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.
So build a Fighter. That seems to be what your asking for. Because your determined that Monks suck no matter what and that isn't going to change just because you shove one into leather armor. No matter how much you smoke screen that this is some important revelation detail that changes everything about a monk and opens up so many options.
And Tank Rogues and Tank Wizards, and even the bladesinger are all niche and all require circumstances cater to them somewhat. Otherwise they just drop their whole gimmick and just become rogues and wizards... usually with less of their kit to use in general capacity because they specialised so much to make the niche work.
And yes. Tank Rogues and Tank Wizards. That is exactly what they are built for. To a pretty decent detriment of their actual core class features and mechanics to try and make it work.
And here's something I am going to point out to you. It may not break the game. But it doesn't actually add anything at all to the game either to make the change.
We shall see what they do with the monk with the PHB survey out....me thinks more changes are afoot.
I wonder if they'll post the findings. I'd like to see them myself.
We'll have to see. But I won't hold my breath on anything changing because of them. It sounds like their typical who is playing what classes how much and why type of survey. Those have been done periodically since the game came out and most of them hasn't amounted in more than some charts we can look at based upon a sampling of the player base. But it would nice to see the updated charts. Not that they tend to change much overall.
Monk definitely does not need a ton of work done and some small things could be made to make it a better class.
Increasing Ki pool, a secondary pool for subclass abilities, reducing/removing ki cost for core monk stuff could all be viable solution paths IMO.
They have already started with the secondary pool mechanic in UA at least with the dragon monk subclass. I have a feeling they will continue that for future monk subclasses and maybe look at adding that as an option for the old subclasses.
What do you think about deflect missile working against any melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack for the damage reduction portion?
also what about adding Wisdom modifier to all attacks mane with unarmed attacks or monk weapons starting at level 11?
Not one I thought about but would be a welcome change!
The WIS to attacks makes some sense but TBH I kinda hate how ASI focused/starved the monk is already. You suffer more than other classes for not maxing two stats and to me that is bad design.
BUT your solution is also lots of fun so its hard to say!
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.
Let me begin by saying 'Please don't try to introduce Real Life situations into a game where magic is real, dragons exist and I can play a race that shifts their shape at will.' If you want to go down THAT particular rabbit hole then someone, somewhere, will argue that Hordebreaker Rangers can't fire 16 arrows in one round because no archer has ever done it in Real Life.
As I said before, RAW Grappling doesn't apply any more or less mechanical advantage than limiting movement...period, hard stop. Both people involved in the grapple (and if you want to see a REAL mess get three party members trying to Grapple one Giant!) can attack each other. I'm not sure but I think they might go so far as to be able to attack other enemies that are stupid enough to stand within 5' of the brawl.
As to their being 'no mechanical advantage' I didn't claim that there wasn't one. Not allowing the enemy to move IS a mechanical advantage. However, that's the ONLY mechanical advantage RAW. Again, if you have Homebrewed Grapple rules at your table then that's fine. Different groups have their own Homebrews all the time. But stating that 'it doesn't work that way in real life' doesn't change anything.
As to just about everything else you just said, including 'getting hit by your allies' that happens without Grappling...at our table it's called 'the archer rolled a 1. Who's standing in front of him?'
What do you think about deflect missile working against any melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack for the damage reduction portion?
also what about adding Wisdom modifier to all attacks mane with unarmed attacks or monk weapons starting at level 11?
Deflect missle working aqainst a melee attack for damage reduction seems massivley OP, at least until you get to around tier 3. Ranged weapon attacks are relatively rare but when faced by archers the ability to reduced damage by between 1d10+dex is huge (or stop you getting attacked at all after the archers see you catch their arrows), being able to do the same with a melee a weapon attack attack.would allow them to reduce damage by about 10 per round at a cost of their reaction and monks don't havew that many uses for their reaction.
Regarding Adding Wisdom to attacks are you talking about damage? to hit or both? Both would be the equivalewnt of a +4 weapon for a fairly typical level 11 Monk, increasing to +5 when they max out Wis. They dont exist in the game, if the rest of the party has +3 weapons then yes the monk will be well behind but class balancing needs to be done without magic items, at level 11 a monk is likely to be able ot use flurry of blows most of the time so lets compare output with other martial classes (assuming +5 for main attack abilty by then) assuming all attacks hit ignoring crits (Including crits will give a slight advantage to classes with a higher proportion of dice to fixed bonuses, a (say) 50% chance to hit will generally reduce all damage by 50% so the proportions are the same) .
