Firstly as a disclaimer, yes I know M.C. Cleric/Monk is generally a terrible idea mechanically but I'll explain my reasoning shortly. I've been tweaking a max level clone of a cleric character I hope to play at some point. The key build points of importance, are Noble/royalty cleric, serving as a spy for the Queen, blah blah all the normal stuff. I got what I wanted from the cleric had to drop lvl 18 telekinetic feat no big deal for 3 levels of monk mostly for flavor i ended up with good to high mental stats 12 dex which is okay imo because it is mostly for character depth.
The question I have is the conflict between clerics armor/shield proficiencies and monks UA defense.
Can someone please explain how to resolve this, I have no idea how this works in theorycrafting terms.
Armor and shields turn off most of the monk's features. Unarmored defense, unarmored movement, martial arts. Only Ki, deflect missiles (maybe), and subclass features can still be used.
I'm not even sure why you want kensei if you are wearing armor. The weapons you make monk weapons can't use DEX (because martial arts is turned off), your unarmed strikes are still 1+str so agile parry is meh (plus you have a shield), so sensei shot is the only feature unaffected for +1d4 range weapon damage.
So basically you get a few bonus action options and if you hit with an unbuffed unarmed strike +2 AC.
Mostly just for the flavor really. I'm not terribly concerned about the mechanics between the two wildly dissimilar classes, I was just looking for some clarification on a potential hang-up. I got what I wanted from the cleric features and the monk is mostly just thematic flavoring for the character's backstory.
Mostly just for the flavor really. I'm not terribly concerned about the mechanics between the two wildly dissimilar classes, I was just looking for some clarification on a potential hang-up. I got what I wanted from the cleric features and the monk is mostly just thematic flavoring for the character's backstory.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
The difference between soldier and warrior is a little confusing. The two words, soldier and warrior, are often confused when it comes to their meanings and connotations. They appear to be words that give the same meaning at the outset. But, strictly speaking, there is some difference between the two words. A soldier is the one who is a militant follower of an organization. On the other hand, a warrior exhibits bravery and courage under the given circumstance. He demonstrates courage towards an organization. This is an important difference between the two words. In other words, a soldier is a fighter by profession, whereas a warrior exhibits great courage when the time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession.
What does Soldier mean?
A solider is a fighter by profession. On the other hand, the word soldier cannot be used in the figurative sense. It is all the more used in a professional sense. A soldier is a paid individual who fights the opponent to protect his king or the country. The family of a soldier is taken care of in case of any casualty to the life of the soldier in the battle. A solider works in an army as he is a paid fighter. A soldier works in an army. Also, not every soldier goes on to battle. There are many parts in an army. Some of the soldiers works in offices and do not go to the battle field at all.
What does Warrior mean?
As mentioned in the introduction, a warrior is a fighter who exhibits great courage when time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession. In other words, a warrior does fight when the occasion comes, but he does not work for money. Warriors are often seen in tribal communities. Japanese Samurais are a good example for warriors. Moreover, a warrior always has something to give for the kingdom or an organization.
Further, a person who exhibits enormous courage in public life and family life is also figuratively called as a warrior. The word has a suggested sense that the person really fought in all the tough situations of life. For example,
Anna was a real warrior after her parents’ tragic death. She took the responsibility of her younger siblings without hesitation.
In the example given above, Anna is known as a warrior. She did not go to a battle field and fight, but she bravely took all the responsibility of looking after her younger siblings after her parents passed away. So, she is known as a warrior.
A warrior can be working with army or away from the army. The warrior has the ability to work from outside of the army as he is not a paid fighter. Most of the time, a warrior works for the betterment of the society, as a whole. Unlike a soldier, a warrior definitely goes to the battlefield.
What is the difference between Solider and Warrior?
• A soldier is the one who is a militant follower of an organization.
• On the other hand, a warrior exhibits bravery and courage under the given circumstance.
• In other words, a soldier is a fighter by profession, whereas a warrior exhibits great courage when the time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession.
• Warrior is used in a figurative sense to indicate a person who exhibits enormous courage in public life and family life.
• Soldier is not used figuratively.
• Warrior works for the betterment of the society as a whole.
• Soldier is paid but a warrior is not.
• A warrior has the freedom to work outside the army as he is not a paid member of the army like a soldier.
• Not every soldier goes to the battle field.
• A warrior definitely goes to the battle field.
• Warriors are mostly seen in tribal communities.
These are the differences between soldier and warrior.
Armor and shields turn off most of the monk's features. Unarmored defense, unarmored movement, martial arts. Only Ki, deflect missiles (maybe), and subclass features can still be used.
I'm not even sure why you want kensei if you are wearing armor. The weapons you make monk weapons can't use DEX (because martial arts is turned off), your unarmed strikes are still 1+str so agile parry is meh (plus you have a shield), so sensei shot is the only feature unaffected for +1d4 range weapon damage.
So basically you get a few bonus action options and if you hit with an unbuffed unarmed strike +2 AC.
You can do better for a 3 level dip.
