I made a build with 3 lvls beast barb, 8 lvls death monk, 1 lvl fighter to drain hp and temp hp while stomping around in half plate and shield (with shield master) and it made my buddy very angry because he says armoring a monk goes completely against the spirit of the class. He is also annoyed that you can stun on a GWM attack. So I figured I'd ask here how people feel about it?
To my way of thinking, the beauty of multiclassing is you get to do things the other classes do, like slap armor on a wizard, and you usually pay a heavy cost for doing it. In this case, unarmed fighting style and shield master pick up a lot of the slack but they are costs that have to be paid. Personally I like martial arts movies where people are whirling giant weapons around and I don't mind at all when they do martial arts in armor in fact I love it. But that's my opinion, and I want to hear other dnd players' feelings on it.
It sounds quite MAD, Unarmed fighting style implies you are attacking with strength and mostoofyor monk features rely on high wis but you also want de ent con and 14 dex for defence (and 13 dex to MC at all).
Also not sure about the details of your build shield master and GWM do not go together the main benefit of GWM requires a heavy weapon and therefore can not be used while wielding a shield. But you also talk about Unarmed fighting style so I do not know if they supplement or replace weapon attacks. (While wearing armor you can not use martial arts for a bonus action attack but can use flurry of blows)
An armored monk can work, though usually this goes the route of Way of the Kensei and using Deft Strike to trigger a Ki-Fueled Attack. The issue with multi-classing Barbarian and Monk is that it is MAD, requiring a 13 in Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom to even do.
Something your friend is probably not registering is that by using armor you are not prioritizing Dexterity and Wisdom the way a traditional Monk would. As a result your saving throw for something like Stunning Strike will not be as high as a traditional Monk.
Also, as Jegpeg points out, there are a few conflicts in the build you describe. Maybe you are talking about multiple different things an armored Monk could do and we are mistaken in interpreting it as a single build. Just to be safe though here are the conflicts in the game mechanics you mention using:
Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, and Unarmed Fighting style all conflict. The primary benefit of GWM only applies to weapons with the Heavy properties, which are all Two-Handed. Shield Master requires that you have a shield donned and while donned you lack the free hands needed to attack with a Two-Handed weapon. Similarly holding a weapon or a shield means you cannot benefit from the d8 Unarmed Strike damage die granted by the Unarmed Fighting Style.
The Natural Weapons granted while Raging as a Path of the Beast Barbarian qualify as Monk weapons because they are considered Simple Weapons. Be aware however, they cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes and lack any weapon properties (such as Heavy).
Finally, I just want to suggest consider replacing your levels in Barbarian with levels in Fighter and going Rune Knight. Giant's Might gets you a lot of the same bonuses as Rage without the restrictions and in a way that scales off of Proficiency Bonus, rather than class level. Having only two Rages per long rest seems like it would be something you would have to be very conservative about using in a given adventuring day.
I guess I should have provided the build... the con is 14 the dex 13, you can have an 18 in str and wis or a 16 in one of them and take shield master or gwm. It's definitely MAD as a hatter, I originally made it to try to find a use for base human. You definitely should have a lot of problems trying to make something this nuts. But I didn't expect the anti monk armor reaction. After some thought, I've concluded the best explanation for him not wanting a monk in armor is it's like how I feel when people want druids to wear metal armor :D But personally I just don't see any conflict between armor and monk powers (well aside from the ton of problems you definitely get and have to work around).
The anti armored monk is probably based on a mix of D&D tradition and that quite a few monk features rely on not having armor. Monks are supposed to be fast with no armor to weight them down but mechanically a monk can wear armor it just slows then down.
