DM is purposefully swarming you with enemies or such, but it's nice to have some variety, because every fight being a kill box that maximises one specific playstyle is one of the worst things that can happen in the game.
Also worth keeping in mind; even if a fall or fire isn't an instant kill, extra damage is extra damage. If a free 5 foot push can add d6 or 2d6 or whatever damage then that's still a big deal.
Actually the case of hitting someone in plate armour is already covered; their high AC doesn't represent them being hard to hit at all (they very likely aren't), but rather that it's hard to hit them somewhere that will actually hurt them. When you beat their AC it doesn't mean you punched a hole in the plate (most ordinary weapons simply can't), but that you managed to strike a weak point, probably between the joints or where the armour rests more fully on the body of the wearer (more force transfers to their body underneath).
The case of swimming in armour is actually a perfect example of where the rules are deficient; basically the entirety of the swimming rules in the basic game begin and end with the special types of movement section, it devotes literally a single paragraph and it's shared between climbing, swimming and crawling. There's another section on suffocating (which could occur from drowning) but it doesn't really detail how you'd be drowning in the first place so I guess in RAW it's only for Watery Sphere, Water Elementals and so-on?
I would fully expect a DM to add more to these things; climbing and swimming should almost always require checks (except for those who can run on water) and I'd definitely expect to see disadvantage on heavy armour (probably medium armour). These may not be strictly RAW, but DM fiat is pretty much the first rule of the game; the DM runs the show, and you tell them what you're trying to do. They're allowed to let it happen, roll some dice, or get you to roll some dice, that's D&D 101.
Monks should definitely try to use everything they can, as they can easily have the tools to make the most of them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Hitting someone could also represent how tired they are and how much longer they can go on fighting.
Someone in full plate has high armor AC but no DEX mod, so its less likely they will be hit because people can't penetrate their armor. However, their health points could represent how tired it makes them to move around. The tireder you get, the likelier you it will be to be hit in a weak spot and killed.
On the other end, someone in leather armor has a low armor AC but a high DEX mod. So if they are hit, it could represent them becoming tired from dodging out of the way, instead of an arrow piercing their armor and them somehow still being able to fight.
It's quite confusing and there's a lot of room for interpretation, but that's the way I look at it. The best examples I can think of are monks and barbarians with their Unarmored Defence feature. It really doesn't make sense for a trained fighter to hit a monk with a greatsword and the monk shrugs it off to keep fighting. Anyone (except maybe barbarians) who is hit with a greatsword, no matter where they were hit, isn't going to be fighting again anytime soon. However, If they spent a lot of energy dodging or guiding the weapon out of the way, it might tire them out making themselves more and more likely to be hit later in the fight.
I love drow, rogues and Chinese weapons. I mean come on, rope darts are awesome.
My current character is a drow shadow monk, with a "unique" honor code (give him some time, he's working through some stuff). He also sucks on the socialization side of interacting with all other living creatures. which is very fun to RP.
Defense using wisdom reminds me of the NEN defense from Hunter X Hunter. I imagine the Monks defense is based by their dexterity plus their ki armor.
While Barbarians use their bravery to defend themselves, I imagine their body covered in scars that have made their skin as hard as a shark's, their muscle mass is so dense that the enemy's weapon cannot penetrate the Barbarian's muscle layer and when they go into a rage this defense is only enhanced to the point that their muscles are so reactive and tense that they are like made of metal. You can also add a layer of filth for all the years the barbarian hasn't had a shower.
Wisdom could also represent a monk being able to read their opponent, using something like insight. If you can tell where you opponent is going to hit, It's much easier to dodge away.
I love drow, rogues and Chinese weapons. I mean come on, rope darts are awesome.
My current character is a drow shadow monk, with a "unique" honor code (give him some time, he's working through some stuff). He also sucks on the socialization side of interacting with all other living creatures. which is very fun to RP.
I found an interesting video... If the rules say there isn't a big disadvantage, but if I were a DM and saw this video I wouldn't be of the same opinion as the rules.
https://vimeo.com/13634653
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=20316