i can’t say any other class. Has literally a 8ish level gap. Where they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful (only exception being evasion.)
Purity of body their level 10 is something Paladins get at level 3. So that’s a gut shot. Since by comparison level 10/11 abilities for other classes are significantly better.
I also agree the d8 is fine. But.. the ac thing... is slightly off key. As... many of the monk dodges/evasions/etc become less useful later on. (Until you’re proficient in literally every save). But then you tend to get hit by anything that’s not a saving throw
Wizards don't get base class features between levels 2 to 17. That doesn't hurt them. Monks get tons of abilities, more than any other base class, but most of them are situational. It reminds me of a balanced wizard's spellbook, having numerous spells for various situations and a few always-prepared options.
Paladins also get a boost to all saves in their level 6 feature that they can share with their team. Stack both this and the monk's save proficiencies together and you'd have a ridiculous save bonus to all saves.
Not all classes are meant to be equal, and understanding your roles in a group is very important. From what I can tell, the base monk chassis is designed as a mobile skirmisher and a disabler. It's not trying to out-tank or out-damage fighters and paladins, it's trying to pummel and stun an enemy mage to prevent it from dropping fireball on the party.
Wizards get spell slots. That’s a “base feature”
so... wizards get a TON actually.
2nd. I don’t want to make a classes usefulness solely based on being within 10 feet of a paladin they may or may not have. Edit- or 30 ft. But again. Monks become useful again by level 14
3rd. That’s exactly right. And. They have limited survivability to do that. For a long range of levels.
edit 2- you blow through Ki points... SUPER quickly as a monk. So there’s a lot of campaign dependency for short rests and such to stay useful. A problem warlocks can sometimes have. But warlocks almost 99.9% have EB cantrip to “make do”
All full casters get spell slots. Wizards specifically gain most of their tier 2-3 class features from their subclass. So no, wizards don't get many base class features. However, their spell selections more than make up for that. Monks generally lack that flexibility.
I think you misunderstand the comparison between Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Both are passive abilities that boost the user's saving throws. One leans more towards teamwork and the other is generally more reliable. Paladins get theirs much earlier. Likewise, both get immunity to disease. Pallies get it early, while monks also gain a damage and condition immunity.
All full casters get spell slots. Wizards specifically gain most of their tier 2-3 class features from their subclass. So no, wizards don't get many base class features. However, their spell selections more than make up for that. Monks generally lack that flexibility.
I think you misunderstand the comparison between Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Both are passive abilities that boost the user's saving throws. One leans more towards teamwork and the other is generally more reliable. Paladins get theirs much earlier. Likewise, both get immunity to disease. Pallies get it early, while monks also gain a damage and condition immunity.
I did misunderstand I got you now.
but yeah. Your points. Kinda also show the ... “dark ages” of tiers 2-3 for monks.
its by no means a bad class...... (ranger. No subtle cough. Dead stare eye contact. Ranger) but, there’s a stretch of monk where it’s just painful.
Spikepit referring to your question about hate for monks. Especially in the previous editions monks were flawed by design. I mean there is something wrong when you can take a fighter and make them a better monk than a monk is. Some of those flaws still exist in 5e. Though 5e has done much I think to make them better. And I do love monks too but for instance 8 hit points for a melee character who cannot wield armor is really weird, I think it could've been 10hp and the second stat to increase their natural armor could've been Con instead of Wis so that would've both increased. In previous editions the monks still depended on strength to attack and damage which made them dependant on yet another stat to be high. You could change the attack with a feat to dex but you still had to calculate damage with strength. that has thankfully been changed in 5e. Some of the monks abilities in previous editions especially sounded really cool and martial artsy but were kinda really situational or not really that good in the first place
A D10 hit die would make them better fighters than fighters. A D8 is perfectly fine for a character that in no way is designed to be a tank and thus have incredible mobility options, decent to excellent AC and the ability to Dodge and attack in the same round.
for me. More than anything. It’s how the monks. More so than any other class. Have huge voids.
monks are good/great tier 1. (Levels 1-5) tiers 2 and 3. Holy crap. Are they not on par with all the other classes (using standardized methods and not rolling for stats where you can get lucky). Then tier 4. Monks having gotten the stuff that really makes them live and shine, which doesn’t happen until levels 13/14 basically. Monks are again pretty darn good and great.
i can’t say any other class. Has literally a 8ish level gap. Where they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful (only exception being evasion.)
Purity of body their level 10 is something Paladins get at level 3. So that’s a gut shot. Since by comparison level 10/11 abilities for other classes are significantly better.
I also agree the d8 is fine. But.. the ac thing... is slightly off key. As... many of the monk dodges/evasions/etc become less useful later on. (Until you’re proficient in literally every save). But then you tend to get hit by anything that’s not a saving throw
All full casters get spell slots. Wizards specifically gain most of their tier 2-3 class features from their subclass. So no, wizards don't get many base class features. However, their spell selections more than make up for that. Monks generally lack that flexibility.
I think you misunderstand the comparison between Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Both are passive abilities that boost the user's saving throws. One leans more towards teamwork and the other is generally more reliable. Paladins get theirs much earlier. Likewise, both get immunity to disease. Pallies get it early, while monks also gain a damage and condition immunity.
I did misunderstand I got you now.
but yeah. Your points. Kinda also show the ... “dark ages” of tiers 2-3 for monks.
its by no means a bad class...... (ranger. No subtle cough. Dead stare eye contact. Ranger) but, there’s a stretch of monk where it’s just painful.
Are you really playing 5E? Because these "dark ages" you talk about is not really a thing. Monks gain a bunch of cool stuff on levels 6-13 (especially if you include the subclass features) including mobility options out the wazoo, immunities (to disease AND poison, not just disease), communication, more mobility, more Ki points (which is itself comparable to wizards spell levels), magic attacks, stillness of mind. Again, not sure where this "limited survivability" comes from.
