Its a common misunderstanding when it comes to monk's level 9 improvement; they cannot run "up" walls, only "along" walls. Occasionally useful, but way less cool.
And there are definitely tactical reasons for melee builds to exist, and even to compete with things like sharpshooter in terms of damage dealing.
I've just been curious about the tactical usefulness of speed to the monk specifically. It seems like a nice bonus, but not really something strong enough to be class defining.
Yeah monk will fall behind on total damage but they do damage to the target they want to regardless of where they are due to mobility.
Stun Spam will shut down something if you really need it to which can be encounter defining.
They are very viable in combat but are not the top damage dealer...they get the damage where it needs to go.
Any examples of this? It seems like there are ranged options that make mobility moot, or that any melee character can be in range to deliver damage after the first round.
If the target is at least 45 feet away, every class in the game to get in melee needs to use the action to dash (unless they're buffed in some way) except a monk and rogue. Monks will have no trouble getting in range and do a full round of attacks. The more range between the party and enemies, the more mobility becomes important. Monks can move very large distances very quickly. My monk, for example, can move 160 feet in a turn without expending resources (in dim light) or 150 using a ki point.
Ranged characters can negate this to a point. They can't negate full cover though. There are countless situations where an archer couldn't hit something but a hyper mobile monk could. Of course, in a big area with no obstructions, an archer could hit something much further than a monk.
Yeah monk will fall behind on total damage but they do damage to the target they want to regardless of where they are due to mobility.
Stun Spam will shut down something if you really need it to which can be encounter defining.
They are very viable in combat but are not the top damage dealer...they get the damage where it needs to go.
Any examples of this? It seems like there are ranged options that make mobility moot, or that any melee character can be in range to deliver damage after the first round.
If the target is at least 45 feet away, every class in the game to get in melee needs to use the action to dash (unless they're buffed in some way) except a monk and rogue. Monks will have no trouble getting in range and do a full round of attacks. The more range between the party and enemies, the more mobility becomes important. Monks can move very large distances very quickly. My monk, for example, can move 160 feet in a turn without expending resources (in dim light) or 150 using a ki point.
Ranged characters can negate this to a point. They can't negate full cover though. There are countless situations where an archer couldn't hit something but a hyper mobile monk could. Of course, in a big area with no obstructions, an archer could hit something much further than a monk.
Sharpshooter also negates most forms of cover sans full cover. Even then you can just ready action and still pick em off.
Honestly melee builds mostly exist to be tanky rather than deliver damage. The exception is paladin who is a single target melting machine.
Zealot is another one that does insane damage but will is less tanky. They have a built in ability to be brought back very easy though so they accounted for it.
Overall ranged damage options are generally better as distance is a huge defensive buff. Dex is also much better in the non-combat realm.
Its a common misunderstanding when it comes to monk's level 9 improvement; they cannot run "up" walls, only "along" walls. Occasionally useful, but way less cool.
And there are definitely tactical reasons for melee builds to exist, and even to compete with things like sharpshooter in terms of damage dealing.
I've just been curious about the tactical usefulness of speed to the monk specifically. It seems like a nice bonus, but not really something strong enough to be class defining.
It depends on how combat scenes are set up, much like it is for ranged combat really. Combatants tend to try and put themselves at an advantage or their opponents at a disadvantage. Cover, a height advantage, being out of sight, having impassable (or at least difficult to traverse) areas between themselves and their enemies or just plain being out of immediate reach are all things that can have an impact on how a fight goes. What that impact is, if any, depends a lot on the DM though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Since monks are meant to be masters of both mind and body, I would allow monks at my table to:
Use a d10 Hit Die, because it's humorous that such honed machines would fare worse than a fighter
Have two starting proficiencies in savings throws of their choice – STR and DEX makes little sense for a lot of Monks and I struggle to reconcile that individuals who have typically dedicated so much of their lives to mastering thought, notions of the self, as well as discipline and self-control (as many monks do IRL), that they wouldn't have some resilience of the mind.
