People complain "Monk is weak... Monk is worthless..."
People see Laura Bailey beating up Talesin Jaffe's Barbarian with a Monk, and they go "Monk is OP, it's so unfair."
The way I see it, Monks require a steady hand (don't spam ki), a clever player (don't eat the poison frog), and they're set up for life. While they are considered "so much weaker than casters" as most Martial Classes are, I'd like to see a caster walk up water without even having any resources such as ki or spell slots left. Like to see a pure spellcaster keep up with a monk when they're out. Wizards may be "OP" (hint: they're really not, that's only Artificers really), but they are only viable while they have spell slots, at the end of which they puff out like a steam train without coal - monks can still continue, especially as even without ki they can make three unarmed attacks for 3d6 damage per round at 5th level and still have other paths open. That's the equivalent of gaining a 1st-level spell for free (also note, as soon as 1st level monks can make two unarmed strikes for 2d4 damage), and while both of these use Actions and Bonus actions instead of just one, as soon as we add in the fact Monks also effectively cast the mage armor permanently without even taking any time or using supplies to cast it, then whoa! We're in a cool place.
Monks are less effective in combat, but at higher levels, you'd better watch out. Monks are utility.
At 5th level, a typical Monk will have 17 AC and, as you stated, do 3D6 around plus bonus damage (which piles up pretty well...12 extra points!). However, show me a Wizard that doesn't properly use their Cantrips and I'll show you a dead Wizard. Even if we add Ki back in, the 5th level Monk gets 5 points while the Wizard gets 9 spell slots. I'm also pretty sure that a Fireball is the Wizard's trump card.
Yes, Monks have good utility, however, they're also maddening to play well. Not the kind of thing you want someone new to the game to try. If I have to work that hard to make the class perform well, that's a problem with the CLASS, not the player. I shouldn't need a black belt in game mechanics to play a character.
IMHO the Monk is a solution looking for a problem to solve. We can debate for days (in fact, some of us have) about how the Monk is better than this or that class in corner cases and campaigns with a specific playstyle. None of this is relevant to me because when I picture a Monk in my head I don't picture someone who can speak any language. To me, the Monk class, as written, doesn't FEEL like how I think a Monk should feel.
To me, the Monk should conjure images of just about every genre of martial arts film ever in one way or another and the RAW Monk doesn't do it for me. They should have a D10 hit die (because how many times have we seen Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee get beat half to death and STILL keep fighting?). The rest of the 'Martial' classes have a D10 so why not the Monk? Then we have the 'best defense = don't be there' philosophy. If you want the Monk to be more fragile (with the D8 hit die) then give them an AC that they don't have to jump through hoops for. The Barbarian gets a similar Unarmored Defense mechanic, on TOP OF Resistance and the biggest hit die in the game. And other than the Airbender-esque Element Monks, when was the last time you saw one run out of Ki in the middle of a fight in cinema? Beat to death? Sure...but 'I cannot Dodge because I have no Ki' misses the point of the class completely for me. To me, Ki should be 'I have a fist of Iron' not 'I can hit you one more time with my foot'.
I don't like the philosophy behind the mechanics of the class. I don't like how many of the features work. I don't like that I need two stats for my AC and neither of those helps my Con Save. I don't like that the class feels like you should be able to customize it with a Feat or two but you can't because you need every ASI to make the base class work. To me, most of the subclasses are not very good because the core class isn't very good. With ALL of the martial arts history, movies, lore, and background I would think Monks would be more popular. Nope...close to the bottom of the 'popularity' list. Why is that? Is it POSSIBLE that many players simply don't like the way the class works?
There are MORE examples of martial arts than any other genre of anything, ever. Wizards have Gandalf, Rangers have Aragorn, Paladins have King Arthur, Fighters have every non-casting character in every fantasy ever...and martial arts movies have MORE lore than all of those put together! T.V., movies, comic books, graphic novels, video games...you name it and someone somewhere touched on it with a martial arts-type character. IMHO there should be as many or MORE ways to build and play a Monk as there are the bog-standard Fighter or Ranger. To me, it feels like the devs thought they saw a hole in the 'we don't have a character that does that' chart and tried to cram the Monk in there. It feels like a design by committee.
Monks can't wear armor. Um...why? Barbarians can wear armor if they want to forgo their Unarmored Defense so why don't Monks get the same option? Someone show me the numbers that prove that a Monk with Studded Leather is OP.
Monks (other than Kensei) can only use simple weapons and shortswords. Um...why? Have you ever SEEN a weapon rack in a Kung Fu movie? How broken would the Monk be if they could use *shock and horror* a Rapier? Can anyone in the class remember a Martial Arts film with a big guy swinging a huge weapon? I bet you can. So show me the numbers on how a Monk with a Halberd and the Polearm Master Feat would be any more broken than a Fighter with the same thing.
Monk stock Saving Throws are Strength and Dexterity. Um...why? Most Monks have to dump their Str in order to make their other stats workable so WHY would you make Str Saves stock? Since so much of the character is built around Wisdom, why not make THAT the other basic Save?
Monks can't use Shields. Um...why? Barbs can use them. I'm pretty sure with a D8 hit die and two stats OTHER THAN Con sopping up the ASIs that they need the AC. In our recent debates, I mention Monks using Shields several times and was called on it because they don't start out Proficient with them. Um...so why do they even mention them in the Unarmored Movement and Unarmored Defense sections? Maybe at some point in development, they thought about letting Monks use them but decided against it? Heaven knows why.
IMHO the core Monk class deviates too far from the other benchmarks of 5e and not in a good way. As designed, you could create a Martial Artist subclass for the Fighter or Rogue and do a better job than the stock Monk class. Aren't they referred to as 'fighting arts?' Aren't the competitors sometimes called 'fighters?' If the devs had gone a different way with the core class then that would be different but as written, I feel the same way about Monks as many players felt about the Beastmaster Ranger...another class wound up doing the same thing only better.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
Thank you for backing me up (but more succinctly because I'm a wordy mo fo!).
People complain "Monk is weak... Monk is worthless..."
People see Laura Bailey beating up Talesin Jaffe's Barbarian with a Monk, and they go "Monk is OP, it's so unfair."
The way I see it, Monks require a steady hand (don't spam ki), a clever player (don't eat the poison frog), and they're set up for life. While they are considered "so much weaker than casters" as most Martial Classes are, I'd like to see a caster walk up water without even having any resources such as ki or spell slots left. Like to see a pure spellcaster keep up with a monk when they're out. Wizards may be "OP" (hint: they're really not, that's only Artificers really), but they are only viable while they have spell slots, at the end of which they puff out like a steam train without coal - monks can still continue, especially as even without ki they can make three unarmed attacks for 3d6 damage per round at 5th level and still have other paths open. That's the equivalent of gaining a 1st-level spell for free (also note, as soon as 1st level monks can make two unarmed strikes for 2d4 damage), and while both of these use Actions and Bonus actions instead of just one, as soon as we add in the fact Monks also effectively cast the mage armor permanently without even taking any time or using supplies to cast it, then whoa! We're in a cool place.
Monks are less effective in combat, but at higher levels, you'd better watch out. Monks are utility.
Monks don't really get many utility powers, although they get some, like Tongue of the Sun and Moon. Mostly they get expensive combat powers. But a lot of what they do get is just... poorly thought out, like how Step of the Wind gets better with higher Strength (and worse with higher Dexterity, because you need Disengage less the higher your AC), and without the jump boosting, you're just a Rogue but worse, because you have to spend Ki for the privilege.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming, it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
People complain "Monk is weak... Monk is worthless..."
