Average chance for hitting a normal monster during each tier of play is about 60% for martial characters.
While this is frequently asserted, it's not true. It's roughly true for a PC without magic items or other bonuses fighting an equal-CR monster (with UA allowing a stat of 22 at 19, hit chance goes from 65% at level 1 to 70% at level 20), but that's... not actually a realistic assumption.
Average chance for hitting a normal monster during each tier of play is about 60% for martial characters.
While this is frequently asserted, it's not true. It's roughly true for a PC without magic items or other bonuses fighting an equal-CR monster (with UA allowing a stat of 22 at 19, hit chance goes from 65% at level 1 to 70% at level 20), but that's... not actually a realistic assumption.
Got it, so it's only true if I have a generic fight against a level appropriate enemy assuming no magical bonuses aside from normal class and subclass features.
So let me ask you:
With nearly all of the magic items being designed either for spellcasters or martial characters that use martial weapons and wear armor, do you think it's more likely that all of these bonuses will go towards the traditional martial character with spells slots, armor, shields and martial weapons proficiency?
Or the Monk who gets literally none of those things?
Monk unarmored defense is clearly worse than Barbarian unarmored defense, so adding patient defense to it would be nice.
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Monk unarmored defense is clearly worse than Barbarian unarmored defense, so adding patient defense to it would be nice.
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Because barbarians have this wierd little quirk in their Unarmored Defense rule where by sheer coincidence they get a massive boatload of HP to make up for their below-average AC?
Hey that's wierd, it's almost like somebody thought about the fact that Barbarians spend a lot of time in melee combat where they are expected to be constantly under attack and losing HP every turn. It's a good thing that the Monk isn't mechanically built entirely around being in melee range to make use of nearly all its featuers, because if they were that d8 hit die and generally low CON score would make them a huge liability in most combat encounters starting around tier 2.
Monk unarmored defense is clearly worse than Barbarian unarmored defense, so adding patient defense to it would be nice.
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Because barbarians have this wierd little quirk in their Unarmored Defense rule where by sheer coincidence they get a massive boatload of HP to make up for their below-average AC?
Hey that's wierd, it's almost like somebody thought about the fact that Barbarians spend a lot of time in melee combat where they are expected to be constantly under attack and losing HP every turn. It's a good thing that the Monk isn't mechanically built entirely around being in melee range to make use of nearly all its featuers, because if they were that d8 hit die and generally low CON score would make them a huge liability in most combat encounters starting around tier 2.
Not even close.
For the barbarian, Unarmored Defense isn't meant to be something it needs to fall back on. It can still wear light and medium armor and wear a shield. It can save them a little coin starting out, but it's no better than a chain shirt. Heck, there's no guarantee it would even start that high. If it's intended to replace wearing armor, which can grant magical bonuses, it's past 20th-level when their Constitution score can reach as high as 24.
The barbarian does have the largest hit die and damage resistance when using Rage, but it also has Reckless Attack. It wants to be attacked because it can absorb blows better than its allies. Reckless Attack also serves double-duty by effectively giving it the Champion Fighter's Improved Critical. This is because each swing has a 9.75% chance of landing a Critical Hit; while also increasing the odds of landing a regular blow.
Saying the monk is in trouble because of its d8 hit die and "generally low Con score" is akin to saying the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue are all in trouble if they get caught in melee. And a lot of them want to be in melee. Stop looking at every class in a vacuum. Group composition matters infinitely more.
Sorry but these are arguments for Barb > Monk, not DEX+CON unarmoured defence for a barb being better than DEX + Wis unarmoured defence for a monk.
For the barbarian, Unarmored Defense isn't meant to be something it needs to fall back on. It can still wear light and medium armor and wear a shield.
AKA barbarian unarmoured defense sucks so optimizers choose to wear armour with them.
The barbarian does have the largest hit die and damage resistance when using Rage, but it also has Reckless Attack
These are a completely different features that have nothing to do with Unarmoured defence.
Saying the monk is in trouble because of its d8 hit die and "generally low Con score" is akin to saying the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue are all in trouble if they get caught in melee. And a lot of them want to be in melee.
Exactly! a d8 hit die and CON of 14 does not mean you will die instantly if you go into melee. There are plenty of melee-clerics including some that shock-horror do not get heavy armour proficiency (e.g. Trickster & Death). There are druids that are designed around melee that (currently) can't even use decent medium armour (e.g. Spores, Wildfire-ish). There are rogues designed around melee or close-to-melee (Swashbuckler and Mastermind) that don't get medium armour nor shields. Warlock has a whole pact around melee combat and the base class (currently) doesn't have anything beyond light armour. There are rangers designed for melee/close to melee (Horizon walker, Beastmaster-ish) that don't get heavy armour.
An increase in hit die size is 5-10 extra hit points, that is less than 1 hit by an enemy, it does not some how mean a character suddenly can't be in melee.
ETA: Almost all casters are limited to be within 60ft of the enemies to use decent spells, which means they are 1 dash by an enemy away from being in melee themselves. There are very few classes that are truly "squishy" in 5e, which is why "tanking" is unnecessary.
Monk unarmored defense is clearly worse than Barbarian unarmored defense, so adding patient defense to it would be nice.
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Every creature in the game except tortles and loxodons use dex for AC if you aren’t wearing heavy armor. Barbarians have the option to wear shields with their unarmored defense monks don’t. Also Barbarians can forgo their unarmored defense and put on medium armor until they get their stats were they would like them. Since other monk features are attached to them being unarmored they don’t get that option. It’s clear their version is worse. I can’t believe you tried to argue against this. Also your last sentence isn’t even an argument, “If Barbarians were allowed heavy armor I think most of them would dump Dex.” Well, if pigs could fly I think most of them would walk less.
