I'm willing to bet that your base AC was about 20 which is not uncommon for high-level play. If you need magic items to fill a gap, then I consider that an issue.
Does that go for other classes as well? Because fighters need magic items to feel a gap.
the class doesn't do ANYTHING better than another build with a Feat or two
are you comparing it to another class with the same number of feats / ASIs?
it STILL relies on the precious Ki points to really spread its wings
Just as the wizard depends on spell slots
I don't think any core class other than primary casters should be built around an expendable resource
Why should only primary casters be excepted?
1) In your post, you were raving about your AC being 23 for your high-level Monk. 23 AC for any character with +3 AC from magic items isn't hard. In fact, a Fighter or Paladin can have 21 at 1st or 2nd level if they have plate armor, a shield, and the Defense Fighting Style.
2) A Monk gets 5 ASIs over the course of their career and 1 free Feat if they're V Human. A Fighter gets 2 additional ASIs that can be used as Feats (if their campaign allows Feats). By level 11 they also have an additional Attack. Build me a Monk to level 15 and I'll build a Fighter to the same level that will do as well or better in a fight.
3) Yes, casters rely on spell slots. How many Ki points does it cost to do Fireball again? The reason I excluded primary casters is that they are built along an entirely different template than a martial class. They have no Armor Proficiencies, few Weapon proficiencies, and lower Hit Dice, and thus lower Hit Points.
If you're going to try and compare a primary caster's spell slots to a Monk's Ki points you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to Pickup trucks.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
I'm willing to bet that your base AC was about 20 which is not uncommon for high-level play. If you need magic items to fill a gap, then I consider that an issue.
Does that go for other classes as well? Because fighters need magic items to feel a gap.
the class doesn't do ANYTHING better than another build with a Feat or two
are you comparing it to another class with the same number of feats / ASIs?
it STILL relies on the precious Ki points to really spread its wings
Just as the wizard depends on spell slots
I don't think any core class other than primary casters should be built around an expendable resource
Why should only primary casters be excepted?
1) In your post, you were raving about your AC being 23 for your high-level Monk. 23 AC for any character with +3 AC from magic items isn't hard. In fact, a Fighter or Paladin can have 21 at 1st or 2nd level if they have plate armor, a shield, and the Defense Fighting Style.
2) A Monk gets 5 ASIs over the course of their career and 1 free Feat if they're V Human. A Fighter gets 2 additional ASIs that can be used as Feats (if their campaign allows Feats). By level 11 they also have an additional Attack. Build me a Monk to level 15 and I'll build a Fighter to the same level that will do as well or better in a fight.
3) Yes, casters rely on spell slots. How many Ki points does it cost to do Fireball again? The reason I excluded primary casters is that they are built along an entirely different template than a martial class. They have no Armor Proficiencies, few Weapon proficiencies, and lower Hit Dice, and thus lower Hit Points.
If you're going to try and compare a primary caster's spell slots to a Monk's Ki points you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to Pickup trucks.
The two have nothing in common.
In your post, you were raving about your AC being 23 for your high-level Monk. 23 AC for any character with +3 AC from magic items isn't hard. In fact, a Fighter or Paladin can have 21 at 1st or 2nd level if they have plate armor, a shield, and the Defense Fighting Style
That wasn't my post, but now that you've brought it up, I'll point out that Fighters need magic weapons as well. Also, for every gp the Fighter is spending on weapons and armor, that's a gp the Monk can spend on something else.
Build me a Monk to level 15 and I'll build a Fighter to the same level that will do as well or better in a fight
Only a fight? So, you don't want to compare that Fighter and Monk in Stealth? Or, ground speed? Isn't that like comparing a Wizard and a Fighter in fighting?
The reason I excluded primary casters is that they are built along an entirely different template than a martial class
Monks are built along an entirely different template than Fighters.
So, we can compare a fighter and monk, both with neither gear nor ki point.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
I think what they are saying is if you get by the tanks you will not do significant damage enough to make the mobility worth while and of you choose to go full defense (Dodge BA) it's even worse.