People see Laura Bailey beating up Talesin Jaffe's Barbarian with a Monk, and they go "Monk is OP, it's so unfair."
The way I see it, Monks require a steady hand (don't spam ki), a clever player (don't eat the poison frog), and they're set up for life. While they are considered "so much weaker than casters" as most Martial Classes are, I'd like to see a caster walk up water without even having any resources such as ki or spell slots left. Like to see a pure spellcaster keep up with a monk when they're out. Wizards may be "OP" (hint: they're really not, that's only Artificers really), but they are only viable while they have spell slots, at the end of which they puff out like a steam train without coal - monks can still continue, especially as even without ki they can make three unarmed attacks for 3d6 damage per round at 5th level and still have other paths open. That's the equivalent of gaining a 1st-level spell for free (also note, as soon as 1st level monks can make two unarmed strikes for 2d4 damage), and while both of these use Actions and Bonus actions instead of just one, as soon as we add in the fact Monks also effectively cast the mage armor permanently without even taking any time or using supplies to cast it, then whoa! We're in a cool place.
Monks are less effective in combat, but at higher levels, you'd better watch out. Monks are utility.
Monks don't really get many utility powers, although they get some, like Tongue of the Sun and Moon. Mostly they get expensive combat powers. But a lot of what they do get is just... poorly thought out, like how Step of the Wind gets better with higher Strength (and worse with higher Dexterity, because you need Disengage less the higher your AC), and without the jump boosting, you're just a Rogue but worse, because you have to spend Ki for the privilege.
That was one I always thought was odd....like they should get the Dash/Disengage for free and can spend 1 ki to dodge IMO.
Also eventually flurry of blows should just be free IMO....like level 12 feels about right? Or at least increase the number of attacks?
Not too sure myself but I always felt they could keep the die one step lower and give MORE attacks which would feel more Monk like to me.
People complain "Monk is weak... Monk is worthless..."
People see Laura Bailey beating up Talesin Jaffe's Barbarian with a Monk, and they go "Monk is OP, it's so unfair."
The way I see it, Monks require a steady hand (don't spam ki), a clever player (don't eat the poison frog), and they're set up for life. While they are considered "so much weaker than casters" as most Martial Classes are, I'd like to see a caster walk up water without even having any resources such as ki or spell slots left. Like to see a pure spellcaster keep up with a monk when they're out. Wizards may be "OP" (hint: they're really not, that's only Artificers really), but they are only viable while they have spell slots, at the end of which they puff out like a steam train without coal - monks can still continue, especially as even without ki they can make three unarmed attacks for 3d6 damage per round at 5th level and still have other paths open. That's the equivalent of gaining a 1st-level spell for free (also note, as soon as 1st level monks can make two unarmed strikes for 2d4 damage), and while both of these use Actions and Bonus actions instead of just one, as soon as we add in the fact Monks also effectively cast the mage armor permanently without even taking any time or using supplies to cast it, then whoa! We're in a cool place.
Monks are less effective in combat, but at higher levels, you'd better watch out. Monks are utility.
Monks don't really get many utility powers, although they get some, like Tongue of the Sun and Moon. Mostly they get expensive combat powers. But a lot of what they do get is just... poorly thought out, like how Step of the Wind gets better with higher Strength (and worse with higher Dexterity, because you need Disengage less the higher your AC), and without the jump boosting, you're just a Rogue but worse, because you have to spend Ki for the privilege.
Step of the Wind doesn't need to only dramatically improve with higher Strength. It's actually there to basically make strength less of a factor by letting you act like you have high strength without actually having it. yes you could technically jump farther if you had a higher strength, But at the same time the amount of movement you have can still become an issue even on a monk. it takes a particular kind of build to both jump really far and have the movement to deal with it and it tends to require things like your bonus action and possibly even your action to accomplish and then you've invested a lot in mostly just doing something flashy over doing something truely useful. You can argue for niche situations like jumping a canyon to get a rope across or something like that. But those are not common scenario's and vertical jumping is a non-issue for any monk with some surface to run up. A niche design use does not necessarily elevate an ability farther than it's actual purpose, except when your only wanting that niche use.
it's just like they are given proficiency in strength at an early level to simulate strength in that respect without actually having to invest heavily into it as well. Same with how Martial Arts works. Effectively giving you the same kind of damage as if you had a good strength but without actually needing the attribute. It's the same Effective function as a BattleSmith being able to use Intelligence or a Hexblade being able to use Charisma instead of investing in a physical stat. Except it's better because those two don't have the save covered. It's basically decry'ing as a bane something that is done the exact same way but worse in other places while considering it a boon in those other places. it's simulated increases may actually be a bit slower in some regards due to things like proficiency going up slower. But the end results are actually a bit better with things like a +6 for saves ultimately for the monk over the +5 of an attribute. And as little as 10 strength being able to jump distances equal to the 20strength Fighter but with run up room as well without sacrificing other actions when you want to long jump. And as high as the Fighter would with just a +1 strength modifier. The Only Place a strength based character is going to really succeed, certain barbarians not withstanding, is going to be in the athletics department to jump low obstacles. But they are likely going to suffer a lot on the acrobatics roll to land in difficult terrain instead.
As for Disengage becoming less needed as dexterity goes up. This is part of the ki economy design. They pair up so that you start needing less ki to actually disengage if you play it right because your AC does improve (and can be improved with plenty of supplementary gear besides armor) so that you can use that Ki on other more important things. Their AC is designed to improve so that you can on average disengage less and thus not need to use Ki on it as you level up.
So what your arguing is that One of the farthest jumping classes (not subclasses) isn't as effective without strength and that a built in ki economy allowance isn't good because you don't always have to spam ki on the ability, But then also complain that Ki isn't good because your forced to spend too much of it on too many things, despite the fact that not only do they increase in Ki quite a lot as they level up but some abilities are designed to potentially need to spend less ki on them over time through other functions of the class supporting them.
And it's a lie that your a rogue but worse. Because the Monk gets advantages that the Rogue does not. Just like the Rogue gets certain advantages the Monk does not. The Rogue may get to bonus action dash, Or bonus action disengage more often. But the Monk goes farther when they do it and as they level up they actually reduce the need to actually do it by design. Eventually hitting a point where compared to just about any other character they are eventually effectively dashing all the time with no action or resource cost. Even things like mobility on Non-monks do little to reduce this. The Rogue never reaches a point where it can attack multiple times, effectively dash, and disengage all in the same turn at any point in it's career. So it starts out being a bit more free at the earliest levels but the monk pulls out way ahead in the end for performing the same kind of roll with the same kinds of tools.
A STR dumped monk is worse at jumping than a caster with Jump and is slower than that same caster with Expeditious Retreat. They cannot run along walls until level 9. A rogue has a much better chance of jumping over a ledge/etc with expertise in ATH.
Overall they are really not in a good spot for "mobility" unless its a flat room with no obstacles ironically.
Didn't we already go through this? It ended up that nobody could create a non-Monk character that can do what the Monk can do.
IIRC we also determined that the comparisons were apples to watermelons in many cases.
I still stand by the following. Is it totally subjective? Yes. I have yet to hear solid arguments defending them, however.
"Monks can't wear armor. Um...why? Barbarians can wear armor if they want to forgo their Unarmored Defense so why don't Monks get the same option? Someone show me the numbers that prove that a Monk with Studded Leather is OP.