In a similar way a lot of people think you can not have a low strength heavy armor build but it is feasible to just accept the movement penalty (depend on what encumbrance rules you are playing, variant makes the build pretty unviable standard will probably have you looking for a bag of holding and ignored makes the build a reasonable option)
I guess I should have provided the build... the con is 14 the dex 13, you can have an 18 in str and wis or a 16 in one of them and take shield master or gwm. It's definitely MAD as a hatter, I originally made it to try to find a use for base human. You definitely should have a lot of problems trying to make something this nuts. But I didn't expect the anti monk armor reaction. After some thought, I've concluded the best explanation for him not wanting a monk in armor is it's like how I feel when people want druids to wear metal armor :D But personally I just don't see any conflict between armor and monk powers (well aside from the ton of problems you definitely get and have to work around).
A lot of it is RPG lore as opposed to just D&D lore. That said, let's take a moment and step outside of the game and consider an analogy.
Let's say you've got a highly skilled Chinese style martial artist. Generally speaking, they focus a lot on the strikes - some will be focused on striking with feet, fists, arms etc. This is a very precise and exacting craft. Put European, or even Japanese Samurai type armour onto a chinese style martial artist and that martial artist will struggle because their body functionally moves differently whilst wearing the armour.
As a side note here, I can't think of any specific chinese style martial arts that utilise armour of any kind...this could be a massive gap in my knowledge, but if true this might be worth considering as I follow this point up.
Now given that - again limited understanding of history here - the idea of qi and such is where RPG systems undoubtley pulled their inspiration for Ki, I would equate the D&D monk to a chinese martial artist. A Shaolin type monk. Focus, discipline, ethics, and no small amount similarity to the teachings seen in The Analects by Confucious. Now there is to this day I understand quite a debate between those who believe that sparring ability (and this combat application) should be the watermark of a skilled martial artist, and those who believe that form and discipline above all should be the watermark. It's a debate that tends to appear when discussing silly hypotheticals like a Scandinacian Wrester vs a Karate Black Belt. Some will point to how little practical application a Chinese martial art would have when faced with a big hulking opponent who is just going to grappled and pin your arms to your sides.
Meanwhile let's look at Kendo which is a very specific martial art that derives from older techniques once used by Japanese fighting elites. Marked by the used of sword (or these days bamboo practice swords) and quite heavy armour. If you're a Shaolin practitioner you're likely starting from a place of higher than average general fitness, but you'd need to learn from basics how to move in the armour. There's also a better than evens chance that you're not going to be able to employ the sheer speed you could whilst not wearing armour. As an example here, I trained in old English Longbow techniques and as a scrawny kid managed to out draw pound for pound a professional archer in sheer pounds. It's mainly a technique thing that requires lots of core strength to draw the bow across your entire body...said professional utilised modern bows and didn't have the techique required to draw the same weight. I can tell you from experience that if I were to don armour that was too heavy I'm not going to be able to draw that bow in the same way meaning either less power or no armour is my choice.
Returning then to fantasy - can and should D&D Monks be able to use armour?
Personally, and having worn even a padded gambeson - I would say no. Even a gambeson which is a padded jacket usually worn underneath armour proper, but could provide minimal protect from slashing cuts. Even a basic leather or hide armour you've got the problem of flexibility meaning vulnerability. If you harden leather it can really withstand some penetration. If you don't however, it'll provde less protection but it still has less flexibility than wearing no armour. This is of course all before we get to the weight of the armour. Consider you're talking about adding an additional 5kg/10lbs to what you're wearing. That's adding around 5x the weight of the average person's daily clothing.
I think there's some fairly grounded and common sense reasons for saying that no a monk shouldn't be armoured.
Beyond that though there is also the balance issue. The assumption here is that a monk is a little glass cannon-y. They can pump out a lot of damage relatively quickly, but they aren't going to be able to take a lot of hits themselves. And if a bump to AC is all that's being request there are rings of protection and other such magic items a DM can drop. My personal feeling is that it's a player trying to have their cake and eat it too.
All of that said - if it works for your table and fellow players and DM are cool with it, then nothing random internet commentators say matters.
Excellent points. I guess to a lot of people a monk is only the things they've seen in a Bruce Lee movie. But: "Meanwhile let's look at Kendo which is a very specific martial art that derives from older techniques once used by Japanese fighting elites. Marked by the used of sword (or these days bamboo practice swords) and quite heavy armour."
You, my friend, are in for a treat: look up Sōhei in wikipedia and you will find literal armies of samurai who had retired to buddhist monasteries to deal with their ptsd and became the guards. And they were so good at beating up samurai while doing it that they eventually surrounded the capital with toll charging monasteries and the imperial court had to move from Kyoto to Tokyo to get away from them. Because they were armored knights FIRST, then learned unarmed martial arts second. Imagine for a second the crazy jumping around stunts you've seen people who know how to wear full armor pull off. Now imagine full samurai armor on a monk who jumps off a 10 ft wall, kills 5 armored samurai with his naginata (halberd), then climbs BACK UP the wall to yell at them some more, because according to the soldiers it happened. Incidentally, jujitsu was developed by samurai for use primarily in armor against other armored samurai when they had somehow lost their horse, bow, spear, and sword on the battlefield but not died yet. After careful research they concluded the smart move was to break an enemy's sword arm, throw him onto his head using that arm, then take the sword :) Spears and horses come after.
Even the famous shaolin get in on this action a little bit: a real shaolin dojo has every conceivable medieval weapon on it's walls. They practice with them all. The idea is that the humble monk can now walk naked into a bar full of heavily armed baddies, knock one out and take their weapon, then kill everybody else in the room. A trick that somehow never stops working, for example triads don't usually carry guns but they love standing near americans :D
Excellent points. I guess to a lot of people a monk is only the things they've seen in a Bruce Lee movie. But: "Meanwhile let's look at Kendo which is a very specific martial art that derives from older techniques once used by Japanese fighting elites. Marked by the used of sword (or these days bamboo practice swords) and quite heavy armour."
You, my friend, are in for a treat: look up Sōhei in wikipedia and you will find literal armies of samurai who had retired to buddhist monasteries to deal with their ptsd and became the guards. And they were so good at beating up samurai while doing it that they eventually surrounded the capital with toll charging monasteries and the imperial court had to move from Kyoto to Tokyo to get away from them. Because they were armored knights FIRST, then learned unarmed martial arts second. Imagine for a second the crazy jumping around stunts you've seen people who know how to wear full armor pull off. Now imagine full samurai armor on a monk who jumps off a 10 ft wall, kills 5 armored samurai with his naginata (halberd), then climbs BACK UP the wall to yell at them some more, because according to the soldiers it happened. Incidentally, jujitsu was developed by samurai for use primarily in armor against other armored samurai when they had somehow lost their horse, bow, spear, and sword on the battlefield but not died yet. After careful research they concluded the smart move was to break an enemy's sword arm, throw him onto his head using that arm, then take the sword :) Spears and horses come after.
Even the famous shaolin get in on this action a little bit: a real shaolin dojo has every conceivable medieval weapon on it's walls. They practice with them all. The idea is that the humble monk can now walk naked into a bar full of heavily armed baddies, knock one out and take their weapon, then kill everybody else in the room. A trick that somehow never stops working, for example triads don't usually carry guns but they love standing near americans :D
Didn't know about the Sōhei and that's an interesting rabbit hole. However, having fallen down it a little ways...they weren't wearing armour, rather they wore robes which was my point. You're not pulling off a crane kick in heavy, even padded clothing.
And to reference jujitsu if I remember correctly is more kinsiology or the study of movement, utilising an opponent's momentum against them. Further, wasn't jujitsu a development that came in after the banning of swords and blades and the effective end of the Samurai (Edo period)? Again, if true, that's an unarmoured fighter, because there was little call for an armoured, weapon weilding class. Again please recognise that I'd rate my knowledge of Feudal Japan & China as pretty sub-par. I was merely attempting to demonstrate the difficulty in utilising the same moves when wearing armour as opposed to not.
A great reference on this could well be the Mythbusters episode where they tested the idea of 'paper' armour. From memory they ran an obstacle course wearing no armour, traditional armour, and the 'paper' armour. Granted it's a long time ago and it's not legally available to stream and double check my facts in the UK...but from memory there was some significant difference between no armour and any armour in terms of time.
Again though, thanks for the rabbit hole of Sōhei that is thoroughly interesting.
As far as rules, you lose some things wearing armor, but Treantmonk and I think D&D deep dives have good videos exploring what you lose and whether it is worth those losses. Those videos might be worth a watch if you are really interested in what you can do with a monk in armor.
I think the RP issue is pretty meh. The Kensei subclass is thematically based around Samurai, who often wore heavy armor. There are also archetypes of the "temple guard" and Sun Wukong wearing medium-Heavy armor and wielding glaive like weapons.
Given that WotC's own artwork violates their own rules sometimes to give its monks polearms like pikes, I don't think its some hard and fast RP thing.
"rather than wearing heavy armor, they wore heavy robes" I just did a google image search for Sohei and I think I know which images you're talking about... those robes are 'heavy' because they are wearing them over their armor, and if you look at the images where they are wearing armor they're wearing basically the same robes just under the armor. If you plan to wear medium armor all day it's not a bad idea to wear your robes over it to keep the rain and sun off it, similar to how in Europe bringandine starts becoming indistinguishable from royal robes, cause you gotta wear both so you make the armor pretty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I made a build with 3 lvls beast barb, 8 lvls death monk, 1 lvl fighter to drain hp and temp hp while stomping around in half plate and shield (with shield master) and it made my buddy very angry because he says armoring a monk goes completely against the spirit of the class. He is also annoyed that you can stun on a GWM attack. So I figured I'd ask here how people feel about it?
To my way of thinking, the beauty of multiclassing is you get to do things the other classes do, like slap armor on a wizard, and you usually pay a heavy cost for doing it. In this case, unarmed fighting style and shield master pick up a lot of the slack but they are costs that have to be paid. Personally I like martial arts movies where people are whirling giant weapons around and I don't mind at all when they do martial arts in armor in fact I love it. But that's my opinion, and I want to hear other dnd players' feelings on it.
It sounds quite MAD, Unarmed fighting style implies you are attacking with strength and mostoofyor monk features rely on high wis but you also want de ent con and 14 dex for defence (and 13 dex to MC at all).
Also not sure about the details of your build shield master and GWM do not go together the main benefit of GWM requires a heavy weapon and therefore can not be used while wielding a shield. But you also talk about Unarmed fighting style so I do not know if they supplement or replace weapon attacks. (While wearing armor you can not use martial arts for a bonus action attack but can use flurry of blows)
An armored monk can work, though usually this goes the route of Way of the Kensei and using Deft Strike to trigger a Ki-Fueled Attack. The issue with multi-classing Barbarian and Monk is that it is MAD, requiring a 13 in Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom to even do.
Something your friend is probably not registering is that by using armor you are not prioritizing Dexterity and Wisdom the way a traditional Monk would. As a result your saving throw for something like Stunning Strike will not be as high as a traditional Monk.
Also, as Jegpeg points out, there are a few conflicts in the build you describe. Maybe you are talking about multiple different things an armored Monk could do and we are mistaken in interpreting it as a single build. Just to be safe though here are the conflicts in the game mechanics you mention using:
Finally, I just want to suggest consider replacing your levels in Barbarian with levels in Fighter and going Rune Knight. Giant's Might gets you a lot of the same bonuses as Rage without the restrictions and in a way that scales off of Proficiency Bonus, rather than class level. Having only two Rages per long rest seems like it would be something you would have to be very conservative about using in a given adventuring day.
I guess I should have provided the build... the con is 14 the dex 13, you can have an 18 in str and wis or a 16 in one of them and take shield master or gwm. It's definitely MAD as a hatter, I originally made it to try to find a use for base human. You definitely should have a lot of problems trying to make something this nuts. But I didn't expect the anti monk armor reaction. After some thought, I've concluded the best explanation for him not wanting a monk in armor is it's like how I feel when people want druids to wear metal armor :D But personally I just don't see any conflict between armor and monk powers (well aside from the ton of problems you definitely get and have to work around).
The anti armored monk is probably based on a mix of D&D tradition and that quite a few monk features rely on not having armor. Monks are supposed to be fast with no armor to weight them down but mechanically a monk can wear armor it just slows then down.
In a similar way a lot of people think you can not have a low strength heavy armor build but it is feasible to just accept the movement penalty (depend on what encumbrance rules you are playing, variant makes the build pretty unviable standard will probably have you looking for a bag of holding and ignored makes the build a reasonable option)
A lot of it is RPG lore as opposed to just D&D lore. That said, let's take a moment and step outside of the game and consider an analogy.
Let's say you've got a highly skilled Chinese style martial artist. Generally speaking, they focus a lot on the strikes - some will be focused on striking with feet, fists, arms etc. This is a very precise and exacting craft. Put European, or even Japanese Samurai type armour onto a chinese style martial artist and that martial artist will struggle because their body functionally moves differently whilst wearing the armour.
As a side note here, I can't think of any specific chinese style martial arts that utilise armour of any kind...this could be a massive gap in my knowledge, but if true this might be worth considering as I follow this point up.
Now given that - again limited understanding of history here - the idea of qi and such is where RPG systems undoubtley pulled their inspiration for Ki, I would equate the D&D monk to a chinese martial artist. A Shaolin type monk. Focus, discipline, ethics, and no small amount similarity to the teachings seen in The Analects by Confucious. Now there is to this day I understand quite a debate between those who believe that sparring ability (and this combat application) should be the watermark of a skilled martial artist, and those who believe that form and discipline above all should be the watermark. It's a debate that tends to appear when discussing silly hypotheticals like a Scandinacian Wrester vs a Karate Black Belt. Some will point to how little practical application a Chinese martial art would have when faced with a big hulking opponent who is just going to grappled and pin your arms to your sides.
Meanwhile let's look at Kendo which is a very specific martial art that derives from older techniques once used by Japanese fighting elites. Marked by the used of sword (or these days bamboo practice swords) and quite heavy armour. If you're a Shaolin practitioner you're likely starting from a place of higher than average general fitness, but you'd need to learn from basics how to move in the armour. There's also a better than evens chance that you're not going to be able to employ the sheer speed you could whilst not wearing armour. As an example here, I trained in old English Longbow techniques and as a scrawny kid managed to out draw pound for pound a professional archer in sheer pounds. It's mainly a technique thing that requires lots of core strength to draw the bow across your entire body...said professional utilised modern bows and didn't have the techique required to draw the same weight. I can tell you from experience that if I were to don armour that was too heavy I'm not going to be able to draw that bow in the same way meaning either less power or no armour is my choice.
Returning then to fantasy - can and should D&D Monks be able to use armour?
Personally, and having worn even a padded gambeson - I would say no. Even a gambeson which is a padded jacket usually worn underneath armour proper, but could provide minimal protect from slashing cuts. Even a basic leather or hide armour you've got the problem of flexibility meaning vulnerability. If you harden leather it can really withstand some penetration. If you don't however, it'll provde less protection but it still has less flexibility than wearing no armour. This is of course all before we get to the weight of the armour. Consider you're talking about adding an additional 5kg/10lbs to what you're wearing. That's adding around 5x the weight of the average person's daily clothing.
I think there's some fairly grounded and common sense reasons for saying that no a monk shouldn't be armoured.
Beyond that though there is also the balance issue. The assumption here is that a monk is a little glass cannon-y. They can pump out a lot of damage relatively quickly, but they aren't going to be able to take a lot of hits themselves. And if a bump to AC is all that's being request there are rings of protection and other such magic items a DM can drop. My personal feeling is that it's a player trying to have their cake and eat it too.