There are some aspects of the Monk design that are incongruous with other martial classes. Upping the hit die and changing the saving throw proficiencies would not make Monks OP and would actually make sense.
Yeah monk will fall behind on total damage but they do damage to the target they want to regardless of where they are due to mobility.
Stun Spam will shut down something if you really need it to which can be encounter defining.
They are very viable in combat but are not the top damage dealer...they get the damage where it needs to go.
Any examples of this? It seems like there are ranged options that make mobility moot, or that any melee character can be in range to deliver damage after the first round.
If the target is at least 45 feet away, every class in the game to get in melee needs to use the action to dash (unless they're buffed in some way) except a monk and rogue. Monks will have no trouble getting in range and do a full round of attacks. The more range between the party and enemies, the more mobility becomes important. Monks can move very large distances very quickly. My monk, for example, can move 160 feet in a turn without expending resources (in dim light) or 150 using a ki point.
Ranged characters can negate this to a point. They can't negate full cover though. There are countless situations where an archer couldn't hit something but a hyper mobile monk could. Of course, in a big area with no obstructions, an archer could hit something much further than a monk.
Considering that all monks can use shortbows and light crossbows, monks can still hit something further away than most archers. Heavy Crossbows and particularly Longbows change that dynamic and only Kensei can beat that range.
Its a common misunderstanding when it comes to monk's level 9 improvement; they cannot run "up" walls, only "along" walls. Occasionally useful, but way less cool.
You definitely need a citation for this claim.
The word "along" can mean either "upon" or "across the length of"; neither eliminates vertical movement, as even in the latter case the long side of a wall can be upwards (i.e- a tower). As far as I can find there is no Sage advice that excludes vertical movement, and the rule could easily have used the word horizontal if that was the intention, though it's a rule that's very open to DM interpretation (i.e- a wall seems ideal for being difficult terrain).
Even so, video-gamey wall-running is still hugely useful; if a piece of cover blocks a corridor, you can run along a wall as a route over it, a room with a chasm can be bypassed via a wall etc. There are a bunch of ways to use even a limited interpretation of the feature, and it only further emphasises a Monk's speed advantage by effectively eliminating obstacles you'd otherwise have to use your movement to go around.
Overall ranged damage options are generally better as distance is a huge defensive buff. Dex is also much better in the non-combat realm.
How much better ranged combat is will depend heavily on your DM; if they just have enemies stand in the open and get shot, then absolutely ranged will reign supreme, because why risk taking damage when you could… not. But with even light amounts of cover ranged gets quickly more difficult, and if enemies also have ranged attacks then the "defensive buff" of being at a distance disappears, likewise if enemies have skirmishers of some kind. While taking Sharpshooter can counter half and three quarter cover, it does nothing for full cover, which your DM should absolutely employ if a ranged character is dominating on damage.
And Monks can fight at range if they want with a shortbow (or longbow for a Kensei, elf etc.), and with high speed it's easier for them to reposition to get a clear shot. Plus, if you get caught out by an enemy skirmisher it's their funeral.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Its a common misunderstanding when it comes to monk's level 9 improvement; they cannot run "up" walls, only "along" walls. Occasionally useful, but way less cool.
You definitely need a citation for this claim.
The word "along" can mean either "upon" or "across the length of"; neither eliminates vertical movement, as even in the latter case the long side of a wall can be upwards (i.e- a tower). As far as I can find there is no Sage advice that excludes vertical movement, and the rule could easily have used the word horizontal if that was the intention, though it's a rule that's very open to DM interpretation (i.e- a wall seems ideal for being difficult terrain).
Even so, video-gamey wall-running is still hugely useful; if a piece of cover blocks a corridor, you can run along a wall as a route over it, a room with a chasm can be bypassed via a wall etc. There are a bunch of ways to use even a limited interpretation of the feature, and it only further emphasises a Monk's speed advantage by effectively eliminating obstacles you'd otherwise have to use your movement to go around.
Overall ranged damage options are generally better as distance is a huge defensive buff. Dex is also much better in the non-combat realm.