Exactly! a d8 hit die and CON of 14 does not mean you will die instantly if you go into melee. There are plenty of melee-clerics including some that shock-horror do not get heavy armour proficiency (e.g. Trickster & Death). There are druids that are designed around melee that (currently) can't even use decent medium armour (e.g. Spores, Wildfire-ish). There are rogues designed around melee or close-to-melee (Swashbuckler and Mastermind) that don't get medium armour nor shields. Warlock has a whole pact around melee combat and the base class (currently) doesn't have anything beyond light armour. There are rangers designed for melee/close to melee (Horizon walker, Beastmaster-ish) that don't get heavy armour.
An increase in hit die size is 5-10 extra hit points, that is less than 1 hit by an enemy, it does not some how mean a character suddenly can't be in melee.
ETA: Almost all casters are limited to be within 60ft of the enemies to use decent spells, which means they are 1 dash by an enemy away from being in melee themselves. There are very few classes that are truly "squishy" in 5e, which is why "tanking" is unnecessary.
You can use a bow on Tricksters. Death isn’t a properly constructed Domain. It was an example provided in the DMG. Wildfire isn’t designed around being a melee combatant, and spores grants temp hp. Mastermind isn’t designed around melee, they grant help actions at a distance. Swashbuckler is literally a skirmisher designed to run away. It can swing a move away from targets without AoO. The UA pact of the Blade warlock is going to end up running Armor of Agathys for temp hp and damage or fiendish vigor for temp hp repeatable. Rangers have a d10 hit die and medium armor. Also everything you listed all get at least light armor and monks don’t even get that. Also again your last sentence is not true. Firebolt, Chromatic Orb, Magic Missile, Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, Fireball, and many more good spells have ranges exceeding 60ft. Additionally casters have access to Shield, Mirror Image, Misty Step, and other things to help then escape melee if they get caught in it.
many monks would leave wis or dex at 14if they didnt have unarmored defense relying on both.
dex main benefit outside of unarmored defense is better dex saves, however you are giving up grappling, movement, and resistance to melee cc
wis main benefit is Ki saves, but there are builds that can just avoid Ki saves. almost everything monk does via save can be done with mastery or unarmed via strength.
Monk unarmored defense is clearly worse than Barbarian unarmored defense, so adding patient defense to it would be nice.
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Because barbarians have this wierd little quirk in their Unarmored Defense rule where by sheer coincidence they get a massive boatload of HP to make up for their below-average AC?
Hey that's wierd, it's almost like somebody thought about the fact that Barbarians spend a lot of time in melee combat where they are expected to be constantly under attack and losing HP every turn. It's a good thing that the Monk isn't mechanically built entirely around being in melee range to make use of nearly all its featuers, because if they were that d8 hit die and generally low CON score would make them a huge liability in most combat encounters starting around tier 2.
Not even close.
For the barbarian, Unarmored Defense isn't meant to be something it needs to fall back on. It can still wear light and medium armor and wear a shield. It can save them a little coin starting out, but it's no better than a chain shirt. Heck, there's no guarantee it would even start that high. If it's intended to replace wearing armor, which can grant magical bonuses, it's past 20th-level when their Constitution score can reach as high as 24.
The barbarian does have the largest hit die and damage resistance when using Rage, but it also has Reckless Attack. It wants to be attacked because it can absorb blows better than its allies. Reckless Attack also serves double-duty by effectively giving it the Champion Fighter's Improved Critical. This is because each swing has a 9.75% chance of landing a Critical Hit; while also increasing the odds of landing a regular blow.
Saying the monk is in trouble because of its d8 hit die and "generally low Con score" is akin to saying the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue are all in trouble if they get caught in melee. And a lot of them want to be in melee. Stop looking at every class in a vacuum. Group composition matters infinitely more.
this is how you think it is, but is not actually how it is in play.
its not good for the barbarian to absorb attacks. taking double damage and reducing it by half is a not less use of resources. The mathematics for understanding survivability boils down to effective HP. the one who can mitigate the most damage is the preferred target. With light armored, and shield, mirror images and blurr, a mage who wants to be tanky is more effective.
17 AC barbarian vs +6 hit enemy takes 50% of the attacks made against it. or 50% damage reduction. disadvantage makes it take 75% of attacks, aka 25% damage reduction. if the monster attempted 100 damage, it does 75 damage which they reduce by half. 37.5 damage a round.
lightly armored bard, 17ac from armor+2 from shield 19 armor, 24 from shield spell. 85% chance to miss. They take 15% damage per round. Doesnt even include blurr, or blind, etc.
Reckless barbarian isnt a more efficient target for the team.
the cleric and bard are extremely survivable. the cleric has heals, heavy armor, and spell buffs. Bard has access to heals, and spells like blurr, mirror images and shield. Bard has no reason to be in close range
rogue can leave combat and hide without sacrificing damage, and gains no actual benefit to being in close range.
the monk is the worst target, with no mitigation/recovery option (while being effective). Even rogue has uncanny dodge. The monk is also the only class that needs to be within 5ft of the enemy each round in order to be effective.
group composition is not part of encounter design, there is no guarantee, or even a suggestion that your party will have any class or type of class in it. Players are encouraged to select classes based on what type of fantasy they enjoy. But even with a mage, the monk is the last guy you want soaking attacks (of all classes), especially since they are also doing poor damage while soaking.