If you do go all out on damage you are now trapped by yourself with lower health and AC compared to the Eldritch Knight that can misty step, still have all it's damage output, and have better AC.
Mobility is only worth it if you have something worth while to do with it.
For me I say that you do have something worth while... Stunning strike.... But you are less likely to get it to work if you don't spam it and you burn a shit ton of ki if you want to make sure it works and do spam it.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
A Monk doesn't have to rest like a Tabaxi, spend it's bonus action like a Rogue, and can move faster than an Aaracockra.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Now you aren't making a simple comparison of class vs. class. If we're going to throw in other stuff, then we can consider a Way of Shadows Monk V Human who spent his extra feat on Devil's Sight. Try to hit that from 150ft away with a Longbow.
if you have to look for that one corner case
You mean that corner case where it isn't a one-against-one combat on flat, open ground?
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
A Monk doesn't have to rest like a Tabaxi, spend it's bonus action like a Rogue, and can move faster than an Aaracockra.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Now you aren't making a simple comparison of class vs. class. If we're going to throw in other stuff, then we can consider a Way of Shadows Monk V Human who spent his extra feat on Devil's Sight. Try to hit that from 150ft away with a Longbow.
if you have to look for that one corner case
You mean that corner case where it isn't a one-against-one combat on flat, open ground?
It's obvious that we have two wildly different viewpoints. We can keep going back and forth like a pair of kids or get down to brass tacks.
Give me three situations, battlefield descriptions, specific ranges, whatever. You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells. I'll build something that can do the same job as well or better with the same parameters. Fair?
Give me three situations, battlefield descriptions, specific ranges, whatever. You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells. I'll build something that can do the same job as well or better with the same parameters. Fair?
Are you asserting that you can make one build without magic items or allies casting spells and this single build will be better than any single build of a monk in three different scenarios that I will identify upfront?
Which published books? What level? What stat buy? How much gold? Single class only?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
Okay...we seem to have a miscommunication here. In previous posts, you talked about how 'complex' the battlefield was and how the Monk's role was to be 'the bomber'. The idea is that you present a battlefield and some goal you need your monk to achieve. You know...sort of like proving the point you've been trying to make?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
Okay...we seem to have a miscommunication here. In previous posts, you talked about how 'complex' the battlefield was and how the Monk's role was to be 'the bomber'. The idea is that you present a battlefield and some goal you need your monk to achieve. You know...sort of like proving the point you've been trying to make?
Perhaps I didn't make clear that the cultists are your enemy.
this is a battlefield which will become more clear once initiative is rolled and the cultists start attacking you.
Not all battlefields are wide open flat areas.
You need to escape and fight whomever you have to along the way.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
I don't see where they specified fighter.
That's fair. But, your alternative requires two additional characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) In your post, you were raving about your AC being 23 for your high-level Monk. 23 AC for any character with +3 AC from magic items isn't hard. In fact, a Fighter or Paladin can have 21 at 1st or 2nd level if they have plate armor, a shield, and the Defense Fighting Style.
2) A Monk gets 5 ASIs over the course of their career and 1 free Feat if they're V Human. A Fighter gets 2 additional ASIs that can be used as Feats (if their campaign allows Feats). By level 11 they also have an additional Attack. Build me a Monk to level 15 and I'll build a Fighter to the same level that will do as well or better in a fight.
3) Yes, casters rely on spell slots. How many Ki points does it cost to do Fireball again? The reason I excluded primary casters is that they are built along an entirely different template than a martial class. They have no Armor Proficiencies, few Weapon proficiencies, and lower Hit Dice, and thus lower Hit Points.
If you're going to try and compare a primary caster's spell slots to a Monk's Ki points you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to Pickup trucks.
The two have nothing in common.
How many 1st or 2nd level pcs have plate armor? It costs 1,500 gp and that amount of loot isn't present in most campaigns. I'm well aware that a fighter, with magic items, can easily have an AC of 23 at level 18. What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs. There is no need to make changes to the monk class in regard to AC.
Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter.