Monks (other than Kensei) can only use simple weapons and shortswords. Um...why? Have you ever SEEN a weapon rack in a Kung Fu movie? How broken would the Monk be if they could use *shock and horror* a Rapier? Can anyone in the class remember a Martial Arts film with a big guy swinging a huge weapon? I bet you can. So show me the numbers on how a Monk with a Halberd and the Polearm Master Feat would be any more broken than a Fighter with the same thing.
Monk stock Saving Throws are Strength and Dexterity. Um...why? Most Monks have to dump their Str in order to make their other stats workable so WHY would you make Str Saves stock? Since so much of the character is built around Wisdom, why not make THAT the other basic Save?
Monks can't use Shields. Um...why? Barbs can use them. I'm pretty sure with a D8 hit die and two stats OTHER THAN Con sopping up the ASIs that they need the AC. In our recent debates, I mention Monks using Shields several times and was called on it because they don't start out Proficient with them. Um...so why do they even mention them in the Unarmored Movement and Unarmored Defense sections? Maybe at some point in development, they thought about letting Monks use them but decided against it? Heaven knows why."
If we didn't care, we wouldn't complain. Calling out perceived flaws in something is one of the ways it gets fixed. I will draw attention to the (likely THOUSANDS) of posts regarding the Beastmaster Ranger.
Monks are one of the three classes played the least according to the numbers. Are there REALLY more people who want to play a Barbarian than a Monk? Isn't it fair to ask why?
As I've said several times already if you play a Monk and you're happy with it then good for you. Don't blame us for trying to figure out why it's in the minority.
Let me ask you this, though. If you were to play a Fighter class with a background of being trained in a monastery, how would that not get you what you want?
TBH it would come close. I can take the Unarmed Fighting Style, the Mobile Feat, Stealth, Acrobatics, and I'm off to a good start. Even given all of that, I'd still like the Monk to have more options. I'd still like to know the answers to my questions. I'm struggling to see how giving the Monk an option to wear armor makes them OP. If it doesn't, then why can't they have it? Isn't 5e all about options? Why do all of the other things I listed exist but Monks can't have them? I think that the genre, and thus the core class, are being poorly represented for reasons I've already listed. Clerics can have FIFTEEN subclasses but a Monk can't wear ANY armor, carry a shield, or use a heavy weapon? Seriously?
I'm not so concerned about this that I'm losing sleep but I AM curious why nobody else has said anything before now. Nobody else ever asked this or were they shouted down by the 'Monks are great as they are don't touch my thing!' crowd?
Clerics can have FIFTEEN subclasses but a Monk can't wear ANY armor, carry a shield, or use a heavy weapon? Seriously?
That is very different things. Monks have TEN subclasses sure not quite as many as clerics but still quite a choice.
I like that there are some differentals between classes wizards and sorrcers can't wear ANY armor or carry a shield (at least not without the OPTIONAL rules of feats and multiclassing)
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
Incapacitated is a moot point to bring up. Nothing of note works through incapacitated.
So your not really changing my argument any which is anybody can twist anything to say one thing is better than another. But perhaps you missed that was the point of everything that I said even though I stated it more than once. Including in the paragraph that your trying to correct where I was making an actual example of how leaving out certain details and only focusing on the details that I can portray as problematic and thus making it worse is not actually objective. Just like others in this thread have done repeatedly by not accurately portraying their supposed improvements or ways that the Monk is supposedly bad.
I'm fully aware that both actually require sight on incoming attacks.
And Grappled is a double edged sword. Even if Uncanny dodge has no such limitation. There's something about Grappeled that most people miss. The way that most people want to use it there is a good chance that it's actually providing at least half cover. Because your body in the attempt to keep them grappled and struggling with them is going to cover at least half of theirs in many instances. Making it harder for others to swing into the pair of you during a grapple. Grappled and prone is even worse because the way most people do it that is usually going to end up in a situation where the person being grappled can easily end up in 3/4 cover because of having the person grappling them is on top of them. Grappling from below can be done but it tends to be harder. Even Wrestlers tend to prefer the leverage and control from being in the upper position rather than the lower position when Wrestling. But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling. If it did more would realize that most grappling cheese is even less viable, And many DM's tend to not apply cover in all the situations that it probably should. Specially newer DM's. But what it does means is that while the Dodge action may be restricted. The Grappler may actually inadvertantly be giving a partial or full similar bonus to what dodge would have anyway. The issue of Grappling and Cover has never been all that mitigated in D&D and has usually been an issue in some form unless the person attacking into the grapple had special skills of their own akin to the ignoring half and 3/4 cover of sharp shooter. And those that have known about it either accepted it as just part of the system and trusted their allies to get the appropriate abilities or tried to ignore such interactions and pretend they didn't exist.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
And Grappled is a double edged sword. Even if Uncanny dodge has no such limitation. There's something about Grappeled that most people miss. The way that most people want to use it there is a good chance that it's actually providing at least half cover. Because your body in the attempt to keep them grappled and struggling with them is going to cover at least half of theirs in many instances. Making it harder for others to swing into the pair of you during a grapple. Grappled and prone is even worse because the way most people do it that is usually going to end up in a situation where the person being grappled can easily end up in 3/4 cover because of having the person grappling them is on top of them. Grappling from below can be done but it tends to be harder. Even Wrestlers tend to prefer the leverage and control from being in the upper position rather than the lower position when Wrestling. But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling. If it did more would realize that most grappling cheese is even less viable, And many DM's tend to not apply cover in all the situations that it probably should. Specially newer DM's. But what it does means is that while the Dodge action may be restricted. The Grappler may actually inadvertantly be giving a partial or full similar bonus to what dodge would have anyway. The issue of Grappling and Cover has never been all that mitigated in D&D and has usually been an issue in some form unless the person attacking into the grapple had special skills of their own akin to the ignoring half and 3/4 cover of sharp shooter. And those that have known about it either accepted it as just part of the system and trusted their allies to get the appropriate abilities or tried to ignore such interactions and pretend they didn't exist.
I have literally NEVER seen a DM rule that a Grappled body was any form of cover...ever.
Please don't use phrases like 'Many DMs' and 'most people' unless you've actually polled a significant portion of the player and DM base.
It's possible, just possible, that the reason that "But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling." is because that RAW Grappling doesn't do anything that you said. Grappling reduces the target's Movement to 0 and, as a result, they cannot gain any benefits from Movement (I assume that this is included for people who wanted to use the Tabaxi Speed boost or the Monk's ability to run up walls...neither of which work if you can't Move).
In case you're not aware (I am because I wrestled in HS and again in some Martial Arts classes), grappling is just about the messiest form of close combat there is. The idea that you might have initiated the Grapple on your turn becomes irrelevant once the two of you are involved because if you try to withdraw, your opponent can try an Opportunity Attack and re-apply the Grapple. Other than this, there is no mechanical advantage and to apply one means that you're Homebrewing the Grapple rules. I'm not saying that your idea is bad, simply that it put details into Grappling that do not exist RAW and you'd be shot down hard if you tried to play it that way in an AL game.
Anyone want to prove the Monk is so weak by posting a character of another class that can do what the Monk does but better?
My challenge remains open.
You like the Monk...I don't. You address my four points listed above and we can talk. Otherwise, I'm not interested.
that's easy. Your points are all smoke screens based upon personal bias.