Also Barbarians can forgo their unarmored defense and put on medium armor until they get their stats were they would like them.
This is not an argument that their UD is good, it's that is sucks so just wear armour instead.
A Barbarian using UD is almost never going to get an AC > 17, whereas a Monk using UD will have that at level 4. Clearly their UD is better.
I don't understand why you are arguing that Barbarian UD is good because you don't use it and instead wear armour. I mean, if it was good wouldn't it not matter if you can wear armour or not? Because all Barbs would want to be shirtless b/c UD is GOOD, the fact that they don't and everyone keeps repeating that "barbarians can use armour" is evidence their UD is BAD, and you don't want to use it, you want to wear armour instead.
To think of it more clearly, if you were breaking out of a jail cell after all your equipment was taken away, is the Barbarian's UD more or less likely to be higher than the Monk's UD? It's going to be the Monk every time, because their UD actually works. While Barbarian UD basically doesn't do anything at all and they just get hit by every attack regardless.
i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.
Sorry but these are arguments for Barb > Monk, not DEX+CON unarmoured defence for a barb being better than DEX + Wis unarmoured defence for a monk.
For the barbarian, Unarmored Defense isn't meant to be something it needs to fall back on. It can still wear light and medium armor and wear a shield.
AKA barbarian unarmoured defense sucks so optimizers choose to wear armour with them.
The barbarian does have the largest hit die and damage resistance when using Rage, but it also has Reckless Attack
These are a completely different features that have nothing to do with Unarmoured defence.
Saying the monk is in trouble because of its d8 hit die and "generally low Con score" is akin to saying the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue are all in trouble if they get caught in melee. And a lot of them want to be in melee.
Exactly! a d8 hit die and CON of 14 does not mean you will die instantly if you go into melee. There are plenty of melee-clerics including some that shock-horror do not get heavy armour proficiency (e.g. Trickster & Death). There are druids that are designed around melee that (currently) can't even use decent medium armour (e.g. Spores, Wildfire-ish). There are rogues designed around melee or close-to-melee (Swashbuckler and Mastermind) that don't get medium armour nor shields. Warlock has a whole pact around melee combat and the base class (currently) doesn't have anything beyond light armour. There are rangers designed for melee/close to melee (Horizon walker, Beastmaster-ish) that don't get heavy armour.
An increase in hit die size is 5-10 extra hit points, that is less than 1 hit by an enemy, it does not some how mean a character suddenly can't be in melee.
ETA: Almost all casters are limited to be within 60ft of the enemies to use decent spells, which means they are 1 dash by an enemy away from being in melee themselves. There are very few classes that are truly "squishy" in 5e, which is why "tanking" is unnecessary.
There is huge difference between a melee option, and a melee requirement.
Any class with access to recovery spells/abilities and defense buffs has survivability
rogue has uncanny dodge, and can enter and leave melee without losing effectiveness. Swashbuckler especially so, can dash or hide every turn since disengage is built in. rogue has heavy armor defense with light armor due to being SAD on dex. (13+5=18=platemail) They can also take a feat and use shields. Only monk has no real opportunity to use shield
dashing monsters can't attack you on that turn, so they use two turns to do one turns damage (if you don't move/cc them) thats a damage reduction.
yes every class has some tank options built in. But one has less/weaker options. its also the class that most needs to get close, and has the lowest damage.
Why are we rehashing this? Monk clearly has low survivability relative to other classes. mitigation/risk/maxhp/recovery. They are low rates in every metric.
we can debate what or if anything should be done about this, but monk has the worst baseline survival options in the game.
Heres what is provable and established as of the current UA;
baseline monk has the worst attack based survivability potential in the game.
baseline monk has the worst dpr potential in the game.
baseline monk, has low Combat utility (no buffs, debuffs, cc, ) just stun. which is a good one, but its just one.
baseline monk has bottom tier social abilities. Every class can choose at least 4 proficient skills 2 fully customizable from backgrounds. Everyone else has added benefits via spells or expertise or class features. (even barbarian can have guaranteed 20+ on intimidation, fighter has +d10 now, and more asi for social feats (if they care)
baseline monk has good movement. Which might be useful in exploration (though spells are better) upper mid teir, or A teir I'd say.
its not good for the barbarian to absorb attacks. taking double damage and reducing it by half is a not less use of resources. The mathematics for understanding survivability boils down to effective HP. the one who can mitigate the most damage is the preferred target. With light armored, and shield, mirror images and blurr, a mage who wants to be tanky is more effective.
17 AC barbarian vs +6 hit enemy takes 50% of the attacks made against it. or 50% damage reduction. disadvantage makes it take 75% of attacks, aka 25% damage reduction. if the monster attempted 100 damage, it does 75 damage which they reduce by half. 37.5 damage a round.
lightly armored bard, 17ac from armor+2 from shield 19 armor, 24 from shield spell. 85% chance to miss. They take 15% damage per round. Doesnt even include blurr, or blind, etc.
Reckless barbarian isnt a more efficient target for the team.
the cleric and bard are extremely survivable. the cleric has heals, heavy armor, and spell buffs. Bard has access to heals, and spells like blurr, mirror images and shield. Bard has no reason to be in close range
rogue can leave combat and hide without sacrificing damage, and gains no actual benefit to being in close range.
the monk is the worst target, with no mitigation/recovery option (while being effective). Even rogue has uncanny dodge. The monk is also the only class that needs to be within 5ft of the enemy each round in order to be effective.
group composition is not part of encounter design, there is no guarantee, or even a suggestion that your party will have any class or type of class in it. Players are encouraged to select classes based on what type of fantasy they enjoy. But even with a mage, the monk is the last guy you want soaking attacks (of all classes), especially since they are also doing poor damage while soaking.