There was a recent treantmonk video on trying to put a monk into armor. the problem isn't really that some monk features turn off with armor, its that monk just can never keep up with other classes.
Well it won't be any easier to keep up if they willingly nerf most of their class features.
There are a pair of videos on Treantmonk's channel if you're interested; don't complain at me. He goes into some depth on the subject. Yes you lose movement, but unarmored defense and martial arts can be overcome by building for strength and wearing armor. Almost none of the subclass features rely on being unarmored (though a few require martial arts or something along those lines).
I don't think I need to point this out, but dumping mediocre features for better ones (for example unarmored defense for actual armor) is a net positive. Treantmonk's final result was that it is probably a bad idea to build a character this way. But he's always wildly down on monks, so he'd probably say you can't do much better with a dex monk.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to master the self.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
Well it won't be any easier to keep up if they willingly nerf most of their class features.
Which means that this cleric/monk is best played by not wearing armour or using shields.
This, in my case, is certainly doable. Despite being a Knowledge Cleric, my particular spells prepared and various other features I deliberately heavy-handed the buffing and healing spells and threw in a fair amount of debuff/dmg/control on top. Thematically, she is MANY things including a healer, but mechanically, in order to not deviate into a useless cleric build, I stuck to the classic build concepts.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to MASTER THE SELF.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to MASTER THE SELF.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
Precisely :)
So... More of a fitness (physical/mental either or) person than a warrior?
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to MASTER THE SELF.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
Precisely :)
So... More of a fitness (physical/mental either or) person than a warrior?
I suppose from a certain perspective yeah kinda. She is Kalashtar (psionic).
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to MASTER THE SELF.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
Precisely :)
Just pointing out that you could still do that with a reflagored fighter. Remember, Samurai is a Fighter subclass for a reason, and they are also a “master the self” stereotype in D&D.
Lol, I'm getting the sense that people REALLLLLLLY hate monks... 🤔
Edit: I've never actually played 5e or 4e and barely, if at all, 3.5, long story, christian "satanic panic" parents, physical/emotional abuse and trauma, fun, delicious dark ages of my childhood, etc. so I'm sorely out of the loop admittedly.
Lol, I'm getting the sense that people REALLLLLLLY hate monks... 🤔
Not at all. And I wasn’t trying to dissuade you from your going Monk, just pointing out that Fighters can also be played the way you have expressed so far. Heck, you could even take the Unarmed Fighting Style and layeth the smacketh down with hare mitts if you wanted to. There’s more than one way to play a Fighter, including the “master of self” if you want. That’s all I was trying to express. Heck, you can’t tell me that knight at the end of the last crusade wasn’t pretty flippin monastic for a fighter.
Firstly as a disclaimer, yes I know M.C. Cleric/Monk is generally a terrible idea mechanically but I'll explain my reasoning shortly. I've been tweaking a max level clone of a cleric character I hope to play at some point. The key build points of importance, are Noble/royalty cleric, serving as a spy for the Queen, blah blah all the normal stuff. I got what I wanted from the cleric had to drop lvl 18 telekinetic feat no big deal for 3 levels of monk mostly for flavor i ended up with good to high mental stats 12 dex which is okay imo because it is mostly for character depth.
The question I have is the conflict between clerics armor/shield proficiencies and monks UA defense.
Can someone please explain how to resolve this, I have no idea how this works in theorycrafting terms.
You can use one armor calculation or the other.
Either armor+shield+ dex (if appropriate) or dex+wis.
👍
Armor and shields turn off most of the monk's features. Unarmored defense, unarmored movement, martial arts. Only Ki, deflect missiles (maybe), and subclass features can still be used.
I'm not even sure why you want kensei if you are wearing armor. The weapons you make monk weapons can't use DEX (because martial arts is turned off), your unarmed strikes are still 1+str so agile parry is meh (plus you have a shield), so sensei shot is the only feature unaffected for +1d4 range weapon damage.
So basically you get a few bonus action options and if you hit with an unbuffed unarmed strike +2 AC.
You can do better for a 3 level dip.
Mostly just for the flavor really. I'm not terribly concerned about the mechanics between the two wildly dissimilar classes, I was just looking for some clarification on a potential hang-up. I got what I wanted from the cleric features and the monk is mostly just thematic flavoring for the character's backstory.
You could probably just reflavor fighter then.
I could do that but the problem I see with it is Fighter is just kinda bleh, more of a generic soldier archetype. She comes from an island of warriors and a cleric/martial artist archetype is what I'm after.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-solider-and-vs-warrior/#:~:text=•-,A soldier is the one who,militant follower of an organization.&text=•-,On the other hand, a warrior exhibits bravery,courage under the given circumstance.&text=•-,In other words, a soldier is a fighter by profession,not a fighter by profession.
Solider vs Warrior
The difference between soldier and warrior is a little confusing. The two words, soldier and warrior, are often confused when it comes to their meanings and connotations. They appear to be words that give the same meaning at the outset. But, strictly speaking, there is some difference between the two words. A soldier is the one who is a militant follower of an organization. On the other hand, a warrior exhibits bravery and courage under the given circumstance. He demonstrates courage towards an organization. This is an important difference between the two words. In other words, a soldier is a fighter by profession, whereas a warrior exhibits great courage when the time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession.