The wearing of STudded Leather is a non-issue because it doesn't add anything to the Monk. They already have studded leather essentially. Studded leather can never actually get better than the monk's own AC. Even +3 studded leather does not create a better AC than the Monk can get purely from the design of the class without any investment of any kind in any other capacity including gear requirements(ASI's are a feature of the monk and are a case of the monk using it's own Features to improve itself, including AC). A Monk actually has the advantage of Gaining the Same AC as other light armored characters of other classes and can combine it with AC items that such characters cannot usually wear. While many would argue that you cannot necessarily get to choose the magic items you recieve. This is also true of armor wearing classes but people always white room that they are going to get their hands on +3 armor and consider it a requirement for their high level white room build comparisons. But Items like the Ring of Protection and Bracers of Defense are not necessarily any harder to come by than that expectation of getting that magical armor, And some are even limited in who else might even want them in the group, With Bracers of Defense really only being useful to a couple of other classes in general. This isn't shouting down. This is objective reality. It's not that nobody has said anything. It's just that it is a point that has not only been disproven without using magical items. It's even further disproven with magical items. Because it's not hard with a few magical items for something like an AC of 24 to easily be possible, and they do it with higher statistical probability than the Fighter Actually getting Both +3 Magical Full Plate and a +3 shield and a +3 weapon to get their 26 AC. And 24 isn't even the max that a Monk could potentially attain with magical items. It's just a fair estimate without pushing the bounds of probability in any game which is at all keeping gear for a monk in mind.
what another Class can use isn't a good basis for what the Monk can use. For one they are designed for different purposes. For two It actually goes against the rest of your argument about what monks do in many stories. Because monks don't really use shields in the majority of martial arts stories for example. Things like Temple Swords that are often portrayed used by Martial Artists are not actually that much different in Size from the Short Sword. Many more exotic weapons tend to be exceptions even amongst the portrayal of martial artists in media. And Many Martial Artists in the media do not actually pull weapons off of those impressive looking weapon Racks. Have you ever considered there is a reason for that? Or why the few that do actually stand out? In most Martial Arts movies. the People swinging around Large Sized Weapons are rarely portrayed as martial artists. They are usually portrayed as what would be a typical fighter archetype despite being in a martial arts movie. There are examples of martial artists using weapons but it is not in the Hulking Brutes Swinging Massive weapons in most instances. They are usually fighters for the Martial artists either to defeat or to ally with and tend not to use anything even close to what most would consider a martial arts style. Being in a Martial Arts Story medium does not automatically make everything displayed an example of martial arts. To try and say it is would be like saying "everything in a War Movie is an example of Tank Warfare." It doesn't actually work. The Subject matter is usually deeper and much more complex than such a statement.
I've actually addressed why STrength would be a basic save in another post just today. It's done so that the Monk doesn't actually have to take anything in strength but can actually simulate having it anyway. The Dump STat argument is also tenuous as best because what is a dump stat is always a personal preference. Charisma is just as common of a dump stat as STrength for many players, Even on Monks. Others might instead dump stat intelligence. Most only think in terms of the highest numbers they can achieve. Not in the practicality or actual usefulness of those numbers. They often don't even think about the way that those same numbers can be simulated by other means unless it applies directly to trying to cheese numbers in their builds.
The HP justification also doesn't match. More hitpoints does not somehow magically make a Bruce Lee or the like taking damage and then fighting their way back while injured any more plausible. Usually when they get beat up they either are knocked out of the fight and then come back in a different battle after they've healed and possibly trained... Or they hit a bloodied state from just a few hits but manage to persevere anyway. Any other time they are most often actually blocking or Avoiding hits rather than "face-tanking" hits, which is the point of hp, So the enlarged hp pool does not in fact better evoke the image that your trying to use as a justification any better than having a D8 pool.
We have obviously come to the 'agree to disagree' portion of our conversation.
I would like to build a Martial-Arts-style character who wears armor. I don't want it to be OP, I just want it to not suck because of how the core Monk class is built. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as I'm not asking for anything that will break the game. I want the CHOICE.
I would like to explore using other weapons with a Monk character. Again, if it doesn't break the game, I don't see why this is a bad thing. As it stands that means Kensei or...Kensei.
I would like more choices and more variety in the Monk class. Apparently, this is a bad thing because 'that's not what Monks are for' or whatever.
I've seen builds for 'Tank Rogues', 'Tank Wizards', and please don't get me started on the Bladesinger. I'm pretty sure that those first two aren't 'what they were built for' either...but they had the options to make them.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming,it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
And Grappled is a double edged sword. Even if Uncanny dodge has no such limitation. There's something about Grappeled that most people miss. The way that most people want to use it there is a good chance that it's actually providing at least half cover. Because your body in the attempt to keep them grappled and struggling with them is going to cover at least half of theirs in many instances. Making it harder for others to swing into the pair of you during a grapple. Grappled and prone is even worse because the way most people do it that is usually going to end up in a situation where the person being grappled can easily end up in 3/4 cover because of having the person grappling them is on top of them. Grappling from below can be done but it tends to be harder. Even Wrestlers tend to prefer the leverage and control from being in the upper position rather than the lower position when Wrestling. But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling. If it did more would realize that most grappling cheese is even less viable, And many DM's tend to not apply cover in all the situations that it probably should. Specially newer DM's. But what it does means is that while the Dodge action may be restricted. The Grappler may actually inadvertantly be giving a partial or full similar bonus to what dodge would have anyway. The issue of Grappling and Cover has never been all that mitigated in D&D and has usually been an issue in some form unless the person attacking into the grapple had special skills of their own akin to the ignoring half and 3/4 cover of sharp shooter. And those that have known about it either accepted it as just part of the system and trusted their allies to get the appropriate abilities or tried to ignore such interactions and pretend they didn't exist.
I have literally NEVER seen a DM rule that a Grappled body was any form of cover...ever.
Please don't use phrases like 'Many DMs' and 'most people' unless you've actually polled a significant portion of the player and DM base.
It's possible, just possible, that the reason that "But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling." is because that RAW Grappling doesn't do anything that you said. Grappling reduces the target's Movement to 0 and, as a result, they cannot gain any benefits from Movement (I assume that this is included for people who wanted to use the Tabaxi Speed boost or the Monk's ability to run up walls...neither of which work if you can't Move).
In case you're not aware (I am because I wrestled in HS and again in some Martial Arts classes), grappling is just about the messiest form of close combat there is. The idea that you might have initiated the Grapple on your turn becomes irrelevant once the two of you are involved because if you try to withdraw, your opponent can try an Opportunity Attack and re-apply the Grapple. Other than this, there is no mechanical advantage and to apply one means that you're Homebrewing the Grapple rules. I'm not saying that your idea is bad, simply that it put details into Grappling that do not exist RAW and you'd be shot down hard if you tried to play it that way in an AL game.
Grappling does exactly what I said.
Your basically argueing from the same standing that because the rules create a grey area by saying that grappling requires at least one hand that all grappling is only done with a single hand. Yet your Experience as a wrestler should tell you that is anything but true. Take your experience and get off your high horse of "Nu uh! That's not what the rules say despite the fact that the rules don't contradict each other at all!" And really think for a moment. All of the Grappling matches that you've watched. Imagine trying to get in there to do attacks of your own.