The barbarian is designed to draw fire and hit hard, and it has the effective hit points to do it. You might not think it's good for someone to absorb attacks, but it's going to happen. In a fight, enemies are going to roll attacks. Characters are going to be hit, and it's better to hit the meat shield than the softer targets. Especially a meat shield that can do it all day. Your idea of what constitutes "tanky" ought to be embarrassing. This edition doesn't do hard-coded MMO roles well, and even if it did...you're still missing the point. Tanks draw fire. Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
Group composition is absolutely part of the design process. They can't account for every possible party size and membership, but they can account for what tools they bring to an encounter. Certain bases can and should be covered, and class identity should be clear. The classes aren't just mechanics. They're a feeling. And how they all feel alongside one another is absolutely relevant.
If there was ever a post where you demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about, that was it.
Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
It's just as much a waste of actions as it is to repeatedly deal damage to a target with high HP or resistance.
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)
Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
It's just as much a waste of actions as it is to repeatedly deal damage to a target with high HP or resistance.
On the contrary, dealing some damage is better than dealing no damage.
Also Barbarians can forgo their unarmored defense and put on medium armor until they get their stats were they would like them.
This is not an argument that their UD is good, it's that is sucks so just wear armour instead.
A Barbarian using UD is almost never going to get an AC > 17, whereas a Monk using UD will have that at level 4. Clearly their UD is better.
I don't understand why you are arguing that Barbarian UD is good because you don't use it and instead wear armour. I mean, if it was good wouldn't it not matter if you can wear armour or not? Because all Barbs would want to be shirtless b/c UD is GOOD, the fact that they don't and everyone keeps repeating that "barbarians can use armour" is evidence their UD is BAD, and you don't want to use it, you want to wear armour instead.
To think of it more clearly, if you were breaking out of a jail cell after all your equipment was taken away, is the Barbarian's UD more or less likely to be higher than the Monk's UD? It's going to be the Monk every time, because their UD actually works. While Barbarian UD basically doesn't do anything at all and they just get hit by every attack regardless.
i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.
If you removed Unarmoured Defense from the Monk and gave them light armour instead, I guarantee there would be people who would inexplicably claim such to be a huge buff to the class.
It'd definitely be better at lower levels, since it could mostly remove the MADness of the class. Even at 5th level, when the base class gets its only other Wisdom-based feature, said feature can be simply ignored (according to you). It might start to be negative at 12th level, since by then you've probably got a +5 Dex already. With Unarmored Defense, you could boost your Wis to keep pushing your AC up, but you can't do that with light armor. But even still, odds are decent you've got some sort of magic armor by then, in which case light armor could still equal or exceed Unarmored Defense despite only using one ability score instead of two.
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)
Also Barbarians can forgo their unarmored defense and put on medium armor until they get their stats were they would like them.
This is not an argument that their UD is good, it's that is sucks so just wear armour instead.
A Barbarian using UD is almost never going to get an AC > 17, whereas a Monk using UD will have that at level 4. Clearly their UD is better.
I don't understand why you are arguing that Barbarian UD is good because you don't use it and instead wear armour. I mean, if it was good wouldn't it not matter if you can wear armour or not? Because all Barbs would want to be shirtless b/c UD is GOOD, the fact that they don't and everyone keeps repeating that "barbarians can use armour" is evidence their UD is BAD, and you don't want to use it, you want to wear armour instead.
To think of it more clearly, if you were breaking out of a jail cell after all your equipment was taken away, is the Barbarian's UD more or less likely to be higher than the Monk's UD? It's going to be the Monk every time, because their UD actually works. While Barbarian UD basically doesn't do anything at all and they just get hit by every attack regardless.
i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.
Again Barbarians can use a shield. It’s literally better in the description. You get the same thing monks get and you can wear a shield. Oh but if you don’t want to do this here have medium armor in case you like that better. The fact that they can wear armor instead is a bonus, a luxury that monks don’t have. A Barbarian who wants to use UD needs 3 stats Str, Dex, Con and a Monk who has to use UD needs 3 stats Dex, Con, Wis. Using point buy they can achieve the same starting AC. Barbarian can then have a shield having higher AC or decide it wants that spread to focus more on Str and still have the same AC. Reality is people almost never 8 Dex or Con in in standard array. They are too important to how this game works. I’ve only seen it once and the DM made the high level character for the player in a One Shot and literally apologized for doing that during play when they kept failing Dex saves. It was a Paladin that didn’t need dex for AC in plate, but Dex interacts with so many other things in the mechanics. Also why do you keep having these horrible last sentences.
“i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.”
Well duh, it’s an option on one and mandatory for the other. One can use Armor for AC and the other gets nothing. I got one. If you removed all the weapon proficiencies from monks you would barley notice, but if you removed all the weapon proficiencies from a Barbarian they’d be weak.
its not good for the barbarian to absorb attacks. taking double damage and reducing it by half is a not less use of resources. The mathematics for understanding survivability boils down to effective HP. the one who can mitigate the most damage is the preferred target. With light armored, and shield, mirror images and blurr, a mage who wants to be tanky is more effective.