In regard to the argument that Beau is as capable as she, is because Matt Mercer gave her magic items that helped her out, isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Should I avoid giving spells scrolls to a party with a wizard because that will maximize his abilities? Should I give magic plate mail to a party that consists of a rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and a wizard? Matt has always given very player specific magic items (Look at the vestiges of divergence from Campaign 1. Definitely made to maximize the abilities of each individual pc). I do the same when I DM. For rogues, I'll make sure there are magic daggers and magic leather armor, for wizards, scrolls and other aids to spell casting, for monks and barbarians, rings of protection, gauntlets of protection. D&D is supposed to be about making the game fun for all involved. Giving the players items that will maximize their players ability is fun for the players.
That wasn't my post, but now that you've brought it up, I'll point out that Fighters need magic weapons as well. Also, for every gp the Fighter is spending on weapons and armor, that's a gp the Monk can spend on something else.
Only a fight? So, you don't want to compare that Fighter and Monk in Stealth? Or, ground speed? Isn't that like comparing a Wizard and a Fighter in fighting?
Monks are built along an entirely different template than Fighters.
So, we can compare a fighter and monk, both with neither gear nor ki point.
To Magic Item or not to Magic Item is up to the DM. With regard to Beau, I'm not going to debate the merits of a Homebrew subclass tailored for a specific player's style of play. With regards to Monks, in general:
1) What do you consider a 'good' AC for a class that is predominantly effective in melee combat and has a D8 hit die?
2) "What I am saying is that monks, if stats are distributed correctly at the start, and good use is made of ASI's, then monks have good ACs." I'm assuming that you're maxing the two AC-reliant stats at the beginning which for Point Buy is 16 each. If you use 4 out of 5 ASIs (and your first 16 levels) then you get 20. That's the BEST use of stats and ASIs available without magic items or encounters with creatures that permanently alter your stats. Is 20 a bad AC? Not at all. I'm pretty sure most Rogues go through their career with the same Hit Die and a lower AC. However, the Rogue also has ONE AC-reliant Stat so they actually have ASI leftover to do things other than chasing a good AC for most of their career.
3) "Monks are not fighters. They fulfill a different role in D&D. I have no problem with saying that monks are not built to be a front-line attacker, they aren't. If your sole go-to strategy in battle is to go face to face against the strongest opponent, then, by all means, play a fighter."
You're absolutely right...Monks are not front-line fighters. So...what are they? What is their role on the battlefield, exactly? Mobility? That's nice...I'll watch as you run around being ineffective. Their AC is no better than, and actually worse than many melee classes so tanking is out. They do as much or less damage so striking is possible but again, what do they bring to the table that I can't do BETTER with another character?
Every class has a 'thing'...a flavor...a niche to fill. Something that they're supposed to be as good or BETTER at than anyone else. Some classes can blur the lines (Fighters can be lots of offense or piles of defense, Barbs are the same way, so are Paladins) but by and large, every class has something that they can (or should) be able to do that another class might struggle to do as well. So...what exactly is the Monk's niche? What's their 'thing'? The issue that I and many have with the core class is that they don't HAVE a thing. Some of the subclasses help with this (I'm a big fan of Kensai myself) but the core class doesn't have a defining thing that makes Monks unique.
Note that if you say Martial Arts I'll make up a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting Style that will put Monks to shame.
Too many theory crafters can never seem to envision a battlefield the way it will appear in an actual game They assume that any fight will take place in a large, flat ground and, almost always, that fight will be one-against-one.
In reality, a combat will be much more complex.
Monks exist for the same reason that the Air Force has bombers.
When your enemy has a row of tanks lined up blocking your path while long range guns are shooting area of effects from cover some distance behind them, then you need something that is able to get past those tanks.
That's what a monk does.
I think what they are saying is if you get by the tanks you will not do significant damage enough to make the mobility worth while and of you choose to go full defense (Dodge BA) it's even worse.
If you do go all out on damage you are now trapped by yourself with lower health and AC compared to the Eldritch Knight that can misty step, still have all it's damage output, and have better AC.
Mobility is only worth it if you have something worth while to do with it.
For me I say that you do have something worth while... Stunning strike.... But you are less likely to get it to work if you don't spam it and you burn a shit ton of ki if you want to make sure it works and do spam it.
