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.
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)
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.
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?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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.
Sure it is, Adv on grapple checks, fast movement, adv on initiative, high damage potential, Reckless Attack and the best damage mitigation. Barbarian is the best tank in the game, simply grapple the enemy in one hand drag them away from your squishes and into your ally's AoE spell then smash them in the face, alternatively just run up into melee with them before they even have a chance to get into the back lines, then smash 'em two-handed and take that AoO for even more damage if they try to get past you to the back lines. And definitely take that Sentinel feat as soon as you can.
But really guys, tanking in 5e is all about grappling, and it works really well if that's what you want to do (sadly the UA is crippling this though..).
Sure it is, Adv on grapple checks, fast movement, high damage potential, Reckless Attack and the best damage mitigation.
Other than grappling, none of those are tanking features, and guess what: grappling works fine even if you have high AC. The point is that there's nothing about high AC per se that makes you unable to tank. Now, if you're sacrificing damage to get that high AC you wind up worse at tanking, but that's because you sacrificed damage, not because you have high AC.
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.
Sigh... the more we argue the more I am convinced most of you have never played the classes you are arguing about.
A druid is not going to rush into melee with Shill-ed club and a dagger using god-awful ranger spells to try to do melee damage to the enemy. They have so many things that they are so much better at than that. Even Spores druid doesn't actually work in practice as a weapon-using druid and that's what their whole subclass is built around! Theorycrafting can sure make big numbers on a piece of paper but they ignore action economy, combat length, chances of losing concentration, etc...
e.g. If you're spending a full action to set up your "build" for melee combat then you are dealing only 3/4 of the damage of a build that doesn't need to spend that full action to set up. It's why a paladin having Haste on their Oath spell list is actually bad, and a wasted useless feature most of the time, because sacrificing 3 attacks in round 1 for extra attack in the remaining 3 rounds of the combat at the cost of a 3rd level spell slot and risking losing another turn if your concentration is broken is a terrible trade.
The reason my druid had "weird" starting ability scores with 15 Con and 17 Wis is because I'm absolutely grabbing Resilient:Con to protect my concentration and Fey Touched (Wis) to grab Bless and Misty Step so I have access to tier 2 teleportation.
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.
Monk OTOH doesn't want to be attacked, they want to run all the way to the enemy backlines, cripple them, and then run out again before the body guards show up. Sure they need to be within 5ft of their opponents but their opponents should be spellcasters, archers, rogues, and the like - not giant beefy brutes (those are for the barbarian or paladin to take on). Or they should be enemies that the spellcasters have/will cripple with spells if they are the solo warrior in the party. -> it's why Open Hand's "take away their reaction" is different from Drunken Masters "free Disengage" as part of FoB, because Open Hand can take away the enemy's Counterspell whereas Drunken Master cannot.
Everything you’ve just said I agree with. Aside from the barbarian point, where dex-based barbs are focused around living longer for damage purposes but that’s pretty niche and can be disregarded.
The problem is monk isn’t very good at its job. I reckon all it would take to ‘fix’ monk is a) baseline magic item equivalence and b) free step of the wind wis mod/sr or something similar. Then subclasses could be geared around specific tactics in the back line, like blocking archer vision or crippling casters. However, for people who play in theatre of the mind, a damage boost would be necessary because positioning won’t be as important. That could be solved by giving them unique fighting-style esque choices at a low level, and then maybe an extra ASI or two (very hesitant on 2), because they’re so MAD. That’s all my points, I don’t need to say anything else really.
I am convinced that until the interaction between movement, attack and defense of the monk is made smooth, it can never be effective. This would not only enhance its ability to survive, but also its DPR would benefit.
The monk is a class that has basic two-weapon fighting style characteristics and therefore consequently should have something similar to Wepon Mastery NICK for its unarmed attacks in the core class. For example:
Martial Arts: When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn. If you use a Ki/D point during your turn, you can decide to move your Bonus Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack action. It is still possible to make this extra attack only once per turn.