One of the issues with monk is a lack of magic equipment tailored to unarmed strikes. You have the Insignia of Claws. That's pretty much it. Demon Plate is factored out due to it being armor.
Also, monks are encouraged to spike dexterity and wisdom, and they don't have the ASIs to work on constitution much. As a generally melee-ranged class, this notably hurts. An Amulet of Health helps this, but getting one is DM dependant.
One of the issues with monk is a lack of magic equipment tailored to unarmed strikes. You have the Insignia of Claws. That's pretty much it. Demon Plate is factored out due to it being armor.
Also, monks are encouraged to spike dexterity and wisdom, and they don't have the ASIs to work on constitution much. As a generally melee-ranged class, this notably hurts. An Amulet of Health helps this, but getting one is DM dependant.
Getting any specific magical item is DM dependant. And the HP issue has been adressed already (and can be easily mitigated by the Tough feat). That said, you put the finger on the only real downside to the Monk, it being slightly MAD. That said, it is far from as crappy or being stuck in a "dark age" as EPK is trying to make it out.
Spikepit referring to your question about hate for monks. Especially in the previous editions monks were flawed by design. I mean there is something wrong when you can take a fighter and make them a better monk than a monk is. Some of those flaws still exist in 5e. Though 5e has done much I think to make them better. And I do love monks too but for instance 8 hit points for a melee character who cannot wield armor is really weird, I think it could've been 10hp and the second stat to increase their natural armor could've been Con instead of Wis so that would've both increased. In previous editions the monks still depended on strength to attack and damage which made them dependant on yet another stat to be high. You could change the attack with a feat to dex but you still had to calculate damage with strength. that has thankfully been changed in 5e. Some of the monks abilities in previous editions especially sounded really cool and martial artsy but were kinda really situational or not really that good in the first place
A D10 hit die would make them better fighters than fighters. A D8 is perfectly fine for a character that in no way is designed to be a tank and thus have incredible mobility options, decent to excellent AC and the ability to Dodge and attack in the same round.
for me. More than anything. It’s how the monks. More so than any other class. Have huge voids.
monks are good/great tier 1. (Levels 1-5) tiers 2 and 3. Holy crap. Are they not on par with all the other classes (using standardized methods and not rolling for stats where you can get lucky). Then tier 4. Monks having gotten the stuff that really makes them live and shine, which doesn’t happen until levels 13/14 basically. Monks are again pretty darn good and great.
i can’t say any other class. Has literally a 8ish level gap. Where they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful (only exception being evasion.)
Purity of body their level 10 is something Paladins get at level 3. So that’s a gut shot. Since by comparison level 10/11 abilities for other classes are significantly better.
I also agree the d8 is fine. But.. the ac thing... is slightly off key. As... many of the monk dodges/evasions/etc become less useful later on. (Until you’re proficient in literally every save). But then you tend to get hit by anything that’s not a saving throw
All full casters get spell slots. Wizards specifically gain most of their tier 2-3 class features from their subclass. So no, wizards don't get many base class features. However, their spell selections more than make up for that. Monks generally lack that flexibility.
I think you misunderstand the comparison between Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Both are passive abilities that boost the user's saving throws. One leans more towards teamwork and the other is generally more reliable. Paladins get theirs much earlier. Likewise, both get immunity to disease. Pallies get it early, while monks also gain a damage and condition immunity.
I did misunderstand I got you now.
but yeah. Your points. Kinda also show the ... “dark ages” of tiers 2-3 for monks.
its by no means a bad class...... (ranger. No subtle cough. Dead stare eye contact. Ranger) but, there’s a stretch of monk where it’s just painful.
Are you really playing 5E? Because these "dark ages" you talk about is not really a thing. Monks gain a bunch of cool stuff on levels 6-13 (especially if you include the subclass features) including mobility options out the wazoo, immunities (to disease AND poison, not just disease), communication, more mobility, more Ki points (which is itself comparable to wizards spell levels), magic attacks, stillness of mind. Again, not sure where this "limited survivability" comes from.
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
I think you need to read a bit more carfeully before you reply. Yes, Paladins get immunity to *disease* at level 3. They don't get immunity to Poison damage, however. Monks do.
Ki is somewhat comparable to spell slots. The biggest difference though, which is an advantage to Monks over Wizards, is that they regain all Ki points on a short rest instead of a long rest. Also, it is quite plausible to run through 12 spell slots in one battle. The main reason if it doesn't happen is because wizards have cantrips which are comparable to Monks' bonus action attack.
Mobility is one of the best ways to *avoid* getting hit. You do realize that, don't you?
Stillness of mind takes an action, yes. Some other classes have similar abilities, most do not. That doesn't make Stillness of mind better or worse.
Previous editions are irrelevant, but you seem to have missed reading up on what monks actually can and can't do. Monks have no problem surviving, there's simply no basis for that statement.
Monks get a bunch of really good abilities between levels 6 and 12. Your statement is simply not true.
As for magic items, we've already covered that part. Fact is that Monks have an advantage since they don't even *need* certain magic items (namely magic melee weapons). Most magic items that benefit other classes benefit Monks as well.
TLDR; Objectively you are wrong. The Monk is a strong class and have no "dark age" where they "they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful". That is simply not true.