Again, Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth), Aaracokra can fly, Rogues get Cunning Action at the same time the Monk gets their first Movement boost.
Plus, a Longbow can reach out and touch someone at 150'. A V Human can have either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert out of the gate.
Seriously, if you have to look for that one corner case when what is called for is a high-Dex character who carries no metal objects on him then sure...you got me...Monks are great. Like you said, the battlefield can be complex, so how often are you going to need this precise combination? Is the DM going to go out of their way to make sure that there is a Str challenge for the Barb, an Int challenge for the Wizard, a Religion/Wisdom challenge for the Cleric, and something to steal for the Rogue?
Oh, and the last time I looked, a bomber did a hell of a lot more damage than a D6 and a D8. Not really sure THAT analogy holds water.
A Monk doesn't have to rest like a Tabaxi, spend it's bonus action like a Rogue, and can move faster than an Aaracockra.
Now you aren't making a simple comparison of class vs. class. If we're going to throw in other stuff, then we can consider a Way of Shadows Monk V Human who spent his extra feat on Devil's Sight. Try to hit that from 150ft away with a Longbow.
You mean that corner case where it isn't a one-against-one combat on flat, open ground?
It's obvious that we have two wildly different viewpoints. We can keep going back and forth like a pair of kids or get down to brass tacks.
Give me three situations, battlefield descriptions, specific ranges, whatever. You tell me why the Monk would be better at that than anything I can build without magic items or allies casting spells. I'll build something that can do the same job as well or better with the same parameters. Fair?
Are you asserting that you can make one build without magic items or allies casting spells and this single build will be better than any single build of a monk in three different scenarios that I will identify upfront?
Which published books? What level? What stat buy? How much gold? Single class only?
Reads to me like they're suggesting a different character/monk in each scenario.
Assuming that this is correct, and I can think of no reason to pull my punches,
Scenario 1:
You awake to discover that you are naked except for a pair of adamantium manacles in a dimly lit room. The room is 30ft by 30ft square. You are held dangling suspended at the end of a 10ft adamantium chain. Your feet are five feet above the ground. Beneath you is a 10ft diameter pit of undeterminable depth and impenetrable darkness. Lined along the walls are hooded cultists chanting in Undercommon. From the way they pronounce their words, you think they are probably not human or demihuman. In the distance, you hear the slow drip of cave water and the walls are covered in slime. An odd smell fills the air, you guess maybe mollusk? Maybe squid?
Okay...we seem to have a miscommunication here. In previous posts, you talked about how 'complex' the battlefield was and how the Monk's role was to be 'the bomber'. The idea is that you present a battlefield and some goal you need your monk to achieve. You know...sort of like proving the point you've been trying to make?
Perhaps I didn't make clear that the cultists are your enemy.
this is a battlefield which will become more clear once initiative is rolled and the cultists start attacking you.
Not all battlefields are wide open flat areas.
You need to escape and fight whomever you have to along the way.
"Tabaxi (who can do 60' every other turn and who also have Stealth)"
But, to get that 60' every other turn, Tabaxi can't move in between. They would have to alternate 60' one turn, 0' one turn, 60' one turn. That still averages out to 30' per turn.
I already mentioned a scenario I faced as a player. I'll give it to you now. Second level pc. Three kobolds running away from you. They can't be allowed to escape. They have headed off in three different directions and all have a 40 foot head start on you. If you manage to kill the first one in one round, the second one will now be 60 away from your new position (or 70 feet away from your original position). When you catch up to the second one, the third one will be 80 feet away from you. Oh, and they are running through a canyon littered with 10 foot high boulders, so, they will often have good cover against a long bow.
Darkaiser said
But maybe he meant for us to give him scenarios which would give the advantage to the fighter?
Fly spell....I can cast it on three of us.
Boom done.
NOPE
That's make you a Wizard, not a Fighter.
Besides, Darkaiser's assertion includes the statement
I'm a warlock actually and it fits that description....
It's without magic items and I'm casting the spell.
I don't see where they specified fighter.
That's fair. But, your alternative requires two additional characters.