And I wouldn't be shot down in an AL game. Because i can point at the book and show rules for Cover that exist in the Book. The pain in the ass thing about AL games. They practically over adhere to the book in the name of fairness. Even when it becomes borderline unfair. They will ignore logic chains for things like unspecified costs but 30 seconds of showing that the rule exists in the book even if your arguing against yourself and that it doesn't contradict the other rule... And you've usually won your way into that penalty being applied. But it would be the dumbest thing to argue for in an AL game because Usually it's only going to get against yourself and your team because the only reason to argue it in AL is to the detriment of your team because AL encounters are not going to bother grappling unless it's an incidental tacked on ability that they have to use to stick to the rules because they are going to use most if not all enemies in pretty much the stupidest ways possible. There will be no strategy unless what they are running predefines all the strategy for them. And you stand a decent chance of Annoying the AL DM because your complicating things when he's been told to stick to the book and streamline as much as possible and get done in his alotted time. And you've probably annoyed the other Players because the AL DM is likely to express to them that it's all your fault for pointing it out.
And you complain bout me using words like Most DM's when you haven't seen a DM use it. Tell me this. How much have you even seen Cover used by DM's? I've seen cover in all capacities missed alot. Even in Map Based Games where certain aspects of cover are only applicable amongst such uses. And don't bother bringing up AL again. Because I happen to know for a fact that unless forced to AL battles all take place in featureless expanses so they can ignore things like cover mechanics in an effort to speed up and streamline game play to get their sessions done within their alotted time frame. Even if their maps might suggest otherwise. They are part of the reason players tend to perceive and theory craft things in empty white room environments.
Also. your lying in saying there is no mechanical advantages to be had in Wrestling. They may not be codified into D&D combat but there are a lot of them in actual wrestling. The Wrestling moves that Wrestlers practice are all about getting a mechanical advantage to either escape being pinned or to be able to pin your target, And they actually teach you that certain positions if you get them are preferable to others. Because they are better suited for getting an opponent unbalanced and otherwise out of position so that you can take advantage of the leverage that you have that they do not, hopefully before they can recover and change the situation. Pulling away and then having them AoO to re-grapple you is because it's not to their mechanical advantage to let you recover and regroup your position but to press their advantage. There is a lot of mechanics going on in actual wrestling that do not exist in the Games and there always has been. If you think there isn't you need to go have a long talk with somebody that specializes in Biomechanical sciences. You'd apparently be surprised by all the physics and such in play in just a single wrestling match. There is a lot of mechanical science going on in all of it from start to finish.
By the Way. All combat is messy. Almost none of it is like it's portrayed in the movies. Those elegant sword swings and blade clashes that are in the movies are almost entirely movie magic. Talk to somebody that does some of that stuff. Anything even close to real combat is nothing like what you see in film. And even what is used in Tournaments isn't necessarily the same as what would be used in life or death situations. And the more individuals thta get involved the messier and the more complicated that it gets. And the more potentially hitting your ally or the ally stopping you from being able to attack an opponent becomes an issue. Which is half the point of cover rules. To somewhat simulate thta messiness and bodies getting in the way. That doesn't magically stop just because you've decided to grapple an opponent. You've just decided to grapple an opponent in all of thta mess and potentially make yourself more of a hinderance to your allies or accidentally get hit when they were aiming for the enemy.
Your Complaint that your DM's dont' use Cover that way is not the Fault of Cover or even the Game. No Matter how you want to spin it or ignore it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At 5th level, a typical Monk will have 17 AC and, as you stated, do 3D6 around plus bonus damage (which piles up pretty well...12 extra points!). However, show me a Wizard that doesn't properly use their Cantrips and I'll show you a dead Wizard. Even if we add Ki back in, the 5th level Monk gets 5 points while the Wizard gets 9 spell slots. I'm also pretty sure that a Fireball is the Wizard's trump card.
Yes, Monks have good utility, however, they're also maddening to play well. Not the kind of thing you want someone new to the game to try. If I have to work that hard to make the class perform well, that's a problem with the CLASS, not the player. I shouldn't need a black belt in game mechanics to play a character.
IMHO the Monk is a solution looking for a problem to solve. We can debate for days (in fact, some of us have) about how the Monk is better than this or that class in corner cases and campaigns with a specific playstyle. None of this is relevant to me because when I picture a Monk in my head I don't picture someone who can speak any language. To me, the Monk class, as written, doesn't FEEL like how I think a Monk should feel.
To me, the Monk should conjure images of just about every genre of martial arts film ever in one way or another and the RAW Monk doesn't do it for me. They should have a D10 hit die (because how many times have we seen Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee get beat half to death and STILL keep fighting?). The rest of the 'Martial' classes have a D10 so why not the Monk? Then we have the 'best defense = don't be there' philosophy. If you want the Monk to be more fragile (with the D8 hit die) then give them an AC that they don't have to jump through hoops for. The Barbarian gets a similar Unarmored Defense mechanic, on TOP OF Resistance and the biggest hit die in the game. And other than the Airbender-esque Element Monks, when was the last time you saw one run out of Ki in the middle of a fight in cinema? Beat to death? Sure...but 'I cannot Dodge because I have no Ki' misses the point of the class completely for me. To me, Ki should be 'I have a fist of Iron' not 'I can hit you one more time with my foot'.
I don't like the philosophy behind the mechanics of the class. I don't like how many of the features work. I don't like that I need two stats for my AC and neither of those helps my Con Save. I don't like that the class feels like you should be able to customize it with a Feat or two but you can't because you need every ASI to make the base class work. To me, most of the subclasses are not very good because the core class isn't very good. With ALL of the martial arts history, movies, lore, and background I would think Monks would be more popular. Nope...close to the bottom of the 'popularity' list. Why is that? Is it POSSIBLE that many players simply don't like the way the class works?
There are MORE examples of martial arts than any other genre of anything, ever. Wizards have Gandalf, Rangers have Aragorn, Paladins have King Arthur, Fighters have every non-casting character in every fantasy ever...and martial arts movies have MORE lore than all of those put together! T.V., movies, comic books, graphic novels, video games...you name it and someone somewhere touched on it with a martial arts-type character. IMHO there should be as many or MORE ways to build and play a Monk as there are the bog-standard Fighter or Ranger. To me, it feels like the devs thought they saw a hole in the 'we don't have a character that does that' chart and tried to cram the Monk in there. It feels like a design by committee.
Monks can't wear armor. Um...why? Barbarians can wear armor if they want to forgo their Unarmored Defense so why don't Monks get the same option? Someone show me the numbers that prove that a Monk with Studded Leather is OP.
Monks (other than Kensei) can only use simple weapons and shortswords. Um...why? Have you ever SEEN a weapon rack in a Kung Fu movie? How broken would the Monk be if they could use *shock and horror* a Rapier? Can anyone in the class remember a Martial Arts film with a big guy swinging a huge weapon? I bet you can. So show me the numbers on how a Monk with a Halberd and the Polearm Master Feat would be any more broken than a Fighter with the same thing.
Monk stock Saving Throws are Strength and Dexterity. Um...why? Most Monks have to dump their Str in order to make their other stats workable so WHY would you make Str Saves stock? Since so much of the character is built around Wisdom, why not make THAT the other basic Save?
Monks can't use Shields. Um...why? Barbs can use them. I'm pretty sure with a D8 hit die and two stats OTHER THAN Con sopping up the ASIs that they need the AC. In our recent debates, I mention Monks using Shields several times and was called on it because they don't start out Proficient with them. Um...so why do they even mention them in the Unarmored Movement and Unarmored Defense sections? Maybe at some point in development, they thought about letting Monks use them but decided against it? Heaven knows why.
IMHO the core Monk class deviates too far from the other benchmarks of 5e and not in a good way. As designed, you could create a Martial Artist subclass for the Fighter or Rogue and do a better job than the stock Monk class. Aren't they referred to as 'fighting arts?' Aren't the competitors sometimes called 'fighters?' If the devs had gone a different way with the core class then that would be different but as written, I feel the same way about Monks as many players felt about the Beastmaster Ranger...another class wound up doing the same thing only better.