How much better ranged combat is will depend heavily on your DM; if they just have enemies stand in the open and get shot, then absolutely ranged will reign supreme, because why risk taking damage when you could… not. But with even light amounts of cover ranged gets quickly more difficult, and if enemies also have ranged attacks then the "defensive buff" of being at a distance disappears, likewise if enemies have skirmishers of some kind. While taking Sharpshooter can counter half and three quarter cover, it does nothing for full cover, which your DM should absolutely employ if a ranged character is dominating on damage.
And Monks can fight at range if they want with a shortbow (or longbow for a Kensei, elf etc.), and with high speed it's easier for them to reposition to get a clear shot. Plus, if you get caught out by an enemy skirmisher it's their funeral.
Yeah I'd agree with this. Range can be countered just like any thing in the game. Monks actually work pretty well as archers due to BA disengage and maintaining range. They suffer due to lack of Archery Fighting Style but thanks to Tasha's they can pick that up as a feat.
Holding your action is another good strategy for cover. You may not do as much damage but you can maintain your best defensive strategy which is distance.
RAW says 9th level monks can move “along vertical surfaces” not “up” them. Along generally means horizontal. I suppose it’s a little vague, and rule of cool favors running up/down walls too. But it also doesn’t mention anything about replacing rules for climbing.
I’ll see if there is any sage advice on it and get back to you.
In order to run along a wall (horizontally) you'd have to be able to move vertically as well. Otherwise you are running along the wall just over the floor. The point of this and running over water is to add that "Remo Williams" sort of flair to the martial artist you are playing. It's a useful thing but it's not going to break the game or come up a lot in combat.
In order to run along a wall (horizontally) you'd have to be able to move vertically as well. Otherwise you are running along the wall just over the floor. The point of this and running over water is to add that "Remo Williams" sort of flair to the martial artist you are playing. It's a useful thing but it's not going to break the game or come up a lot in combat.
It seems that just RAW, it is saying you run along the wall just above the floor. I can see the logic being that the monk can get around pit traps in a dungeon hallway scenario.
I don't think running vertical would hurt the game, but it just doesn't seem to be what is described in the ability.
In order to run along a wall (horizontally) you'd have to be able to move vertically as well. Otherwise you are running along the wall just over the floor. The point of this and running over water is to add that "Remo Williams" sort of flair to the martial artist you are playing. It's a useful thing but it's not going to break the game or come up a lot in combat.
It seems that just RAW, it is saying you run along the wall just above the floor. I can see the logic being that the monk can get around pit traps in a dungeon hallway scenario.
I don't think running vertical would hurt the game, but it just doesn't seem to be what is described in the ability.
You are reading into the wording too much, I heavily doubt that the ability would be made just so the monk couldn't run up walls. Especially since it clarifies that you will fall if you end your turn on that surface.
In order to run along a wall (horizontally) you'd have to be able to move vertically as well. Otherwise you are running along the wall just over the floor. The point of this and running over water is to add that "Remo Williams" sort of flair to the martial artist you are playing. It's a useful thing but it's not going to break the game or come up a lot in combat.
It seems that just RAW, it is saying you run along the wall just above the floor. I can see the logic being that the monk can get around pit traps in a dungeon hallway scenario.
I don't think running vertical would hurt the game, but it just doesn't seem to be what is described in the ability.
You are reading into the wording too much, I heavily doubt that the ability would be made just so the monk couldn't run up walls. Especially since it clarifies that you will fall if you end your turn on that surface.
Along is an omnidirectional terminology as well. It can mean any direction across that surface. The surface in question being the wall. You run along it because you must use that surface to make the run. The floor has no bearing what so ever on how you traverse that wall.
If people wonder why I say that. I may be remembering wrong but my memory says that the primary definition of Along is actually "moving in a constant direction on" With synonyms like across, further, forward, onward, and through.
Along really implies horizontal movement. Its why they specified "move along vertical surfaces and across liquids." If Along was really omnidirectional, they would have just said "move along vertical surfaces and liquids."