Yeah I guess we shouldn't get too hung up on what happened in previous editions... and I find it strange that someone would say that the monks were nerfed from previous editions to me it sounds like they were more powerful there but are lessened now. If that was what it meant then with the exception of Flurry of Blows becoming just two punches (or kinda just one since you can make an extra attack even just as a bonus action) I disagree. 5e did alot of good for monks I feel. Now you don't have to take a feat to be able to attack with dex and you can even calculate your damage with dex. In previous editions you had to use a feat for that and you still had to use strength to calculate from damage. This makes the monk less M.A.D. The ki point restoration after a short rest is great. Slow fall is better, you no longer have to be touching a wall. The immunity to poison and disease including the damage is great. just having to take an action to rid yourself of being charmed or frightened is also pretty dope, still mind before only gave +2 bonus to saving throws against those. Tongue of sun and moon is better, if only because it comes earlier so you can enjoy its benefit longer in the campaign. Not just a few last levels. Losing the quivering palm as a class ability to simply one of the sub classes is a bit of a bummer but then again the open palms quivering palm is way more applicable. Timeless body, with its addition that you no longer need food or water is better, before it was only good if you played a long enough campaign to have your character become so old you'd get age penalties. Diamond souls addition to be able to reroll failed saves with ki point makes it better I think.
Not sure if the 20th level perfect self was better or worse, but it wasn't anything super special to write home about before. A later alternative to the perfect self "Old Master" which gave a bonus attack and a +2 to AC is clearly better in the old version but thats neither here nor there. And at that point it might be a bit late anyway. That extra armor could've been used earlier. Unless you plan to play alot of campaigns starting at 20th level its not really that big of an advocation to either version.
Edit: okay the +1 natural armor every four levels in previous eds or atleast Pathfinder was pretty nice, but I'm pretty sure back then combinations of other armors wielded by other classes could also rise to same level, or even above it pretty fast. You still needed like 18-20: 4-5 to Dex and Wis for defense, the nat ac had to be in pretty high levels before it might make any difference
I think 5e did alot of great stuff to improve the monk from the mess of interesting but badly implemented ideas it was before. Sure I too think it could be better, perhaps since Wisdom is no longer tied to how many ki points you get the additional stat for armor could be Constitution to complement monks poor hit die. Or perhaps the monks could use dexterity instead of strength when grappling/performing other combat maneuvers (actually grapple and shove are the only cms left) It wouldn't necessarily be that weird of an idea. While strength is important in grappling combat how fast you can go for a grapple or attempt to change a situation in a grapple, namely speed is also very important. I practiced a bit of martial arts younger and I remember alot of smaller and weaker guys, and occasionally girls dominating me in grapples even on the ground simply because they were faster. This might go a bit further with eliminating the M.A.Dness of monks. Sometimes I think that maybe an extra attack could be added to the flurry of blows. While it certainly doesn't need to be the seven(?) attacks of the previous editions I sometimes wonder if one extra for the price of a ki point is a good enough trade, though the fact the monk can move unlike previously while doing the flurry is a great addition and does balance it out alot. In many ways it is balanced pretty well and I really like what they've done.
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
I think you need to read a bit more carfeully before you reply. Yes, Paladins get immunity to *disease* at level 3. They don't get immunity to Poison damage, however. Monks do.
Ki is somewhat comparable to spell slots. The biggest difference though, which is an advantage to Monks over Wizards, is that they regain all Ki points on a short rest instead of a long rest. Also, it is quite plausible to run through 12 spell slots in one battle. The main reason if it doesn't happen is because wizards have cantrips which are comparable to Monks' bonus action attack.
Mobility is one of the best ways to *avoid* getting hit. You do realize that, don't you?
Stillness of mind takes an action, yes. Some other classes have similar abilities, most do not. That doesn't make Stillness of mind better or worse.
Previous editions are irrelevant, but you seem to have missed reading up on what monks actually can and can't do. Monks have no problem surviving, there's simply no basis for that statement.
Monks get a bunch of really good abilities between levels 6 and 12. Your statement is simply not true.
As for magic items, we've already covered that part. Fact is that Monks have an advantage since they don't even *need* certain magic items (namely magic melee weapons). Most magic items that benefit other classes benefit Monks as well.
TLDR; Objectively you are wrong. The Monk is a strong class and have no "dark age" where they "they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful". That is simply not true.
“Objectively”
this is where you are wrong.
”subjectively” would be correct.
🤷🏼♂️
now. I want to bring up where you specifically state tongue of the sun and moon.
that is where the Monk ramps up again. I agree with you about THAT point and on.
as to the magic weapon thing. Sure. I guess if that’s your belief. But a +3 weapon, or even +2 weapons will always be more effective than a monk punch. Still magic. More damage type possibilities. Better to hit. Better damage. Possibility of added effects as well.
that is not subjective, that is objective.
you can nitpick my “literally and I do mean literally they get jack diddly” all you want. That’s my subjective take on it. Based off what they objectively get vs others.
its obvious you have a subjective higher value for poison immunity than I do. Outside of green dragons, and some specific spiders and scorpions which are area specific, the poison situation doesn’t come up to often... AND even if it did. Oh how horrible that a paladin, starting at level 2. Can cure poison. Poor. Gone lay on hands. Oh wait, they can cure the poison off of others too!
the wizard blowing through 12 spell slots requires 12 rounds of combat. (Give or take). The monk blowing through 12 ki, typically takes 4-6 rounds. That’s quite the difference. And that’s not just going off base class stuff.
warlock get their spells back at a short rest. Would you prefer I objectively compare to a warlock instead? Spells are not as limited as ki abilities, objective.
”monks are a strong class” yes. I even stated this. Multiple times. Early game. And end game. Middle game. They aren’t AS strong. And other classes are stronger during that stretch. You are taking a statement and trying to bend it to your argument without using the same context. This is a poor debate tactic and not “objective”. This is a subjective take on my comment, unless you objectively put it into the same context and provide the empirical reasoning to the null hypothesis to my hypothesis.