And that is my final word on the matter.
A second pool of resources (based on proficiency bonus or otherwise) would go a long long way to fixing the mentioned issues as you could rely on the monk base kit more frequently for defense or offensive output.
Overall the monk just relies so much on ki to be useful and give other classes too much to match what a monk can get WITHOUT ki.
BA attack? How about feats that give that to you? (PAM and CBE)
Movement speed? Mobile feat, spells (Longstrider, Retreat, etc...)
Dodge BA (AC is better in most builds, rogue halves damage with reaction, shield spell, etc...)
The further you get along in the game the more options become available to just nullify the benefits monks get.
9th level they can run on water!....but Warlock can get Levitate at will on itself, cast fly on 3 people, etc....
Overall they just have this idea of versatility but its dunked on pretty much every level by some other build.
Thank you for backing me up (but more succinctly because I'm a wordy mo fo!).
Monks don't really get many utility powers, although they get some, like Tongue of the Sun and Moon. Mostly they get expensive combat powers. But a lot of what they do get is just... poorly thought out, like how Step of the Wind gets better with higher Strength (and worse with higher Dexterity, because you need Disengage less the higher your AC), and without the jump boosting, you're just a Rogue but worse, because you have to spend Ki for the privilege.
And All of these things force the person taking them to either spend their own resources or give up something like an ASI. Some of them even have conditions where they can be ended early or things like that. And CBE has action economy issues that always get ignored or sticks you with only a 1d6 weapon that you can use to make it work on top of the cost of an ASI.
And let's not even pretend levitate is actually a good movement spell. All it let's you do is move slowly up and down. Without a lot of tactical thinking or luck it has no horizontal movement what so ever. So it's more useful for attempting to disable enemies movement most of the time than actually casting on yourself or an ally. With the niche exception being to get a particularly clumsy ally somewhere like the top of a wall without relying on their skill checks.
And that Warlock can cast fly. But it's at a potentially very big cost with as few spell slots as the have. So that Fly spell better be worth it, the Warlock in question not actually rely on their spell slots for most of their builds function, or they know they are going to get a rest in between casting the fly spell and any combat without question. But it's pretty easy to misrepresent the costs for the Warlock to do such things. And state things in a way that makes it seem like they can do tons of things at once or some of them might be better than they are.
And the AC has proven to not actually be better like it's made out to be and things like shield spells are very short duration increases that also cost resources.
But then arguments about how things any class can do can be argued that other classes can do them in some way for the most part if you really want to make these kinds of arguments. it's part of how the game is designed. So that you don't need the perfect class to fit the perfect situation in every scenario. We can just as easily argue that the Fighters 4 attacks isn't special because Rangers and Monks have a way to do it or basically anything the Wizard can do isn't special because other casters, and even some non-casters, can do the same things.
your So called Dunking is just downright misrepresentation on so many levels because your argument hinges on how you can change builds to be monk like in a game where very little on any class is unique and can usually be copied by one or more other classes whether through their own abilities, spells, feats, or by magical items or other means. If the Monk is Dunked on for this. Then literally ever class in the Game is dunked on for what they do because somebody else can do it too or because some other class might have one ability to do something better.
The rogue halving damage on a reaction for example. To do this differently than a monk it has to be able to see the attack coming, it only works against a single attack at a time, It's not a dodge so you are still going to take damage regardless so pretending it's the same as a bonus action dodge is just misrepresenting what it actually does. So you can just as easily say that the Monk Dunk's on the Rogue in this regard if you wanted to because the Monk's works on all incoming attacks for a turn and completely avoids damage. The Fact that it's limited use doesn't matter because that isn't being mentioned for things like Shield. It's just a hyperbollic comparison lacking context to pretend like these things are infinitely usable anyway and fits the bias being put forth that one is better than the other and their function is the same.
That was one I always thought was odd....like they should get the Dash/Disengage for free and can spend 1 ki to dodge IMO.
Also eventually flurry of blows should just be free IMO....like level 12 feels about right? Or at least increase the number of attacks?
Not too sure myself but I always felt they could keep the die one step lower and give MORE attacks which would feel more Monk like to me.
Step of the Wind doesn't need to only dramatically improve with higher Strength. It's actually there to basically make strength less of a factor by letting you act like you have high strength without actually having it. yes you could technically jump farther if you had a higher strength, But at the same time the amount of movement you have can still become an issue even on a monk. it takes a particular kind of build to both jump really far and have the movement to deal with it and it tends to require things like your bonus action and possibly even your action to accomplish and then you've invested a lot in mostly just doing something flashy over doing something truely useful. You can argue for niche situations like jumping a canyon to get a rope across or something like that. But those are not common scenario's and vertical jumping is a non-issue for any monk with some surface to run up. A niche design use does not necessarily elevate an ability farther than it's actual purpose, except when your only wanting that niche use.
it's just like they are given proficiency in strength at an early level to simulate strength in that respect without actually having to invest heavily into it as well. Same with how Martial Arts works. Effectively giving you the same kind of damage as if you had a good strength but without actually needing the attribute. It's the same Effective function as a BattleSmith being able to use Intelligence or a Hexblade being able to use Charisma instead of investing in a physical stat. Except it's better because those two don't have the save covered. It's basically decry'ing as a bane something that is done the exact same way but worse in other places while considering it a boon in those other places. it's simulated increases may actually be a bit slower in some regards due to things like proficiency going up slower. But the end results are actually a bit better with things like a +6 for saves ultimately for the monk over the +5 of an attribute. And as little as 10 strength being able to jump distances equal to the 20strength Fighter but with run up room as well without sacrificing other actions when you want to long jump. And as high as the Fighter would with just a +1 strength modifier. The Only Place a strength based character is going to really succeed, certain barbarians not withstanding, is going to be in the athletics department to jump low obstacles. But they are likely going to suffer a lot on the acrobatics roll to land in difficult terrain instead.
As for Disengage becoming less needed as dexterity goes up. This is part of the ki economy design. They pair up so that you start needing less ki to actually disengage if you play it right because your AC does improve (and can be improved with plenty of supplementary gear besides armor) so that you can use that Ki on other more important things. Their AC is designed to improve so that you can on average disengage less and thus not need to use Ki on it as you level up.
So what your arguing is that One of the farthest jumping classes (not subclasses) isn't as effective without strength and that a built in ki economy allowance isn't good because you don't always have to spam ki on the ability, But then also complain that Ki isn't good because your forced to spend too much of it on too many things, despite the fact that not only do they increase in Ki quite a lot as they level up but some abilities are designed to potentially need to spend less ki on them over time through other functions of the class supporting them.
And it's a lie that your a rogue but worse. Because the Monk gets advantages that the Rogue does not. Just like the Rogue gets certain advantages the Monk does not. The Rogue may get to bonus action dash, Or bonus action disengage more often. But the Monk goes farther when they do it and as they level up they actually reduce the need to actually do it by design. Eventually hitting a point where compared to just about any other character they are eventually effectively dashing all the time with no action or resource cost. Even things like mobility on Non-monks do little to reduce this. The Rogue never reaches a point where it can attack multiple times, effectively dash, and disengage all in the same turn at any point in it's career. So it starts out being a bit more free at the earliest levels but the monk pulls out way ahead in the end for performing the same kind of roll with the same kinds of tools.
A STR dumped monk is worse at jumping than a caster with Jump and is slower than that same caster with Expeditious Retreat. They cannot run along walls until level 9. A rogue has a much better chance of jumping over a ledge/etc with expertise in ATH.