Unarmored Movement: Your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table. Additionally, while you aren’t wearing armor, you can take the Dash or Disengage actionas as a bonus action on your turn.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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)
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?
Failing to reach a target's AC doesn't mean the attack didn't hit. It means they weren't harmed.
Monk OTOH doesn't want to be attacked, they want to run all the way to the enemy backlines, cripple them, and then run out again before the body guards show up. Sure they need to be within 5ft of their opponents but their opponents should be spellcasters, archers, rogues, and the like - not giant beefy brutes (those are for the barbarian or paladin to take on). Or they should be enemies that the spellcasters have/will cripple with spells if they are the solo warrior in the party. -> it's why Open Hand's "take away their reaction" is different from Drunken Masters "free Disengage" as part of FoB, because Open Hand can take away the enemy's Counterspell whereas Drunken Master cannot.
And what perchance should a Monk do if there ISN'T a backline? Skirmishing? Monks are bad at skirmishing. It costs them a lot of precious resources to try and do that. As the class is now it needs to be coddled by the DM in a similar vain to how PHB Rangers were. And we ALL know how well loved PHB Rangers are.
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?
Failing to reach a target's AC doesn't mean the attack didn't hit. It means they weren't harmed.
Yeah, that's my point. So why should AC be so much more visible than HP and so antithetical to tanking?
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)
Ignoring the facts that druids don't wear metal armour like scale mail, that Hail of Thorns is a Ranger spell and not Druid, wildshaping into a specific dinosaur requires having seen that specific dinosaur, that said dinosaur actually has 13 AC compared to an optimized Level 3 Monk's 16 AC, assuming your spells will never fail their saves or have concentration broken, factoring in Druid subclasses into the comparison but not Monk subclasses...
...who else wants to point out that pairing Ensnaring Strike with Moonbeam is impossible, because both are concentration spells?
Theorycrafting!
so it looks like you dont realize that this is discussing the game in the context of the Unearthed arcana one dnd playtest
im using subclass because the post i am responding to says they assume i am picking the land druid. And when i mention the restrain and moonbeam being a nice combo, that is in reference to his post where he says two druids cant work together to increase their damage well. They currently have a primal spell list, and the AC for the Circle of moon druids is based on the AC of caster excluding shields. They get temmporary HP based on the druid level and the mnsters HP.
adventurers arent newly born, they have done many things before we see them.
You need to actually read the Playtest material before you start commenting on playtest material forums.
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.
charachter origins gives 50 GP from background. you can get an additional 50 gp from the class, or take the classes pre packaged bundle.
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.
Sigh... the more we argue the more I am convinced most of you have never played the classes you are arguing about.
A druid is not going to rush into melee with Shill-ed club and a dagger using god-awful ranger spells to try to do melee damage to the enemy. They have so many things that they are so much better at than that. Even Spores druid doesn't actually work in practice as a weapon-using druid and that's what their whole subclass is built around! Theorycrafting can sure make big numbers on a piece of paper but they ignore action economy, combat length, chances of losing concentration, etc...
e.g. If you're spending a full action to set up your "build" for melee combat then you are dealing only 3/4 of the damage of a build that doesn't need to spend that full action to set up. It's why a paladin having Haste on their Oath spell list is actually bad, and a wasted useless feature most of the time, because sacrificing 3 attacks in round 1 for extra attack in the remaining 3 rounds of the combat at the cost of a 3rd level spell slot and risking losing another turn if your concentration is broken is a terrible trade.
The reason my druid had "weird" starting ability scores with 15 Con and 17 Wis is because I'm absolutely grabbing Resilient:Con to protect my concentration and Fey Touched (Wis) to grab Bless and Misty Step so I have access to tier 2 teleportation.
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.