17 AC barbarian vs +6 hit enemy takes 50% of the attacks made against it. or 50% damage reduction. disadvantage makes it take 75% of attacks, aka 25% damage reduction. if the monster attempted 100 damage, it does 75 damage which they reduce by half. 37.5 damage a round.
lightly armored bard, 17ac from armor+2 from shield 19 armor, 24 from shield spell. 85% chance to miss. They take 15% damage per round. Doesnt even include blurr, or blind, etc.
Reckless barbarian isnt a more efficient target for the team.
the cleric and bard are extremely survivable. the cleric has heals, heavy armor, and spell buffs. Bard has access to heals, and spells like blurr, mirror images and shield. Bard has no reason to be in close range
rogue can leave combat and hide without sacrificing damage, and gains no actual benefit to being in close range.
the monk is the worst target, with no mitigation/recovery option (while being effective). Even rogue has uncanny dodge. The monk is also the only class that needs to be within 5ft of the enemy each round in order to be effective.
group composition is not part of encounter design, there is no guarantee, or even a suggestion that your party will have any class or type of class in it. Players are encouraged to select classes based on what type of fantasy they enjoy. But even with a mage, the monk is the last guy you want soaking attacks (of all classes), especially since they are also doing poor damage while soaking.
The barbarian is designed to draw fire and hit hard, and it has the effective hit points to do it. You might not think it's good for someone to absorb attacks, but it's going to happen. In a fight, enemies are going to roll attacks. Characters are going to be hit, and it's better to hit the meat shield than the softer targets. Especially a meat shield that can do it all day. Your idea of what constitutes "tanky" ought to be embarrassing. This edition doesn't do hard-coded MMO roles well, and even if it did...you're still missing the point. Tanks draw fire. Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
Group composition is absolutely part of the design process. They can't account for every possible party size and membership, but they can account for what tools they bring to an encounter. Certain bases can and should be covered, and class identity should be clear. The classes aren't just mechanics. They're a feeling. And how they all feel alongside one another is absolutely relevant.
If there was ever a post where you demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about, that was it.
barbarian is designed to be able to survive attacks while reckless attacking, because thats how they are effective. That doesnt mean the party is better off with them soaking attacks, which is what you said before. You also talk about AC, the monster or enemies have no idea what players AC or effective HP is until they attempt to hit them.But even If the monster knows everything, they should always melee the monk, he is the squishiest target, with the same AC as the barbarian.
Group composition can't be part of the design process if "They can't account for every possible party size and membership" Thats literally a definition of group composition.
you magically then extrapolate a statement about class design. I never said classes aren't designed to be certain fanatsies, that has nothing to do with group composition.I have repeatedly said class are designed to hit certain fanatsies and feeling. Classes doesnt = group composition. You having a four rogue party doesnt mean they have no classes, or fantasies or feel. It means you can't account for group composition.
And all of this doesnt change the fact that the monk is the least survivable class in the game, and bad at every 'base' you say parties should hit.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
its not good for the barbarian to absorb attacks. taking double damage and reducing it by half is a not less use of resources. The mathematics for understanding survivability boils down to effective HP. the one who can mitigate the most damage is the preferred target. With light armored, and shield, mirror images and blurr, a mage who wants to be tanky is more effective.
17 AC barbarian vs +6 hit enemy takes 50% of the attacks made against it. or 50% damage reduction. disadvantage makes it take 75% of attacks, aka 25% damage reduction. if the monster attempted 100 damage, it does 75 damage which they reduce by half. 37.5 damage a round.
lightly armored bard, 17ac from armor+2 from shield 19 armor, 24 from shield spell. 85% chance to miss. They take 15% damage per round. Doesnt even include blurr, or blind, etc.
Reckless barbarian isnt a more efficient target for the team.
the cleric and bard are extremely survivable. the cleric has heals, heavy armor, and spell buffs. Bard has access to heals, and spells like blurr, mirror images and shield. Bard has no reason to be in close range
rogue can leave combat and hide without sacrificing damage, and gains no actual benefit to being in close range.
the monk is the worst target, with no mitigation/recovery option (while being effective). Even rogue has uncanny dodge. The monk is also the only class that needs to be within 5ft of the enemy each round in order to be effective.
group composition is not part of encounter design, there is no guarantee, or even a suggestion that your party will have any class or type of class in it. Players are encouraged to select classes based on what type of fantasy they enjoy. But even with a mage, the monk is the last guy you want soaking attacks (of all classes), especially since they are also doing poor damage while soaking.
The barbarian is designed to draw fire and hit hard, and it has the effective hit points to do it. You might not think it's good for someone to absorb attacks, but it's going to happen. In a fight, enemies are going to roll attacks. Characters are going to be hit, and it's better to hit the meat shield than the softer targets. Especially a meat shield that can do it all day. Your idea of what constitutes "tanky" ought to be embarrassing. This edition doesn't do hard-coded MMO roles well, and even if it did...you're still missing the point. Tanks draw fire. Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
Group composition is absolutely part of the design process. They can't account for every possible party size and membership, but they can account for what tools they bring to an encounter. Certain bases can and should be covered, and class identity should be clear. The classes aren't just mechanics. They're a feeling. And how they all feel alongside one another is absolutely relevant.
If there was ever a post where you demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about, that was it.
barbarian is designed to be able to survive attacks while reckless attacking, because thats how they are effective. That doesnt mean the party is better off with them soaking attacks, which is what you said before. You also talk about AC, the monster or enemies have no idea what players AC or effective HP is until they attempt to hit them.But even If the monster knows everything, they should always melee the monk, he is the squishiest target, with the same AC as the barbarian.