But anyone reading that would say "thats silly, anyone can run along the coast of a lake or the bank of a river."
They would also specify running speed replacing climbing speed, if they were trying to say that the monk ability overrode that. Which can actually be an issue, since if a monk can run up walls, then they can switch to climbing with the last bit of their movement and effectively can cast levitate, a second level spell, for free every turn.
But hey, rule of cool I'd allow it, and dear lord please give the monk anything to make it speed worth while. It just doesn't seem like what was intended RAW.
Playing my Monk, I notice a few things right off that many seem to overlook. The Ranged fanatics are either playing campaigns that are hard written and encounters are as printed and not changing, or have a DM catering to their needs. If the party is half and half (ranged and melee) the encounters match (in the campaigns I've been in and run) There are some occasional ranged attackers, giving the melee fighters a bit of issue and there are melee foes, who will "bum rush" the ranged party members if they start dishing out too much damage. Ranged VS melee only works if your DM wants it to, otherwise the foes WILL counter your plan and often with horrific results. Anyone hiding behind something and spending only arrows for resource in fight after fight is soon going to meet a blinking attacker, who will place their fancy longbow in uncomfortable locations, to make a point. If you want to sit and pew-pew all day, buy an Xbox. In my game, you better have a party ready to deal with ALL types of attacks, or you may end up rerolling a member or 2.
Now for the mobility and how far up a wall can a Monk run, well, if he can run "along" the surface, HOW did he get there? How high up can he go? (because less than about 3 feet would be impossible to run...try running a foot from a wall and see how that goes) The ruling we use, due to nothing saying they CAN'T run up a wall, is that walls are now the same as ground for a Monk to run on, only stopping is different. Also, we can NOT run 44 feet up the wall, then "climb" the last foot, because we cannot transition from running to climbing instantly and as soon as I stop running, gravity kicks in and DOWN I go.
My Monk primarily plays crowd control/damage control in our fights. Pop in, smack the hardest hitter, using a Stunning Strike, to limit the beating he delivers and allow my allies advantage when going for him. Slip out, maybe to another troublesome foe, and another Stunning Strike if needed, or maybe a regular strike and a FoB to knock him flat. All told, I scoot around, dealing a bit of damage and more importantly, disrupting the enemies flow and abilities, to give my own party a better chance. I also stand beside the Fighter and Barbarian sometimes, using my 2 attacks, the BA take a dodge stance, if the enemies are hard hitters. Trying to boost AC and DC (taking 2 WIS next ASI) so my AC allows me to not have to dodge to avoid being hit so much.
To me, the Monk has been one of the most fun classes I've played so far, but a bit of that is likely due to being able to RP a character I made fun out of the gate. Poor naïve Monk, never been out of the Monastery before, is quite awkward and often awed by the things he sees, that his companions take for granted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Along really implies horizontal movement. Its why they specified "move along vertical surfaces and across liquids." If Along was really omnidirectional, they would have just said "move along vertical surfaces and liquids."
But anyone reading that would say "thats silly, anyone can run along the coast of a lake or the bank of a river."
Yes, that would be silly to phrase it that way, because as you say literally point out immediately after why they didn't. That doesn't disprove that "along" means up, down, left, right, forward, back, or anything. Example: Run a finger along your leg from hip to ankle. Look at that! It didn't imply horizontal movement.
They would also specify running speed replacing climbing speed, if they were trying to say that the monk ability overrode that. Which can actually be an issue, since if a monk can run up walls, then they can switch to climbing with the last bit of their movement and effectively can cast levitate, a second level spell, for free every turn.
Climbing speed implies that something can stop along the wall at some point. The Unarmored Movement bonus specifically does not do that. Additionally, climbing implies required use of the hands (instances where it does not, such as Spider Climb, are specifically noted). Stopping and holding onto a wall would require some kind of handholds or grips, which depending on DM/terrain might exist, might require some kind of STR or DEX check, or might simply not be large enough to grab at all.