Monk without FOB: 3*(1d8+5) = Average 28.5 Monk with FOB: 4*(1d8+5) = Average 38
So without magic weapons monks do pretty well. The problem is because they get limited benefit from magical weapons as it can not be used on their unarmed strikes. My preferred way of dealing with this is to create magical handwraps that add a bonus to unarmed strikes, these can have the same stats as any suitable magical weapon, an alternatiive would be to allow to alow a monks unarmed strikes to be +1 to hit and for damage when they become magical at level 6 and +2 at some point later, say level 10 when infused weapons become +2.
Having said that I agree wit Optimus that the monk class doesn't need much to be changed. If a monk could bonus action disengage or dash without spending ki I think it would solve the one issue monks have (too little ki) and make them at least as strong as other martial classes.
Rogue does get the "half damage on a single attack as a reaction" so the deflect attack thing for a single attack would be about the same or slightly worse if you made it cost a ki point still.
But I get your point as you could tie it with dodge BA to really make the monk a serious tank.
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.
Let me begin by saying 'Please don't try to introduce Real Life situations into a game where magic is real, dragons exist and I can play a race that shifts their shape at will.' If you want to go down THAT particular rabbit hole then someone, somewhere, will argue that Hordebreaker Rangers can't fire 16 arrows in one round because no archer has ever done it in Real Life.
As I said before, RAW Grappling doesn't apply any more or less mechanical advantage than limiting movement...period, hard stop. Both people involved in the grapple (and if you want to see a REAL mess get three party members trying to Grapple one Giant!) can attack each other. I'm not sure but I think they might go so far as to be able to attack other enemies that are stupid enough to stand within 5' of the brawl.
As to their being 'no mechanical advantage' I didn't claim that there wasn't one. Not allowing the enemy to move IS a mechanical advantage. However, that's the ONLY mechanical advantage RAW. Again, if you have Homebrewed Grapple rules at your table then that's fine. Different groups have their own Homebrews all the time. But stating that 'it doesn't work that way in real life' doesn't change anything.
As to just about everything else you just said, including 'getting hit by your allies' that happens without Grappling...at our table it's called 'the archer rolled a 1. Who's standing in front of him?'
two Things. It is still somewhat grounded in reality even if everything isn't. So Trying to deny what can happen in real life just because you can do things that real life can't in the game is A flimsy argument at best. The game is about mixing the real and the impossible on a semi-believable and enjoyable level.
Second. Your making a really bad misrepresentation. Your Claiming that Grappling is the only thing that can apply rules when you are Grappling. This is not true. Other Rules like the Cover rules do not disappear just because you are grappling. Just because Grappling does not specifically say "Use Cover Rules Where ever they apply" does not mean everything else is suspended and not in effect. The reality is that since they do not contradict and they do not make exception for each other. Grappling would have to actually say. "Do not use Cover Rules while Grappling" because Grappling would have to make a specific exception to Cover Rules.
Grapple Limit's Movement. Cover provides AC based upon things like Positioning and Obstruction. Both are not mutually exclusive. They are written to be inclusive of each other. Period. Hard Stop. As you want to put it.
I don't have to home brew anything. You actually have to homebrew ignoring certain rules to reach your conclusion. Such homebrews happen more often than people want to admit because of the complexity of the game and don't necessarily intend to. Again it is that Simple.
I don’t think the argument should be that cover rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
I don’t think the argument should be that co Ed rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
Yeah I've never seen any actual play podcast use the cover thing either
I don’t think the argument should be that co Ed rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
There are a few that use them. Believe it or not Matt mercer often makes use of them. When he's glancing at things on the table at different angles and using his templates for splash zones and stuff he's often checking sight lines and the like for determining matters of Cover to what's going on. And he mentions that cover is having an affect from time to time.
But it is one thta often gets forgotten in the flow of things because it's not always used. And Theatre of the mind as well all know tends to forgo the details of several rules unless you specifically describe them into what your doing.
I've also seen a couple of smaller twitch or youtube vod games that use it as well when they are using maps. But interesting it tends to be something that I see more with the older "experienced" groups over the newer younger groups. Though that may just be the stuff that I actually catch and notice that it's being used. But I do see something like at least 3 or 4 games at least that forget cover, except total cover, for every 1 group that I see use it.
If a DM decides to speed up combat by ignoring cover that's fine. My DM uses it and that's also fine.