Group composition can't be part of the design process if "They can't account for every possible party size and membership" Thats literally a definition of group composition.
you magically then extrapolate a statement about class design. I never said classes aren't designed to be certain fanatsies, that has nothing to do with group composition.I have repeatedly said class are designed to hit certain fanatsies and feeling. Classes doesnt = group composition. You having a four rogue party doesnt mean they have no classes, or fantasies or feel. It means you can't account for group composition.
And all of this doesnt change the fact that the monk is the least survivable class in the game, and bad at every 'base' you say parties should hit.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
Technically gwar they do sorta account for group comp. That’s what that expert, mage, priest, warrior grouping was supposed to be able to do. If you have one of each in theory you are prepared for everything in the game. Well it falls apart if you have a monk as your warrior and didn’t take Ranger as your expert or Paladin as your priest, because those two classes do what fighter and Barbarian do better than the monk. I honestly feel like that grouping system died because of the monk. I mean each group had one that was the worst in the group, but the others were because the character could be in another. Worst expert could, be a warrior, worst priest could be a warrior, worst mage could be a warrior, lol. Worst warrior doesn’t fall into any other group and doesn’t do what or operate like the other two warriors. So while you Jounichi was right about them thinking about group comp in the design, since they failed to design something that fits into their groups it doesn’t even matter. Gwar you are right that Monks lack survivability and that’s something both fighter and Barbarian have in spades as Warriors. Monk needs help, but I’m afraid they aren’t going to get it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While this is frequently asserted, it's not true. It's roughly true for a PC without magic items or other bonuses fighting an equal-CR monster (with UA allowing a stat of 22 at 19, hit chance goes from 65% at level 1 to 70% at level 20), but that's... not actually a realistic assumption.
Got it, so it's only true if I have a generic fight against a level appropriate enemy assuming no magical bonuses aside from normal class and subclass features.
So let me ask you:
With nearly all of the magic items being designed either for spellcasters or martial characters that use martial weapons and wear armor, do you think it's more likely that all of these bonuses will go towards the traditional martial character with spells slots, armor, shields and martial weapons proficiency?
Or the Monk who gets literally none of those things?
How did you reach that conclusion? Monks want high DEX and high WIS regardless of their unarmored defense, one for their attacks, the other for their ki abilities, whereas Barbarian only needs DEX at all because of their unarmoured defense and their inability to use heavy armour. If Barbarians were allowed heavy armour I think most of them would dump DEX.
Because barbarians have this wierd little quirk in their Unarmored Defense rule where by sheer coincidence they get a massive boatload of HP to make up for their below-average AC?
Hey that's wierd, it's almost like somebody thought about the fact that Barbarians spend a lot of time in melee combat where they are expected to be constantly under attack and losing HP every turn. It's a good thing that the Monk isn't mechanically built entirely around being in melee range to make use of nearly all its featuers, because if they were that d8 hit die and generally low CON score would make them a huge liability in most combat encounters starting around tier 2.
Not even close.
For the barbarian, Unarmored Defense isn't meant to be something it needs to fall back on. It can still wear light and medium armor and wear a shield. It can save them a little coin starting out, but it's no better than a chain shirt. Heck, there's no guarantee it would even start that high. If it's intended to replace wearing armor, which can grant magical bonuses, it's past 20th-level when their Constitution score can reach as high as 24.
The barbarian does have the largest hit die and damage resistance when using Rage, but it also has Reckless Attack. It wants to be attacked because it can absorb blows better than its allies. Reckless Attack also serves double-duty by effectively giving it the Champion Fighter's Improved Critical. This is because each swing has a 9.75% chance of landing a Critical Hit; while also increasing the odds of landing a regular blow.
Saying the monk is in trouble because of its d8 hit die and "generally low Con score" is akin to saying the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue are all in trouble if they get caught in melee. And a lot of them want to be in melee. Stop looking at every class in a vacuum. Group composition matters infinitely more.
Sorry but these are arguments for Barb > Monk, not DEX+CON unarmoured defence for a barb being better than DEX + Wis unarmoured defence for a monk.
AKA barbarian unarmoured defense sucks so optimizers choose to wear armour with them.
These are a completely different features that have nothing to do with Unarmoured defence.
Exactly! a d8 hit die and CON of 14 does not mean you will die instantly if you go into melee. There are plenty of melee-clerics including some that shock-horror do not get heavy armour proficiency (e.g. Trickster & Death). There are druids that are designed around melee that (currently) can't even use decent medium armour (e.g. Spores, Wildfire-ish). There are rogues designed around melee or close-to-melee (Swashbuckler and Mastermind) that don't get medium armour nor shields. Warlock has a whole pact around melee combat and the base class (currently) doesn't have anything beyond light armour. There are rangers designed for melee/close to melee (Horizon walker, Beastmaster-ish) that don't get heavy armour.
An increase in hit die size is 5-10 extra hit points, that is less than 1 hit by an enemy, it does not some how mean a character suddenly can't be in melee.
ETA: Almost all casters are limited to be within 60ft of the enemies to use decent spells, which means they are 1 dash by an enemy away from being in melee themselves. There are very few classes that are truly "squishy" in 5e, which is why "tanking" is unnecessary.