Also, as I was doing research on this, Spider Climb's language works against your language argument above, as well. It reads that a creature "gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces". Meaning "across" is the preposition DND must use when it is referring to horizontal movement along flat surfaces, not "along".
“Climbing speed implies that something can stop along the wall at some point. The Unarmored Movement bonus specifically does not do that.”
The climbing rules don’t imply that. It’s just a different form of movement. Unarmored movement says you fall when you stop, and switching to a different kind of movement isn’t stopping.
”Additionally, climbing implies required use of the hands (instances where it does not, such as Spider Climb, are specifically noted). Stopping and holding onto a wall would require some kind of handholds or grips, which depending on DM/terrain might exist, might require some kind of STR or DEX check, or might simply not be large enough to grab at all.”
The DM can do those things, sure. But that there is no explicit limit in the ability against climbing suggests it wasn’t on the creators’ minds because they didn’t design it for a monk to be 40ft vertical before attempting to climb.
”Also, as I was doing research on this, Spider Climb's language works against your language argument above, as well. It reads that a creature "gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces". Meaning "across" is the preposition DND must use when it is referring to horizontal movement along flat surfaces, not "along".”
Wait, if they specified “up/down” for spider climb, then it seems that is necessary to state rather than just across or along.
I’m this close to getting a Twitter account so I can @ Jeremy Crawford and the other designers on this.
“Climbing speed implies that something can stop along the wall at some point. The Unarmored Movement bonus specifically does not do that.”
The climbing rules don’t imply that. It’s just a different form of movement. Unarmored movement says you fall when you stop, and switching to a different kind of movement isn’t stopping.
Have you ever climbed on something where you couldn't pause for a moment to compose yourself? The rules still utilize basic English and common sense. If you couldn't grab onto something and hang there, you wouldn't be able to climb in the first place. And yes, switching to a different kind of movement isn't stopping. But there's nothing in the rules that says switching from walking to climbing takes up any movement (or action, object interaction, etc), so you could reasonably assume it is free, just like dropping prone. So: run up wall 40 ft, switch to climb/"go prone" along side of wall, cling to wall. All allowable via the rules, though a lot of that is DM fiat (I'd say that you'd need to climb at least 5ft to be able to hold onto the wall at the end of your turn, and you'd need both hands free, and depending on surface, probably an Athletics check).
”Additionally, climbing implies required use of the hands (instances where it does not, such as Spider Climb, are specifically noted). Stopping and holding onto a wall would require some kind of handholds or grips, which depending on DM/terrain might exist, might require some kind of STR or DEX check, or might simply not be large enough to grab at all.”
The DM can do those things, sure. But that there is no explicit limit in the ability against climbing suggests it wasn’t on the creators’ minds because they didn’t design it for a monk to be 40ft vertical before attempting to climb.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Refer back to my switching between walking speed and climbing speed points.
”Also, as I was doing research on this, Spider Climb's language works against your language argument above, as well. It reads that a creature "gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces". Meaning "across" is the preposition DND must use when it is referring to horizontal movement along flat surfaces, not "along".”
Wait, if they specified “up/down” for spider climb, then it seems that is necessary to state rather than just across or along.
I’m this close to getting a Twitter account so I can @ Jeremy Crawford and the other designers on this.
Your whole argument has been about the word "along" implying "horizontal". However, per Spider Climb, "across" implies "horizontal". A little bit of inference goes a long way here. If the word choice is so important, then why use two different prepositions here?
To me, this shows that "along" means "in any direction", aka if Spider Climb said "along" then it would mean the exact same thing as its current language. If "along" truly meant "horizontal", then Spider Climb would read "up, down, and along vertical surfaces".
Put another way: Start with the Spider Climb verbiage. Let's try to get it to mean, "only horizontal movement along walls", shall we? Well, it says "up, down, and across vertical surfaces" right now. We don't want the up component, or the down component, so let's take those out. Right? That makes sense. So what are we left with? Hm. "Across vertical surfaces" must then mean horizontal only, and "along vertical surfaces" must therefore imply something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its a common misunderstanding when it comes to monk's level 9 improvement; they cannot run "up" walls, only "along" walls. Occasionally useful, but way less cool.