Something that should be brought up though is the idea of 'fair'. If you want to grapple with an enemy and the DM says that grants cover, that's cool. He's the one that has to deal with it. However (and this is something I figured out during TTRPGs long ago), if you can do it, it's only fair that the other side can do it. So if you want to call cover while grappling, don't be upset when the DM does the same thing.
If a DM decides to speed up combat by ignoring cover that's fine. My DM uses it and that's also fine.
Something that should be brought up though is the idea of 'fair'. If you want to grapple with an enemy and the DM says that grants cover, that's cool. He's the one that has to deal with it. However (and this is something I figured out during TTRPGs long ago), if you can do it, it's only fair that the other side can do it. So if you want to call cover while grappling, don't be upset when the DM does the same thing.
Except here's the thing. Since Enemies are less likely to Grapple. And the Fact that applying something like Cover actually technically works against the characters more often than helps them. This is a rare situation where your "Fair" Argument doesn't work the way you think it does. It actually works in the Players Favor for once and not against them. It's not a matter of the DM using it as well. It's a matter of the Players getting to use it as well. Except for the fact that...Many DM's do not play most of their PC's smart enough, Or Righteous enough, To not want to just outright murder the PC's.
There are Certainly plenty of narrative exceptions. But they are still the minority, not the majority of what PC's will face.
There are several creatures that auto grapple on a hit so it would be in the monsters favor to allow for grappled cover. This might balance things out of target for the DM though depending on the party and level.
Overall the monk just isn't great at grappling anyway. They can't use DEX to grapple, are not encouraged to increase STR, and do not get any way to increase ability checks naturally.
They are not even particularly adept at escaping grapples either....they can get acrobatics proficiency but do not have a way to add to checks with it like so many other classes can.
If you have an enemy that auto-grapples on a hit the wizard is in a better situation to deal with it than the monk is. They can Misty Step, Thunder Step, Freedom of Movement, Gasous Form, etc...out of the situation while a monk is left burning an action to escape the grapple and has the same chance as the ranged fighter who can do all their damage far away from the threat.
Again its another odd design choice for the monk...they are suppose to be masters of mobility and acrobatics/athletics but are not really any good at the latter.
I don’t think the argument should be that cover rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
I'm the opposite; I've never had a DM who didn't use the cover rules, and I've had some weird DMs.
I don’t think the argument should be that cover rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
I'm the opposite; I've never had a DM who didn't use the cover rules, and I've had some weird DMs.
Fair enough.... To each their own on that one because it could heavily depend between DMs.
That brings up another point. Monks should be able to choose to use dexterity attribute with strength checks.
Man do I agree on this one....I still think its odd that STR monk is so terrible in this edition for no real reason....it would not have been too hard to just let them pick STR/DEX for their stuff and give the class more options.
I am playing a STR monk in PF2e and its far and away just a better experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So build a Fighter. That seems to be what your asking for. Because your determined that Monks suck no matter what and that isn't going to change just because you shove one into leather armor. No matter how much you smoke screen that this is some important revelation detail that changes everything about a monk and opens up so many options.
And Tank Rogues and Tank Wizards, and even the bladesinger are all niche and all require circumstances cater to them somewhat. Otherwise they just drop their whole gimmick and just become rogues and wizards... usually with less of their kit to use in general capacity because they specialised so much to make the niche work.
And yes. Tank Rogues and Tank Wizards. That is exactly what they are built for. To a pretty decent detriment of their actual core class features and mechanics to try and make it work.
And here's something I am going to point out to you. It may not break the game. But it doesn't actually add anything at all to the game either to make the change.
We shall see what they do with the monk with the PHB survey out....me thinks more changes are afoot.
I wonder if they'll post the findings. I'd like to see them myself.
We'll have to see. But I won't hold my breath on anything changing because of them. It sounds like their typical who is playing what classes how much and why type of survey. Those have been done periodically since the game came out and most of them hasn't amounted in more than some charts we can look at based upon a sampling of the player base. But it would nice to see the updated charts. Not that they tend to change much overall.
Monk definitely does not need a ton of work done and some small things could be made to make it a better class.
Increasing Ki pool, a secondary pool for subclass abilities, reducing/removing ki cost for core monk stuff could all be viable solution paths IMO.
They have already started with the secondary pool mechanic in UA at least with the dragon monk subclass. I have a feeling they will continue that for future monk subclasses and maybe look at adding that as an option for the old subclasses.