Every creature in the game except tortles and loxodons use dex for AC if you aren’t wearing heavy armor. Barbarians have the option to wear shields with their unarmored defense monks don’t. Also Barbarians can forgo their unarmored defense and put on medium armor until they get their stats were they would like them. Since other monk features are attached to them being unarmored they don’t get that option. It’s clear their version is worse. I can’t believe you tried to argue against this. Also your last sentence isn’t even an argument, “If Barbarians were allowed heavy armor I think most of them would dump Dex.” Well, if pigs could fly I think most of them would walk less.
You can use a bow on Tricksters. Death isn’t a properly constructed Domain. It was an example provided in the DMG. Wildfire isn’t designed around being a melee combatant, and spores grants temp hp. Mastermind isn’t designed around melee, they grant help actions at a distance. Swashbuckler is literally a skirmisher designed to run away. It can swing a move away from targets without AoO. The UA pact of the Blade warlock is going to end up running Armor of Agathys for temp hp and damage or fiendish vigor for temp hp repeatable. Rangers have a d10 hit die and medium armor. Also everything you listed all get at least light armor and monks don’t even get that. Also again your last sentence is not true. Firebolt, Chromatic Orb, Magic Missile, Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, Fireball, and many more good spells have ranges exceeding 60ft. Additionally casters have access to Shield, Mirror Image, Misty Step, and other things to help then escape melee if they get caught in it.
many monks would leave wis or dex at 14if they didnt have unarmored defense relying on both.
dex main benefit outside of unarmored defense is better dex saves, however you are giving up grappling, movement, and resistance to melee cc
wis main benefit is Ki saves, but there are builds that can just avoid Ki saves. almost everything monk does via save can be done with mastery or unarmed via strength.
this is how you think it is, but is not actually how it is in play.
its not good for the barbarian to absorb attacks. taking double damage and reducing it by half is a not less use of resources. The mathematics for understanding survivability boils down to effective HP. the one who can mitigate the most damage is the preferred target. With light armored, and shield, mirror images and blurr, a mage who wants to be tanky is more effective.
17 AC barbarian vs +6 hit enemy takes 50% of the attacks made against it. or 50% damage reduction. disadvantage makes it take 75% of attacks, aka 25% damage reduction. if the monster attempted 100 damage, it does 75 damage which they reduce by half. 37.5 damage a round.
lightly armored bard, 17ac from armor+2 from shield 19 armor, 24 from shield spell. 85% chance to miss. They take 15% damage per round. Doesnt even include blurr, or blind, etc.
Reckless barbarian isnt a more efficient target for the team.
the cleric and bard are extremely survivable. the cleric has heals, heavy armor, and spell buffs. Bard has access to heals, and spells like blurr, mirror images and shield. Bard has no reason to be in close range
rogue can leave combat and hide without sacrificing damage, and gains no actual benefit to being in close range.
the monk is the worst target, with no mitigation/recovery option (while being effective). Even rogue has uncanny dodge. The monk is also the only class that needs to be within 5ft of the enemy each round in order to be effective.
group composition is not part of encounter design, there is no guarantee, or even a suggestion that your party will have any class or type of class in it. Players are encouraged to select classes based on what type of fantasy they enjoy. But even with a mage, the monk is the last guy you want soaking attacks (of all classes), especially since they are also doing poor damage while soaking.
Um.. Light armour is WORSE than unarmoured defense, maxing out at 12+DEX is awful, even Mage Armour and Natural Armour beats light armour.
This is not an argument that their UD is good, it's that is sucks so just wear armour instead.
A Barbarian using UD is almost never going to get an AC > 17, whereas a Monk using UD will have that at level 4. Clearly their UD is better.
I don't understand why you are arguing that Barbarian UD is good because you don't use it and instead wear armour. I mean, if it was good wouldn't it not matter if you can wear armour or not? Because all Barbs would want to be shirtless b/c UD is GOOD, the fact that they don't and everyone keeps repeating that "barbarians can use armour" is evidence their UD is BAD, and you don't want to use it, you want to wear armour instead.
To think of it more clearly, if you were breaking out of a jail cell after all your equipment was taken away, is the Barbarian's UD more or less likely to be higher than the Monk's UD? It's going to be the Monk every time, because their UD actually works. While Barbarian UD basically doesn't do anything at all and they just get hit by every attack regardless.
i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.
There is huge difference between a melee option, and a melee requirement.
Any class with access to recovery spells/abilities and defense buffs has survivability
rogue has uncanny dodge, and can enter and leave melee without losing effectiveness. Swashbuckler especially so, can dash or hide every turn since disengage is built in. rogue has heavy armor defense with light armor due to being SAD on dex. (13+5=18=platemail) They can also take a feat and use shields. Only monk has no real opportunity to use shield
dashing monsters can't attack you on that turn, so they use two turns to do one turns damage (if you don't move/cc them) thats a damage reduction.
yes every class has some tank options built in. But one has less/weaker options. its also the class that most needs to get close, and has the lowest damage.
Why are we rehashing this? Monk clearly has low survivability relative to other classes. mitigation/risk/maxhp/recovery. They are low rates in every metric.
we can debate what or if anything should be done about this, but monk has the worst baseline survival options in the game.
Heres what is provable and established as of the current UA;
baseline monk has the worst attack based survivability potential in the game.
baseline monk has the worst dpr potential in the game.
baseline monk, has low Combat utility (no buffs, debuffs, cc, ) just stun. which is a good one, but its just one.
baseline monk has bottom tier social abilities. Every class can choose at least 4 proficient skills 2 fully customizable from backgrounds. Everyone else has added benefits via spells or expertise or class features. (even barbarian can have guaranteed 20+ on intimidation, fighter has +d10 now, and more asi for social feats (if they care)
baseline monk has good movement. Which might be useful in exploration (though spells are better) upper mid teir, or A teir I'd say.