Overall they are really not in a good spot for "mobility" unless its a flat room with no obstacles ironically.
Can we just stop lambasting the monk? Gosh.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
IIRC we also determined that the comparisons were apples to watermelons in many cases.
I still stand by the following. Is it totally subjective? Yes. I have yet to hear solid arguments defending them, however.
"Monks can't wear armor. Um...why? Barbarians can wear armor if they want to forgo their Unarmored Defense so why don't Monks get the same option? Someone show me the numbers that prove that a Monk with Studded Leather is OP.
Monks (other than Kensei) can only use simple weapons and shortswords. Um...why? Have you ever SEEN a weapon rack in a Kung Fu movie? How broken would the Monk be if they could use *shock and horror* a Rapier? Can anyone in the class remember a Martial Arts film with a big guy swinging a huge weapon? I bet you can. So show me the numbers on how a Monk with a Halberd and the Polearm Master Feat would be any more broken than a Fighter with the same thing.
Monk stock Saving Throws are Strength and Dexterity. Um...why? Most Monks have to dump their Str in order to make their other stats workable so WHY would you make Str Saves stock? Since so much of the character is built around Wisdom, why not make THAT the other basic Save?
Monks can't use Shields. Um...why? Barbs can use them. I'm pretty sure with a D8 hit die and two stats OTHER THAN Con sopping up the ASIs that they need the AC. In our recent debates, I mention Monks using Shields several times and was called on it because they don't start out Proficient with them. Um...so why do they even mention them in the Unarmored Movement and Unarmored Defense sections? Maybe at some point in development, they thought about letting Monks use them but decided against it? Heaven knows why."
If we didn't care, we wouldn't complain. Calling out perceived flaws in something is one of the ways it gets fixed. I will draw attention to the (likely THOUSANDS) of posts regarding the Beastmaster Ranger.
Monks are one of the three classes played the least according to the numbers. Are there REALLY more people who want to play a Barbarian than a Monk? Isn't it fair to ask why?
As I've said several times already if you play a Monk and you're happy with it then good for you. Don't blame us for trying to figure out why it's in the minority.
You like the Monk...I don't. You address my four points listed above and we can talk. Otherwise, I'm not interested.
TBH it would come close. I can take the Unarmed Fighting Style, the Mobile Feat, Stealth, Acrobatics, and I'm off to a good start. Even given all of that, I'd still like the Monk to have more options. I'd still like to know the answers to my questions. I'm struggling to see how giving the Monk an option to wear armor makes them OP. If it doesn't, then why can't they have it? Isn't 5e all about options? Why do all of the other things I listed exist but Monks can't have them? I think that the genre, and thus the core class, are being poorly represented for reasons I've already listed. Clerics can have FIFTEEN subclasses but a Monk can't wear ANY armor, carry a shield, or use a heavy weapon? Seriously?
I'm not so concerned about this that I'm losing sleep but I AM curious why nobody else has said anything before now. Nobody else ever asked this or were they shouted down by the 'Monks are great as they are don't touch my thing!' crowd?
That is very different things. Monks have TEN subclasses sure not quite as many as clerics but still quite a choice.
I like that there are some differentals between classes wizards and sorrcers can't wear ANY armor or carry a shield (at least not without the OPTIONAL rules of feats and multiclassing)
The Dodge action also requires sight of the creature attacking you, though sight doesn’t change the advantage gained on dexterity saving throws.
dodge stops working if your incapacitated, which is similar to losing your reaction when incapacitated.
dodge stops working if you loose your speed, like from being grappled or restrained. Uncanny Dodge has no such limitation.
Incapacitated is a moot point to bring up. Nothing of note works through incapacitated.
So your not really changing my argument any which is anybody can twist anything to say one thing is better than another. But perhaps you missed that was the point of everything that I said even though I stated it more than once. Including in the paragraph that your trying to correct where I was making an actual example of how leaving out certain details and only focusing on the details that I can portray as problematic and thus making it worse is not actually objective. Just like others in this thread have done repeatedly by not accurately portraying their supposed improvements or ways that the Monk is supposedly bad.
I'm fully aware that both actually require sight on incoming attacks.
And Grappled is a double edged sword. Even if Uncanny dodge has no such limitation. There's something about Grappeled that most people miss. The way that most people want to use it there is a good chance that it's actually providing at least half cover. Because your body in the attempt to keep them grappled and struggling with them is going to cover at least half of theirs in many instances. Making it harder for others to swing into the pair of you during a grapple. Grappled and prone is even worse because the way most people do it that is usually going to end up in a situation where the person being grappled can easily end up in 3/4 cover because of having the person grappling them is on top of them. Grappling from below can be done but it tends to be harder. Even Wrestlers tend to prefer the leverage and control from being in the upper position rather than the lower position when Wrestling. But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling. If it did more would realize that most grappling cheese is even less viable, And many DM's tend to not apply cover in all the situations that it probably should. Specially newer DM's. But what it does means is that while the Dodge action may be restricted. The Grappler may actually inadvertantly be giving a partial or full similar bonus to what dodge would have anyway. The issue of Grappling and Cover has never been all that mitigated in D&D and has usually been an issue in some form unless the person attacking into the grapple had special skills of their own akin to the ignoring half and 3/4 cover of sharp shooter. And those that have known about it either accepted it as just part of the system and trusted their allies to get the appropriate abilities or tried to ignore such interactions and pretend they didn't exist.
I have literally NEVER seen a DM rule that a Grappled body was any form of cover...ever.
Please don't use phrases like 'Many DMs' and 'most people' unless you've actually polled a significant portion of the player and DM base.
It's possible, just possible, that the reason that "But Cover is a standard mechanic that almost never enter's people's discussions of Grappling." is because that RAW Grappling doesn't do anything that you said. Grappling reduces the target's Movement to 0 and, as a result, they cannot gain any benefits from Movement (I assume that this is included for people who wanted to use the Tabaxi Speed boost or the Monk's ability to run up walls...neither of which work if you can't Move).
In case you're not aware (I am because I wrestled in HS and again in some Martial Arts classes), grappling is just about the messiest form of close combat there is. The idea that you might have initiated the Grapple on your turn becomes irrelevant once the two of you are involved because if you try to withdraw, your opponent can try an Opportunity Attack and re-apply the Grapple. Other than this, there is no mechanical advantage and to apply one means that you're Homebrewing the Grapple rules. I'm not saying that your idea is bad, simply that it put details into Grappling that do not exist RAW and you'd be shot down hard if you tried to play it that way in an AL game.
that's easy. Your points are all smoke screens based upon personal bias.