What do you think about deflect missile working against any melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack for the damage reduction portion?
also what about adding Wisdom modifier to all attacks mane with unarmed attacks or monk weapons starting at level 11?
Not one I thought about but would be a welcome change!
The WIS to attacks makes some sense but TBH I kinda hate how ASI focused/starved the monk is already. You suffer more than other classes for not maxing two stats and to me that is bad design.
BUT your solution is also lots of fun so its hard to say!
Let me begin by saying 'Please don't try to introduce Real Life situations into a game where magic is real, dragons exist and I can play a race that shifts their shape at will.' If you want to go down THAT particular rabbit hole then someone, somewhere, will argue that Hordebreaker Rangers can't fire 16 arrows in one round because no archer has ever done it in Real Life.
As I said before, RAW Grappling doesn't apply any more or less mechanical advantage than limiting movement...period, hard stop. Both people involved in the grapple (and if you want to see a REAL mess get three party members trying to Grapple one Giant!) can attack each other. I'm not sure but I think they might go so far as to be able to attack other enemies that are stupid enough to stand within 5' of the brawl.
As to their being 'no mechanical advantage' I didn't claim that there wasn't one. Not allowing the enemy to move IS a mechanical advantage. However, that's the ONLY mechanical advantage RAW. Again, if you have Homebrewed Grapple rules at your table then that's fine. Different groups have their own Homebrews all the time. But stating that 'it doesn't work that way in real life' doesn't change anything.
As to just about everything else you just said, including 'getting hit by your allies' that happens without Grappling...at our table it's called 'the archer rolled a 1. Who's standing in front of him?'
Deflect missle working aqainst a melee attack for damage reduction seems massivley OP, at least until you get to around tier 3. Ranged weapon attacks are relatively rare but when faced by archers the ability to reduced damage by between 1d10+dex is huge (or stop you getting attacked at all after the archers see you catch their arrows), being able to do the same with a melee a weapon attack attack.would allow them to reduce damage by about 10 per round at a cost of their reaction and monks don't havew that many uses for their reaction.
Regarding Adding Wisdom to attacks are you talking about damage? to hit or both? Both would be the equivalewnt of a +4 weapon for a fairly typical level 11 Monk, increasing to +5 when they max out Wis. They dont exist in the game, if the rest of the party has +3 weapons then yes the monk will be well behind but class balancing needs to be done without magic items, at level 11 a monk is likely to be able ot use flurry of blows most of the time so lets compare output with other martial classes (assuming +5 for main attack abilty by then) assuming all attacks hit ignoring crits (Including crits will give a slight advantage to classes with a higher proportion of dice to fixed bonuses, a (say) 50% chance to hit will generally reduce all damage by 50% so the proportions are the same) .
Monk without FOB: 3*(1d8+5) = Average 28.5
Monk with FOB: 4*(1d8+5) = Average 38
TWF fighter 4*(1d6+5) = 34
GW fighter 3*(2d6+5) = 36
S&B fighter 3*(1d8+5) = 28.5
TWF rogue 1d8+5+1d8+6d6 = 35
Single weapon rogue = 1d8+5+5d6 = 30.5
GW Barb 2*(2d6+8) = 30 (if raging)
So without magic weapons monks do pretty well. The problem is because they get limited benefit from magical weapons as it can not be used on their unarmed strikes. My preferred way of dealing with this is to create magical handwraps that add a bonus to unarmed strikes, these can have the same stats as any suitable magical weapon, an alternatiive would be to allow to alow a monks unarmed strikes to be +1 to hit and for damage when they become magical at level 6 and +2 at some point later, say level 10 when infused weapons become +2.
Having said that I agree wit Optimus that the monk class doesn't need much to be changed.
If a monk could bonus action disengage or dash without spending ki I think it would solve the one issue monks have (too little ki) and make them at least as strong as other martial classes.
Rogue does get the "half damage on a single attack as a reaction" so the deflect attack thing for a single attack would be about the same or slightly worse if you made it cost a ki point still.
But I get your point as you could tie it with dodge BA to really make the monk a serious tank.
two Things. It is still somewhat grounded in reality even if everything isn't. So Trying to deny what can happen in real life just because you can do things that real life can't in the game is A flimsy argument at best. The game is about mixing the real and the impossible on a semi-believable and enjoyable level.