Monk OTOH doesn't want to be attacked, they want to run all the way to the enemy backlines, cripple them, and then run out again before the body guards show up. Sure they need to be within 5ft of their opponents but their opponents should be spellcasters, archers, rogues, and the like - not giant beefy brutes (those are for the barbarian or paladin to take on). Or they should be enemies that the spellcasters have/will cripple with spells if they are the solo warrior in the party. -> it's why Open Hand's "take away their reaction" is different from Drunken Masters "free Disengage" as part of FoB, because Open Hand can take away the enemy's Counterspell whereas Drunken Master cannot.
i think the problem is you have in your head the way you want the classes to be played. Classes shouldnt have a singular way of playing them, and most classes dont. The player doesnt follow your head cannon of how to play classes they follow their own. Also if you start comparing a druid to a monk in melee, then saying the druid would never melee, is a pretty weird take. The question you pose is if the druid is going to melee, how will they do it. And the other factor thats weird, is you are claiming the druid has horrible damage potential, so they cant make use of X, yet the druid actually has better damage potential than you describe.
Shill last 10 minutes and is a cantrip, the only time you would need to do it in combat is if you werent paying attention. Druid is one of the classes that is more likely to be aware or have scouted before fights. This means they often have preparation. If you are not prepared, you may choose different tactics. you posed this as a level 1-4 situation where you have few spells and few options. you literally claim they have no means of doing ok damage. So essentially you think the druid should just be less useful, even though they have the tools to be ok?
yeah bro, i have the same AC as you, more recovery, more HP, but im too good to melee. i will instead do less damage for no reason because at level 5 i wont need to melee. I wont use ensnaring strike on a single target, even though it does better damage, and it allows me to do damage while doing it, because it makes me feel dirty as a caster.
Ok, if a player wants to do that, its fine. But its not the most logical answer, and its not the answer i personally would choose.
Also, a normal barbarian has no reason to have lower AC, and most monsters shouldnt be able to tell how much AC each player has, Perhaps you are thinking of a specfic build or subclass that benefits, but you arent really helping people much by taking additional damage you could have avoided. A berserker barbarian may reduce damage by half, but if they are taking twice the damage because of it, you arent saving any resources. (reckless attack) Barbarians are designed to not have to fear attacks as much, but they arent designed to love getting hit when they could avoid it.
This is also a playtest with new rules, if you are going into it without testing new combos, ways of doing things, etc, you are probably going to miss a lot of things.
And i have playtested every class in this playtest other than wizard and warlock.
The monk doesnt get to pick the enemies it fights. or the layout, 90% of the time there are no archers or casters. A class cannot be primarily designed for some hyper specific use case. you can have ribbon features for that, but you cant build a class design around that.
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.
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.
yes AC represents your ability to avoid damage from all sources, not just armor.Monk unarmored AC represents dodging. a Rogue litterally has Fullplate AC with studded leather.
Also it would be weird, even for intellegient species to assume AC based only appearances, in a world FULL of magic, spells, innate magic etc. People can literally alter the appearance of their armor, have magic armor, or be born with innate armor. And tons of enemies you fight arent even humanoids
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.
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.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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)
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.
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?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sure it is, Adv on grapple checks, fast movement, adv on initiative, high damage potential, Reckless Attack and the best damage mitigation. Barbarian is the best tank in the game, simply grapple the enemy in one hand drag them away from your squishes and into your ally's AoE spell then smash them in the face, alternatively just run up into melee with them before they even have a chance to get into the back lines, then smash 'em two-handed and take that AoO for even more damage if they try to get past you to the back lines. And definitely take that Sentinel feat as soon as you can.
But really guys, tanking in 5e is all about grappling, and it works really well if that's what you want to do (sadly the UA is crippling this though..).
Other than grappling, none of those are tanking features, and guess what: grappling works fine even if you have high AC. The point is that there's nothing about high AC per se that makes you unable to tank. Now, if you're sacrificing damage to get that high AC you wind up worse at tanking, but that's because you sacrificed damage, not because you have high AC.
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.
I am convinced that until the interaction between movement, attack and defense of the monk is made smooth, it can never be effective. This would not only enhance its ability to survive, but also its DPR would benefit.
The monk is a class that has basic two-weapon fighting style characteristics and therefore consequently should have something similar to Wepon Mastery NICK for its unarmed attacks in the core class. For example:
Martial Arts: When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn. If you use a Ki/D point during your turn, you can decide to move your Bonus Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack action. It is still possible to make this extra attack only once per turn.