What does Soldier mean?
A solider is a fighter by profession. On the other hand, the word soldier cannot be used in the figurative sense. It is all the more used in a professional sense. A soldier is a paid individual who fights the opponent to protect his king or the country. The family of a soldier is taken care of in case of any casualty to the life of the soldier in the battle. A solider works in an army as he is a paid fighter. A soldier works in an army. Also, not every soldier goes on to battle. There are many parts in an army. Some of the soldiers works in offices and do not go to the battle field at all.
What does Warrior mean?
As mentioned in the introduction, a warrior is a fighter who exhibits great courage when time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession. In other words, a warrior does fight when the occasion comes, but he does not work for money. Warriors are often seen in tribal communities. Japanese Samurais are a good example for warriors. Moreover, a warrior always has something to give for the kingdom or an organization.
Further, a person who exhibits enormous courage in public life and family life is also figuratively called as a warrior. The word has a suggested sense that the person really fought in all the tough situations of life. For example,
Anna was a real warrior after her parents’ tragic death. She took the responsibility of her younger siblings without hesitation.
In the example given above, Anna is known as a warrior. She did not go to a battle field and fight, but she bravely took all the responsibility of looking after her younger siblings after her parents passed away. So, she is known as a warrior.
A warrior can be working with army or away from the army. The warrior has the ability to work from outside of the army as he is not a paid fighter. Most of the time, a warrior works for the betterment of the society, as a whole. Unlike a soldier, a warrior definitely goes to the battlefield.
What is the difference between Solider and Warrior?
• A soldier is the one who is a militant follower of an organization.
• On the other hand, a warrior exhibits bravery and courage under the given circumstance.
• In other words, a soldier is a fighter by profession, whereas a warrior exhibits great courage when the time comes, though he is not a fighter by profession.
• Warrior is used in a figurative sense to indicate a person who exhibits enormous courage in public life and family life.
• Soldier is not used figuratively.
• Warrior works for the betterment of the society as a whole.
• Soldier is paid but a warrior is not.
• A warrior has the freedom to work outside the army as he is not a paid member of the army like a soldier.
• Not every soldier goes to the battle field.
• A warrior definitely goes to the battle field.
• Warriors are mostly seen in tribal communities.
These are the differences between soldier and warrior.
There was a recent treantmonk video on trying to put a monk into armor. the problem isn't really that some monk features turn off with armor, its that monk just can never keep up with other classes.
Well it won't be any easier to keep up if they willingly nerf most of their class features.
There are a pair of videos on Treantmonk's channel if you're interested; don't complain at me. He goes into some depth on the subject. Yes you lose movement, but unarmored defense and martial arts can be overcome by building for strength and wearing armor. Almost none of the subclass features rely on being unarmored (though a few require martial arts or something along those lines).
I don't think I need to point this out, but dumping mediocre features for better ones (for example unarmored defense for actual armor) is a net positive. Treantmonk's final result was that it is probably a bad idea to build a character this way. But he's always wildly down on monks, so he'd probably say you can't do much better with a dex monk.
Which means that this cleric/monk is best played by not wearing armour or using shields.
I mean... Fighter has literally been called warrior in older editions. They are practically synonymous.
It is the "make weapons hurt harder" class trained to master combat. Monks are the "literally a kung fu/ninja stereotype" class trained to master the self.
The difference between a soldier and a warrior is not the same as a fighter and a monk, it is the difference between almost any class with a soldier background and a fighter with any non-soldier background.
For example, be a battle master and treat your maneuvers as different techniques of a sword martial art.
This, in my case, is certainly doable. Despite being a Knowledge Cleric, my particular spells prepared and various other features I deliberately heavy-handed the buffing and healing spells and threw in a fair amount of debuff/dmg/control on top. Thematically, she is MANY things including a healer, but mechanically, in order to not deviate into a useless cleric build, I stuck to the classic build concepts.
Precisely :)
So... More of a fitness (physical/mental either or) person than a warrior?
I suppose from a certain perspective yeah kinda. She is Kalashtar (psionic).
Just pointing out that you could still do that with a reflagored fighter. Remember, Samurai is a Fighter subclass for a reason, and they are also a “master the self” stereotype in D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lol, I'm getting the sense that people REALLLLLLLY hate monks... 🤔
Edit: I've never actually played 5e or 4e and barely, if at all, 3.5, long story, christian "satanic panic" parents, physical/emotional abuse and trauma, fun, delicious dark ages of my childhood, etc. so I'm sorely out of the loop admittedly.
Not at all. And I wasn’t trying to dissuade you from your going Monk, just pointing out that Fighters can also be played the way you have expressed so far. Heck, you could even take the Unarmed Fighting Style and layeth the smacketh down with hare mitts if you wanted to. There’s more than one way to play a Fighter, including the “master of self” if you want. That’s all I was trying to express. Heck, you can’t tell me that knight at the end of the last crusade wasn’t pretty flippin monastic for a fighter.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting