can we be a little charitable on the AC thing? you know it's a matter of appearance and first blush, not metagamed peeking at the AC of targets. players aren't going to waste arrows immediately upon a suit of armor when there's someone equally mean standing by with an "arrow sponge" sign hung round their neck. and neither would a bunch of goblins or kobolds or bandits.
in fact, maybe it'd be helpful to see this from the other side. what is (or should be) frustrating about fighting an evil monk? i imagine they're probably knocking multiple arrows out of the air, uncannily dodging explosions, and batting away feeble melee attacks to stay just out of harm's reach. should player monks be anything like bbeg monks?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
A Barbarian having a high AC is failing at being a Barbarian. Barbarians are designed to get hit, they want enemies to attack them rather than their team mates, having a high AC discourages enemies from attacking you preventing you from doing what your class is designed to do.
The class isn't designed to be a tank unless you take features (such as ancestral guardian or sentinel feat) that make you a tank, and if you do so they're incentivized to attack you whether or not you have a high AC.
Maybe if you’re dm meta games but that is a separate issue.
I would argue that the problem is no one really knows what the Monk's job is.
"unarmed fighting" isn't a job, it is a description of how a job iis done. "high damage" isn't a job, but how it is done.
So, what is the Monk's Job? What is it they bring to the world as a whole, and how do they fit into it?
This is an important question, I think this is something to think about, to define the role of the monk in the group one should start with the character design itself and why it has these characteristics, then more of its own psychologiocal aspect.
What is the role of the monk in an adventure. This is part of the character's story and I think there is limited freedom of interpretation, but still very broad. A monk in principle is a warrior who does not fight for personal profit, but to achieve a better understanding of himself and the multiverse. So it fights to test itself and to attain a higher mental and physical stage. A monk might see a conflict as something that disturbs the natural balance or as something passing like a season and remain completely detached. The monk has decided to use weapons as little as possible because it sees in them something that disturbs the balance, and so it uses its body to defend itself. Another reason is that it perceives weapons as something that is not part of its body and therefore not something to be cultivated, only its body and mind are aspects that can be improved. There could be a thousand reasons why a monk is a monk.
The job of a monk could be anything. To challenge himself, to understand and seek the balance of the multiverse and himself, to find enlightenment, to go with the flow because it knows that there is a destiny waiting for him and is looking forward to discovering it.
It could be said that the monk is the warrior who fights not for everyday bread but for personal life philosophy.
Why can the monk run so fast? Perhaps he prefers to avoid confrontation unless necessary. As they said in the KobraKai series, The best defense is not to attack, but not to be in front of the enemy when it wants to attack you.
But it could also be part of its way of overcoming its limitations so to better understand itself and thus the multiverse around it.
The UA Druid gives you light armor and shield, with a level 1 feature allowing them to take medium armor, with no restrictions.
A Druid can start the game with 18AC. Very handy given it transfers to their wildshape.
Hail of Thorns is on the Primal spell list, so is available to Druids until they go back to separate spell lists as Jeremy said in the latest video.
Wildshaping into a particular beast only requires the DM to agree that at some point you've seen that beast.
READ THE RULES
Per the UA, the druid class is only given 50 gp for its starting equipment. If they can honestly afford scale mail and a shield, plus whatever else they need to do their jobs, I'd be impressed.
READ THE RULES
P.S.
They're also eliminating the Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists. Class spell lists are coming back, and we don't know if the final version of the class will have restrictions or no. So, don't go counting your axe beaks before they hatch.
You get 100gp including your background funds.
Casters in general don't need a lot of equipment, so buying armor and shield is possible.
A Barbarian having a high AC is failing at being a Barbarian. Barbarians are designed to get hit, they want enemies to attack them rather than their team mates, having a high AC discourages enemies from attacking you preventing you from doing what your class is designed to do.
I've never understood what people mean by this. Why should a high AC be any more discouraging for enemies than high HP and resistance to damage? They're all just different ways of being more survivable.
Because AC is generally visible to the enemies whereas HP and resistances are not - they should have to hit you at least once to notice your resistances and they should have no idea about your HP - so your DM is metagaming in a bad way if they play the enemies as ignoring the bare-chested brute who just did 40 damage to them to go after the knight in head-to-toe magic armour.
Barbarians don't have to be in head-to-toe magic armor to have decent AC, though.
The thing you might not be realizing is that HP and AC are both abstractions of pretty much the same thing. Just as a hit and subsequent reduction in HP might not actually represent being hit, but rather a close swing reducing your luck/endurance/mental state, a miss doesn't necessarily represent hitting a strong part of the armor or missing entirely. Especially with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, a miss can be a swing that makes full contact, but can be resisted or pushed off.
Although to me AC and hit points rapresent two totally different things. It could also be a free interpretation, the important thing is that the result does not change. To me AC is the ability to dodge parry without taking damage, while hit points is the ability to take physical damage. The more physically developed a person is, the more he or she will have the ability to resist an opponent's damage. So on the one hand there is no damage and on the other hand there is damage.
So how come Barbarians have Unarmored Defense that scales off of Con? Is their skin so thick that they can... dodge things really well?
Do you want my interpretation? Barbarians have such dense muscles that they have become a natural armor that protects them. However, this does not make hit points and AC one and the same. They simply have hard skin, like dragon scales it is basically a natural armor. So the term is the same, dodge or parry (DEX+CON). This is my interpretation, as explained before, DnD offers some freedom of interpretation, as long as the rules are followed.
That's kinda what I'm saying, though. The claim was that AC is immediately visible while resistances and HP are not, but I don't see why having dense muscles that let you deflect attacks would be so much more visible than, say, those same muscles being able to reduce the damage of even the most effective blows when you're real angry, or those same muscles being able to withstand many direct strikes.
Because the term "reduce damage" implies that there was damage and therefore the attack was successful. But I understand what you mean. As I said you are free to interpret natural armor as you wish, the important thing is that it follows the rules. At the end of the day it is a theatrical game, and these elements we are talking about are meant to have some interesting interpretation cues that can help in the description of the combat and thus make the game more interesting.
As a DM I find it important to explain the unfolding of combat with interesting and entertaining details, showcasing the feats of the various characters.
The barbarian for example is a character who is confident and perhaps even arrogant, but above all proud of his body. If he receives an attack that almost exceeded its AC, it could be interpreted that the attack hit its body, but it hit a part of its body that has so many scars that it created a like a layer of ultra-strong skin and the weapon could not cut or penetrate that part of the barbarian's skin. The barbarian proud of its body and scars, mocks the enemy and thus decides to counterattack....
This is just one of many possible interpretations of the barbarian.
A Barbarian having a high AC is failing at being a Barbarian. Barbarians are designed to get hit, they want enemies to attack them rather than their team mates, having a high AC discourages enemies from attacking you preventing you from doing what your class is designed to do.
I've never understood what people mean by this. Why should a high AC be any more discouraging for enemies than high HP and resistance to damage? They're all just different ways of being more survivable.
Because AC is generally visible to the enemies whereas HP and resistances are not - they should have to hit you at least once to notice your resistances and they should have no idea about your HP - so your DM is metagaming in a bad way if they play the enemies as ignoring the bare-chested brute who just did 40 damage to them to go after the knight in head-to-toe magic armour.
Barbarians don't have to be in head-to-toe magic armor to have decent AC, though.
The thing you might not be realizing is that HP and AC are both abstractions of pretty much the same thing. Just as a hit and subsequent reduction in HP might not actually represent being hit, but rather a close swing reducing your luck/endurance/mental state, a miss doesn't necessarily represent hitting a strong part of the armor or missing entirely. Especially with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, a miss can be a swing that makes full contact, but can be resisted or pushed off.
Although to me AC and hit points rapresent two totally different things. It could also be a free interpretation, the important thing is that the result does not change. To me AC is the ability to dodge parry without taking damage, while hit points is the ability to take physical damage. The more physically developed a person is, the more he or she will have the ability to resist an opponent's damage. So on the one hand there is no damage and on the other hand there is damage.
So how come Barbarians have Unarmored Defense that scales off of Con? Is their skin so thick that they can... dodge things really well?
Do you want my interpretation? Barbarians have such dense muscles that they have become a natural armor that protects them. However, this does not make hit points and AC one and the same. They simply have hard skin, like dragon scales it is basically a natural armor. So the term is the same, dodge or parry (DEX+CON). This is my interpretation, as explained before, DnD offers some freedom of interpretation, as long as the rules are followed.
That's kinda what I'm saying, though. The claim was that AC is immediately visible while resistances and HP are not, but I don't see why having dense muscles that let you deflect attacks would be so much more visible than, say, those same muscles being able to reduce the damage of even the most effective blows when you're real angry, or those same muscles being able to withstand many direct strikes.
Because the term "reduce damage" implies that there was damage and therefore the attack was successful.
Yes, that's what I was implying. I was talking about Rage. The claim was that AC is significantly more visible than HP or resistances. I was saying that such a claim doesn't always make much sense. And anyways, heavily armored or not, pretty much 0 enemies will think that they've got a better shot of reducing damage by trying to scratch the big beefy guy with abs for days than the feeble mage who's actively blowing them up or the skinny archer filling them with arrows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sorry, but how is it at all a challenge then? It is so simple to cripple melee-only opponents that any strategic party won't be challenged by them by tier 2. I mean just buy some horses, a free disengage + 60 ft move speed every round means you can strafe pretty much every melee-only enemy in the book.
So a couple things with this.
There are PLENTY of enemies in DnD that have options other than melee, but are not Casters/Archers/Rogues. Many function Eldritch Knights or have funky abilities that Monks can't necessarily deal with easily. Especially not before 14th level.
Monsters are all about how you use them. All melee enemies can be just as deadly as casters/archers when used correctly.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
Your being dramatic. There are VERY few people on this forum who would applaud if Monk was turned into a Fighter subclass. People are just really upset that none of a classes major design issues have been addressed. One could argue that the changes actually made them worse, not better.
Sorry, but how is it at all a challenge then? It is so simple to cripple melee-only opponents that any strategic party won't be challenged by them by tier 2.
That's a generic D&D problem, not a monk problem -- if you're in open terrain, melee is pretty useless. Then again, the game is Dungeons and Dragons (still, nerfing the hell out of weapon and spell ranges would probably be a good thing).
Sorry, but how is it at all a challenge then? It is so simple to cripple melee-only opponents that any strategic party won't be challenged by them by tier 2. I mean just buy some horses, a free disengage + 60 ft move speed every round means you can strafe pretty much every melee-only enemy in the book.
you literally claim they have no means of doing ok damage.
That's not what I claimed. I claimed druids are much better at doing things other than melee damage, so why would some one build/play them that way? Sure anyone can play any class however they want, but classes are designed to be good at different things with different playstyle because this is a cooperative game and characters are designed to complement each other such that a party of different characters / classes is more than the sum of it's parts. A druid spending all their limited resources can be a mediocre melee fighter, which is selling themselves terribly short since they could instead be a good battlefield controller and a good healer at the same time instead.
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
Yes they are both warriors . Both should be able to do their job in their own way and be competitive. Having many attacks was monk thing the fighter was able to pilfer but your curiously quiet on that.
So about a day and a half before the next UA. There has been a lot of discussion. If anyone is interested, would someone like to share what they think will be in the next release since the surveys were likely even more... spirited than this thread?
So about a day and a half before the next UA. There has been a lot of discussion. If anyone is interested, would someone like to share what they think will be in the next release since the surveys were likely even more... spirited than this thread?
Knowing WotC, the monk will always remain one of the classes least loved by their creators. I'm sure it won't be what I've come to expect, but the important thing is that for me it will be functional and the problems that were initially waxing and waning have been solved and not simply a weird hodgepodge of what's written around the web of what some random player wants. So, yes I expect something totally different from what was presented in playtest6. Heck, maybe the monk won't be there yet in this playtest maybe it will only be in the next one, but given the flop they have made with this class, they should try a little harder.
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
That is sad.
The most vocal crowd is often well aware that they're a vocal minority.
Most people who play and enjoy Monks probably aren't filling in the survey. Meanwhile, people who complain about the Monk not fitting their fantasy or expectations will be much more vocal in response. Heck, you had prominent YouTubers straight-up tell their audience to copy-and-paste their own opinions into the survey responses, just because Martial Arts doesn't cap at 3d6 or whatever like they want.
The design-by-committee approach to OneD&D certainly isn't a good idea, but I'm sure the creators are smart enough to know the difference between reasonable opinions and unreasonable expectations.
You make a lot of assumptions. We know you are status quo. That doesn’t mean you have the majority opinion. Also why try to speak for the creators? They can speak for Themselves. Once again your argument “monk is fine” you have a right to your opinion . But we also have a right to ours.
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
That is sad.
The most vocal crowd is often well aware that they're a vocal minority.
Most people who play and enjoy Monks probably aren't filling in the survey. Meanwhile, people who complain about the Monk not fitting their fantasy or expectations will be much more vocal in response. Heck, you had prominent YouTubers straight-up tell their audience to copy-and-paste their own opinions into the survey responses, just because Martial Arts doesn't cap at 3d6 or whatever like they want.
The design-by-committee approach to OneD&D certainly isn't a good idea, but I'm sure the creators are smart enough to know the difference between reasonable opinions and unreasonable expectations.
We're well aware that the Monk has a pre-UA survey result score down around the Ranger class though we don't have exact numbers (per the D&D Rules Revision panel at GenCon). This would indicate that at most only about 30% of responders were satisfied with the Monk in the 2014 PHB.
Also, the reason those content creators are offering to let players "copy their notes" is because of 2 reasons:
1: These surveys are getting ridiculously long with 50+ pages of material each
2: They can show actual mathematical results as a result of these mechanical changes, which viewers can independently confirm for themselves
Tomorrow morning we will see the UA 7 announcement and the new material will likely be available on Friday. I have yet to see a full throated endorsement of the core Monk class from UA6 from any high profile D&D commentors except for XP to Level 3, and his chat was actively disagreeing with him and showing their math for the entirety of that livestream. It seems that there is a large portion of the community here and elsewhere that feels Monks need serious revision. And while I don't expect them to borrow every change whole cloth, the overwhelmingly positive response to Monks in Baldur's Gate 3 is likely going to inform a lot of discussion going forward because now there is a demonstrable example of how the class can be improved compared to the 2014 PHB, created by actual game designers specifically trying to keep it balanced with other class options during a specific level range. By comparison, UA6 was positively timid in how it tried to "improve" the Monk experience.
Sorry, but how is it at all a challenge then? It is so simple to cripple melee-only opponents that any strategic party won't be challenged by them by tier 2. I mean just buy some horses, a free disengage + 60 ft move speed every round means you can strafe pretty much every melee-only enemy in the book.
you literally claim they have no means of doing ok damage.
That's not what I claimed. I claimed druids are much better at doing things other than melee damage, so why would some one build/play them that way? Sure anyone can play any class however they want, but classes are designed to be good at different things with different playstyle because this is a cooperative game and characters are designed to complement each other such that a party of different characters / classes is more than the sum of it's parts. A druid spending all their limited resources can be a mediocre melee fighter, which is selling themselves terribly short since they could instead be a good battlefield controller and a good healer at the same time instead.
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
I wasn't saying a circle of land druid is going to melee for his whole life, but at level 1-2, when you claim, and are right, that they don't have a lot of spells, and not many super useful, there is no reason they won't use weapons, and if you choose warden, to have access to martial weapons, might as well use it.
And even beyond it, if its part of the player's character concept, and its effective, they should do it.
there tons of ways to increase challenge, and there are a bunch of interesting fights that don't have archers or casters. (BTW, many characters have range, they are just even more dangerous in melee) There are also monsters and enemies with magical abilities that aren't particularly easily eliminated, or vulnerable. I assume this isnt the 'caster' you are referring to. This guy for example;
The amount of fights that conveniently have paper long range guys, that you saw ahead of time, and can be eliminated in melee via 10-20 extra movement is pretty low.
What monk can usually do, is be the first to melee guys who are also trying to get close, and move from enemy to enemy more quickly than other melee. The purpose of monk's speed imo, is to engage, and be difficult to escape.
will probably seek to attack from the shadows, and cover, helping henchmen and thugs, if left alone, is a major problem. The monk probably needs to run up to this guy and try to shut him down ASAP. lets say he is 45 movement away, behind cover relative to party position
problem is, this guy is even more deadly in melee than from range. his average shortsword hit can do 20 dmg on save, and 31 damage if you fail, (funnily, old monk might have been immune to poison, but UA monk..)
Multiattack can literally one shot the Monk. if he got sneak some how, even more. Monk has 51-59 HP if they are the same CR as this guy. Even with a higher CR, this guy is deadly.
so what the monks options here.
1)gain line of sight, take pot shots with a shortbow for 2 hits, an average of 10.5 damage, attempt a stun use dodge(poor damage, good if stun lands, poor control, within assasins melee range next turn, no real control)
2)get close, use dodge attempt stun, 11.9dmg (enemy has to Deal with AOO, better eyes on target)
3)get close FOB attempt stun. 23.8 dmg (enemy has to deal with Aoo, better eyes, better damage, totally open to attack, might go down)
4)try to fight weak thugs, but your dps isn't actually good, and, they probably need to kill the assassin ASAP, over the trash.
barbarian instead in has 40 movement and a reach weapon. can also reach the guy. ignoring sub, looking at 33 damage WO reckless with graze, and 37 dmg if they go for reckless with topple or push.(or DW+PAm for 38) However, the chance of one shot is very slim, with 85 hp, and the physical part of attack halved
notice, step of wind to escape melee serves little real purpose, because instead of going in and out, you may as well ranged. Dodge also little purpose, you may as well have used ranged. In fact both of these are more effective(at reducing damage) if you use range. Also, your damage is trash(if you use step or dodge), its competing with toll of the dead/bolt, and will be worse than at 11.
there is an illusion of escape, realistically you aren't getting far enough from an enemy that they cant catch you until super late game, unless you step and do no damage. (may as well have used ranged). They might provoke Aoo, if you have teammate, and if hitting you requires moving out of their range.
realistically, the monk just accepts that they will probably go down, and their damage is probably subpar, and hopefully they will stun someone, hopefully the enemy doesnt realize, you are probably the squishiest target they can reach, and fears the AoO of your teamate.
step and dodge are basically bad for melee. The design doesnt work well. Your sub job can mitigate this, but none really make you actually good. the best are probably shadow(when not useless) and mercy, but mostly because they add utility while increasing survivability. You are still not good at fighting, but you can survive, and help the team if you are smart.
And even if monk is currently designed for this hyper specific usecase, that doesnt answer the question of, should it be? is this what the players want when they play monk? We'll see in the playtest, but most people i have seen giving feedback are not satisfied with the 5e monk, and the UA6 monk. If that ends up being accurate in survey, then they should probably alter the design.
Based on the feedback in the forums Monk should be made into a Fighter subclass because that is the playstyle people want for it.
That is sad.
The most vocal crowd is often well aware that they're a vocal minority.
Most people who play and enjoy Monks probably aren't filling in the survey. Meanwhile, people who complain about the Monk not fitting their fantasy or expectations will be much more vocal in response. Heck, you had prominent YouTubers straight-up tell their audience to copy-and-paste their own opinions into the survey responses, just because Martial Arts doesn't cap at 3d6 or whatever like they want.
The design-by-committee approach to OneD&D certainly isn't a good idea, but I'm sure the creators are smart enough to know the difference between reasonable opinions and unreasonable expectations.
you know what more innacurate than a survey with more responses than they ever had?
someone who makes statements ignoring all evidence, including surveys, anecdotes, critics, social media and mathematics.
sure its theoretically possible everything is fine, but there is no reason to think that based on anything real.
With access to a level 1 dip, or the Lightly Armored feat, every class in the game is capable of starting with scale mail and shield (or better) for 18AC for 60 gold.
Except the Monk. If it's relying on unarmored defense the best AC it can get at level 1 (unless you're rolling for stats and roll godly) is 16AC.
With access to a level 1 dip, or the Lightly Armored feat, every class in the game is capable of starting with scale mail and shield (or better) for 18AC for 60 gold.
Except the Monk. If it's relying on unarmored defense the best AC it can get at level 1 (unless you're rolling for stats and roll godly) is 16AC.
The fact that the monk an average and perhaps even low AC for being a frontline warrior does not shock me. The main problem is its inadequate skirmishing ability. If the monk could move more freely it could use its movements to end the turn in a safe place. This is clearly without affecting its bonus action and thus its potential DPR.
So about a day and a half before the next UA. There has been a lot of discussion. If anyone is interested, would someone like to share what they think will be in the next release since the surveys were likely even more... spirited than this thread?
UA7 will probably be revisions on UA5's classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) with additional subclasses for each, like UA6 did with those classes. And maybe some spell revisions. But probably UA8 will be more spells and Monk revisions.
can we be a little charitable on the AC thing? you know it's a matter of appearance and first blush, not metagamed peeking at the AC of targets. players aren't going to waste arrows immediately upon a suit of armor when there's someone equally mean standing by with an "arrow sponge" sign hung round their neck. and neither would a bunch of goblins or kobolds or bandits.
in fact, maybe it'd be helpful to see this from the other side. what is (or should be) frustrating about fighting an evil monk? i imagine they're probably knocking multiple arrows out of the air, uncannily dodging explosions, and batting away feeble melee attacks to stay just out of harm's reach. should player monks be anything like bbeg monks?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
That is sad.
Maybe if you’re dm meta games but that is a separate issue.
This is an important question, I think this is something to think about, to define the role of the monk in the group one should start with the character design itself and why it has these characteristics, then more of its own psychologiocal aspect.
What is the role of the monk in an adventure. This is part of the character's story and I think there is limited freedom of interpretation, but still very broad. A monk in principle is a warrior who does not fight for personal profit, but to achieve a better understanding of himself and the multiverse. So it fights to test itself and to attain a higher mental and physical stage. A monk might see a conflict as something that disturbs the natural balance or as something passing like a season and remain completely detached. The monk has decided to use weapons as little as possible because it sees in them something that disturbs the balance, and so it uses its body to defend itself. Another reason is that it perceives weapons as something that is not part of its body and therefore not something to be cultivated, only its body and mind are aspects that can be improved. There could be a thousand reasons why a monk is a monk.
The job of a monk could be anything. To challenge himself, to understand and seek the balance of the multiverse and himself, to find enlightenment, to go with the flow because it knows that there is a destiny waiting for him and is looking forward to discovering it.
It could be said that the monk is the warrior who fights not for everyday bread but for personal life philosophy.
Why can the monk run so fast? Perhaps he prefers to avoid confrontation unless necessary. As they said in the KobraKai series, The best defense is not to attack, but not to be in front of the enemy when it wants to attack you.
But it could also be part of its way of overcoming its limitations so to better understand itself and thus the multiverse around it.
You get 100gp including your background funds.
Casters in general don't need a lot of equipment, so buying armor and shield is possible.
Because the term "reduce damage" implies that there was damage and therefore the attack was successful. But I understand what you mean. As I said you are free to interpret natural armor as you wish, the important thing is that it follows the rules. At the end of the day it is a theatrical game, and these elements we are talking about are meant to have some interesting interpretation cues that can help in the description of the combat and thus make the game more interesting.
As a DM I find it important to explain the unfolding of combat with interesting and entertaining details, showcasing the feats of the various characters.
The barbarian for example is a character who is confident and perhaps even arrogant, but above all proud of his body. If he receives an attack that almost exceeded its AC, it could be interpreted that the attack hit its body, but it hit a part of its body that has so many scars that it created a like a layer of ultra-strong skin and the weapon could not cut or penetrate that part of the barbarian's skin. The barbarian proud of its body and scars, mocks the enemy and thus decides to counterattack....
This is just one of many possible interpretations of the barbarian.
Yes, that's what I was implying. I was talking about Rage. The claim was that AC is significantly more visible than HP or resistances. I was saying that such a claim doesn't always make much sense. And anyways, heavily armored or not, pretty much 0 enemies will think that they've got a better shot of reducing damage by trying to scratch the big beefy guy with abs for days than the feeble mage who's actively blowing them up or the skinny archer filling them with arrows.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Responses in bold
That's a generic D&D problem, not a monk problem -- if you're in open terrain, melee is pretty useless. Then again, the game is Dungeons and Dragons (still, nerfing the hell out of weapon and spell ranges would probably be a good thing).
Yes they are both warriors . Both should be able to do their job in their own way and be competitive. Having many attacks was monk thing the fighter was able to pilfer but your curiously quiet on that.
So about a day and a half before the next UA. There has been a lot of discussion. If anyone is interested, would someone like to share what they think will be in the next release since the surveys were likely even more... spirited than this thread?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Knowing WotC, the monk will always remain one of the classes least loved by their creators. I'm sure it won't be what I've come to expect, but the important thing is that for me it will be functional and the problems that were initially waxing and waning have been solved and not simply a weird hodgepodge of what's written around the web of what some random player wants. So, yes I expect something totally different from what was presented in playtest6. Heck, maybe the monk won't be there yet in this playtest maybe it will only be in the next one, but given the flop they have made with this class, they should try a little harder.
You make a lot of assumptions. We know you are status quo. That doesn’t mean you have the majority opinion. Also why try to speak for the creators? They can speak for Themselves. Once again your argument “monk is fine” you have a right to your opinion . But we also have a right to ours.
We're well aware that the Monk has a pre-UA survey result score down around the Ranger class though we don't have exact numbers (per the D&D Rules Revision panel at GenCon). This would indicate that at most only about 30% of responders were satisfied with the Monk in the 2014 PHB.
Also, the reason those content creators are offering to let players "copy their notes" is because of 2 reasons:
1: These surveys are getting ridiculously long with 50+ pages of material each
2: They can show actual mathematical results as a result of these mechanical changes, which viewers can independently confirm for themselves
Tomorrow morning we will see the UA 7 announcement and the new material will likely be available on Friday. I have yet to see a full throated endorsement of the core Monk class from UA6 from any high profile D&D commentors except for XP to Level 3, and his chat was actively disagreeing with him and showing their math for the entirety of that livestream. It seems that there is a large portion of the community here and elsewhere that feels Monks need serious revision. And while I don't expect them to borrow every change whole cloth, the overwhelmingly positive response to Monks in Baldur's Gate 3 is likely going to inform a lot of discussion going forward because now there is a demonstrable example of how the class can be improved compared to the 2014 PHB, created by actual game designers specifically trying to keep it balanced with other class options during a specific level range. By comparison, UA6 was positively timid in how it tried to "improve" the Monk experience.
I wasn't saying a circle of land druid is going to melee for his whole life, but at level 1-2, when you claim, and are right, that they don't have a lot of spells, and not many super useful, there is no reason they won't use weapons, and if you choose warden, to have access to martial weapons, might as well use it.
And even beyond it, if its part of the player's character concept, and its effective, they should do it.
there tons of ways to increase challenge, and there are a bunch of interesting fights that don't have archers or casters. (BTW, many characters have range, they are just even more dangerous in melee) There are also monsters and enemies with magical abilities that aren't particularly easily eliminated, or vulnerable. I assume this isnt the 'caster' you are referring to. This guy for example;
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16971-oni
https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/young_bronze_dragon/
The amount of fights that conveniently have paper long range guys, that you saw ahead of time, and can be eliminated in melee via 10-20 extra movement is pretty low.