The barbarian is designed to draw fire and hit hard, and it has the effective hit points to do it. You might not think it's good for someone to absorb attacks, but it's going to happen. In a fight, enemies are going to roll attacks. Characters are going to be hit, and it's better to hit the meat shield than the softer targets. Especially a meat shield that can do it all day. Your idea of what constitutes "tanky" ought to be embarrassing. This edition doesn't do hard-coded MMO roles well, and even if it did...you're still missing the point. Tanks draw fire. Having a high AC discourages attacks. Nobody is going to waste time attacking something they're unlikely to hit unless they're desperate. It's a waste of one's action(s) to repeatedly miss hitting their target(s).
Group composition is absolutely part of the design process. They can't account for every possible party size and membership, but they can account for what tools they bring to an encounter. Certain bases can and should be covered, and class identity should be clear. The classes aren't just mechanics. They're a feeling. And how they all feel alongside one another is absolutely relevant.
If there was ever a post where you demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about, that was it.
It's just as much a waste of actions as it is to repeatedly deal damage to a target with high HP or resistance.
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)
On the contrary, dealing some damage is better than dealing no damage.
It'd definitely be better at lower levels, since it could mostly remove the MADness of the class. Even at 5th level, when the base class gets its only other Wisdom-based feature, said feature can be simply ignored (according to you). It might start to be negative at 12th level, since by then you've probably got a +5 Dex already. With Unarmored Defense, you could boost your Wis to keep pushing your AC up, but you can't do that with light armor. But even still, odds are decent you've got some sort of magic armor by then, in which case light armor could still equal or exceed Unarmored Defense despite only using one ability score instead of two.
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)
No it’s not. It only Requires Dex which makes you less Mad at low levels. Monks don’t need Wis if they are wearing armor until level 5.
Again Barbarians can use a shield. It’s literally better in the description. You get the same thing monks get and you can wear a shield. Oh but if you don’t want to do this here have medium armor in case you like that better. The fact that they can wear armor instead is a bonus, a luxury that monks don’t have. A Barbarian who wants to use UD needs 3 stats Str, Dex, Con and a Monk who has to use UD needs 3 stats Dex, Con, Wis. Using point buy they can achieve the same starting AC. Barbarian can then have a shield having higher AC or decide it wants that spread to focus more on Str and still have the same AC. Reality is people almost never 8 Dex or Con in in standard array. They are too important to how this game works. I’ve only seen it once and the DM made the high level character for the player in a One Shot and literally apologized for doing that during play when they kept failing Dex saves. It was a Paladin that didn’t need dex for AC in plate, but Dex interacts with so many other things in the mechanics. Also why do you keep having these horrible last sentences.
“i.e. if you removed UD from Barbarian, you'd hardly notice a difference, but if you removed UD from Monk they'd be splatted.”
Well duh, it’s an option on one and mandatory for the other. One can use Armor for AC and the other gets nothing. I got one. If you removed all the weapon proficiencies from monks you would barley notice, but if you removed all the weapon proficiencies from a Barbarian they’d be weak.
barbarian is designed to be able to survive attacks while reckless attacking, because thats how they are effective. That doesnt mean the party is better off with them soaking attacks, which is what you said before. You also talk about AC, the monster or enemies have no idea what players AC or effective HP is until they attempt to hit them.But even If the monster knows everything, they should always melee the monk, he is the squishiest target, with the same AC as the barbarian.
Group composition can't be part of the design process if "They can't account for every possible party size and membership" Thats literally a definition of group composition.
you magically then extrapolate a statement about class design. I never said classes aren't designed to be certain fanatsies, that has nothing to do with group composition.I have repeatedly said class are designed to hit certain fanatsies and feeling. Classes doesnt = group composition. You having a four rogue party doesnt mean they have no classes, or fantasies or feel. It means you can't account for group composition.
And all of this doesnt change the fact that the monk is the least survivable class in the game, and bad at every 'base' you say parties should hit.
Its clear you think you know what your are talking about, but its also clear that you actually don't. But I'll give you this. You are excellent at side tracking the convo into debates about how monk is fine, though almost everyone here knows they are not. Mostly because the people left in the thread have a hard time walking away from the misinformation and disguised bad takes(myself included)
lets get real, have you playtested the UA6 monk. What subclasses have you tried? When is the last time you played the 2014 monk? what subclasses? How do they compare to other UA6 classes you playtested?
Technically gwar they do sorta account for group comp. That’s what that expert, mage, priest, warrior grouping was supposed to be able to do. If you have one of each in theory you are prepared for everything in the game. Well it falls apart if you have a monk as your warrior and didn’t take Ranger as your expert or Paladin as your priest, because those two classes do what fighter and Barbarian do better than the monk. I honestly feel like that grouping system died because of the monk. I mean each group had one that was the worst in the group, but the others were because the character could be in another. Worst expert could, be a warrior, worst priest could be a warrior, worst mage could be a warrior, lol. Worst warrior doesn’t fall into any other group and doesn’t do what or operate like the other two warriors. So while you Jounichi was right about them thinking about group comp in the design, since they failed to design something that fits into their groups it doesn’t even matter. Gwar you are right that Monks lack survivability and that’s something both fighter and Barbarian have in spades as Warriors. Monk needs help, but I’m afraid they aren’t going to get it.