And there are definitely tactical reasons for melee builds to exist, and even to compete with things like sharpshooter in terms of damage dealing.
I've just been curious about the tactical usefulness of speed to the monk specifically. It seems like a nice bonus, but not really something strong enough to be class defining.
If the target is at least 45 feet away, every class in the game to get in melee needs to use the action to dash (unless they're buffed in some way) except a monk and rogue. Monks will have no trouble getting in range and do a full round of attacks. The more range between the party and enemies, the more mobility becomes important. Monks can move very large distances very quickly. My monk, for example, can move 160 feet in a turn without expending resources (in dim light) or 150 using a ki point.
Ranged characters can negate this to a point. They can't negate full cover though. There are countless situations where an archer couldn't hit something but a hyper mobile monk could. Of course, in a big area with no obstructions, an archer could hit something much further than a monk.
Sharpshooter also negates most forms of cover sans full cover. Even then you can just ready action and still pick em off.
Honestly melee builds mostly exist to be tanky rather than deliver damage. The exception is paladin who is a single target melting machine.
Zealot is another one that does insane damage but will is less tanky. They have a built in ability to be brought back very easy though so they accounted for it.
Overall ranged damage options are generally better as distance is a huge defensive buff. Dex is also much better in the non-combat realm.
It depends on how combat scenes are set up, much like it is for ranged combat really. Combatants tend to try and put themselves at an advantage or their opponents at a disadvantage. Cover, a height advantage, being out of sight, having impassable (or at least difficult to traverse) areas between themselves and their enemies or just plain being out of immediate reach are all things that can have an impact on how a fight goes. What that impact is, if any, depends a lot on the DM though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are some aspects of the Monk design that are incongruous with other martial classes. Upping the hit die and changing the saving throw proficiencies would not make Monks OP and would actually make sense.
Considering that all monks can use shortbows and light crossbows, monks can still hit something further away than most archers. Heavy Crossbows and particularly Longbows change that dynamic and only Kensei can beat that range.
You definitely need a citation for this claim.
The word "along" can mean either "upon" or "across the length of"; neither eliminates vertical movement, as even in the latter case the long side of a wall can be upwards (i.e- a tower). As far as I can find there is no Sage advice that excludes vertical movement, and the rule could easily have used the word horizontal if that was the intention, though it's a rule that's very open to DM interpretation (i.e- a wall seems ideal for being difficult terrain).
Even so, video-gamey wall-running is still hugely useful; if a piece of cover blocks a corridor, you can run along a wall as a route over it, a room with a chasm can be bypassed via a wall etc. There are a bunch of ways to use even a limited interpretation of the feature, and it only further emphasises a Monk's speed advantage by effectively eliminating obstacles you'd otherwise have to use your movement to go around.
How much better ranged combat is will depend heavily on your DM; if they just have enemies stand in the open and get shot, then absolutely ranged will reign supreme, because why risk taking damage when you could… not. But with even light amounts of cover ranged gets quickly more difficult, and if enemies also have ranged attacks then the "defensive buff" of being at a distance disappears, likewise if enemies have skirmishers of some kind. While taking Sharpshooter can counter half and three quarter cover, it does nothing for full cover, which your DM should absolutely employ if a ranged character is dominating on damage.
And Monks can fight at range if they want with a shortbow (or longbow for a Kensei, elf etc.), and with high speed it's easier for them to reposition to get a clear shot. Plus, if you get caught out by an enemy skirmisher it's their funeral.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah I'd agree with this. Range can be countered just like any thing in the game. Monks actually work pretty well as archers due to BA disengage and maintaining range. They suffer due to lack of Archery Fighting Style but thanks to Tasha's they can pick that up as a feat.
Holding your action is another good strategy for cover. You may not do as much damage but you can maintain your best defensive strategy which is distance.