All of that said - if it works for your table and fellow players and DM are cool with it, then nothing random internet commentators say matters.
My free DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Excellent points. I guess to a lot of people a monk is only the things they've seen in a Bruce Lee movie. But: "Meanwhile let's look at Kendo which is a very specific martial art that derives from older techniques once used by Japanese fighting elites. Marked by the used of sword (or these days bamboo practice swords) and quite heavy armour."
You, my friend, are in for a treat: look up Sōhei in wikipedia and you will find literal armies of samurai who had retired to buddhist monasteries to deal with their ptsd and became the guards. And they were so good at beating up samurai while doing it that they eventually surrounded the capital with toll charging monasteries and the imperial court had to move from Kyoto to Tokyo to get away from them. Because they were armored knights FIRST, then learned unarmed martial arts second. Imagine for a second the crazy jumping around stunts you've seen people who know how to wear full armor pull off. Now imagine full samurai armor on a monk who jumps off a 10 ft wall, kills 5 armored samurai with his naginata (halberd), then climbs BACK UP the wall to yell at them some more, because according to the soldiers it happened. Incidentally, jujitsu was developed by samurai for use primarily in armor against other armored samurai when they had somehow lost their horse, bow, spear, and sword on the battlefield but not died yet. After careful research they concluded the smart move was to break an enemy's sword arm, throw him onto his head using that arm, then take the sword :) Spears and horses come after.
Even the famous shaolin get in on this action a little bit: a real shaolin dojo has every conceivable medieval weapon on it's walls. They practice with them all. The idea is that the humble monk can now walk naked into a bar full of heavily armed baddies, knock one out and take their weapon, then kill everybody else in the room. A trick that somehow never stops working, for example triads don't usually carry guns but they love standing near americans :D
Didn't know about the Sōhei and that's an interesting rabbit hole. However, having fallen down it a little ways...they weren't wearing armour, rather they wore robes which was my point. You're not pulling off a crane kick in heavy, even padded clothing.
And to reference jujitsu if I remember correctly is more kinsiology or the study of movement, utilising an opponent's momentum against them. Further, wasn't jujitsu a development that came in after the banning of swords and blades and the effective end of the Samurai (Edo period)? Again, if true, that's an unarmoured fighter, because there was little call for an armoured, weapon weilding class. Again please recognise that I'd rate my knowledge of Feudal Japan & China as pretty sub-par. I was merely attempting to demonstrate the difficulty in utilising the same moves when wearing armour as opposed to not.
A great reference on this could well be the Mythbusters episode where they tested the idea of 'paper' armour. From memory they ran an obstacle course wearing no armour, traditional armour, and the 'paper' armour. Granted it's a long time ago and it's not legally available to stream and double check my facts in the UK...but from memory there was some significant difference between no armour and any armour in terms of time.
Again though, thanks for the rabbit hole of Sōhei that is thoroughly interesting.
My free DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
As far as rules, you lose some things wearing armor, but Treantmonk and I think D&D deep dives have good videos exploring what you lose and whether it is worth those losses. Those videos might be worth a watch if you are really interested in what you can do with a monk in armor.
Armored monk is fun, and it can work pretty well.
I think the RP issue is pretty meh. The Kensei subclass is thematically based around Samurai, who often wore heavy armor. There are also archetypes of the "temple guard" and Sun Wukong wearing medium-Heavy armor and wielding glaive like weapons.
Given that WotC's own artwork violates their own rules sometimes to give its monks polearms like pikes, I don't think its some hard and fast RP thing.
"rather than wearing heavy armor, they wore heavy robes" I just did a google image search for Sohei and I think I know which images you're talking about... those robes are 'heavy' because they are wearing them over their armor, and if you look at the images where they are wearing armor they're wearing basically the same robes just under the armor. If you plan to wear medium armor all day it's not a bad idea to wear your robes over it to keep the rain and sun off it, similar to how in Europe bringandine starts becoming indistinguishable from royal robes, cause you gotta wear both so you make the armor pretty.