To do ^ provide how monks keep pace or outpace the other classes over that same level stretch?
”previous editions are irrelevant”
valid. I concede you are right that this in no way helps this discussion and is irrelevant.
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
I think you need to read a bit more carfeully before you reply. Yes, Paladins get immunity to *disease* at level 3. They don't get immunity to Poison damage, however. Monks do.
Ki is somewhat comparable to spell slots. The biggest difference though, which is an advantage to Monks over Wizards, is that they regain all Ki points on a short rest instead of a long rest. Also, it is quite plausible to run through 12 spell slots in one battle. The main reason if it doesn't happen is because wizards have cantrips which are comparable to Monks' bonus action attack.
Mobility is one of the best ways to *avoid* getting hit. You do realize that, don't you?
Stillness of mind takes an action, yes. Some other classes have similar abilities, most do not. That doesn't make Stillness of mind better or worse.
Previous editions are irrelevant, but you seem to have missed reading up on what monks actually can and can't do. Monks have no problem surviving, there's simply no basis for that statement.
Monks get a bunch of really good abilities between levels 6 and 12. Your statement is simply not true.
As for magic items, we've already covered that part. Fact is that Monks have an advantage since they don't even *need* certain magic items (namely magic melee weapons). Most magic items that benefit other classes benefit Monks as well.
TLDR; Objectively you are wrong. The Monk is a strong class and have no "dark age" where they "they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful". That is simply not true.
“Objectively”
this is where you are wrong.
”subjectively” would be correct.
🤷🏼♂️
now. I want to bring up where you specifically state tongue of the sun and moon.
that is where the Monk ramps up again. I agree with you about THAT point and on.
as to the magic weapon thing. Sure. I guess if that’s your belief. But a +3 weapon, or even +2 weapons will always be more effective than a monk punch. Still magic. More damage type possibilities. Better to hit. Better damage. Possibility of added effects as well.
that is not subjective, that is objective.
you can nitpick my “literally and I do mean literally they get jack diddly” all you want. That’s my subjective take on it. Based off what they objectively get vs others.
its obvious you have a subjective higher value for poison immunity than I do. Outside of green dragons, and some specific spiders and scorpions which are area specific, the poison situation doesn’t come up to often... AND even if it did. Oh how horrible that a paladin, starting at level 2. Can cure poison. Poor. Gone lay on hands. Oh wait, they can cure the poison off of others too!
the wizard blowing through 12 spell slots requires 12 rounds of combat. (Give or take). The monk blowing through 12 ki, typically takes 4-6 rounds. That’s quite the difference. And that’s not just going off base class stuff.
warlock get their spells back at a short rest. Would you prefer I objectively compare to a warlock instead? Spells are not as limited as ki abilities, objective.
”monks are a strong class” yes. I even stated this. Multiple times. Early game. And end game. Middle game. They aren’t AS strong. And other classes are stronger during that stretch. You are taking a statement and trying to bend it to your argument without using the same context. This is a poor debate tactic and not “objective”. This is a subjective take on my comment, unless you objectively put it into the same context and provide the empirical reasoning to the null hypothesis to my hypothesis.
To do ^ provide how monks keep pace or outpace the other classes over that same level stretch?
”previous editions are irrelevant”
valid. I concede you are right that this in no way helps this discussion and is irrelevant.
This conversation y'all are having can be boiled down to the fact that EightPackKilla doesn't value the abilities that monks get during these so called "dark ages" and Lostwhilefishing does. Both of you are expressing an opinion and both of you are right. Nothing wrong with valuing different aspects of the game differently particularly when you're probably not playing with the same DM to be able to compare those values equally to start with (was this one of the many monk threads that talked about monks getting darts as starting gear but they aren't monk weapons?) Edit: It is!
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
I think you need to read a bit more carfeully before you reply. Yes, Paladins get immunity to *disease* at level 3. They don't get immunity to Poison damage, however. Monks do.
Ki is somewhat comparable to spell slots. The biggest difference though, which is an advantage to Monks over Wizards, is that they regain all Ki points on a short rest instead of a long rest. Also, it is quite plausible to run through 12 spell slots in one battle. The main reason if it doesn't happen is because wizards have cantrips which are comparable to Monks' bonus action attack.
Mobility is one of the best ways to *avoid* getting hit. You do realize that, don't you?
Stillness of mind takes an action, yes. Some other classes have similar abilities, most do not. That doesn't make Stillness of mind better or worse.
Previous editions are irrelevant, but you seem to have missed reading up on what monks actually can and can't do. Monks have no problem surviving, there's simply no basis for that statement.
Monks get a bunch of really good abilities between levels 6 and 12. Your statement is simply not true.
As for magic items, we've already covered that part. Fact is that Monks have an advantage since they don't even *need* certain magic items (namely magic melee weapons). Most magic items that benefit other classes benefit Monks as well.
TLDR; Objectively you are wrong. The Monk is a strong class and have no "dark age" where they "they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful". That is simply not true.
“Objectively”
this is where you are wrong.
”subjectively” would be correct.
🤷🏼♂️
now. I want to bring up where you specifically state tongue of the sun and moon.
that is where the Monk ramps up again. I agree with you about THAT point and on.
as to the magic weapon thing. Sure. I guess if that’s your belief. But a +3 weapon, or even +2 weapons will always be more effective than a monk punch. Still magic. More damage type possibilities. Better to hit. Better damage. Possibility of added effects as well.
that is not subjective, that is objective.
you can nitpick my “literally and I do mean literally they get jack diddly” all you want. That’s my subjective take on it. Based off what they objectively get vs others.
its obvious you have a subjective higher value for poison immunity than I do. Outside of green dragons, and some specific spiders and scorpions which are area specific, the poison situation doesn’t come up to often... AND even if it did. Oh how horrible that a paladin, starting at level 2. Can cure poison. Poor. Gone lay on hands. Oh wait, they can cure the poison off of others too!
the wizard blowing through 12 spell slots requires 12 rounds of combat. (Give or take). The monk blowing through 12 ki, typically takes 4-6 rounds. That’s quite the difference. And that’s not just going off base class stuff.
warlock get their spells back at a short rest. Would you prefer I objectively compare to a warlock instead? Spells are not as limited as ki abilities, objective.
”monks are a strong class” yes. I even stated this. Multiple times. Early game. And end game. Middle game. They aren’t AS strong. And other classes are stronger during that stretch. You are taking a statement and trying to bend it to your argument without using the same context. This is a poor debate tactic and not “objective”. This is a subjective take on my comment, unless you objectively put it into the same context and provide the empirical reasoning to the null hypothesis to my hypothesis.
To do ^ provide how monks keep pace or outpace the other classes over that same level stretch?
No, objectively you are wrong. You claim that Monks are going through a dark age where they struggle to keep up with the rest of the classes and that they lack survivability. This is demonstrably not true.
Magic weapons are not a class ability (except for Kensei monks, funny that, huh?). ANYONE can use those. Even monks.
You subjective statement is objectively wrong.
Again, objectively, immunity against poison is a good ability and it is, objectively, not something that Paladins have. Also, Paladins have to spend resources to cure poison (and extra resources if they want to heal the poison damage).
How fast it takes to use 12 spell slots or Ki points is entirely up to the player. A Wizard that only throws cantrips won't use any. A Wizard that throws spells and uses their reaction for spells will blow throw spell slots faster than a Monk who only uses a single Ki point per turn. And again, you regain Ki on short rests.
Notes: Paragraph removed. Let's keep things constructive and be respectful. Thanks!
If I recall correctly, a "weapon" some IRL monks carry is a shovel, a spade with a crescent blade on the opposite end. It was primarily used to give burials to unfortunate individuals who weren't able to receive one, and the crescent was used to catch weapons that are swung at said monk. This reminds me somewhat of how tridents work.
Now if only they worked like this in D&D 5e. WotC doesn't seem to like them.
that is irrelevant on how quickly they get spent up.
empircial point to that. You say monks “can survive easily” yes. If they use their Ki to dodge often.
you say monks can maintain pace with damage and effects. Yes, if they use their ki to flurry of blows and stun often.
the monk, who does not do this, is outpaced by other classes for survivability and for damage.
so, the monk then has to use their ki. Which, Runs out, super fast.
would you like me to put the entirety of every class into a math formula for survivability based off of pythagorean theory, for distance. Off of their AC. Off their avg HP. Off their avg dam. Off their speed. Off the same basic encounter situation.
make a super easy balanced control experiment. To go full Rick, and mathematical prove where you are incorrect?
it seems that a lot of people have more free time nowadays, so if you’d like to spend your time reading (or blatantly ignoring) this. I could do so for you.
the resources spent by the paladin. Have nothing to do with the fact. That at level 2. They can have the same. Not be poisoned effect. That monks don’t get to level 10. And, you willfully choose to ignore that Paladins can also do this, at level 2, to not just rid their own poison, but the poison of others as well. By level 10 when monks get their immunity. Paladins can cure poison 10x per long rest. How often have you seen 10 people poisoned in 1 long rest period? You also willfully ignored the fact that poison does not come up very often. You talk of changing goal posts but you just blatantly disregard details and facts that aren’t convenient for you.
No one said magic weapons are a class ability. What WAS said, however, is that other classes, outside of the Kensei monk, do have the ability to more effectively use magic weapons, than monks do. This would fall under weapon and armor proficiencies which is a class ability..... shall I go on with this? Because this one is very pedantic and tedious to try and explain more and more and more simply.
the lack of survivability is very real.
i do not know how else to explain this, so my only recommendation is you PLAY D&D more. Not just wrote on forums and talk about it, and play Monk more. And see how well your survivability is. That will be your best teacher for the reality of the class.
but hey. If talking about d&d is more fun for you than you actually playing it. Who am I to criticize. Maybe you just dm or talk about it. And don’t truly understand the real survivability issues compared to other classes.
🤷🏼♂️
at any rate. You’re a horse at water. This has gone on as far as it can. And well past as far as it should have gone.
at this point I’m open to debate in PMs. Anything else is just way too off topic, or trolling, or spamming, or harassment.
that is irrelevant on how quickly they get spent up.
empircial point to that. You say monks “can survive easily” yes. If they use their Ki to dodge often.
you say monks can maintain pace with damage and effects. Yes, if they use their ki to flurry of blows and stun often.
the monk, who does not do this, is outpaced by other classes for survivability and for damage.
so, the monk then has to use their ki. Which, Runs out, super fast.
would you like me to put the entirety of every class into a math formula for survivability based off of pythagorean theory, for distance. Off of their AC. Off their avg HP. Off their avg dam. Off their speed. Off the same basic encounter situation.
make a super easy balanced control experiment. To go full Rick, and mathematical prove where you are incorrect?
it seems that a lot of people have more free time nowadays, so if you’d like to spend your time reading (or blatantly ignoring) this. I could do so for you.
the resources spent by the paladin. Have nothing to do with the fact. That at level 2. They can have the same. Not be poisoned effect. That monks don’t get to level 10. And, you willfully choose to ignore that Paladins can also do this, at level 2, to not just rid their own poison, but the poison of others as well. By level 10 when monks get their immunity. Paladins can cure poison 10x per long rest. How often have you seen 10 people poisoned in 1 long rest period? You also willfully ignored the fact that poison does not come up very often. You talk of changing goal posts but you just blatantly disregard details and facts that aren’t convenient for you.
No one said magic weapons are a class ability. What WAS said, however, is that other classes, outside of the Kensei monk, do have the ability to more effectively use magic weapons, than monks do. This would fall under weapon and armor proficiencies which is a class ability..... shall I go on with this? Because this one is very pedantic and tedious to try and explain more and more and more simply.
the lack of survivability is very real.
i do not know how else to explain this, so my only recommendation is you PLAY D&D more. Not just wrote on forums and talk about it, and play Monk more. And see how well your survivability is. That will be your best teacher for the reality of the class.
but hey. If talking about d&d is more fun for you than you actually playing it. Who am I to criticize. Maybe you just dm or talk about it. And don’t truly understand the real survivability issues compared to other classes.
🤷🏼♂️
at any rate. You’re a horse at water. This has gone on as far as it can. And well past as far as it should have gone.
at this point I’m open to debate in PMs. Anything else is just way too off topic, or trolling, or spamming, or harassment.
Wow, you take this waay too seriously. It's a bit ridiculous of you to demand to have the last word, pretend to be superior to everyone else and then claim that no-one is allowed to response. Just as a general side-note. I love how you try to change the goalposts all the time rather than admitting that you have been proven wrong. :)
Anywho, you are still objectively wrong, which has already been proven. How quickly a resource is used up is of course very relevant. How often a resource re-charges is also relevant. Monks resources recharge on a short rest, wizards on along rest. As for the need to use those resources to be able to do stuff. Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? A wizard who doesn't use their spell slots is not going to do as good as one who does. A fighter that doesn't attack or wear armour and ignores second wind is not going to do anything much either, right?
I've already explained to you why being immune to something is a good thing. By your logic the resistances of a bear totem barbarian is also worthless because a paladin can simply heal them. I think most people would disagree with that.
As for magic weapons, you were the one that brought those up, I just pointed out the fact that monks don't even need magic weapons. Which is a point for monks.
Anywho, TLDR; if all you have is inflammatory nonsense, I totally agree with your decision to stop talking.
Since apparently both sides of this argument can't talk nicely to each other, I'm locking this thread. I'd recommend that EVERYONE re-read the Site Rules and Guidelines.
Wizards get spell slots. That’s a “base feature”
so... wizards get a TON actually.
2nd. I don’t want to make a classes usefulness solely based on being within 10 feet of a paladin they may or may not have. Edit- or 30 ft. But again. Monks become useful again by level 14
3rd. That’s exactly right. And. They have limited survivability to do that. For a long range of levels.
edit 2- you blow through Ki points... SUPER quickly as a monk. So there’s a lot of campaign dependency for short rests and such to stay useful. A problem warlocks can sometimes have. But warlocks almost 99.9% have EB cantrip to “make do”
Blank
All full casters get spell slots. Wizards specifically gain most of their tier 2-3 class features from their subclass. So no, wizards don't get many base class features. However, their spell selections more than make up for that. Monks generally lack that flexibility.
I think you misunderstand the comparison between Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Both are passive abilities that boost the user's saving throws. One leans more towards teamwork and the other is generally more reliable. Paladins get theirs much earlier. Likewise, both get immunity to disease. Pallies get it early, while monks also gain a damage and condition immunity.
I did misunderstand I got you now.
but yeah. Your points. Kinda also show the ... “dark ages” of tiers 2-3 for monks.
its by no means a bad class...... (ranger. No subtle cough. Dead stare eye contact. Ranger) but, there’s a stretch of monk where it’s just painful.
Blank
Are you really playing 5E? Because these "dark ages" you talk about is not really a thing. Monks gain a bunch of cool stuff on levels 6-13 (especially if you include the subclass features) including mobility options out the wazoo, immunities (to disease AND poison, not just disease), communication, more mobility, more Ki points (which is itself comparable to wizards spell levels), magic attacks, stillness of mind. Again, not sure where this "limited survivability" comes from.
One of the issues with monk is a lack of magic equipment tailored to unarmed strikes. You have the Insignia of Claws. That's pretty much it. Demon Plate is factored out due to it being armor.
Also, monks are encouraged to spike dexterity and wisdom, and they don't have the ASIs to work on constitution much. As a generally melee-ranged class, this notably hurts. An Amulet of Health helps this, but getting one is DM dependant.
Getting any specific magical item is DM dependant. And the HP issue has been adressed already (and can be easily mitigated by the Tough feat). That said, you put the finger on the only real downside to the Monk, it being slightly MAD. That said, it is far from as crappy or being stuck in a "dark age" as EPK is trying to make it out.
Paladins get same disease immunity at level 3. Tier 1
bzzzzt alrea DT covered.
ki is not comparable to spells at all. You can burn through all your ki in 1 battle easily. Even at level 12.
can a level 12 wizard realistically exhaust every spell slot in 1 battle?
mobility out the wazoo is good. But it doesn’t help keep you alive when you get hit. It just lets you “try” to avoid being hit more.
stillness of mind. Takes an action. There are similar abilities to other classes that don’t require the use of an action to do so.
So.
in 5e. Which it’s clear as day I am talking about. Since monks were Nerfed from prior editions. Which you may or may not have played and therefore may or may not know what I mean here.
monks are really really survival impaired. For a good chunk of levels. Compared to ALL the other classes.
even Rangers. Get better stuff, levels 6-12 than monks.
Rexir2. Brought up a point that I didn’t even want to touch yet. About how even the magic items and such. Benefit everyone else besides monks more so than monks. Which is also true.
Blank
I think you need to read a bit more carfeully before you reply. Yes, Paladins get immunity to *disease* at level 3. They don't get immunity to Poison damage, however. Monks do.
Ki is somewhat comparable to spell slots. The biggest difference though, which is an advantage to Monks over Wizards, is that they regain all Ki points on a short rest instead of a long rest. Also, it is quite plausible to run through 12 spell slots in one battle. The main reason if it doesn't happen is because wizards have cantrips which are comparable to Monks' bonus action attack.
Mobility is one of the best ways to *avoid* getting hit. You do realize that, don't you?
Stillness of mind takes an action, yes. Some other classes have similar abilities, most do not. That doesn't make Stillness of mind better or worse.
Previous editions are irrelevant, but you seem to have missed reading up on what monks actually can and can't do. Monks have no problem surviving, there's simply no basis for that statement.
Monks get a bunch of really good abilities between levels 6 and 12. Your statement is simply not true.
As for magic items, we've already covered that part. Fact is that Monks have an advantage since they don't even *need* certain magic items (namely magic melee weapons). Most magic items that benefit other classes benefit Monks as well.
TLDR; Objectively you are wrong. The Monk is a strong class and have no "dark age" where they "they literally. And I do mean literally, really don’t get jack diddly of anything truly useful". That is simply not true.
Yeah I guess we shouldn't get too hung up on what happened in previous editions... and I find it strange that someone would say that the monks were nerfed from previous editions
to me it sounds like they were more powerful there but are lessened now. If that was what it meant then with the exception of Flurry of Blows becoming just two punches (or kinda just one since you can make an extra attack even just as a bonus action) I disagree. 5e did alot of good for monks I feel. Now you don't have to take a feat to be able to attack with dex and you can even calculate your damage with dex. In previous editions you had to use a feat for that and you still had to use strength to calculate from damage. This makes the monk less M.A.D.
The ki point restoration after a short rest is great.
Slow fall is better, you no longer have to be touching a wall.
The immunity to poison and disease including the damage is great.
just having to take an action to rid yourself of being charmed or frightened is also pretty dope, still mind before only gave +2 bonus to saving throws against those.
Tongue of sun and moon is better, if only because it comes earlier so you can enjoy its benefit longer in the campaign. Not just a few last levels.
Losing the quivering palm as a class ability to simply one of the sub classes is a bit of a bummer but then again the
open palms quivering palm is way more applicable.
Timeless body, with its addition that you no longer need food or water is better, before it was only good if you played a long enough campaign to have your character become so old
you'd get age penalties.
Diamond souls addition to be able to reroll failed saves with ki point makes it better I think.
Not sure if the 20th level perfect self was better or worse, but it wasn't anything super special to write home about before.
A later alternative to the perfect self "Old Master" which gave a bonus attack and a +2 to AC is clearly better in the old version
but thats neither here nor there. And at that point it might be a bit late anyway. That extra armor could've been used earlier.
Unless you plan to play alot of campaigns starting at 20th level its not really that big of an advocation to either version.
Edit: okay the +1 natural armor every four levels in previous eds or atleast Pathfinder was pretty nice, but I'm pretty sure back then combinations of other armors wielded by other classes could also rise to same level, or even above it pretty fast. You still needed like 18-20: 4-5 to
Dex and Wis for defense, the nat ac had to be in pretty high levels before it might make any difference
I think 5e did alot of great stuff to improve the monk from the mess of interesting but badly implemented ideas it was before.
Sure I too think it could be better, perhaps since Wisdom is no longer tied to how many ki points you get the additional stat for armor could be
Constitution to complement monks poor hit die.
Or perhaps the monks could use dexterity instead of strength when grappling/performing other combat maneuvers (actually grapple and shove are the only cms left)
It wouldn't necessarily be that weird of an idea. While strength is important in grappling combat how fast you can go for a grapple or attempt to change a situation in a grapple, namely speed is also very important. I practiced a bit of martial arts younger and I remember alot of smaller and weaker guys, and occasionally girls dominating me in grapples even on the ground simply because they were faster. This might go a bit further with eliminating the M.A.Dness of monks.
Sometimes I think that maybe an extra attack could be added to the flurry of blows. While it certainly doesn't need to be the seven(?) attacks of the previous editions
I sometimes wonder if one extra for the price of a ki point is a good enough trade, though the fact the monk can move unlike previously while doing the flurry is a great addition and does balance it out alot.
In many ways it is balanced pretty well and I really like what they've done.
“Objectively”
this is where you are wrong.
”subjectively” would be correct.
🤷🏼♂️
now. I want to bring up where you specifically state tongue of the sun and moon.
that is where the Monk ramps up again. I agree with you about THAT point and on.
as to the magic weapon thing. Sure. I guess if that’s your belief. But a +3 weapon, or even +2 weapons will always be more effective than a monk punch. Still magic. More damage type possibilities. Better to hit. Better damage. Possibility of added effects as well.
that is not subjective, that is objective.
you can nitpick my “literally and I do mean literally they get jack diddly” all you want. That’s my subjective take on it. Based off what they objectively get vs others.
its obvious you have a subjective higher value for poison immunity than I do. Outside of green dragons, and some specific spiders and scorpions which are area specific, the poison situation doesn’t come up to often... AND even if it did. Oh how horrible that a paladin, starting at level 2. Can cure poison. Poor. Gone lay on hands. Oh wait, they can cure the poison off of others too!
the wizard blowing through 12 spell slots requires 12 rounds of combat. (Give or take). The monk blowing through 12 ki, typically takes 4-6 rounds. That’s quite the difference. And that’s not just going off base class stuff.
warlock get their spells back at a short rest. Would you prefer I objectively compare to a warlock instead? Spells are not as limited as ki abilities, objective.