RAW says 9th level monks can move “along vertical surfaces” not “up” them. Along generally means horizontal. I suppose it’s a little vague, and rule of cool favors running up/down walls too. But it also doesn’t mention anything about replacing rules for climbing.
I’ll see if there is any sage advice on it and get back to you.
In order to run along a wall (horizontally) you'd have to be able to move vertically as well. Otherwise you are running along the wall just over the floor. The point of this and running over water is to add that "Remo Williams" sort of flair to the martial artist you are playing. It's a useful thing but it's not going to break the game or come up a lot in combat.
It seems that just RAW, it is saying you run along the wall just above the floor. I can see the logic being that the monk can get around pit traps in a dungeon hallway scenario.
I don't think running vertical would hurt the game, but it just doesn't seem to be what is described in the ability.
I think you are overthinking it. Play as you want, but doing it the way you describe seems very boring and limited to me.
You are reading into the wording too much, I heavily doubt that the ability would be made just so the monk couldn't run up walls. Especially since it clarifies that you will fall if you end your turn on that surface.
Along is an omnidirectional terminology as well. It can mean any direction across that surface. The surface in question being the wall. You run along it because you must use that surface to make the run. The floor has no bearing what so ever on how you traverse that wall.
If people wonder why I say that. I may be remembering wrong but my memory says that the primary definition of Along is actually "moving in a constant direction on" With synonyms like across, further, forward, onward, and through.
Along really implies horizontal movement. Its why they specified "move along vertical surfaces and across liquids." If Along was really omnidirectional, they would have just said "move along vertical surfaces and liquids."
But anyone reading that would say "thats silly, anyone can run along the coast of a lake or the bank of a river."
They would also specify running speed replacing climbing speed, if they were trying to say that the monk ability overrode that. Which can actually be an issue, since if a monk can run up walls, then they can switch to climbing with the last bit of their movement and effectively can cast levitate, a second level spell, for free every turn.
But hey, rule of cool I'd allow it, and dear lord please give the monk anything to make it speed worth while. It just doesn't seem like what was intended RAW.
Playing my Monk, I notice a few things right off that many seem to overlook. The Ranged fanatics are either playing campaigns that are hard written and encounters are as printed and not changing, or have a DM catering to their needs. If the party is half and half (ranged and melee) the encounters match (in the campaigns I've been in and run) There are some occasional ranged attackers, giving the melee fighters a bit of issue and there are melee foes, who will "bum rush" the ranged party members if they start dishing out too much damage. Ranged VS melee only works if your DM wants it to, otherwise the foes WILL counter your plan and often with horrific results. Anyone hiding behind something and spending only arrows for resource in fight after fight is soon going to meet a blinking attacker, who will place their fancy longbow in uncomfortable locations, to make a point. If you want to sit and pew-pew all day, buy an Xbox. In my game, you better have a party ready to deal with ALL types of attacks, or you may end up rerolling a member or 2.
Now for the mobility and how far up a wall can a Monk run, well, if he can run "along" the surface, HOW did he get there? How high up can he go? (because less than about 3 feet would be impossible to run...try running a foot from a wall and see how that goes) The ruling we use, due to nothing saying they CAN'T run up a wall, is that walls are now the same as ground for a Monk to run on, only stopping is different. Also, we can NOT run 44 feet up the wall, then "climb" the last foot, because we cannot transition from running to climbing instantly and as soon as I stop running, gravity kicks in and DOWN I go.
My Monk primarily plays crowd control/damage control in our fights. Pop in, smack the hardest hitter, using a Stunning Strike, to limit the beating he delivers and allow my allies advantage when going for him. Slip out, maybe to another troublesome foe, and another Stunning Strike if needed, or maybe a regular strike and a FoB to knock him flat. All told, I scoot around, dealing a bit of damage and more importantly, disrupting the enemies flow and abilities, to give my own party a better chance. I also stand beside the Fighter and Barbarian sometimes, using my 2 attacks, the BA take a dodge stance, if the enemies are hard hitters. Trying to boost AC and DC (taking 2 WIS next ASI) so my AC allows me to not have to dodge to avoid being hit so much.
