Retreat into shell for 26 AC make paladin feel bad
Different AC calculations don’t stack. Picking one and adding relevant modifiers does.
the turtles natural AC of 17 is a replacement for the AC calculation of 10+Dex mod, and also the damage calculations given by armors. the monks version of unarmored defense is another AC calculation of 10+Dex mod+Wis mod.
Shell Defence is a feature that gives a modifier, so it could be added to the tortle natural AC or the unarmored defense.
That can still easily be 24.
How?
20 dexterity, 20 wisdom, shell defense (I don’t have the tortle package, but it looks like it gives you a +4 to AC). Maybe not ‘easy’ but achievable by level 4 with incredible luck and level 16 with point buy. Naturally that’s with Tasha’s rules.
No, no, you mistake the rules. Totles have base AC 17. No benefits. No Dex, no Wis. The monk feature says your AC = 10 + Wis + Dex. No way 24 would be the case. 21 at most usually for a Tortle. If you gain two AC bonuses from somewhere, you choose which to keep, you can't use both. In this case, there is no way these can be added.
It's like pushing together two south sides of a Magnet. As like sides repel, they will not go near each other, regardless of the fact both are made of ferromagnetic materials and are permanent magnets.
Retreat into shell for 26 AC make paladin feel bad
Different AC calculations don’t stack. Picking one and adding relevant modifiers does.
the turtles natural AC of 17 is a replacement for the AC calculation of 10+Dex mod, and also the damage calculations given by armors. the monks version of unarmored defense is another AC calculation of 10+Dex mod+Wis mod.
Shell Defence is a feature that gives a modifier, so it could be added to the tortle natural AC or the unarmored defense.
That can still easily be 24.
How?
20 dexterity, 20 wisdom, shell defense (I don’t have the tortle package, but it looks like it gives you a +4 to AC). Maybe not ‘easy’ but achievable by level 4 with incredible luck and level 16 with point buy. Naturally that’s with Tasha’s rules.
No, no, you mistake the rules. Totles have base AC 17. No benefits. No Dex, no Wis. The monk feature says your AC = 10 + Wis + Dex. No way 24 would be the case. 21 at most usually for a Tortle. If you gain two AC bonuses from somewhere, you choose which to keep, you can't use both. In this case, there is no way these can be added.
All applicable bonuses stack. Separate AC calculations do not.
as an example, a fighter with the defense fighting style gains a +1 AC when wearing armor. If that same fighter gets a +1 shield or armor piece, they do not have to choose between the fighting style and the magic armor bonus.
Precisely! Unless it says "Stack Me", it won't stack.
This is basically True... But... the Tortle an choose to use a Monk's unarmored defense or their own racial armor. The only time it wouldn't get the Monk's unarmored defense as a class feature at all is if it already had the Barbarian's unarmored Defense. The Tortle's racial AC calculation does not stop the Tortle Monk from getting unarmored defense. They just cannot use both at the same time.
The Actual Problem with the Tortle and Shell Defense to get the +4 AC is nobody is mentioning that the Tortle for the duration they are getting this AC increase is prone (which means advantage to melee attacks against them), They have no movement and they can take no actions except for a bonus action on their turn to emerge from their shell (which does not state that it resolves the prone condition). So Sure you get more AC but that's pretty much to offset the advantage on melee attacks and they can do nothing else. So if you actually want to do anything while being protected you might as well ignore the ability altogether. Also. It takes an Action to initiate, so You can't even use it as a defense against incoming attacks as they happen like you can something like the shield spell.
Precisely! Unless it says "Stack Me", it won't stack.
This is basically True... But... the Tortle an choose to use a Monk's unarmored defense or their own racial armor. The only time it wouldn't get the Monk's unarmored defense as a class feature at all is if it already had the Barbarian's unarmored Defense. The Tortle's racial AC calculation does not stop the Tortle Monk from getting unarmored defense. They just cannot use both at the same time.
The Actual Problem with the Tortle and Shell Defense to get the +4 AC is nobody is mentioning that the Tortle for the duration they are getting this AC increase is prone (which means advantage to melee attacks against them), They have no movement and they can take no actions except for a bonus action on their turn to emerge from their shell (which does not state that it resolves the prone condition). So Sure you get more AC but that's pretty much to offset the advantage on melee attacks and they can do nothing else. So if you actually want to do anything while being protected you might as well ignore the ability altogether. Also. It takes an Action to initiate, so You can't even use it as a defense against incoming attacks as they happen like you can something like the shield spell.
No, the Tortle's base AC is 17. Nothing gets added. The monk's base AC is 10 + Wis + Dex.
One says 17.
Other says 10 + Dex + Wis
You can't add them. If it said " You may add your Wis to your AC", then sure, but that's not what Unarmored Defense says. Therefore, UD is inapplicable on a Tortle. If you want further proof, read the rules.
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.
No, no, you mistake the rules. Totles have base AC 17. No benefits. No Dex, no Wis. The monk feature says your AC = 10 + Wis + Dex. No way 24 would be the case. 21 at most usually for a Tortle. If you gain two AC bonuses from somewhere, you choose which to keep, you can't use both. In this case, there is no way these can be added.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
It's like pushing together two south sides of a Magnet. As like sides repel, they will not go near each other, regardless of the fact both are made of ferromagnetic materials and are permanent magnets.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
All applicable bonuses stack. Separate AC calculations do not.
as an example, a fighter with the defense fighting style gains a +1 AC when wearing armor. If that same fighter gets a +1 shield or armor piece, they do not have to choose between the fighting style and the magic armor bonus.
Bonuses stack, different calculations do not.
Precisely! Unless it says "Stack Me", it won't stack.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
This is basically True... But... the Tortle an choose to use a Monk's unarmored defense or their own racial armor. The only time it wouldn't get the Monk's unarmored defense as a class feature at all is if it already had the Barbarian's unarmored Defense. The Tortle's racial AC calculation does not stop the Tortle Monk from getting unarmored defense. They just cannot use both at the same time.
The Actual Problem with the Tortle and Shell Defense to get the +4 AC is nobody is mentioning that the Tortle for the duration they are getting this AC increase is prone (which means advantage to melee attacks against them), They have no movement and they can take no actions except for a bonus action on their turn to emerge from their shell (which does not state that it resolves the prone condition). So Sure you get more AC but that's pretty much to offset the advantage on melee attacks and they can do nothing else. So if you actually want to do anything while being protected you might as well ignore the ability altogether. Also. It takes an Action to initiate, so You can't even use it as a defense against incoming attacks as they happen like you can something like the shield spell.
No, the Tortle's base AC is 17. Nothing gets added. The monk's base AC is 10 + Wis + Dex.
One says 17.
Other says 10 + Dex + Wis
You can't add them. If it said " You may add your Wis to your AC", then sure, but that's not what Unarmored Defense says. Therefore, UD is inapplicable on a Tortle. If you want further proof, read the rules.
Now, back on topic.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
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.
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.
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.
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.