”monks are a strong class” yes. I even stated this. Multiple times. Early game. And end game. Middle game. They aren’t AS strong. And other classes are stronger during that stretch. You are taking a statement and trying to bend it to your argument without using the same context. This is a poor debate tactic and not “objective”. This is a subjective take on my comment, unless you objectively put it into the same context and provide the empirical reasoning to the null hypothesis to my hypothesis.
To do ^ provide how monks keep pace or outpace the other classes over that same level stretch?
”previous editions are irrelevant”
valid. I concede you are right that this in no way helps this discussion and is irrelevant.
Blank
This conversation y'all are having can be boiled down to the fact that EightPackKilla doesn't value the abilities that monks get during these so called "dark ages" and Lostwhilefishing does. Both of you are expressing an opinion and both of you are right. Nothing wrong with valuing different aspects of the game differently particularly when you're probably not playing with the same DM to be able to compare those values equally to start with (was this one of the many monk threads that talked about monks getting darts as starting gear but they aren't monk weapons?) Edit: It is!
Second edit: Apparently, this effort was in vain.
Yeah, it's pretty well been thoroughly hijacked.
No, objectively you are wrong. You claim that Monks are going through a dark age where they struggle to keep up with the rest of the classes and that they lack survivability. This is demonstrably not true.
Magic weapons are not a class ability (except for Kensei monks, funny that, huh?). ANYONE can use those. Even monks.
You subjective statement is objectively wrong.
Again, objectively, immunity against poison is a good ability and it is, objectively, not something that Paladins have. Also, Paladins have to spend resources to cure poison (and extra resources if they want to heal the poison damage).
How fast it takes to use 12 spell slots or Ki points is entirely up to the player. A Wizard that only throws cantrips won't use any. A Wizard that throws spells and uses their reaction for spells will blow throw spell slots faster than a Monk who only uses a single Ki point per turn. And again, you regain Ki on short rests.
If I recall correctly, a "weapon" some IRL monks carry is a shovel, a spade with a crescent blade on the opposite end. It was primarily used to give burials to unfortunate individuals who weren't able to receive one, and the crescent was used to catch weapons that are swung at said monk. This reminds me somewhat of how tridents work.
Now if only they worked like this in D&D 5e. WotC doesn't seem to like them.
How fast it takes is up to the player.
that is irrelevant on how quickly they get spent up.
empircial point to that. You say monks “can survive easily” yes. If they use their Ki to dodge often.
you say monks can maintain pace with damage and effects. Yes, if they use their ki to flurry of blows and stun often.
the monk, who does not do this, is outpaced by other classes for survivability and for damage.
so, the monk then has to use their ki. Which, Runs out, super fast.
would you like me to put the entirety of every class into a math formula for survivability based off of pythagorean theory, for distance. Off of their AC. Off their avg HP. Off their avg dam. Off their speed. Off the same basic encounter situation.
make a super easy balanced control experiment. To go full Rick, and mathematical prove where you are incorrect?
it seems that a lot of people have more free time nowadays, so if you’d like to spend your time reading (or blatantly ignoring) this. I could do so for you.
the resources spent by the paladin. Have nothing to do with the fact. That at level 2. They can have the same. Not be poisoned effect. That monks don’t get to level 10. And, you willfully choose to ignore that Paladins can also do this, at level 2, to not just rid their own poison, but the poison of others as well. By level 10 when monks get their immunity. Paladins can cure poison 10x per long rest. How often have you seen 10 people poisoned in 1 long rest period? You also willfully ignored the fact that poison does not come up very often. You talk of changing goal posts but you just blatantly disregard details and facts that aren’t convenient for you.
No one said magic weapons are a class ability. What WAS said, however, is that other classes, outside of the Kensei monk, do have the ability to more effectively use magic weapons, than monks do. This would fall under weapon and armor proficiencies which is a class ability..... shall I go on with this? Because this one is very pedantic and tedious to try and explain more and more and more simply.
the lack of survivability is very real.
i do not know how else to explain this, so my only recommendation is you PLAY D&D more. Not just wrote on forums and talk about it, and play Monk more. And see how well your survivability is. That will be your best teacher for the reality of the class.
but hey. If talking about d&d is more fun for you than you actually playing it. Who am I to criticize. Maybe you just dm or talk about it. And don’t truly understand the real survivability issues compared to other classes.
🤷🏼♂️
at any rate. You’re a horse at water. This has gone on as far as it can. And well past as far as it should have gone.
at this point I’m open to debate in PMs. Anything else is just way too off topic, or trolling, or spamming, or harassment.
Blank
Wow, you take this waay too seriously. It's a bit ridiculous of you to demand to have the last word, pretend to be superior to everyone else and then claim that no-one is allowed to response. Just as a general side-note. I love how you try to change the goalposts all the time rather than admitting that you have been proven wrong. :)
Anywho, you are still objectively wrong, which has already been proven. How quickly a resource is used up is of course very relevant. How often a resource re-charges is also relevant. Monks resources recharge on a short rest, wizards on along rest. As for the need to use those resources to be able to do stuff. Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? A wizard who doesn't use their spell slots is not going to do as good as one who does. A fighter that doesn't attack or wear armour and ignores second wind is not going to do anything much either, right?
I've already explained to you why being immune to something is a good thing. By your logic the resistances of a bear totem barbarian is also worthless because a paladin can simply heal them. I think most people would disagree with that.
As for magic weapons, you were the one that brought those up, I just pointed out the fact that monks don't even need magic weapons. Which is a point for monks.
Anywho, TLDR; if all you have is inflammatory nonsense, I totally agree with your decision to stop talking.
Since apparently both sides of this argument can't talk nicely to each other, I'm locking this thread. I'd recommend that EVERYONE re-read the Site Rules and Guidelines.
If you can't say it nicely, then don't post.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of