To me, the Monk has been one of the most fun classes I've played so far, but a bit of that is likely due to being able to RP a character I made fun out of the gate. Poor naïve Monk, never been out of the Monastery before, is quite awkward and often awed by the things he sees, that his companions take for granted.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Yes, that would be silly to phrase it that way, because as you say literally point out immediately after why they didn't. That doesn't disprove that "along" means up, down, left, right, forward, back, or anything. Example: Run a finger along your leg from hip to ankle. Look at that! It didn't imply horizontal movement.
Climbing speed implies that something can stop along the wall at some point. The Unarmored Movement bonus specifically does not do that. Additionally, climbing implies required use of the hands (instances where it does not, such as Spider Climb, are specifically noted). Stopping and holding onto a wall would require some kind of handholds or grips, which depending on DM/terrain might exist, might require some kind of STR or DEX check, or might simply not be large enough to grab at all.
Also, as I was doing research on this, Spider Climb's language works against your language argument above, as well. It reads that a creature "gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces". Meaning "across" is the preposition DND must use when it is referring to horizontal movement along flat surfaces, not "along".
“Climbing speed implies that something can stop along the wall at some point. The Unarmored Movement bonus specifically does not do that.”
The climbing rules don’t imply that. It’s just a different form of movement. Unarmored movement says you fall when you stop, and switching to a different kind of movement isn’t stopping.
”Additionally, climbing implies required use of the hands (instances where it does not, such as Spider Climb, are specifically noted). Stopping and holding onto a wall would require some kind of handholds or grips, which depending on DM/terrain might exist, might require some kind of STR or DEX check, or might simply not be large enough to grab at all.”
The DM can do those things, sure. But that there is no explicit limit in the ability against climbing suggests it wasn’t on the creators’ minds because they didn’t design it for a monk to be 40ft vertical before attempting to climb.
”Also, as I was doing research on this, Spider Climb's language works against your language argument above, as well. It reads that a creature "gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces". Meaning "across" is the preposition DND must use when it is referring to horizontal movement along flat surfaces, not "along".”
Wait, if they specified “up/down” for spider climb, then it seems that is necessary to state rather than just across or along.
I’m this close to getting a Twitter account so I can @ Jeremy Crawford and the other designers on this.
MM kinda answered it:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/20/can-a-9th-level-monk-end-its-turn-or-movement-on-a-wall/
Have you ever climbed on something where you couldn't pause for a moment to compose yourself? The rules still utilize basic English and common sense. If you couldn't grab onto something and hang there, you wouldn't be able to climb in the first place. And yes, switching to a different kind of movement isn't stopping. But there's nothing in the rules that says switching from walking to climbing takes up any movement (or action, object interaction, etc), so you could reasonably assume it is free, just like dropping prone. So: run up wall 40 ft, switch to climb/"go prone" along side of wall, cling to wall. All allowable via the rules, though a lot of that is DM fiat (I'd say that you'd need to climb at least 5ft to be able to hold onto the wall at the end of your turn, and you'd need both hands free, and depending on surface, probably an Athletics check).
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Refer back to my switching between walking speed and climbing speed points.
Your whole argument has been about the word "along" implying "horizontal". However, per Spider Climb, "across" implies "horizontal". A little bit of inference goes a long way here. If the word choice is so important, then why use two different prepositions here?
To me, this shows that "along" means "in any direction", aka if Spider Climb said "along" then it would mean the exact same thing as its current language. If "along" truly meant "horizontal", then Spider Climb would read "up, down, and along vertical surfaces".
Put another way: Start with the Spider Climb verbiage. Let's try to get it to mean, "only horizontal movement along walls", shall we? Well, it says "up, down, and across vertical surfaces" right now. We don't want the up component, or the down component, so let's take those out. Right? That makes sense. So what are we left with? Hm. "Across vertical surfaces" must then mean horizontal only, and "along vertical surfaces" must therefore imply something else.