The wearing of STudded Leather is a non-issue because it doesn't add anything to the Monk. They already have studded leather essentially. Studded leather can never actually get better than the monk's own AC. Even +3 studded leather does not create a better AC than the Monk can get purely from the design of the class without any investment of any kind in any other capacity including gear requirements(ASI's are a feature of the monk and are a case of the monk using it's own Features to improve itself, including AC). A Monk actually has the advantage of Gaining the Same AC as other light armored characters of other classes and can combine it with AC items that such characters cannot usually wear. While many would argue that you cannot necessarily get to choose the magic items you recieve. This is also true of armor wearing classes but people always white room that they are going to get their hands on +3 armor and consider it a requirement for their high level white room build comparisons. But Items like the Ring of Protection and Bracers of Defense are not necessarily any harder to come by than that expectation of getting that magical armor, And some are even limited in who else might even want them in the group, With Bracers of Defense really only being useful to a couple of other classes in general. This isn't shouting down. This is objective reality. It's not that nobody has said anything. It's just that it is a point that has not only been disproven without using magical items. It's even further disproven with magical items. Because it's not hard with a few magical items for something like an AC of 24 to easily be possible, and they do it with higher statistical probability than the Fighter Actually getting Both +3 Magical Full Plate and a +3 shield and a +3 weapon to get their 26 AC. And 24 isn't even the max that a Monk could potentially attain with magical items. It's just a fair estimate without pushing the bounds of probability in any game which is at all keeping gear for a monk in mind.
what another Class can use isn't a good basis for what the Monk can use. For one they are designed for different purposes. For two It actually goes against the rest of your argument about what monks do in many stories. Because monks don't really use shields in the majority of martial arts stories for example. Things like Temple Swords that are often portrayed used by Martial Artists are not actually that much different in Size from the Short Sword. Many more exotic weapons tend to be exceptions even amongst the portrayal of martial artists in media. And Many Martial Artists in the media do not actually pull weapons off of those impressive looking weapon Racks. Have you ever considered there is a reason for that? Or why the few that do actually stand out? In most Martial Arts movies. the People swinging around Large Sized Weapons are rarely portrayed as martial artists. They are usually portrayed as what would be a typical fighter archetype despite being in a martial arts movie. There are examples of martial artists using weapons but it is not in the Hulking Brutes Swinging Massive weapons in most instances. They are usually fighters for the Martial artists either to defeat or to ally with and tend not to use anything even close to what most would consider a martial arts style. Being in a Martial Arts Story medium does not automatically make everything displayed an example of martial arts. To try and say it is would be like saying "everything in a War Movie is an example of Tank Warfare." It doesn't actually work. The Subject matter is usually deeper and much more complex than such a statement.
I've actually addressed why STrength would be a basic save in another post just today. It's done so that the Monk doesn't actually have to take anything in strength but can actually simulate having it anyway. The Dump STat argument is also tenuous as best because what is a dump stat is always a personal preference. Charisma is just as common of a dump stat as STrength for many players, Even on Monks. Others might instead dump stat intelligence. Most only think in terms of the highest numbers they can achieve. Not in the practicality or actual usefulness of those numbers. They often don't even think about the way that those same numbers can be simulated by other means unless it applies directly to trying to cheese numbers in their builds.
The HP justification also doesn't match. More hitpoints does not somehow magically make a Bruce Lee or the like taking damage and then fighting their way back while injured any more plausible. Usually when they get beat up they either are knocked out of the fight and then come back in a different battle after they've healed and possibly trained... Or they hit a bloodied state from just a few hits but manage to persevere anyway. Any other time they are most often actually blocking or Avoiding hits rather than "face-tanking" hits, which is the point of hp, So the enlarged hp pool does not in fact better evoke the image that your trying to use as a justification any better than having a D8 pool.
We have obviously come to the 'agree to disagree' portion of our conversation.
I would like to build a Martial-Arts-style character who wears armor. I don't want it to be OP, I just want it to not suck because of how the core Monk class is built. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as I'm not asking for anything that will break the game. I want the CHOICE.
I would like to explore using other weapons with a Monk character. Again, if it doesn't break the game, I don't see why this is a bad thing. As it stands that means Kensei or...Kensei.
I would like more choices and more variety in the Monk class. Apparently, this is a bad thing because 'that's not what Monks are for' or whatever.
I've seen builds for 'Tank Rogues', 'Tank Wizards', and please don't get me started on the Bladesinger. I'm pretty sure that those first two aren't 'what they were built for' either...but they had the options to make them.
As I said, agree to disagree. Good day everyone.
Grappling does exactly what I said.
Your basically argueing from the same standing that because the rules create a grey area by saying that grappling requires at least one hand that all grappling is only done with a single hand. Yet your Experience as a wrestler should tell you that is anything but true. Take your experience and get off your high horse of "Nu uh! That's not what the rules say despite the fact that the rules don't contradict each other at all!" And really think for a moment. All of the Grappling matches that you've watched. Imagine trying to get in there to do attacks of your own.
And I wouldn't be shot down in an AL game. Because i can point at the book and show rules for Cover that exist in the Book. The pain in the ass thing about AL games. They practically over adhere to the book in the name of fairness. Even when it becomes borderline unfair. They will ignore logic chains for things like unspecified costs but 30 seconds of showing that the rule exists in the book even if your arguing against yourself and that it doesn't contradict the other rule... And you've usually won your way into that penalty being applied. But it would be the dumbest thing to argue for in an AL game because Usually it's only going to get against yourself and your team because the only reason to argue it in AL is to the detriment of your team because AL encounters are not going to bother grappling unless it's an incidental tacked on ability that they have to use to stick to the rules because they are going to use most if not all enemies in pretty much the stupidest ways possible. There will be no strategy unless what they are running predefines all the strategy for them. And you stand a decent chance of Annoying the AL DM because your complicating things when he's been told to stick to the book and streamline as much as possible and get done in his alotted time. And you've probably annoyed the other Players because the AL DM is likely to express to them that it's all your fault for pointing it out.
And you complain bout me using words like Most DM's when you haven't seen a DM use it. Tell me this. How much have you even seen Cover used by DM's? I've seen cover in all capacities missed alot. Even in Map Based Games where certain aspects of cover are only applicable amongst such uses. And don't bother bringing up AL again. Because I happen to know for a fact that unless forced to AL battles all take place in featureless expanses so they can ignore things like cover mechanics in an effort to speed up and streamline game play to get their sessions done within their alotted time frame. Even if their maps might suggest otherwise. They are part of the reason players tend to perceive and theory craft things in empty white room environments.
Also. your lying in saying there is no mechanical advantages to be had in Wrestling. They may not be codified into D&D combat but there are a lot of them in actual wrestling. The Wrestling moves that Wrestlers practice are all about getting a mechanical advantage to either escape being pinned or to be able to pin your target, And they actually teach you that certain positions if you get them are preferable to others. Because they are better suited for getting an opponent unbalanced and otherwise out of position so that you can take advantage of the leverage that you have that they do not, hopefully before they can recover and change the situation. Pulling away and then having them AoO to re-grapple you is because it's not to their mechanical advantage to let you recover and regroup your position but to press their advantage. There is a lot of mechanics going on in actual wrestling that do not exist in the Games and there always has been. If you think there isn't you need to go have a long talk with somebody that specializes in Biomechanical sciences. You'd apparently be surprised by all the physics and such in play in just a single wrestling match. There is a lot of mechanical science going on in all of it from start to finish.
By the Way. All combat is messy. Almost none of it is like it's portrayed in the movies. Those elegant sword swings and blade clashes that are in the movies are almost entirely movie magic. Talk to somebody that does some of that stuff. Anything even close to real combat is nothing like what you see in film. And even what is used in Tournaments isn't necessarily the same as what would be used in life or death situations. And the more individuals thta get involved the messier and the more complicated that it gets. And the more potentially hitting your ally or the ally stopping you from being able to attack an opponent becomes an issue. Which is half the point of cover rules. To somewhat simulate thta messiness and bodies getting in the way. That doesn't magically stop just because you've decided to grapple an opponent. You've just decided to grapple an opponent in all of thta mess and potentially make yourself more of a hinderance to your allies or accidentally get hit when they were aiming for the enemy.
Your Complaint that your DM's dont' use Cover that way is not the Fault of Cover or even the Game. No Matter how you want to spin it or ignore it.