What monk can usually do, is be the first to melee guys who are also trying to get close, and move from enemy to enemy more quickly than other melee. The purpose of monk's speed imo, is to engage, and be difficult to escape.
This guy,
https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/assassin/
will probably seek to attack from the shadows, and cover, helping henchmen and thugs, if left alone, is a major problem. The monk probably needs to run up to this guy and try to shut him down ASAP. lets say he is 45 movement away, behind cover relative to party position
problem is, this guy is even more deadly in melee than from range. his average shortsword hit can do 20 dmg on save, and 31 damage if you fail, (funnily, old monk might have been immune to poison, but UA monk..)
Multiattack can literally one shot the Monk. if he got sneak some how, even more. Monk has 51-59 HP if they are the same CR as this guy. Even with a higher CR, this guy is deadly.
so what the monks options here.
1)gain line of sight, take pot shots with a shortbow for 2 hits, an average of 10.5 damage, attempt a stun use dodge(poor damage, good if stun lands, poor control, within assasins melee range next turn, no real control)
2)get close, use dodge attempt stun, 11.9dmg (enemy has to Deal with AOO, better eyes on target)
3)get close FOB attempt stun. 23.8 dmg (enemy has to deal with Aoo, better eyes, better damage, totally open to attack, might go down)
4)try to fight weak thugs, but your dps isn't actually good, and, they probably need to kill the assassin ASAP, over the trash.
barbarian instead in has 40 movement and a reach weapon. can also reach the guy. ignoring sub, looking at 33 damage WO reckless with graze, and 37 dmg if they go for reckless with topple or push.(or DW+PAm for 38) However, the chance of one shot is very slim, with 85 hp, and the physical part of attack halved
notice, step of wind to escape melee serves little real purpose, because instead of going in and out, you may as well ranged. Dodge also little purpose, you may as well have used ranged. In fact both of these are more effective(at reducing damage) if you use range. Also, your damage is trash(if you use step or dodge), its competing with toll of the dead/bolt, and will be worse than at 11.
there is an illusion of escape, realistically you aren't getting far enough from an enemy that they cant catch you until super late game, unless you step and do no damage. (may as well have used ranged). They might provoke Aoo, if you have teammate, and if hitting you requires moving out of their range.
realistically, the monk just accepts that they will probably go down, and their damage is probably subpar, and hopefully they will stun someone, hopefully the enemy doesnt realize, you are probably the squishiest target they can reach, and fears the AoO of your teamate.
step and dodge are basically bad for melee. The design doesnt work well. Your sub job can mitigate this, but none really make you actually good. the best are probably shadow(when not useless) and mercy, but mostly because they add utility while increasing survivability. You are still not good at fighting, but you can survive, and help the team if you are smart.
base class needs work.
you know what more innacurate than a survey with more responses than they ever had?
someone who makes statements ignoring all evidence, including surveys, anecdotes, critics, social media and mathematics.
sure its theoretically possible everything is fine, but there is no reason to think that based on anything real.
With access to a level 1 dip, or the Lightly Armored feat, every class in the game is capable of starting with scale mail and shield (or better) for 18AC for 60 gold.
Except the Monk. If it's relying on unarmored defense the best AC it can get at level 1 (unless you're rolling for stats and roll godly) is 16AC.
The fact that the monk an average and perhaps even low AC for being a frontline warrior does not shock me. The main problem is its inadequate skirmishing ability. If the monk could move more freely it could use its movements to end the turn in a safe place. This is clearly without affecting its bonus action and thus its potential DPR.
Which was why the Mobile feat was so good for Monk, and why WotC nerfing it is yet another indirect nerf for Monk.
UA7 will probably be revisions on UA5's classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) with additional subclasses for each, like UA6 did with those classes. And maybe some spell revisions. But probably UA8 will be more spells and Monk revisions.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?