Second. Your making a really bad misrepresentation. Your Claiming that Grappling is the only thing that can apply rules when you are Grappling. This is not true. Other Rules like the Cover rules do not disappear just because you are grappling. Just because Grappling does not specifically say "Use Cover Rules Where ever they apply" does not mean everything else is suspended and not in effect. The reality is that since they do not contradict and they do not make exception for each other. Grappling would have to actually say. "Do not use Cover Rules while Grappling" because Grappling would have to make a specific exception to Cover Rules.
Grapple Limit's Movement. Cover provides AC based upon things like Positioning and Obstruction. Both are not mutually exclusive. They are written to be inclusive of each other. Period. Hard Stop. As you want to put it.
I don't have to home brew anything. You actually have to homebrew ignoring certain rules to reach your conclusion. Such homebrews happen more often than people want to admit because of the complexity of the game and don't necessarily intend to. Again it is that Simple.
I don’t think the argument should be that cover rules don’t apply, but that it seems to be one of the most underutilized or used rules in the game. I haven’t seen a single stream online where people use the 1/2 and 3/4 rules.
none of the DMs I play with use cover rules until total cover matters for spell effects and counterspelling.
this is a deeply impactful homebrew rules change that seems to be largely accepted by the community, especially since this is part of what is supposed to balance out ranged and reach attacks.
Yeah I've never seen any actual play podcast use the cover thing either
There are a few that use them. Believe it or not Matt mercer often makes use of them. When he's glancing at things on the table at different angles and using his templates for splash zones and stuff he's often checking sight lines and the like for determining matters of Cover to what's going on. And he mentions that cover is having an affect from time to time.
But it is one thta often gets forgotten in the flow of things because it's not always used. And Theatre of the mind as well all know tends to forgo the details of several rules unless you specifically describe them into what your doing.
I've also seen a couple of smaller twitch or youtube vod games that use it as well when they are using maps. But interesting it tends to be something that I see more with the older "experienced" groups over the newer younger groups. Though that may just be the stuff that I actually catch and notice that it's being used. But I do see something like at least 3 or 4 games at least that forget cover, except total cover, for every 1 group that I see use it.
If a DM decides to speed up combat by ignoring cover that's fine. My DM uses it and that's also fine.
Something that should be brought up though is the idea of 'fair'. If you want to grapple with an enemy and the DM says that grants cover, that's cool. He's the one that has to deal with it. However (and this is something I figured out during TTRPGs long ago), if you can do it, it's only fair that the other side can do it. So if you want to call cover while grappling, don't be upset when the DM does the same thing.
Except here's the thing. Since Enemies are less likely to Grapple. And the Fact that applying something like Cover actually technically works against the characters more often than helps them. This is a rare situation where your "Fair" Argument doesn't work the way you think it does. It actually works in the Players Favor for once and not against them. It's not a matter of the DM using it as well. It's a matter of the Players getting to use it as well. Except for the fact that...Many DM's do not play most of their PC's smart enough, Or Righteous enough, To not want to just outright murder the PC's.
There are Certainly plenty of narrative exceptions. But they are still the minority, not the majority of what PC's will face.
There are several creatures that auto grapple on a hit so it would be in the monsters favor to allow for grappled cover. This might balance things out of target for the DM though depending on the party and level.
Overall the monk just isn't great at grappling anyway. They can't use DEX to grapple, are not encouraged to increase STR, and do not get any way to increase ability checks naturally.
They are not even particularly adept at escaping grapples either....they can get acrobatics proficiency but do not have a way to add to checks with it like so many other classes can.
If you have an enemy that auto-grapples on a hit the wizard is in a better situation to deal with it than the monk is. They can Misty Step, Thunder Step, Freedom of Movement, Gasous Form, etc...out of the situation while a monk is left burning an action to escape the grapple and has the same chance as the ranged fighter who can do all their damage far away from the threat.
Again its another odd design choice for the monk...they are suppose to be masters of mobility and acrobatics/athletics but are not really any good at the latter.
That brings up another point. Monks should be able to choose to use dexterity attribute with strength checks.
I'm the opposite; I've never had a DM who didn't use the cover rules, and I've had some weird DMs.
Fair enough.... To each their own on that one because it could heavily depend between DMs.
Man do I agree on this one....I still think its odd that STR monk is so terrible in this edition for no real reason....it would not have been too hard to just let them pick STR/DEX for their stuff and give the class more options.
I am playing a STR monk in PF2e and its far and away just a better experience.