Unarmored Movement: Your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table. Additionally, while you aren’t wearing armor, you can take the Dash or Disengage actionas as a bonus action on your turn.
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.
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)
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?
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)
Failing to reach a target's AC doesn't mean the attack didn't hit. It means they weren't harmed.
And what perchance should a Monk do if there ISN'T a backline? Skirmishing? Monks are bad at skirmishing. It costs them a lot of precious resources to try and do that. As the class is now it needs to be coddled by the DM in a similar vain to how PHB Rangers were. And we ALL know how well loved PHB Rangers are.
Yeah, that's my point. So why should AC be so much more visible than HP and so antithetical to tanking?
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)
so it looks like you dont realize that this is discussing the game in the context of the Unearthed arcana one dnd playtest
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/ua
im using subclass because the post i am responding to says they assume i am picking the land druid. And when i mention the restrain and moonbeam being a nice combo, that is in reference to his post where he says two druids cant work together to increase their damage well. They currently have a primal spell list, and the AC for the Circle of moon druids is based on the AC of caster excluding shields. They get temmporary HP based on the druid level and the mnsters HP.
adventurers arent newly born, they have done many things before we see them.
You need to actually read the Playtest material before you start commenting on playtest material forums.
charachter origins gives 50 GP from background. you can get an additional 50 gp from the class, or take the classes pre packaged bundle.
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.
i think the problem is you have in your head the way you want the classes to be played. Classes shouldnt have a singular way of playing them, and most classes dont. The player doesnt follow your head cannon of how to play classes they follow their own. Also if you start comparing a druid to a monk in melee, then saying the druid would never melee, is a pretty weird take. The question you pose is if the druid is going to melee, how will they do it. And the other factor thats weird, is you are claiming the druid has horrible damage potential, so they cant make use of X, yet the druid actually has better damage potential than you describe.
Shill last 10 minutes and is a cantrip, the only time you would need to do it in combat is if you werent paying attention. Druid is one of the classes that is more likely to be aware or have scouted before fights. This means they often have preparation. If you are not prepared, you may choose different tactics. you posed this as a level 1-4 situation where you have few spells and few options. you literally claim they have no means of doing ok damage. So essentially you think the druid should just be less useful, even though they have the tools to be ok?
yeah bro, i have the same AC as you, more recovery, more HP, but im too good to melee. i will instead do less damage for no reason because at level 5 i wont need to melee. I wont use ensnaring strike on a single target, even though it does better damage, and it allows me to do damage while doing it, because it makes me feel dirty as a caster.
Ok, if a player wants to do that, its fine. But its not the most logical answer, and its not the answer i personally would choose.
Also, a normal barbarian has no reason to have lower AC, and most monsters shouldnt be able to tell how much AC each player has, Perhaps you are thinking of a specfic build or subclass that benefits, but you arent really helping people much by taking additional damage you could have avoided. A berserker barbarian may reduce damage by half, but if they are taking twice the damage because of it, you arent saving any resources. (reckless attack) Barbarians are designed to not have to fear attacks as much, but they arent designed to love getting hit when they could avoid it.
This is also a playtest with new rules, if you are going into it without testing new combos, ways of doing things, etc, you are probably going to miss a lot of things.
And i have playtested every class in this playtest other than wizard and warlock.
The monk doesnt get to pick the enemies it fights. or the layout, 90% of the time there are no archers or casters. A class cannot be primarily designed for some hyper specific use case. you can have ribbon features for that, but you cant build a class design around that.
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.
yes AC represents your ability to avoid damage from all sources, not just armor.Monk unarmored AC represents dodging. a Rogue litterally has Fullplate AC with studded leather.
Also it would be weird, even for intellegient species to assume AC based only appearances, in a world FULL of magic, spells, innate magic etc. People can literally alter the appearance of their armor, have magic armor, or be born with innate armor. And tons of enemies you fight arent even humanoids
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.
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.
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'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.
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)